Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

DJKQ, on occasion my views may well be considered controversial by some, but if you look back they're all done for the good of the community. Lets go back four years to my daffodil picking campaign on Goose Green. For selfish reasons, mothers were encouraging toddlers to pick the beautiful flowers put out for everyone's enjoyment. Lots of people attacked me for being a miserable old bat, but I thought my reasons were clear cut and done for the good of the whole community and not just a few, dare I say it, selfish people.


Louisa.

That is why such activity should be banned. Then we wouldn't have to question individual reasons. What is it in today's society with people wanting to give someone the benefit of the doubt all the time? It's such a nonsensical justification for bad or ill mannered behaviour. And why is my view considered eccentric and people like yourself consider yours not to be? It's a way of gratifying your own views and bemoaning someone who doesn't agree with you. Ignorant people have existed down the generations and I'm not refering back to any "golden age", I'm simply suggesting technology and other factors such as liberalising selfish behaviour have changed the boundaries and reflect badly upon society.


Louisa.

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!

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.

My views on migrants? Pray do tell, I can't remember any such posts. I'm sure I was right though, whatever it was about. And makeup application isn't always an odour free activity, and it certainly can become messy if its done in haste. Why not pop into the loo at work and do it in a private environment? Just a thought.


Louisa.

Change can be for the good of and to the detriment of society. The decline in institutional racism, homophobia, and greater equality for women are all examples of how society has become better now. But there are plenty of examples, such as manners and liberalisation of rudeness and public acceptance of distasteful language - especially in the media and on television, where things have gradually declined.


Louisa.

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.

Voyageur Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Offensive on public transport?

> - Loud, tinny music from headphones

> - Mobiles with shockingly loud ring tones (turn the frigging volume down you a**holes)

> - people bellowing on phones, especially when discussing excruciatingly boring business matters

> - women clearing gunk from underneath their hideous acrylic nails and dropping it on the floor

> - farting/sneezing without covering nose/eating smelly food/filthy feet on seats.


yes, yes, and yes

makeup - certainly not


btw, am I the only one to wonder about the personal hygiene of people with long nails, especially when the nails are long enough to begin to curl a bit?

I think the link between applying make up on the bus - I cannot believe I am writing this - and being rude, or not picking up litter, or not opening doors for people who need help with that, etc, is non existent.


Unless you believe it really is possible to judge a person's morals by their habits a la toilette.


????


It is people who are in the habit of thinking that, just because you are on the bus, everyone else within your field of vision should give excessive attention to your sensitivities over, at worst, harmless activity from which you are free and able simply to look away...

who....

are.....

selfish.

PS And in deference to StraferJack - and because I only brought up breast feeding to illustrate how silly you are being, Louisa, not to high jack the thread - I'm not going to spend long on the ridiculous notion that society is worse off now more women are confident enough to breast feed in public. (Or the notion that such women are forcing others to "partake" of their boobs.)

"I think the link between applying make up on the bus - I cannot believe I am writing this - and being rude, or not picking up litter, or not opening doors for people who need help with that, etc, is non existent"


I totally agree working mummy. I was on the bus on the way out earlier and I checked/fixed my make up (only lipstick, but still hoping the OP and Louisa et al weren't watching) Then on the way home I said bless you to the driver when he sneezed. So which of Louisa's black and white opinions do I fall in to? One act makes me bad, one makes me good?


A enjoyable thread nonetheless; we wouldn't have had this debate if the OP had posted in the "tiny things that cause irrational rage" thread would we!

Semester, I was just thinking the exact same thing. Move the OP to the "irrational rage" thread and I'd actually sympathise with it. Not that applying make up bugs me personally at all - just that we all have things we know shouldn't get to us but we can't help it.

But constructing a whole world view around irrational anger is, as DHKQ says, odd.

WorkingMummy - you seem to have an obsession with breast feeding on public transport. I'm confused of the relevance/tenuous at best link this has to ignorant amateur makeup artists forcing their lipgloss and eyeliner onto the rest of us. I have no interest in breast feeding, but because you raise it on most posts on this thread we have to keep going back to it!


seemster - saying bless you to the driver isn't a necessary act and does not fall into the category of politeness. The driver may not even be religious! And there's a difference between applying a quick touch up of lipstick and taking on a full bag of makeup and basically having a full face makeover in a public space shared by others. I've witnessed some people - and this applies to men as much as women - applying all sorts of face products including dare I say it moisturiser. It's not fair and it could even cause allergic reactions for someone around you who may have skin conditions.

WorkingMummy how have I constructed a world view around applying makeup? I was simply saying there are certain small things which can in general summarise the lack of morality and selfishness within our society. And as I keep saying, the fact you all fail to see this is just astonishing!


Louisa.

DJKQ of course moisturiser is offensive! It lets of a striking perfume and could contain all sorts of chemicals which potentially could cause a violent allergic reaction in some people, all because some selfish person wishes to have a quick rehydration on the bus rather than doing it after getting out of the shower in the morning. This isn't irrational thought - this sort of thing is happening on a daily basis on public transport across London and its time it stopped. My illustration of my point is quite clear, antisocial and irreverent behaviour takes many forms, and you can't discriminate one type of selfish behaviour from another. Each thing is relevant on a different level to each individual.


Louisa.

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?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...