Schools providing Sanitary protection

Comms69

thorsoak wrote: »

So, you would like us to go back to the post-war 1940s - see my post #10 in this thread? Do you also advocate taking loo rolls out of all public toilets everywhere?

Ridiculous!

I'm not advocating anything.


You asked me a question and I gave you an honest answer.

Red-Squirrel_2

Comms69 wrote: »

Because there would be 300+ rolls of toilet paper, and it takes up more space in a bag than a pack of sanitary products?


But in anycase, I actually said I'd be happy to pay for it.

I don’t think a days worth of toilet paper takes up more space than a days worth of sanitary towels.

Comms69

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

I don’t think a days worth of toilet paper takes up more space than a days worth of sanitary towels.

A fair comment, but I think it’s gone of track. The point is whether there is a cost or not.

Rosemary7391

Paper is much cheaper than sanitary protection. Also, quality. Cheap toilet paper, for most, is a 10 second annoyance. Cheap sanitary protection in your knickers is quite a different prospect, even without the potential unfortunate side effect of maybe getting your clothes messed up. I suspect this is why the current convention came about....

theoretica

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

Paper is much cheaper than sanitary protection.

I wonder. The figures I am finding for average spend on toilet paper are £43 a year for a household - but that will not be all the toilet paper used, because of being out at school and work. So say £15 for all toilet paper a year per person, or £1.25 a month. That wouldn't buy premium sanitary protection, but would buy basic stuff, and only half the population would need it. (So maybe the budget for comparison should be £2.50?) And like toilet paper that is provided freely in many places, some people will always take extra home but other people will only use it when they are away from home and cover the cost themselves when they are at home.



I started this toilet paper diversion as an exploration - why take for granted some things are provided and others not?

Comms69

theoretica wrote: »

I wonder. The figures I am finding for average spend on toilet paper are £43 a year for a household - but that will not be all the toilet paper used, because of being out at school and work. So say £15 for all toilet paper a year per person, or £1.25 a month. That wouldn't buy premium sanitary protection, but would buy basic stuff, and only half the population would need it. (So maybe the budget for comparison should be £2.50?) And like toilet paper that is provided freely in many places, some people will always take extra home but other people will only use it when they are away from home and cover the cost themselves when they are at home.



I started this toilet paper diversion as an exploration - why take for granted some things are provided and others not?

The thing is how many of those places are state funded.

Chances are the facilities are either at work or some form of pub, restaurant etc. There’s very few actual public toilets these days.

Red-Squirrel_2

Comms69 wrote: »

The thing is how many of those places are state funded.

Schools, hospitals, council offices, police stations, prisons, courts, job centres, libraries, health centres, town halls, museums, universities, leisure centres...

Comms69

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Schools, hospitals, council offices, police stations, prisons, courts, job centres, libraries, health centres, town halls, museums, universities, leisure centres...

I think I wasn’t clear, there’s lots of places that are state funded but how often are they used by a member of the public?

badmemory

This has drifted a little away from providing protection for girls whose parents are unprepared to & thereby making them miss school. If their parents are unprepared to, then giving the parents a bit of extra money will not make it happen. So you give girls the abililty to do it for themselves.



If every girl in high school had vouchers which they could only use with a proof of identity, preferably to be used at a source near that school. No girl should have to miss school because she hasn't got a towel or tampon (or both if needed) there are no ifs or buts to this. They have no control over the fact that they are too young to earn their own money to pay for them, we have no control over making their parents pay for them.



Maybe it is time to give those girls true control over themselves & their bodies & stop letting other people do it. Let us all remember that there is one surefire way of stopping periods & that is getting pregnant & that actually costs all of us a darn sight more than some pads would!

unholyangel

Comms69 wrote: »

Thanks, I did check two places and both said it was approximated against taxpayers. But stand corrected. Still not a huge amount

Theres a misconception that when they say "costs the taxpayer", they mean it costs income tax payers. You seem to have helped prove that point by stating it was cost per taxpayer, not cost for every person in the country when really, they're one and the same. Income tax only makes up around 25% of all overall tax revenue with the top 1% of highest earners paying around 27% of it and the next 9% paying about 31.5%, the next 40% paying around the same (31.5%) and the bottom 50% are paying just 10% of income tax revenue.

Apologies for going off on a tangent - I'd just genuinely like people to take more of an interest in this sort of stuff and I tend to get carried away where numbers are involved