On 27 Jan 2019 21:42:28 GMT
Marland wrote:
wrote:
On 27 Jan 2019 14:23:46 GMT
Marland wrote:
wrote:
Then there is the large percentage of the population who are female whose
different plumbing ,menstrual
cycles and smaller bladder capacity when pregnant often means they need
toilet facilities more often than men.

How did they cope in the past?

How far back is your past, we have had toilets on most long distance
trains since the early 20th century,and public toilets for women began to

I'm not talking about long distance, I'm talking about commuter trains.
Anyway, femninists are always telling us there's no difference between men
and women bar the obvious so...




You followed up my mentioning of longer trips like Waterloo-Exeter to tell
us that for such journeys you take your family in the car so you were
already aware that I was not talking about short commuter journeys when you
replied as my post said said “
Then there is the large percentage of the population who are female whose
different plumbing ,menstrual cycles and smaller bladder capacity when
pregnant often means they need toilet facilities more often than men. I
would agree you don’t need toilets on commuter trains where “, so it was
fairly obvious we had moved onto longer distance services prompted by your
absurd statement upthread
“Perhaps install more toilets in stations and get rid of them on trains
altogether. We're a small island, there are no journeys really long enough
to make them worthwhile except maybe the overnight sleeper to scotland”.

It was after that you asked “ How did they cope in the past?”

Now you trying to claim that you were talking solely about commuter trains
again in attempt to bolster your weak proposal. Won’t wash Pal, others can
follow a thread that shows your arguments descending into impracticality

Not you though since you obviously missed the bit where I spoke about
thamelinks. Or did you think that was a long distance service?