WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

uk1

missbiggles1 wrote: »

No thanks - I supplied an answer to your first question - don't push it.;)

You may find this difficult to believe but I genuinely do not understand what your objection was. Because I "didn't get it" but could see people seemed to agree with you, and I genuinely wished to see what I was "missing" - so I have asked you to explain.

You have said that you have explained, but you haven't. You have simply said the OP behaved inappropriately. You have not said specifically what you object to. There has been emotion and vagueness avoidance and a bit of attacking, but you haven't stated what she has done wrong.

Either it is simple to explain or it cannot be explained.

Thanks.

Jeff

bmm78

Personally I don't see the major issue with Pennylane's original post. The issue of what is and isn't in good taste is so subjective that unless there is something clearly disrespectful or distasteful it's best to give people the benefit of the doubt.

uk1

bmm78 wrote: »

Personally I don't see the major issue with Pennylane's original post. The issue of what is and isn't in good taste is so subjective that unless there is something clearly disrespectful or distasteful it's best to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks. Agreed.


I have re-read the whole thread from start to end. I had never previously heard of WASPI. Normally, if something is in good or bad taste, you can see why some might think it might be in bad taste but simply disagree with their conclusion. I cannot see any "bad taste" argument to disagree with and it seems it isn't going to be forthcoming. I was genuinely interested to hear the reason for that view.

What seems more likely to me, is that it is because some posters objected to the OP starting this thread in the first place. I think they didn't agree with WASPI and/or they felt the topic had been done too much. They were quite "abrupt" (polite word ....) about it. Those same people then subsequently objected when the OP said her thanks to Jo's memory when she posted it for her support of the aims of WASPI. Lot's of people have been paying homage to Jo for the work she has done in many fields. It is on TV and in the papers all the time from those that admired her work.

In the absence of any other reasons offered, it seems to me that this was more about the OP starting the thread in the first place than anything to do with the subsequent post. It was the same people. That is the only explanation I can think of.

I found myself wondering as someone who doesn't support WASPI, whether I would have been accused if I had made the same post. I doubt it. It is possible to admire someone's commitment to something they do even if you disagree with the aims. To accuse her of trading on Jo's tragic death when she simply thanked her - I simply do not understand. I asked I thought courteously.

Onwards and upwards.

Jeff

mgdavid

uk1 wrote: »

Thanks.

Please explain what point she has scored and how she scored it.

Jeff

You playing dumb is as bad as Pennylane playing innocent. Neither wash.
If you hadn't heard of WASPI you really were commenting from a position of ignorance. Often that's thought to be the best time to keep schtum.

dunstonh

What seems more likely to me, is that it is because some posters objected to the OP starting this thread in the first place.

You are probably right because there have been repeated threads on WASPI and the same content repeated again and again. Often started by the same people.

I think they didn't agree with WASPI and/or they felt the topic had been done too much.

Very few on the board agreed with all of the WASPI proposals. WASPI wanted a return to 60 for women for example. However, the vast majority of posters did feel that the 2011 changes were too quick to implement for some women and that is what WASPI should have focused on. However, by aiming for the 1995 changes, they were campaigning for something the Government would never change. And shouldnt change.

They were quite "abrupt" (polite word ....) about it.

Many of the WASPI supporters have the posting style of the Scot Nats. They also post in multiple places and you can see the attacks made on individuals elsewhere. The board here, tends to remove them.

uk1

dunstonh wrote: »

You are probably right because there have been repeated threads on WASPI and the same content repeated again and again. Often started by the same people.

Very few on the board agreed with all of the WASPI proposals. WASPI wanted a return to 60 for women for example. However, the vast majority of posters did feel that the 2011 changes were too quick to implement for some women and that is what WASPI should have focused on. However, by aiming for the 1995 changes, they were campaigning for something the Government would never change. And shouldnt change.

Many of the WASPI supporters have the posting style of the Scot Nats. They also post in multiple places and you can see the attacks made on individuals elsewhere. The board here, tends to remove them.

Thanks,

Sadly subsequent to my post, you will see an abusive post attempting to bully me into keeping quiet on the basis that I had admitted that I had not heard of WASPI, and evidently this proved I was either dishonest or stupid. This post had at the time I write this received thanks and support from two posters who previously didn't like me charecterising some of the posts in the thread as bullying.

The line between disagreement and bullying is a fine one, but the problem is that at least three posters at least do not know the difference or approve of bullying people into keeping quiet.

On looking at what WASPI appears to stand for it seems to me they are way off the mark, but no one of whatever view they hold should be thanked for bullying and abuse.

Anyway .... thanks.

Jeff

jem16

uk1 wrote: »

Sadly subsequent to my post, you will see an abusive post attempting to bully me into keeping quiet on the basis that I had admitted that I had not heard of WASPI, and evidently this proved I was either dishonest or stupid. This post had at the time I write this received thanks and support from two posters who previously didn't like me charecterising some of the posts in the thread as bullying.

I thanked that post simply because he appears to believe you're intentionally acting dumb with regards to WASPI and I agree with him. Considering the number of threads on this subject in recent months, you would need to have been living on another planet not to have heard of WASPI before you commented on this thread.

Onwards and upwards - well glad you spent yesterday researching to come up with their catchphrase.

The line between disagreement and bullying is a fine one, but the problem is that at least three posters at least do not know the difference or approve of bullying people into keeping quiet.

My problem with this accusation is that you're quite happy to put down your opinion as simply your opinion and your right to give it. Yet I am not to give my opinion or apparently it is classed as bullying - as I said earlier it smacks of double standards.

I don't have a problem with either you or Pennylane expressing your opinions - please feel free to do so but don't make ill-founded accusations because you don't agree/like my opinion.

Pennylane has explained why she posted and whilst I still don't feel it was the right place or time to do so, I will give her the benefit of the doubt.

Pollycat

uk1 wrote: »

Sadly subsequent to my post, you will see an abusive post attempting to bully me into keeping quiet on the basis that I had admitted that I had not heard of WASPI, and evidently this proved I was either dishonest or stupid. This post had at the time I write this received thanks and support from two posters who previously didn't like me charecterising some of the posts in the thread as bullying.

jem16 wrote: »

Oh please, not the bullying card! Disagreeing with someone is not bullying.

^^^ +1

You do not know why those 2 posters thanked the post you mention.

uk1 wrote: »

The line between disagreement and bullying is a fine one, but the problem is that at least three posters at least do not know the difference or approve of bullying people into keeping quiet.

No.
At least 3 posters do not agree with your definition of 'bullying'.

uk1

jem16 wrote: »

I thanked that post simply because he appears to believe you're intentionally acting dumb with regards to WASPI and I agree with him. Considering the number of threads on this subject in recent months, you would need to have been living on another planet not to have heard of WASPI before you commented on this thread.

Onwards and upwards - well glad you spent yesterday researching to come up with their catchphrase.

My problem with this accusation is that you're quite happy to put down your opinion as simply your opinion and your right to give it. Yet I am not to give my opinion or apparently it is classed as bullying - as I said earlier it smacks of double standards.

I don't have a problem with either you or Pennylane expressing your opinions - please feel free to do so but don't make ill-founded accusations because you don't agree/like my opinion.

Pennylane has explained why she posted and whilst I still don't feel it was the right place or time to do so, I will give her the benefit of the doubt.

Whatever you choose to believe or not is something for you. Perhaps if you think someone is telling lies you should consider that a view to keep to yourself. and not be abusive to other posters.

For the removal of all doubt, I have only recently started looking more closely at two forums on this site relatively recently when my wife and I were deferring pensions. I've remained simply because ai had a question about pensions for non tax payers and I'm interested in the brexit issue.

I have been well aware of pressure to change the pension ages due to some perceived unfairness but did not know the names of any organisations.

Having now explained this to you, which frankly ai shouldn't need to, then if you had an ounce of decency in you would apologise for calling me a liar.

Jeff

jem16

uk1 wrote: »

Whatever you choose to believe or not is something for you. Perhaps if you think someone is telling lies you should consider that a view to keep to yourself. and not be abusive to other posters.

So accusing someone of bullying for holding a different opinion is not abusive in your view?

Having now explained this to you, which frankly ai shouldn't need to, then if you had an ounce of decency in you would apologise for calling me a liar.

Jeff

If you had an ounce of decency you would be apologising for calling me a bully but you seem determined to play the victim here.

The official WASPI Campaign did pay a tribute to Jo Cox 2 days ago and haven't posted since on Twitter. For all I disagree with their campaign, they handled that tribute well - a simple tribute with no reference to their campaign.

https://twitter.com/waspi_campaign/status/743465833406562306