Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

WASPI women

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

WASPI women

Old 28th Nov 2019, 01:35
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 519
Those of you whinging or should that be gloating, about WASPI claims for compensation, could easily save the country 58 billion,by coughing up some of the additional cash you earned over the years,as a result of the historical gender pay gap!
woptb is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2019, 01:46
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 519
Originally Posted by jindabyne View Post

Any more 11th hour sweeties Jeremy? Aside from the fallacy of selling the NHS.
As the possessor of pants, which are constantly self immolating, I hardly think Boris and his right wing chums are to be trusted where the NHS is concerned!
woptb is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2019, 09:47
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by KelvinD View Post
Repos: Thanks for the link to the WASPI site. From that I can answer Orac: How many people do you think would have read that Act? Come to think of it, when did HM Government first begin posting Acts of Parliament on a web site? Before or after 1995?
Anyway, from the link provided by Repos:
"Letters were sent out to women born on or after 6 April 1951 – 5 April 1953 14 years after the 1995 Pensions Act". So, if that was the case, 14 years had been removed from their time available to make alternative arrangements.
"A large percentage of these women only received a letter advising them of significant increases to their State Pension Age within 1 year (i.e. when they were 59) of their expected State Pension Age of 60. Very many others received only 2, 3, 4 and 5 years notice."
" Many women report receiving NO letter EVER ".
So it is easy to see how this came as a shock to many women.
PS: I may have found at least a pointer to the answer to my question about the government publishing the Act on the web:
According to the National Archives, the archiving of the government's web activity began in 2003 but "some of our archives go back to 1996". So, it is highly unlikely that the 1995 would have been published on the web.
My wife didn't receive any letter. First she knew about it was about two or three years ago, when her employer gave her a load of pension-related information. I then started looking around the web and discovered that she wouldn't get her state pension until she was 66. All her planning had been based on getting it at 60.

VP959 is online now  
Old 28th Nov 2019, 10:54
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Livin de island life
Posts: 474
The jump from 60 to 65 was announced quite a long time ago. I was prepared for that and thought it only fair. Then, at very short notice they announced another jump from 65 to 67. Added to the restrictions on pension saving and caps on pension pots, it seems like an unfair attack on older people generally and a few women in particular. Especially those of an age that was encouraged to depend on their menfolk for anything so “complicated”. Happily, it doesn’t affect me badly because I am still working and have no intention of stopping anytime soon. But I know people who had planned quite carefully and are now facing several years of straitened circumstances through none of their own doing.
flyingfemme is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2019, 12:48
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: south of Cirencester, north of Lyneham
Age: 73
Posts: 1,243
My niece forward planned for it. She had a senior nursing job in the NHS which was very stressful and was able to retire at 58, pay off her mortgage and part fund her 29 year old daughter's PhD in Microbiology. Then got bored and went back part time on a consulting basis for the NHS!

Mrs radeng bitches about the State Pension date but had made enough to retire at 58, too. Now wonders how she ever had time to go to work!
radeng is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2019, 16:09
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 66
Posts: 1,259
That's the ticket radeng, keep ' em on their toes!
Mr Optimistic is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2019, 17:56
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,524
woptb,
I don't understand your reference to your pants which set themselves on fire?
jindabyne is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2019, 18:07
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 73
Posts: 798
jindabyne: The kids' taunt: "Liar, liar, your pants on fire".
KelvinD is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2019, 03:35
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,715
https://publications.parliament.uk/p.../899/89906.htm
ORAC is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2019, 07:38
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 519
Originally Posted by jindabyne View Post
woptb,
I don't understand your reference to your pants which set themselves on fire?
In hindsight, maybe a bit obtuse!
woptb is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2019, 08:48
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 73
Posts: 798
woptb: Don't sell yourself short. I thought it was hugely humorous.
ORAC: While thumbscrews and a period on the rack would not get me to align myself politically with your views, I do have to take my hat off to you for your diligence, particularly with reference to the pensions related link you provided this morning. There is some interesting reading there and that provides some insight to both sides of the argument.
It seems I may have been right to wonder when the government went on line with its publications. It would seem to be "not before 2009". The letters that went out to prospective pensioners were sent, initially, only to those who requested letters/statements from the DWP so it doesn't surprise me that some women had carried blithely on toward their expected retirement age of 60 unaware of changes as they had not requested the pension forecast statement. If the government could quite cheerfully send a letter to every household in the Kingdom regarding the 2016 referendum, you would think they could have done the same with an issue that covers roughly 50% of the population.
The publication in your link shows why we should beware of "experts". A set of "experts" could not agree on a few aspects of the evidence!
Incidentally, one should also beware of the vagaries of the government's web service. I followed a link from a DWP statement, given as written evidence to the inquiry. The link showed as "Letter to women over 50, issued between 2004 & 2006". The response to this was a curt message from the government's web meister:

ACCESS DENIED

The page that you are trying to access is not available. The owner of the website has banned your IP address. Banned my IP address? What is going on here? With a bit of luck I may find out soon as I have followed the accompanying advice and emailed the [email protected]
We shall see.
Thanks again for the link.
KelvinD is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2019, 09:23
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bomber County
Age: 70
Posts: 163
The jump from 60 to 65 was announced quite a long time ago. I was prepared for that and thought it only fair. Then, at very short notice they announced another jump from 65 to 67.
Agreed. My wife was caught in the middle of the first one but had plenty of notice to plan and got her OA pension at 61. My sister, having planned for an OA pension at 64 was suddenly, at short notice, told it was now 66!

THAT is the jump which should be recompensed - not the original 60 - 65 phased move which was well advertised over the years.
radar101 is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2019, 09:25
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 384
VP ; Anne Widicom (or something like that) loudmouthed (as she does) from the interior of "I'm a Celebrity-Get Me Out Of Here" (or some dimwit programme like that) , that "Letters were sent to everyone" when she was Works & Pensions (something or other) . Yeah, of course.

It's a bit like the sneaky changes to the Widow's pension. I get an "enhanced" pension as my wife is wholly dependent. I always assumed she would get at least half on my passing. Successive sneaky little changes now mean that she gets a one-off bereavement payment and that's it. My passing will maker her no less dependent ( I accept , maybe, half but even that remains arguable). No-one got letters about that either.

When I fall of the perch, my frau will have to downsize, or equity release or go back to being cabin crew. Do they recruit ex CC over the age of 50 ? OK, thought so. I am teaching her to stack shelves ready for the Selection Procedure at Lidles.

Last edited by slowjet; 1st Dec 2019 at 09:11. Reason: finger problem .
slowjet is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2020, 14:40
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,715
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...ease-050wjfft2

Women lose appeal over pension age increase


Millions of women who were forced to work longer after their state pension age was raised cannot claim compensation after senior judges ruled that they did not suffer discrimination.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed a claim brought by two women who argued that the government’s reform, which raised the state pension age for nearly four million women from 60 to 66, was discriminatory on the grounds of age and sex.

Julie Delve, 62, and Karen Glynn, 63, who were supported by the campaign group BackTo60, brought the challenge after losing a landmark High Court fight against the Department for Work and Pensions last year. The women argued that raising their pension age unlawfully discriminated against them and that they were not given adequate notice of the changes.

However in a judgment published yesterday, Sir Terence Etherton, the Master of the Rolls and the most senior civil law judge in England and Wales, Lord Justice Underhill and Lady Justice Rose unanimously dismissed the claim. The appeal judges found that introducing the same state pension age for men and women did not amount to unlawful discrimination under EU or human rights laws.

The senior justices said that “despite the sympathy that we . . . feel for the appellants and other women in their position, we are satisfied that this is not a case where the court can interfere with the decisions taken through the parliamentary process”.

Joanne Welch, founder of the BackTo60 campaign, described the decision as “unconscionable” and said that the group’s legal team was “actively looking” at seeking leave to appeal the judgment to the Supreme Court.

Christina McAnea, the assistant general secretary at the union Unison, said the ruling was “nothing short of a disaster” for “a generation of women”.

The government welcomed the ruling. “Both the High Court and Court of Appeal have supported the actions of the DWP, under successive governments dating back to 1995, finding we acted entirely lawfully and did not discriminate on any grounds,” a Whitehall official said. “The government decided 25 years ago that it was going to make the state pension age the same for men and women as a long-overdue move towards gender equality.”
ORAC is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.