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

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

No I don't. I'm pretty sure it did help the increase in signatures.

Unless there are figures we can do nothing but guess.

Well you can always invoke the Probability Theory and come to a more conclusive rationale.

However, I don't think you need to go to such lengths. You can look at the weekly average and the average for the week that MSE put their name to it. You will see the spike. Without a better explanation you would then have to conclude the obvious.

zagfles

Scotswimmen wrote: »

jem16-if exposing personal attacks (Missbiggles:'You shame all women') results in them feeling ashamed-maybe it is shaming..... Having supported children/young people & women who have been sexually/physically/emotionally abused for most of my adult life, I would encourage anyone to speak out publicly against someone who is hurting them. If that is not being an 'adult' then I don't know what is.But as I said before, I don't want to debate it further in this context-just been replying to those who are mentioning my name....

No, being an adult is being able to cope with people who have different opinions to your own, being able to debate and challenge those opinions instead of going into a sulk just because they don't agree with you.

You just seem to want to dismiss posters either collectively (govt paid shills :rotfl:) or individually (she said something unfair boo hoo) as an excuse to avoid actually discussing the issue at hand.

missbiggles1

Scotswimmen wrote: »

This is a previous comment you made: Missbiggles: "I'm in the teachers' pension scheme" so why deny you are comfortable-off compared to other women living without personal pensions/relying on SP. Looking it up to cut & paste it, I saw you write "I don't see how my response was rude" to someone else. I guessed you were a maths teacher (as talking about A level maths previously-I said wasn't sure). Your apology is not one-it's suggesting, poor wee thing that I am, it's how I felt. It's time you took responsibility for the way you treat people in this forum. You tried to 'shame' me -which is about silencing people who disagree & not conducive to 'debate'. I never said you/anyone else personally here was a Gov Troll-I was clarifying that Internet Forums can be distorted because they exist. No, you fall into the other category -which my son spoke about last night: "Give a man, or in this case, a woman, a mask and you find out who they truly are".

I'm afraid that you haven't read my post properly or you would've noticed that I said "I'm not a retired school teacher with a generous pension".

I've never taught in a school in my life and my pension isn't large because I took early retirement on health grounds after only 10 years service - as an FE Lecturer.

I expect your apology in the post.:D

Scotswimmen

zagfles-I think referring to someone saying something very derogatory to me as "she said something unfair to me Boo Hoo", (thereby minimising it)says a lot about you & much more about you than me.

colsten

Scotswimmen wrote: »

zagfles-I am not in a 'sulk' but I don't want to discuss the issue further because I am not a spokesperson for WASPI

You don't have to be a spokesperson for WASPI in order to have an opinion on the campaign.

Scotswimmen

Missbiggles-why don't you write-under your own name-to your local paper-that the 136,692 who have signed the petition (including MPs within the Labour party you support/ed) are, by default, a 'shame to all women'. For you to say to another woman -me (who hasn't said anything offensive-just expressed her views, including well known theories about perpetrators of hateful messages online-in 1 Post-at that time) that she 'shames other women' is particularly abhorrent because you profess to have been a Union supporter. When I was one, my role was to give a voice to those who felt they were being treated unfairly.
I suspected you were a'teacher' & I was close-FE similar thing (I have done both). Reading between the lines (in previous posts), you have quite a settled income & my point is that this may be impacting on your empathy for others who are less fortunate/relying on State Pension.

John Macnicol has written an excellent book on the whole pretend Pensions Fund crisis: "Dept of work and work and work and no pensions". There was an article about it in The Telegraph (online too) last Nov: 'The Money Lab: the move to later retirement ages is driven by neoliberal ideology rather than economics or demographics'. I suggest folk read this (as I said I am speaking as an individual-not a group). Money is available to bomb Syria/pay for Trident & bail out bankers so should be available to assist older women (for a limited period of time) who are facing hardship, because the goalposts keep changing.

p00hsticks

Scotswimmen wrote: »

zagfles-I am not in a 'sulk' but I don't want to discuss the issue further because I am not a spokesperson for WASPI, fed up repeating this-I am expressing my own views & there is plenty of excellent information about it elsewhere.

Since the whole purpose of this thread is to discuss precisely this issue, then I don't understand why you keep continuing to post...

missbiggles1

Scotswimmen wrote: »

Missbiggles-I suspected you were a'teacher' & I was close-FE similar thing (I have done both). Reading between the lines (in previous posts), you have quite a settled income & my point is that this may be impacting on your empathy for others who are less fortunate/relying on State Pension. For you to say to another woman -me (who hasn't said anything offensive-just expressed her views, including well known theories about perpetrators of hateful messages online-in 1 Post-at that time) that she 'shames other women' is particularly abhorrent because you profess to have been a Union rep. When I was one, my role was to give a voice to those who felt they were being treated unfairly.

John Macnicol has written an excellent book on the whole pretend Pensions Fund crisis: "Dept of work and work and work and no pensions". There was an article about it in The Telegraph (online too) last Nov: 'The Money Lab: the move to later retirement ages is driven by neoliberal ideology rather than economics or demographics'. I suggest folk read this (as I said I am speaking as an individual-not a group). Money is available to bomb Syria/pay for Trident & bail out bankers so should be available to assist older women (for a limited period of time) who are facing hardship, because the goalposts keep changing.

Missbiggles-why don't you write-under your own name-to your local paper-that the 136,692 who have signed the petition (including MPs within the Labour party you support/ed) are, by default, a 'shame to all women'.

I did nothing of the sort - please stop misinterpreting what I wrote.

I think the whole WASPI campaign has been an insult to women by being both condescending and factually incorrect. Why I should want to write to my local paper to express this view when I can do so on the internet defeats me.

Perhaps it's now the time to read other people's posts and engage in the discussion more generally - you might even find it interesting.

zagfles

Scotswimmen wrote: »

zagfles-I am not in a 'sulk' but I don't want to discuss the issue further because I am not a spokesperson for WASPI, fed up repeating this-I am expressing my own views & there is plenty of excellent information about it elsewhere.

I think referring to someone saying something very derogatory to me as "she said something unfair to me Boo Hoo", says a lot about you & much more about you than me.

Yes laugh at the idea of shills & trolls all you want-this is rife throughout the internet.Just like !!!!!philes were/are in every organisation in society (including the media e.g. BBC) but that was shrugged off too. Perhaps I should put a wee laughing rolling head here too beneath a comment about childhood sexual abuse-that would be your definition of being an 'adult'.

You talk about derogatory then imply I'd condone laughing at child abuse? I think that says all I need to know about you. I won't be reading or replying to any more of your posts.

Daniel54

Scotswimmen wrote: »

Money is available to bomb Syria/pay for Trident & bail out bankers so should be available to assist older women (for a limited period of time) who are facing hardship, because the goalposts keep changing.

While you were airing you grievance with another poster here,there was an interesting discussion going on in the main UKParliament thread about the funding of any mitigation the government might choose to provide to affected women .Have a read.

In the WASPI oral submission to the Work and Pensions committee,Lin Philips ruled out any means targeted measure or improvement in pension credit, saying:

"Heidi Allen: It is some solution around income then?
Lin Phillips: Yes, not pensioner benefits and not means-tested. We are all sensible women, and, yes we might have savings, but they are going to be eroded."


If you choose to engage with them,there are several contributors here who would not disagree with the aim of providing assistance to women in financial difficulty who are most adversely affected by the 2011 Act due to short notice ,for a limited amount of time.

But the aim of the WASPI campaign appears to be compensation for all 1995 and 2011 women,irrespective of need.That is never going to happen.

Secondly and for your information, anonymity is essential to these boards .It is often necessary that detailed and very private information needs to be shared in order for a question to be adequately ansswered .For this reason,posters are mutually respectful of each other's privacy.We don't hide behind names ,they are vital protection.

Thirdly,you seem to be unaware of how insulting your troll/shill comment was in your first post.

Finally, the final paragraph of your post 142 has no place on any forum,let alone this one.I suggest you delete it forthwith .