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

saver861

mgdavid wrote: »

and they both end up looking stupid, and having done their credibility no good at all for the future....

ah .. the MSE credibility checker decides once again ....

that's it then .... their futures are doomed ...

System

JezR wrote: »

That's the kind of thing you get when you bring up nursery rhyme characters ...

In the version I know Jill came down with half a crown, but not for carrying water

saver861

Pollycat wrote: »

I thought the petition was clumsily worded and although I didn't agree that 1995 changes should have been included, I did agree that the 2011 changes were unfair -

Same here.... but if you were uncertain, then that would be the time to find out more before signing.

I understand you would not have signed if you had known more. That's fine. However, I might be wrong but from my recollection of all the posts and threads, you are the only one that states you have signed in error.

If its the case that 'most' people have signed it in error where are they?

Pollycat

saver861 wrote: »

Same here.... but if you were uncertain, then that would be the time to find out more before signing.

At that time - pre Christmas - I was very busy.
When a mod from a website you've been a member of for 9 years posts this:

MoneySavingExpert.com is supporting a major petition highlighting the plight of hundreds of thousands of women aged 55-65 who will be hardest hit by changes to the state pension. We're urgently calling on everyone to sign it today to ensure that 'fair transitional arrangements' are debated in Parliament.

and this:

Today MoneySavingExpert founder Martin Lewis lent his backing to the petition and said even those not directly affected by the changes should add their names to "establish a principle" over how this kind of far-reaching change should be handled.

and this:

"It's something we should all take an interest in, as we need to establish a principle that these types of changes must be done the right way. That's why I support this petition, as a debate would bring proper parliamentary scrutiny of the way this episode has been handled."

I didn't expect to get 'stiffed'. Maybe I was naive.

saver861 wrote: »

I understand you would not have signed if you had known more. That's fine. However, I might be wrong but from my recollection of all the posts and threads, you are the only one that states you have signed in error.

If its the case that 'most' people have signed it in error where are they?

I've no idea where the others are.
I've been pretty clear about my feelings about signing the petition since I read on here (maybe from jem16) about WASPI and Facebook.

saver861

Pollycat wrote: »

At that time - pre Christmas - I was very busy.
When a mod from a website you've been a member of for 9 years posts this:
and this:
and this:
I didn't expect to get 'stiffed'. Maybe I was naive.

Well the petition committee can only accept or reject the petition as it stands. The originators put their supporting arguments to it, but if those are too far from the original petition it will get thrown out.

The petition committee clearly did not feel that was the case.

Put another way, I can start a petition to have all the trees in Delamere Forest painted pink. However, if the petition gets the required 100K then that's what gets debated. If I really wanted the trees painted sea blue, and asked for a debate on sea blue colour instead of the original pink, then the petition committee would tell me go take a jump ..... out of a tree preferably!!

If you think MSE has misled then you need to take that up with them.

At the moment, you are saying you stiffed by a suggestion from MSE, on a Petition that was not what you thought it was.

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

Most people signed have no idea about the facebook page? It existed long before the petition page.

So? There are around 19,000 followers of their Facebook page. Whilst not everyone who uses their FB page will like/follow, that's still a very small amount compared to those who signed the petition.

At some point you will need to get past the fact that most of the current 142,000 signed knowing what they were doing.

I don't have any doubt that they knew what they were doing. The epetition was worded in such a way that anyone that was particularly annoyed at the 2011 Act would sign.

Many of the signatories aren't even likely to be affected themselves - they will be friends and/or relatives of 1950s women. Some will even just sign it because they like signing petitions.

Many on Twitter saying they signed in error? How many? What percentage of 142,000?

I've no idea. Go and hang out on Twitter if you're that interested.

A tweet from one person today said;

"it is not about what's written on a Facebook page.
That's a fact"

This was in answer to another tweet about the Facebook "ask".

I don't think you will be convinced and you will be forever of the view that only the knowledgable ones did not sign, the rest were misled!!

No there are some very knowledgeable people who did sign and would unsign if they could.

It's a simple fact that the epetition did not say what it meant by "fair transitional" arrangements. The Facebook "ask" did.

Now you can like it or dislike it - I really don't care.

Pollycat

saver861 wrote: »

Well the petition committee can only accept or reject the petition as it stands. The originators put their supporting arguments to it, but if those are too far from the original petition it will get thrown out.

The petition committee clearly did not feel that was the case.

But the originators of the petition i.e. WASPI had differing 'supporting arguments' that I (and I would imagine others) were not aware of.

saver861 wrote: »

Put another way, I can start a petition to have all the trees in Delamere Forest painted pink. However, if the petition gets the required 100K then that's what gets debated. If I really wanted the trees painted sea blue, and asked for a debate on sea blue colour instead of the original pink, then the petition committee would tell me go take a jump ..... out of a tree preferably!!

Was that what was debated?
Really?
Nothing about putting women born in the 1950s back in the same position they would have been .....? (or whatever the current WASPI 'ask' is).

saver861 wrote: »

If you think MSE has misled then you need to take that up with them.

To what end?
What difference would it really make?
Suffice to say I've learned my lesson not to trust MSE mods and Martin Lewis when they say they are 'urgently calling on everyone to sign it (the petition) today' and that they're 'backing the petition'.

saver861 wrote: »

At the moment, you are saying you stiffed by a suggestion from MSE, on a Petition that was not what you thought it was.

Of course that's what I'm saying.
The quotes from the thread posted by MSE Paloma aren't really a 'suggestion' - at least not in my dictionary.

p00hsticks

Pollycat wrote: »

So what if the WASPI Facebook page existed long before the petition?

I don't 'do' Facebook - nor Twitter - so the first I'd read of it was when one of the MSE mods posted a link to the petition.

I believe it was this thread posted on 14th December:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5378979
I followed the link in the thread to the petition.
I thought the petition was clumsily worded and although I didn't agree that 1995 changes should have been included, I did agree that the 2011 changes were unfair - so I signed it.

Nowhere in the MSE article was WASPI's Fb page mentioned.
Or WASPI's 'demands' or 'asks'.

So, yes - I did sign knowing what I was signing but I didn't know about the silly stuff on WASPI Facebook page.

I think the first mention of WASPI on MSE was over in Campaigns corner in September last year, and it pointed to the Facebook page rather than the petition (which i'm not sure was going then)

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5330405

colsten

saver861 wrote: »

I understand you would not have signed if you had known more. That's fine. However, I might be wrong but from my recollection of all the posts and threads, you are the only one that states you have signed in error.

I almost signed, after seeing them on Facebook. As I didn't flly understand how their "ask" on Facebook related to the actual Petition, and what their "ask" actually meant, I posted some questions on their Facebook.

Their response was that all the answers are on Facebook, had I signed now, and what had my MP said when I contacted them. When I pointed out that I still didn't have an answer to my questions and couldn't proceed without an answer, they deleted my posts.

colsten

jem16 wrote: »

It's a simple fact that the epetition did not say what it meant by "fair transitional" arrangements. The Facebook "ask" did.

And so did Anne Keen in the oral evidence to the WPSC. Using the same words as on Facebook. It cannot be un-said. She is on video.