Manchester age friendly

Tyke · Post by **Tyke** » Tue 29 Apr, 2014 10:03 am

Interesting article on the BBC Breakfeast show about Manchester been recognized as an old age friendly city. Interestingly the elderly say the city doesn’t have enough public seating and toilets and the tram systems is a death trap but the city is recognized as age friendly as they listen to the elderly so what do we think about Leeds.

Jogon · Post by **Jogon** » Thu 01 May, 2014 5:07 pm

Leeds seems ok but p'raps cos I know it well and the location of the things I need.

Tyke · Post by **Tyke** » Thu 01 May, 2014 6:37 pm

One of the mains concerns was the lack of public toilets and as I grow older I understand this more and more. Public toilets are important to the elderly so I wouldn’t be surprised if more of the elder generation moved their shopping to the out of town malls. That said Leeds with its in town malls i.e. the Trinity is providing the toilets that the council should be supplying.

Jogon · Post by **Jogon** » Thu 01 May, 2014 10:50 pm

Should the Councils be providing though..? Is that good value for money, or another burden for local local and central govermment and hence tax.Or is it better to have some sort of planning requirement that licensed premises, cafes, starbucks etc must allow public in (perhaps with a token charge in fairness to them).Lewis's used to be good, corn exchange likewise.I don't have a smart phone and perhaps I should. Maybe there's some sort of Cr*p App - otherwisehttp://www.secretleeds.com/forum/Messages.aspx?ThreadID=3578

liits · Post by **liits** » Fri 02 May, 2014 12:11 am

Jogon wrote: Should the Councils be providing though..? Or is it better to have some sort of planning requirement that licensed premises, cafes, starbucks etc must allow public in (perhaps with a token charge in fairness to them). http://tinyurl.com/k82dms5NEVER, NO, NO WAY, NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES etc, etc, etc. Planning requirements have become more and more ridiculous over the years and all still administered by and decided upon by an outfit that can't even empty the bloody bins! - and that's not just Leeds, its all Local Authorities. Good God, its bad enough that these half-baked outfits get to grant licenses at all without giving them delegated authority to say who may or may not be admitted and under what particular circumstances. Why stop at [or pick on] Licensed Premises. Planning applies to you in your private home so lets stretch the point to the individual's house. Lets see how long it is before the bleeding hearts slam the door of Guardian Reading Towers in the face of the first casual pee-er with a leaky bladder who knocks on their door.Rant over.

Jogon · Post by **Jogon** » Fri 02 May, 2014 9:39 am

Well, I'm certainly open to suggestion on this one liits... I remember all too well needing to use 'Oakwood Public Bogs', and forming the view aged 9 that anything the public used was notso nice.

BarFly · Post by **BarFly** » Fri 02 May, 2014 7:00 pm

I thought I read somethoing a while back suggesting that public houses, at least, had to allow public access to their toilets as part of their licensing agreement. I thought I read something also about departmnent stores agreeing to allow non-customers access?I don't recall where I read it though (thought it might even have been on here before I joined a few years ago) so can't reference ny source.

liits · Post by **liits** » Fri 02 May, 2014 9:09 pm

BarFly wrote: I thought I read somethoing a while back suggesting that public houses, at least, had to allow public access to their toilets as part of their licensing agreement. I thought I read something also about departmnent stores agreeing to allow non-customers access?I don't recall where I read it though (thought it might even have been on here before I joined a few years ago) so can't reference ny source. Common misconception brought about by the misnomer "Public House". Licensees have always had and still have the outright authority to permit / refuse entry and service to their premises. Although now lapsed, the commonly known refusal reasons were drunk, those under 18, known prostitutes -except for the purposes of their reasonable refreshment, smugglers [?], police officers in uniform - unless authorised by a senior officer. The drunks, kids and coppers bit still, to the greater extent, holds true so provided that you don't refuse based on race, creed or gender, you can still refuse anybody without giving a reason.Luckily, much of the madness compounded by previous guises of the Licensing Act were swept away by the 2003 Act. Much of what little sense there is in that act was carved in stone to stop the madness which had been tacked onto other bits of legislation that had been administered by Local Authorities [Public Entertainment, Music & Dancing of a Like Kind, Special Hours Certificates, Supper Hour Certificates, Market Licenses, Licensed Markets, Sex Establishments etc, etc]. The last thing most of them want is to be burdened with additions and amendments that are really not within their remit and that they cannot monitor or enforce against.

BarFly · Post by **BarFly** » Sat 03 May, 2014 6:24 pm

Thanks for clarifying, liits, but I didn't mean it was part of the licensing laws but part of the agreement the businesses had with the local council to operate. I'm pretty sure I've seen things like "public convenience to close but facilities proivided by local department store" mentioned -- if I've time later I'll look into it.

Post by **cnosni** » Sun 04 May, 2014 3:55 pm

Luckily the plethora of fast food restaurants that sell burgers in city centres provides the opportunity, if one is caught short, in other words using the toilet facilties of thes establishemenst without making a purchase.This is what is known as (cleaned up up for the site) as a McWee or a McPooh