Back to 60's Judicial Review Outcome

merrydance

No until I get my pension, I'm 63 now.

OldBeanz

Silvertabby wrote: »

Money that would be better spent on helping WASPE members who really are struggling.

Haha that was never part of the plan.

SnowMan

Outcome court documents are here


https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-on-the-application-of-julie-delve-and-karen-glynn-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions/

pip895

Common sense prevails - It would have dented my faith in the British Judiciary if it hadn't failed tbh. Lets hope they see sense and don't appeal - its such a waste of money - both theirs and the taxpayers.

ffacoffipawb

pip895 wrote: »

Common sense prevails - It would have dented my faith in the British Judiciary if it hadn't failed tbh. Lets hope they see sense and don't appeal - its such a waste of money - both theirs and the taxpayers.

Taxpayer should sue for costs against these vexatious litigants.

Mnd

merrydance wrote: »

No until I get my pension, I'm 63 now.

My apologies

ArcticRoll

The argument that they weren't given enough time to prepare was a fair point but it's difficult to see how this was ever going to win on a sexual discrimination basis when the starting point of their action was to restore to a place of treating men and women differently.

SonOf

They argued the changes were discrimination, but judges disagreed.

Common sense dictated that claiming discrimination would fail as there was no discrimination that favours the opposite sex and was actually correcting discrimination in favour of women.

It's just a shame that the resources wasted on this were not put towards the more genuine issues raised by the 2011 changes. However, the greedy women were not interested in those that genuinely suffered by the 2011 changes.

the argument that they weren't given enough time to prepare was a fair point

Really? Changes occurred in 1995. 15 years before they started to apply in 2010 and were phased in over a period.
If you were talking about the 2011 changes, then you would be correct that they were not giving enough time.

MarkCarnage

Astonishing that this was able to go so far as it did. Cake and eat it springs to mind.

lisyloo

ArcticRoll wrote: »

The argument that they weren't given enough time to prepare was a fair point but it's difficult to see how this was ever going to win on a sexual discrimination basis when the starting point of their action was to restore to a place of treating men and women differently.

I think most of us agree that the 2011 changes weren’t perfect and a small number of women were badly affected.
Most of all also seem to agree that equality didn’t (and stalk hasn’t) come overnight and inequality such as a university degree has lifetime effects.

But the worst thing about this was “all women born in 1950s” creating inequality with a cliff edge.
So much worse than the changes they are complaining about.