Toddlers peeing in public.

Gloomendoom

surveyqueenuk wrote: »

Absolutely. There was a really nice Victorian loo block near me that was closed recently because of "cottaging"....

I can see this being a reason to shut gents loos but surely not the ladies.

Person_one wrote: »

Installing a certain type of light that doesn't let you see your veins solves that cheaply enough, I'd agree that it was the cost of maintenance that led to the closures.

Perhaps there is a special light that renders gay men invisible.

lostinrates

Errata wrote: »

They've been closed because people were using them to shoot up.

surveyqueenuk wrote: »

Absolutely. There was a really nice Victorian loo block near me that was closed recently because of "cottaging"....

Gloomendoom wrote: »

I can see this being a reason to shut gents loos but surely not the ladies.



Perhaps there is a special light that renders gay men invisible.

The maintenance must be crippling.


And frankly its 'our' fault. ( although I donut any MSE'ers abuse public facilities I mean collectively the British public and users of these things) . The state they are left in is absolutely disgusting. Never been in a men's council run public loo but if its like most women's ones I'd probably opt for a bush over them. A town local to us beat the closures by having a serviced loo with a pay at point of use option. Its clean, maintained, and provides employment which one guesses must be less bad because behaviour cannot ever get as disgusting of someone is there all the time.

Buzzybee90

lostinrates wrote: »

The maintenance must be crippling.


And frankly its 'our' fault. ( although I donut any MSE'ers abuse public facilities I mean collectively the British public and users of these things) . The state they are left in is absolutely disgusting. Never been in a men's council run public loo but if its like most women's ones I'd probably opt for a bush over them. A town local to us beat the closures by having a serviced loo with a pay at point of use option. Its clean, maintained, and provides employment which one guesses must be less bad because behaviour cannot ever get as disgusting of someone is there all the time.

I visited a public loo the other day which was free for men and 30p for women!

thorsoak

Stephb1986 wrote: »

I seen a bloke letting a kid have a wee on Aldi car park I thought it was a bit disgusting in the sense of someone can stand in that and walk it around their house into their carpets not knowing it is pee. They could of asked to use the loo in Aldi I'm sure they would of been allowed.

Whilst large stores in the UK do have customer loos smaller shops do not - and often there are insurance implications in allowing customers to use staff loos.

dandelionclock30

Mylo_The_Moggy wrote: »

Kids are kids. They get caught short. Think we've all done it as a child at some point.
I remember doing it as a small child.
My mum always made sure I was crouched over a drain so it could go into the sewer rather than on a pavement lol. Bit of a hazard these days when you think!!!!

The one thing I really detest though, is when grown adults do their business in the public subways. That really naffs me off as they stink to high heavens of pee. Horrible, just utterly horrible. That's 1000 times worse than a kid peeing in the street.

Its men that urinate in public subways, shop doorways, against walls etc. Not adults in general, men. If you went to a town centre at kicking out time, you would see how bad its gets.
It was so bad at one point that urinals were placed in the street on Friday and Saturday nights. It was better than them doing it at bus stops etc.

Primrose

Buzzybee90 wrote: »

I visited a public loo the other day which was free for men and 30p for women!

That's definite sex discrimination. I'd be dropping the responsible authority a tactful hint and give them 30 days to sort out the discrepancy.

Buzzybee90

Primrose wrote: »

That's definite sex discrimination. I'd be dropping the responsible authority a tactful hint and give them 30 days to sort out the discrepancy.

Apparently it's because women require a cubicle, and men don't. Seems mighty unfair and expensive to me! A quick google reveals it's apparently illegal to charge for urinal use!

Primrose

Well men need a cubicle for No 2 so they can't t really use that argument

Buzzybee90

Primrose wrote: »

Well men need a cubicle for No 2 so they can't t really use that argument

Maybe they have to pay for that but they certainly don't for general access to a toilet area (my boyfriend used it!)

fawd1

notanewuser wrote: »

They're as likely to allow customers use of their staff loos as the queen is to start saying could of, would of. (Should be have. )

Actually my local one did just this. I was there with my then 3 year old when he suddenly decided he needed to wee, and the nearest public toilet was about a 15 minute walk away. I asked and they allowed me to go into the staff toilet with him. I agree it's not the usual thing though