View previous topic | View next topic

Are there enough Public Toilets in your local council.

Page 5 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

bobwilson
527328.  Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:54 pm Reply with quote

Mike wrote:
The point with paying for public toilets is that the money is (supposedly) spent on maintaining said loos. Given the state that some people apparently feel it is okay to leave toilets in, regular cleaning and tidying are essential. Unless someone is happy to do this for free, some sort of payment needs to be collected.


This read to me that you were advocating the necessity of collecting payment at the point of use.

Quote:
Bob, if something can't be funded then it cannot exist.


Hedgehogs don't exist?

 
Sadurian Mike
527330.  Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:00 pm Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
This read to me that you were advocating the necessity of collecting payment at the point of use.

Nope.

bobwilson wrote:
Quote:
Bob, if something can't be funded then it cannot exist.


Hedgehogs don't exist?

Very few hedgehogs require funding.

 
Theblazeuk
527332.  Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:04 pm Reply with quote

Of course there aren't many public toilets, full stop - never mind whether you have to pay to use them. I think train and bus stations cant really justify charging since I have presumably paid (oh how i have paid) to use the transport in the first place, or will do, as I dont spend much time around train stations otherwise.

And I'd be all for making a *ridiculously* high fine for damaging a public toilet :)

 
bobwilson
527334.  Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:06 pm Reply with quote

The simple fact is that the provision of public toilets should be viewed in the same way as the provision of rubbish collection. It's necessary because the alternative is that we all crap/piss in the street. Of course it costs - but that's the price we pay for living in an urban environment.

 
Sadurian Mike
527336.  Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:18 pm Reply with quote

The council-run public toilets are generally free, although some councils (London, for example) also allow private companies to set up toilets that require payment.

Train and bus companies are under no obligation to provide such services (unless there is legislation that I am not aware of). Therefore, they can either charge for using the toilets or increase what they charge the transport operatives (and thereby increase fares) to cover the cost of running them. Given the very small percentage of people who actually use the toilets, putting fares up seems rather unfair. Remember also that it is not (for example) Virgin Trains or GNER who operate such station facilities, so your fare does not directly pay for station toilets. Instead, the station operator will presumably be charging the rail company for the rights to use the station and it is this (plus the concessions) that pays for all the facilities.

 
bobwilson
527337.  Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:23 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
Given the very small percentage of people who actually use the toilets, putting fares up seems rather unfair.


Given the very small percentage of people who actually are directly affected by murder, expecting all of us to contribute to the cost of running murder squads and/or enquiries does seem a trifle unfair.

 
Sadurian Mike
527339.  Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:29 pm Reply with quote

Are you saying that you think that murder is as important as needing to pee but not wanting to walk to a public loo?

Odd sort of priorities you have there, bob.

 
bobwilson
527341.  Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:35 pm Reply with quote

I think it's fairly clear what I'm saying but ..... just for you

Arguing that because only a minority use a service it is unfair that a majority should pay for that service is fallacious. It's a question of benefit - not use. We all benefit from the existence of murder detectives - and we all benefit from the existence of well-maintained public toilets. Whether we, individually, ever avail ourselves of the service is irrelevant.

 
Sadurian Mike
527344.  Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:50 pm Reply with quote

Okay bob, let's use insurance as an analogy instead.

I insure myself for death because it is serious enough that my death will have a large impact on my family. I therefore pay out for accidental death and fatal disease cover.

I do not drive an HGV so I do not feel the need to pay for cover which pays out if I have an accident driving such a vehicle.

I pay for one because it might affect me, but not for the other because it won't. Should I decide to start driving HGVs then I will consider taking out insurance against an HGV accident. At that point it is worth my while to pay out for the second policy.

Narrowing this down then, I pay tax to support the police and, by extension, detectives who would work on a murder case if it affected me. I am approximately as likely to be affected by murder as anyone else and therefore happy to pay the same percentage as everyone else, but in any case you do not pay extra for a murder squad because they are not a seperate part of the police. Police (and murder detectives) also act as a deterrent to my being murdered and so they are something I feel happy paying for every month from my Council Tax and Income Tax.

If I use trains or buses I will usually make sure that I either go to the toilet before going to the station, or hold on until on the train (long distance coaches also have onboard loos but I have never used one). In all my years taking trains and buses I have used station facilites precisely once (Paddington, paying 20p). For me to pay for the facilities to be there "just in case", therefore, is not cost-effective. I would be better off paying on a pay-per-use basis.

Therefore, I will pay for the police, which I use, but not for the station facilites which I do not.

 
bobwilson
527347.  Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:58 pm Reply with quote

OK - fair enough.

You make a personal life decision to avoid using the lavatory facilities during a journey. Because of that you see no reason for contributing to the cost of providing such facilities on a permanent basis.

I have made a personal life decision to not have any expensive equipment worth stealing. I see no particular reason why I should contribute to burglary detectives, or deterrent police, since I am in absolutely no danger of being burgled (as I have nothing worth nicking).

So, can I have my rebate now for all the money I've contributed towards protecting your property?

 
Sadurian Mike
527368.  Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:13 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
OK - fair enough.

You make a personal life decision to avoid using the lavatory facilities during a journey. Because of that you see no reason for contributing to the cost of providing such facilities on a permanent basis.

I have made a personal life decision to not have any expensive equipment worth stealing. I see no particular reason why I should contribute to burglary detectives, or deterrent police, since I am in absolutely no danger of being burgled (as I have nothing worth nicking).

So, can I have my rebate now for all the money I've contributed towards protecting your property?

No, because burglary is a criminal offence, governed by the law of the land, and not a civil crime. If it were a civil crime then you would have the option of pursuing any theft privately or not at all. If you thought that you would use such private prosecution enough to warrant it then you could take out insurance against such loss.

You do, however, have the option of leaving your house unlocked and the door open with a large sign saying "come and take what you want". That way, you would ensure that the police would not have to waste any time investigating any crime on your behalf.

 
samivel
527372.  Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:53 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
I have made a personal life decision to not have any expensive equipment worth stealing. I see no particular reason why I should contribute to burglary detectives, or deterrent police, since I am in absolutely no danger of being burgled (as I have nothing worth nicking).


Well, there may be no danger of being burgled, but there's still the chance of a burglar breaking in, only to discover there's nothing worth nicking, and then smearing shit all over the place.

 
Theblazeuk
527387.  Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:05 am Reply with quote

Quote:
Train and bus companies are under no obligation to provide such services (unless there is legislation that I am not aware of). Therefore, they can either charge for using the toilets or increase what they charge the transport operatives (and thereby increase fares) to cover the cost of running them. Given the very small percentage of people who actually use the toilets, putting fares up seems rather unfair. Remember also that it is not (for example) Virgin Trains or GNER who operate such station facilities, so your fare does not directly pay for station toilets. Instead, the station operator will presumably be charging the rail company for the rights to use the station and it is this (plus the concessions) that pays for all the facilities


Well, don't get me started on the stupidity of the way the train station/lines are run.
I don't think they can justify raising the costs in any situation regarding the trains to be honest. The prices we pay for the service we get, I expect a gold-plated toilet!

I don't think the whole market incentive doesn't work that well when you *have* to urinate/defecate, *when* you need to, and you *could* always just piss outside of the designated area for free. The best reason for having facilities at a station I can imagine really - it would cost less than cleaning the mess up that people left otherwise.

 
Ian Dunn
527408.  Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:44 am Reply with quote

There are public toliets in my local council. I'm from Stockton-on-Tees and the lavatories are located in the Shambles shopping arcade. However, from previous experiences, "Shambles" is the best word to describe to them.

The toilets are very clean and there are no hygine problems to speak off, but there is one main problem - the flush on the lavatories is operated by a motion sensor.

What happens is that instead of having a handle, in which lots of people touch and can pass on germs, you just move your hand across the sensor located just above the cistern, on the top-left hand corner.

That may not seem much of a problem, but there is one problem. The loo paper is on the right-hand side of toilet as you sit on it... and I'm left handed. As a result, there was this one time in which I moved my left hand and arm to get the paper, and as a moved to wipe my bottom, my elbow or arm moved in front of the sensor, and thus I set off the flush while I was still sitting on the toilet.

 
Theblazeuk
527463.  Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:04 am Reply with quote

Ah t'internet- "lol" just doesn't convey a decent snigger

 

Page 5 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group