State pension age equalised for men and women - MSE News 6 November 2018 at 11:36AM in Pensions, Annuities & Retirement Planning 54 replies 6.7K views

System

Fair enough. If she can carry an unconscious man on her shoulder climbing down a long escape ladder then good luck to her - she deserves her uniform.

Paul_Herring

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Fair enough. If she can carry an unconscious man on her shoulder climbing down a long escape ladder then good luck to her - she deserves her uniform.

Given that (according to Wikipedia) since at least 2007 (she joined in 1998) she's had desk jobs, I'm guessing she's not doing a lot of fieldwork at the moment.

LHW99

Given that (according to Wikipedia) since at least 2007 (she joined in 1998) she's had desk jobs, I'm guessing she's not doing a lot of fieldwork at the moment.

And hopefully that option is also available for any male members of the profession who find their strength reducing as they become older.

Paul_Herring

And hopefully that option is also available for any male members of the profession who find their strength reducing as they become older.

But, but, but.. not enough womyn are doing it. There must be a gender desk gap!

Anyway. Back to the state pension....

Silvertabby

LHW99 wrote: »

Well I can assure him that trying to lift a large size indoor fire extinguisher and run with it was well beyond my strength even in my 20's. However, give me a group of a dozen or so under fives - no problem!


I joined the WRAF in the 1970s, and was expected to be able to pick up a fire extinguisher and use it/run with it - but dealing with a large group of under fives would have scared the carp out of me!


And yes, I am in the group whose retirement age was lifted by Government twice, and as I have said before, doing that twice left a bit of a bad taste - I would rather have had it all done at one time. But it had to be brought in because equality can't just be for the nice things, it has to be for everything as far as is reasonably practical.

Ditto. When I first enlisted, I was paid slightly less than the airman of the same rank and trade who sat at the desk next to me. The reason being that in the event of 'an incident' (we're talking cold war and Paddy IRA here) he would have to grab a rifle in order to defend the aircraft/airfield, whereas I stayed behind in the warm office. Roll on the early 1980s, and women in the Armed Forces became combatant and our pay was increased to match the men. Of course, this didn't suit everyone. Women who had joined as non-combatants were allowed to complete their current engagements on those terms, (including remaining on the lower pay scales) and only those of us who volunteered for weapons training switched to the new conditions. Choices, choices.....

Terron

Silvertabby wrote: »

It's deja vu all over again. I initially thought that Backto60 just wanted the 2011 changes overturned but no, they too, think it is fair and equitable for all women born on or before 31 December 1959 to receive their State pensions from 60 but that women born on or after 1 January 1960 did have enough notice of the changes and so will be happy to wait until they are 66+.

As a man born in 1959 who isn't due to get his state pension until I am 66 I find the idea that increasing the inequality that way would be fair - well the rest is probably not printable.

badmemory

I wonder why they still assume that women are better in the kitchen or looking after children. I certainly am not. I still cook using recipes (since my first marriage 50 years ago). My ex (second) husband was a much better parent than me certainly for the first six years - obviously not after he disappeared from our childs life. Two reasons why gender bias has always been an issue for me.

jem16

Malthusian wrote: »

The WASPI leadership had already tried a campaign which concentrated on the 2011 changes, a couple of years before they founded WASPI itself, and it flopped with virtually zero media interest.

The WASPI leadership never had a campaign which concentrated on the 2011 changes alone. Right from the start it concentrated on both the 1995 and 2011 Acts but tried to dress it up as transitional arrangements. It was clear right from the time that Anne Keen gave evidence to the WPSC in December 2015 that they wanted full pensions from age 60. Most sensible people saw through them at that point.

The group that won the 6 months concession was the Protest against the 2011 Act and are still on Facebook to this day. Anne Keen was once admin on this group but when she couldn’t get them to back her ideas for going back to 60, she left the group. She then started her own petition to reverse the state pension age and it reached around 58k signatures. Later on she then joined up with the 4 other women and formed WASPI. She never let go her true aim of pension at 60 though and that eventually led to the first split in 2016.

Fast forward to 2018 and Anne Keen was again involved in a split of WASPI which has now seen 2 camps - WASPI Campaign 2018 and WASPI Ltd. Both still say they want transitional arrangements from age 60 which apparently translates into a bridging pension which they never say how much it is. They will negotiate with the government :rotfl:

Anne Keen’s WASPI has now joined up with BT60 which is of course what she wants anyway.

The recent closing of all ICE cases because of the JR has put a spanner in the works of WASPI as their maladministration route has all but been scuppered. Many WASPI now fuming with BT60.

Silvertabby

Fast forward to 2018 and Anne Keen was again involved in a split of WASPI which has now seen 2 camps - WASPI Campaign 2018 and WASPI Ltd. Both still say they want transitional arrangements from age 60 which apparently translates into a bridging pension which they never say how much it is. They will negotiate with the government :rotfl:Posted by jem16

I'm sure I read somewhere that this 'bridging pension' equates to the full State pension for ALL women born on or before 31 December 1959. I assume that some numpty had advised them that by calling it a 'bridging pension' then the sex equality laws wouldn't apply, ie same for all men born in the 1950s.

badmemory

Until the same number of men as women "retire early" to take care of elderly parents/parents-in-law & the same number of men as women take career breaks to look after young children, then true equality is never going to happen. But if we don't at least PRETEND that we are getting on track then it will definitely never happen.


Perception appears to be everything & currently women appear not to be 100% job focussed, whilst for some reason men do.