WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

slightlymiffed

jamesd wrote: »

I addressed it with my observation that the fix for discrimination is not more discrimination against another group.

You're almost fifteen years behind the times. The Pensions Commission addressed that and so have three successive governments now with legislation. Things like the introduction of Pension Credit in October 2003, reduction in number of years to get a state pension to 30 (before single tier), the single tier pension and more things generating NI credits all have as their largest and most expensive effects increasing the state pensions that women are likely to receive. So yes, three governments (Labour, coalition and now Conservative) and an independent commission heard and acted.

Yes. It's perhaps more vital in the current context that you go back and look at what has already been done in that area so you can ask instead for something that hasn't already been looked at very extensively and acted on very extensively.

Yes, I'd say it would have been wise then to have campaigned for a more rapid increase in women's state pension age than in the 1995 Act. Though the Pensions Commission did a few years later with their first report coming out two years later in 2004, having been established following a green paper in December 2002. That's around two months after the story you linked to.

All very admirable jamesd, of course it can only be a snapshot of the state of play at that time but you have (again) missed the point - can you explain WHY was there no mention of changes to state pension age by Steve Webb in an article on the BBC website seven years after the Pensions Act 1995? It was very relevant and it was very important - but it wasn't mentioned! Remember, DWP had not yet begun their 'extensive' information campaign and so one of us 1950's women breezing though life (but finding this article on the business news page of the BBC) would STILL be none the wiser.

How much 'misinformation' or incomplete information was disseminated during this time?

slightlymiffed

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Another reflection of the "I want it all" culture we live in. Money, money, money.......

Sorry? And your point is?

Want it all? Are you on the wrong thread here?

“A man is rich who lives upon what he has. A man is poor who lives upon what is coming. A prudent man lives within his income, and saves against ‘a rainy day’.”

Aren't your 'rainy day savings' about money, money, money?

missbiggles1

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Nicely argued Jamesd but a pity you are so obsessed with legal action that you omitted to address the crucial issue of a lifetime of lower earnings for women - which is fundamental to all of this.

What is even more scandalous is that Steve Webb (then Shadow Work & Pensions Secretary) warned loud and clear back in 2002 that women faced an 'impoverished' retirement as wages then were 50% less than that of men. So, you probably need to factor that into any calculation too. Not looking very equal then and not much better now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2314293.stm

Did anyone heed Steve Webb's warning?

It is vital that the government undertakes an urgent study of the pay and pension provision that women receive.
They must then act quickly to prevent future generations of women from suffering the same poverty in old age that has been the lot of too many of their mothers and grandmothers.

Did they?

Interesting too that, in this quite comprehensive piece about womens' pensions, there was absolutely no mention of the increase to their state pension age, SEVEN YEARS after the 1995 Act. Quite an opportunity missed, wouldn't you say?

Can anyone explain why he would do that?

I'm afraid that this would only seem like a "comprehensive piece" to those who get their information from The Sun!

xylophone

As for trawling through previous posts to check someone's credentials...why would I?

Always better to check the facts before putting fingers to keyboard, especially when the posting history was so short?

And yes, you did exhibit gratuitous discourtesy - why not read it again and imagine that you were on the receiving end of this implied contempt?

In the vernacular, you were "b....y rude"?

slightlymiffed

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I'm afraid that this would only seem like a "comprehensive piece" to those who get their information from The Sun!

Not all 1950's women are as intellectually superior as you believe yourself to be MissBiggles. By your standards, someone who reads the Sun would not understand the word 'comprehensive' in any case. What snobbery.

In any case,it's 'comprehensive' enough to have included reference to the 1995 Act - unsurprisingly enough, the omission of which you fail to address.

Care to comment on that?

slightlymiffed

xylophone wrote: »

Always better to check the facts before putting fingers to keyboard, especially when the posting history was so short?

And yes, you did exhibit gratuitous discourtesy - why not read it again and imagine that you were on the receiving end of this implied contempt?

In the vernacular, you were "b....y rude"?

Thanks for the lecture xylophone - your opinion (not Silvertabby's apparently).

Let's now trust you apply your 'standards' and lectures to some of the other forum members who dish out the insults (you can start with your friend MissBiggles who has just insinuated that I am intellectually inferior . Definitely 'implied contempt' in your book, eh?

Instead of pulling people up on forum etiquette, it would be better if you contributed some useful comments to the discussion in hand.

For my part, I'm afraid I don't remember my mother talking about the changes to state pension age in 1995 because she had already died some 15 years previously at 52.

Thrugelmir

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Sorry? And your point is?

I was merely responding to the comment that you made that I highlighted. You raised the issue. Perhaps it's not relevant to this topic. Though you are trying to connect them.

jem16

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Do you find it acceptable that these odd people trawl through personal Facebook pages to look for 'evidence' that some woman has dared to take a holiday or may have what they perceive as a 'nice house'? I don't - and I don't believe most people with any kind of social conscience would.

No I don't find it acceptable.

However I also don't find it acceptable for 1950s women to give interviews for radio and newspapers that are simply inaccurate and in quite a few cases downright lies which are quite obvious from previous posts and tweets. Do you find that acceptable?

Of course these are not DWP spies - they are a motley crew of, in the main, petty, spiteful and disconnected people who are enraged that they might somehow 'miss out' or they will 'have to pay for it'. One of them, a financial journalist who writes a column for a well known 'retirement specialist magazine' is so puffed up with her own importance that she posts under her own name but these people mostly hide behind profile photos of cats, dogs and penguins or very unflattering photos of themselves in bleak locations.

Some people never seem to be satisfied. If you use your own name you are "puffed up with your own importance" and if you hide behind a profile you're accused of not using your own name.

Of course it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with their possibly 'missing out' on some perceived 'bonanza'!

What about those who actually stand to gain from this bonanza but just don't actually agree with the demands? The women that are posting here are in that category.

Of course the bonanza isn't going to happen. I do though hope justice will prevail for those of us who have been so badly affected by the 2011 Act.

I've said that all along and long before you ever appeared on this thread but you just seem to think I'm being antagonistic. The years badly affected are 1953 and 1954 with the extra 18 months on top at short notice. I would like to see this at least reduced if not removed.

I do not agree and never have agreed with the WASPI ask even though I would benefit to the tune of £36k.

slightlymiffed

jem16 wrote: »

No I don't find it acceptable.

However I also don't find it acceptable for 1950s women to give interviews for radio and newspapers that are simply inaccurate and in quite a few cases downright lies which are quite obvious from previous posts and tweets. Do you find that acceptable?



Some people never seem to be satisfied. If you use your own name you are "puffed up with your own importance" and if you hide behind a profile you're accused of not using your own name.



What about those who actually stand to gain from this bonanza but just don't actually agree with the demands? The women that are posting here are in that category.



I've said that all along and long before you ever appeared on this thread but you just seem to think I'm being antagonistic. The years badly affected are 1953 and 1954 with the extra 18 months on top at short notice. I would like to see this at least reduced if not removed.

I do not agree and never have agreed with the WASPI ask even though I would benefit to the tune of £36k.

Of course I don't find it acceptable for either 'side' of the debate to embellish the truth or tell downright lies but this can never be justification for the type of attacks I've seen.

'Those who would stand to gain from this bonanza but don't actually agree with the demands but who post here' are of course, perfectly within their rights to express their own opinion but it is the manner in which this is done which is in question. I'm hoping that you don't engage in any spiteful behaviour Jem16 and that any that do care to reflect that this is every bit as distasteful as the bullying we read about on social media. They ought to know better.

As a fellow 1954 born woman with no affiliation to any 'campaign' I find myself in total agreement with your final statement. I too would like to see a reduction or preferably a removal of the extra 18 months imposed by the 2011 Act. It was just too short notice and too ill thought through.

[Removed]

jem16

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Of course I don't find it acceptable for either 'side' of the debate to embellish the truth or tell downright lies but this can never be justification for the type of attacks I've seen.

I'm glad that you agree that embellishing the truth or simply telling outright lies is wrong.

However I'm a little disappointed that, once again, you cannot accept that there has been just as much wrong doing from 1950s women, many of whom have been very nasty towards those that simply don't agree with them.

'Those who would stand to gain from this bonanza but don't actually agree with the demands but who post here' are of course, perfectly within their rights to express their own opinion but it is the manner in which this is done which is in question. I'm hoping that you don't engage in any spiteful behaviour Jem16 and that any that do care to reflect that this is every bit as distasteful as the bullying we read about on social media. They ought to know better.

It seems to be far too easy to to complain about the manner in which someone expresses their opinion rather than accept that the other person has a valid opinion. Again I find that rather disappointing.