Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

Pennylane

I think these women explain their situations very well

http://liverpool-live.tv/liverpool/feature-waspi-great-1995-pensions-swindle/

slightlymiffed

atush wrote: »

Of course I have, dont be silly. One in particular left school w/o qualifications, doesnt read newspapers but Does read Hello. So I told her about the changes.

Why was that being 'silly' atush? That wasn't irony! I meant it - I was being what you may not recognise, nice.

Oh dear, too many people on this forum seem to have had a sense of humour bypass. It may be that the skills required to work in the finance/pensions sector attract a different type - and suffice it to say, none of my girlfriends are actually actuaries....

Oh yes, the 'Hello mag' rears its head again...Well, if you want my opinion (and I know you don't) Hello mag is dross and I no, I wasn't really going to read it..it was a joke!!! Good of you to recognise your 'airhead' friend's need for advice because of her reading material. I guess you go to bed with Adam Smith?

Still, it's Friday evening and 'you' can all get out your high heels and Prosecco soon.

slightlymiffed

bmm78 wrote: »

You can't deduce Waspi intent from an entire webpage devoted to the matter that clearly excludes everyone but 1950s women, but you know enough about james' intent from a couple of lines in a post?

It's really pretty straightforward - two analogous scenarios involving taking the government to court over state pension age issues. One involves someone you harshly criticised, and the other involves a group you seemingly don't want to criticise.

The only possible conclusions are that Waspi (or anyone else seeking to bankroll legal action) are equally as bad as jamesd, or that the criticism was unfounded.

Leave it there as the point is clear even if you don't want to acknowledge it

Yes, whatever bmm.

slightlymiffed

Pennylane wrote: »

I think these women explain their situations very well

http://liverpool-live.tv/liverpool/feature-waspi-great-1995-pensions-swindle/

You may come to regret posting this Pennylane - get your hard hat!

bmm78

Pennylane wrote: »

I think these women explain their situations very well

http://liverpool-live.tv/liverpool/feature-waspi-great-1995-pensions-swindle/

Can anyone explain what "rushed through parliament on a wind and a murmur" means?

I'm sure Rachel Reeves, Gregg McClymont, Ros Altmann and the women affected who fought for concessions will be pleased to see their hard work being acknowledged.

missbiggles1

Pennylane wrote: »

I think these women explain their situations very well

http://liverpool-live.tv/liverpool/feature-waspi-great-1995-pensions-swindle/

Still banging on about "short notice", no personal letter and having no knowledge of the changes despite all the publicity.

Should be ashamed of themselves.

slightlymiffed

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Still banging on about "short notice", no personal letter and having no knowledge of the changes despite all the publicity.

Should be ashamed of themselves.

Please expand on 'all the publicity'?

Like your turn of phrase 'banging on' - shows real humanity to those women, two of whom are clearly unwell.

missbiggles1

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Please expand on 'all the publicity'?

Like your turn of phrase 'banging on' - shows real humanity to those women, two of whom are clearly unwell.

We've been here before but no harm in repeating myself. There was an enormous amount of coverage when the planned changes were announced in the 1993 budget and when the legislation was actually introduced 2 years later.

If people are unwell then they should claim the relevant sickness benefits, not trot out nonsense about their being impossible to get because even those with "severe cancer" are being thrown off them. When people have made mistakes then we have a system that will support them in most cases.

I think anybody would be ashamed to go on television (even in Liverpool) and boast about this level of ignorance and to blaim others for it. Such a shame that it was uncritical daytime TV and nobody was prepared to challenge their opinions - although I expect they wouldn't have gone on if that had been the case.

slightlymiffed

missbiggles1 wrote: »

We've been here before but no harm in repeating myself. There was an enormous amount of coverage when the planned changes were announced in the 1993 budget and when the legislation was actually introduced 2 years later.

If people are unwell then they should claim the relevant sickness benefits, not trot out nonsense about their being impossible to get because even those with "severe cancer" are being thrown off them. When people have made mistakes then we have a system that will support them in most cases.

I think anybody would be ashamed to go on television (even in Liverpool) and boast about this level of ignorance and to blaim others for it. Such a shame that it was uncritical daytime TV and nobody was prepared to challenge their opinions - although I expect they wouldn't have gone on if that had been the case.

Yes, no harm in repeating yourself - I think it's de rigeur here.

Coming from a pensions/finance background, I would expect any Budget is pretty orgasmic for you but are you really not able to 'walk in other peoples' shoes' sometimes and acknowledge that not everyone has the same opportunities as you clearly have enjoyed and maybe had life experiences entirely different to your own and for them, budgets are just not that important in their lives.

Even if, like you, they had been glued to their TV or radio or read newspapers (and many never do), they may have 'assumed' that more information would be sent to them by HMRC? True, one should never assume but do you want these women somehow 'punished' for their apparent ignorance at the time?

Are you for real?

jem16

Malthusian wrote: »

Splitters!!!!

Split by Waspi who don't want them for some reason.