Women lose landmark legal fight against state pension age rise - MSE News

System

Geri~O wrote: »

It is unfair to suddenly bring in equality when historically it was unfair.

That's a good one!
Injustice should not be rectified too quickly, because it's unfair to suddenly bring in equality.



Was it unfair to abolish slavery too quickly?

nigelbb

ArcticRoll wrote: »

Anyone who isn't in favour of this ruling needs to complete the following sentence:

"I think it's right that a white woman should continue to be able to retire 5 years earlier than a black man born on the same day because..."

Malthusian wrote: »

Six years. Most black men born in the 1950s have a State Pension Age of 66 (those born after October 1954). Under WASPI's incredibly racist demand, their SPA would be 6 years later than a white woman of the same age.

What has skin colour to do with this? A black woman has always had the same State Pension Age as a white woman & a black man has always had the same State Pension Age as a white man. How could appealing against the change in the retirement age for women possibly be racist? You clearly don't like the WASPIs but calling them racist is nonsensical.

molerat

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

I’m not jealous, but I am a bit puzzled as to why we’re not all on the new rate.

Under the old scheme you could get a maximum of up to £305.61 per week, under the new (when fully implemented) only £168.60.

Rich2808

molerat wrote: »

Under the old scheme you could get a maximum of up to £305.61 per week, under the new (when fully implemented) only £168.60.

My mother was able to inherit my father's full additional pension - as they were both born before 1937.

When he died last year her £85 a week state pension was topped up to £240 a week. Still those born before 1937 lived through the war - so those women you might say earned it! This gets tapered off for those born later and is no longer available I believe for new retirees since 2016.

https://www.gov.uk/additional-state-pension/inheriting

Mistermeaner

Presumably I was contracted out - it was never really explained to us at work.

This is the problem for me in a nut shell: lack of personal accountability and self imposed helplessness

Individuals must take responsibility for their own interests and not expect to be spoon fed info or cash

arnoldy

Mistermeaner wrote: »

This is the problem for me in a nut shell: lack of personal accountability and self imposed helplessness

Individuals must take responsibility for their own interests and not expect to be spoon fed info or cash

Yes the helpless dependency is quite depressing. Fully agree on the need for personal responsibility.


Otherwise it's all cast back on the 'State' aka Taxpayer when the order should be 1.Self, 2. Family, 3. Friends/Charity and at the very last 4. State.

Silvertabby

“ I’m not jealous, but I am a bit puzzled as to why we’re not all on the new rate.
Originally posted by Bogof_Babe

If it makes you feel better, my State pension in 2022 will be £140 per week if I don't pay any voluntary Class 3 NI contributions ( I will).

I'm not jealous of those on £168 per week either - I'm already getting the £28 difference with my contracted out occupational pensions.

OldBeanz

Mistermeaner wrote: »

This is the problem for me in a nut shell: lack of personal accountability and self imposed helplessness

Individuals must take responsibility for their own interests and not expect to be spoon fed info or cash

Given that WASPI's great claim is that no one was told about the increase to women's pension age in 1995 - not understanding contracting out is perhaps within the boundaries of being reasonable

zagfles

nigelbb wrote: »

What has skin colour to do with this? A black woman has always had the same State Pension Age as a white woman & a black man has always had the same State Pension Age as a white man. How could appealing against the change in the retirement age for women possibly be racist? You clearly don't like the WASPIs but calling them racist is nonsensical.

It's taking the p out of the non-sensical argument that directly discriminating in one context is OK because there is/was indirect or even direct discrimination in another.

Basically what the judgement said, it ripped the case to bits. The media reporting of it has been hugely biased, mainly concentrating on the last paragraph saying they were "saddened by the stories" and it's a matter for parliament, as if the judges agreed but their hands were tied. Together with quotes from groups supporting the case. Rather than mentioning the parts of the judgement where it ripped apart the idea that a policy to end direct discrimination is discriminatory, or that there was some obligation on government to personally inform everyone affected, as if the government normally personally informs everyone affected by a change in the law :rotfl:

The initial media reports mentioned an appeal is likely, but they seem to have changed now - possibly after reading the full judgement completely rubbishing the case.

Full report is here, quite long but worth reading rather than biased journalists' cherry picked bits:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Delve-and-Glynn-v-SSWP-CO-3174-2018-Final.pdf

zagfles

OldBeanz wrote: »

Given that WASPI's great claim is that no one was told about the increase to women's pension age in 1995 - not understanding contracting out is perhaps within the boundaries of being reasonable

Indeed - the state pension is horrendously complicated, we've had multiple very long threads here discussing the technicalities eg of the 2016 changes.

But understanding stuff like contracting out and GMP etc is a different issue to simply understanding that the world has been changing over the last few decades to reduce sex discrimination in all areas, anyone who isn't aware of that must have been living in a cave.