GoodTime Girl.

Sorry for the delay in responding to your last post.

Without revealing the nature of the addiction, it might be possible for you to find out if the addiction or behaviour is criminal by contacting one of the addiction support agencies. I’m sure there will be one in your area.

You say the addiction is harmful. Is that to the addict or to other members of society? Or as I suspect, a little of both?

The fact that this addiction has lasted for 18 months is indicative of the fact that, despite what some people say to the contrary, your friend has been in need of help for some considerable time. The longer the addiction continues, the stronger the reinforcement the addict feels that their behaviour is nothing out of the ordinary.

If it’s an addiction based on consumption, are the quantities consumed/used increasing?

Or does the addiction manifest itself in the form of some compulsive or obsessive behaviour?

I’m sure members of this forum all have their hearts in the right place and would like to help you as much as possible. However, I think it only fair to point out that your friend would almost certainly benefit from professional help. If you would care to pm me I might be able to point you in the direction of the agency most appropriate for helping your friend. I should also point out that you may well need some help and support yourself after dealing with your friend’s addiction for so long.

Regards,

kev35

Ian.

I don’t believe it’s very helpful or indeed funny to be ridiculing what is obviously a very sensitive topic which it has obviously took some courage to raise.

To be perfectly honest I feel you are about as funny as Freddie Starr!

Regards,

kev35

I would agree with Monty’s Double that in an ideal world that is the most obvious, compassionate and sensible route to take.

However, if the addiction is seriously impacting upon someone else’s life, intervention becomes necessary, not only for the protection of the addict but for that of the wider society.

Some drug and alcohol addicts are able to help themselves, or see the need to seek help. However, someone suffering from, for instance, coprophagia, is far less likely to seek help due to the very nature of the addiction wouldn’t you agree?

Regards,

kev35

From a medical, social and psychological standpoint it is difficult to answer your query in any detail without knowing the nature of the addiction.

I understand that it is almost certainly very painful to talk about.

A social addiction is treated much differently than an anti-social one. There are many questions to be answered. Examples would be…

How long has the addiction lasted?

How does the addictive behaviour manifest itself?

By its nature, any addiction is harmful. Is this person’s addiction directly or indirectly harming anyone else?

Is there criminality involved?

What are the social circumstances surrounding the addict?

Has the person involved sought help?

How are you coping with your involvement with this person?

It is rare that an addict becomes addicted through personal choice. It is almost certainly necessary to discover, examine and understand the factors which predisposed this person to their addiction before any real practical help can be given to the addict. The most important point is that they themsef must want to give up the addiction.

Regards,

kev35

Look for my posts on commercial usually starting with BHX or MAN. Anything from April this year is with a Z3. Also try my OW picture threads on historic.

Regards,

kev35

XL391.

The sharpness of your debating skills is astonishing. The automatic answering of my questions with the same question in reverse adds nothing to the conversation other than to demonstrate that you are unwilling or unable to answer.

One step at a time…..

“Why not save XL391?”

Because it’s sat at Blackpool rotting for a number of years. No-one has shown much interest in doing anything for the airframe. Why? Because it’s an absolute wreck beyond saving. Money that could have been spent on XL391 could always have been donated to 558, could it not? I hear the begging bowl is out yet again.

Why scrap it sooner rather than later?

Do you really need to ask? It sits in an overgrown field surrounded by a broken fence. It is an eyesore, and although I’m no engineer, I would be concerned about the safety aspects of it sitting there. It is open to the elements and to repeated attacks by vandals.

“Why does it do no favours to the preservation movement?”

Again, just look at it. If your friend Joe Public sees that and believes that is a ‘preserved’ aircraft then what kind of reputation do you think that encourages? Why would people put their hands in their pockets to help XL391 when it has been allowed to deteriorate to this state?

Yes, XL391, I do believe there is an obsession with trying to preserve too many large triangular projects. Let’s look at Vulcans. You, being the expert, can tell me exactly how many Vulcans remain extant in the UK. I believe Wellesbourne and Southend are both taxiable, as was 558. One is undercover at Hendon and another soon to be undercover at Cosford, though how airframes will get in the building now I’m not sure. By my reckoning, that’s actually enough. There are a number of others though, aren’t there? Waddington and Duxford are two I believe.

Now take a look at Concorde. Twenty airframes built, seven ‘preserved’ in the UK. Manchester AVP, Filton, Yeovilton, Duxford, East Fortune, Brooklands (still in pieces) and the one rotting alongside the runway at LHR. Unnecessary duplication of effort? I believe so.

David Burke asked if Concorde vastly changed the shape of air travel and came up with the answer – No!

Your response to that…. “No?? Supersonic Air Travel for Joe Public?” is a little ludicrous. If Concorde vastly changed the shape of air transport, please answer the following questions….

1. Why were British Airways and Air France so quick to give up on the airframe? If they had believed it was such a success story they would have seriously challenged the decision to ground the type.

2. Same with Airbus Industrie. Why not offer further long term support of the aircraft if it was a success?

3. Why is there no supersonic successor? Or even the likelihood of one in the next twenty years?

4. If a transatlantic return on Concorde was available to ‘Joe Public’ at between £3,000 and £5,000, how many trips did you make on her? How many families could afford to go to NY at a cost of say, £10,000 a time?

“Maybe it’s because they are an important part of this countrys history. And they’re bloody beautiful to look at as well.”

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The Vulcan looked purposeful and sometimes graceful, to my eyes, never beautiful. Concorde appears to me nothing more than a twisted eyesore. As to their import in the Country’s history? It’s subjective. The Vulcan was no more important than the Victor or the Valiant or even the Canberra. Concorde is a footnote in the History of Aviation. We gambled on Concorde and it failed. Boeing succeeded with affordable subsonic air transport.

“I suppose you’d just scrap them all?? I suppose you are a member of Vulcan to the Floor as well?”

Don’t be silly. I would keep some, others I would scrap if it was necessary because of the way airframes deteriorate when stored outside over long periods of time. Be they Vulcan or Concorde.

As for ‘558, I think it’s supporters are having their gullibility preyed upon. The supporters and volunteers have worked wonders with 558. But after all your time and effort, yet more money is being demanded. For God’s sake, she’s been bought for the Nation but you have to pay £50 to see her now. Can anyone confirm that volunteer labour on 558 is still allowed, or are Marshalls engineers being paid to do the work previously carried out by volunteers?

I do have reservations already clearly expressed regarding the future of airshows should an accident befall 558 if it ever flies.

Try and back up your arguments XL391, it makes things much more interesting.

Regards,

kev35

Why save the damned thing? There are more than enough Vulcans secure in this country anyway. The sooner XL391 is scrapped the better. It does no favours to the preservation movement at all. Why is there this mad obsession to preserve everything large and vaguely triangular? Seven Concordes and God knows how many Vulcans. Talk about repeated waste of effort.

Save the ones that are salvageable, let this hulking monstrosity of rust and corrosion go to the scrapper.

regards,

kev35

mc26.

Thanks for that. The question I would ask now is what is the reason for changing the Company name? Has it been changed to remove any trace of ‘Alpha’ from the equation to try and divert public and industry attention from a name has singularly and spectacularly failed to inspire confidence and because of the repeated and continuing failure of the AlphaOne brand to:

1. Produce a consistent route structure which they adhere to.

2. Provide a start date for services which is adhered to.

3. Produce a fare structure which is adhered to.

4. Provide potential passengers with the facility with which to book tickets.

5. Provide a working website.

6. Provide contact details for the Company.

I’m sure others can add to the list.

What beggars belief is that Mr. Halstead had a press launch on November 7th for the SOU-IOM route which now won’t start until late January. And he admits the delays are due to training problems. Surely, if you launch an airline you need, one would imagine, one or more aircraft. You would also need crews to fly the airlines aircraft (seeing as Mr. Halstead seems to be unable to do that himself) One would have thought it would have been common sense to ensure you had aircraft and crews before saying you would start services. Rostering must be a nightmare as the airline seems to have no clue when services will actually start, it’s a long time since April, or even where they will go.

Oh well, stay tuned for the next gripping announcement, I’m sure it won’t be long in coming.

Regards,

kev35