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

Seabee42

I thought the government did consider their request for more and told them no.

uk1

Malthusian wrote: »

Did you read my post?



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.

Did you read my question?

Where did they say they would use violence?

Pensioners not voting for Conservatives would be resorting to a protest that wasn't resorting to their legal court case that they are raising cash for, would be a "non-legal option" wouldn't it. Not resorting to the law isn't the same as illegal is it. And illegal isn't the same meaning as violence is it.

You really do your arguments and adult discussion no good at all by making completely groundless accusations and instead of proving them trying to justify them in a somewhat irrational way.

System

Mortgagefreeman wrote: »

'Other options'implies they're not legal!

No it doesn't. Legal ways means through using the law courts. Non-legal means using other potentially effective methods such as newspaper articles, publicity, advertising, peaceful demonstrations, lobbying MPs, petitions, canvassing, and doubtless others.

Silvertabby

I've been trying to think what this picture of posh biddies in sashes reminded me of - and it's just come to me - the suffragettes ! Mrs Pankhurst, who fought so valiantly for equal rights for women, must be spinning in her grave.

colsten

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Non-legal means using other potentially effective methods such as newspaper articles, publicity, advertising, peaceful demonstrations, lobbying MPs, petitions, canvassing, and doubtless others.

Why are these not legal?

uk1

colsten wrote: »

Why are these not legal?

You seemed to have read the word "non" as "not".

Having non-legal recourse is not the same as illegal recourse is it.

Let's imagine someone owes you money. You might consider you have three options. Firstly, you could sue them. That is a legal option. Secondly, you could decide to break their legs. That is an illegal option. Thirdly, you could sit down and try and negotiate with them. That is a non-legal option.

I hope this helps.

colsten

Apologies, I seem to be a simpleton who misinterpreted "...all available legal and other options...." as meaning legal and illegal options. Time will tell whether I am.

colsten

uk1 wrote: »

Let's imagine someone owes you money. You might consider you have three options. Firstly, you could sue them. That is a legal option. Secondly, you could decide to break their legs. That is an illegal option. Thirdly, you could sit down and try and negotiate with them. That is a non-legal option.

Thanks for the further explanation. It think you are right, negotiation would normally be legal - unless it involves threats, thumb screws or water boarding or such stuff.

uk1

colsten wrote: »

Apologies, I seem to be a simpleton who misinterpreted "...all available legal and other options...." as meaning legal and illegal options. Time will tell whether I am.

You are certainly not a simpleton. It is simply a matter of context.

They have a large campaign to raise cash for a legal challenge. Within that background context that adds wheight to the interpretation that they are going to pursue the legal challenge and other routes that isn't the legal challenge. I suspect that one of those will be the threat to take a section of the electorate who would normaly be expected to vote conservative to vote for the most sympathetic party for example. That isn't going to gain them much traction even though the possibility of a snap election is more likely this week than a fortnight ago. They also might imply more street protests. Who knows.

EDITED: They may threaten to occupy and fill First class sections on all trains on a certain day and smash tambourines and wear sashes and make silly faces at the camera. That probably wouldn't be illegal, it would be non-legal and it would probably be legal although irritating.

POPPYOSCAR

Malthusian wrote: »

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.

Where have they said violence? Or is this your own extreme interpretation?