Girls 'too Poor' To Buy Sanitary Protection Missing School

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39266056

This seems terrible to me...what does everybody else think ?

[nailit]

//Dreadful they will have to give up the fags and booze//

// Still I suppose booze fags and mobile credit takes precedence//

//Don't forget a lot of single mums have to put a few bob aside for another tattoo. Oh, and don't forget the dog food for the killer Rottweiler//

Here we go, demonising benefit claiments again and believing everything we see on poverty porn programmes.

[ToraToraTora]

load of old pony, bet they've all the latest Iphone and vaping equipment. Their parents will have plenty of dosh for wacky baccy and Aldi's voddy. No doubt a chinky 5 days a week in front of the 60 inch plasma. Dam, spent all the dosh must whine we ain't got enough for essentials.

[mikey4444]

Some appalling comments on here this evening !

Mostly from the Usual Suspects.

If there are any girls going without sanitary items, then it should be taken very seriously indeed.

[New Judge]

The difference between men and women on issues such as this is that men do not blindly accept all they are told just because the “victims” are female. All that’s needed is a bit of research, a few sums and the sensible drawing of a few conclusions. I have explained that the woman with five children receives £300 per month specifically for the support of her children. If she didn’t have them she would not receive the benefit. To expect me to believe that, out of £300 per month, she cannot afford a few pounds (at most) to meet her daughter’s basic needs is taking me for an idiot.

This question keeps getting sidelined into educational deficiencies. As sad and as serious as they are, I will repeat that the headlines in both the question and the report mentions poverty. Specifically drafted to get people to believe that some (quite how many is not defined) are too poor to afford sanitary products for their children. And that is absolute cobblers.

[mikey4444]

TTT...what an ignorant post....you have no evidence for such a rant.

[237SJ]

If you feel so strongly about it, why don't you campaign for change rather than ranting on here?

[New Judge]

"If there are any girls going without sanitary items, then it should be taken very seriously indeed."

Yes it is serious, Mikey. But it isn't due to poverty (which the headline from the BBC and you would have us believe).

[jourdain2]

At the very least sanitary necessities should be VAT-free. I think everyone can agree on that, yes?

[nailit]

Mikey, all these poverty porn ch5 programmes have certainly worked. They don't call it a 'programme' for nothing. Certainly programmed a lot of folk in to believing that benefit claiments live the life of riley.

[ToraToraTora]

this is nowt to do with poverty.

[Samjenko]

I just claimed as a lone parent with 5 kids. = £590pw
£440 with benefit cap.
Not bad and I didn't claim any 'extras', of which there was no shortage, Lol.

[jourdain2]

Just suppose a woman has 5 daughters (Pride & Prejudice springs to mind) then sanitary protection becomes a considerable sum per month. I am not standing-up for the feckless, just that out of £300 (which has to cover everything) a sum of around £25 for them is considerable. Don't forget that Mum is also probably still menstruating and that given her age and the onset of the menopause she could well be 'flooding' quite often...... don't want to go into details, but you can soak a towel in 10 mins.. The feckless will always be with us - I'm thinking about the rest.

[New Judge]

“…all these poverty porn ch5 programmes have certainly worked. They don't call it a 'programme' for nothing. Certainly programmed a lot of folk in to believing that benefit claiments live the life of riley.”

I’ve never watched such a programme, nailit, and I don’t know what you’re referring to. I don’t suggest that benefit claimants live a life of Riley (though some of them are far more comfortably off than they should be). What I’m suggesting is that people such as those mentioned in the BBC’s report do not lack the money to buy essential items for their children.

The notion expressed earlier on that they should be supplied “free” on the NHS is preposterous. The NHS is struggling to manage but more than that, as I have mentioned, money is provided to parents (whether otherwise on benefits or not) specifically to provide for their children. So having provided that money should the taxpayer pay again for essentials? I don’t think so.

[New Judge]

"...just that out of £300 (which has to cover everything) a sum of around £25 for them is considerable. "

But that's what the money is provided for, jourdain !!!

[nailit]

//If you want to start a thread about poverty porn TV programmes go right ahead and start one. But this isn't it, is it.//
I dont wish to start a thread about poverty porn thank you and ill comment on a thread where I see fit if I think its appropriate. Is that ok with you?