"
You're wrong about the judges too. Many work into their seventies.."
Really.... the following link would suggest otherwise.
Policy review after judge forced to retire wins age bias case | UK news | The Guardian
This is an interesting article as it suggests a UK Judge who was being forced to retire at 65 challenged the decision. The Home Secretary argued that retirement age 65 was necessary to ensure a flow of Judges through the system (sound familar). It seems that was an acceptable defence, however the Court ruled the Home Secretary had other means of achieving this aim. The Home Secretary lost and Judges now retire at 70.
Net sum of this.... the outcome of any Appeal is uncertain...
"On the other hand, if you’re so sure the appeal will be thrown out, then you’ve got nothing to worry about funding it"
Firstly, I have never said the Appeal will fail. I have consistently said, I don't know... My objection to the Appeal on uncertain grounds is the massive cost. Can you, or anyone else quantify the cost of a failed Appeal.
How about you, or someone else, answer some of my questions?
1. What will the Appeal cost?
2. In the orginal case, was the Human rights argument put before the Judge; if not... why not?
3. How come RA55 is a breach of Human Rights, whereas RA 65 is not?
3. If successful; what will it mean for non-UK base people?
4. If successful; what will it mean for UK based people?
5. If successful; will those who were UK based and have either been forced to retire, or have been forced to accept reduced terms, be entitled to compensation?