Tory scum increase pension age - again!!

ffacoffipawb

RichandJ wrote: »

I wouldn't expect anyone who starts a thread with "Tory scum" to be particularly rational.

Nor intelligent.

zagfles

leveller2911 wrote: »

!!!!!! are you on about, go back and read my post. Read the sentance I highlighted and then read what I wrote.Where did I say "a physically demanding job cause cancer"?

The implication of your post was that those doing "physically demanding jobs" die younger and therefore should get their state pension earlier, and you gave examples of 4 people you know who had died from cancer before state pension age.

If the cancer had nothing to do with their jobs, then !!!!!! was the point of using them to make a point about when those doing such jobs should get their state pension?

leveller2911

zagfles wrote: »

The implication of your post was that those doing "physically demanding jobs" die younger and therefore should get their state pension earlier, and you gave examples of 4 people you know who had died from cancer before state pension age.

If the cancer had nothing to do with their jobs, then !!!!!! was the point of using them to make a point about when those doing such jobs should get their state pension?

No it wasn't, my point was/is that many workers in a physically demanding job cannot in many cases carry out that work until the age of 67.

I was replying to the post that asked what age the last four people you new died at. So I posted about the last 4 work colleagues who all died younger as it was suggested that we are all living longer.

pineapple

vax2002 wrote: »

What was the age of the last 4 people you knew who died ?

Two were my parents - 73 and 80, two were friends, 59 and 62.
At the age of 61, I am very conscious of my mortality and the ill health of those around me. Plus cancer and dementia figures are going up - and not just because people are getting older.
I do think that poorer people will pay the price for this pension reform. Research has shown that lower income brackets tend to die earlier.

atush

leveller2911 wrote: »

100% hand on heart honest answer, swear on my childrens lives ?...None of them smoked(ever)life time non smokers , 3 were slim built,fit racing snakes and the 4th was over weight.When at work none of them ate junk food, mostly sandwiches,salads,pasta etc but I would have guessed if they ate properly at work they wouldn't have a diet of junk food at home.
Alcohol wise they were all a "pint a month " guys and only ever drank if they went out for a meal so rarelly drank. I am genuinely really shocked to have lost 4 work mates in that time and none of them abused their bodies,no vices at all.
You may be falling for the typical stereotyping of builders , all fat,drinking,overweight slobs and from my experience thats about 15 years out of date.

Arthritis may be helped with a change in diet but this does not benefit many.

I don't believe a word of what you said. As a former Cancer researcher (low paid but high skill levels and education) I knwo for certain that isn't a true statement. Or they had parents who died of cancer early and so would have whatever their profession.


I know builders, I have built several houses and been the site coordinator. Just hired a new bulider today (overweight but dont' know what he eats or drinks). I know of no group of builders where only 20% would be overweight and where 100% eat fat and drank alcohol withing the recommended limits. Who set up working mens' clubs anyway- the middle classes? Total statistical HOGWASH.

Like your OP rant total nonsense.

peterg1965

I see the Original Poster has not responded for quite a few posts. Maybe he has taken his arguments to another (more biased) forum where he can whine and peddle his (un) intelligent discussion!

atush

pineapple wrote: »

Two were my parents - 73 and 80, two were friends, 61 and 62.

Well you can count on (if you dont drink, dont' smoke and have proper physical exercise each week) living to about 75 unlike your firneds who either lie about how much they drink, smoke, eat fatty foods and what and how young their own parents did.

My parents died at 57 and 68. Both smoked (mother who died at 68 smoked like a chiminey and also had type 2D). Father died 12-18 months after retiring and died of a brain hemorrage but he could have had this since he was young- no one knows). So I know the risk levels I face, unlike my OH whos parents died at 85 and 95.

My MIL at 95 was seen off by NHS budget cuts and poor practice as they refused to operate on a hernia "as she might die on the table" and screw up their death rates.:mad: Instead she died of CDiff caught there. :eek: Otherwise she might be alive still. Again, under Labour oversite.

leveller2911

atush wrote: »

I don't believe a word of what you said. As a former Cancer researcher (low paid but high skill levels and education) I knwo for certain that isn't a true statement. Or they had parents who died of cancer early and so would have whatever their profession.


I know builders, I have built several houses and been the site coordinator. Just hired a new bulider today (overweight but dont' know what he eats or drinks). I know of no group of builders where only 20% would be overweight and where 100% eat fat and drank alcohol withing the recommended limits. Who set up working mens' clubs anyway- the middle classes? Total statistical HOGWASH.

Like your OP rant total nonsense.

Well I can assure you the information I posted was true. I do know that 3 out of 4 had both parents attend the funerals. I do not lie. You are free to call me a liar as its easy to do over the internet.

I have worked in the industry for over 25years and your stereotyping,like I said to Zagfles it was probably true 15 years ago.

quote:"I know builders, I have built several houses "... sorry but that made me chuckle.....it must be true then as you have built several houses, not much of a sweeping statement that..:D

In a way I feel sad I don't know you personally so I could send you the personal information about all 4 guys. So you keep calling me a liar, I have wide shoulders.I suppose having 4,000 thanks some find my posts interesting and informative.


Theres little to gain from an arguement so I wish you a long and happy life.

atush

You are free to call me a liar as its easy to do over the internet.

I spent many years at Uni learning to be a scientist so know my facts. They had risk factors that you don't know about if they were as you say, and given all 6 of their parents attended their funerals with you or they lied about their drinking, smoking and eating.

One house I built myself, With my own two hands incl carpenty, tiling, decorating and other such works. Epic fail at plastering I grant you, but that is one of the hardest trades to learn as you can't do it no matter how much you 'study' if you are cack handed. I hired an electrician and a plumber. So eat my dust.

I stand by my (like yours anonymous) assertions that you (or they) are lying thru their teeth. Slim fit people of their early to late 50's don't die of cancer w/o either family or environmental factors that you say your lot didn't have. And maybe one might out of 10 get leukemia, but not 75-100 %- not statistically possible. I think I will drive by my closest work site tomorrow and do an 'on the street' obesity count. Will be higher than 20% I can assure you as we dont' have as many fit young Polish builders as those of you down south have lol.

Koicarp

atush wrote: »

My MIL at 95 was seen off by NHS budget cuts and poor practice as they refused to operate on a hernia "as she might die on the table" and screw up their death rates.:mad: Instead she died of CDiff caught there. :eek: Otherwise she might be alive still. Again, under Labour oversite.

That's nothing to do with government of any colour, nor is it about death rates. It's normal medical practice to assess whether action will cause more risk than in-action. If you disagreed at the time you could have sought further medical opinion.