Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

Goldiegirl

All these claims about a loss of £30,000 - if WASPI want to make those claims, surely they would have to acknowledge that this claim doesn't just affect 1950's women.

Most 60's and 70's women started work when the women's pension age was 60. From the WASPI way of looking at things, the 'loss' is even greater as 60's and 70's women will have a SPA age of 67 and 68 - an even longer delay.

If asked about this, WASPI would say that 60's and 70's women 'had longer to plan'. Ah that's ok then!

bigadaj

Pollycat wrote: »

I don't want you to admit to anything.
I don't care if you are or aren't a WASPI.


This post reflects my thoughts ^^^

What even the typo?

saver861

mazzy wrote: »

I did see my MP purely on the basis that the second rise was unfair due to short notice of it and as they have now said 10 years notice should be given it proves it was unfair to us.

That is positive action. Many have the same opinion. The difference is, while some take action, others will just wail about WASPI while talking about those most in need. Talk v Action.

Some are broad in the mouth but hollow in the heart.

Pollycat

saver861 wrote: »

That is positive action. Many have the same opinion. The difference is, while some take action, others will just wail about WASPI while talking about those most in need. Talk v Action.

Some are broad in the mouth but hollow in the heart.

I believe I've also documented my similar action on this thread or another of the many on the same subect.

And here it is (posted 30th Jan 2016) in response to this post:

zagfles wrote: »

I hope people who feel they've been misled into signing the petition are contacting their MP to tell them.

Pollycat wrote: »

You're correct. I have.

And I've said that I was aware of the 1995 changes at the time and had no issue with that.
It was the 2011 changes that should be looked at.
And I made the point that there was a lot of incorrect detail put forward some MPs who spoke in the first debate and that some of the circumstances described by those MP had clearly been misrepresented to them by their consituents (or they had deliberately lied to them).

Actually, pretty much what a lot of other posters on all these threads have said on here.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70023971#Comment_70023971

You may wish to note that waaaay back then I was also talking about misrepresentation of circumstances by some women.

missbiggles1

saver861 wrote: »

That is positive action. Many have the same opinion. The difference is, while some take action, others will just wail about WASPI while talking about those most in need. Talk v Action.

Some are broad in the mouth but hollow in the heart.

One would have more sympathy for those in need if so many of them weren't lying through their teeth to get as much out of the situation as possible.

saver861

missbiggles1 wrote: »

One would have more sympathy for those in need if so many of them weren't lying through their teeth to get as much out of the situation as possible.

What about the ones that are not lying?

missbiggles1

saver861 wrote: »

What about the ones that are not lying?

Find me some who aren't and I'll sympathise with them.:D

Goldiegirl

saver861 wrote: »

Some are broad in the mouth but hollow in the heart.

That can be said for some WASPI's as well.


Some that are making the most noise appear to be well heeled and not needy at all.


That seems very hollow in the heart to be in it for what they can get out of it personally, rather than concentrating on 2011 and most needy women

Pollycat

And here's another example of one of the lies told by affected women to their MPs:

Pollycat wrote: »

I watched most of the debate (whilst doing other stuff like cooking) and found it quite interesting.

One snippet stood out when a MP said one of her constituents had told her that she was originally due to get het state pension at age 62 + some months but woudn't now get it until she was 65.

That's a blatent lie.
I know because I - born Oct 1953 - was originally scheduled to reach SPA in April 2017 (aged 63 years and 6 months) and as a result of the 2011 changes my SPA will be July 2018 when I'm aged 64 and 9 months.

So anybody who was - as a result of the 1995 changes - expected to reach SPA before age 63 will definitely get their pension before age 65.

I shouted at the TV and brandished my wooden spoon at such misinformation/lies.

Posted on 8/1/2016 on this thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/69868318#Comment_69868318

colsten

Pollycat wrote: »

And here's another example of one of the lies told by affected women to their MPs:

And another one, as per this extract from the Hansard:




Fifty-five. Thousand. Pounds.