PokerTime

There is no over analysis of this necessary. A guy takes a pee in a public place (public order offence). He is seen doing so and challenged (perfectly reasonable) and then laughs in the face of the challenger by waving his willy. I'll bet he wouldn't have done that at a sizeable bloke. In no way can any part of his behaviour be classed as reasonable or acceptable. That's all there is to it. That the OP took a pic and reported him is neither here nor there.

It's not just a piss in the street though. It's a piss x 100s. And it's against the law.

The key thing there though is that you say 'If I can't find a toilet'. Many people (mostly men) who pee in public places don't make any effort to find a toilet. I've lost count of the number of times I've come out of a pub only to see a guy peeing up the walls metres away (and usually having come out of the same pub). It's complete fantasy to think that most of the men peeing on street corners are unable to find a toilet in time. They just don't think they need to.

I think all the above comments are true, happnes mostly after chicking out time, lack of public urinals, laziness on the part of others to look for a toilet. But there is one thing that underlies all of this and is kind of apparent on this thread too. Men think it's perfectly ok to pee in public spaces, women do not. So it is a gender based cultural thing. Women learn to hold it in until they can find a toilet. Men learn that if you have to pee you pee wherever you are. Obviously that's not true for everyone or in every case, but a shift in education and peer pressure would I'm sure bring about a different attitude from some men.

The only truth here Ifti is that the UK is a secular country, with a cultural history based in Christianity. There is no place for any religion to demand ownership of education. Whilst I agree that the extreme rants of a few fanatics has lead to disproportionate prejudice, I really don't see why it matters why the person teaching science, maths, art and all the other subjects taught at school is muslim, catholic, atheist or whatever. Please do though enlighten us all as to what a muslim child needs over a non-muslim child. There are plenty of churches, mosques etc for people to practise and learn the nuances of their faith.

The problem is Otta that what is just you being caught short is actually lots of people being caught short. Hundreds of people peeing in a street or alleyway is not uncommon in central London. Most people who urinate in public places don't even consider trying to make it to a toilet. And how would you react is someone peed against the wall of your house, or behind your car?

Before those stand alone loos it was far worse. But take a walk down any alleyway off any of the streets like Wardour and Frith etc and you'll see what I mean. The funny thing is that the area if full of bars and restaurants and you have to assume on a Saturday night that most people are there for the bars and restaurants. So that's where education comes into play. In spite of a plentiful supply of public toilet facilites in the area, people (mainly men, but some women too no doubt) still think it's ok to go wherever. They just don't see what the issue is with that. People with medical conditions I find to be more responsible on this matter anyway. They know they have a higher than nermoal need for toilets and so more often than not make sure they are in reasonable reach of one.

Louisa it is common knowledge that many men pee wherever they like with no excuse. That's why it's a public order offence. And that's before getting into the sanitation hazards. Take a walk around soho on an early Saturday morning. All you will smell is male pee. It's not ok. There are plenty of referneces to people being fined for just this online. None of them had mitigating health excuses. Alan, you make a good point regarding parents letting children pee in public places. I don't know where I stand on this, but at some point girls learn that to be antisocial in practise and some boys don't. I would guess that has everything to do with seeing adults behave in this way. Boys see men doing that, whereas girls don't see women doing that, in general. I know quite a few men that never urinate in the streets. They see it as unecessary as I do.

I didn't even make it past the first paragraph but agree with you Uncle. The state should not be funding schools for indoctrinated parents to in turn indoctrinate their children.

Oh seriously Louisa! Some men seem to think they can pee wherever they like. It's disgusting. Toilets were invented for a reason. There is no excuse.

Urinating in a public place is a public order offence and carries an ?80 fine if caught.

A couple have yes - for bigger research facilities.

I have friends who studied and live there and now work in leading fields of genetic research.

The UK is already sustaining 60 million on just 5% of it's land.

By cricket I'm guessing we are talking about adults occuping a large cricket sized space?

There is lots of housebuilding going on at the edges of Cambridge, in plain view to anyone who drives there. That's obviously a sign of a town that wants to grow. It seems mad to limit growth (which is also emanating from economic growth) for the sake of keeping Cambridge a small quaint enclave. Cambridge is the centre of some of the worlds leading research, including genetics and stem cell technology and could become the silicon city equivalent of the UK, if only we let it. At present, leading scientists and graduates are taking jobs with research bodies in Europe because the equivalent bodies in Cambridge can't grow enough within the space they have. Ultimately, most people will live where they can find work. Proximity to family and friends is also often a consideration, but primarily people build their lives around a job that pays enough to provide certain things, like a home for their family. There are many prettier, and safer places to live than London and the SE but they have a dire shortage of jobs/ decent jobs. And that has been going on for decades. The free market has exercised it's right to not invest in those places, with the exception of essentials, like retail, public services etc.

The good news is that seeing as 90% of us live on just 5% of the land there's always scope (with the right legislation) to do something.

Burbage makes a good point though. It's not a huge leap from employment to homelessness. It used to be that redundancy money would be the safety net in that scenario but not anymore.

I completely agree Blackcurrant. The low lending rate is an intentional move also to protect the market from negative equity and reposession following the recent financial crisis. It's one of the things that has been learnt from the end of the 80s, when up to two million homes were sent into negative equity following that economic blowout, and repossessions hit a record high of 75,000 for 1991 alone.

And still no sign of remorse by the hideous man.

'he sounds like one of those drug addicts or East European Roma Gypsies' Sigh................

I agree LD. What we should have is a flexible system where those who want longer securer tenancies can find them. A system also where the rate of annual rent increase is capped - so a tenant knows what to expect. Social rents have been capped to annual percentages for decades. And there is scope within those caps to modify the level if it seems reasonable to do so. Why can't the same system be applied to private landlords? 80% of private properties for rent are not subject to mortgages anyway, so should an increase in interest rates happen, the landlord won't be affected. There could be different perameters for properties that are mortgaged. All of that would also help those trying to save for deposits while renting. At present, everything is in the favour of the Landlord.

I understand what you are trying to say LM but I have to agree with Charles. There's a world of difference between someone running a multi million ponzi sheme and someone so deperately poor (for whatever reason) reduced to begging (in whatever form). There's tons of data to support the extra stresses placed on the disadvataged, and other ethnic groups are disporportiantely represented across the socio-economic spectrum as you know. The reasons for that are complex of course but it's perfectly fine to point that out. Charles was simply comenting on comfort. Privilege does mean a less likelihood of many things, just as disadvatage doesn't always mean more likelihood for many who are disadvantaged. Debates on this sort of thing are always relative anyway. I remember that great sketch between Bird and Fortune about one having no money and the other thinking that meant he was down to his last million. Many people just aren't able to comprehend what having no money really means anymore. What it feels like to not eat properly (and the physiological and mental damage that does) and to not eat at all for a few days at a time. What it feels like to no be able to put gas in the meter (and therefore have no hot water)etc. We can't know what drives people to beg for pennies. Sure some of them will be con artists, but others won't.

Renata...the water feature may have cost ?3000 in itself, but the whole development cost ?100,000 - a development that is to be tossed aside after only a few years. That is a poor value.

That play area cost ?100,000 Renata. That is NOT a small cost scheme. Here is a useful insight into the conclusions about that scheme. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s36208/Public%20Questions%20-%20responses.pdf One could be forgiven for thinking that only children and football players use the park. It would be nice to see facilites that are aimed at other park users as well, like a BBQ area (Burgess Park has one of those for example).