Schools providing Sanitary protection

Rosemary7391

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?

Toilet paper gets used year round by everyone though, so each useage is much cheaper. And basically any variant is of use to everyone, whereas not everyone finds pads and tampons suitable.



You make a valid point about toilet paper being taken from public toilets - which is why many public toilets have those irritating dispensers and cheap scratchy paper. Sanitary products going walkabout would be a much higher cost per instance to whoever runs it.

badmemory wrote: »

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!

How do we make sure children in general get all the essentials provided by their parents? Why is that method unsuited to this problem?

Red-Squirrel_2

Comms69 wrote: »

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?

Very often, as well as by all their staff every day.

Comms69

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Very often, as well as by all their staff every day.

Yes but that's an employers duty and has nothing to do with the discussion.


I think you might be deliberately avoiding the point.

Comms69

badmemory wrote: »

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. - Ok. What about parents who don't provide stationary? I'm not comparing the two, but some parents are absolutely useless and helping indirectly like this only snowballs the problem of useless parents.



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. - 12 year olds don't tend to carry ID. The admin of such a scheme just adds to the costs 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. - why not?



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!

There must be some research to back up that providing free sanitary products would prevent teenage pregnancies. You wouldn't just make that up would you?!

Comms69

unholyangel wrote: »

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

No it's all good, I'd rather learn something new then continue making the same mistake.


The phrasing wasn't very good on the websites

Red-Squirrel_2

Comms69 wrote: »

Yes but that's an employers duty and has nothing to do with the discussion.


I think you might be deliberately avoiding the point.

I think you are constantly shifting your point to carry on arguing and to try and look like you are right, as always.

Comms69

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

I think you are constantly shifting your point to carry on arguing and to try and look like you are right, as always.

No, the conversation develops and moves.


There is no right or wrong. This isn't something that can be factually proven as we're discussing something new and proposed.


To clarify my point, which was about the cost side of things, as someone was working out a cost per person and how that reflects the cost comparison for this.


The average person will not often use actual public facilities in day to day life. For the most part they will use home, work or a place of eating or drinking.


To use your list earlier (I work for a hospital so i'll not count that one myself):


Schools - not in 16+ years , hospitals - as above , council offices - never , police stations - only in the cells , prisons - never , courts - never , job centres - never, libraries - never, health centres- never, town halls- never, museums - maybe 10 times , universities - not in 12 years , leisure centres - maybe 50 times; I mostly use a private one ...


I'm not saying that everyone will fall in the same categories. But that's a very one sided list!

phryne

unholyangel wrote: »

It would help posters know who you're talking to if you quote the post you're responding to.

Yes, she has a habit of doing that.

Comms69 wrote: »

Well the alternative seems highly impractical ie kids bringing their own, but sure if the school said we need £3 per term (or whatever) to provide toilet paper I'd pay it. No problem.

My friend always brought her own loo roll to school as she found it preferable to using the tracing-paper-style awful stuff in the school toilets. A lot of us followed suit!


Getting back on topic, people seem to be forgetting one rather crucial issue, namely, if these free of charge towels and tampons are going to be provided at school, how is she going to get to school if she's got her period;) She'll need sanitary protection in order to get there.

It's all a nonsense dreamed up by people who for whatever reason have a chip on their shoulder. In 30+ years of having periods I have never once thought that somebody else should pay for my feminine hygiene products. As I say, funny how we all managed perfectly well up to now, isn't it.

JWM

phryne wrote: »

It's all a nonsense dreamed up by people who for whatever reason have a chip on their shoulder. In 30+ years of having periods I have never once thought that somebody else should pay for my feminine hygiene products. As I say, funny how we all managed perfectly well up to now, isn't it.

I left this thread a while ago because the same 2 people were posting numerous replies arguing against the majority and repeating the same old nonsense. Just revisited and they are still at it.

How on Earth do you know that 'we all managed perfectly well up and till now'? When I was at school 40 years ago none of us would have even considered telling all but the closest of friends that we had been off school because of our periods. People just didn't talk about it the way they do now.

I'm sure a lot of girls are off at the same time each month - but with 'tummy bugs' or 'colds' - they are not going to tell the teacher that there was no money for pads and they had to use loo roll instead.

Providing free sanitary protection at school to those that need it is the simple, logical and - most importantly - correct thing to do.

I have no clue why a couple of people are so dead against it that they have to keep posting on this thread - 307 replies! A quick poll round my team of 11 - every reply was a yes to the Scheme. As a colleague said ' Why would anyone be so uninformed as to doubt the need for this'?

phryne

JWM wrote: »

I left this thread a while ago because the same 2 people were posting numerous replies arguing against the majority and repeating the same old nonsense. Just revisited and they are still at it.

How on Earth do you know that 'we all managed perfectly well up and till now'? When I was at school 40 years ago none of us would have even considered telling all but the closest of friends that we had been off school because of our periods. People just didn't talk about it the way they do now.

I'm sure a lot of girls are off at the same time each month - but with 'tummy bugs' or 'colds' - they are not going to tell the teacher that there was no money for pads and they had to use loo roll instead.

Providing free sanitary protection at school to those that need it is the simple, logical and - most importantly - correct thing to do.

I have no clue why a couple of people are so dead against it that they have to keep posting on this thread - 307 replies! A quick poll round my team of 11 - every reply was a yes to the Scheme. As a colleague said ' Why would anyone be so uninformed as to doubt the need for this'?

Or to put it another way, the tyranny of the majority..

I've had posts reported and removed for no other reason than someone doesn't like me, or my opinions. I haven't broken forum rules.

It wouldn't matter to me if the 'majority of people' were to say the moon is made of green cheese, I would still say it isn't. People are quick to go along with others without thinking things through, alas.

And quite frankly if you're thinking differently to the majority on this particular board, you're probably doing something right :rotfl: