LETTER:Bog standard

Nick Clark
Tuesday 14 November 1995 19:02 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

From Mr Nick Clark

Sir: Ruth Picardie's article "P!$$ed off" (13 November) implied British Standard 6465 might be Cr&p.

BS 6465 Part I would recommend not five cubicles for 250 women visiting a cinema, but eight (60 per cent more), and not 12 cubicles per 250 men but one! While not entirely removing the need for crossed legs in certain situations, it clearly recognises the problem of inadequate provision of sanitary facilities for women, and sets out to redress the balance.

Far from covering only "businesses in which food and drink are consumed on the premises", it recommends levels of provision for dwellings, accommodation for elderly people, facilities for disabled people, public toilets, workplaces, shops with sales areas in excess of 1,000m2, schools, buildings for public entertainment, hotels etc, restaurants etc, licensed bars and swimming pools.

I suspect that your correspondent has been killing time reading a 10- year-old copy of the standard form 1984, which has been subsequently withdrawn. The 1984 version was strong, absorbent and long - perhaps it can be imaginatively recycled?

Yours faithfully,

Nick Clark

British Standards Institution

London, W4

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in