Schools providing Sanitary protection

culpepper

Comms69 wrote: »

Because birth control is largely for the benefit of women. Young men have, on the whole, no pressure in terms of parenthood.

Not true and never really was. Even in victorian times, men were MADE to be responsible for their illegitamate offspring if there was any likelihood that they were the father.
Nowadays of course there is DNA testing which does at least help the mother prove patronage.
Of course not all condoms are used solely for birth control as any AIDS related health worker would point out.

annandale

The same way some people are in fuel poverty. Some are in period poverty. If a poor family is spending 6 pounds a month plus on sanitary products I'd suggest that anything that might mean that money could be diverted somewhere else like a bill or food is worth it.

These are essential items. Not luxuries.

dotchas

annandale wrote: »

This happens too often. The assumption that people in poverty are !!!!less and are spending money on other things. Of course some people struggle with budgeting. I saw a post on another thread that poor people cannot afford to buy food because they spend it all on fags, iphones and scratchcards.

It is not just about sanctions although they are an issue. It is the fact that on some benefits you wait 6 weeks to be paid. Universal credit. Its now five but I waited six. You can now get 100 per cent of the first payment as an advance. I got 50. I got 246 for my first payment of UC. My rent (which my landlord wanted me to pay in advance was 243).

There will be people who have kids and who get child element as its called on Uc who have to wait five weeks for their first payment. The advance has to be repaid. Mine was repaid over 6 months, should have been 12 but it was 6 due to a mess up the DWP paid.

So, people who are on UC if they are not working are in poverty. They are in poverty by the time they get their first payment, they have to repay an advance and they still have the same outgoings to deal with.

And yes, people can and do get sanctioned for ridiculous reasons. Ive been threatened with a sanction for my work coach not liking my CV. I was threatened with one for not jobsearching enough when my mum had an aggressive cancer. I was referred to a decision maker for being 12 mins late for an appointment and I will be referred again as Ive just had my work contract terminated as Ive been off work with work related stress thanks to bullying in the workplace.

I don't have kids, but I do know what its like to wait 6 weeks for a payment of UC and have half of your first monthly payment as a loan to tide you over when you still have rent and bills to pay (on UC rent no longer goes direct to your landlord as housing benefit did, at least in England) and you are given the money to pay them direct.) And some people are getting into more debt because they have used the money given for their rent to pay bills

Some people are struggling financially, if this lets a child go to school who for whatever reason was struggling for sanitary protection, good. Its hard enough being poor.

I totally appreciate what you say and sympathise with you. The problem seems to with the benefits system and the delays in payments. It seems so wrong that after paying rent people have to decide between food, heating and sanitary protection.



But some sadly comes down to poor parenting where parents put ciggies, mobile phones etc before their childs welfare. Poor budgeting and limited cooking skills don't help either. I am in no way targeting all benefit claimants with this comment, I am sure some more affluent people have the same problems.


It is shocking in our relatively well off country that we even need to have this thread.

phryne

annandale wrote: »

The same way some people are in fuel poverty. Some are in period poverty. If a poor family is spending 6 pounds a month plus on sanitary products I'd suggest that anything that might mean that money could be diverted somewhere else like a bill or food is worth it.

These are essential items. Not luxuries.

How much do smartphones cost per month? More than £6 I'll wager.
Gel nails? Make up? Chocolate? All of these can be afforded, yet sanitary towels cannot?

thriftylass

ska_lover wrote: »

Hmmm interesting point..What area do you live in? Tescos do evening deliveries for £1 in my area.

I love home shopping deliveries, so much cheaper than driving there, picking, packing and the two hour of my life and for a quid, can't really beat it

Might be cheaper to look into home shopping. It is an idea if no one has thought of it. I mean no one would spend £6 bus fare to buy something for 29pence and then only purchase only enough to carry home on a bus..... and if they would, then sorry but some people are actually beyond helping as common sense has lost it's way big time

Common sense is free. Surely if a person had £6 to spend, and only wanted STs they would buy local for £2 and save £4...Or get them thrown in at 29pence wit a weeks shopping and spend One Pound to get the whole lot delivered

one fab thing about having it delivered is you can chose substitutes and if they have't got the cheapo brand in stock, you will get subbed with better

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Isn't there like a £50 minimum spend?

.....and what 12 year old does an online order ....

annandale

Not all women or teenagers get gel nails done. Wear make up. Or have the latest smartphone.

Have a read at jack Monroes diary when she was living on 10 pounds spare a week. See how many times she got her gel nails done.

I've worked with teenagers who lived away from the family home. They lived on the basic jsa. No luxuries.

As I said, you are going on ignore because you seem to be taking offence at everything I say. Because I've given Mooloo support on another thread.

You have zero to say that interests me. I live well below the poverty line just now

I have a phone and Internet because you have to when you are on uc.

I don't get gel nails done. I can't remember the last time I bought new make up. Or new clothes. I've had two nights out this year. But you carry on following me around the boards if it makes you feel happy. I won't see your posts unless someone else quotes them from now on

I don't have the latest smartphone. I'm currently in fuel poverty. Period poverty. I run a home on a pittance. There are projects in my area feeding kids who are in receipt of free school meals during the summer. That's poverty. There's a baby bank in my area that helps families on the breadline. It's seen thousands of cases. Women who have suffered domestic violence and have had to leave their homes with nothing.

And until March this year I worked part time. I was still in poverty. I'll be working as of this weekend. I'll still be in poverty.

There are millions of people in the UK who live well below the line and people think its all gel nails smartphones and chocolate?

I don't eat chocolate either BTW. Or smoke. And I have no TV. Just incase that's the next thing spouted

Comms69

annandale wrote: »

You think someone would get housing benefit on 1300 in a wage and 600 working tax credits? - I'm fairly sure they do yes.

Help with their rent when they have 1900 pounds a month coming into the home? Working tax credits (which are actually being replaced with uc) are assessed as income. I would never have got housing benefit on that kind of salary. - What, the minimum wage?.... You also do not know what people's outgoings are, their childcare costs - I said this was a two parent household where 1 parent works. (which you get 85 per cent back on UC, but some people have had massive issues because their assessment period does not match with the times they pay their childcare, so they've had far less refunded than 85 per cent).

Apart from working tax credits (which you only get if you are working a certain amount of hours) or UC what is there for single parents? - Well unless you state the criteria i cant work that out. I used the example given of female partner and two female children. Your post also seems to assume that people will be working that full time min wage job. What if they aren't on full time hours? - Then find a second job. Or a better job. Or whatever. There's all sorts of scenarios, but I can only answer one at a time

Someone who isn't and is working less than 35 hours x nmw will claim universal credit. On UC if you have kids you keep 192 of your wages and then the UC taper is applied, so for every pound earned the DWP reduce your UC by 67p. Single women with kids can also fall foul of the benefit cap on UC as well. - Ok, so you give me an example which is substantially different in terms of income.

And some single parents will not be working. I think that is important to remember. - Certainly but if the child is at the age of having periods, the majority of the time I'd be asking why not...
People are also generalising about what other people spend on protection. As I said before. I personally had to use super tampax and towels and night towels. Much more than 23p a month. - And some people don't...

There are people living in poverty. - And im asking again, why? For every post someone quotes saying that a woman working full time on min wage gets working tax credits, there are people using foodbanks. - Indeed, but those people are entitled to the exact same benefits, so where is that money going... Lots of them. There are people living well below the poverty line in the UK including people who work. - and why is that?

And it is not always about people not being able to afford. Its the times when your period starts unexpectedly, when you don't have a tampon or towel in your bag. - Surely it's sensible to have one with you always? A study out yesterday said that over 14 million people are living below the line in the UK. There are 9 per cent of the population in poverty where both adults work full time - so between them there is a minimum of £2,600 a month. Why are they not surviving?? and 68 per cent of people who are unemployed live in poverty.

There will be teenagers living in refuges, in supported housing projects. - im sure there are, but those are very specific cases There are people who live on the breadline. For every person working full time min wage there will be someone working zero hours. - indeed, with support from the state
Have a look at the appeals for food from foodbanks all over the UK. Including appeals for people to hand in sanitary products and toiletries. It might be a surprise to some people that there are those out there that can't afford to eat properly never mind buy sanitary products but there are. - I'm sure there are, but these are extreme cases. And again I'd have to ask why?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/19/british-girls-period-poverty-menstruation-sanitary-products

Id rather see free sanitary products in schools than kids missing school because their parents cant afford them. And this does happen

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/19/british-girls-period-poverty-menstruation-sanitary-products

Heres what Danielle Rowley had to say. She suffers from heavy bleeding, she spent 25 pounds in a week.

https://www.elle.com/uk/life-and-culture/a21997544/danielle-rowley-period-house-of-commons/

Honestly no-one is looking at these figures and examining why a family on £30k+ a year cant afford such basics.

phryne

@annandale TLDR I think you'd better do as you suggested and put people on ignore, if you don't like what they're saying. I will challenge a post/er if they're spouting nonsense, as this is a money saving site, and I think misinformation needs to be corrected.

Comms69

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Holy ****!!!

Starting to wonder if you’re actually just a very good troll now.

I'm not saying it's morally right.


I'm stating a fact. A young man has very little to lose on a practical level in terms of birth control.


A young woman has substantially more to lose.


Access to birth control has been the single biggest improvement to equality in terms of employment and independence for women. That's not shocking, I think it's fantastic. More power to you ladies.


Should a young couple not use protection and a pregnancy occur, the woman is quite often left holding the baby. I don't think that's at all right (just fyi I support 3 kids, 2 of whom are step children - even though me and my ex are no longer together).

phryne

Comms69 wrote: »

Honestly no-one is looking at these figures and examining why a family on £30k+ a year cant afford such basics.

It's a case of prioritising. As I mentioned already, people have smartphones, netflix, designer specs and very nice clothing. Yet they can't afford sanitary protection..