Latest News and Updates

@Villainy: Unfortunately, once passed, those off the record comments won't be acknowledged and legal will turn back to the "meaning" of the written words.  : (

What a pain in the arse, @FretaBWet - you'd think they'd understand the intention of a standing diaper order, and maybe reach out to you and say, "Hey, product X is out of stock right now, but I know you've bought product Y before, and I also know that you, ideally, need an uninterrupted supply of diapers of some description - at some point, you'll be looking at cutting leg holes into a garbage bag full of paper towels. So, we are sending you product Y, unless you expressly decline them, and we'll match the price of product X for this order only, to compensate for your inconvenience. If it has to be product Y again in three weeks, we will reach out and get your authorization to continue..." Something like that. They aren't selling diapers, they are selling enablement, confidence, participation in life. It's the difference between "Dear customer, since we don't have 600 mg tablets of your heart medication available, we are sending you twice as many 300 mg tablets, but the cost will be slightly different..." versus "Dear customer, since we don't have any 600 mg tablets of your heart medication available, we are sending you nothing. Hope your ticker holds up. All the best." 

Flame + all natural gas= a great way to blow up the house. Metaphorically or literally. 😂

In hindsight, after having spent some time reading through this more, I think the intention of the amendment is clearly targeting the 'barely legal' genre of pornography; not ABDL or age play. I still stand by my previous post though that this country is suppressing kink/fetish and wider sexual content, as well as risking our privacy, under the flawed pretext of protecting children and women with all these new laws.  ANYWAY, the new law is the Crime and Policing Bill, which includes the proposed Amendment 300A and would alter the Protection of Children Act 1978. Amendment 300A says this:    And for context, section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978 says this:   The language used ("appears to be or is implied to be a child") is concerning since that could be interpreted to encompass age play. However, the lead member of Amendment 300A (Baroness Bertin) essentially specifies in a House of Lords debate that it's not supposed to cover ABDLs:

I would imagine you'd be a good candidate, @Reddy, based on where you are already. You have a better grasp of the implications, than most.  Part of me is intrigued by the idea of the #1 surgery, but not the #2. I'm already in diapers fulltime, anyway, and I already have to wear them at night - 7 years of peeing whenever you feel like it, while sleeping, will do that. But my daytime continence is pretty solid - my cruising range has declined, of course, because I pee every thirty minutes or so, but I seem to have a willful bladder - other people's "untraining" experiences do not apply to me. However, my wife would have me shot, if I dropped $25 K in order to achieve something that I already, essentially have - a runway to wear diapers fulltime. But it would be cool to not think about peeing ever again, although that isn't exactly the guaranteed experience, in any case - some people who do the #1 procedure end up with a sort of intermittent incontinence, from what I've read.