|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 24, 2024 22:36:59 GMT
Nope ... just discussing the fact that an independent investigation was invited and its recommendations published. I accept there was injustice in the handling of the pension changes, as the report identifies. I still don't see any party paying compensation. I think that's basically the points I have made. Rog Not quite. You stated that it was a fact that there was injustice. This is not the case. |
|
|
|
Post by fi on Mar 24, 2024 22:37:03 GMT
My point is that some/many women (and men) would consider your use of the term ladies in this sort of discussion inappropriate. Maybe it's a North/South thing, don't know really. Men or gentlemen ... women or ladies . Don't see an issue. Now if I'd said girls ... Rog ETA Seems odd that you're pulling me up on something and then say 'don't know really'. Was it worth the challenge if you don't know ? But sorry if my language upset you. The don't know was about why you thought it was appropriate to use the term Ladies as you have done. |
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 24, 2024 22:38:33 GMT
Girls is demeaning when relating to adult females is the perceived wisdom ... like using boys when talking about adult males. I can see the issue there. Apologies to your mother if my use of ladies and women offends her, but I'm not in control of her feelings. Rog Would you tell a black person that it's their problem that they are offended if you called them a coon? I suppose you could claim your right to cause offense. That would be a real surprise though, from you. You seem to have talked yourself into a bit of a mess here. |
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 24, 2024 22:47:57 GMT
Men or gentlemen ... women or ladies . Don't see an issue. Now if I'd said girls ... Rog ETA Seems odd the you're pulling me up on something and then say 'don't know really'. Was it worth the challenge if you don't know ? But sorry if my language upset you. It's widely known that 'ladies' isn't appropriate these days. 'Women' is the perfect alternative and will never cause offense. It's suprising that you, as a feminist yourself, aren't aware of this. Do you know, of all the people I have met from thunderboat, you're the only one who totally blanked me. Looked away and ignored my salutations. Yet now you profess to know all about me. I happen to agree with the recommendations of the independent enquiry into the pension changes, because they were (whilst legal) badly handled, created hardship and injustice. I'm confident no compensation will be forthcoming, and the published findings will have to console the ladies involved. That's it. I'll leave you to psychoanalyse and pontificate on my motivations and vocabulary 😁 Rog |
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 24, 2024 23:01:49 GMT
It's widely known that 'ladies' isn't appropriate these days. 'Women' is the perfect alternative and will never cause offense. It's suprising that you, as a feminist yourself, aren't aware of this. Do you know, of all the people I have met from thunderboat, you're the only one who totally blanked me. Looked away and ignored my salutations. Yet now you profess to know all about me. I happen to agree with the recommendations of the independent enquiry into the pension changes, because they were (whilst legal) badly handled, created hardship and injustice. I'm confident no compensation will be forthcoming, and the published findings will have to console the ladies involved. That's it. I'll leave you to psychoanalyse and pontificate on my motivations and vocabulary 😁 Rog I had no idea we'd met. You should have said. We know you agree with the findings of the report. You've stated this many times. Previously, you stated it was a fact that women had suffered injustice. It isn't a fact. It's just an opinion. The fact that you share this opinion, doesn't transform this opinion into a fact. Personally I think micro-analysis of language (on its own) is a poor determiner of racism, misogyny and such like. Context, and intent, need to be considered. However I thought you might take a little time to read up on this. Most especially, as I'm not the only one on here to point this out. Bear in mind, this is mostly a fairly elderly readership, possibly not up to date with the latest trends in such matters, as others. I wouldn't expect an anti-racist to continue to talk of coloured people, had he or she been given the nod that suitable language had moved on. I wouldn't expect you, as an apparent feminist, to ignore a similar helpful suggestion. Still, it's completely up to you. Personally, I think |
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Mar 25, 2024 7:50:17 GMT
I dident know using ladies was offensive, when did that happen?
|
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 25, 2024 8:00:05 GMT
I dident know using ladies was offensive, when did that happen? It isn't . Rog |
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 25, 2024 8:01:28 GMT
I dident know using ladies was offensive, when did that happen? It’s not offensive but it can be patronising and a bit mysoginistic, depending on context. |
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 25, 2024 8:07:38 GMT
I dident know using ladies was offensive, when did that happen? Here's an example of the complex thinking that has resulted in the word becoming outdated and inappropriate. A bit like referring to black people as coloured I suppose, a change from the times when it was inappropriate to call coloured people black. www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2023/04/18/ladies-workplace-languageI've said before that I don't subscribe to the notion that the micro analysis of language, and condemnation for not using the latest, approved term is a useful aide to society. Context and intention of what's said is what's important. Those however who subscribe to such notions and may, for example, consider someone to be a racist because of a single word they utter, might wish to try to keep up to date with the latest trends. |
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 25, 2024 9:27:53 GMT
There is a difference between a woman and a lady.
And in Wetherspoons the downstairs lavatory says 'Ladies and Disabled toilets'.
I don't know if you have to be a lady AND disabled or either or both.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Mar 25, 2024 17:44:34 GMT
I dident know using ladies was offensive, when did that happen? Here's an example of the complex thinking that has resulted in the word becoming outdated and inappropriate. A bit like referring to black people as coloured I suppose, a change from the times when it was inappropriate to call coloured people black. www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2023/04/18/ladies-workplace-languageI've said before that I don't subscribe to the notion that the micro analysis of language, and condemnation for not using the latest, approved term is a useful aide to society. Context and intention of what's said is what's important. Those however who subscribe to such notions and may, for example, consider someone to be a racist because of a single word they utter, might wish to try to keep up to date with the latest trends. This isn't a workplace though. |
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 25, 2024 17:52:12 GMT
I dident know using ladies was offensive, when did that happen? Here's an example of the complex thinking that has resulted in the word becoming outdated and inappropriate. A bit like referring to black people as coloured I suppose, a change from the times when it was inappropriate to call coloured people black. www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2023/04/18/ladies-workplace-languageI've said before that I don't subscribe to the notion that the micro analysis of language, and condemnation for not using the latest, approved term is a useful aide to society. Context and intention of what's said is what's important. Those however who subscribe to such notions and may, for example, consider someone to be a racist because of a single word they utter, might wish to try to keep up to date with the latest trends. Pontificate: To speak or write and give your opinion about something as if you knew everything about it and only your opinion was correct |
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Mar 25, 2024 18:14:31 GMT
I dident know using ladies was offensive, when did that happen? It’s not offensive but it can be patronising and a bit mysoginistic, depending on context. Thank you. That's a cleared that up. |
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 25, 2024 18:17:06 GMT
Indeed.
If he'd read the report and it's findings he would know that many examples of DWP maladministration had been identified and highlighted, and that 'injustice' was a word specifically used in its findings.
None of us HAVE to agree with the independent examination and its summary, but it helps when pontificating on it, to have read it.
Rog
|
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 25, 2024 19:03:38 GMT
Talking of government errors:
My Dad passed in May 2022. Mum, as is the law for married couples, naturally assumed responsibility for Dad's financial matters, without the need for appointment by a court, as an executor.
Mum, despite being ill herself, dilligently dealt with Dad's matters, to the best of her ability. This included conversations with HMRC. Dad's tax liability from 06/04/2022 until his passing was calculated, HMRC sent a bill to Mum for this.
Mum passed in January, shortly after receiving Dad's tax bill. She hadn't had the chance to pay this when she passed.
I, along with my two sisters were named in Mum's will as the joint executors. We followed due process and, some time later, were appointed as such by a court.
I volunteered to deal with the financial matters while my sisters organised the funeral, contacted friends and family, arranged a memorial bench etc. etc.
I contacted HMRC to explain the arrangement. I confirmed that the court had appointed joint executors, provided all the names and addresses. I opened discussions regarding Mum's finances and following a short delay in receiving final pension statements, and sending the same to HMRC, I received written confirmation that Mum's tax affairs were now settled, along with a modest refund of the tax she'd paid that financial year. In the meantime I'd paid Dad's outstanding tax liability by way of one of my personal cheques.
So, I'd received confirmation from HMRC that the tax matters of both my deceased parents were settled. I'd paid the sum requested for Dad and received a refund for Mum.
Last week, on return from my trip away I opened a letter, addressed to me, from HMRC. Within the letter was notification of a fine of £100. The fine was to .. ..... (that's me). 'as the personal representative of .. ..... (my dad). The fine was for 'failure to submit a tax return for .. ..... (Dad) for the year 2022-2023 on time'.
There are two errors here. First, the tax affairs of both my parents have been calculated and settled in full. Dad's, for which I have personally received a fine, were settled and paid long before any tax return for the period in question was due. I have written confirmation of this. Then: responsibilty for Dad's tax affairs lie with the joint executors, as ordered by a court and detailed to HMRC within my communications with them. They didn't just send out a spurious bill, they also sent it to the wrong entity.
I found this quite upsetting, as did my sisters. I've left it a few days, I'll contact them over the next week or so, by telephone, initially at least.
So: the modern day way of things, in the minds of some, appears to be that should government make errors, the government (tax payers, actually), ought to compensate those negatively affected. A question then, particularly towards those who think this way: Do you think I/ we should be compensated for this?
|
|
