Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

saver861

bowlhead99 wrote: »

The guys in the bar can keep talking about the most excellent breasts of their wives' circle of friends, without risk of offending them, and the ladies can go out to lunch among themselves and tut to each other about how the men are all at the golf club again and are probably talking about their most excellent breasts.

Is that what they talk about at these golf clubs? I'm enlightened ....

slightlymiffed

jem16 wrote: »

I've had various discussions with jamesd over the many years we've both been forum members here. I have never found him to be highly prejudiced nor entrenched in any view he holds.

He's not who you appear to think he is. :rotfl:

Jem - I was referring to the collective 'you' and not James specifically. I did realise he's not the RM amphibian - but his views are remarkably similar - i.e. the promotion of early means tested pensions/benfits for men and I've no doubt he reads this forum (when he has a moment between insulting women).

Still, I'm sure some Conservative MP's are very grateful for James' apparently deep pockets, concern for the equality of menfolk and possible breach of any EU regulations.

bmm78

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Really???? That helpful? WASPI do seem have stirred up a Hornet's Nest for some, don't they. You are even prepared to bank-roll legal action against any change in law as a result of their campaign? Why such vehemence?

I had fully intended to leave 'you' to your highly prejudiced and entrenched views but I was astounded to spot this little gem - which is very revealing.

Waspi bankrolled (via crowdfunding) legal advice to look into taking the government to court. They have indicated that they are prepared to raise more funds to take legal action if the government doesn't give them what they want.

Many prominent Waspi supporters have repeatedly called for legal action, and have stated that they would be prepared to bankroll this.

Do the same charges of "vehemence", "highly prejudiced", "entrenched", "very revealing" etc apply to them? If not, can you please explain what the distinction is?

slightlymiffed

jem16 wrote: »

This seems to be the typical WASPI attitude unfortunately. You must agree with us or you're prejudiced, have a closed mind, or just plain simply wrong.

You just cannot accept that we have looked at all the facts, and not just how it impacts one very small group out of the whole UK population, and come to the conclusion that what WASPI want is wrong.

I repeat I am not a 'WASPI' - I speak for myself - I accepted the 1995 Pensions Act and my initial delayed pension date of 2018 because I did agree that pension ages should be equalised. What I cannot accept is the speed of acceleration of pension age change in the 2011 Pensions Act and another 18 months added to my state pension age with just 8 years notice.

I think that most of 'you' (collective) actually agree that the 2011 Act was the one which was ill thought out and financially damaging or crippling to many women (especially those born in late 1953 and 1954). Steve Webb himself admits the same.

I also repeat, your (collective) insistence that my concern is all about the 1995 Act are wrong. You (collective) maintain I keep 'going on about it' when you know all I am attempting to do (unsuccessfully it appears) is to correct your deliberate skewing of facts to suit your argument.

I realise there are some real WASPI haters here - which is a terrible indictment of womankind really when the most vitriolic are, in the main, female. Why have you never, as Saver suggested, tried to help women less financially astute rather than pull up the ladder, laughing?

jem16

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Jem - I was referring to the collective 'you' and not James specifically. I did realise he's not the RM amphibian - but his views are remarkably similar - i.e. the promotion of early means tested pensions/benfits for men and I've no doubt he reads this forum (when he has a moment between insulting women).

Can't say I've ever seen jamesd promoting early means tested pensions/benefits for men. What I have seen him saying is that if it's granted for certain women, then the same should apply to men. After all WASPI agree with equality so that shouldn't be an issue.

As to you realising that he is not the person you think he was, try again. You clearly did think that or you would never have brought it up. It's just like the Royal tittle tattle story that you changed too.

slightlymiffed

bmm78 wrote: »

Waspi bankrolled (via crowdfunding) legal advice to look into taking the government to court. They have indicated that they are prepared to raise more funds to take legal action if the government doesn't give them what they want.

Many prominent Waspi supporters have repeatedly called for legal action, and have stated that they would be prepared to bankroll this.

Do the same charges of "vehemence", "highly prejudiced", "entrenched", "very revealing" etc apply to them? If not, can you please explain what the distinction is?

I would hope that any transitional arrangements secured by WASPI would apply equally for men and women and isn't a man v woman issue. Maybe I'm wrong?

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

This seems to be the typical WASPI attitude unfortunately. You must agree with us or you're prejudiced, have a closed mind, or just plain simply wrong.

Seee .... I'm soooo confused. Why is everything linked back to WASPI? How do you define a typical WASPI attitude? Why is it the case that if someone expresses and opinion suggesting pension unfairness then that is pro WASPI?

mgdavid wrote: »

Isn't that called trolling?
Maybe it says more about you than us.

I'm still trying to get an answer to this one!! I've asked the poster himself who has not responded - either he does not know or has not seen my post or aint bothered to reply.

Perhaps, someone else can enlighten me as to who the 'us' is?

I'd be ever so grateful .......

So many questions .... so few answers.......

slightlymiffed

jem16 wrote: »

Can't say I've ever seen jamesd promoting early means tested pensions/benefits for men. What I have seen him saying is that if it's granted for certain women, then the same should apply to men. After all WASPI agree with equality so that shouldn't be an issue.

As to you realising that he is not the person you think he was, try again. You clearly did think that or you would never have brought it up. It's just like the Royal tittle tattle story that you changed too.

The reference was deliberate - as with the 'Royal tittle tattle' analogy. I didn't 'change my story', I said I found it more 'riveting' at the time than pensions. You don't know where I was working or the significance of it to my job at the time. At 39, I knew my pension age was changing, I understood pensions - what is your problem Jem? Why am accountable to you?

And of course I knew James wasn't BF - a quick read of some of his other posts confirmed that and I am maybe a little more intuitive than you.

jem16

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I repeat I am not a 'WASPI' - I speak for myself - I accepted the 1995 Pensions Act and my initial delayed pension date of 2018 because I did agree that pension ages should be equalised. What I cannot accept is the speed of acceleration of pension age change in the 2011 Pensions Act and another 18 months added to my state pension age with just 8 years notice.

Then why harp back to the "personal notification" nonsense?

I think that most of 'you' (collective) actually agree that the 2011 Act was the one which was ill thought out and financially damaging or crippling to many women (especially those born in late 1953 and 1954). Steve Webb himself admits the same.

I also repeat, your (collective) insistence that my concern is all about the 1995 Act are wrong. You (collective) maintain I keep 'going on about it' when you know all I am attempting to do (unsuccessfully it appears) is to correct your deliberate skewing of facts to suit your argument.

Very few here disagree with the 2011 Act being unfair for those born 1953 to 1956. If that had been concentrated on, some progress may have been made although still a very small chance.

I realise there are some real WASPI haters here - which is a terrible indictment of womankind really when the most vitriolic are, in the main, female.

We do not "hate" WASPI here. Most of us disagree with them over their ridiculous and well documented "ask". Female posters here mostly disagree with the fact that we're being painted as some sort of air heads who have stuck our heads in the sand for 21 years and now want the rest of the population to make up for us taking no notice of what was happening in the UK. We cannot harp on about wanting equality but only accepting the parts that benefit us.

Why have you never, as Saver suggested, tried to help women less financially astute rather than pull up the ladder, laughing?

Frankly I find that insulting. Ive been helping women both here and at work for at least the last 10 years ( probably more through work ) with their pensions and retirement plans. I've certainly mentioned the spa increases to every woman I have met although all seemed to know about them ranging from school cleaners to headteachers. As a union rep I've discussed their pension scheme with them and organised for talks on in-service days. I just don't blow my trumpet about it.

jem16

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I would hope that any transitional arrangements secured by WASPI would apply equally for men and women and isn't a man v woman issue. Maybe I'm wrong?

They should but then the WASPI campaign is not campaigning for them in just the same way as they aren't campaigning for anyone born after 1960. They've made that quite clear when asked about it.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

And of course I knew James wasn't BF - a quick read of some of his other posts confirmed that and I am maybe a little more intuitive than you.

Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing.