Schools providing Sanitary protection

Comms69

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Nobody is suggesting that every menstruating woman gets all their sanitary protection free for life.

This is about schools providing a back up so that the few girls who are most in need of it don't have to miss out on their education because of their periods.

Just want to say I don't think that's actually clear.


Whilst some have said as you have. Others have suggested it's free for all girls at school.


And I think phryne was suggesting that once this battle is won, the next will begin (something I agree is likely)

Red-Squirrel_2

Comms69 wrote: »

And I think phryne was suggesting that once this battle is won, the next will begin (something I agree is likely)

Which battle do you think that will be?

Comms69

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Which battle do you think that will be?

I suspect it will be uniforms, school trips, and extra curricular activities in the context of schools.


There is ofcourse the wider context, e.g. the gender pay gap. (and no I don't think people should be paid less based purely upon gender; but the gender pay gap agenda, as it currently stands focuses on two elements, money and gender; and that alone has no context)

Red-Squirrel_2

Comms69 wrote: »

I suspect it will be uniforms, school trips, and extra curricular activities in the context of schools.

Those are all things that lots of schools already provide help and support with for parents on low incomes!

Comms69

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Those are all things that lots of schools already provide help and support with for parents on low incomes!

well 'lots' is a contextual thing, but regardless, it's not either standard policy, nor often funded additionally.


I was referring to a demand for wholescale roll-out; apologies it wasn't clear.


The universal income is another battle that is looming.


I don't think that we are doing any favours by subsidising more and more of life.

pickledonionspaceraider

A completely different point

Periods aren't a choice, we have them - as we all know.

However, getting pregnant is a choice. You have to 'do the deed' to make that happen (sorry but mse would have blocked the word - i hate the term lol) - but what i mean is it is a choice to do the deed

However birth control is free...but san pro is not!

Why should birth control be free / if not SanPro

Just for the record, I am all for both being free..Just wanted to raise the topic

Comms69

pickledonionspaceraider wrote: »

A completely different point

Periods aren't a choice, we have them - as we all know. - well, afaik the pill would stop them? But I get what you mean

However, getting pregnant is a choice. You have to 'do the deed' to make that happen (sorry but mse would have blocked the word - i hate the term lol) - but what i mean is it is a choice to do the deed

However birth control is free...but san pro is not! - Children cost the state significant amounts of money, unwanted children moreso

Why should birth control be free / if not SanPro

Just for the record, I am all for both being free..Just wanted to raise the topic

It's a good point.


I think neither should be free, but that said I can understand that birth control is cheaper than the state supporting a child; so the cost is actually less.

badmemory

And you can't get 10 year olds to go on the pill! Also even the old much stronger pills didn't stop my periods although they did my sisters. But I wouldn't mention to a doctor that you intend stopping your periods just because - . Doing that can cover up a medical problem.

unholyangel

Comms69 wrote: »

The royal family costs on average 69p for each taxpayer. Not even each person in the country. The vast majority of income the royals get is from their own estates and investments.

Actually it is for each person in the country - even children and babies, although I'd point out nearly everyone is a taxpayer. However it is only their grant, it doesn't include any other costs (such as security).

Their grant in 2016-2017 was £43mill (for 2017-2018 it was around £76mill and this 2018-2019 year its £82mill) - divide that by the population and you'll get 69p. Divide it by the number of income tax payers (some of who include pensioners or those only paying a few pennies in income tax) which is usually around 30mill (25 million of whom are only paying the basic rate) and you get £1.43. Although again, that doesn't account for any other expenditure they receive. In a standard year (without weddings to host/attend), they tend to cost around £100 million in security.

unholyangel

Comms69 wrote: »

It's a good point.


I think neither should be free, but that said I can understand that birth control is cheaper than the state supporting a child; so the cost is actually less.

There are very few children who are not supported by the state to some degree.

The truth is your average working person thinks their tax contribution has elastic on it. That their meagre contribution not only pays for everything they use, but also for schemes like this for the less fortunate.

£35k a year will see you paying £7.8k a year in income tax & NI. Yet every child you have will cost the state £8k+ a year in education, healthcare and dental alone. You'll also receive child benefit, working tax credits etc and then of course theres still your share of services (armed forces etc) and infrastructure to cover too.