Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

JezR

Not only was there no legal duty on DWP and predecessor departments to contact people unprompted directly, there wasn't technically even a duty on them to make available any public information / literature on the changes either. As the National Audit Office said in 2000 relating to the changes in SERPS inheritance:

Government departments do not have a duty to provide information on changes in the law, but where they do issue such material, they have a legal responsibility to ensure that it is accurate and complete.

Internet searches supported by FoI requests have found that leaflets with the correct position were available from social security offices a month after the 1995 Act became law and that subsequent literature was online from 1998. Also telephone helpline staff were briefed about the changes as the Bill was going through Parliament.

Now there have been some people who have said that they have firm evidence of being informed incorrectly of the appropriate SPa for them at the time they enquired and they may well have a sustainable legal argument relating to this.

saver861

colsten wrote: »

The purpose of many of these posts could have been to help others? After all, that's the main purpose of the MSE forum, to be a place where people can get and/or exchange meaningful and trustworthy information. Bottom line though, it's none of your (or my) business how many or how few posts anyone makes on MSE.

That is true. Everyone is entitled to post as many times as they so wish, as long as they are within the guidelines.

However, the strength of these forums comes from the variety of posts from the many rather than the many posts from the few. Too much of the latter will kill the forum, whatever its topic.

There is no question that many posts helpful suggestions and tips etc for those asking. That is the real benefit. It is also a resource for debate with the varying opinions of the many being more important than opinions of the few.

So, while those are frequent posters have no doubt provided considerable help and assistance in those posts, it does seem also that some frequent posters get a false sense of authority. That is a bad thing for the forum. One who has 20,000 posts has no more rights than one who has 20 posts. The difficulty is that the frequent posters become dominant, either accidentally or deliberately. That's bad for the invitational aura that is required for infrequent posters.

mgdavid wrote: »

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

I'm still trying to find out who the 'us' is from this post. Nobody can tell me.

See, heres the thing. I have been a member of this forum from its outset - and thus longer than most on this thread. My username says 2014 but I have had other usernames which I have long forgotten. I have posted before, when I was a working professional I could not have made anything like the amount of posts I have made in this last year or so. It always makes me wonder how some working professionals on here can post as frequently as they do.

In any event, does being a member from day one make me one of the 'us'? Or do I need to have a certain number of posts before I can be one of the 'us'? Or do I have to agree with the majority of the thread to be one of the 'us'?

If so, count me out of the 'us' please. I don't want to be one of the 'us' on any of those basis.

atush

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Oh dear - you are making yourself sound frightfully self-important and dull atush. You'd be a definite body-swerve at parties.

I understand now though that, as a scientist, your 'social skills' are probably not as fine tuned as those with an artistic leaning. That's ok.

Am I 'flighty and idiotic'? No - real and connected. You don't know me.

On a positive note though, we do have something in common - you found an 'Englishman' to marry. Me too. - mine's definitely not lack of judgement though.

I am not self important nor dull, but I find your reading to be dull. I like to read novels incl fiction and non fiction, I like to watch news and current events programs. Movies, even popcorn ones too. It doesnt have to be 'worthy'. I was a biological scientist, and unlike a rocket scientist, we have great social skills. After all, some of that is covered in biology. Field work you know.

And it isnt you who suffered from lack of judgment in choosing a spouse, it may have been your partner though. To have married someone who doesnt care about their finances, and has such poor reading choices and is so ill informed.

atush

LXdaddy wrote: »

Hmmm, I wonder if there is an ignore option for a thread? Maybe I should simply stop reading this one as it clearly has no common ground between the protagonists and is not really adding any insight to the problem under discussion.

Completely true lol.

mgdavid

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Oh dear - you are making yourself sound frightfully self-important and dull atush. You'd be a definite body-swerve at parties.

I understand now though that, as a scientist, your 'social skills' are probably not as fine tuned as those with an artistic leaning. That's ok.

Am I 'flighty and idiotic'? No - real and connected. You don't know me.

On a positive note though, we do have something in common - you found an 'Englishman' to marry. Me too. - mine's definitely not lack of judgement though.

the argument is won when one party can only respond with feeble insults... or is it an example of your 'humour' - that we are so lacking in?

mystic_trev

saver861 wrote: »

My username says 2014 but I have had other usernames which I have long forgotten.

Perhaps if you look for them you'll also find the letter telling you of the 1995 State Pension changes?

saver861

mystic_trev wrote: »

Perhaps if you look for them you'll also find the letter telling you of the 1995 State Pension changes?

Nope ... don't think so. I have not lost any letter.

colsten

saver861 wrote: »

So, while those are frequent posters have no doubt provided considerable help and assistance in those posts, it does seem also that some frequent posters get a false sense of authority. That is a bad thing for the forum. One who has 20,000 posts has no more rights than one who has 20 posts.

In my opinion, nobody on MSE will get to 20,000 posts, or even to a couple of thousand, unless the vast number of their posts are considered of value by others, usually over a very long time.

Having said this, I rarely pay any attention to the number of posts of anyone, except when something really whacky gets posted. Invariably that's by a total, or relative, newbie who hasn't made the effort to understand what this forum is about, and what is allowed to be posted.

My opinion on matters is most certainly not swayed by the number of posts a posters has made or by the thanks they have got but rather by some much more complex thought processes, helped by reasoned discussion on and off the forum / the internet.

I hope we can now get back to discussing WASPI, if indeed there is still much to say about WASPI that hasn't already been said.

Pennylane

colsten wrote: »

This whole "I didn't get a letter" argument really embarrasses those who make it, and deeply so. Surely anyone who has been planning (as we are so often told) to get their state pension on date X would also have wanted to know how much exactly they would get each week? How did they work out that number? The only way to figure this out for certain would be a state pension forecast, which would include the state pension information.

Not sure what point you're trying to make but I am not embarrassed about telling the truth at all!

I've already said I did request a pension forecast and only then was I told I had to wait much longer to draw my pension.

Pennylane

This article explains the plight of 1950s women very well

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/jan/09/state-pension-inequality-cost-women-20000-campaign