WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

slightlymiffed

jem16 wrote: »

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.



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.

Oh dear - and there's me thinking we had found some common ground!

I do agree that it is wrong to lie or embellish the truth by either side but in my opinion, it does not justify the vitriolic and intrusive nature of some of the 'attacks'. From what I've witnessed, the 'nasty' comments from those attacked are normally defensive in nature - maybe 'fighting fire with fire'? It's sad and dispiriting but the fact remains that poking about through someone's personal Facebook page for the sole purpose of attacking someone's views on state pension age is stalker-like behaviour unworthy of any so pension/tax or financial 'expert'. Surely you can see that?

The fact that you don't seem able to means I have to conclude that you may indeed be one of those engaging in some of this unpleasantness on social media because of your 'disconnect'. That disappoints me.

missbiggles1

slightlymiffed wrote: »

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?

It's a brief interview about women's pay and pension prospects. The 1995 act is irrelevant in the context you mean as it would only lead to women being better off in retirement, not worse.

slightlymiffed

missbiggles1 wrote: »

It's a brief interview about women's pay and pension prospects. The 1995 act is irrelevant in the context you mean as it would only lead to women being better off in retirement, not worse.

No it's not irrelevant at all - it was an opportunity to inform and it was missed.

How does the 1995 Act 'lead to women being better off in retirement'? The actual value of the single tier pension was not known at that time, nor, I believe, that women would need 35 rather than 30 years NI contributions to qualify.

Brief interview? Oh, of course - economical with the whole truth you mean?

jem16

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Oh dear - and there's me thinking we had found some common ground!

We have if you stick to facts.

I do agree that it is wrong to lie or embellish the truth by either side but in my opinion, it does not justify the vitriolic and intrusive nature of some of the 'attacks'. From what I've witnessed, the 'nasty' comments from those attacked are normally defensive in nature - maybe 'fighting fire with fire'?

Yet you cannot seem to accept that the same happens on both sides - why would that be? Is it because you feel you have more in common with the 1950s women and are blind to any criticism of them?

It's sad and dispiriting but the fact remains that poking about through someone's personal Facebook page for the sole purpose of attacking someone's views on state pension age is stalker-like behaviour unworthy of any so pension/tax or financial 'expert'. Surely you can see that?

I've already answered that question.

The fact that you don't seem able to means I have to conclude that you may indeed be one of those engaging in some of this unpleasantness on social media because of your 'disconnect'. That disappoints me.

Read my previous post and then have the decency to apologise.

missbiggles1

slightlymiffed wrote: »

No it's not irrelevant at all - it was an opportunity to inform and it was missed.

How does the 1995 Act 'lead to women being better off in retirement'? The actual value of the single tier pension was not known at that time, nor, I believe, that women would need 35 rather than 30 years NI contributions to qualify.

Brief interview? Oh, of course - economical with the whole truth you mean?

The 1995 act included the fact that women needed 9 fewer years' contributions to receive a full state pension, a fact that you and WASPI conveniently overlook. Many more women (myself included) would have far lower pensions if that hadn't been introduced. In addition, women working between 1 and 5 extra years would have higher occupational or private pensions when they retire, bringing them nearer to the financial position of men.

I can't imagine why an interview given 7 years after the legislation was passed and 9 years after it was announced should be used to tell anybody about what was, at that point, very stale news.

slightlymiffed

jem16 wrote: »

We have if you stick to facts.



Yet you cannot seem to accept that the same happens on both sides - why would that be? Is it because you feel you have more in common with the 1950s women and are blind to any criticism of them?



I've already answered that question.



Read my previous post and then have the decency to apologise.

I'm not blind (how insulting - get xylophone quick! ) - maybe I do empathise more with these women; but I can see that two wrongs don't make a right. 1950's women - some of them 'Sun readers' no doubt can be forgiven for their naivity but I don't believe that pensions/tax/financial experts should engage in this type of behaviour because it tarnishes their profession.

What am I apologising for Jem16? Recognising your disconnected argument style?

No can do - sorry.

Mortgagefreeman

The whole Campaign seems to be more about ego's than anything else. The WASPI five are now the WASPI two, thanks to a bloodless coup. I believe the other three weren't quite so radical with their demands, so had to be desposed of!

bmm78

slightlymiffed wrote: »

In any case, I think all 1950's women will be quaking in their Louboutins at the thought of jamesd's legal challenge to any possible recompense. :rotfl:

It’s worth noting that a male legal challenge (Barber v. Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group 1990) was one of the key catalysts for UK state pension equalisation in the first place.

There are a number of WASPI supporters who have been very vocal about the prospect of legal action against the government in relation to the 1995 and/or 2011 Pensions Acts. The irony is that any concessions that do not apply equally to men are probably more vulnerable to legal challenge than the existing legislation, as they would move the UK further away from the EU principle of equal treatment for social security (Directive 79/7/EEC).

In a hypothetical scenario where the government wants to make concessions, they would need to be very careful that any changes were justifiable under Directive 79/7. WASPI appear to be aware of this based on the semantics of their various “asks” (but completely lost the plot with the scale). Regardless of how it was worded though, in the event of a costly concession a “MASPI” legal challenge is certainly a possibility.

xylophone

your opinion

And I stand by it.

your friend MissBiggles

I can confirm that I have no personal acquaintanceship with Miss Biggles.

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.

And how is this relevant either to your lack of courtesy or to the discussion on pensions?

pafpcg

Might I be allowed to inject a little levity here?

slightlymiffed wrote: »

these people mostly hide behind profile photos of cats, dogs and penguins

It's entirely possible that some of these people use an avatar that has been automatically assigned. For example, mine is a football which the MSE site assigned to me - it wasn't my choice! Now, the only thing of interest I know about a football is that it shares the same outer near-spherical shape of the C60 allotrope of the spherical (actually a truncated icosahedron) carbon molecule better known as Buckminsterfullerene - and I know lot more about Buckminsterfullerene than I know (or care) about football. However, there is a tenuous connection to this discussion, something which might be known only to fifties (and earlier) men and women - a proper football in the fifties was made of leather which became extraordinarily heavy as it absorbed water on a muddy pitch and became dangerous to head if travelling at speed. Definitely nothing like the plastic-coated football shown in my avatar used by these present-day namby-pamby footballers. Now, when I were a lad.......

slightlymiffed wrote: »

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?

Well, he is a politician and a LibDem to boot, so would it be surprising if the text he submitted to the BBC was three or four times longer than that which was published? Maybe an editor in the BBC excised the "missing" text? Never assign to maliciousness that which can be explained by incompetence.


Have a good day (even if it is baking hot out there)!