MSE News: ’Women's state pension petition secures second Parliamentary debate

Pollycat

Goldiegirl wrote: »

I would welcome any WASPI supporter who is willing to rationally and calmly answer these questions, and comment on things like how other groups of people would feel adversely affected if WASPI achieved their main 'ask'.

I think we would all welcome that.

saver861 wrote: »

In the same vein, the perception is that this site was against the WASPI petition when in fact there are around 30 or so posters making their objections. The petition rose by 30,000 the week that Martin Lewis and MSE gave their support in December. In fact, the total nearly doubled. So the few posters on threads is not necessarily reflective of the overall view and indeed with those numbers I would say it is far from it.

I signed.
However, that was before I was aware of the WASPI Facebook 'ask'.

jem16 wrote: »

Most posting on the Pensions board threads are against the main WASPI aim which became apparent after the petition had been already signed.

Absolutely.

If I thought it would do any good (or was even possible) I would 'unsign' the petition as I felt what was detailed in the petition was nothing like what WASPI are asking for.

zagfles

Pollycat wrote: »

I think we would all welcome that.


I signed.
However, that was before I was aware of the WASPI Facebook 'ask'.

Absolutely.

If I thought it would do any good (or was even possible) I would 'unsign' the petition as I felt what was detailed in the petition was nothing like what WASPI are asking for.

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

Pollycat

zagfles wrote: »

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

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.

zagfles

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.

Excellent - I hope your MP has the guts to express views like yours in the debate. But I'd be willing to bet that no Labour or SNP MP will.

mgdavid

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Just because you do not find it confusing and understand the custom does not mean that everybody else does, especially someone new to the forum.

as I already said, but will reiterate, a newbie is best advised to look, read and learn about a new forum before firing off from the hip.

Scotswimmen

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I thought it was the Scots person who was claiming she'd been called a liar? Some confusion of identity, perhaps?

Why are you still referring to me on this? The other poster you refer to was, like me, in effect, called a liar. You called me one: Missbiggles1-when I said that I was reporting the comments on here to my MP: you said: "At 10 o'clock at night, I doubt it". He was in contact with me & was very supportive in his reply via email/his ipad. He had suggested that I email him re: anything which came up regarding this issue. You also said I was "ignorant & prejudiced", based on 1 post -(I am clearly new to this by my profile), which is vindictive (I have, in fact a clutch of qualifications from a number of Universities & I am very open minded). This is not a reasonable 'debate'.You also unbelievably said: "I am a Feminist, your attitude shames all women". I have been an active Feminist all my life, supporting other women (in both paid & personal capacity) & cannot imagine another one (calling herself 'Miss'-anything)trying to publicly shame another woman, in this way, because she has a different view (I was, in the main,speaking of my personal experience in my post).
A quick glance at some of your recent posts here show a couple of people feeling aggrieved, like me, by YOUR attitude on MSE. In one you said: "Sorry I didn't mean to be critical" & in another 17th Jan 7.01/7.44, someone has complained that you: "keep coming back...like you are preying on vulnerable people or something". This person said that they felt like they'd had "a punch in the face", which is exactly how I felt.
I see you identify yourself as, 'in your 60s, worked in Education' (enjoying being 'retired' & I believe ex Teacher?)with a generous pension & sounds like other income. I see now why you cannot empathise with women who are disadvantaged & pensioners living in poverty, which is who I'm sticking up for.
I agree with Poppyoscar that you have been very ungracious towards me but not only that, you have discredited the word Feminism.

Pollycat

Scotswimmen wrote: »

Why are you still referring to me on this? The other poster you refer to was, like me, in effect, called a liar. You called me one: Missbiggles1-when I said that I was reporting the comments on here to my MP: you said: "At 10 o'clock at night, I doubt it". He was in contact with me & was very supportive in his reply via email/his ipad. He had suggested that I email him re: anything which came up regarding this issue. You also said I was "ignorant & prejudiced", based on 1 post -(I am clearly new to this by my profile), which is vindictive (I have, in fact a clutch of qualifications from a number of Universities & I am very open minded). This is not a reasonable 'debate'.You also unbelievably said: "I am a Feminist, your attitude shames all women". I have been an active Feminist all my life, supporting other women (in both paid & personal capacity) & cannot imagine another one (calling herself 'Miss'-anything)trying to publicly shame another woman, in this way, because she has a different view (I was, in the main,speaking of my personal experience in my post).
A quick glance at some of your recent posts here show a couple of people feeling aggrieved, like me, by YOUR attitude on MSE. In one you said: "Sorry I didn't mean to be critical" & in another 17th Jan 7.01/7.44, someone has complained that you: "keep coming back...like you are preying on vulnerable people or something". This person said that they felt like they'd had "a punch in the face", which is exactly how I felt.
I see you identify yourself as, 'in your 60s, worked in Education' (enjoying being 'retired' & I believe ex Maths Teacher)with a generous pension & sounds like other income. I see now why you cannot empathise with women who are disadvantaged & pensioners living in poverty, which is who I'm sticking up for.
I agree with Popposcar that you have been very ungracious towards me but not only that you have discredited the word Feminism.

It's all very well taking issue with a poster and looking back through their other posts but how about you take a read of the post below and reply to it?

Goldiegirl wrote: »

I would welcome any WASPI supporter who is willing to rationally and calmly answer these questions, and comment on things like how other groups of people would feel adversely affected if WASPI achieved their main 'ask'.

I've tried on Facebook, but any question that I've asked has been immediately deleted.

I want to understand more about their thinking and reasoning, but what we tend to get are emotional statements about unfairness and being robbed, and women in their 50's and '60's being described as elderly and all of them having deprived and narrow lives.

Then, when these views are challenged, there's flouncing and accusations.

Please, WASPI supporters, can you answer genuine questions calmly, and debate your views rationally? It would be very interesting

Like Goldiegirl, I'd be very interested in hearing your viewpoint and having a rational debate about WASPI demands and how that sits with my opinions.
FTR, I'm a woman born late 1953 so affected by both the 1995 and 2011 changes - the latter put my SPA back by 18 months.

Thank you.

bmm78

Scotswimmen wrote: »

This misogyny is alive & well-look at some of the posts on this thread about women being 'lazy & greedy'. Welcome to the sad world of the internet troll. Some of them are, I understand, paid to promote divisions & disrupt debate.

Scotswimmen wrote: »

I am not suggesting everyone is paid but have seen some very offensive posts here, as will you have too & they correspond with similar destructive posts elsewhere on the internet. It's well know that some trolls are paid.

Intrigued as to who exactly you believe is getting paid, and who is paying them?

From where did you obtain this information?

Scotswimmen

bmm78-you seem to be more capable on the Internet Forum than me-I'm not sure how to post quotes like you as new on here. And yes I did read the rules/netiquette before I 'shot from the hip' like someone else said! I thought I was expressing my view, not shooting anyone! As you are so experienced. a quick Internet search can reveal hundreds of reputable sites re: how Government paid Shills & Trolls are manipulating Social Media, with “psychology-based influence techniques”especially when anything Political is being debated. I have also seen other people,wearing the mask of Anonymity, making comments ranging from cheeky to vile (I see one on another thread re: this that my generation are grasping baby boomers)and it's that bile I don't want to engage with.

jem16

Scotswimmen - could we please move on?

We would like to debate the Waspi aims and what you hope to achieve from the campaign. Would it be possible to answer the questions we have asked as we are genuinely interested?