Women SPA this week

Pollycat

Silvertabby wrote: »

Not sure what they hope to achieve in just 2 days. I'd have thought that it would have taken much longer than that to address/rebut the claims that insufficient notice of the changes had been given.

I'm not sure either.
But this women seemed to think it was positive:

BackTo60 spokeswoman, Joanne Welch commented: “BackTo60 had a resounding victory on 30th November 2018 and our amazing world class legal team pressed home our advantage for a 2-day substantive hearing.

“The substantial significance of our argument has been recognised by the authorities and the case has been elevated to a higher level for determination – this has necessarily involved an alteration of hearing dates.

“There will now be a much more thorough and robust review as the case will take on an historic perspective and achieve national significance."

Will be interesting to see what the media have to say.

Gers

Pollycat wrote: »

I'm not surprised you didn't get my point.
You didn't read the bit in bold - bold text is often used for emphasis or to bring someone's notice to a specific point.
I didn't say you charged anyone with an offence.

The part I emboldened was 1.1 which says:


Now we've cleared that up and you've continued your 'argument' with lisyloo, we can get back on topic.

Semantics and pedantry seem to be your bag. Of course I read your post, I didn't [STRIKE]accuse [/STRIKE] claim lisyloo [STRIKE]of wrongdoing[/STRIKE] doing wrong either - merely pointed out the usual netiquette - and yes, I find the word rather quaint too (which can mean attractively unusual as well as old-fashioned).

You seem determined to argue with me, if you really need the last word then so be it.

As for on topic, this thread will meander any way the posters want it to. The tangent about equality has reared up and that's the one I chose to follow.

https://www.britishcouncil.org/society/womens-and-girls-empowerment/research-reports/women-power-politics-100

Pollycat

A judicial review is told that millions of women born in the 1950s were kept in the dark about losing their pension rights.

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/06/05/an-abuse-of-power-court-hears-government-knew-millions-of-women-were-being-robbed-of-their-pensions/

Crystal_Pixie

DairyQueen wrote: »

Each time the 'W' word is mentioned on this forum I hear the same arguments for/against (mostly against).

All kinds of associated, but not directly related, issues of gender inequality are briefly mentioned but those issues are generally marginalised.

The specific issue of gender equality in SP age has been done to death. The consensus is that most 50s women (of whom I am one) knew about the equalisation many years prior to its implementation. The consensus is that most of us agree that it is fair and just.

I would like to hear more debate on the much bigger legacy issue of gender inequality - i.e. the inequality in non-SP pensions.

A show of hands from any male whose female spouse has a higher non-SP income/pot than him would be an interesting starting point.

Any takers?

I suppose my husband would be in that category as we are in the same scheme but I have earned more than him in the 15 years I have been at the company. My pot is about a third more than his.

Paul_Herring

Pollycat wrote: »

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/06/05/an-abuse-of-power-court-hears-government-knew-millions-of-women-were-being-robbed-of-their-pensions/

[on quoting alleged acknowledgement, in 1998, 2000, 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2015, that the government was aware that the message wasn't getting though, despite various campaigns]...

Mr Mansfield [plaintiffs] argued that the best solution would have been for the DWP to have written to every person involved, either at their place of work or home, and asked them to come in for an interview to explain the change.

No - not (just) a personally addressed letter; an invitation for an individual face-to-face interview.

Pollycat

Paul_Herring wrote: »

[
No - not (just) a personally addressed letter; an invitation for an individual face-to-face interview.

Had that been offered, I wonder how many women would have accepted.
I wouldn't as I was fully aware of how the changes affected me.
I've just looked back at our retirement planning spreadsheet which was started early 2006 to assess whether we could afford for my OH to retire early and there's a note for April 2017 that my state pension would start 6/4/2017 (aged 63 years and 6 months).
This was later put back to July 2018.
I don't know where the date came from but I certainly knew it back in 2006.
I suspect it came from 1995.

Paul_Herring

Had that been offered, I wonder how many women would have accepted.

"Refusal is not an option, you must turn up for your mandatory education..."

Terron

DairyQueen wrote: »

I am pleased to hear from a few 'horses' mouths' but, as you no doubt know, you are the exceptions. The guys appear more reticent on this issue than on the WASPI campaign. Do our male contributors only hold views on gender inequality with respect to the one issue where they have been discriminated against?

I don't have a strong view about the discrimination I lived most of my life with, though I am happy it has ended. However I do get angry with people proposing not only to restore it, but to make it even worse. Specifically WASPI's proposals will mean women born on the same day as me getting a pension 6 years earlier (or compensation for that).

Gers

Pollycat wrote: »

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/06/05/an-abuse-of-power-court-hears-government-knew-millions-of-women-were-being-robbed-of-their-pensions/

Very interesting! Could be a game changer?

Terron

DairyQueen wrote: »

A show of hands from any male whose female spouse has a higher non-SP income/pot than him would be an interesting starting point.

I don't have a spouse, but I do have two sisters, one 11 months younger than me and one 4.5 years younger. Both have/will have a higher non-SP income than me. The elder worker as teacher, until she had childrent then went back and worked part time. The younger was a teacher but now works in local government. I worked in the private sector. Part of my pension is DC so I have a larger port, but even if I took 4% of that a year my pension income would lag theirs, especially as some of my pensions are not indexed.



I do have more income from BTL properties.