Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

Pollycat

slightlymiffed wrote: »

'Total disinterest in my state pension'? Where do you get that from?

Well - from here:

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I didn't 'ignore' the media - I was working in it . I saw more news than most. I actually found the transcripts of Prince Charles' phone conversations with Camilla more riveting in those days than 'pensions'. In other words, I was normal.

You acknowledge it was in the media but found something else - that had no impact on you personally at all - more interesting.
More fool you.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I am not saying that I didn't know that state pension age was changing - I did - but I did not know what my own new state pension age would be until I asked DWP.

I find it astonishing that you could be aware of changes but couldn't be bothered to find out how you were personally affected until 2 years before your 'old' state pension date.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I will leave you 'ladies' to your navel-gazing and word-twisting now - I have better things to do. - now where did I leave my copy of Hello mag?

If there was any navel-gazing done, it was by those people who knew the state pension age was changing but did nothing to find out how it affected them.

And that wasn't me or missbiggles.

atush

I cannot conceive how anyone not employed in that field could possibly be interested in women's state pensions.

I cannot conceive how any woman anywhere of whatever education could NOT be interested.

Goldiegirl

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Well said Saver861 - thank you. I am one such affected.

I have to question the motives of those of you here who have spent literally months and months just endlessly chewing over 1950's born women's state pension. It really is unbelievable.

Trawling Facebook pages to quote women out of context and make unsubstantiated claims that affected women are somehow greedy or stupid is really demeaning and demonstrates exactly what we have to put up with.

I recognise a few of those posting here from Twitter - and it is apparent that some of you have your own agendas; some 60's born feel they are 'missing out' and some (at least one) is trying to get means-tested early state pension for men (himself).

I'm in the cohort of women whose pension age has increased to 66, and yet WASPI aren't campaigning for me.


This cohort of women was born between 6/10/54 to 5/4/60. Yet WASPI only campaign on behalf of the women born up to 31/12/59.


I don't feel that I'm missing out - indeed, in many ways I'm rather grateful not to be lumped into WASPI's stereotype of a '1950's woman'. I knew about the 1995 changes when they happened, by listening to the news and reading the papers, so it's old news now. We've had 20 years to prepare for it - I genuinely don't know how some women say they were unaware of this change. As for 2011 - I can't say I'm delighted about the extra year, but it's something that had to happen, and I've accepted it,


But I remain curious why WASPI would not bother about some of the women in a cohort that they are campaigning for. What's the difference between the women born up to 31/12/59, and the ones in the same cohort born between 01/01/60 and 05/04/60.


I've tried to get an answer about this, and the only response trotted out is that '60's women had more time to prepare'. But the women born in 1959 have had more or less the same time to prepare as someone born in 1960!


Slightly miffed goes on to say later that

I care about all the women affected by these changes - not just myself.

So I'd be interested in knowing what she thinks about the women in her cohort that WASPI can't be bothered with.


Not to mention the women born from 6/4/60 onwards, when the pension age begins to rise to 67. These are all women who were 'told' that they'd get their pension at 60, so they've all been affected by these changes

Not to mention all the men affected as well !

Goldiegirl

slightlymiffed wrote: »

'Total disinterest in my state pension'? Where do you get that from?

I will leave you 'ladies' to your navel-gazing and word-twisting now - I have better things to do. - now where did I leave my copy of Hello mag?

Oh no, please come back, I've just asked you a direct question in my previous post. Every time I find a WASPI to ask a question they always go away!

Goldiegirl

atush wrote: »

.

And while boring (flogging. horse. dead.) it is like a car crash. One has to look.

And you know you shouldn't look, be you can't stop yourself!

slightlymiffed

Goldiegirl wrote: »

Oh no, please come back, I've just asked you a direct question in my previous post. Every time I find a WASPI to ask a question they always go away!

I'm not a WASPI. Are you?

I've stated my position - you are having something you call 'fun' - mocking and demeaning those you think are not as 'savvy' as you.

You're the financial whizz-kids - why didn't you warn these women you like to now smear?

Carry on carrying on - you are hilarious.

atush

it is pretty hard to mock and demean someone who found stolen phone calls more interesting than their own financial welfare.

Your statement in that regard demeaned you.

Goldiegirl

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I'm not a WASPI. Are you?

I've stated my position - you are having something you call 'fun' - mocking and demeaning those you think are not as 'savvy' as you.

You're the financial whizz-kids - why didn't you warn these women you like to now smear?

Carry on carrying on - you are hilarious.

I'm certainly not a WASPI


But I asked you the question as you appeared to be sympathetic to them, and you said you cared about ALL women affected by the changes in their pension ages.


I just wanted your opinion on the women WASPI aren't campaigning for


I'm genuinely not poking fun at anybody or smearing anybody - I just wanted to know what you thought.


I apologise if you were offended by my question - but it was a genuine question.


I didn't know it was my job to 'warn women' about the pension changes. I discussed the situation with other women over the last 20 years - but until recently I didn't even know there were women who still thought they were going to retire at 60

dunstonh

1950's women are not 'victims' - we were 'chosen'. Chosen to take the hit for saving the government a colossal amount of money to balance the books - and all in the name of 'equality' and 'the EU'.

So, you do not believe in equality then. In which case, lets go the whole hog and take us back 100 years and you dont even get a state pension then.

This government may want to reconsider their position when they remember that for every 1950's affected woman, there is usually a 1950's husband or partner and thousands upon thousands of 1970/80's born children and we are all able to vote. We'll choose very very carefully now.

The changes to the state pension age have been made by Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat (the latter being in coalition). So, that eliminates you voting for those three. That doesnt leave you much to vote on in the future. Ironically, voting one of the lesser parties actually helps the Conservatives given the lock outs Labour has in Scotland and Wales.

If you are in a poorly paid manual job, to be told at 58 that you have to keep slogging on for another 8 years and you have never been in a position to really save or accrue a nice fat pension, you are basically stuffed.

If you get to 58 without knowing what your state pension age is then that means you have never bothered in your life to find out. So, you get what you deserve.

Pollycat

dunstonh wrote: »

If you get to 58 without knowing what your state pension age is then that means you have never bothered in your life to find out. So, you get what you deserve.

slightlymiffed is complaining about not being advised about the 1995 changes.

Given her admission that she was more interested in the shenanigins of an adulterous Royal than serious changes in her state pension age, one wonders if she would have taken any notice of a letter even if she had been sent one at the age of 41.

I think a lot of women simply didn't take the information in because retirement age was 'so far in the future'.