Back to 60's Judicial Review Outcome

Malthusian

Pollycat wrote: »

Are you more angry with the women who are blatantly lying or those people who are sceptical because they know some women are lying when they say they really didn't know about the changes?

I'm not going to presume to answer for Hopeless personally. But a majority of WASPIs would say "the sceptics" because they're on the wrong side.

WASPIs would say

a) no WASPIs are lying, Drumtochty and Silvertabby are making all these conversations up
b) it's OK to lie because of the injustice
c) both a) and b) simultaneously

Hopeless123

Pollycat wrote: »

A question for Hopeless123:
How do you feel about not being believed when you say you were unaware of the changes when you read posts #288 and 290?

Are you more angry with the women who are blatantly lying or those people who are sceptical because they know some women are lying when they say they really didn't know about the changes?

How I feel? It's massively out of order. I don't often speak to women of my own age, which I realise may make me appear a bit weird, but if I did speak to someone who knew about it years ago and was lying now, I would call them out on it. It does no-one any favours.

Thrugelmir

My partner received a personally addressed circular from our prospective Labour candidate yesterday. Espousing the fact that "women born in the 1950's" would receive compensation if Labour were to be elected. I had to point that she wouldn't be eligble. Quality of candidates does leave a lot to be desired when they don't seem to comprehend the actual issue.

Seabee42

Yeah but If your going to give away tax payers money that could be better spent as an election bribe the more people you sell it to the better.

molerat

Seabee42 wrote: »

Yeah but If your going to give away tax payers money that could be better spent as an election bribe the more people you sell it to the better.

But they won't have to. In around 12 months "We tried but those big bad nasty judges stopped us", another election manifesto promise box ticked

Malthusian

Thrugelmir wrote: »

My partner received a personally addressed circular from our prospective Labour candidate yesterday. Espousing the fact that "women born in the 1950's" would receive compensation if Labour were to be elected. I had to point that she wouldn't be eligble. Quality of candidates does leave a lot to be desired when they don't seem to comprehend the actual issue.

It's you that doesn't comprehend the fundamental issue. If you can smelt steel in a backyard furnace then your partner can be born in the 1950s.

Why do you think your partner wasn't born in the 1950s? Because the calendar says so? And who invented the Gregorian calendar? That's right, a man. The clue's in the name. The women of the world will not be oppressed by capitalist timekeeping.

Why must you pollute your partner's head with Tory lies and propaganda?

Thrugelmir

Malthusian wrote: »

Why must you pollute your partner's head with Tory lies and propaganda?

Unsure what provoked your response. Another snowflake keyboard warrior I can only assume.

No propaganda. The leaflet makes a suggestion that is factually untrue. Intentionally ambiguous and misleading. My partner was surprised when I pointed out the inaccuracy.

I'll post the reply that I receive as have queried it.

p00hsticks

Thrugelmir wrote: »

My partner received a personally addressed circular from our prospective Labour candidate yesterday. Espousing the fact that "women born in the 1950's" would receive compensation if Labour were to be elected. I had to point that she wouldn't be eligble. Quality of candidates does leave a lot to be desired when they don't seem to comprehend the actual issue.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

No propaganda. The leaflet makes a suggestion that is factually untrue. Intentionally ambiguous and misleading. My partner was surprised when I pointed out the inaccuracy.

I'll post the reply that I receive as have queried it.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying is inaccurate here ?
From what you say the leaflet seems to (more or less) accurately describe what labour are supposedly promising (unless you mean that going by their WASPI compensation calculator they are using the term 'women born in the 1950's' as shorthand for 'women born between 6/4/1950 and 5/4/1960 ? WASPI themselves tend to conflate the two)


Or is it that the leaflet was addressed to your partner and she doesn't fall into that category ? In which case was this the one specific policy addressed in the leaflet or was it a general electoral communication ?

fred246

I am worried about a labour government stopping our marriage allowance. Given that 15 years isn't enough notice of a change does anyone know when it would be stopped?

Paul_Herring

I'm not quite sure what you are saying is inaccurate here ?

... or was it a general electoral communication ?

I suspect it's something to do with
(1) a personally addressed* leaflet (thus a, possibly unwarranted, presumption it was tailored to the recipent)
(2) mentioning "MOAR FREE PENSIONS FOR ALL WOMEN"
(3) with the "born in the 1950's" bit toned down a lot and
(4) the addressee, while female, was probably born in some decade that didn't start with `195`

---
* We got one delivered. I rather suspect that Mr. Ian Mearns is taking a bit of liberty with respect to the "candidates and holders of elected office [may] use the register for electoral purposes" bit of the legislation regarding use of the electoral register, since neither of use are on the open register. Though I will credit him with not mentioning WASPE in his missive, it was somewhat detracted by his use of a(n unstated) daughter of a local Labour councillor, who also happens to be a doctor (cue NHS rant,) as a reference as to "why we're supporting Ian." (The other was a candidate who lost to the Lib Dems last local elections.)