And if you'd bothered to read the post you'd quoted, you'd notice that both questions were general open questions to anyone who would like to answer them and not "accusing" you of anything.
Although "charging does seem to significantly reduce both anti-social behaviour and vandalism" does sound a bit like a claim that charging reduces vandalism, doesn't it? I guess that's why I hit reply on your post.
Apologies if my post seemed a bit reactionary, tone doesn't always translate well in text. I do however object to accusations of persecuting the elderly. Anyway...
Charging for the use of toilets often does reduce vandalism and anti-social behaviour. The old toilets at Manchester Piccadilly were hellish, as were the ones in the subway at Leeds. As I said in the post you quoted initially, charging isn't a "magic bullet":
Although the facilities at Piccadilly improved exponentially after the refurbishment, the situation at Leeds didn't. The replacement facilities on the concourse are too small and the ones on the platform 12-15 island got little more than a lick of paint. The chargeable ones stayed in reasonable (if cramped) order for a few years before falling into disrepair, perhaps the vandals in Leeds have more disposable income than their Mancunian counterparts.
Hopefully, better facilities will be provided at Leeds once the work is completed... and hopefully the ne'er-do-wells can be kept at bay!