When should local councils interfere with the operations of their contractors? When it's a matter of child safety.

Every available wall ay my local swimming pool has a glossy poster on it bearing the rather reasonable instruction that, "Children must be supervised at all times": in light of which it strikes me as totally unreasonable that there is now an entry charge for parents who are there not to swim, but to watch.

It's obviously struck a lot of other people as unreasonable too. The pool program & price list both feature a prominent full page explanation to the question, "why a no swim entry".  The unfortunate staff must have got sick of explaining it, so now management is trying to beat us to the post before we even have the temerity to question why.

According to the brochure, parents are expected to cough up $3.80 for the privilege of sitting on a soggy bit of concrete developing piles whilst keeping an eye on their child in the pool due to, "the cost of maintaining, cleaning & heating these facilities".

Well, I never meant to argue it should be free.  I do understand the need to cover operating costs (even turn a profit), and I admit it seems a bit petty to be whingeing about $3.80.  But it is a council facility, and it has an obligation to provide a service to the community, and to deliver this service at an affordable price.

Parents are already paying a fee for their child's pool entry. They're probably there for swimming lessons, another expense. Once inside, there are lots of other ways to "value add" to the experience, they can rent a locker, pay for the kids to have a hot shower, succumb to nagging for tickets on the slide, snacks and a drink, or even grab themselves a coffee. This all adds up pretty fast. Imagine taking 2 or 3 kids to the pool a couple of times a week.