Women fighting state pension changes to protest outside Parliament on Budget Day

Pollycat

mazzy wrote: »

I agree. They have let us down concentrating on fighting something most of us agreed had to happen.

From what I've read in previous threads, WASPI were very quick to 'excommunicate' anybody who didn't toe the party line so any suggestion that they were concentrating their efforts in the wrong place wouldn't have gone down very well.

Malthusian

Pollycat wrote: »

If WASPI had concentrated on the later changes instead of banging on about what happened in 1995, I think they would have had much more support.

They would have had more sympathy from the general public. But they would have fewer people giving them money for them to swan around the country in first class and play at revolution. And fewer people turning up at demonstrations.

Besides, WASPI's founders wanted their state pension at 60. No demand for reversal of the 1995 Act, no WASPI.

Malthusian

Those calls have, unfortunately, fallen upon deaf ears. Our clients have therefore been forced to send formal legal correspondence to the Government to call for concrete action. If the Government refuses to consider these proposals, our clients will have no alternative but to consider all available legal and other options.

Hang on, WASPI appear to be saying that if they don't get what they want they'll resort to violence or other illegal action. (How else do you interpret all available legal and other options?) And this is in a letter issued via a solicitor.

If I find myself accused of murder and my only options are to represent myself or accept a legal aid solicitor who happens to be from Bindman's, I'll be representing myself. I'll probably end up in prison for life but there's no way I could do worse than a legal firm who while speaking for its clients threatens to break the law in a letter addressed to the Government.

Silvertabby

“ Yes, mazzy. it was the 2011 (I think) Act that impacted on late 1953 & 1954 women giving not a lot of notice.


^^^^ Posted by me earlier in this thread so we are in exactly the same position, I'm October 1953 too.

If WASPI had concentrated on the later changes instead of banging on about what happened in 1995, I think they would have had much more support.
Originally posted by Pollycat ”
I agree. They have let us down concentrating on fighting something most of us agreed had to happen. I was fortunate to have a work pension that enabled me to retire soon after my husband, its not a lot but enough as my replacement knees have been a problem and I could have no longer continued in the job i was doing............ Posted by mazzy

Exactly. I was born in 1956 so the 2011 Act changed my State pension age from 65 to 66 with 10 years notice (but bearing in mind that I had been given over 30 years notice of the increase to 65). Annoying, but not devastating. I do sympathise with the 1953/1954 women - but WASPI's demand for payment of the full State pension at age 60 to all women born in the 1950s (but all women born on or after 1 January 1960 can get st*ffed) is just beyond ridiculous.

uk1

Malthusian wrote: »

Hang on, WASPI appear to be saying that if they don't get what they want they'll resort to violence ........

Where did these elderly women say this please?

Pollycat

uk1 wrote: »

Where did these elderly women say this please?

Less of the 'elderly' if you don't mind.

I'm the same age as a lot of these women and older than some.
You might feel the wrath of my Doc Mart's if you don't recant that comment. :whistle:

uk1

Pollycat wrote: »

Less of the 'elderly' if you don't mind.

I'm the same age as a lot of these women and older than some.
You might feel the wrath of my Doc Mart's if you don't recant that comment. :whistle:

Quite right to pull me up on that one. Apologies to all concerned.

Malthusian wrote: »

Hang on, WASPI appear to be saying that if they don't get what they want they'll resort to violence

Where did these unelderly women say this please?

Triumph13

Malthusian wrote: »

(How else do you interpret all available legal and other options?).

Quite simply. 'Legal' here implies 'by trying to sue you'. There are many actions people with a grievance can take other than taking someone to court and many of these are not illegal.
There's nothing to be gained by trying to claim GRASPI are a bunch of violent revolutionaries. Selfish, mendacious and greedy yes, but violent seems unlikely.

Mortgagefreeman

uk1 wrote: »

Quite right to pull me up on that one. Apologies to all concerned.



Where did these unelderly women say this please?

What their Solicitors said was this.

If the Government refuses to consider these proposals, our clients will have no alternative but to consider all available legal and other options

'Other options'implies they're not legal!

Whoever drafted this statement, at best, chose their words unwisely.:rotfl:

Malthusian

uk1 wrote: »

Quite right to pull me up on that one. Apologies to all concerned.

Where did these unelderly women say this please?

Did you read my post?

WASPI_via_Bindman's_Solicitors wrote:

If the Government refuses to consider these proposals, our clients will have no alternative but to consider all available legal and other options.

How else do you intrepret "our clients will consider legal and other options"?

Now for the record I don't believe that WASPI will do anything illegal. It is merely an extremely poorly worded letter. I believe that what they were trying to do is say "We won't let this rest". But as this is a manifestly empty threat they have stretched the English language to breaking point to conjure up the idea that WASPI will keep on WASPIng until the Government eventually gives in and gives them State Pensions at 60. Because they didn't read what they (or their solicitors) actually wrote they have just made themselves look ridiculous.

This kind of vague and inept use of language is their calling card, like saying "we want fair transitional measures" in a petition and only explaining on their Facebook page that what they mean by this is "we want women born in the 1950s to be given their State Pension at age 60".

It also makes the solicitors on which they have spent their members' money look ridiculous. You expect this sort of thing from WASPI, but not from solicitors who are paid a very handsome living to use language exactly and precisely.