Foxy,

Did you know that in NSW for many, many years women were discriminated against by the NSW Govt. Railways, particularly at major Sydney stations?

The women's toilets only had cubicles whereas the men's had troughs and cubicles; therefore the men could urinate for free but the women had to pay a penny to gain entry to a cubicle.

This was blatant sexual discrimination!!

On the plus side there were 'Women Only' compartments on trains but they have long gone.

Just as an aside, the cubicle doors at Central were all made from figured Queensland walnut wood, I bought 25 of them, for $1 each [they were covered by about ten coats of yucky green paint] from a scrapyard in Newtown in about 1995 and am still making things from the frames; the six ply top and bottom panels I used for making cupboards in the kitchen.

Dear Is Mise,

Both men and women's toilet cubicles had coin-entry
up to the 1950s and perhaps even later I'm told -
in most of
the public toilets in the major Australian cities.
For obvious reasons to maintain hygiene - to keep
out the homeless and prevent the theft of
toilet paper. It's an old left-over - I've been told
from the "good old colonial days." (penal-colony traditions
and all that).

And of course there's another practice that might
be of interest that by law - until
the 1960s all hotels had to provide stabling for horses
and a drinking trough in front of the hotel for the benefit
of horse-drawn carriages.

And good onya - for doing so well out of NSW Railways.
It must be great to have part of such a major station in
Sydney as part of your kitchen.

If you or anyone else have other "peculiar," and
interesting historical facts to share - start a threat.
It would be great to read.

Ooops, my apologies for typo errors.

It's late and I'm tired.

To reiterate the inconvenient truth, Labor and the Greens need to be aware that they cannot continue to be dismissive of the load being placed on singles and young couples by their extensions (when in government) of spousal entitlements and benefits to defactos (definition of defacto broadened as well) and then to gay defactos who are all now regarded by government as 'marrieds'.

According to the 'evolved' leftists, the large rump behind the push for gay marriage, marriage is (undefined) 'love', nothing more. They hold that the essential links between marriage and children and family and 'for life' are dross of the past.

If there ever was some rationale in the distant past for conditions and entitlements that favour 'marrieds' over singles, it no longer exists. It is unfair, discriminatory, for singles to be denied benefits enjoyed by 'marrieds' especially where the number of 'marrieds' has been increased substantially through the inclusion on defacto 'relationships' and then again, by including homosexual defactos as a further burden.

As reminder, singles vote in large numbers and often. They could easily swing seats and could return, or vote out, a government. Also, women feature strongly in the singles population.

Finally, Beach has produced the evidence of singles paying for gay love. Gay married public servants, and those in a de facto gay relationship are flitting around the countryside faster than you can say Bronwyn Bishop, all on the taxpayer. At the same time the partners of said gays, are tagging along, for what reason, obviously to provide gay love, all at the expense of straight single PS's who are forgoing well deserved pay rises from the "bucket" all to satisfy the lustful love of these gay couples. Very interesting Beach.

Interesting fact about gay couples, on average they are better educated and have higher incomes than heterosexual couples, therefore they pay more tax. Beach why are gay and lesbian couples subsidizing straight couples. From my own experience I believe this to be true, most of my gay friends have very good, well paying jobs, or are self employed. I tell my gay friends, its the "footy effect", whiles the straight lads were out kicking a football around the oval, you guys were in the library getting a better HSC mark!
Gays and children, nearly all but one gay couple I know have non tax deductible pets, mostly dogs, some have cats, rather than kids. The lesbian couple I know who have a child, have a 14 year old boy, from one mums previous relationship. 'J' plays football, rugby, both for the private school he attends and on the weekends. He has no problems with his two mums, they have a beautiful unit in an expensive part of Sydney, the boys lives with them, he is well adjusted and is a high achiever at school, his mums have instilled very good moral standards in 'J'. His father as far as I know was hell with 'J's mother and the boy himself up to about the age of 8, when she got both of them away from him

Dear Paul,

Thank You for your well reasoned and intelligent post.
As always it is much appreciated.
For me this discussion has now run its course.