Prev: cuidado be carefull attenzione con VUELING
Next: American girlfriend willing to settle in the UK
From: peter-potato on 15 May 2007 18:10

"Duncan Heenan" <pleasenospammersduncanheenan(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
message news:46498dfe$1_3(a)mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> "peter-potato" <pppeterrr(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Jcd2i.26175$en5.24696(a)newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Duncan Heenan" <pleasenospammersduncanheenan(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
>> message news:46494263$1_2(a)mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>>
>>> "SB" <s_byers666(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:1179172748.220500.5290(a)e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>> Open Letter re: the new London Spa recently opened in the old
>>> traditional Turkish Baths suite at York Hall, Tower Hamlets, London,
>>> UK.
>>>>Snip <
>>>
>>> What a good post!
>>> I hope it gets the message across to some of the politically correct
>>> Council types who are spoiling things for normal ordinary folk.
>>>
>>
>> What 'politically correct' decisions have the 'Council types' made in
>> this case?
>> It seems that primarily commercial decisions have been made.
>
> To insist on the wearing of swimming costumes, in circumstances where it
> makes no sense.
>

One point among many made...


From: The Reid on 16 May 2007 03:09
On 14 May 2007 12:59:08 -0700, SB <s_byers666(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Open Letter re: the new London Spa recently opened in the old
>traditional Turkish Baths suite at York Hall, Tower Hamlets, London,
>UK.
>
>From: Joanna Buick, Tower Hamlets, London

i would suggest its a waste of time posting to travel group, try
interesting Robert Elms at BBC London (hes a turkish bath user)
--
Mike Reid
UK walking, food, photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Spain walking, food, tourism "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"
From: Gnome De Guerre on 18 May 2007 08:56
On 15 May, 11:44, j...(a)fre99uk.99.com (Jules) wrote:
>
> Didn't someone hereabouts recently make a plausible case that
> requiring clothing to be worn for such activities might actually be a
> *breach* of 'elfansafety' rules?
>
> Regards
>
> Jules
>
> The Naturist UK Fact Filehttp://nuff.org.uk/factfile/

I think that was me Jules.

The Etiquette section of the website says "Bathing costumes are to be
worn at ALL times in ALL areas". There is a good argument that
specifying that costumes are so worn is actually impossible to comply
with ("all areas" would include changing rooms and the reception for
example). Or do they expect patrons to come wearing them under their
normal clothes and to leave dressed in the same way as well ? This
would therefore seem to constitute an unfair contract condition, in
that it cannot reasonable be met. Thus as a condition it would be
unenforceable against someone using the area in its traditional
(naked) manner as none of the other notionally more compliant patrons
present would in fact be fully complying either.

They then seemingly contradict this edict later on where they say that
"Please dry off before entering the Relaxation Lounge and refrain from
placing wet bathing costumes directly on to furniture." So either you
have to fully dry your "bathing costume" while still wearing it
(impractical) or, as I suspect they mean, they expect you to have
removed it and do not want it placed as a soggy object on the
furniture (contradicting the requirement to wear it at all times). As
reference is also made to robes (and notably to not stealing them) I
assume the rental of one is now included in the higher entrance fee,
and what they mean is that they want it worn in this area. It says
"Guests are required to wear robe and footwear in all public areas",
but surely the steam rooms and sauna are shared and therefore "public"
as well. They may mean the common parts of the building (i.e. those
parts shared with those not using the "spa"), but without a definition
of public this is only a guess. However reception must logically be a
public area ? So robe over normal clothes and "bathing costume" under
them, from the moment you arrive until the moment you depart, would
seem to be the only way to fully comply.

If they mean "no nudity", (other than presumably transient nudity
when actively getting changed or in the shower/drying) then they
should just say so, and specify that either a "bathing costume" or a
robe, or normal clothing is to be worn, depending on specified
locations, except when actively changing. Given the multicultural
nature of the Tower Hamlets community, having instructions that are so
poorly written as to be unclear even to me as someone who is native
born, tolerably educated (mainly within East London), and aware of
Turkish bath (or probably more accurately the British Victorian
version thereof) operation, is hardly commensurate with effective
communication.

It is also quite likely contrary to their contract with the Council
who generally do not like their contractors placing needless barriers
to communication with those whose native tongue is not English by
using it badly. Using words like "refrain" is also probably a barrier
to effective communication in such a community. Also by banning
schmeissing they are actively preventing an entirely lawful
longstanding local community and cultural tradition that enriches the
locality, something that a Council like Tower Hamlets is more likely
to want to encourage than ban.


The "elfansafety" argument is based on the fairly onerous requirements
of COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2003
as amended). In such a premises as York Hall the biggest COSHH issue
is cross infection between users, this requires both chemical control
measures (that in turn give rise to further COSHH control issues as
the control chemicals are themselves potentially harmful), and
behavioural control measures.

Any amateur (or proper) lawyers will be interested that the duty to
"control" such substances under the COSHH regulations is an "absolute"
legal requirement. This is uncommon in H&S law, where usually such
requirements are tempered by such get outs as "as far as is reasonably
practicable". The absence of such a get out means that you have to
"control", even if that is difficult, expensive or otherwise
inconvenient. The legal requirement to "control" relates solely to the
safety aspects being controlled so that the risk to health is
prevented. A key principle of the COSHH hierarchy (by which "control"
must be achieved) is the removal of the hazardous substances
(microbiological ones in this case), even if they are inadvertent when
they are predictable as in this scenario, as the first option.
Complete removal would in this case require no patrons be allowed in
at all (removing the source completely), and is therefore not
possible, but the next best option is to make them as microbe free as
necessary to prevent illness (i.e. reducing exposure to what should be
a "safe" level rather than removing the risk fully).

Many of the micro-organisms of concern are likely to be located under
the area covered by a "bathing costume". Indeed some will be
disproportionally in these locations. The only option that complies
fully with the letter of COSHH is that all patrons have a thorough
nude shower with soap to cleanse their body as far as practical before
entering the communal areas where cross infection is likely. As some
of the pathogens that are known to occur in this sort of environment
from time to time require only a few organisms to cause infection and
illness, (notably Cryptosporidium parvum which can be fatal in the
immunocompromised, who are over represented in places like Tower
Hamlets), so the level of cleaning needs to be very high. Ironically
that organism is most likely to be in just the area that all "bathing
suits" act as an impediment to cleaning.

I noted that last week in the Times there was a reference to Danish
swimming pools where there are detailed instructions that a nude
shower is taken and that in particular the head, armpits, ano-genital
area and feet are cleaned thoroughly. In Iceland I am informed they
often take this safety precaution further (as many swimming pools are
non-chlorinated) and have an attendant to observe that this is done
properly, to the discomfort of gymnophobic tourists.

In this "spa" environment (rather than just at the swimming pool part
of York Hall) there is the further issue that heat treatments (steam
and dry heat) will create extra risks of cross infection as these will
induce the opening of skin pores and perspiration which will then
flush microbe containing material out from the pores, re-contaminating
the main skin surface previously cleansed by the initial shower. Also
there is no dilution or continuous disinfection action as would be the
case in a swimming pool. Thus a further repeat shower is really needed
immediately after exposure to the hot environment (for at least the
first few heat cycles), until full pore flushing is practicably
effected, if maximum hygiene "control" is to be maintained. This
should be a hot shower initially (to clean out/off as much as
possible), then cold to re-close the pores (which flushes out yet more
material out as they close up). Plunge pools should not be used until
after effective full pore flushing has been achieved, or only after a
hot shower

A "bathing costume" if worn in the hot room will have become
contaminated on the surfaces abutting the skin due to this pore
cleansing action, so that to will need effective "decontamination"
before reuse or cross contamination of the recleaned skin will occur.
Also if the "bathing costume" was donned before the initial shower it
will have been directly contaminated from the skin surface as well,
even if it was completely clean on being put on. As "bathing costumes"
are not generally available in CBRN warfare suit materials, any
contamination on the inside will also effect the outer surface. Have
they provided extremely high speed washing machines for this purpose ?
or do you in fact need some three or four costumes so that each can be
replaced with a freshly laundered one after it is contaminated (if
hygiene is to be maintained) ? Plus another dry one for the
"relaxation lounge" afterwards ?

A "bathing costume" in these circumstances is the antithesis of PPE
(Personal Protective Equipment) as often utilised as a COSHH control
measure, as it actively only makes the risk higher and not reduced in
any way. A fresh towel to sit on (the naturist cliché I know) in the
hot room, is probably the most effective and practicable PPE
available, although it should ideally be replaced on each re-entry as
once sat on under heat conditions it will become actively contaminated
by pore contents. A readily cleansible mat of some sort would also
serve this purpose and it could be cleaned between uses while
showering rather than needing to be changed each time.

It is curious that the "etiquette" section makes no references to
showering for the benefit of yourself or others at all, (or sitting on
towels) as usually the main purpose of etiquette is that others are
not adversely affected by the actions of any one person to encourage
harmony. Neither is there any mention of not using the facility when
ill with easily transmissible diseases (especially diarrhoeal
illnesses and skin infections) or for a period thereafter.

Thus there appears to be a prima facie case that GLL (Greenwich
Leisure Ltd - the operators I believe) are failing to fully comply
with COSHH and indeed have taken active management steps to make
compliance significantly worse than it was before. One has therefore
to wonder why this is. It could be that the changes are on someone's
uninformed whim, or to pursue some individuals personal religious or
other gymnophobic prejudice, but it seems more likely to me that they
have determined that the new arrangements will be more profitable (as
they perceive their target high value customers to be gymnophobic).
Thus they have in effect decided to break the law in order to make a
bigger commercial gain. In H&S enforcement terms this is an
"aggravating circumstance" to a breach of the law requiring a greater
enforcement response.

In practice no human activity is without risk and cross infections
from swimming pools, spa pools saunas etc. seem to be rare, (but
known) events. In the case of Sauna or Steam room use the
microbiologically safest option is clearly to follow the European
model and actively prohibit any clothing in the sauna (except possibly
readily washable simple footwear, for which there is an argument they
do more good than harm) and insist on thorough showering with soap
before use, and at appropriate intervals thereafter. It also appears
to me that this is positively required in the UK by COSHH as the duty
to "control" microbes is absolute. COSHH is coincidentally in
existence to make the UK compliant with European directives, so using
the European normal solution to a COSHH issue is very appropriate. To
deliberately make a situation less safe, as seems the case here, would
seem a good basis for a complaint to GLL or the relevant H&S enforcing
authority. This is probably Tower Hamlets Environmental Health, but
privately managed former municipal Leisure Centres are a bit of a grey
area in H&S enforcement terms, and each has to be individually
allocated, so it may be the HSE.

So if any urners were either regulars at York Hall, or work or reside
in Tower Hamlets, (or are friends of such people and wish to pass this
on), perhaps they may wish to formally complain, either to GLL or
direct to the Enforcing Authority, that GLL are flouting COSHH and
have deliberately increased the risks to human health by their
management changes seemingly just to increase profitability, even
though pre -existing customers do not want the changes and have
already complained on H&S grounds. Or perhaps BN can find a member in
these categories or even act on behalf of the wider naturist
community. Or if Joanna Buick (who's name is on the open letter) is
known to the initial poster this information could go to her.



Alternatively those who appreciate the old values of York Hall may
choose to travel east from the Tower Hamlets border, some one eighth
of a mile along the A13, to the privately operated "New Docklands
Steam Club", (formerly known as the "Docklands Steamer") at 30a
Stephenson Street, London, E16 4SA telephone 020 74731454. www.newdocklands..co.uk
(but website out of action when I tried earlier).

Here gymnophobia is absent and schmeissing is still a part of the
traditional culture of the baths. I have not been there for some time,
it was fairly tatty, and it is in a fairly aesthetically horrible
industrial area, and it is much less grand than York Hall. However it
was subject to a user buy out in 2003, and has, I am reliably told,
been subsequently refurbished. When I was last there there were a few
naturist friendly mixed sessions as well as the majority of gender
separated ones. I am not sure if age restrictions apply. Has anyone
got an up to date report of the current situation at this venue ?


From: Steve Doerr on 18 May 2007 09:17
Gnome De Guerre wrote:

> So if any urners were either regulars at York Hall, or work or reside
> in Tower Hamlets, (or are friends of such people and wish to pass this
> on), perhaps they may wish to formally complain, either to GLL or
> direct to the Enforcing Authority, that GLL are flouting COSHH and
> have deliberately increased the risks to human health by their
> management changes seemingly just to increase profitability, even
> though pre -existing customers do not want the changes and have
> already complained on H&S grounds. Or perhaps BN can find a member in
> these categories or even act on behalf of the wider naturist
> community. Or if Joanna Buick (who's name is on the open letter) is
> known to the initial poster this information could go to her.

I'm sure your excellent and informative observations would be of great
interest on <http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Yorkhall/>.

> Alternatively those who appreciate the old values of York Hall may
> choose to travel east from the Tower Hamlets border, some one eighth
> of a mile along the A13, to the privately operated "New Docklands
> Steam Club", (formerly known as the "Docklands Steamer") at 30a
> Stephenson Street, London, E16 4SA telephone 020 74731454. www.newdocklands..co.uk
> (but website out of action when I tried earlier).
>
> Here gymnophobia is absent and schmeissing is still a part of the
> traditional culture of the baths. I have not been there for some time,
> it was fairly tatty, and it is in a fairly aesthetically horrible
> industrial area, and it is much less grand than York Hall. However it
> was subject to a user buy out in 2003, and has, I am reliably told,
> been subsequently refurbished. When I was last there there were a few
> naturist friendly mixed sessions as well as the majority of gender
> separated ones. I am not sure if age restrictions apply. Has anyone
> got an up to date report of the current situation at this venue ?

See <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/docklands-turkish-baths/>, passim.

My understanding is that costumes are worn in mixed sessions, except
occasionally when receiving massage within the steam-rooms. I've heard
of a woman walking into a steam room where a man was being massaged and
just turning round and going out again - no offence given or taken.

--
Steve (as Himself)
From: Frank F. Matthews on 18 May 2007 11:57


Gnome De Guerre wrote:

> On 15 May, 11:44, j...(a)fre99uk.99.com (Jules) wrote:
>
>>Didn't someone hereabouts recently make a plausible case that
>>requiring clothing to be worn for such activities might actually be a
>>*breach* of 'elfansafety' rules?
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Jules
>>
>>The Naturist UK Fact Filehttp://nuff.org.uk/factfile/
>
>
> I think that was me Jules.
>
> The Etiquette section of the website says "Bathing costumes are to be
> worn at ALL times in ALL areas". There is a good argument that
> specifying that costumes are so worn is actually impossible to comply
> with ("all areas" would include changing rooms and the reception for
> example). Or do they expect patrons to come wearing them under their
> normal clothes and to leave dressed in the same way as well ? This
> would therefore seem to constitute an unfair contract condition, in
> that it cannot reasonable be met. Thus as a condition it would be
> unenforceable against someone using the area in its traditional
> (naked) manner as none of the other notionally more compliant patrons
> present would in fact be fully complying either.
>
> They then seemingly contradict this edict later on where they say that
> "Please dry off before entering the Relaxation Lounge and refrain from
> placing wet bathing costumes directly on to furniture." So either you
> have to fully dry your "bathing costume" while still wearing it
> (impractical) or, as I suspect they mean, they expect you to have
> removed it and do not want it placed as a soggy object on the
> furniture (contradicting the requirement to wear it at all times).

snip

Perhaps they are concerned with the placement of the wet costume on
furniture while you are wearing the costume.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: cuidado be carefull attenzione con VUELING
Next: American girlfriend willing to settle in the UK