WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

slightlymiffed

missbiggles1 wrote: »

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.

9 fewer years contributions for a few years and then just 4. In my case, by 2011, a total of almost 6 years added to my SPA. As for bringing women nearer to the financial position of men - not significantly enough I would contend.

I can't imagine why a government would wait 14 years before informing women about the 1995 Act either (more than a bit stale by then, eh?).

Steve Webb himself has been very critical of some of the state pension age changes in recent years so maybe, in hindsight, he might agree that article wasn't the complete picture?

slightlymiffed

xylophone wrote: »

And I stand by it.



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




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

Oh - do give it a rest. You 'know' MissBiggles in the way you 'know' all the other 'experts' on these forums. I don't suggest you know her personally - heaven forbid.

Actually, it is relevant to the discussion on pensions because my mother wouldn't have been able to have had the conversation that Silvertabby was fortunate enough to have had. In other words - we inhabit different worlds. We are all different and our life experiences shape our lives.

jem16

slightlymiffed wrote: »

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.

As far as you're concerned the two wrongs that don't make a right are all one-sided, so yes you are blind. Not in the sense that you cannot see but in the sense that you don't want to see.

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.

So basically you are excusing 1950s women for wishing cancer on someone simply because they are naive? That says it all really.

How do you know that all of the people you are complaining about are pensions/tax/financial experts?

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

You've not recognised anything. You've just chucked accusations about despite what I've already told you in previous posts.

No can do - sorry.

Again that doesn't surprise me. If you can't win the argument with facts then resort to personal attacks. For a self declared non WASPI you do exhibit many of their endearing traits.

slightlymiffed

pafpcg wrote: »

Might I be allowed to inject a little levity here?



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.......




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)!

Well said pafpcg! We certainly could do with an injection of levity here...;)

You may of course be right about the precising of Steve Webb's original text - however it happened, it's just a shame that this would have been a good opportunity to remind women?

Steve Webb seems to be an honest guy and has been upfront about government failures so let's hope you're right.

Actually, the avatars to which I was referring are on Twitter not MSE (and these forum members arguing with me here know who they are). Pop over to Twitter and have a look for yourself - see what you think? Try searching #Waspi - that should do it! I'd be interested in your take on this.

jem16

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I can't imagine why a government would wait 14 years before informing women about the 1995 Act either (more than a bit stale by then, eh?).

Probably something to do with the fact that no UK law is ever notified personally by letter.

Steve Webb himself has been very critical of some of the state pension age changes in recent years so maybe, in hindsight, he might agree that article wasn't the complete picture?

Funny how he was only critical after leaving office as opposed to actually doing something about it when he was in office. He'd say anything now if he thought it gained him something. To say that most MPs didn't know what they were voting on with regard to the 2011 Act was a load of nonsense. You only have to look at the Hansard records whilst the Act was going through parliament to find that all that is being discussed now was fully discussed then and unfortunately mostly rejected apart from the 6 months concession that brought your increase down from 2 years to 18 months.

slightlymiffed

jem16 wrote: »

As far as you're concerned the two wrongs that don't make a right are all one-sided, so yes you are blind. Not in the sense that you cannot see but in the sense that you don't want to see.



So basically you are excusing 1950s women for wishing cancer on someone simply because they are naive? That says it all really.

How do you know that all of the people you are complaining about are pensions/tax/financial experts?



You've not recognised anything. You've just chucked accusations about despite what I've already told you in previous posts.



Again that doesn't surprise me. If you can't win the argument with facts then resort to personal attacks. For a self declared non WASPI you do exhibit many of their endearing traits.

Excusing women wishing cancer on people? How dare you. My mother died of cancer - I would never do that.

I have tried to find common ground with you but there is no point - your prejudice is without mercy. Get back to rock-hopping 'Jem'.

Just one final question - what on earth will you do when all of this is resolved (one way or another)? Your life must be very sad and you are one very bitter lady. I feel nothing but pity for you.

jem16

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Excusing women wishing cancer on people? How dare you. My mother died of cancer - I would never do that.

Wind your neck in with your false indignation. I never said you would do that. I said that at least one 1950s woman did but that you suggested that was done through simple naivety and that they could no doubt be forgiven. My issue is that just because you are not aware of it happening, doesn't mean to say it isn't happening.

I have tried to find common ground with you but there is no point - your prejudice is without mercy. Get back to rock-hopping 'Jem'.

No you're right there is no point simply because you refuse to admit that 1950s women could possibly also be doing what you find so distasteful in others.

I've given you common ground with regards the 2011 Act and with that you and all other 1953/54 ladies in particular have my full support.

However I will not put up with your constant sniping and accusations simply because you think 1950s women on social media are doing no wrong.

slightlymiffed

jem16 wrote: »

Wind your neck in with your false indignation. I never said you would do that. I said that at least one 1950s woman did but that you suggested that was done through simple naivety and that they could no doubt be forgiven. My issue is that just because you are not aware of it happening, doesn't mean to say it isn't happening.



No you're right there is no point simply because you refuse to admit that 1950s women could possibly also be doing what you find so distasteful in others.

I've given you common ground with regards the 2011 Act and with that you and all other 1953/54 ladies in particular have my full support.

However I will not put up with your constant sniping and accusations simply because you think 1950s women on social media are doing no wrong.

There's a lot that's false on here 'Jem'.

Let me remind you what you said:-

So basically you are excusing 1950s women for wishing cancer on someone simply because they are naive? That says it all really.

How on earth did you come to that conclusion? I made no reference to all posts by all 1950's women being naive - don't be ridiculous.

You 'will not put up with...?' get real Jem, this is a 'discussion' forum (clue's in the title) and you will 'put up with' anything anyone cares to post. It's called Freedom of Speech (look it up).

As for accusations - you repeatedly 'accuse' me of being a Waspi sympathiser! This isn't the Third Reich for goodness sake and I promise I haven't got any holed up in my attic. :rotfl:

You seem to have very little else to occupy you - which in itself is worrying. Have you tried getting a real job?

Now I've enjoyed our little tete a tete but must be off - things to do, people to see, places to go. How about you?

jem16

slightlymiffed wrote: »

How on earth did you come to that conclusion? I made no reference to all posts by all 1950's women being naive - don't be ridiculous.

From your own words;

slightlymiffed wrote: »

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.

Two wrongs don't make a right as far as so called experts are concerned. However 1950s women can no doubt be forgiven for their naivity.

I disagree - two wrongs don't make a right no matter where it comes from.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

You 'will not put up with...?' get real Jem, this is a 'discussion' forum (clue's in the title) and you will 'put up with' anything anyone cares to post. It's called Freedom of Speech (look it up).

Yes and I reserve the right to reply as I did. Xylophone is right - you're just downright rude when you don't get the answers you want.

Mortgagefreeman

I really can't understand 'slightlymiffed' if they're so bothered about their circumstances why don't they supplement their income by doing some extra work. Maybe some local Barwork in the evening, or a flexible working agreement doing some cleaning? There's plenty additional work available for those still active.