Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

slightlymiffed

missbiggles1 wrote: »

But you haven't outed anybody on here as far as I can see.

In fact, you're the one who's been attacking "50s women" on here simply because they disagree with your opinion and attitude.

No Miss Squiggles, the 'outing' was for my own benefit.

'Attacking' 1950's women?? Oh please...

jem16

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Maybe you missed my post which explained that I worked in the media in the 1990's (media is TV, radio and print btw). The reference to Hello mag was irony - completely lost I fear in this particular thread.

Bit silly really I'm afraid. If you want to properly debate the issue then do so rather than trying to flame. You put yourself over as someone more interested in tittle tattle than someone interested in what was going on in the world to get a reaction. Hey good for you - you got one! Now you're trying to backtrack for whatever reason.

I am 'proud to say', as a woman born in the 50's, raised to try to forge a career but having to settle, in the 1970's, to get a 'job' because there was no real equality in the workplace, no equal pay, poor promotion prospects, generally no pension provision for women, no statutory maternity pay, no childcare provision and women, whatever their educational achievements were all too often perceived as little more than office totty.

This is where generalisation doesn't work for 1950s women. I had equality in the workplace, equal pay, an excellent pension scheme, equal promotion prospects and maternity pay. I also had HRP protecting my NI record when I took 5 years out to bring up my children. Both children were given nursery places from age 4 - now I believe it's 3.

And before I am accused of not believing in equality; I do but it has to be achieved gradually and not by dumping the biggest burden on a particular cohort of women who have not experienced equality themselves for a good part of their lives and who, with little or no notice, are also those least able to make alternative plans.

The 1995 Act did exactly that. 15 years to actually start and then gradually increased over 10 years, so 25 years in total. Not quite sure how more gradually you can get. The no "personal notification" is just a smokescreen as no UK law is notified personally.

slightlymiffed

jem16 wrote: »

Bit silly really I'm afraid. If you want to properly debate the issue then do so rather than trying to flame.



This is where generalisation doesn't work for 1950s women. I had equality in the workplace, equal pay, an excellent pension scheme, equal promotion prospects and maternity pay. I also had HRP protecting my NI record when I took 5 years out to bring up my children. Both children were given nursery places from age 4 - now I believe it's 3.

The 1995 Act did exactly that. 15 years to actually start and then gradually increased over 10 years, so 25 years in total. Not quite sure how more gradually you can get. The no "personal notification" is just a smokescreen as no UK law is notified personally.

Parallel universe then Jem. Sounds really fluffy and nice and totally removed from the world I inhabited.

You know I am referring to the Pensions Act 2011 - please don't be obtuse.

There is no room for 'debate' here - I'm a lone voice against a playground bully mentality. Admit it, you all love the 'flaming' because it plays to your egos. Which is why I won't continue.

If 'saver' can't win the argument, what chance do I have?

Enjoy your little thread - keep 'thanking' each other so you can get zillions of little MSE badges and keep describing yourselves as more important than you are.

Pollycat

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I am 'proud to say', as a woman born in the 50's, raised to try to forge a career but having to settle, in the 1970's, to get a 'job' because there was no real equality in the workplace, no equal pay, poor promotion prospects, generally no pension provision for women, no statutory maternity pay, no childcare provision and women, whatever their educational achievements were all too often perceived as little more than office totty.

My experience - just like jem - was very different to yours.
I too had equal pay for equal work, promotion was based on work results not your sex. No 'office totty' attitude where I worked.

jem16 wrote: »

This is where generalisation doesn't work for 1950s women. I had equality in the workplace, equal pay, an excellent pension scheme, equal promotion prospects and maternity pay. I also had HRP protecting my NI record when I took 5 years out to bring up my children. Both children were given nursery places from age 4 - now I believe it's 3.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

And before I am accused of not believing in equality; I do but it has to be achieved gradually and not by dumping the biggest burden on a particular cohort of women who have not experienced equality themselves for a good part of their lives and who, with little or no notice, are also those least able to make alternative plans.

Jeez!
How 'gradual' do you want it to be?
FTR, I do agree the 2011 change was too short notice, being less than 10 years.

jem16

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Parallel universe then Jem. Sounds really fluffy and nice and totally removed from the world I inhabited.

As does yours to me although I don't deny it existed unlike you.

You know I am referring to the Pensions Act 2011 - please don't be obtuse.

Yet you keep harping back to when you were personally notified about the 1995 Act. Your post about questions to inform the debate also mentions the lack of notice for the 1995 Act as you see it.

There is no room for 'debate' here - I'm a lone voice against a playground bully mentality. Admit it, you all love the 'flaming' because it plays to your egos. Which is why I won't continue.

There is no playground bully mentality here but it's the usual Waspi claim of bullying and trolling if we disagree with you. Then you all run away when "difficult" questions get asked. At least here the posts remain unlike Waspi FB page where they get deleted and only positive comments allowed to remain.

PensionTech

If 'saver' can't win the argument, what chance do I have?

Genuinely the funniest thing I've ever read.

Seriously, what argument? What on earth is your argument, either of you? Most of us seem to agree that the 1995 changes were adequately timed and fair, and most people knew about them. The 2011 changes were quite abrupt - and that affected men as well as women. There will be a few who are in genuine financial difficulty as a result, and means-tested benefits such as Pension Credit for those people would go a long way to addressing any detriment for those who really are facing hardship. Unfortunately WASPI have rejected that option, as have the government. Do you disagree with any of that? Is there anything else to say? What more do you want from this discussion? Have you not been paid enough attention yet?

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

For the umpteenth ( and quite frankly last as far as you're concerned ) time there is already a group fighting against the 2011 changes. It has been around since 2010 and took a back seat when Waspi came along so that it wouldn't harm that campaign.

You are missing the point once again ... umpteenth time ... however many that is. This group that has been around since 2010 has not made any advances on the final outcome of the 2011 act. They were little known and achieved no further concessions than 24m months down to 18 months.

WASPI was born in 2015 -five years after this original group. Why was WASPI necessary if this group was doing anything or achieving anything? Clearly all these who are saying that 2011 ACT is unfair were not supporting that group - therefore nothing happened and nothing would ever have happened from then on unless WASPI had come along.

jem16 wrote: »

After how that group has been treated recently by Waspi co-founders, they are not sitting back any longer.

Brilliant - let them not 'sit back' any longer. Why did they 'sit back' in the first place? WASPI came along and said what they wanted, many think they are asking for far too much, presumably the original group also, so why on earth did they 'sit back'?

jem16 wrote: »

If anything does happen, it will be down to the more sensible 2011 group and not Waspi..

If anything does come out of it I'm not sure those gaining will care who it is down to. Mhari Black did mention the group in one of her speeches in the chamber. However, if you think that all of this would be being debated, and at the levels it has thus far, would have happened if WASPI had not appeared then I think you are misguided. For whatever reason you cannot see that, I don't know.

saver861

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I thought exactly the same! Is there some sort of cabal at work here? - to which you clearly don't belong as you have an open mind.

jem16 wrote: »

There is no playground bully mentality here

Unfortunately that is where you are wrong - the online world is full of it, and much much worse.

Too many on here and other areas are of the sheep mentality and follow each other rather than speaking of their own individual opinion. That in turn deters posters from posting a different viewpoint to the 'us' as demonstrated by the said mgdavid post above.

There is an 'us' on here .... except I'm not one of them! Said mgdavid does not speak for me!

jem16 wrote: »

but it's the usual Waspi claim of bullying and trolling if we disagree with you.

Unfortunately the online world both sides of any debate abuse the online resources available to them. One of the direct negatives of such communication growth. Its inexcusable wherever it comes from.

jem16 wrote: »

Then you all run away when "difficult" questions get asked. At least here the posts remain unlike Waspi FB page where they get deleted and only positive comments allowed to remain.

Who is the 'you'? This is the plural 'you' so I'm curious?

saver861

PensionTech wrote: »

Genuinely the funniest thing I've ever read.

Great. Glad you managed to get a laugh out of it. Life's too short an all that ....

PensionTech wrote: »

Seriously, what argument? What on earth is your argument, either of you? Most of us seem to agree that the 1995 changes were adequately timed and fair, and most people knew about them.

Who is your question directed at?

I have said many times the 1995 changes are correct and will not be altered in any way.

PensionTech wrote: »

The 2011 changes were quite abrupt - and that affected men as well as women.

Gee, we are agreeing again!!! I too think they were too abrupt and that there should have been at least 10 years notice for all.

Do you think that too? If so, brilliant .... the more support the better!!

PensionTech wrote: »

There will be a few who are in genuine financial difficulty as a result, and means-tested benefits such as Pension Credit for those people would go a long way to addressing any detriment for those who really are facing hardship. Unfortunately WASPI have rejected that option, as have the government.

So the Government and WASPI are in agreement??

Gee, all this agreeing ..... I just feel there is a 'but' coming along somewhere!!

PensionTech wrote: »

What more do you want from this discussion? Have you not been paid enough attention yet?

Whatttttttttt .... have I got attention????? Really?????? No kidding??? Am I famous???? Do I sign autographs??? Selfies????

Ahh mannnn, I've hit the biggggg time!! Where is that red carpet??

missbiggles1

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Maybe you missed my post which explained that I worked in the media in the 1990's (media is TV, radio and print btw). The reference to Hello mag was irony - completely lost I fear in this particular thread. Actually, I too have never read Hello mag but I thought it fitted my perceived persona. Incidentally, among the 'hundreds' of articles and information in newspapers and magazines about changes to state pension age in the 1990's, some apparently were in TV listings magazines. Maybe any future changes to women's state pension age may very well be in highbrow mags like Hello mag! (irony).

I am 'proud to say', as a woman born in the 50's, raised to try to forge a career but having to settle, in the 1970's, to get a 'job' because there was no real equality in the workplace, no equal pay, poor promotion prospects, generally no pension provision for women, no statutory maternity pay, no childcare provision and women, whatever their educational achievements were all too often perceived as little more than office totty.

You are very lucky tush, yours and my life experiences are clearly very different so it is quite sad that you are happy for me and other 1950's women to 'suck it up' in the name of equality.

And before I am accused of not believing in equality; I do but it has to be achieved gradually and not by dumping the biggest burden on a particular cohort of women who have not experienced equality themselves for a good part of their lives and who, with little or no notice, are also those least able to make alternative plans.

Perhaps you should've looked to forge a career in the public sector where virtually none of that was true? Admittedly, not as glamorous as working in the meeja and not as well paid at the time but it certainly turns up trumps when you retire.;)