Boots morning after pill outrage
Discussion
cookie118 said:
But in the case of the MAP (for any type) the advice is to take it asap. If a town only has a Boots, or only has a boots open at weekends then they are not free to use another retailer.
I struggle to believe there is anyone in this country who could not find an alternative outlet within 24hrs. Possibly 36hrs if we start the clock late Friday night. If you are, you'll be living somewhere where "price gouging" (as 4x4 puts it) will be happening across the board.
I Boots was the only outlet within an hour across the country I'd have sympathy with that view. It's not though.
4x4Tyke said:
Those advocating customers should just lap up price gouging are the idiots.
And those telling shops what they must charge are better suited to living in a communist society.Customers thoughts on high street businesses
If a shop goes bust it has the wrong business model
If a shop makes a profit it's ripping people off
PotatoSalad said:
Am I the only one thinking that £20 is hardly a fortune and if somebody can't afford that, perhaps they should just stop spreading their legs instead of whining so much? Is this really worth involving so many journalists and "experts" in such trivial matter? Just go buy it somewhere else or ask your GP for prescription, problem solved.
Unless you're one of those orange-tanned girls who get pregnant twice a week, it won't exactly ruin your budget.
Looking at the comments on Boots FB page, seems that women think they're a charity obliged to help poor girls, not a business.
I totally agree with you. Pathetic isn't it.Unless you're one of those orange-tanned girls who get pregnant twice a week, it won't exactly ruin your budget.
Looking at the comments on Boots FB page, seems that women think they're a charity obliged to help poor girls, not a business.
PurpleMoonlight said:
It's not the price that have the feminazi outraged, it's the fact that Boots stated it's to limit misuse thereby inferring they are seeking to control women as they cannot be trusted to act appropriately.
Seeing as there's something like 180,000 abortions yearly in the UK maybe women can't be trusted to act appropriately? 
So Boots have upset the feminazi's? I'll have to remember to try to shop in Boots more.
Hayek said:
Seeing as there's something like 180,000 abortions yearly in the UK maybe women can't be trusted to act appropriately?
So Boots have upset the feminazi's? I'll have to remember to try to shop in Boots more.
Are you saying that abortions are inappropriate or are you saying that women who sleep around and end up pregnant are not acting inappropriately?So Boots have upset the feminazi's? I'll have to remember to try to shop in Boots more.
Murph7355 said:
What about if they took a stance on not supplying products they felt were involved in animal cruelty?
Or over-sugary drinks/food products (perhaps charging more for these)?
Or products it thinks aren't "green" enough?
Retailers should be free to sell what they like at the cost they think works for them as a business. Customers are free to use that retailer or not. If the two sides overlap, everyone's happy. If not, the retailer goes out of business and/or the customer doesn't get a product.
It's how markets work, surely?
Generally speaking I agree, but for the reasons I outlined before I think Boots are a borderline monopoly situation in some areas.Or over-sugary drinks/food products (perhaps charging more for these)?
Or products it thinks aren't "green" enough?
Retailers should be free to sell what they like at the cost they think works for them as a business. Customers are free to use that retailer or not. If the two sides overlap, everyone's happy. If not, the retailer goes out of business and/or the customer doesn't get a product.
It's how markets work, surely?
Whether "get in the car and go elsewhere" is, I guess, a matter personal of personal opinion but I think plenty of people have outlined how Boots could maintain their pricing without appearing to take a moral stance.
Jonesy23 said:
cookie118 said:
People were going to boycott them.
That is voting with their wallets.
A few people said they would.That is voting with their wallets.
A proportion of that would have actually been customers.
A proportion of those would have actually bothered.
Net outcome would basically be zero.
Social media boycotts go nowhere in reality especially when they're a fringe protest.
hstewie said:xjay1337 said:
PotatoSalad said:
Am I the only one thinking that £20 is hardly a fortune and if somebody can't afford that, perhaps they should just stop spreading their legs instead of whining so much? Is this really worth involving so many journalists and "experts" in such trivial matter? Just go buy it somewhere else or ask your GP for prescription, problem solved.
Unless you're one of those orange-tanned girls who get pregnant twice a week, it won't exactly ruin your budget.
Looking at the comments on Boots FB page, seems that women think they're a charity obliged to help poor girls, not a business.
I totally agree with you. Pathetic isn't it.Unless you're one of those orange-tanned girls who get pregnant twice a week, it won't exactly ruin your budget.
Looking at the comments on Boots FB page, seems that women think they're a charity obliged to help poor girls, not a business.
In my opinion it's the same as putting the cost of a 'quit smoking kit' at £300 and telling people it's because they think you shouldn't be smoking in the first place.
That isn't, and shouldn't be, what Boots is there for. They are there to sell products to customers provided those customers meet the medical requirements of the product, and that should be the extent of Boots involvement.
People have sex. Many women aren't on permanent contraception for various reasons, some medical, and people understandably end up having unplanned sex. I would suggest those that then seek medical help to obtain contraception the next day ARE being responsible and should not be punished for it.
Lord Marylebone said:
So you are happy with high street stores declaring themselves the moral arbiters of society, and deciding what women should or shouldn't be doing?...
100%.If I need the service they are providing and cannot get it cheaper/better elsewhere, then I will pay it. I would likely choose to use their services as infrequently as I could. But there you go. (I still fly RyanAir once per year FFS
).(btw, smoking analogy. That's fine too. People can quit smoking without patches, gum and someone holding their hand. People can buy patches and gum from multiple outlets. So all good and if Boots can make £300 a pop, happy days. I'll go and buy some shares).
Murph7355 said:
Lord Marylebone said:
So you are happy with high street stores declaring themselves the moral arbiters of society, and deciding what women should or shouldn't be doing?...
100%.If I need the service they are providing and cannot get it cheaper/better elsewhere, then I will pay it. I would likely choose to use their services as infrequently as I could. But there you go. (I still fly RyanAir once per year FFS
).(btw, smoking analogy. That's fine too. People can quit smoking without patches, gum and someone holding their hand. People can buy patches and gum from multiple outlets. So all good and if Boots can make £300 a pop, happy days. I'll go and buy some shares).
No one cares how much they charge, or the fact they may put their prices up substantially.
People are simply taking issue with the fact they seem to have decided to proclaim themselves the decider of societies morals.
Lord Marylebone said:
I think you are maybe missing the point?
No one cares how much they charge, or the fact they may put their prices up substantially.
People are simply taking issue with the fact they seem to have decided to proclaim themselves the decider of societies morals.
And that's fine. Stop buying things there, perhaps especially MAP, and perhaps they will change tack. Whining on Twitter is not positive action.No one cares how much they charge, or the fact they may put their prices up substantially.
People are simply taking issue with the fact they seem to have decided to proclaim themselves the decider of societies morals.
Lord Marylebone said:
I think you are maybe missing the point?
No one cares how much they charge, or the fact they may put their prices up substantially.
People are simply taking issue with the fact they seem to have decided to proclaim themselves the decider of societies morals.
Quite. No one cares how much they charge, or the fact they may put their prices up substantially.
People are simply taking issue with the fact they seem to have decided to proclaim themselves the decider of societies morals.
It's like the B&B who caused the stink because they refused the room on the grounds the couple were gay, rather than because they weren't married. Or the cake shop who refused to bake a cake for gay rights, on the grounds that it was teh gayness rather than because they don't make cakes with political slogans on them. Or turning someone down for a job because they are black rather than because they aren't a suitable match on qualifications and experience.
There is always a right way and a wrong way to go about these things. For Boots, the right way would have been to say that the price was high because it included a consultation. The wrong way was to say that the price is high so as to discourage women from being sluts and harlots, and a high price might make them think twice and keep their legs together.
Whether or not you agree with Boots' rationale, it was a PR disaster to give that as the reason.
xjay1337 said:
Hayek said:
Seeing as there's something like 180,000 abortions yearly in the UK maybe women can't be trusted to act appropriately?
So Boots have upset the feminazi's? I'll have to remember to try to shop in Boots more.
Are you saying that abortions are inappropriate or are you saying that women who sleep around and end up pregnant are not acting inappropriately?So Boots have upset the feminazi's? I'll have to remember to try to shop in Boots more.
Obviously it takes two to tango so men should also be ensuring things are safe, but considering the consequences for a woman are somewhat worse I'd have thought they'd be taking extra care.
Lord Marylebone said:
I think you are maybe missing the point?
No one cares how much they charge, or the fact they may put their prices up substantially.
People are simply taking issue with the fact they seem to have decided to proclaim themselves the decider of societies morals.
I'm not missing the point - it's a non-point.No one cares how much they charge, or the fact they may put their prices up substantially.
People are simply taking issue with the fact they seem to have decided to proclaim themselves the decider of societies morals.
They could say they disliked all Yorkshire people and call my mum names, if I wanted their service and couldn't get better elsewhere, I'd use it. I refer you back to my RyanAir comment. I dislike their leader and a number of their policies. But once a year they offer a service I'm prepared to put up with that for.
Nobody is forcing people to use Boots (being a "near monopoly" is like a "near miss" or, dare I say it, being "nearly pregnant"). Nobody is forcing people to need the MAP. It's all consensual
So they have a moral viewpoint on this topic. So what - lots of people do. If you don't like it, don't shop there. Simple. Don't go bleating that "Superdrug sell it cheaper". Fine, use Superdrug! THAT is what will kick Boots in the balls.Should shops/shop owners/shop boards have moral viewpoints? It's their choice. That choice might cost them. It might not. But they're as entitled to that choice as anyone is. As mentioned, if they made a stand on animal rights etc I doubt many of those currently arguing against them would care. They would likely support it. So why are they allowed a moral stance on some things and not others?
Lord Marylebone said:
So you are happy with high street stores declaring themselves the moral arbiters of society, and deciding what women should or shouldn't be doing?
In my opinion it's the same as putting the cost of a 'quit smoking kit' at £300 and telling people it's because they think you shouldn't be smoking in the first place.
That isn't, and shouldn't be, what Boots is there for. They are there to sell products to customers provided those customers meet the medical requirements of the product, and that should be the extent of Boots involvement.
People have sex. Many women aren't on permanent contraception for various reasons, some medical, and people understandably end up having unplanned sex. I would suggest those that then seek medical help to obtain contraception the next day ARE being responsible and should not be punished for it.
Why should it be free, though? Its not an emergency medical situation.In my opinion it's the same as putting the cost of a 'quit smoking kit' at £300 and telling people it's because they think you shouldn't be smoking in the first place.
That isn't, and shouldn't be, what Boots is there for. They are there to sell products to customers provided those customers meet the medical requirements of the product, and that should be the extent of Boots involvement.
People have sex. Many women aren't on permanent contraception for various reasons, some medical, and people understandably end up having unplanned sex. I would suggest those that then seek medical help to obtain contraception the next day ARE being responsible and should not be punished for it.
Tampax etc aren't free. There is NO EXCUSE for unprotected sex.
Mr2Mike said:
Neither of those things, unless you accidentally put a double negative in the second part. It's quite obviously pointing out that if so many women are needing abortions then they probably aren't acting appropriately in many/most cases.
Obviously it takes two to tango so men should also be ensuring things are safe, but considering the consequences for a woman are somewhat worse I'd have thought they'd be taking extra care.
Go on then what is acting appropriately?Obviously it takes two to tango so men should also be ensuring things are safe, but considering the consequences for a woman are somewhat worse I'd have thought they'd be taking extra care.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff