Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

Triumph13

The great majority on here would support a movement that aimed to ensure the availability of means-tested benefits to those, of any gender, that were disproportionately impacted by the 2011 act. If anybody wants to go and start such a movement then they will have our support.
Not only have WASPI specifically ruled out such a solution as unacceptable, but they have campaign aims that the great majority on here are opposed to on both economic and fairness grounds. Most of us therefore, most empatically do NOT support WASPI.
Certain posters somehow seem to find it hard to grasp that these views are not inconsistent.

PensionTech

Constructive debate contribution?

I refer you to:

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?

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??

Absolutely puerile.

saver861

Pollycat wrote: »

So what would you have suggested women such as me and jem should have or could have done to help those less fortunate women back in the days of sexual discrimination?
How could we have made sure the discrimination was less prevalent than it apparently was?

Well I'm not going to individualise any comments to you and Jem - clearly you make your own decisions.

In general however, had there been no campaigns against discrimination then we would still be in the same place now as we were many years ago. Many women thought Mrs Thatcher would move the situation on greatly as being the first woman prime minister. However, many women were left disappointed by her drive to help remove discrimination and indeed, she surrounded herself with male cabinet members totally disproportionately.

There is a thought consensus that discrimination against women was primarily the fault of men! When in fact, maybe with a little more microscopic inspection, it might be seen that women did not take or make opportunities to reduce that discrimination.

As a slight digression but current news story, Muirfield Golf club continue there ban on having women members. Personally I find that appalling, but it demonstrates where some thought processes still lay.

Pollycat wrote: »

I have chosen.
mgdavid's comment was no less and no more flippant than the one expressed by slighlymiffed.

I would not have chosen the same thing.

Triumph13 wrote: »

If anybody wants to go and start such a movement then they will have our support.
Not only have WASPI specifically ruled out such a solution as unacceptable, but they have campaign aims that the great majority on here are opposed to on both economic and fairness grounds. Most of us therefore, most empatically do NOT support WASPI.
Certain posters somehow seem to find it hard to grasp that these views are not inconsistent.

They are very consistent. Not a problem not supporting WASPI. That's clear and has been repeated many many many times. But that seems to be all that is happening. As you say, if there was a movement for those women in most need who should be supported then you would support it.

There does seem to be little or nothing being done to support the ideal that you suggest.

There is only so many times and so many different ways that you can say I don't agree with WASPI. That bit is abundantly clear now. Personally I saw that message clarity around about several months ago!!!

saver861

I refer you to:

PensionTech wrote: »

Genuinely the funniest thing I've ever read.

saver861 wrote: »

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

PensionTech wrote: »

Absolutely puerile.

And there was me thinking you had a sense of humour and see the funny side of things!

jamesd

saver861 wrote: »

You know full well what is being discussed and the extension of 18 months from the 2011 Act. Changes to other pensions is not part of it.

On the contrary, the overall picture matters and the 2011 Act is just part of it. Things like costs, availability of working age benefits to help those in need and the various discrimination issues are all part of the big picture that a government has to consider.

If you haven't done it you really might find reading the archived copies of the Pensions Commission reports interesting, particularly the second one. there's lots of really interesting information there and while I disagree with you on a lot, you do seem to be interested in the subject.

saver861 wrote: »

for many its nothing more than just being loud at the mouth!

Maybe for some but most of the actual helping of people here happens in topics other than this one, when people ask for guidance. That's where you'll find most of the posts from most who are disagreeing you, delivering routine day to day help. Things like how to get that extra £720 a year or how someone can double their pension pot's potential income in retirement by not buying an annuity but instead deferring their state pension.

colsten

saver861 wrote: »

As a slight digression but current news story, Muirfield Golf club continue there ban on having women members. Personally I find that appalling, but it demonstrates where some thought processes still lay.

That's such a great example, thank you for the slight departure from the pensions subject.

Why don't you mention that there are just as many women-only golf clubs as there are men-only, and that both are equally appalling?

It's a very typical WASPI-trait to just pick selected snippets that suit themselves and then try and make a case about those, whilst at the same time claiming they are all about fairness. The truth is that WASPI are nothing but entirely selfish and don't care one bit about fairness or justice. That's why I have never supported WASPI and never will, despite being directly affected by the SPA increases myself.

ManofLeisure_2

colsten wrote: »

The truth is that WASPI are nothing but entirely selfish and don't care one bit about fairness or justice.

You are entitled to your opinion. However, I find your comment about WASPI (with which I have absolutely no connection) to be extremely unkind.

saver861

jamesd wrote: »

Maybe for some but most of the actual helping of people here happens in topics other than this one, when people ask for guidance. That's where you'll find most of the posts from most who are disagreeing you, delivering routine day to day help. Things like how to get that extra £720 a year or how someone can double their pension pot's potential income in retirement by not buying an annuity but instead deferring their state pension.

The nature of the forum is very effective in helping people with various queries, be it financial or otherwise. That is how it has built to what it is today.

If someone poses a question and I know the answer then I will provide the information. Not exactly onerous task. Its my choice, my time, etc.

However, there is a distinction between providing knowledge on existing facts and policies and that of attempt to effect a change to an existing policy or law. The latter is a pro-active process significantly different from the former.

colsten wrote: »

That's such a great example, thank you for the slight departure from the pensions subject.

Why don't you mention that there are just as many women-only golf clubs as there are men-only, and that both are equally appalling?

So I clarify my point by stating it was a slight digress and that it was a current news topic.

But then .... you deduce from that that I condone all-women clubs by not denouncing all of those also!!


Your justification .....

colsten wrote: »

It's a very typical WASPI-trait to just pick selected snippets that suit themselves and then try and make a case about those,

Priceless!!!!! :rotfl:

colsten

ManofLeisure wrote: »

You are entitled to your opinion. However, I find your comment about WASPI (with which I have absolutely no connection) to be extremely unkind.

Even finding it extremely unkind doesn't make it any less true.

colsten

saver861 wrote: »

So I clarify my point by stating it was a slight digress and that it was a current news topic.

But then .... you deduce from that that I condone all-women clubs by not denouncing all of those also!!

You missed the second opportunity to denounce women-only golf clubs.

Just proves the point I made.