Jem

[Jem @jem167]

@WASPI_Campaign Don’t worry. I’m sure Waspi will just add some extra lump sums to get it over the line as they’ve been doing recently. Then the stretch target will appear as £100k won’t be enough.

[Jem @jem167]

@gattica111 @WASPI_Campaign Not the case for all 3m women.

[Jem @jem167]

@gattica111 @WASPI_Campaign The PHSO found that some women were affected by the delay not all women. How would you work out who was affected?

[Jem @jem167]

@BarbaraRich_law @Frances_Coppola @bookishwgc @ClaireT13274488 I think it's a deliberate change rather than an error. Other parts have changed too like mentioning age 67. Mansfield QC has changed to Mansfield KC. They've added men in too. Designed to catch the gullible.

[Jem @jem167]

@ClareJo04903169 @Beloved71478281 @WASPI_Campaign NI has always been collected by HMRC. It's a mandatory tax on earnings. Contributions via paid NI or NI Credits gives an entitlement at SPA. SPA has always been subject to change through Acts of Parliament. It used to be 70. There's never been a contract.

[Jem @jem167]

@Beloved71478281 @ClareJo04903169 @WASPI_Campaign It’s not.

[Jem @jem167]

@Beloved71478281 @WASPI_Campaign I'm well aware of that but you're obviously not aware that the changes were perfectly legal. You're also not aware that Waspi is about notification and not SPA changes. I'm 50s' born but don't agree with Waspi and was paying attention.

[Jem @jem167]

@Beloved71478281 @WASPI_Campaign Stop talking nonsense. The state pension is a Contributory Benefit. When we moved from old system to new system, your Starting Amount in April 2016 was based on the better of the two systems. If the old rules were better that’s what you got.

[Jem @jem167]

@Beloved71478281 @ClareJo04903169 @WASPI_Campaign There is no contract for a state pension. It’s a Contributory Benefit.

[Jem @jem167]

@WASPI_Campaign So vulnerable women are once again being asked to contribute money that they can ill afford to a court case that can still not order the Government to pay compensation. I really hope the Judges see sense this time and refuse permission. Time to stop this.

[Jem @jem167]

@WASPI_Campaign One simple question to #WASPI - Deadline for bringing another JR has passed. When do you tell your supporters as no update since 17th March when you claimed you were sending a Letter Before Action within days? Supporters deserve to know.

[Jem @jem167]

@BarbaraRich_law @ltg1810 They updated their Crowdjustice to say that their lawyers were preparing a letter before action. They would then wait for the Government’s reply before deciding. That was 17th March. Nothing since despite saying they would publish the LBA.

[Jem @jem167]

@clubtropicana33 @BenRees21 @NJM71 35 years is only relevant to someone with no pre 2016 NI Record. You may need anything from 26 to 50 years for a full pension.

[Jem @jem167]

@BenRees21 @NJM71 Yes you should focus on the figures and also the facts. 35 years is not relevant to anyone with a pre 2016 NI Record. Anything from 26 to 50 years may be required for a full pension. I had 47 years and don’t have a full new state pension.

[Jem @jem167]

@WASPI_Campaign This is grossly misleading and you’re not doing your supporters any favours. The majority of MPs are not in favour of compensation.

[Jem @jem167]

@1950sOf This form allows people to answer multiple times so likely to get totally false results. No Government is going to take this seriously unless you use a proper survey company that can ensure accuracy and allows non-campaigners to take part. Anecdotal evidence been done before.

[Jem @jem167]

@1950sOf How will you ensure that all 3.6m women receive this survey and take part? Will it be independently verified?

[Jem @jem167]

@WASPI_Campaign Basically they will realise it’s a huge flop considering your campaign wanted 1 million letters.

[Jem @jem167]

@DavidRe86250053 @WASPI_Campaign @UKLabour @patmcfaddenmp The PHSO said that’s what they would have recommended but they passed it to Parliament for a decision instead. Government chose to apologise but said no compensation as it wouldn’t be a fair use of taxpayer’s money to compensate those who suffered no loss and no injustice.