Back to 60's Judicial Review Outcome

IanSt

Seems to be quite a lot of wishful thinking on twitter.

One person quite sincerely was saying that obviously the Conservatives had bought the judiciary out.

SnowMan

From the judgement

64.....To conclude that the maintenance of unequal pensionable ages is excluded from the Directive, but that any move by a Member State towards equal pensionable ages falls within the scope of the Directive, so that indirect discrimination caused by that adjustment would be prohibited, makes no sense. It would operate as a disincentive –possibly even a bar -to Member States seeking to equalise pension ages, even though equalisation is in line with the overarching objective of the Directive and with wider EU law principles. It would lead to the bizarre outcome that direct discrimination in pensionable age would remain permissible, but any indirect discrimination which might arise in the process of achieving equalisation would be prohibited. We see no sense or utility in such a construction of Article 7

Just one of the examples of the silliness of the Backto60 arguments in this case.

It also shows Backto60 are advocating for discrimination not arguing against it. Anyone who believes in fighting discrimination has to support this judgement.

ArcticRoll

If the fact many women were victims of discrimination throughout much of their working lives, if you define discrimination as earning less than their male counterparts, then surely his is an argument that pension ages of those who are black, disabled, gay etc, should also have an earlier set pension age his historical discrimination in terms of earnings can be demonstrated amongst those groups?

merrydance

I just hope they do not put the age up again for future generations

pip895

merrydance wrote: »

I just hope they do not put the age up again for future generations

Be careful what you wish for. The main reason for it not going up is if increases in life expectancy stall or go into reverse!

p00hsticks

merrydance wrote: »

I just hope they do not put the age up again for future generations

At the end of the day, there's only a certain proportion of this country's money that the country (taxpayers) are going to be willing to pay on state retirement benefits. You can control the total amount of money spent either by adjusting the age at which those benefits are payed (up or down) according to life expectancy figures, or by raising or lowering the amount paid to individuals.

Whatever choice is made is eventually the decision of the government voted into power by the elctorate.

molerat

merrydance wrote: »

I just hope they do not put the age up again for future generations

Age 68 for those born from 1977 is already timetabled with more increases possible.

chiefie

The right decision - even though I would have directly benefited if it went for the ladies. How can you sue on the grounds of sexual discrimination when this was trying to correct just that. It’s right that women have been treated as second class citizens re pensions for years - my wife wasn’t allowed to join a scheme that men could in the 70s - but that wasn’t what this case was about

ArcticRoll

I'm interested to know what an acceptable increase plan would have looked like. Given the #Backto60 aims of the group who took the action we know that 25 years is apparently insufficient notice for even a single day to be added onto the retirement age of women to equalise it with the men's retirement age.

So what would their suggestion have been? Continued retirement at 60 for women '...because, women' ?

ffacoffipawb

ArcticRoll wrote: »

I'm interested to know what an acceptable increase plan would have looked like. Given the #Backto60 aims of the group who took the action we know that 25 years is apparently insufficient notice for even a single day to be added onto the retirement age of women to equalise it with the men's retirement age.

So what would their suggestion have been? Continued retirement at 60 for women '...because, women' ?

... want equality, but only if it benefits them.