Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

Figgerty

colsten wrote: »

I don't think anyone who has an obvious personal interest in any matter should vote on the matter unless the entire electorate, or the entire Parliament is given the opportunity to vote. As I said already, there won't be any vote on Monday, so it doesn't really matter. It will probably all go the "Ban Trump" petition way, like all unreasonable petitions do.

If this ends in a vote would you like men only to vote on it as it is mainly about women and their SPA. Your first comment about the gender and age (and party?) of the Chair suggested that.

You still didn't have anything to say about the the majority of conservative males on the committee. Did that not fit your agenda?

Figgerty

Pollycat wrote: »

This is not - imho - the place to start educating people about the correct use of words nor grammar, punctuation or spelling.

Perhaps we should stick to the topic.

You need to look elsewhere for the instigator. It was not me.

PS. see post 783.
You quoted someone else's post showing a page of a dictionary with definitions of ignorant so I think you are being hypocritical now with the above comment.

colsten

Figgerty wrote: »

If this ends in a vote would you like men only to vote on it as it is mainly about women and their SPA. Your first comment about the gender and age (and party?) of the Chair suggested that.

You still didn't have anything to say about the the majority of conservative males on the committee. Did that not fit your agenda?

Monday session won't end in a vote.

mgdavid

Figgerty wrote: »

Pollycat wrote: »

Perhaps we should move on to effect and affect as I'm always hesitant in their use.

Thankyou Figgerty - I've been dying to mention that - but it really isn't the done thing to pull up on spelling and grammar on forums so I've been biting my tongue instead!
'usually if you want a noun, the word you want is effect, but if you want a verb, the word you want is affect.'
This might help:
'The poem affected me deeply; it really had an effect on me.'
HTH.

patanne

If they keep the debate to the 2011 changes then the sex of the members won't matter as they are both affected. As for breakdown by party, well I may not like it but, it would appear to be in the approx ratio they are in government. As for the age breakdown well that remains to be seen.

POPPYOSCAR

Nick_C wrote: »

Taking career breaks to raise a family is certainly part of it. But women who combine jobs with raising a family will usually put the family first, turning down well paid jobs that require working long hours and anti social hours for example.

Re my comment that PO took exception to, perhaps this would have been better expressed as "women have a legal right to equality of opportunity". I accept that unlawful discrimination takes place.

Thank you!

Figgerty

colsten wrote: »

Monday session won't end in a vote.

You keep dodging the issue - the one you raised in post 785.

mgdavid

Figgerty wrote: »

You keep dodging the issue - ...........

we're learning fast, what's good for you is good for us.
when are you going to tell us how you know the WASPIs are/were on low incomes?

xylophone

So even if your a 40% tax payer you go from paying your own NI to receiving a net 60% from the government never mind the silly things like winter fuel allowance and free travel and cannot see the almighty costs?

Some pensioners pay as much or more in tax as they receive in state pension/winter fuel allowance and rarely use public transport.

bigadaj

xylophone wrote: »

Some pensioners pay as much or more in tax as they receive in state pension/winter fuel allowance and rarely use public transport.

You seem to have missed the point on that one, it surely doesn't make much sense to subsidise people who are earning enough to be paying higher rates of tax really.