Jump to content

Recommended Posts

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> Well there's an example of insanity

>

> 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.

>

> But as someone else posted, there's no point using

> reasoned debate with someone who has no conception

> of it.


I think up until this point this discussion was starting to become a bit polarised, but now you've brought all these other potentially life threatening acts of public indecency to my attention lets address them one by one, because DJKQ, just as WM has this fascination with breast feeding, you now seem to be able to go over and above medical opinion and conclude that makeup and moisturiser are perfectly safe for everyone and you have no evidence to back it up! Astonishing! You not only thoroughly legitimise unsavoury public acts in confined spaces, you now justify them by claiming to know that everyone who talks about any known allergies within 2/3 metres to be completely wrong! Allelujah, we have a scientist within our midst!


I would ban leather jackets and rubber/PVC from buses and trains but that's just because I wouldn't want anyone to have a flare up of an ongoing allergy. 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 at the same time. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I'm genuinely confused.


This thread has now taken on a whole new dimension. It isn't just a discussion amongst lay men and women, we have experts here too.


Louisa.

lameduck - bus groping happens a lot and its a very unpleasant experience for anyone at the receiving end of it. I drive my car because I like my own space and my own rules. I personally wouldn't want grubby hands all over me, nor wold I want to risk siting next to a peanut muncher or a loud handheld device user.


Louisa.

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.

DJKQ, by your argument, smoking would be allowed on a bus because its a personal experience and just because it might contribute to a serious illness in another person, doesn't mean it should be banned? Well, it was banned, and for the very reasons you claim other antisocial forms of behaviour shouldn't be. Eating peanuts is fine, even though it might set off a life threatening reaction in another person? Why not just ban eating altogether and the problem is removed. Saves dirty interior of public transport seating too. I don't need to back up my argument with any facts, because you've failed to back up yours and yet you believe I am the patronising one in this debate? Is that because you are losing the argument by any chance? And who are these "others" who have presented a "well reasoned and logical debate"? As far as I can see we have two sides to a very clear cut argument. This isn't about MY personal tastes, it's about public thoughtfulness and decency for everyone. You either support my argument, which is that manners cost nothing and certain forms of behaviour should be prohibited in a confused public space - because in many people's view (including posters on this thread) they are selfish and annoying, and my further point that they can let off a strong odour and potentially cause people with allergies to react is just an additional reason as to why certain activities should be refrained from. Not to mention this isolated and hideous bubble created around the individual preventing social cohesion and a community spirit. Or we support your argument - which is basically saying we can't ban everything which is antisocial because we can't police or enact it properly, and it's a matter of personal taste so if you don't like it then that's your problem. I know which side I support.


Louisa.

Louisa, the majority of people don't have extreme nut allergy, adverse reactions to Max Factor mascara type 297Q-HL101 or suffer epileptic fits at the slightest smell of a soya milk latte, which is why these items are allowed on a bus.

You seem to be trying to turn the public arena into a minorities-led care home.

KK I've heard of instances of groping on all forms of public transport. I think trains are more likely than buses, especially if the incidence of standing passengers.


*Bob* fortunately for me I've not been at the receiving end of a grope to date, but the thought of having grubby hands on me makes me feel violently ill. Makeup wearing may even be temporarily acceptable in replacement for grubby handed groping.


Louisa.

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.

Science and the law make the same distinction NOW - but go back fifty years or less and neither believed smoking to be a bad thing. I refer back to an earlier argument about changing times and opinions - perhaps if we came back in fifty years from now we would have a different opinion. It takes pioneers such as myself to stand up and explain to people where we are going wrong in society and law and science eventually adapts.


And as I stated before, these aren't just my personal views. A lot of people back them. I think your losing this argument DJKQ and you are clutching at straws.


Louisa.

And 50 years ago we didn't have the advanced bio/medical research techniques that we have now.


Louisa you are like a dog with a rotten bone. Cosmetics are one of the most heavily tested substabces out there....they do not kill people...they do not affect a whole room of people in the way a carcinogenic gas does...WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?


Now you still haven't answered this question...


"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.



That's how debate works Louisa....people pick holes in your comments and if you don't fill them...you lose the debate.

Actually I can align to Louisa's angle to a small extent, not even 10 years ago I was at the end of my tether over smoking in public places - I'd be having a meal and a couple on the next table would light-up, ruining the evening out, for me and partner. I felt extremely hard done by, not being able to eat a basic meal without choking on the arsenic/lead/ammonia combo. Every pub, club, gig. It seemed obvious to me that this smoke was shit (and so did the science). But not only that, the clever bastards who could mix a couple of hundred chemicals to the ever-decreasing proportion of tobacco to reduce burn rate and protect the bronchial tract from the damage that inhaling smoke should do, could not even make it smell half-decent. Always stank like shit.

I felt like the only sane person, constantly bothered by the stench.

Then I lucked-out and the Govt decided those kinds of places had to be non-smoking zones.

I still after several years cannot believe that it actually happened.

The moral is don't give up, always maintain hope, you know what's best, hopefully one day the rest of society will one day catch-up with you.

Jeez, I should of titled this annoying women Instead of gross women, but I do find it gross to watch. all I'm saying is personal grooming is just that and should be done in private. It's not always so easy to look away if someone is sat opposite or next to you in the rush hour hour will a full carrier back of makeup and there is nowhere to move to. Louisa makes perfect sense to me, I'm not talking about a bit of lipstick. It's the full base, powder, eye liners lip liner mascara and big blusher brush that annoys me. And eating food! Most other countries I've been to ban eating on bus and trains and its so much nicer, I saw a women on the 12 eating KFC on the 12 bus. Drop the bones on the floor and discretely wipe her hands on the seat. Nice! Can't wait to find a way to get back into my car to get to work.

Dropping litter (or chicken bones) is an offence punishable by fine, so laws do exist to curb the anti-social aspects of certain behaviour but where are the personel to enforce it? It's all very well demanding to outlaw every little annoyance but we aren't very good at enforcing the laws that do already exist. Perhaps if they were enforced better you might see the more considerate society you seem to think doesn't exist.


What also irks me is when people use an anti-social aspect of an action (like dropping litter) to call for an outright ban on something (eating). It's an over-reaction which has little to do with the root irritant.


And if women with handbags are annoying then equally annoying are men sitting with their legs splayed. Women wear makeup...men sit with legs splayed.....it's life and neither really harm anyone.

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...