thirdcrank wrote:AFAIK, the expression "Spend a penny" was because women have always had to pay to use public lavatories.
Since starting this post I’ve been reliably informed that “ladies’s number 1’s” (and by default, number 2’s) are also free, thanks to our illustrious Mayor.
Except they're not free. They're paid for from taxes.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Tangled Metal wrote:We were in a market in either France or Luxembourg once and I needed a pee. The only toilets we found was a perforated iron structure in the middle of the market between a cheese strand and a sweet stand. It consisted of two curved screens with openings at the side. Then an inner set of screens turned 90 degrees. You peed against the inner screens and the pee dropped down and into a set of grooves like a cart wheel. So your pee goes between your legs / under your feet to a centre hole and down the drain. Seems some countries don't have a problem with bodily functions.
No, a real place and a real urinal. I just can't remember where because I was a kid, travelling through to Alsace region for a holiday. I had no reason to know or care where I was because I wasn't navigating. More likely sleeping tbh. It's the best way to get through a tedious road trip just not at the wheel. At 13 I doubt I'd be allowed to be at the wheel.
thirdcrank wrote:AFAIK, the expression "Spend a penny" was because women have always had to pay to use public lavatories.
Since starting this post I’ve been reliably informed that “ladies’s number 1’s” (and by default, number 2’s) are also free, thanks to our illustrious Mayor.
Except they're not free. They're paid for from taxes.
They are free at point of use - and the net cost to society is likely negative (no cleaning up)
Building a new church building at the moment, and installing a changing places toilet (a fully accessible loo). No it’s not ‘free’, but it will be free to use, and will be liberating for those who need it.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse. There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
It's not barbaric. It's kind of symptomatic of the way some nations don't have the same issues with bodily functions that we have. For example I know people who travelled in less frequented parts of China for westerners. The toilet facilities in some remote villages consist of a raised structure with a series of holes surrounded by little fences. The whole village used them (male and females separated). Apparently the locals using them at the same time gave them less privacy than they probably give their neighbours. Now IMHO that's not very civilised perhaps verging on barbaric. But then I'm a prudish Englishman brought up on puerile toilet humour.
pete75 wrote:Except they're not free. They're paid for from taxes.
Perfectly true. And some of it comes from the hefty lump of council tax which I pay. And I’d rather it were spent on this than on a good many things which cannot be considered to have such a universal usefulness to all sections of the population, irrespective of age, gender, race etc.
[XAP]Bob wrote:Building a new church building at the moment, and installing a changing places toilet (a fully accessible loo). No it’s not ‘free’, but it will be free to use, and will be liberating for those who need it.
I do quite a bit of church visiting, mainly for architectural photography, I must admit. I have been very impressed by the toilet facilities to be found in some, and have always left an extra donation in gratitude.
Having a small fee at point of entry prevents people going in with the sole purpose of getting themselves ASBOs
I know there were frequent problems in one village near where I used to live. Bored youth cost the council thousands of pounds in maintenance of the public toilets every year. When they built new ones, there was a £1 fee for entry when the village hall was closed (the toilets were connected to the hall), and the damage to facilities and consequent maintenance costs dropped to a fraction of what they had been.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Vorpal wrote:Having a small fee at point of entry prevents people going in with the sole purpose of getting themselves ASBOs
I know there were frequent problems in one village near where I used to live. Bored youth cost the council thousands of pounds in maintenance of the public toilets every year. When they built new ones, there was a £1 fee for entry when the village hall was closed (the toilets were connected to the hall), and the damage to facilities and consequent maintenance costs dropped to a fraction of what they had been.
maybe need to get a returnable key from the local pub or shop if there is one?
Vorpal wrote:Having a small fee at point of entry prevents people going in with the sole purpose of getting themselves ASBOs
I know there were frequent problems in one village near where I used to live. Bored youth cost the council thousands of pounds in maintenance of the public toilets every year. When they built new ones, there was a £1 fee for entry when the village hall was closed (the toilets were connected to the hall), and the damage to facilities and consequent maintenance costs dropped to a fraction of what they had been.
maybe need to get a returnable key from the local pub or shop if there is one?
Then, they can only be open when the pub or shop is open.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Vorpal wrote:Having a small fee at point of entry prevents people going in with the sole purpose of getting themselves ASBOs
I know there were frequent problems in one village near where I used to live. Bored youth cost the council thousands of pounds in maintenance of the public toilets every year. When they built new ones, there was a £1 fee for entry when the village hall was closed (the toilets were connected to the hall), and the damage to facilities and consequent maintenance costs dropped to a fraction of what they had been.
That doesn’t make a charge the correct solution - why not have a CCTV controller barrier on entry. Show your face to the camera to get access...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse. There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Vorpal wrote:Having a small fee at point of entry prevents people going in with the sole purpose of getting themselves ASBOs
I know there were frequent problems in one village near where I used to live. Bored youth cost the council thousands of pounds in maintenance of the public toilets every year. When they built new ones, there was a £1 fee for entry when the village hall was closed (the toilets were connected to the hall), and the damage to facilities and consequent maintenance costs dropped to a fraction of what they had been.
That doesn’t make a charge the correct solution - why not have a CCTV controller barrier on entry. Show your face to the camera to get access...
Perhaps not. I wasn't suggesting it was the best solution, only that there might be valid reasons for implementing a fee. I'm not sure if they considered other solutions. I only knew the background because I attended a parish meeting for other reasons.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
What's wrong with taxing those wanting the toilet through a pay to pee system? If it covers costs, even makes money for the council then in these austerity times that's all the better.
Bear in mind it's likely to be a tax on the older generation who can probably afford to pay more taxes.
pete75 wrote:Except they're not free. They're paid for from taxes.
Perfectly true. And some of it comes from the hefty lump of council tax which I pay. And I’d rather it were spent on this than on a good many things which cannot be considered to have such a universal usefulness to all sections of the population, irrespective of age, gender, race etc.
So why describe then as free then?
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Thornyone wrote:Since starting this post I’ve been reliably informed that “ladies’s number 1’s” (and by default, number 2’s) are also free, thanks to our illustrious Mayor.
Except they're not free. They're paid for from taxes.
They are free at point of use - and the net cost to society is likely negative (no cleaning up)
Building a new church building at the moment, and installing a changing places toilet (a fully accessible loo). No it’s not ‘free’, but it will be free to use, and will be liberating for those who need it.
There's a great deal of difference between free at point of use and free. If they were the same the NHS would cost nothing.
A new church - I thought church attendances were declining and teh existing buildings have great over capacity. Take Lincoln for example - numerous churches yet the cathedral alone will hold 3,000 folk which is a lot more than total attendance at normal Sunday services in the city - probably got enough capacity for the whole county. Our village church will seat about 200 but average attendance is under 10.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker