Back to 60's Judicial Review Outcome

colsten

Juebrads wrote: »

I find it a bit strange that I was unaware of these changes but then I could not afford TV or newspapers, so why would I know? Also many women have asked for proof of all this advertising the fact and for evidence, very little has been forth coming, so show me all these newspapers that printed it on their front pages, and not the times financial pages.

You could try reading the report of the WPSC Inquiry into the state pension age increase. It contains information about, and examples of, some 600 publications which covered the matter. It's quite pathetic to claim the information was just in financial pages.

colsten

Juebrads wrote: »

As this is about women of any colour who were born in the 1950s, it is unrelated to men, or gay people or people of race, and women of any race could be affected.

The JR might have been about women only but the state pension increases are very much not a women-only matter.

The age people got entitled to Pension Credit - subject to means-testing, obviously - has been the female state pension age for a long time. Consequently, the very poorest and vulnerable men were affected by the rises in state pension age in exactly the same way as women. Do these men ever get any mention by the people who complain about the state pension increase? Were these men mentioned in the JR? Of course not. The campaigning women are quite happy to discriminate against those poor men by ignoring their very existence - they are happy with the idea that the men have to get by on £73 pw ESA or JSA, just so long as the women themselves get £168 pw.

zagfles

Juebrads wrote: »

Your link goes from pages 1-43, perhaps this was the governments problems, they thought they had publicised it but forgot to publish the news itself, just publishing that they had done it.

Or maybe the problem is that some people can't read or don't take the time to read what's been written

PP said "paras". Not pages. Paras - short for paragraphs. They're numbered.

fred246

I find it hilarious the concept that you would give up work to rely on a pension without checking how much that pension would be and what age you could get it from.

zagfles

Juebrads wrote: »

“Discrimination on the basis of gender

Historically, employers in the UK discriminated against workers on grounds of gender - as when women were paid lower wages than men for doing similar work, were sacked for being pregnant or when ‘marriage bars’ operated against married women but not against married men. Some of these forms of gender discrimination have been explored elsewhere (see sections on gender pay gap and on maternity leave and pay). In addition to these issues, women workers also faced various forms of sexual harassment at work, and these were only taken up by trade unions from the 1980s onwards. Despite advances in the legislation, it is estimated that 30,000 women still lose their job every year because of becoming pregnant .‘’
I would post the link but unable to as I am new to forums here, but it is googleable on a site striking women which I referenced in a Future Learn module recently, and I have done a lot of research on women in the last century. I do feel that while women stay at home and have children, look after the elderly in our society, we need to nourish them and ensure they can continue to do so, with the financial, emotional, physical and mental support they need, and the same goes for any man who chooses to stay at home to do the same things.

And this is my point. Employers would employ a man with children but not a woman, to paraphrase the report. And this is still the case today.

Yes, and that is illegal. And rightly so. Which is why sex discrimination in pension rules is also now illegal. You don't challenge discrimination with discrimination. Something the judgement made clear.

Hopeless123

fred246 wrote: »

I find it hilarious the concept that you would give up work to rely on a pension without checking how much that pension would be and what age you could get it from.

That's exactly what I did. I needed to retire early as I could no longer concentrate properly and had a very responsible job. I was just exhausted and had no work life balance at all, nor had I done for all my life really, just burnt myself out :-(

When I telephoned I was informed that I would get my pension at 62 but would need to top up around £700 to get the full pension. I wish I'd got that in writing, but never thought it was something I should question the validity of.

I went ahead and finished work early and a year later found out that was utter b******s. I had a private pension but that was greatly depleted by the Equitable Life debacle and I'd basically had to start again. I know I can now draw from that pension but it's peanuts. At no stage did the pension advisers we had at work mention the SPA had changed again. I consider myself an intelligent person, whereas you may think otherwise, but there's nothing hilarious about any of this.

I absolutely agree that men and women should retire at the same age, but the way it was escalated without notification (and the misinformation) was very wrong. The commonsense thing to do was bring male SPA down so they met in the middle at 62/63, then rise together over a long period of time, to give both sexes a chance to plan ahead.

kevtaylor

Juebrads wrote: »

I find it a bit strange that I was unaware of these changes but then I could not afford TV or newspapers, so why would I know? Also many women have asked for proof of all this advertising the fact and for evidence, very little has been forth coming, so show me all these newspapers that printed it on their front pages, and not the times financial pages.

Surely there would be no point in advertising the pension changes for your benefit when you have already stated that you have not seen any TV or newspapers for 24 years.

Many of these forum comments seem to start with "I expected my pension at 60" or "I assumed I would get my pension at 60" or "I am entitled to my pension at 60".

Assumption. Expectation. Entitlement. But no facts.

Never bothered to confirm one of the most important dates of their entire lives.

Ignorance has never been a valid excuse or defense and it still isn't. One simple phone call to HMRC or one visit to GOV.UK will confirm anyone's retirement date.

Everyone should confirm their retirement date and how much they are entitled to get. No one (man or woman) should just rely on what they assume or expect or think they deserve. Five minutes of your life to confirm it, that's all it takes.

My own retirement date has moved twice but I'm well aware of it. I don't think it's fair but very little is.

SonOf

Juebrads wrote: »

However the stats speak for themselves and women have been grossly discriminated against, especially 50s, 60s, 70s women, and all of those before them.

Although the WASPI and back to 60 groups are quite happy for discrimination to continue with their proposals.

e.g. 50s women getting state pension at 60. 60s women at 66 and 70s women at 66/67 (possibly 68).

Remember that women born in the 70s would have started work with the state pension age being 60.

I absolutely agree that men and women should retire at the same age, but the way it was escalated without notification (and the misinformation) was very wrong. The commonsense thing to do was bring male SPA down so they met in the middle at 62/63, then rise together over a long period of time, to give both sexes a chance to plan ahead.

Cloud cuckoo land. Reduction in state pension age was never going to happen.

However, they did plan the rise over a long period of time to give people a chance to plan ahead. 15 years notice for the addition of one month, phased over a period which sees most women have in excess of 25 years notice.

The reality is that most women affected were in the teens, 20s,30s or 40s and didnt give two hoots about their pension when the changes were announced.

fred246

I have just been googling 'MASPI' but as expected there is nothing. All those men who had to work until they were 65 while the women retired at 60. They are the true victims of state pension inequality. They should be receiving thousands in compensation.

Malthusian

fred246 wrote: »

I find it hilarious the concept that you would give up work to rely on a pension without checking how much that pension would be and what age you could get it from.

I find it hilarious (if by hilarious we mean sad) that people would live hand to mouth on payday loans, but people do. The majority of the population is only one level above hunter-gathering, in terms of how much they plan for the future.

This however does not apply to WASPI's leadership who are by definition highly organised, relative to the membership they solicit donations from. (Organised enough to start WASPI and just about keep it rolling despite all the infighting, splitting and chaos.)

A small group of highly organised women have pretended they are totally clueless in order to milk donations from people who actually are clueless and spend it on swanning around the country on an entirely pointless and embarrassing spectacle while sitting in first-class coaches drinking champagne.

As if this wasn't an inherently offensive enough spectacle, they have insulted the population outside WASPI's leadership and membership by playing the "weaker sex" card for all it's worth (not a lot).

People in the UK are free to be clueless about pensions, the minority who do plan for the future spend a lot of money on taxes so the majority who don't plan can still have a relatively comfortable and secure life. However those who are not clueless but disingenuously claim they are, in a futile attempt to extract a £30,000+ cheque from the taxpayer on the basis of a non-existent need, should not expect much sympathy when their Nigerian Prince scam comes to a crashing halt.