To not accept that there is 'period poverty' in the UK.....?

[rosetree7]

Fully expecting to be told I am BU, but I genuinely do not get this 'period poverty' malarkey.

Some reports say periods cost £42-45 a month (£500 a year.) Never in my life have I - or anyone else I know - spent £42-45 a MONTH on their period. Not even a tenth of that actually.

Some of the things they (supposedly) spend money on are tampons and STs (obviously...) You can get a pack of sanitary towels for less than a pound. Less than 50p in some shops!

And also mooncups.

Although mooncups cost £16 to £22, most mooncups will last 10 years, so you'd only buy 3 or 4 in your lifetime!!! And they also spend on pain relief - but paracetamol and ibuprofen are 16 to 26p a packet from Wilkos. And plenty of other shops sell them for a similar price!

Oh and apparently, they have to keep spending money on new underwear every month. What a load of shit.. I have bought 18 pairs of underpants in 5 years, (at a cost of around £25 for the entire 5 years!) 5 pairs of them are dark coloured - and I wear them for my periods. Never in my life have I bought new underpants for every new period.

So what is this all about? And how on earth are they coming up with such a ludicrous figure as £42-45 a month?! I mean, some girls are apparently using toilet roll as they 'can't afford' sanitary towels? In most cases, toilet roll is more expensive than sanitary towels FGS!

@cathf but you and others made wild and specific assumptions about why people are so poor to not afford san pro. Not just that but you implied posters were lying several times and that no one can be THAT poor.
Don't you see the irony on that?

That's precisely our situation Cantankerous. Why does the council penalise the tenant and not the landlord? We still have to pay the difference, whether the council says the property's worth it or not.

Can someone point out where I have said someone is lying? That's the second accusations on the last half hour.

For the same reason they capped benefits and not rents. It’s all about protecting the fat cats

Jesus christ - how many examples do you need?

My DM isn't working currently, her rent isn't fully covered so from her £72 a week JSA (paid fortnightly) she has to pay out -
£8 a week rent
£9 a week council tax
Gas, Electric, Food, Tv license, Bus fare to get to the bloody Jobcentre and the work programme they've put her on 2 towns away (£6.50 for a day ticket)
She will top up the gas and electric with £10 each a week, sometimes enough to leave a credit the next week - over winter it doesn't.
Shes 54 and luckily doesn't need sanpro anymore but surely you can see how she can't really include it in her budget?

CaveMaman our only local library's within a school and therefore only open during school hours. Even if they provide free sanpro, no school age girl, except the ones who go to that school, has access to them.

Because you are querying posters own experiences at every turn.
Its tiresome.

And so bloody ironic that your p'd off with people querying a business failing through 'no fault of the person running it' but you maintain people are in poverty due to thier own inability to manage on fresh air!

One of my local libraries has a San-pro box in the loo. I am not sure who fills it. I know there is a red box project in that area, but not sure if it is them. I will ask when I am next in, it isn't my authority so not entirely sure of the set up. (We go for a club that is held there)

I think that somewhere along the line I was posting about HB/ LHA and so were other posters and I thought that some of the posts were directed at me, which they weren't.

When LHA was introduced it was supposed to be placed on the 30th percentile of the rents for that area.

So for every 10 rental properties, a claimant on full LHA would be able to fully cover their rent on 3 of those ten properties.

I found an interesting document the other day which discusses the 30th percentile and LHA rate in all areas of England.

For a 2 bedroom property in my area, for example, the 30th percentile falls at £750 but yet the maximum LHA payable for that type of property is £660.

There are no properties around or below the 30th percentile.

This is what is wrong with LHA. It was always intended that LHA would fully cover the rents of tenants in appropriately sized properties below the 30th percentile.

Now even though tenants are renting properties in that range, they are being forced to pay massive top ups.

This is not right.

I find it tiresome that anyone questioning the groupthink is rounded on and shouted down.
Examples of accusing people of lying?
Qforcucumber - how many do I need? I haven't had any yet, so one would do.

For those that use tampons, are there good alternatives to tampax?

It is a bit like the food bank 'dilemma' more of cheaper brand vs less of an expensive brand.

Tampax are rubbish anyway tbh.

Yes you can get cheaper alternatives in supermarkets.

You keep going on about the £210 p/w like it's some kind of magical figure that everyone gets.

You realise it's not, don't you?

I even pointed out that although £210 p/w is what I got with my wages, as I was on a zeros hours contract, I often got less. Some weeks I only £72.

That's my income. Not other peoples. It's based on me working 20 hours-ish per week on a zero hours contract. I didn't struggle when I had hours, it wasn't easy, there was always a surprise bill waiting to throw me off. It wasn't easy and there are people who have it harder.

What if I'd worked 35 hours p/w like one of the women I work with? My rent and council tax would have been higher, my WTC/CTC lower and I'd lose more when I had no hours. I'd be fucked on my non-working weeks.

Cath you also haven’t answered how the £18 a month I was left with was supposed to buy DS1s shoes.

It's not groupthink FFS cathf, it's people's real lives. I've told you why I'd be in period poverty if I actually had periods, why I was in period poverty 20 years ago, you assume school meals cost £3.60 here when I've already referred to DS2 so obviously have at least 2 DC, and guess what? 2×1.80=3.60.

@MrSpock because you should have saved up all the other £18's from all the other months & then you could afford everything you'll ever possibly need - it's called budgeting you know

Willow You seem to be picking out Cathf unfairly. She posted about her situation and many others have done. I've not seen any lies, but there have been plenty of insults and ridicule towards her about her business which I am sure broke plenty of Guidelines.

I too suspect plenty of PMing gone as is par for the course on these sort of threads.

Whiskey you’re right! Silly me for using it taking DS1 out occasionally like other kids!

As it happened my circumstances were temporary and my parents were able to help us, but it gave me a real appreciation for how poor people live. It was a depressing time.

Anyone involved in making policy that affects those on low incomes should have to live on benefits for three months before saying whether its liveable.

^And so bloody ironic that your p'd off with people querying a business failing through 'no fault of the person running it' but you maintain people are in poverty due to thier own inability to manage on fresh air!*

I believe this has been said several times in different ways and it still isn’t sinking in. I’m not convinced about the ‘reasoning’ given, it all sounds woolly. I wouldn’t be providing this person with outgoings in an attempt to prove anything.
Briefly and simplistically. Personal assets can be safe if company is limited and no personal guarantees made. It isn’t always quite straight forward, however.

Anyone involved in making policy that affects those on low incomes should have to live on benefits for three months before saying whether its liveable.

^
This definitely because it's pretty much guaranteed that those making the policies have never had to live on the equivalent of benefits or NMW

This definitely because it's pretty much guaranteed that those making the policies have never had to live on the equivalent of benefits or NMW

It’s so easy to think “oh just buy cheaper food and don’t pay for anything too expensive” when you haven’t actually had to do it.

Benefits and NMW should be enough to live on. Not survive on value beans and cry because you can’t clothe your kids on.

@Neshoma why don't you start a go fund me for @cathf ? It might be something you are willing to donate to.

how many do I need? I haven't had any yet, so one would do

I've read a number of examples over the last 37 pages of how people have not been able to budget for these things. Mine certainly wasn't the first.

What I didn't expect was posters making rather wild and specific assumptions on my particular set of circumstances based on nothing at all, because it fitted their view of me

But that is what you have done about every single person who cannot afford san pro. You have made assumptions based on some fucked up view you seem to hold that people who cannot afford basics suck at budgeting or have their priorities wrong.