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

bmm78

According to Alan Higham, state pension forecasts since 2001 have reflected the increase in state pension ages. Anyone who requested details of when they would receive their state pension after this point would have been accurately told the year in which their state pension would be due.

If people had requested a forecast between after the changes were decided, but before 2001, it appears they would have received a misleading forecast. I'm not sure whether this gives them any kind of case for compensation, but it appears to be a major error by DWP.

After 2001 though, if people had checked their state pension entitlement they should have been given the correct information.

jem16

bmm78 wrote: »

According to Alan Higham, state pension forecasts since 2001 have reflected the increase in state pension ages. Anyone who requested details of when they would receive their state pension after this point would have been accurately told the year in which their state pension would be due.

My statement of 2004 certainly does,

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

Pretty much like my own position ( although with different circumstances ) and my reason for not signing the petition as it wants to put the 1995 changes into the mix when I feel it should concentrate on the unfair 2011 changes.

I think the relevance of signing or not signing the petition has passed now in any case. Currently it stands at over 86,000 and has been running for two months. It will have surpassed the 100,000 in roughly one third of the designated time. If it stays open until 20th April, it probably will have over 200,000.

If it gets to the debate and both 1995 and 2011 changes are debated, then the outcomes for both may well be different. There may be no change whatsoever to the 1995 agreement, but there may be further debate/changes in relation to the 2011 agreement. It may even be that only the 2011 changes are debated. Debating the 1995 changes has no impact on the outcome of debating the 2011 changes.

By not signing the petition on the basis of the 1995 inclusion, means that you are saying you don't agree that the 1995 should be 'debated' and thus, neither should the 2011 changes be debated either. Signing the petition is merely supporting the cause to get something debated - any decisions made will be down to the MP's and nothing to do with those who signed, WASPI, or any other individuals or bodies.

jem16 wrote: »

Having now read the Facebook page though, I am glad that I chose not to sign the petition and listening to the founders' interview with the work and pensions committee has convinced me that they appear rather self serving rather than really looking to be "fair".

What you are seeing with this campaign, as with many similar campaigns, are ordinary people getting together for a cause. These are not professionals, nor indeed probably never expected to be talking in such circles. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the aims and objectives, demonstrating such tenacity and initiative is to be applauded. The mechanism that allows them to do that is the exact same mechanism that allows those who don't agree with them the liberty to disagree!!!

In terms of WASPI, it cannot be self serving as such - whatever changes they achieve will apply to all impacted women, if indeed they achieve any.

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

By not signing the petition on the basis of the 1995 inclusion, means that you are saying you don't agree that the 1995 should be 'debated' and thus, neither should the 2011 changes be debated either.

It simply means that I don't agree with the petition as it stands.

JezR

bmm78 wrote: »

According to Alan Higham, state pension forecasts since 2001 have reflected the increase in state pension ages. Anyone who requested details of when they would receive their state pension after this point would have been accurately told the year in which their state pension would be due.

The DSS first produced a printed leaflet on the new pension ages in mid 1995. Online publicity can be found as early as 1998 in archived copies of the Benefit Agency website with other printed leaflets referred to (these specifically include 'state pension' & 'women' in the title). There is an online calculator and more detailed presentation in the archived copies of the Pension Service website from 2004 plus a helpline. I guess from the timing these may have been developed alongside the 'push' marketing in women's magazines mentioned by the DWP in various debates etc, as well as the sending out of a number of unrequested pension forecasts.

mumps

JezR wrote: »

The DSS first produced a printed leaflet on the new pension ages in mid 1995. Online publicity can be found as early as 1998 in archived copies of the Benefit Agency website with other printed leaflets referred to (these specifically include 'state pension' & 'women' in the title). There is an online calculator and more detailed presentation in the archived copies of the Pension Service website from 2004 plus a helpline. I guess from the timing these may have been developed alongside the 'push' marketing in women's magazines mentioned by the DWP in various debates etc, as well as the sending out of a number of unrequested pension forecasts.

I don't know if I am on my own in this but I don't read women's magazines. I find it a bit patronizing to assume we are all studying the knitting patterns, agony aunt pages or romantic fictions, or have they changed since my granny used to get them?

I'm not saying I didn't know about the changes just hate the idea that they thought how is it best to inform women of a certain age about these changes? I know lets put something in Woman's Weekly.

JezR

It was only one facet - I suppose an attempt to reach some people who didn't read newspapers, where there were also ads placed.

Actually looking back the 'etc' in my message above was meant to be after 'women's magazines' and not after 'debates'.

mumps

JezR wrote: »

It was only one facet - I suppose an attempt to reach some people who didn't read newspapers, where there were also ads placed.

Actually looking back the 'etc' in my message above was meant to be after 'women's magazines' and not after 'debates'.

I'm probably being sensitive, I'm just not a women's magazine sort of person so it just annoys me. I wonder of they communicate with men by running ads in men's magazines?

OldBeanz

mumps wrote: »

I'm probably being sensitive, I'm just not a women's magazine sort of person so it just annoys me. I wonder of they communicate with men by running ads in men's magazines?

Sensitive? Do you not think magazines know the profile of their readers? Their advertising rates and thus business model depend on this. Do you not think the government would know to target females in their forties and advertise appropriately? The longer this thread becomes the more bizarre the concepts.
Why are women born in the 1960's being discriminated against? How can the concept of someone born on 31/12/1959 having a pension at 60 when a person the next day would wait another 6 years?

mumps

OldBeanz wrote: »

Sensitive? Do you not think magazines know the profile of their readers? Their advertising rates and thus business model depend on this. Do you not think the government would know to target females in their forties and advertise appropriately? The longer this thread becomes the more bizarre the concepts.
Why are women born in the 1960's being discriminated against? How can the concept of someone born on 31/12/1959 having a pension at 60 when a person the next day would wait another 6 years?

Well I was in my 40s in 1995 and I didn't read women's magazines, my sister didn't, my friends didn't so unless my particular circle of friends is unique I don't think it was particularly well targetted. I think a lot of young women, late teens and 20s read fashion and beauty magazines, a lot of older women like my gran read the Women's Weekly type magazines. I think in the 1990s alot of women who needed the information were busy bringing up kids and holding down jobs so that might explain why alot of women who were affected by the changes didn't learn about them. I haven't seen any information about magazines giving advice on advertising, I imagine a magazine, which is a business, would accept any advertising that was legal and being paid for. Maybe you are in the magzine business and can give us some examples of how much paid advertising you have turned away?

I have never said that the change should take place overnight and mean an extra six years, I have said the 2011 changes hasn't given some women enough time to prepare, even the govt have admitted that women born in 1953 and 1954 didn't have enough time as they are saying it should be ten years notice.