No more odd than your insistence that the OP has started a thread complaining that "people shouldn't get things they don't get" when she hasn't and then telling her she should have waited to discuss it until a time you feel would make more sense.
She's started a thread saying she hopes his appeal to the court of human rights, petitioning to allow him to claim a pension he isn't currently entitled to claim, fails and prisoners continue to be barred from claiming a state pension.
You seem to be missing that point. He is going to court to try and win the right to claim a state pension, which he is not currently entitled to but which he may be awarded if his case is successful.
The OP and many other people think that this is wrong and hope his attempt is unsuccessful.
That is vastly different to saying "Prisoners don't get pensions and I don't think they should either so there!" for no reason. There is a reason she has chosen to discuss this but for some reason you seem deterred to ignore it in your hurry to say this is a pointless discussion.
Which is isn't. It's based on something that will generate quite a bit of media interest because of the person launching the court case, something that will prove very controversial if the decision goes in his favour and (surprisingly) something that he may well get some public support over based on some of the replies given on this thread.
That doesn't seem pointless to me, and if early discussion about this encourages people to contact their MP/EMP to make their feelings known, then that is also a good thing. It seems far more pointless to me to wait until something is a done deal and then say "hang on...I don't agree with that."