Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ok, not sure the dog poo and spit comparisons of yours are out of context, and you joined this thread and took the side of an OP with that title, but I'm happy to add to the examples of general misanthropy your suggestion that people who apply makeup in public are necessarily bad, immoral people and that we should impose heavy financial penalties on bus users who comit such social crimes as using moisturiser or talking loudly whist in transit.

Fairer?

WM, much fairer. Immorality rears its ugly head in many forms, often in ways which surprise some people. Your example of breast feeding in public isn't an example of immorality, it's more a matter of taste. However, my point would be that as an individual we all have choices in life, and society in general sets those boundaries which most of us follow. Society and its toleration of immorality is to blame here. If we believe something to be ok, acceptable, more often we will partake in it. People used to believe smoking and drinking alcohol in restaurants and on public transport was acceptable until we put fines in place and made it clear those pastimes were not. The same should apply to makeup, and mobile phones. Financial penalties are sometimes the only way to encourage people to give up bad habits.


Louisa.

Yes but Louisa, smoking on the bus risks giving other people cancer. There is a difference between that and applying moisturiser.


Can you not see that you are trying to be prescriptive about what are only your tastes? And it's not moral or physical health which is at stake here. Just look away. Goodness, you don't even use the bus!


You may want to rethink what you say about alcohol in restaurants.

WM we do not know what goes into moisturiser, there could be any number of hidden dangers which to some people may well cause rashes and other allergies to flare up. Being sat in this shared space indulging in a behind closed doors act is, IMO no better than having sex in a public place, on the morality scale of selfishness. Therefore how can you say moral and physical health is not at stake? Sorry my reference to restaurants doesn't always include alcohol, unless they're licensed to sell/all people to consume it on the premises.


Louisa.

Louisa Wrote:

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

> WM we do not know what goes into moisturiser,

> there could be any number of hidden dangers which

> to some people may well cause rashes and other

> allergies to flare up. Being sat in this shared

> space indulging in a behind closed doors act is,

> IMO no better than having sex in a public place,

> on the morality scale of selfishness. Therefore

> how can you say moral and physical health is not

> at stake? Sorry my reference to restaurants

> doesn't always include alcohol, unless they're

> licensed to sell/all people to consume it on the

> premises.

>

> Louisa.


Goodness me Louisa - have you OCD or summat?


If applying moisturiser to oneself included grabbing one's fellow passengers in headlocks and slathering their faces in untested muck I would have some sympathy with your rather peculiar point of view.


I often apply moisturiser to my hands and lip-salve to my lips on journeys - epsecially when there is a cold, biting wind. Are you really saying that that is an assault on my fellow passengers?! Bizarre.

Voyageur, you'd be surprised how even at a distance of say 2/3 metres away, some poor unsuspecting person could be at risk from the fumes carried by your application of makeup/moisturiser. It might not be a big deal to you, but to others it could cause health issues to flare up and equally is unfair in the cramped shared space to subject them to the smells and slopping sounds of the application. It's just generally quite rude, surely you can appreciate this?


Louisa.

seemster, not just the handful of private messages, other too on this thread are with me on the general rule of thumb that makeup application on a bus is unfair. You make it sound as though I am the only one here and everyone else is mocking me for some bizarre stance. How would you feel if you had a skin allergy and I sat next to you slopping on copious amounts Johnson's dreamy skin lotion? (Other moisturisers are available).


Louisa.

Louisa Wrote:

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

> Voyageur, you'd be surprised how even at a

> distance of say 2/3 metres away, some poor

> unsuspecting person could be at risk from the

> fumes carried by your application of

> makeup/moisturiser. It might not be a big deal to

> you, but to others it could cause health issues to

> flare up and equally is unfair in the cramped

> shared space to subject them to the smells and

> slopping sounds of the application. It's just

> generally quite rude, surely you can appreciate

> this?

>

> Louisa.


No. I really don't appreciate what you are saying. I add a tiny blob of moisturiser to my chapped hands. I don't SLOP it around in copious amounts and I am confident that it would not cause anyone to break out in an allergic reaction.


This isn't going to stop - so I suggest you avoid public transport at all costs.

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....

Louisa... As I've posted many times, people applying make up (or brushing teeth or cutting nails) bother me enormously


But I wouldn't want you to take that position and align it with the general tenor of your posts on here. I have no idea if you think I am on your side on this one or not but having read the thread I feel it necessary to point out I'm not


If someone wants to put on some mousturiser on a bus be my guest. It's the combination of "total make up regime" combined with the sulky attitude towards the driver for having the temerity to brake that bothers me so

If myself and Mr Louisa were to pop onto the number 3 and grope one another and partake in sexual liaisons people would be up in arms and rightly so. It's an invasion of other people's personal space. The same applies to makeup and moisturiser. The question of a pet allergy is different because unless the person is taking a cat onto a bus, it's something which is hardly avoidable - knowingly taking potentially harmful products (for some people) onto a bus and using them without consideration for others is selfish. DJKQ there are numerous pages on the Internet which give plenty of details about people suffering allergic reactions to makeup and other products. I personally have an issue with nuts, and if someone sat next to me on a bus and pulled out a bag of peanuts and started dining on them it would be close enough for me to react to that and I would have to move. Why should I be forced to move because another person wishes to have a munch?


Louisa.

Louisa Wrote:

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

> If myself and Mr Louisa were to pop onto the

> number 3 and grope one another and partake in

> sexual liaisons people would be up in arms and

> rightly so. It's an invasion of other people's

> personal space. The same applies to makeup and

> moisturiser. The question of a pet allergy is

> different because unless the person is taking a

> cat onto a bus, it's something which is hardly

> avoidable - knowingly taking potentially harmful

> products (for some people) onto a bus and using

> them without consideration for others is selfish.

> DJKQ there are numerous pages on the Internet

> which give plenty of details about people

> suffering allergic reactions to makeup and other

> products. I personally have an issue with nuts,

> and if someone sat next to me on a bus and pulled

> out a bag of peanuts and started dining on them it

> would be close enough for me to react to that and

> I would have to move. Why should I be forced to

> move because another person wishes to have a

> munch?

>

> Louisa.


Actually Louisa - I think you are a little bit nuts :(


Your posts are getting more bizarre by the minute and, on that basis, there seems little point in continuing to try to have a reasoned discussion.

Voyageur Wrote:

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

> Louisa Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > If myself and Mr Louisa were to pop onto the

> > number 3 and grope one another and partake in

> > sexual liaisons people would be up in arms and

> > rightly so. It's an invasion of other people's

> > personal space. The same applies to makeup and

> > moisturiser. The question of a pet allergy is

> > different because unless the person is taking a

> > cat onto a bus, it's something which is hardly

> > avoidable - knowingly taking potentially

> harmful

> > products (for some people) onto a bus and using

> > them without consideration for others is

> selfish.

> > DJKQ there are numerous pages on the Internet

> > which give plenty of details about people

> > suffering allergic reactions to makeup and

> other

> > products. I personally have an issue with nuts,

> > and if someone sat next to me on a bus and

> pulled

> > out a bag of peanuts and started dining on them

> it

> > would be close enough for me to react to that

> and

> > I would have to move. Why should I be forced to

> > move because another person wishes to have a

> > munch?

> >

> > Louisa.

>

> Actually Louisa - I think you are a little bit

> nuts :(

>

> Your posts are getting more bizarre by the minute

> and, on that basis, there seems little point in

> continuing to try to have a reasoned discussion.



Oh so now because you disagree with me and feel you are losing the argument you pull the bizarre card out of the pack and dismiss me as slightly insane. I came up with a good example of why food should be banned, nut allergies are potentially life threatening to some people and even being near to someone eating them could result in a severe reaction. But clearly you think my case is flawed and because it suits you and others to indulge yourself on public transport people who disagree with you are seen as slightly bizarre. It don't wash with me!


Louisa.

Louisa Wrote:

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

> Voyageur Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Louisa Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > ----


> > > If myself and Mr Louisa were to pop onto the

> > > number 3 and grope one another and partake in

> > > sexual liaisons people would be up in arms

> and

> > > rightly so. It's an invasion of other

> people's

> > > personal space. The same applies to makeup

> and

> > > moisturiser. The question of a pet allergy is

> > > different because unless the person is taking

> a

> > > cat onto a bus, it's something which is

> hardly

> > > avoidable - knowingly taking potentially

> > harmful

> > > products (for some people) onto a bus and

> using

> > > them without consideration for others is

> > selfish.

> > > DJKQ there are numerous pages on the Internet

> > > which give plenty of details about people

> > > suffering allergic reactions to makeup and

> > other

> > > products. I personally have an issue with

> nuts,

> > > and if someone sat next to me on a bus and

> > pulled

> > > out a bag of peanuts and started dining on

> them

> > it

> > > would be close enough for me to react to that

> > and

> > > I would have to move. Why should I be forced

> to

> > > move because another person wishes to have a

> > > munch?

> > >

> > > Louisa.

> >

> > Actually Louisa - I think you are a little bit

> > nuts :(

> >

> > Your posts are getting more bizarre by the

> minute

> > and, on that basis, there seems little point in

> > continuing to try to have a reasoned

> discussion.

>

>

> Oh so now because you disagree with me and feel

> you are losing the argument you pull the bizarre

> card out of the pack and dismiss me as slightly

> insane. I came up with a good example of why food

> should be banned, nut allergies are potentially

> life threatening to some people and even being

> near to someone eating them could result in a

> severe reaction. But clearly you think my case is

> flawed and because it suits you and others to

> indulge yourself on public transport people who

> disagree with you are seen as slightly bizarre. It

> don't wash with me!

>

> Louisa.


Nuts :)

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.

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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