Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Why?


It doesn't seem fair that women can have their own swim for an hour and a half on Thursday evenings, so the entire evening is off limits to men. Or am I missing something?


The official line is "Fusion aims to make its services and facilities accessible to all including those from different ethnic backgrounds and religious beliefs. The female only environment is set up to cater for this."


I still don't think it's fair.

  • 1 month later...
Um, Mark, I think you ARE missing something. I think this is for women like Muslims who cannot expose certain parts of their body to men due to their religion i.e. not just for women without any particular religious convictions who want to swim without men there (although they could obviously use it too). Highly topical I think! Personally I don't have any problems with this at all. It's not harming anyone else - and they pay their taxes too!
  • 2 weeks later...
I think this is an absolute effing nonsense. Thurs night the best night for me to go swimming yet I have to dash up and down the lanes (albeit that's probably doing me more good) to be out by 7pm. I wonder if there's a way of finding out how many users are there for religious reasons? If it's less than 5 then it's a waste of time in my opinion. Freedom of Information Act apply here perhaps?

Mark and Jamma, imagine that you had a fear of men (and were a woman), if you wished to swim you could not. If this fear had stemmed from an incident, such as rape, then it is perfectly understandable for these women not to want to go swimming with males around. Elderly women, also, may not wish to go swimming with men around - as they feel vulnerable or intimidated. Mothers may not see it as appropriate for their daughters to go swimming with men and boys (not a view i share but still legitamate). There may also be visits from a women's refuge, where they (obviously) do not wish to come into contact with women. Then, of course, there is the religion aspect.


If this problem still bothers you, why dont you think about asking for a 'Men Only Session'?

Hi Abby


Your argument would have more validity should those be the reasons for the 'women only session' on Thursday evening, however the reason given by Fusion is that the female only environment is set up to cater for ethnic backgrounds and religious beliefs. I must confess my lack of knowledge here but I would be curious to know the religious and ethnic details so if someone could let us know I would be grateful.


I'm not saying don't have women only sessions, I'm just assuming it's a majority (men and women) who would like to use the pool on Thursdays after work rather than a minority (women who only swim in 'women only sessions').


I don't want to ask for a 'men only session' as that would be a tit-for-tat argumentative response which is not conducive to a good outcome for all. To me, a good outcome would be for both sexes to be able to use the pool prime time Thursday, how about a women only session from 6-7pm then adult lane swim the rest of the evening?


Mark

Abby, are you mental? You should have women only sessions for women who are afraid of men? Why not have sessions in which the pool is drained for people who are afraid of water? That's an absolute nonsense. Men are not scary and the best way to discover that is by actually mixing with them.

The pool should be open to all at all times

And it could do with a renovation too.

Jamma,


That is not a very helpful post. I make no comment as to whether the session should be 7pm Thursday, but Abby and James make some reasonable points as to why women should want a woman-only swim. Your straw-man argument of "draining the pool" for people who are afraid of water is childish.


Tim

  • 3 months later...

I completely agree that this policy is utterly unacceptable and the various spurious 'justifications' are absurd. Let me ask a simple question - what do you think the response would be if Fusion offered sessions exclusively for men who aren't comfortable with women, or who might, for example, feel that women are religiously 'unclean' at ceratin times of the month (a belief held by some religious traditions)? I am sure it would not be long before people were up in arms about such sex-discrimination.


Historically, gender-discrimination in favour of men was supported by 'explanations' and 'justifications' that are much more plausible than those offered in support of this form of discrimination, yet it was recognised that such excuses just weren't good enough! It is a while since I looked at it but I believe that sex discrimination legislation outlaws discrimination in provision of goods or services on the grounds of gender. Unless there is some specific opt-out clause in the legislation the Council may well be in breech of this legislation. Perhaps someone with more time on their hands than I have could make further enquiries and take this forward?


It disgusts me that my taxes are being used to provide services that facilitate discrimination on gender grounds and the matter should be addressed.

Why are there so many angry men......? I'm at a loss.

Is there a logical arguement for why so many male obstetricians cut women open rather than supporting them giving birth naturally......answer according to Today's E.S.......Lawsuits. Is that logical or fair....no....

Is it something that people should spend more of there time thinking about and signing a petion about compared to a womens only swim lane....most definately.

Will any of you get angry about this....Probably not..

I think that any of the arguements regarding religious beliefs or the things set out by abby are perfectly logical, plausible and real reasons that women should have there own PEAK time.

You lot should be ashamed of yourselves not Fusion!

You lot should be ashamed of yourselves not Fusion!


Blimey, that's a bit harsh isn't it and I somehow expect Fusion aren't feeling ashamed. I can only speak for myself here but I'm not going to feel ashamed for saying things like "I'm not saying don't have women only sessions", "I don't want to ask for a 'men only session'" "a good outcome would be for both sexes to be able to use the pool prime time Thursday".

I asked, it didn't happen, I got over it because it doesn't bother me that much. Until someone brings into the discussion... obstetricians cutting women open and lawsuits (here I go...). WTF? I'm just trying to understand the reasons why it's at primetime Thursday, I understand the reasons for women-only sessions, I understand and agree with Abby's points and I agree that they should happen as there's obviously a requirement for them but more people would benefit and be happy and a little healthier if they moved it slightly. Please. I'm just trying to understand the 'business' logic behind it, why turn away the majority when there's a perfectly easy compromise, so if I may, a suggestion:


Change Thursday evening swimming session from:


18:00 - 19:00 Everyone

19:00 - 20:00 Women only

20:00 - 21:00 Women only


to


18:00 - 19:00 Women only

19:00 - 20:00 Everyone!

20:00 - 21:00 Everyone!


Anyway, like I said, it doesn't bother me anymore and I'm grateful we have a pool so close that we can all use, many people don't. Oh, and I don't agree with Domitianus and his way of doing things in this instance, it's just a pool session we're talking about here.

I'd like to refer anyone interested in finding out more about the need to provide services for women to http://www.whywomen.org.uk My views on the matter is that while many women are comfortable swimming in a mixed environment, many are not. There could be many reasons for this - religious reasons being just one. For example, some women have had negative experience of being jeered at by blokes which means they don't feel that great about swimming in a mixed environment - and would probably not go swimming in mixed or peak times. In town, there is a whole spa, the Santuary which is women-only and which is quite popular but rather expensive! In terms of the times, you also have to take into consideration that many women are often tied to child-caring responsiblities (I'll need another thread to rant on about the unequal gender division of child-care and domestic labour!). Which means that often, women looking after kids can't get out of the house untill the kids are fed, bathed and put to bed and their partner has returned home so they can then go out. That's probably the rationale behind the later times for the women only session.
p.s personally, I'd like to campaign for the blokes to be the ones to be primarily (not just occasionally to give their female partners a break) responsible for feeding, bathing and putting to bed of the kids while the women enjoy a peak time swim or maybe even a drink after work? That'd be a worthwhile campaign to sign up to!

> personally, I'd like to campaign for the

> blokes to be the ones to be primarily (not just

> occasionally to give their female partners a

> break) responsible for feeding, bathing and

> putting to bed of the kids while the women enjoy a

> peak time swim or maybe even a drink after work?

> That'd be a worthwhile campaign to sign up to!


Have you considered joining the labour party, this seems to fit in with the sort of ill thought out nonsense that appeals to them and gets enshrined in legislation.


Right I'm off to drink the housekeeping down the pub with the remote in one hand and the other scratching my balls while my good lady is chained to the sink and the hoover.

Unfortunately, gender inequality is still widespread - there is still pay gap for men and women for example and, as many survey into childcare/domestic work have shown, it still tends to be the woman who take primarily responsiblity for childcare. As I know points out her husband arranges things all the time, work do's and social things with the assumption that the default position is that she'll be home to look after the kids. Whereas when she plans a night out, she really has to plan it with him and he needs to put it in his diary. Likewise, another friend I know get's grief from her work because she needs to leave bang on 5 to pick up the kid from nursery and also takes time off when the kid is sick - whereas the bloke rarely takes time off and never picks up the kid from nursery. Alot of women don't think feminism is for them untill they have kids and realise how many gender assumptions there are around childcare and how discrimination - direct and indirect affect their lives. However, I am now breaking one of the golden rules and am going off message from this thread so I'll stop now before the heavy hand of the administrator slaps me down!
Beth, I'm pretty sure the Administrator doesn't mind when topics naturally go off topic. Anyway, thanks for pointing out the difficulties and timings associated with childcare that make it hard for women to go at non-primetime, now I know (being an uncle hasn't taught me these things).

I don't think it's especially off message as the tenor of the thread wasn't really to do with swimming sessions but with gender discrimination.


I think your sample set of 2 is a little narrow in highlighting whatever it is you're trying to highlight however.

I know two of my friends who have wanted to be the most supportive fathers they can but have had access to their children blocked simply because the ex-partners could do it, and they were spiteful, hurtful harridans, but I don't let this colour my opinion of the millions upon millions of brilliant mums there are in this world (of which we have many shining examples on our own dear forum).


Yes of course there is plenty to be done regarding gender inequality, but as this thread was about reverse gender discrimination, it strikes me that you are doing your best to foster this sort of behaviour, tarring all men with some sort of selfish-laziness feather (taken from a dodo, damnably lazy birds who got their comeuppance) and hardly contributing anything positive or useful to the debate.


Aaaanyway, back to swimming....sploosh


And for the record I'm lovely, got any washing up you need doing ;)

I hear you Beth. But put simply, two wrongs don't make a right. I personally am tired of the nanny state intervening with a kind of enforced discrimination that is supposed to redress the balance re. our racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever past. The irony is that it actually ends up causing more division and resentment because it makes such huge glaring assumptions (as you just did) about what certain groups of people are like. Just for the record I am a single dad who bathes, feeds, puts to bed and reads a bedtime story to my son virtually every day that he stays with me. But because I am a man I am expected to do huge amounts of unpaid overtime at work (unlike certain female colleagues who are always out of the door at 5 on the dot). So as you can see, it cuts both ways.

Incidentally I am also gay. So perhaps I should really be out dancing on a podium to Kylie Minogue or something?

Here here. I'm feed up of loosing out just to be politically correct. If you have a problem with men seeing you in a bathing suit or vice virsa, don't go to a PUBLIC swimming baths. If you can't afford a private pool, get over it. Swimming is just one form of exercise.

To assume that women need to feel more secure in a female only environment like a pool is regressive, sexist deplorable thinking - has anyone read Greer or Dworkin here ? this merely reinforces the gender gap and cements the outdated ntion that Women are fragile and shy creatures, forever in the shadow of men. at worst it is a Cowardly and indefensible praxis, as best it is slightly galling.


With regatrd to religion - this is a choice people make - you want to follow whatever stone age imaginary rubbish you wish, but it is not longer a joke when others have to accomodate your blinkered beliefs.


This is a sloppy and lazy way to add to the equality mantra that local authorities seem to have adopted in recent years, yet does nothing to aid equality and may even exaggerate the problem.


apalling.

don't think anyone of any sex swimming there at the moment.........my daughter's delighted. all school swimming lessons cacelled 'cos pool closed.


Why don't we lobby for hoody only swimming sessions? That'll keep our streets safe and give us something to rail against at the same time?

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...