Comments on: Talk to Frank gives good, honest information shock horror. http://ukcia.org/wordpress/?p=64 news and comment about cannabis law reform from www.ukcia.org Tue, 07 Sep 2010 20:31:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: phrtao http://ukcia.org/wordpress/?p=64&cpage=1#comment-825 phrtao Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:34:56 +0000 http://ukcia.org/wordpress/?p=64#comment-825 If this had been a genuine call I would have expected most teenagers to say they were confused by these responses. It does seem like very good advice but it would only serve to confuse the caller if it is in contradiction with the media hype that had led them to 'Talk to Frank' in the first place. So it is understandable that the government reaction was so strong and it looks like the non-sense comes from the top of the organisation. Just as well for them that virtually no one that is effected by these issues phones this advice line. It is ironic that 'Talk to Frank' only survives because people ignore it ! If this had been a genuine call I would have expected most teenagers to say they were confused by these responses. It does seem like very good advice but it would only serve to confuse the caller if it is in contradiction with the media hype that had led them to ‘Talk to Frank’ in the first place. So it is understandable that the government reaction was so strong and it looks like the non-sense comes from the top of the organisation. Just as well for them that virtually no one that is effected by these issues phones this advice line. It is ironic that ‘Talk to Frank’ only survives because people ignore it !

]]> By: UKCIA http://ukcia.org/wordpress/?p=64&cpage=1#comment-823 UKCIA Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:29:40 +0000 http://ukcia.org/wordpress/?p=64#comment-823 Hi Dragon You wrote >> If this adviser was really worth his/her salt they’d of picked up that this caller was probably the “friend” in question. However pulling the caller up on that would do nothing to help any advice given. As I’m sure most advisers are aware the best thing to do in these situations is to run with the idea that they’re talking about someone else. >> Oh yes I agree, which is indeed what the adviser seems to have done. But in his mind he would have picked up on the slip, which would have helped form an opinion of the person he was talking to, hence the overall advice he gave. Derek Hi Dragon

You wrote

>>
If this adviser was really worth his/her salt they’d of picked up that this caller was probably the “friend” in question. However pulling the caller up on that would do nothing to help any advice given. As I’m sure most advisers are aware the best thing to do in these situations is to run with the idea that they’re talking about someone else.
>>

Oh yes I agree, which is indeed what the adviser seems to have done. But in his mind he would have picked up on the slip, which would have helped form an opinion of the person he was talking to, hence the overall advice he gave.

Derek

]]> By: Dragon83uk http://ukcia.org/wordpress/?p=64&cpage=1#comment-822 Dragon83uk Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:38:40 +0000 http://ukcia.org/wordpress/?p=64#comment-822 I must say it is quite warming to see that Talk to Frank isn't quite the super propaganda machine that I'd begun to believe it was and the government insists that it isn't. As to where the governments reply leaves their claim that Talk to Frank is not there to further the scare tactics they're so famous for, I don't know? I just hope that those in charge have got the sense to see that a witch hunt against these advisers will do nothing to help the real 13 year old kids who are phoning Frank. All though that said, I'm willing to bet that the practical up shot of the telegraphs underhanded attack on this advice line is that all Frank advisers will now start trying to drill it in to their callers that one joint will most definitely be leading to injecting crack in to your eyeballs within weeks, the best thing their callers can do is phone the swat teams in immediately and hope their "friends" don't pull their hands out of their pockets too quickly! In closing I just wanted to point out something you mentioned. "The adviser would have “uncovered the truth” that in fact the caller is using cannabis as well. Perhaps this call about “a friend” is really a call about the person making it?" If this adviser was really worth his/her salt they'd of picked up that this caller was probably the "friend" in question. However pulling the caller up on that would do nothing to help any advice given. As I'm sure most advisers are aware the best thing to do in these situations is to run with the idea that they're talking about someone else. I must say it is quite warming to see that Talk to Frank isn’t quite the super propaganda machine that I’d begun to believe it was and the government insists that it isn’t. As to where the governments reply leaves their claim that Talk to Frank is not there to further the scare tactics they’re so famous for, I don’t know? I just hope that those in charge have got the sense to see that a witch hunt against these advisers will do nothing to help the real 13 year old kids who are phoning Frank. All though that said, I’m willing to bet that the practical up shot of the telegraphs underhanded attack on this advice line is that all Frank advisers will now start trying to drill it in to their callers that one joint will most definitely be leading to injecting crack in to your eyeballs within weeks, the best thing their callers can do is phone the swat teams in immediately and hope their “friends” don’t pull their hands out of their pockets too quickly!
In closing I just wanted to point out something you mentioned.

“The adviser would have “uncovered the truth” that in fact the caller is using cannabis as well. Perhaps this call about “a friend” is really a call about the person making it?”

If this adviser was really worth his/her salt they’d of picked up that this caller was probably the “friend” in question. However pulling the caller up on that would do nothing to help any advice given. As I’m sure most advisers are aware the best thing to do in these situations is to run with the idea that they’re talking about someone else.

]]> By: sr http://ukcia.org/wordpress/?p=64&cpage=1#comment-819 sr Tue, 21 Apr 2009 02:40:54 +0000 http://ukcia.org/wordpress/?p=64#comment-819 this is an outrage!!! people do their job and get sacked for it. oh wait, Frank's not here to tell the truth! it's here to sell the biased bullshit that the US sold the the whole world, a completely distorted vision of cannabis. after all, the lack of information and education is the way forward. how else can the governments control "their" people? this is an outrage!!!
people do their job and get sacked for it.
oh wait, Frank’s not here to tell the truth! it’s here to sell the biased bullshit that the US sold the the whole world, a completely distorted vision of cannabis.
after all, the lack of information and education is the way forward. how else can the governments control “their” people?

]]> By: Chris Theo http://ukcia.org/wordpress/?p=64&cpage=1#comment-816 Chris Theo Mon, 20 Apr 2009 01:31:00 +0000 http://ukcia.org/wordpress/?p=64#comment-816 Damn you UKCIA for getting my hopes up in this article! I was so very pleasantly surprised to read all the advice given by the Talk to Frank advisors. It gave advice that was borne of fact and not political agenda. Then I got to the part in the article about the advisors getting sacked and a review of training etc etc and a little part of me died, well not quite, but it is a little depressing. One thing that should be noted however is if the TTF advisors were screened by the newspaper, who's to say that the journalist didnt endure numerous phonecalls to advisors regurgitating government sponsored cannabis truths. Something to think about, after all, we know the kind of dedication this country's journalists put into sensationalism, who's to say this wasnt one of those instances? Damn you UKCIA for getting my hopes up in this article!

I was so very pleasantly surprised to read all the advice given by the Talk to Frank advisors. It gave advice that was borne of fact and not political agenda.

Then I got to the part in the article about the advisors getting sacked and a review of training etc etc and a little part of me died, well not quite, but it is a little depressing.

One thing that should be noted however is if the TTF advisors were screened by the newspaper, who’s to say that the journalist didnt endure numerous phonecalls to advisors regurgitating government sponsored cannabis truths. Something to think about, after all, we know the kind of dedication this country’s journalists put into sensationalism, who’s to say this wasnt one of those instances?

]]> By: Adam Cecils http://ukcia.org/wordpress/?p=64&cpage=1#comment-815 Adam Cecils Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:46:42 +0000 http://ukcia.org/wordpress/?p=64#comment-815 In an attempt to keep this short I'll fight my natural instinct to rant on about media bias. I've just read the article though noticed: "[...]skunk, the newer type of cannabis[...]" "newer type" Argh! Why would one read the paper when there are many brick walls one could freely bash one's head into to for the same effect? Nice to see the Frank advisor aren't pedalling the propaganda machine though. Also nice of UKCIA to give them a pat on the back. I just hope this media attention get anyone fired or, worse, kill off the last of the straight-talking service that TTF was /meant/ to be. In an attempt to keep this short I’ll fight my natural instinct to rant on about media bias.

I’ve just read the article though noticed:

“[...]skunk, the newer type of cannabis[...]”

“newer type”

Argh! Why would one read the paper when there are many brick walls one could freely bash one’s head into to for the same effect?

Nice to see the Frank advisor aren’t pedalling the propaganda machine though. Also nice of UKCIA to give them a pat on the back. I just hope this media attention get anyone fired or, worse, kill off the last of the straight-talking service that TTF was /meant/ to be.

]]>