Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Louisa is quite correct. Acceptance of selfish behaviour in public does not make that behaviour acceptable. Women applying make up on the train in the mornings says so much about the tawdry mentality of that person. Most of the make up products are tested on animals also which makes it more offensive to be done in public. Make up applying in public is simply 'ladette' behaviour and is nothing to be proud of.

UncleBen Wrote:

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

> Louisa is quite correct. Acceptance of selfish

> behaviour in public does not make that behaviour

> acceptable. Women applying make up on the train in

> the mornings says so much about the tawdry

> mentality of that person. Most of the make up

> products are tested on animals also which makes it

> more offensive to be done in public. Make up

> applying in public is simply 'ladette' behaviour

> and is nothing to be proud of.


Absolute rubbish. If I was smoking in someone's face or playing music loudly and irritatingly on public transport then I can understand offence being given. If someone is offended by my touching up my lipstick on a train then they perhaps ought to see a psychiatrist. Or maybe stop rudely staring at me and any other women who might be applying lip salve or hand moisturiser and mind your own business. Your behaviour offends me.

Louisa Wrote:


> Interesting to note for DJKQ, I have come across

> numerous websites all of which have good examples

> of how foods, cosmetics and certain materials can

> lead to health and safety issues in a public

> space.


Really Louisa...because the only health and safety mandates I can find are for environments that manufacture such items (which is understandable). Can't find a single report highlighting the serious danger that the use of or wearing of makeup/ leather in a public space poses to the public...


Now if you want to give credit to your argument then provide evidence. You can't just make things up and claim evidence exists when it doesn't.


It's like the deaths you claim to have happened Louisa????? You have to either validate that claim with hard fact, or retract it. No-one has died because they shared a bus or train with a person wearing makeup or leather, or high heels for that matter........and you know it.


That's my issue with your argument, not your view (because you are entitled to that) but the examples you use to illustrate your view. They are not based on any hard evidence. But you seem incapable of understanding that.


Head...banging ....brick....wallllllllllllllll :D

For example, here's a report debunking the myths around cosmetics and the the dangers of the ingredients in them (myths perpetuated by smear campaigns and belief systems like those of Louisa, and debunked by reputable scientific and medical organisations).


http://cei.org/sites/default/files/Dana%20Joel%20Gattuso%20-%20The%20True%20Story%20of%20Cosmetics.pdf


The report more interestingly draws comparisons with other things where chemical use is permitted, and perfectly demonstrates how low the risk of exposure is compared to something like food for example.

Best thread I've read on here in ages - as others said good to see Louisa in such flow again and Goooaaaa DNKQ.


Only thing I'd like to ban on public transport would be the eating of smelly food - makes me feel very very ill - but unlike some of us I have to accept that the world is not geared up just for my pleasure and enjoyment and sometimes I have to rub along with others even if I'd prefer not to. It seems ironic that the people claiming that so many behaviour patterns show selfishness are themselves too selfish to live and let live!

Alan Medic Wrote:

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

> What is the male equivalent of a woman in

> conversation with a man putting her hand inside

> her blouse to adjust her bra?

> I ask only because I've noticed it twice recently.


Adjusting their balls maybe?

Cassius, You should not have to put up with people eating on the bus. It should not be allowed Its banned in many countries for good reason http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibited_activities_on_public_transport


http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2009/oct/19/modern-manners-eating-public-transport

Public Transport? The Bad Vibes Alone Can Drive You Nuts

IN ANGRY RANTS / ON JANUARY 25, 2013 AT 12:20 AM /

Nicolas Wingate writes from London: I don?t like to use public transport. I prefer to drive or take a cab. Sure, it costs me a fortune but I just can?t force myself to use the bus or travel on the Underground because of the number of disgusting people on them who behave like savages and look like ones as well. There they are, talking loudly on their mobiles or between themselves, eating smelly foods, putting on make-up or, my personal most annoying activity, biting off their nails or cleaning them with all sorts of objects, including, bizarrely, Oyster cards and house keys. And on top of that some of these fellow passengers dress like morons and show off too much of their tattooed flesh that they seem to be very proud of.


Yes, the mobile phone has introduced a new kind of menace on parts of public transport and it?s only a matter of time before the Underground facilitate all those idiots who like to terrorise others. I personally can?t stand to hear all that meaningless drivel, delivered in loud, usually deeply unpleasant voices by those who have no life but showing it off as if they actually do. These look-at-me ones think nothing of people around sometimes banging on about nothing in particular for the duration of their whole journey, often finishing the conversation with the words: ?I?ll see you in a bit?. That is when I want to ask them: ?Why, why the hell did you have to torture all of us if you?re going to meet up with her now anyway?? And I bet other women around me, who have also been made listen to the cow scream in her phone, wouldn?t have called me sexist.


Then there is food consumption on public transport which has become something of a plague. While in the past some passengers on buses and the Underground were helping themselves to crisps and sandwiches, or to chewing gum energetically: now they indulge with a hearty meal consisting of some hot smelly mixture or, in extreme cases, soup. It is astonishing how they make other people watch them stuff their mouths with food, as if it is perfectly normal to eat in front of us, commuters, who happen to be trapped in the same carriage with them. They might have as well urinated on the floor for there?s not much difference between eating smelly foods and relieving yourself in public. I proclaim it is a high time to copy the American system and ban food on the Underground.


Loud conversations accompanied by piercing laughter, mostly for no reason whatsoever, are yet another menace. This has become very fashionable among some people who never seem to run out of energy to perform. And mind you, they think nothing of it, talking bollocks endlessly while they are chewing their gums. They are obviously sure that they are cool and as such can be a bit different from the rest of us and share their wisdom and coolness with others who have no choice but to embrace.


Attending to personal appearance on the go is another problem. Some women spend lots of time putting on their make-up in front of others, looking as if they?re on the game and on the way to a client. Apparently, the process requires them to make silly faces which would have been hilarious if they did not look so uncivilised and exasperating. And then comes the nail biting and cleaning, next to someone eating a curry!


Backpackers are another thrill as they seem to forget that they actually have big bags on their backs when they move. Just like people with suitcases on wheels who seem to carry their possessions all around for some reason other than travel. And what about the semi-naked passengers lacking in personal hygiene who have no problem about sharing their nakedness with others. They seem to think that revealing their bodies to others would make them, others that is, appreciative of their naked torsos and physique, which often require some regular exercise or dieting.


I don?t know about you, but tattooed individuals, and I am talking about people covered with idiotic images, disgust me. I?m sorry, but they look like savages who should be using some special means of transport, comparing their drawings and getting ideas for new ones. This tattoo craze has gotten out of control, compliments of footballers and pop stars. Interesting, instead of coolness, the looks transmit some personality or financial disasters, and almost want me to respond to their begging by giving them a coin. But then again maybe not. It well may be their personality that suffers more than their pockets and who knows in what way.


No, public transport is not for me. Too many bad vibes

Greengod Wrote:

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

> Public Transport? The Bad Vibes Alone Can Drive

> You Nuts

> IN ANGRY RANTS / ON JANUARY 25, 2013 AT 12:20 AM

> /

> Nicolas Wingate writes from London: I don?t like

> to use public transport. I prefer to drive or take

> a cab. ... No, public transport is not for me. Too many bad

> vibes


Ah... all very well if you can afford to take a cab to work or have a central London parking space. For many of us, public transport is a necessity.


Actually, having commuted to work in London for over 30 years I find most fellow commuters to be perfectly nice and well behaved people - then again I haven't an abhorrence of people wearing 'toxic' leather or rubber or applying 'deadly' moisturiser to faces or hands. Makes life much easier.

DG I cannot see how you can make an assumption that people who question chemicals such

as fungicides and other chemicals added to cosmetics must be of the same belief system

as those of Louise.

if There is a huge problem with allergys whichis worsening, there are also many

beliefs to the causes. I can understand why people want clearer labeling to

cosmetics as many want with food and medicines.

I do not have a problem with people putting make up on public transport.


http://www.euagenda.eu/2013/1/23/Living-with-Allergies

I have once threw my ice cream into the badly made up face of someone on a bus who was now spraying hairspray on their hair: I have bad lung problems and anything sprayed makes me very ill. After this I got off the bus and used inhalers and tablets. Still waiting for the caution for the assault but hey, ya gots to do what ya gots to do.


Great thread.

PeckhamRose Wrote:

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

> I have once threw my ice cream into the badly made

> up face of someone on a bus who was now spraying

> hairspray on their hair: I have bad lung problems

> and anything sprayed makes me very ill. After

> this I got off the bus and used inhalers and

> tablets. Still waiting for the caution for the

> assault but hey, ya gots to do what ya gots to

> do.

>

> Great thread.


Spraying hairspray in a crowded public place is pretty offensive :( Mind you, so is shoving an ice-cream in someone's face...

Isn't this discussion really about taboos?


The threat of deadly makeup and homicidal leather jackets may well be technically 'true' but the risk is so vanishingly small that there has never been a documented case to support these ornate theories.


It's certainly not big enough to justify the visceral overreaction of some individuals to such 'gross' women.


So isn't this protest really about 'gross' women upsetting the natural order and threatening the very fabric of society?


The fact that the protestors on this thread regularly find themselves on other threads voicing traditionalist, conservative, reactionary opinions would seem to support this?


The challenge with public makeup is that it reveals the design and application behind a woman's outward appearance. It's a statement of independence - a rejection of the idea that women are somehow naturally demure, feminine and retiring 'pretty little things' in favour of more complex motivations and machinations.


So these protestations are perhaps the last gasp of Victorian traditionalists resentful of female equality?


For 'gross women putting on makeup in public' instead read 'women should know their place'.

PaulK Wrote:

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

> Vicanna Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Some of the people commenting on this thread

> are

> > so retarded it's not even funny.

>

>

> Who do you mean? and please state your resons why



Whoever is wasting their time attempting to counter arguments posted by disingenuous clowns like Louisa.

TE44, Louisa believes that there are toxins in cosmetics that are so strong that they should be classed as a public health issue. It is the same misinformed belief system as those who call for the banning of cosmetics for the same reasons. The report I posted clearly shows that the levels of chemicals used in makeup are so low that they don't even brush the radar of those concerned with formulating policy for public health issues. It demonstrates that there is no science to support Louisa's view or the view of anyone who thinks that being in proximity to a person applying makeup is or should be a public health issue.


Hairspray is slightly different as it is uses an airbourne delivery system of a flammable substance at the source of delivery, and as such, use of is prohibited on most public transport systems.

Spot on H.....and this is the link I posted earlier again, which supports that view.


http://www.the-beheld.com/2011/06/applying-makeup-in-public-preserving.html


I think this is a theory that merits some discussion, if we are to understand what really might be behind the offence that some women (and men) feel, rather than exaggerated claims of toxic public health risk.

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...