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

jem16

Pollycat wrote: »

I can't say how many of the142,000 signed in error but I've already posted on here that if I thought it was possible and if would do any good, I would retract my support of the petition.

One Waspi follower tried to reason with them on Facebook this morning about the differences between the Facebook ask and the petition. She got short shrift, all posts deleted and now labelled a s a defector. All because she tried to suggest the ask is harming the campaign and people have been misled.

This is her Twitter response.

https://twitter.com/BarnsH/status/694823932411670528

As to unsigning, apparently you can do that via the Feedback option on the e-petition site. It will probably not do any good but you may feel you want to do this.

Pollycat

jem16 wrote: »

One Waspi follower tried to reason with them on Facebook this morning about the differences between the Facebook ask and the petition. She got short shrift, all posts deleted and now labelled a s a defector. All because she tried to suggest the ask is harming the campaign and people have been misled.

This is her Twitter response.

https://twitter.com/BarnsH/status/694823932411670528

As to unsigning, apparently you can do that via the Feedback option on the e-petition site. It will probably not do any good but you may feel you want to do this.

Thanks, jem16.

Far more helpful than this load of tosh:

saver861 wrote: »

hmmm lets see now .... the campaign has been covered in the media, tv, radio and broadsheets, tabloids and social.

WASPI seem to be doing a very good job of hoodwinking people into signing a petition but keeping their main 'ask' from those signing!!

We now can add to the list, the petition committee and the MP's debating a petition that was secured under false pretences.

Not only that, a further 3,500 have signed since the debate .... under false pretences it seems!!! As well as that ....

Sorry .... need to interrupt ..... some breaking news just coming in ...

..Breaking News .... Breaking News .... Breaking News .... Breaking News ....

It appears our current Government is an illegitimate government. It has been found that those voting Conservative thought they were voting for Labour ..... those voting for Labour thought they were voting for Lib Dems ..... those voting Lib Dems were so confused they had no right to be anywhere near a ballot box.

Meanwhile .... in Scotland those voting for SNP thought they were voting in the Norway elections .....

This is unprecedented in the history of democracy .... this could have huge implications for the Government .....

Stay with us ... we will bring you more as we get it ....

..Breaking News .... Breaking News .... Breaking News .... Breaking News ....

Wow .... this is sensational ......

jem16

Pollycat wrote: »

Thanks, jem16.

Here's the direct link if you haven't already found it.

https://petition.parliament.uk/feedback

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

As to unsigning, apparently you can do that via the Feedback option on the e-petition site. It will probably not do any good but you may feel you want to do this.

Brilliant ..... now all those that did not mean to sign can unsign .... which means the numbers should diminish considerably .... given that 'most' have signed in error. They better hurry up too ... cos its still getting lots of signatures ....

Now, that causes a problem though, because if most, have singed in error, when they unsign there will be considerable less numbers.

Thus there will be a need to 'undebate' the petition ....

How are they going to 'undebate' it I wonder ....

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

Brilliant ..... now all those that did not mean to sign can unsign .... which means the numbers should diminish considerably .... given that 'most' have signed in error. They better hurry up too ... cos its still getting lots of signatures ....

You're very like Waspi in their outlook - cannot see in any way that some people may have a genuine concern over their "ask".

Whilst the petition contains no mention of the "ask", people will sign as it looks very genuine to want "fair, transitional arrangements".

It is also very fair to say that there are people who will want to unsign since they discovered that "ask" either via Facebook or Monday's debate as they do not agree with it. They are not under any illusion that it will make any difference to the petition but it will make a difference to them which is all that matters.

Pollycat

jem16 wrote: »

You're very like Waspi in their outlook - cannot see in any way that some people may have a genuine concern over their "ask".

Whilst the petition contains no mention of the "ask", people will sign as it looks very genuine to want "fair, transitional arrangements".

It is also very fair to say that there are people who will want to unsign since they discovered that "ask" either via Facebook or Monday's debate as they do not agree with it. They are not under any illusion that it will make any difference to the petition but it will make a difference to them which is all that matters.

I really do think you're wasting your breath (or fingers).

I so agree with your first sentence - I've thought that all the way through this thread.

Goldiegirl

jem16 wrote: »

One Waspi follower tried to reason with them on Facebook this morning about the differences between the Facebook ask and the petition. She got short shrift, all posts deleted and now labelled a s a defector. All because she tried to suggest the ask is harming the campaign and people have been misled.

This is her Twitter response.

https://twitter.com/BarnsH/status/694823932411670528

As to unsigning, apparently you can do that via the Feedback option on the e-petition site. It will probably not do any good but you may feel you want to do this.

Yes, I saw those posts on Facebook as well.


It's a shame that WASPI can't take on board constructive points like this.


I think WASPI need to take time to reflect on where their campaign goes now. There's been debates about the petition, and the results of the debates are that no new evidence has been presented and the 1995 and 2001 Acts will not be revisited


So there's no point in WASPI continuing to plough the same furrow.


Perhaps they need consult with their supporters and get ideas for where the campaign should go now.


My own feeling is that they should concentrate on those in genuine hardship and see if additional measures could be put in place. I realise that this probably wouldn't be popular with the average WASPI supporter as many of them aren't in genuine hardship, and they'd get nothing. But it's an area where WASPI could raise awareness do something positive.


There's an idea I saw floating around on Twitter (not sure exactly where) for people (men and women) to be able to draw an actuarially reduced state pension at age 60 - this might be an avenue for them to pursue - people with a reduced life expectancy due to illness could find this idea to be interesting

Paul_Herring

Goldiegirl wrote: »

I realise that this probably wouldn't be popular with the average WASPI supporter

Well, no. Because it means they wont get (or the equivilent of) their pension from age 60.

I'm sure I'm not being too cynical to suggest that the 2011 issue was brought to the fore, simply to slide the 1995 issue in on the back of it.

If whatever is done doesn't address the 1995 issue, a substantial number won't be interested, since it does nothing for them.

greenglide

I think WASPI need to take time to reflect on where their campaign goes now.I think WASPI need to take time to reflect on where their campaign goes now.

Somewhere other than Twitter / Facebook would be good IMHO.

I am not convinced I have seen anything grown-up on Twitter or Facebook and they are renowned for some the way that people are abused and physically threatened over really trivial matters.

This is about "social networks" in general, not the WASPI in particular. There has to be a better place to have an important, grown up debate?

There's an idea I saw floating around on Twitter (not sure exactly where) for people (men and women) to be able to draw an actuarially reduced state pension at age 60 - this might be an avenue for them to pursue - people with a reduced life expectancy due to illness could find this idea to be interesting

That looks like a really logically suggestion but the IT costs would be huge and it would have to have decent safeguards built in to prevent people making some really silly decisions and there is the impact on other benefits - UC, ESA, JSAPS and Pension Credit.

A nightmare!

Paul_Herring

greenglide wrote: »

There has to be a better place to have an important, grown up debate?

House of Commons?


I'll get my coat...