Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • MSE Callum
    • By MSE Callum 3rd Oct 19, 9:32 AM
    • 602Posts
    • 194Thanks
    MSE Callum
    Women lose landmark legal fight against state pension age rise - MSE News
    • #1
    • 3rd Oct 19, 9:32 AM
    Women lose landmark legal fight against state pension age rise - MSE News 3rd Oct 19 at 9:32 AM
    Women affected by changes to the state pension age have lost their High Court fight against the Government...
    Read the full story:
    'Women lose landmark legal fight against state pension age rise'

    Click reply below to discuss. If you havenít already, join the forum to reply.
    Read the latest MSE News
    Flag up a news story: news@moneysavingexpert.com
    Get the Free MoneySavingExpert Money Tips E-mail
Page 1
    • minty777
    • By minty777 3rd Oct 19, 9:38 AM
    • 236 Posts
    • 219 Thanks
    minty777
    • #2
    • 3rd Oct 19, 9:38 AM
    • #2
    • 3rd Oct 19, 9:38 AM
    Homeless and destitute


    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/state-pension-age-women-waspi-high-court-discrimination-case-lost-sexism-a9135961.html
    • molerat
    • By molerat 3rd Oct 19, 9:38 AM
    • 21,413 Posts
    • 15,669 Thanks
    molerat
    • #3
    • 3rd Oct 19, 9:38 AM
    • #3
    • 3rd Oct 19, 9:38 AM
    Oh dear, how sad, never mind
    Alternative headline ... Entitled Money Grabbers Lose In Court !
    https://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/give-support/donate-now/
    • rawhammered
    • By rawhammered 3rd Oct 19, 9:40 AM
    • 44 Posts
    • 34 Thanks
    rawhammered
    • #4
    • 3rd Oct 19, 9:40 AM
    • #4
    • 3rd Oct 19, 9:40 AM
    And no tears were shed
    • SonOf
    • By SonOf 3rd Oct 19, 9:52 AM
    • 1,534 Posts
    • 1,814 Thanks
    SonOf
    • #5
    • 3rd Oct 19, 9:52 AM
    • #5
    • 3rd Oct 19, 9:52 AM
    Good that they lost. Mostly a greedy bunch of women trying to money grab for personal gain.

    They should have focused on the 2011 changes which were unfair to a small group and not focused on the 1995 changes which gave plenty of notice.
    • ArcticRoll
    • By ArcticRoll 3rd Oct 19, 9:55 AM
    • 51 Posts
    • 82 Thanks
    ArcticRoll
    • #6
    • 3rd Oct 19, 9:55 AM
    • #6
    • 3rd Oct 19, 9:55 AM
    Had they succeeded and the law changed, from the date of the new legislation would men born at the same time not have a case to pursue to argue that from the point the law was amended that they were victims of discrimination?

    Arguing, essentially, that moving away from a point of gender discrimination was gender discrimination was always going to be a hard sell.
    • redux
    • By redux 3rd Oct 19, 10:12 AM
    • 19,787 Posts
    • 27,542 Thanks
    redux
    • #7
    • 3rd Oct 19, 10:12 AM
    • #7
    • 3rd Oct 19, 10:12 AM
    Unsurprising, given that many other women equally affected thought they'd been notified well enough, and didn't see merit in this campaign.

    ... arguing that raising their pension age "unlawfully discriminated against them on the grounds of age, sex, and age and sex combined".

    Surely there is some irony in this claim. The policy change was to zero out previous discrimination in their favour, and not worse than that.

    I don't see why they've said they will appeal. From a brief reading of this, it sounds like they've presented a poor case badly, with extra detail which isn't relevant. That isn't the court's fault. Maybe they need better legal advice: when your case is weak don't bother.
    • pip895
    • By pip895 3rd Oct 19, 10:17 AM
    • 689 Posts
    • 380 Thanks
    pip895
    • #8
    • 3rd Oct 19, 10:17 AM
    • #8
    • 3rd Oct 19, 10:17 AM
    I think saying that they are all Money grabbers is a little harsh - there are undoubtedly some who have been made "homeless and destitute" . Sadly there are many out there, not necessarily born in the 50s, whose financial gullibility/ineptitude has resulted in the same. The monies used on lawyers fees would have been much better spent helping them directly.
    • jem16
    • By jem16 3rd Oct 19, 10:18 AM
    • 18,718 Posts
    • 11,560 Thanks
    jem16
    • #9
    • 3rd Oct 19, 10:18 AM
    • #9
    • 3rd Oct 19, 10:18 AM
    As a 50s' born woman, the right Judgment was made.

    I would have liked to see some redress for those born late 53 and all 54 as they were badly hit by the 2011 Act. However the case was badly handled.

    MMQC should retire now. He's lost his touch.
    • minislim
    • By minislim 3rd Oct 19, 10:24 AM
    • 341 Posts
    • 207 Thanks
    minislim
    sensible decision.

    women want equality to men. so pensions was being aligned.

    you cant have it both ways.
    • zagfles
    • By zagfles 3rd Oct 19, 10:35 AM
    • 14,633 Posts
    • 13,075 Thanks
    zagfles
    The MSE story doesn't mention the dismissal of the ridiculous claim that legislation correcting inequality was discriminatory!
    The media summary is here:
    https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Delve-and-Glynn-v-SSWP-media-summary-v-2-002.pdf
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 3rd Oct 19, 10:36 AM
    • 6,774 Posts
    • 10,990 Thanks
    Malthusian
    They should have focused on the 2011 changes which were unfair to a small group and not focused on the 1995 changes which gave plenty of notice.
    Originally posted by SonOf
    Why do people keep saying this? They already tried that and it flopped. Trying it again would be completely pointless.

    The 2011 changes were already watered down as it went through Parliament. In 2013 WASPI founder Anne Keen launched a petition that this watering down wasn't enough. It flopped with zero media interest.

    WASPI only took off when the demand to reverse the 2011 changes was expanded to a demand to reverse the 1995 changes and they started promising members that when the Government caved in they'd get a £30,000+ cheque in the post.

    There was no prospect of WASPI deciding the 1995 Pensions Act was fine and focusing on the 2011 Pensions Act. Not only had they already tried and failed, it would be like the Catholic Church declaring there is no God. Without a demand to reverse the 1995 Pensions Act and without the prospect of £30,000+ cheques from the Government there is no WASPI.
    • SonOf
    • By SonOf 3rd Oct 19, 10:47 AM
    • 1,534 Posts
    • 1,814 Thanks
    SonOf
    Why do people keep saying this? They already tried that and it flopped. Trying it again would be completely pointless.
    The back to 60 campaign was just totally unaffordable. Tweaking the 2011 changes would have been more affordable and had the complete focus been on those and not split over a range of ages, then it may have had more success. It is too late now as you say.

    You are correct though that the number of people impacted by the 2011 changes was much lower and would not have garnered as much support.

    So, in effect, the 2011 changes would have been a more honourable cause but less supported by the volume of people but the 1995 changes were greedy and unaffordable but had greater numbers affected and therefore garnered more support.

    The MPs that supported it are also disgraceful. They know if was unaffordable. They know that is had to change following the EU court ruling. They just played the women involved for political gain.
    • zagfles
    • By zagfles 3rd Oct 19, 10:49 AM
    • 14,633 Posts
    • 13,075 Thanks
    zagfles
    Why do people keep saying this? They already tried that and it flopped. Trying it again would be completely pointless.

    The 2011 changes were already watered down as it went through Parliament. In 2013 WASPI founder Anne Keen launched a petition that this watering down wasn't enough. It flopped with zero media interest.
    Originally posted by Malthusian
    It didn't have "zero media interest". It also had a lot of political interest. The SNP have been banging on about it for years, Labour included a pledge in their 2017 manifesto to keep the pension credit age in line with the 1995 act, thereby helping those most affected by the 2011 act while rejectig any attempt to unwind the 1995 act. That was actually a sensible, non discriminatory and not too expensive proposal.
    WASPI only took off when the demand to reverse the 2011 changes was expanded to a demand to reverse the 1995 changes and they started promising members that when the Government caved in they'd get a £30,000+ cheque in the post.
    Appealing to the unjustified greed of a large number who want to preserve their privilege rather than genuine unfairness to a far smaller number who weren't given sufficent notice by the 2011 act might get you a bigger pool with a vested interest, but it doesn't help the legal or political arguments.
    • ArcticRoll
    • By ArcticRoll 3rd Oct 19, 11:30 AM
    • 51 Posts
    • 82 Thanks
    ArcticRoll
    The Equal Pay Act and the Race Relations Act were passed 5 years apart. Pay discrimination and disparity has existed (and continues to exist) based on gender and race, among other factors.

    Why would it be right that the pension system factors in the social and economic disadvantage for white women, but not for black men?
    • zagfles
    • By zagfles 3rd Oct 19, 11:38 AM
    • 14,633 Posts
    • 13,075 Thanks
    zagfles
    The Equal Pay Act and the Race Relations Act were passed 5 years apart. Pay discrimination and disparity has existed (and continues to exist) based on gender and race, among other factors.

    Why would it be right that the pension system factors in the social and economic disadvantage for white women, but not for black men?
    Originally posted by ArcticRoll
    And if it were to, then why not life expectancy too?
    • Geri~O
    • By Geri~O 3rd Oct 19, 11:55 AM
    • 1 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Geri~O
    Not fair!
    If women had been treated equally during their working lives this would have been fair, but women were not! It is unfair to suddenly bring in equality when historically it was unfair.


    The truth is that the government have raided the National Insurance fund and have picked on what they saw as the weakest group to try to balance the books! WASPI women will not go away, we can't afford to!
    • robber2
    • By robber2 3rd Oct 19, 12:09 PM
    • 428 Posts
    • 379 Thanks
    robber2
    ....... suddenly................
    Originally posted by Geri~O



    Oh come on
    • SonOf
    • By SonOf 3rd Oct 19, 12:17 PM
    • 1,534 Posts
    • 1,814 Thanks
    SonOf
    It is unfair to suddenly bring in equality when historically it was unfair.
    How on earth can you say it was sudden?

    1995 changed but not implemented until 2010 is 15 years. And then you had a transition period so there is no cliff edge. Noting that the WASPI women actually wanted a cliff edge for those born after the 1950s.

    Most of those born in the 50s affected by the 1995 change had longer than 15 years to prepare. How long do you actually need?
    • JoeCrystal
    • By JoeCrystal 3rd Oct 19, 12:18 PM
    • 1,885 Posts
    • 1,322 Thanks
    JoeCrystal
    And if it were to, then why not life expectancy too?
    Originally posted by zagfles
    Indeed. Why not go a step further and take into account of health issues like life expectancy shortened by smoking...
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,229Posts Today

7,510Users online

Martin's Twitter