WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

slightlymiffed

Pollycat wrote: »

For (I hope) the last time - I've never said those people are not entitled to a grievance.

I've never said it's not unfair.


My Mum and a close relative claim means tested benefits as a necessity - as a result of means outside their control.

To refer to them and other people in similar circumstances as scroungers is, quite frankly, despicable.

That's great then Pollycat. We can agree on something - we do have a genuine grievance. How we resolve that situation is the problem.

I don't believe anyone here has remotely suggested that anyone claiming benefits is a 'scrounger' but women who have worked all their lives and paid decades worth of NI and have never seen the inside of a DSS (or whatever they are called now) office, are rightly indignant at the prospect of being told they must 'prove' they are poor (i.e. no holidays or necklaces obviously!) in order to be 'considered' to be eligible for transitional relief.

Pollycat

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I'm sorry Pollycat, but I stand by my comment.

It is entirely your right to stand by your comment.
As it is my right to stand by mine.
It's just another point we disagree on.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Some (not all) of you 'usual suspects' do hunt in packs and pounce on anyone you perceive as being financially naive or whose view differs from your own. The bullying behaviour towards Pennylane earlier in this thread reached such a pitch that another forum member felt he/she had to intervene. It makes very uncomfortable reading.

To refer to the 'usual suspects' is -imho - quite rude.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

You say you are not united and yet you 'like' all each others' posts (like some awful little school gang) and nitpick every tiny nuance of an 'outsider's' post with glee. Random outsiders troll in every so often to insult - but it's the same random trolls. Co-incidence?

Speaking personally, I 'thank' someone's post if I agree with the content or am appreciative of advice.
It's not a 'gang' at all.
And do you and pennylane not 'thank' each other posts?
And you seem to always 'thank' saver81's posts.
How is that any different to what you are accusing others of?

I don't tend to take notice of who posts what unless I'm going to reply so I have no idea what 'random trolls' you are referring to.
Therefore, I can't comment on whether it's coincidence or not.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I've no doubt that some of you are the same mean-spirited who continually troll Waspi supporters on Twitter, posting spiteful and undeserved comments and who trawl Facebook to try to suggest that some poor woman has dared to go on holiday or was wearing a necklace! I would be very ashamed of myself if it is any of you.

I have no idea which posters you are referring to but I don't 'do' Twitter, nor do I 'do' Facebook.
I too would be ashamed if I'd posted (tweeted?) anything of the kind you mention above.
You see, there are some things we can agree on.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Are you trying to prove a point that you are all so much more clued up and savvy about pensions (we'll agree that one), that you knew all about pension law inside and out (maybe), that you are superior to us 'greedy' 1950's women who dare to suggest we have not been treated fairly? (definitely not).

I'm not trying to prove any point.
I did know about the 1995 changes, I was working in a large organistion and it was probably explained to us by HR - I really can't remember.

I'm sorry for any woman who wasn't aware of those changes and therfore had a shock when they were later informed of yet another extension to their state pension date.
By knowing, I don't feel superior at all.
It is as it is.

I've never called you (or anyone else in your postion - and that will include me!) 'greedy'.
And - I hope for the last time - I've never said it was fair.

saver861

Pollycat wrote: »

For (I hope) the last time - I've never said those people are not entitled to a grievance.

I've never said it's not unfair.

It seems you need post a deal of info about what you are 'not' saying ..... feel free to appendix your posts with what you are 'not' saying also - it may provide useful clarity!

Pollycat wrote: »

My Mum and a close relative claim means tested benefits as a necessity - as a result of means outside their control.

To refer to them and other people in similar circumstances as scroungers is, quite frankly, despicable.

Read my post again - it says anyone other than scroungers - for those that need, and qualify, benefits are a necessity beyond their control.

For those that fiddle the system, too lazy to work, feign illness, etc etc would be a scrounger.

Some Mrs 1954r's may have to claim benefits on the basis of the changes from 2011 act while Mrs 1952'rs won't need to. I expect Mrs 1954 waiting at the bus stop on a cold wet Tuesday morning to go sign on would be less than happy about that - nor should she - because it would be unfair.

Thats what I am saying .... there is nothing I am 'not' saying!

jem16

slightlymiffed wrote: »

You say you are not united and yet you 'like' all each others' posts

People tend to like a post when they agree with what the poster is saying just like you have done when you have agreed with saver861's posts - or is that somehow different?

that you are superior to us 'greedy' 1950's women who dare to suggest we have not been treated fairly? (definitely not).

Very few on here have suggested that at all. Most agree that for 1953 to 1956 born women the 2011 Act was unfair. Where we take issue is with those who feel the 1995 Act was unfair because they took no notice of what was going on in the world.

Unfortunately WASPI, or to be more precise one co-founder, has always found the 1995 Act to be the biggest injustice of all despite saying they agreed with equalisation. That co-founder is still pushing backdating to age 60. At least one other co-founder ( possibly plus 2 making the majority )has moved on and realises that that is never going to happen and is trying to change things - I hope she manages and I applaud her for her stance.

Pollycat

slightlymiffed wrote: »

That's great then Pollycat. We can agree on something - we do have a genuine grievance. How we resolve that situation is the problem.

I think WASPI's ill-thought out 'ask' has probably screwed that one.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I don't believe anyone here has remotely suggested that anyone claiming benefits is a 'scrounger' but women who have worked all their lives and paid decades worth of NI and have never seen the inside of a DSS (or whatever they are called now) office, are rightly indignant at the prospect of being told they must 'prove' they are poor (i.e. no holidays or necklaces obviously!) in order to be 'considered' to be eligible for transitional relief.

Well saver81 did a pretty good job of it.

Do you think my Mum and sibling knew their way around the inside of a DSS before they needed to claim benefits?
Of course they didn't.

Do you think my Mum and sibling weren't indignant at the prospect of claiming benefits?
Actually, a closer description would be 'embarrassed' and 'reluctant'.

Pollycat

saver861 wrote: »

It seems you need post a deal of info about what you are 'not' saying ..... feel free to appendix your posts with what you are 'not' saying also - it may provide useful clarity!

It seems you need to read my posts.

Then you'll have clarity about what I'm saying.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

People tend to like a post when they agree with what the poster is saying just like you have done when you have agreed with saver861's posts - or is that somehow different?

The identified 'thanks' system creates cliques ..... better to have a 'like' that is anonymous so it does not show who done it other than a number.

I have made posts almost identical in meaning to posts made later. The later posts have been 'thanked' a number of times while mine had not.

Apparently there are some who have me in their ignore list also, and some appear to delight in making a point of it....

Do I really worry about 'thanks', 'ignore lists' etc ... not in the least.

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

The identified 'thanks' system creates cliques ..... better to have a 'like' that is anonymous so it does not show who done it other than a number.

Well it is as it is. However I'm sure MSE will accept suggestions to changing it.

I have made posts almost identical in meaning to posts made later. The later posts have been 'thanked' a number of times while mine had not.

Apparently there are some who have me in their ignore list also, and some appear to delight in making a point of it....

Well there you are. Difficult to thank you if they're ignoring you.

Do I really worry about 'thanks', 'ignore lists' etc ... not in the least.

Wonder why you wrote a whole post about it then but glad you let us know. :T

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

Well there you are. Difficult to thank you if they're ignoring you.

Yeh that's true .... what's even more strange ..... some have commented on my posts ... even though I'm on their ignore list .... curious that!!

jem16 wrote: »

Wonder why you wrote a whole post about it then but glad you let us know. :T

There you go .... forever enlightened ..... anything else you need to know ... just ask!!

missbiggles1

saver861 wrote: »

Why do you think it is ok for a woman born in circa 1952 to collect pension at 61 when someone born circa 1954 has to wait until nearly 66 to get pension?

Why would it be ok for the 1952 to live on her pension from 61 while the 1952 woman has to 'claim benefits' to bridge the unexpected extended gap? Both of those women were told in 1995 when they would get their pension ... one has come up somewhat shorter than the other ... claiming hardship benefits is not the answer - nor I suspect would it be for you if you 'needed' your pension and had to claim benefits in is absence!!!

Given that the SRP is in itself a benefit, I can't see that it makes a great deal of difference.