'WASPI' women latest: Government to review decision to refuse compensation

molerat

Murphybear said:

Pollycat said:

molerat said:

german_keeper said:

Grumpy_chap said:

I am confused as to how these women who, apparently, did not know about the change to the SP age because they did not receive a letter ever knew that there was a SP in the first place and the original SP age that they were not told was changing.  Did these people receive a letter ever to tell them that there was a SP and the SP age?  I am certain that I never received such a letter.  In the absence of such a letter, it must have come as a wonderful surprise to these women that they suddenly received a SP which they had not been told about in a letter.

Whilst my gut reaction to seeing yet another thread on this topic was akin to the post above by Pollycat, I must admit I think this is quite an interesting point and not one I can recall reading previously. Delivered a tad tongue in cheek I suspect but I would be interested to know if this has ever been asked of the people running this campaign.

The ones I feel sorry for re those that are funding these fairly well off middle class women going on jollies up and down the country

Do you mean the first class travelling, champagne swilling waspi women?

I know a massive number of pensioners.  None of them go on jollies or swill champagne 😿

If I could afford to do those things I jolly well would 😺

You would be able to if you were one of the WASPE organisers.

Pollycat

Murphybear said:

Pollycat said:

molerat said:

german_keeper said:

Grumpy_chap said:

I am confused as to how these women who, apparently, did not know about the change to the SP age because they did not receive a letter ever knew that there was a SP in the first place and the original SP age that they were not told was changing.  Did these people receive a letter ever to tell them that there was a SP and the SP age?  I am certain that I never received such a letter.  In the absence of such a letter, it must have come as a wonderful surprise to these women that they suddenly received a SP which they had not been told about in a letter.

Whilst my gut reaction to seeing yet another thread on this topic was akin to the post above by Pollycat, I must admit I think this is quite an interesting point and not one I can recall reading previously. Delivered a tad tongue in cheek I suspect but I would be interested to know if this has ever been asked of the people running this campaign.

The ones I feel sorry for re those that are funding these fairly well off middle class women going on jollies up and down the country

Do you mean the first class travelling, champagne swilling waspi women?

I know a massive number of pensioners.  None of them go on jollies or swill champagne 😿

If I could afford to do those things I jolly well would 😺

It's been well documented in the media showing some WASPI women travelling to London in first class drinking champagne.
Just because you don't know any, doesn't mean they don't exist.

If you could afford to do it, do you think you deserve getting your state pension at age 60?
When a man born on the same day as you would have had to wait until age 65?

Do you see that as equality?
Because I don't.
And that's why I've never supported this.

Women can't cherry pick what bits of equality suits them.

Brie

Pollycat said:

If you could afford to do it, do you think you deserve getting your state pension at age 60?
When a man born on the same day as you would have had to wait until age 65?

Do you see that as equality?
Because I don't.
And that's why I've never supported this.

Women can't cherry pick what bits of equality suits them.

I don't think that anyone now believes there should be inequality.  But equality needs to be done in a way that is fair. 

For a woman who has never dealt with finances, assumed her husband would provide for her in her old age and to suddenly discover at age 60 that she wasn't going to get a pension for a few more years would have been a big shock. 

You are financially astute as am I.  I heard something about this a number of years back, possibly because I was working in pension admin at the time but didn't think it had anything to do with me (1 year out) and so took no further notice.  And I would have been well ticked off to have worked towards the age of 60 knowing that's when I got my pension (earlier than men due in part to the lower wages and lack of work pensions for women which was completely unfair) only to find that first it was catapulted to 65 and then inched upwards from there.  

And there have been many more announcements of changes of age requirements for pensions and I think that a lot of people remain completely unaware.  Because they don't read the financial pages, because they are financially uneducated.  Both male and female.  

BlackKnightMonty

State pension at 65. Absolute gravy.

Currently it’s 67 years and 4 months for me.

60 was utterly ridiculous.

Pollycat

Brie said:

Pollycat said:

If you could afford to do it, do you think you deserve getting your state pension at age 60?
When a man born on the same day as you would have had to wait until age 65?

Do you see that as equality?
Because I don't.
And that's why I've never supported this.

Women can't cherry pick what bits of equality suits them.

I don't think that anyone now believes there should be inequality.  But equality needs to be done in a way that is fair. 

For a woman who has never dealt with finances, assumed her husband would provide for her in her old age and to suddenly discover at age 60 that she wasn't going to get a pension for a few more years would have been a big shock. 

You are financially astute as am I.  I heard something about this a number of years back, possibly because I was working in pension admin at the time but didn't think it had anything to do with me (1 year out) and so took no further notice.  

You knew!
But disregarded it!
Like so many other women who heard about it being discussed in hairdressers, in 'women's weekly' type magazines and in other ways.
Like I heard about it.

I was well aware in the mid 1990s that my state pension age wasn't going to be age 60.
My revised state pension age at that time was 63 years and 6 months.
That was later extended to 64 years and 9 months because of a later Pension Act.
I'm shocked that someone working in Pensions Admin didn't appreciate the impact this would have on them.
There is no excuse for ignoring this change.

Brie said:

Pollycat said:

If you could afford to do it, do you think you deserve getting your state pension at age 60?
When a man born on the same day as you would have had to wait until age 65?

Do you see that as equality?
Because I don't.
And that's why I've never supported this.

Women can't cherry pick what bits of equality suits them.

And I would have been well ticked off to have worked towards the age of 60 knowing that's when I got my pension (earlier than men due in part to the lower wages and lack of work pensions for women which was completely unfair) only to find that first it was catapulted to 65 and then inched upwards from there.  

You should be "well ticked off" not because women's state pension age changed but because you knew and ignored it.

And it wasn't "catapulted to 65 and then inched upwards from there".  
There was a phased change over a number of years.
Hence my revised state pension ages as detailed above.

Brie said:

Pollycat said:

And there have been many more announcements of changes of age requirements for pensions and I think that a lot of people remain completely unaware.  Because they don't read the financial pages, because they are financially uneducated.  Both male and female.  

Whatever happened to personal accountability?
Changes such as these are not just discussed in the financial pages.

Brie

@Pollycat
you misunderstood me.  this never applied to me beyond the fact that like many women the change was from 60 to 65.  And later moved to 66.  And I'm lucky that I have a good DB scheme and other pension money and investments and am not dependent on anything my OH brings to the mix.

And whether it's in the financial pages or not....if someone isn't interested or knowledgeable about finances they are likely to ignore an article about boring changes to pensions.  They shouldn't but they do.  The same as all the advice there might be on the news, Martin Lewis doing his podcasts, about anything financial, someone is interested in sports or fashion or cats and they'll focus on those instead.  

BlackKnightMonty

State pension at 66. Absolute gravy.

Marcon

Pollycat said:

Brie said:

Pollycat said:

If you could afford to do it, do you think you deserve getting your state pension at age 60?
When a man born on the same day as you would have had to wait until age 65?

Do you see that as equality?
Because I don't.
And that's why I've never supported this.

Women can't cherry pick what bits of equality suits them.

I don't think that anyone now believes there should be inequality.  But equality needs to be done in a way that is fair. 

For a woman who has never dealt with finances, assumed her husband would provide for her in her old age and to suddenly discover at age 60 that she wasn't going to get a pension for a few more years would have been a big shock. 

You are financially astute as am I.  I heard something about this a number of years back, possibly because I was working in pension admin at the time but didn't think it had anything to do with me (1 year out) and so took no further notice.  

You knew!
But disregarded it!
Like so many other women who heard about it being discussed in hairdressers, in 'women's weekly' type magazines and in other ways.
Like I heard about it.

I was well aware in the mid 1990s that my state pension age wasn't going to be age 60.
My revised state pension age at that time was 63 years and 6 months.
That was later extended to 64 years and 9 months because of a later Pension Act.
I'm shocked that someone working in Pensions Admin didn't appreciate the impact this would have on them.
There is no excuse for ignoring this change.

Brie said:

Pollycat said:

If you could afford to do it, do you think you deserve getting your state pension at age 60?
When a man born on the same day as you would have had to wait until age 65?

Do you see that as equality?
Because I don't.
And that's why I've never supported this.

Women can't cherry pick what bits of equality suits them.

And I would have been well ticked off to have worked towards the age of 60 knowing that's when I got my pension (earlier than men due in part to the lower wages and lack of work pensions for women which was completely unfair) only to find that first it was catapulted to 65 and then inched upwards from there.  

You should be "well ticked off" not because women's state pension age changed but because you knew and ignored it.

And it wasn't "catapulted to 65 and then inched upwards from there".  
There was a phased change over a number of years.
Hence my revised state pension ages as detailed above.

Brie said:

Pollycat said:

And there have been many more announcements of changes of age requirements for pensions and I think that a lot of people remain completely unaware.  Because they don't read the financial pages, because they are financially uneducated.  Both male and female.  

Whatever happened to personal accountability?
Changes such as these are not just discussed in the financial pages.

Well said @Pollycat.

The change in state pension age has nothing whatsoever to do with being financially astute, reading the financial pages or any other feeble non-reason. It has everything to do with wilfully shutting your eyes to unwelcome news, failing to take any interest in the world around you and living in an outdated parallel universe where the little woman leaves everything about finance to 'him'.  Yes, there will be women in that last category - probably quite a few - so for them, it's a case of welcome to the real world where the rest of us have to live. 

One of the most damaging aspects of this meritless campaign is surely the way women have frequently been portrayed. So many of the 'real life' stories have women bemoaning the fact that they are 'worn out at 60', have had the time with their grandchildren/knitting club/Pilates class etc disrupted, have worked for x years and are 'entitled' to retire now etc. At a time when age discrimination and unemployment are both rife, reinforcing this sort of negative stereotype is a huge disservice to the cause of equality.

This repeated emphasis that women impacted by the change 'didn't get a letter' makes the assumption that had this infamous letter been sent, all women receiving it would have read it, noted it and rushed to act on the contents. The reality is likely to have been something else and many a waste bin would have benefited instantly had it arrived.

One point which can't be argued is the skilled campaign WASPI has run. What a pity they didn't turn their very considerable campaigning abilities to something the whole country would have supported, be it child poverty, mending potholes or any one of the myriad causes which truly deserve to be heard.

Pollycat

Brie said:

@Pollycat
you misunderstood me.  this never applied to me beyond the fact that like many women the change was from 60 to 65.  And later moved to 66.  And I'm lucky that I have a good DB scheme and other pension money and investments and am not dependent on anything my OH brings to the mix.

Well, it applied to me and many of my friends.
If WASPI had concentrated on the later act which really did give some women little notice of the 2nd change, then I would have supported their cause.
But to try to get women's state pension age reverted to age 60 was ludicrous.
And stupid.
And greedy.

You've put me straight on your situation but haven't acknowledged my other point i.e 'catapulted'.
Your statement was absolutely not true.

Brie said:

And whether it's in the financial pages or not....if someone isn't interested or knowledgeable about finances they are likely to ignore an article about boring changes to pensions.  They shouldn't but they do.  The same as all the advice there might be on the news, Martin Lewis doing his podcasts, about anything financial, someone is interested in sports or fashion or cats and they'll focus on those instead.  

If someone isn't interested or knowledgeable about finances, then they deserve to be clueless about the impact that changes have on their life.
It's called 'personal accountability'.
If they prefer to focus on sports, fashion or cats, then they may well lose out.
And fully deserve to.

Marcon

Brie said:

@Pollycat
you misunderstood me.  this never applied to me beyond the fact that like many women the change was from 60 to 65.  And later moved to 66.  And I'm lucky that I have a good DB scheme and other pension money and investments and am not dependent on anything my OH brings to the mix.

And whether it's in the financial pages or not....if someone isn't interested or knowledgeable about finances they are likely to ignore an article about boring changes to pensions.  They shouldn't but they do.  The same as all the advice there might be on the news, Martin Lewis doing his podcasts, about anything financial, someone is interested in sports or fashion or cats and they'll focus on those instead.  

Their choice - and they have to live with the consequences of their decision. "I'm not interested in pensions so I should be compensated" isn't the greatest strapline.