DJKillaQueen

No it wouldn't Louisa..because smoke is easily inhaled by EVERYONE in the room and is a KNOWN carcinogenic. I make a clear distinction between clearly harmful to everyone substances, and allergies that are easily managed by those who suffer from them. Now science and the law also make the same distinction so why can't you? You will have to do better than that.....The only person losing this debate is you. You are right about one thing though.....Your view is about you own personal tastes and has nothing to do with public health, science or immorality even for that matter. On that I think just about everyone can agree.

Louisa that's not what I have said and you know it. Nowhere have I denied that people have allergies (to anything). What I dispute is your argument that because one person has an allergy to makeup, another should be banned from using it in a public place. Thankfully science doesn't agree with you, otherwise use of such things would be banned in the interests of the public health altogher (just as many chemicals are). See a comment like this is an example of your lunacy.... "Obviously we can't ban everything everywhere but we can go a long way towards saving lives and encouraging some thoughtful morality in a public space" Tell me how many people have died because people apply makeup in a public space, or wear a leather jacket. Go on, back up your ridiculous claim with hard facts. You can patronise all you like Louisa, but nowhere have you presented a well reasoned and logical debate, whereas others have.

I understand your point but language and definitions change as circumstances change. Personaly I think it's splitting hairs - poor/ poverty. At the end of the day we have a growing poor who can not meet basic living costs. And we have a government intend with making being poor so unbearable that the millions of unemployed for example go and take the millions of jobs that um....aren't there. Goodness know what the millions of people in full time work and poor are supposed to do (a million of them need Housing Benefit to help pay their rent!).

Hmmmm......I understand your point but you are talking about absolute poverty. There's also relative poverty. All three definitions are widely used to describe various degrees of what is considered to be poverty. Poverty in it's single definition is 'the state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possessions or money'....so in that context, not having enough money to heat could be called an experience of poverty. And people do die in this country because they can't heat their homes.

I couldn't agree more with that Saffron.

LOL...KK

Well there's an example of insanity right there...comparing an act of public fornication to an act of putting on make-up....if you can't see how bonkers a comparison that is Louisa then you really must be...well....bonkers. Yes there is is lots of information about allergic reactions to things people PUT on their OWN skins but funilly enough I can't find a single study into the inhalation of makeup from three meters away....THAT's my point. By your logic Louisa we should also ban the following...... Flowers or any pollen bearing plant Animals The wearing and/or use of any kind of deoderant, makeup, perfume or chemical based beaty product. Nylon, rubber and parafin based products I could go on. All of those things can activate known allergies - most commonly if people come into direct contact with them. But most people would agree that it would be a ridiculous proposal to outlaw such things. But as someone else posted, there's no point using reasoned debate with someone who has no conception of it.

You ARE being completely unreasonable on this Louisa, but if you can provide some hard medical evidence that backs up your claim that a person with a rare (because it would have to be rarely severe) allergy condition can be seriously affected by someone using makeup/ moisturiser 3 metres away from them, then you might just get my attention. And as I've already pointed out, by your logic, no-one who owns a pet should travel on public transport either, for fear of activating a pet hair allergy in someone. So let's have your hard evidence - provide some links to respected medical science....

Very few people agree with you Louisa (thankfully) and it's not hard to understand why when you want to outlaw things like 'talking loudly'. I mean just who would enforce that and how? Would there be leeway for the deaf or when talking to the hard of hearing? On other thoughts, don't answer....this discussion is bizarre enough as it is :D

It IS a bonkers leap to suggest that tolerating the application of makeup in a public space leads to tolerance of others snorting cocaine. In case you hadn't realised it...illegal drug taking is against the law as are a whole host of other things. Applying makeup in a public space never will be, for good reason. That alone should tell you something about your use of it as an illustration. You are not a puritan by chance?

You really are completely bonkers if you think putting makeup on in a public space is indicative of an immoral free for all.

Yes Louisa...I genuinely fail to see why applying makeup and moisturiser in a public space is anti-social behaviour and your last comment regarding people leaving the house without makeup is just puerile.

But it is linked to poverty Loz. People don't turn on the heating because it becomes a choice between eating and warmth. Or do we only define poverty a being neither able to afford food AND heat, rather than one or the other.

seemster Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "My rules" but it's everyone else who's "self > absorbed" > > Priceless. Yup...shaping up to be a classic EDF Saturday night thread lol.

You ARE being ridiculous Louisa, and obviously have never suffered with eczma. People are allergic to all sorts of things but don't expect the rest of the world to be mindful to that. I have cats. Some people are allergic to cats. Just one cat hair on my clothes can set that allergy off but no person with that allergy would ever suggest I never ride a bus in case I have a cat hair on my clothes. Now do you see why your present argument is ridiculous?

OK this just gets more bizarre.....even the application of moisturiser is anti-social behaviour now! Louisa it's not just workingmummy...any intelligent person can see how ridiculous your illustration of your point is.

'Five million UK households, or 19.2 per cent of the total, are now in fuel poverty'. And 6% of households can't afford to turn on the heating at all. http://www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/britain-tops-the-fuel-poverty-league-table-8554723.html

I absolutely agree with that loz. And it's not just the paranoia, it's the health and safety obsession too. Kids can't climb trees anymore, play ball in the street or just explore the world with the kind of innocence that made childhood fun. Instead they are instilled with a sense of potential danger around every corner, unless they rebel against that and then we label them anti-social.

Rudeness only happens because people put up with it. And there have far worse periods. Victorian London being one for example. I can't imagine all those people living in abject poverty and working in terrible conditions having much time for good manners and cheer. I will agree that the boundaries have changed regarding media, and that is a censorship issue. But what I don't accept is that the media in itself makes society more violent, ill mannered, etc. It's that old chestnut of life immitating art or art immitiating life. What we do have through global media is reporting of every little thing that anyone has a view about, and that in turn creates the perception that there is more wrong in the world when actually, human nature is the same as it has always been, we just have different ways of managing it. Parenting has far more to do with how young people turn out than anything else. Given the choice, I would rather have a permissive society than a repressive one, because the harm done to individuals in a repressive society far outweighs the negatives of a permissive society imo.

But Louisa...scoiety and boundaries have always changed. Your generation was a change to that before it. That's life. And if things didn't change we'd still have state sanctioned racism, prejudice, sexism and homophobia as the norm. Go back sixty years, and women and the poor didn't go to University. Homosexuality was still illegal. Landlords could prejudice against 'blacks, Irish, dogs'. And I can go on.......there's much I can point out that demonstrates that most change has been for the better, even just over the last 50 years.

Picking daffodils in a public park is different though. There's a logic to descouraging that of course whereby something that is there for all to enjoy won't be there for long if everyone picks one or two. My reference to controversial views are your views on migrants for example, which were rightly shot down. A woman applying makup though, hasn't taken anything from you or anyone. And if you want to go down the line of argument that critises her for taken a few minutes to do something for herself, then I can think of lots of activities that people do to please themselves, none of which impact on me, my day, or my life whatsoever. I can perfectly understand the disturbance noise causes, or smell causes, but the silent, odour free act of putting on makeup?.....c'mon!

"Crimes aren't committed by upstanding, honest and transparent individuals - but by duplicitous, dishonest and manipulative miscreants. We need to be empowering and inspiring child workers to do their best. We need to lift the veil of secrecy and psychological abuse that allows sexual abuse and unhealthy obsessions to go unspoken and unaddressed." Absolutely spot on in both respects. And the CBRC check doesn't protect children from abuse....it only protects children from abusers that have been caught and convicted previously. Child abusers still seek out positions where they can be in close access to children. But I do think that children are in a better position to defend themselves because of things like childline and open discussion of abuse and even portrayal of such storylines in drama accessible to them. For all the ills of the internet and open media there is an upside too, and I will take some convincing that open exposure makes things worse rather than better.

No it's not.....You have no way of knowing if the person applying makeup is a voluntary worker for example.....so I stand by my view that labelling people you know nothing about as selfish because they apply a bit of makeup on a train is a disproportionate reaction to have...and would always question the intelligence and ability to reason of someone having such a reaction. I think people do still recognise good manners when they see them and plenty of people do still have good manners, especially in other parts of the country. London is a bubble that doesn't reflect UK society as a whole in my experience. You are bemoaning some mythical golden period that didn't exist and as with any slightly eccentric view are citing examples of behaviour as reinforcement to that argument, which most people don't give a second thought to.

Louisa...your comments suggest you have an issue with make up full stop...but then you have issues with just about anyone that isn't a carbon copy of yourself and your (sometimes controversial) views. I absolutely agree with workingmummy when shes says that if something as inconsequential as that irritates you, then why leave your front door? Life must be one big string of irritation.

lol woodrot.... I also didn't realise that when we travel to work we are supposed not even to breath.....