MSE News: Women's state pension petition gathers over 50,000 signatures

mumps

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Presumably they expect that to be balanced out by all the people (men and women) who will have fewer that 39/45 years' NICS and who are receiving a full state pension because of the reduction to 30 years?

Another thing I don't understand, why did they suddenly decide to give more money to people who hadn't been paying in for 39/45 years. A number of people have said to me I should be grateful the number of years were reduced but as I have 46 full years contributions it didn't thrill me that much.

neilvw

Just a small note that it was 44 years for men and 39 years for women until April 2010.

missbiggles1

neilvw wrote: »

Just a small note that it was 44 years for men and 39 years for women until April 2010.

Thank you, I always get that wrong.:o

Pollycat

saver861 wrote: »

You really do need to get past this bro. A petition is simply that, a petition to get the MP's to debate it. Even, if a petition reaches the 100,000 it does not automatically mean it will be debated.

You can't misrepresent it. It is merely a petition to get the MP's to agree to debate it.

Paul_Herring wrote: »

The petition can misrepresent the views of the people raising it.

If the petition gets to debate stage, the people who raised it can then (or will be asked to) put forward the thinking behind the petition. Which in this case the views are significantly different.

I agree with this^^^^^

I signed the petition, although I thought the mention of the 1995 changes muddied the waters.

Now I find out that what this group are saying on FB is very different to the wording of the petition.

So I think the petition has definitely been misrepresented to me.

mumps

Pollycat wrote: »

I agree with this^^^^^

I signed the petition, although I thought the mention of the 1995 changes muddied the waters.

Now I find out that what this group are saying on FB is very different to the wording of the petition.

So I think the petition has definitely been misrepresented to me.

I think it will be the petition that has generated the debate, not facebook, so I feel I signed the petition and the facebook issues are separate. I'm not a facebook fan so maybe it is easier for me to ignore it?

saver861

Pollycat wrote: »

I agree with this^^^^^

I signed the petition, although I thought the mention of the 1995 changes muddied the waters.

Now I find out that what this group are saying on FB is very different to the wording of the petition.

So I think the petition has definitely been misrepresented to me.

If it reaches 100,000 it then has to be agreed whether it will be debated. If it gets debated, then they will be debating what the petition refers to.

What's written on Facebook or any other book, paper, blog etc does not come into.

Pollycat

saver861 wrote: »

If it reaches 100,000 it then has to be agreed whether it will be debated. If it gets debated, then they will be debating what the petition refers to.

What's written on Facebook or any other book, paper, blog etc does not come into.

But it makes them look silly if they - as in WASPI - are not being consistent.

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

If it reaches 100,000 it then has to be agreed whether it will be debated. If it gets debated, then they will be debating what the petition refers to.

What's written on Facebook or any other book, paper, blog etc does not come into.

Except for the fact that WASPI feel that what the petition says and what their stated aim on Facebook says is one and the same thing so if it gets to debate they will certainly be asking for all women born in the 1950s to be compensated for up to 6 years of "lost" pension.

And yes that's from the horse's mouth as the question has been asked on Facebook.

jem16

mumps wrote: »

I think it will be the petition that has generated the debate, not facebook, so I feel I signed the petition and the facebook issues are separate.

Except they aren't separate - in fact their WASPI campaign is all about what is on Facebook.

I'm not a facebook fan so maybe it is easier for me to ignore it?

Are you agreeing that women born in the 1950s should be put back in the same financial position as if they were born before April 1950?

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

Except for the fact that WASPI feel that what the petition says and what their stated aim on Facebook says is one and the same thing so if it gets to debate they will certainly be asking for all women born in the 1950s to be compensated for up to 6 years of "lost" pension.

And yes that's from the horse's mouth as the question has been asked on Facebook.

I think folk are mixing things up. If there is a debate and it is 'concluded' that women were disadvantaged by insufficient communication from the 1995 policy then there has to be some rectification of that. However, that rectification could go from the actual years lost through to some lesser amount. The rectification amount will also have to be debated and agreed. At that point, they will 'ask' for 6 years compensation but may not get anything near that.

If however, it is agreed that the 1995 policy was done correctly then there is no rectification. There won't be any changes or rectification to that policy. There will be no compensation of any kind because there is no fault.

Similarly for the 2011 agreement. If it is deemed that it was unfair then rectification would be debated. Again, this might reduce the 18 months to 12 months, or might even abolish any changes for those that were less than 10 years from spa.

In each case there has to be debate and agreement that there was a fault. If there is a fault then the rectification of that fault would be discussed.

So it matters not whether they are asking for 6 years or 16 years compensation. If the debate concludes that the communication was sufficient and appropriate and thus, there was no fault, then any compensation amount previously discussed is completely irrelevant.

You have to establish negligence before you can consider compensation.