Women SPA this week

jem16

Well here is the latest load of rubbish from BT60's investigative journalist.

Please do pull it apart, especially the nonsense about pensions.

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/06/20/project-fear-how-the-dwp-is-trying-to-mislead-the-public-over-the-backto60-pension-costs/

Based on these costs from the DWP

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/analysis-relating-to-state-pension-age-changes-from-the-1995-and-2011-pensions-acts/analysis-relating-to-state-pension-age-changes-from-the-1995-and-2011-pensions-acts

jem16

Pollycat wrote: »

Do you have a link to that, please.
I'm on my phone only and not great at searching.

Just read a few Backto60 tweets and never read such a load of tosh in all my life (and after 12 years as a member of MSE, that's saying a lot).

https://twitter.com/ochnaw/status/1141611067031924736

Pollycat

jem16 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ochnaw/status/1141611067031924736

Not working.
But I'm not on Twatter.
From what I've read, I'm not missing much...:whistle:

Pollycat

jem16 wrote: »

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/06/20/project-fear-how-the-dwp-is-trying-to-mislead-the-public-over-the-backto60-pension-costs/

The judicial review was solely about whether 3.8 million women born between April 1950 and April 1960 were entitled to their money back.

What 'money back'?

jem16

Pollycat wrote: »

What 'money back'?

They would be very unhappy just to get their NI contributions back.

Pollycat

jem16 wrote: »

They would be very unhappy just to get their NI contributions back.

But it's money they've never had and were never going to have since 1995 so how can they 'get it back'? :think:

I didn't think being 'entitled to their money back' was the purpose - sole or otherwise - of the judicial review. :huh:

p00hsticks

jem16 wrote: »

Well here is the latest load of rubbish from BT60's investigative journalist.

Please do pull it apart, especially the nonsense about pensions.

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/06/20/project-fear-how-the-dwp-is-trying-to-mislead-the-public-over-the-backto60-pension-costs/

Interesting (as far as any of this twaddle can ve) that the document talks about ' women born between April 1950 and April 1960' when previously the cliff edge has been quoted as being 31/12/1959....

Paul_Herring

Pollycat wrote: »

Not working.
But I'm not on Twatter.
From what I've read, I'm not missing much...:whistle:

For posterity...

jem16

Pollycat wrote: »

I didn't think being 'entitled to their money back' was the purpose - sole or otherwise - of the judicial review. :huh:

I'm sure it isn't nor is it within the scope of a JR to quash primary legislation. However it is Hencke who is writing this.

jem16

p00hsticks wrote: »

Interesting (as far as any of this twaddle can ve) that the document talks about ' women born between April 1950 and April 1960' when previously the cliff edge has been quoted as being 31/12/1959....

Legal team suddenly managed to work out that the 2011 Act covers up to 5/4/60.