Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think it's good to have women only. I'd hate to generalise but I too feel the need to rant..... some of those male swimmers are just plain old bad drivers when it comes to lane etiquette. In the women only sessions you dont have to worry about male swimmers who think that loads of splashing amounts to good technique. You also dont have to deal with so many other swimmers with serious spatial awareness issues. Or overtaking right at the end of the lane when you may as well just wait. Or even one male swimmer overtaking another male swimmer overtaking a female swimmer...all at the same time in one lane! Seems like taking your kit off and getting in the pool really brings out the worst in (a very small group of some) men (who clearly dont represent all the rest). Hurrah for the groovy non competitive cooperative all female swimming sessions.

mightyroar Wrote:

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

> I think it's good to have women only. I'd hate to

> generalise but I too feel the need to rant.....

> some of those male swimmers are just plain old bad

> drivers when it comes to lane etiquette. In the

> women only sessions you dont have to worry about

> male swimmers who think that loads of splashing

> amounts to good technique. You also dont have to

> deal with so many other swimmers with serious

> spatial awareness issues. Or overtaking right at

> the end of the lane when you may as well just

> wait. Or even one male swimmer overtaking another

> male swimmer overtaking a female swimmer...all at

> the same time in one lane! Seems like taking your

> kit off and getting in the pool really brings out

> the worst in (a very small group of some) men (who

> clearly dont represent all the rest). Hurrah for

> the groovy non competitive cooperative all female

> swimming sessions.


What utter rubbish. Im sorry, but it is

one last post from me - there have been plenty of solid academic research into the ways men and women use and experience public spaces different - I started googling the gender and use of space but too many references came up for me to trawl through them all and copy appropriate links for anyone who is interested (I'm supposed to be working really!) that I invite you do to the same. So it isn't surprising that men and women responding to this thread are reporting different experiences into use of the public space of the swimming pool. Also, sorry James if you felt I dismissed your experience as a single gay dad - I do know fathers who are just as much involved as mothers. But again, when we look at research into who does most of the child-care and domestic work what comes up again and again, is the majority of those who are spending more time with the kids and on the housework are women (Using a website recommended elsewhere on this by contributer to this thread (Monkey Piers) at www.Worldmapper.org I have a link which gives the stats to the hours the women worldwide spend in the home and the hours spent by men. Click on this link http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=137 for the hours spent by women and then go to next for the hours spent by men.) This of course has the cutting edge effect of meaning that men who do spend time with their kids experience discrimination in the workplace. However, longitudinal studies over the years do show men's involvement has increased significantly and flexible working patterns for both men and women are becoming more common. So let's all end on a hopefully note hey! Let's hear it for a utopian society here in East Dulwich sometime in the near future!

I am in full agreement with many of the recent postings - for different reasons or with different conclusions than the posters, however, I suspect. There is most certainly still gender inequality in society, no doubt, but this is not resolved by enshrining policies that simply reverse the direction of the discrimination. The 'positive discrimination' arguement is one of the most preposterous pieces of intellectual fraud I have ever encountered. Let us take this to its conclusion. For decades now men have had to work an extra five years of their lives before being able to claim a state pension, despite the fact that they have a shorter average lifespan. How do we deal with this appalling and inexcusable discrimination (probably the most blatant and bare-faced form of gender discrimination ever to exist and enshrined in law no less, a fact rarely mentioned in PC circles, strangely!, where women, those from ethnic origins, those with gay/lesbian lifestyles and the disabled are the only people 'allowed' to be 'victims'). If we took the 'positive discrimination' route we would turn this on its head and allow men to retire earier than women. That would obviously be an absurd proposition so we introduce a rationale response - remove any discrimination in favour of either gender and have a true level playing-field.


With regard to different perceptions of different genders as to their safety in public places - these findings may be true. They are hardly likely to be resolved, however, by perpetuating these special provisions that continue to re-inforce the notion that woman are fragile, powerless and in need of protection, as an earlier contributor observed.

Domitianus Wrote:

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

> I am in full agreement with many of the recent

> postings - for different reasons or with different

> conclusions than the posters, however, I suspect.

> There is most certainly still gender inequality in

> society, no doubt, but this is not resolved by

> enshrining policies that simply reverse the

> direction of the discrimination. The 'positive

> discrimination' arguement is one of the most

> preposterous pieces of intellectual fraud I have

> ever encountered. Let us take this to its

> conclusion. For decades now men have had to work

> an extra five years of their lives before being

> able to claim a state pension, despite the fact

> that they have a shorter average lifespan. How do

> we deal with this appalling and inexcusable

> discrimination (probably the most blatant and

> bare-faced form of gender discrimination ever to

> exist and enshrined in law no less, a fact rarely

> mentioned in PC circles, strangely!, where women,

> those from ethnic origins, those with gay/lesbian

> lifestyles and the disabled are the only people

> 'allowed' to be 'victims'). If we took the

> 'positive discrimination' route we would turn this

> on its head and allow men to retire earier than

> women. That would obviously be an absurd

> proposition so we introduce a rationale response -

> remove any discrimination in favour of either

> gender and have a true level playing-field.

>

> With regard to different perceptions of different

> genders as to their safety in public places -

> these findings may be true. They are hardly

> likely to be resolved, however, by perpetuating

> these special provisions that continue to

> re-inforce the notion that woman are fragile,

> powerless and in need of protection, as an earlier

> contributor observed.



eh ?


R U 'dissin' me ?

Well I imagine he's supporting your view rather than tendering disrespect. ;-)


I'd find it a bit concerning however, Domitianus was historically a pretender to the Roman throne rather than the real thing. He even went so far as to having coins printed in his own likeness to reinforce the claim. Cheeky monkey.


To have his support is a bit like having a renowned bullsh*tter as your best mate. It rubs off..


I'm considering whether he's related to Incitatus whose major claim to fame, apart from being ridden by a Syphilite, was being an equine senator. It seems unlikely, given the penetration of latin scholars generally into society, that we have two on this forum. Admin, can you alleviate us of this pedantic burden?

I may be mistaken, but other than a worshipper of the great god Syphil, would a syphilite be a syphilis sufferer? If so, I may be mistaken, but wasn't syphilis a south american illness brought back by columbus' crew (and indeed by columbus himself)?

Women only bars perhaps, because men are loud and crude and push in.


Women only parks perhaps, because men do play those big physical ball games.


In fact why not special clothing that covers everything but the eyes, so men don't look at them in lewd ways?


Does anyone remember that Star Trek: Next Generation episode, you know the one I'm talking about...

Domitanius, what exactly do you mean by "those with gay and lesbian lifestyles"? Are you suggesting that you can just sort of take on a lesbian or gay lifestyle as if it were a jacket or a new hairstyle? Do you have a "male" or a "female" lifestyle?


Incidentally, my point that positive discrimination separates people & causes grudges and resentment doesn't mean that we should forget that discrimination exists. It's a question of education and respectful free speech rather than dubious acts of enforced PC folly. I still often hear the word "gay" used as an insult or derogotary term, which proves we have a way to go in some respects. And let's face it, loads of men are crap with their kids (just as loads aren't).

Lol mightyroar. Perhaps we need a new kind of apartheid to separate everybody from everybody else so we stop annoying each other so much? We could all travel about in little hermetically sealed bubbles so we never have to deal with anyone who isn't like us. I think a primitive form of this already exists - the Range Rover.

Some very funny posts on this thread...


But just bringing it back to the pool for one moment - is Fusion's logical extension of the women only swimming sessions still in place? The "staff and surveyors" only session? Or are women and (occasionally) men allowed back in now?

  • 5 weeks later...

Domitianus Wrote:

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


> 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


So just what was that 'plausible explanation' preventing women with medical degrees from practising as doctors?


, 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.


I hear today that working men's clubs are finally to allow women to be members ;-) Maybe one of these days they'll let them join the gentlemen's clubs too...Though the very thought of all those old codgers is singularly unattractive :-S


Louisiana

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...