Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

Why did they 'sit back' in the first place?

They felt that both campaigns fighting against one another wouldn't help.

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'?

WASPI keep denying what they are really asking for despite it being obvious to most sensible people. Many have asked for clarification and got nowhere. It's now obvious to anyone with half a brain, WASPI want. Last straw was rejecting all 6 options made by Owen Smith plus rejecting John Ralfe's suggestion and totally rejecting means testing.

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.

I have never heard Mhairi Black mention the 2011 group but if you'd like to point to the Hansard records I'd like to see that.

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.

I can see that. WASPI has got it into the public eye - I have no problem with that. I don't agree with the WASPI aim though and I certainly don't agree that the "detractors" as they call everyone who disagrees with them, have misconceived that aim. The campaign has been very badly run in my opinion.

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

Too many on here and other areas are of the sheep mentality and follow each other rather than speaking of their own individual opinion.

If you want to see sheep mentality go and visit the WASPI Facebook page.

At least there are different opinions here.

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

Should be fairly obvious even to you ( singular )

bigadaj

I don't believe posts have been deleted here as they have been frequently by the waspi campaign when they dont accord with the limited herd mentality.

saver861

Pollycat wrote: »

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.

There were certain sectors where equality was greater than others. However, that was far from ideal and many many women did not have the same benefits. Indeed, many places where equality was more prevalent, there was also glass ceilings.

For those less impacted by such inequality, it is less likely to be at the forefront of their thoughts. However, not to be acknowledge there was grave discrimination over the years would be a misjudgement, at best.

jem16 wrote: »

They felt that both campaigns fighting against one another wouldn't help.

But why would they be fighting one another? Not the case at all, they fight for their own causes mutually exclusive.

jem16 wrote: »

I have never heard Mhairi Black mention the 2011 group but if you'd like to point to the Hansard records I'd like to see that.

It may have been in the first debate. I recall her mentioning the group and apologising if she had not pronounced it correctly. However, I won't be going looking up Hansard for the reference I'm afraid. My interest does not stretch that far!!

jem16 wrote: »

. The campaign has been very badly run in my opinion.

But that is where you would be wrong. They got together just over a year ago and have brought the campaign from a conversation between the five to the awareness of where it is today. You cannot say that has been badly run regardless of your opinion of their aims. If it had, then most of us would never had heard of WASPI.

jem16 wrote: »

If you want to see sheep mentality go and visit the WASPI Facebook page.

Why would I want to do that when there is ample sheep mentality on here to see?

atush

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.

Yes, I read your post. All of them, ad nauseum. But it was a load of cobblers. You read hello, then you dont. You read stolen phone conversations? then you dont. Or worse, you worked for the media who did. And did worse later.

If you were a journalist, I fear you were a tabloid one. So obv i can see you were not interested in the real world. Incl pensions. I was, as an immigrant to anrw country and had 3 children under 4 so could not work for many years as 3x childrens child care was more than i could work for (and pay tax for).

And you are happy for my husband, born in the 50's to be disadvantaged, and for me in the early 60's to be, but yet not to campaign for us. Just women from the 50's.

So like I said, suck it up, we have to. Or keep working til you are 67 if you have neglected private pensions. WE didnt, thank goodness.

atush

saver861 wrote: »

Why would I want to do that when there is ample sheep mentality on here to see?

Now that is just plain rude, not to mention completely untrue. If you dont liek it here, why not go elsewhere?

There are men here, there are women here. There are retired, there are non retired. there are young and older. And there are many like me who have been impacted, yet are not whining.

And we never agree with each other here (if you read other threads) where we do is over this topic, esp Waspi but also miffed's ridiculous posts. Some of us here Cant STAND each other, but agree on this.

No herd mentality here for sure.

colsten

atush wrote: »

And you are happy for my husband, born in the 50's to be disadvantaged, and for me in the early 60's to be, but yet not to campaign for us. Just women from the 50's.

atush, all you need to do is buy yourself a WASPI sash which seems to help you stop thinking for yourself. You'll then immediately understand that

1. men always expected their state pension much later than women, so it's no sweat for them to have their state pensions delayed further
2. any woman born even a minute after 31st December 1959 will have had enough notice
3. if you don't like the WASPI campaign, you are free to start your own

I am not making these up - they are all statements made by WASPI and/or their supporters.

saver861

atush wrote: »

Now that is just plain rude, not to mention completely untrue. If you dont liek it here, why not go elsewhere?

Awww ... now there you go telling me to go elsewhere!! I mean, elsewhere might not have me and they might send me back here!!

That said, I'm a guest on here providing an opinion! Am I different?

atush wrote: »

Some of us here Cant STAND each other, but agree on this.

Good golly Miss Molly, why on earth would you spend an iota of your time disliking anyone on here? Not good for your health, and a pointless exercise.

Personally, I ain't got no issue with anyone on here. When I shut down my puter, so too do I shut down peeps on here. If you can't stand someone on here, think more positively about them - they might change!!

atush wrote: »

No herd mentality here for sure.

None? Zilch? Zero? For real? hmmm .....

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

But why would they be fighting one another? Not the case at all, they fight for their own causes mutually exclusive.

The 2011 group look to have the 2011 Act changed. WASPI look to have the 1995 and 2011 Act changed. I'm sure you can see the overlap if you try.

It may have been in the first debate. I recall her mentioning the group and apologising if she had not pronounced it correctly.

I can't see how it would be difficult not to pronounce the Protest against 2011 group correctly - it's hardly a difficult name.

However I suspect that you're not referring to that group at all but a totally different campaign which she did mention.

"We will most likely hear the Government say, “It’s all okay because women will do better under the new single-tier state pension”, but there is a campaign called CARIISP—the collection against real inequality and injustice of the state pension—which is a collection of women rightly pointing out that a person only receives the higher rate of the new pension if they have paid 35 years of national insurance, but many women have not had the chance to build up that level of contribution. It is a separate issue; I mention it, first, to raise awareness and, secondly, in the hope it will earn a debate on its own merits."

However, I won't be going looking up Hansard for the reference I'm afraid. My interest does not stretch that far!!

That much is obvious but yet you are quite happy to argue a point ( or two ) where you don't have a true understanding. It wasn't that long ago where it had to be pointed out to you that there had been a 6 months concession given in the 2011 Act and now you tell us that was the intention all along.

But that is where you would be wrong. They got together just over a year ago and have brought the campaign from a conversation between the five to the awareness of where it is today. You cannot say that has been badly run regardless of your opinion of their aims. If it had, then most of us would never had heard of WASPI.

Yes I can say that in my opinion it has been badly run as indeed it has. It lurches from no information given for months on the crowdfunding that many contributed to, to information that is then posted and removed within hours when it was obvious that what they posted was a huge error of judgement. They have turned down offers of help from many pension experts who would have been of great benefit to them as they don't have the knowledge themselves. They make unilateral decisions without consulting the very women they claim to be campaigning for. They have even parted company from their PR man.

Has it had some success in getting noticed - yes of course it has. Could it have achieved so much more - yes I believe it could have.

Why would I want to do that when there is ample sheep mentality on here to see?

Because then you might actually have some understanding of what has been going on with regards the WASPI campaign.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

The 2011 group look to have the 2011 Act changed. WASPI look to have the 1995 and 2011 Act changed. I'm sure you can see the overlap if you try.

Funnily enough I can see the overlap... but that is what it is, overlap. If that group wanted to focus on the 2011 Act then that is what they should have done. Quite simply if they had done, and got the relevant support then WASPI would not be here.

jem16 wrote: »

"We will most likely hear the Government say, “It’s all okay because women will do better under the new single-tier state pension”, but there is a campaign called CARIISP—

It may have been that one. I recall her mentioning a group.

jem16 wrote: »

That much is obvious but yet you are quite happy to argue a point ( or two ) where you don't have a true understanding.

What is a true understanding? 2011 Act has some women with 18 months extension to their pension age and had less than 10 years notice. Is that not a true understanding. If so, I disagree that it is fair. Not sure what else I need to understand.

jem16 wrote: »

It wasn't that long ago where it had to be pointed out to you that there had been a 6 months concession given in the 2011 Act and now you tell us that was the intention all along.

I have learned much about the various changes, events etc since this started up. My opinion would be that when these rules were made and 24 months was the original extension, that would have been made with the intention of maybe having to give some leeway. That happens allllll the time. Why would that surprise you?

As I have said often, stores inflate their prices only to make the 'massive reductions', which are not so massive when it is broken down.

jem16 wrote: »

Yes I can say that in my opinion it has been badly run as indeed it has. It lurches from no information given for months on the crowdfunding that many contributed to, to information that is then posted and removed within hours when it was obvious that what they posted was a huge error of judgement. They have turned down offers of help from many pension experts who would have been of great benefit to them as they don't have the knowledge themselves. They make unilateral decisions without consulting the very women they claim to be campaigning for. They have even parted company from their PR man.

And yet it is still here and growing as we speak. It has not gone away as many had anticipated it would. It has grown and grown up to now. That is the success.

jem16 wrote: »

Has it had some success in getting noticed - yes of course it has. Could it have achieved so much more - yes I believe it could have.

But they have achieved nothing in terms of a change in policy as yet. That may never happen. The success of the campaign in terms of creating awareness has been more than successful. To say otherwise is silly, regardless of your opinion on their intentions.

Their aim might not achieve anything. That is a different matter to creating awareness.

jem16 wrote: »

Because then you might actually have some understanding of what has been going on with regards the WASPI campaign.

Ah, here we go on the true understanding again. Why do I need a greater understanding of WASPI than I already have? Personally I don't believe I do but I'm sure you will enlighten me on any areas I'm not fully up to date.