Back to 60's Judicial Review Outcome

ffacoffipawb

fred246 wrote: »

I find it hard to work out the demographics of a WASPI woman in hardship. Surely if you have a job then you have to carry on working until 66 the same as a man would. If you have no job then you are dependent on somebody else or the state. So lots of women will be dependent on their husbands who HAVE to work until they are 66. So they have nobody to give them cash ie divorced,never married, widowed etc. AND they have no job. So a man in that position would have to get a job or live off job seekers allowance but they want more money than that because they are female?

Or they are just greedy.

And dishonest.

Silvertabby

jamesd wrote: »

You may like this observation, though.

'6. As a consequence of the Old Age and Widows’ Pensions Act 1940, the pension age for women was lowered from 65 to 60. In the Green Paper preceding passage of the Pensions Act 1995, it was stated that this –

"new inequality was a response to a campaign by unmarried women in the 1930s, many of whom cared for dependent relatives for much of their lives. It also recognised the fact that, on average, married women were several years younger than their husbands."

7. It is therefore clear that the reduction of the pension age for women was an act of direct discrimination in their favour (although unlikely to be described in that language at the time) which reflected the circumstances of the day, and created a relative disadvantage for men, thought to be justified by the social conditions then applying.'

A. we now have benefits specifically for those needing care to help pay for it and specifically for carers. That reason for the choice to discriminate against men in the 1930s no longer exists because we now do it with better targeted benefits.
B. WASPI and back to seem to be continuing the practice of their 1930s predecessors in seeking to discriminate against men.

This was because a man could only claim the higher, married man's, pension at 65 if his wife was also State pension age (even though married women at the time were unlikely to have accrued pension benefits in their own right). Reducing the woman's State pension age to 60 meant that most men would be able to claim the higher rate of pension from 65, instead of having to wait until their wives 'caught up'.

ffacoffipawb

Mortgagefreeman wrote: »

I see backto60 have started their 9th round of crowdfunding, taking money off vulnerable women, in the hope of obtaining an Appeal on the Judicial review. On what grounds though?

https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/appeal

Over half way there now with 2,500 [STRIKE]mugs[/STRIKE] people giving them money.

Lets hope the government and DWP go for costs now against these vexatious litigants.

jem16

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

Over half way there now with 2,500 [STRIKE]mugs[/STRIKE] people giving them money.

Lets hope the government and DWP go for costs now against these vexatious litigants.

They could always go for costs but BT60 applied for a cost capping order for the JR itself and got it so costs for both sides were capped at £40k.

They may be less likely to achieve cost capping for an appeal though.

badmemory

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

Lets hope the government and DWP go for costs now against these vexatious litigants.

Sounds like a sensible idea - after all it is taxpayers money they are having to spend. But can you imagine the headlines in some of the newspapers!

Mortgagefreeman

From backto60

******ANNOUNCEMENT*******

Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal is now being prepared by our Legal Team since 'leave refused' advised.

BobQ

LHW99 wrote: »

Do you not support the idea of equality (male / female)? Women's life expectancy is greater than men's. Is it fair that women got paid their pension earlier / longer and hence potentially got more than a man of the same age?
Anyone who cannot manage on their current income can apply for support.


And yes, I am one of the cohort that had my pension age raised twice.

The politicians are now making so many outlandish promises, I image that by 12 Dec we will all be allowed to retire at 55

LHW99

BobQ wrote: »

The politicians are now making so many outlandish promises, I image that by 12 Dec we will all be allowed to retire at 55

At 55?........ At this rate it'll be retire before leaving school surely

LHW99

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50534118
Well that sees off any idea of voting for McDonnell & his crew

Hopeless123

LHW99 wrote: »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50534118
Well that sees off any idea of voting for McDonnell & his crew

Why's that, please? They're not talking about bringing the state pension age back down, just compensating the people (and their partners/families) who were badly affected by not being told, and not given time to plan properly. Successive govts really mucked up and this would just go some way to righting the wrong.