Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

TheWordWomanIsTaken · 11/11/2025 21:57

I was born mid sixties so a bit younger than these women and I was aware of the announcements and changes.
I simply don’t believe that these huge numbers of women didn’t know.
I also can’t compute why if you were born in April 1960 you would be within the potential compensation pool but not if you were born in May 1960?
it’s disgraceful.

Vaxtable · 11/11/2025 21:56

Fridayismyfunday · 11/11/2025 21:47

This. I’m one of those affected (born 1959) and there was so much publicity. I just don’t believe the women claiming not to have known. I’m still working and have no plans to retire.

I am 1959 as well, I don’t remember seeing lots of publicity and certainly there wasn’t for those born earlier. 1959 is right at the end of the scale here

WorriedRelative · 11/11/2025 21:51

JassyRadlett · 11/11/2025 21:31

If this happens the first one at the barricades will be my MIL, who is firmly in this age cohort, worked minimum wage all her working life, and is disgusted with the WASPI campaigners for, in her words, "giving the the rest of us a bad name."

Her view is that the Ombudsman's report was flawed, overreached and infantilised women.

It's not often she gets really worked up about something but she is properly cross about this.

My late Mum felt the same she would be furious about this

Fridayismyfunday · 11/11/2025 21:47

HelenaWaiting · 11/11/2025 21:39

You mean giving them loads of notice, expecting them to keep themselves informed and take appropriate action, and refusing to compensate them when they do nothing and later whine about it? They should get sweet FA.

This. I’m one of those affected (born 1959) and there was so much publicity. I just don’t believe the women claiming not to have known. I’m still working and have no plans to retire.

HelenaWaiting · 11/11/2025 21:39

margegunderson · 11/11/2025 21:26

Nothing. It was the way it was done that was the problem. Have a look at that.

You mean giving them loads of notice, expecting them to keep themselves informed and take appropriate action, and refusing to compensate them when they do nothing and later whine about it? They should get sweet FA.

WishItWasDifferent25 · 11/11/2025 21:36

It won’t happen. It’s heading for a judicial review. The only real remedy in a JR is for a court to order the Government reconsider the decision. In discovering documentation that should have been considered the best thing to do is to vacate the hearing, reconsider the documentation, make a fresh decision which will be the same decision on effect, and then proceed to the hearing. I’ve done this kind of work and that’s how it will play out. They won’t pay out!

softstone · 11/11/2025 21:33

This government is a disgrace.

JassyRadlett · 11/11/2025 21:31

If this happens the first one at the barricades will be my MIL, who is firmly in this age cohort, worked minimum wage all her working life, and is disgusted with the WASPI campaigners for, in her words, "giving the the rest of us a bad name."

Her view is that the Ombudsman's report was flawed, overreached and infantilised women.

It's not often she gets really worked up about something but she is properly cross about this.

MeouwKing · 11/11/2025 21:30

If I get anything, I will put it towards a Brompton bike.

Walkacrossthesand · 11/11/2025 21:28

It’s more complex than that, @margegunderson
. This is retrospective reimbursement that will be paid for by current workers, whose own pensions are being pushed back and back.

margegunderson · 11/11/2025 21:26

CraftyNavySeal · 11/11/2025 21:24

What’s sexist about them having the same retirement age as men?

Nothing. It was the way it was done that was the problem. Have a look at that.

CraftyNavySeal · 11/11/2025 21:24

margegunderson · 11/11/2025 21:22

Arguing against sexist treatment of women? Right. Because they’re pensioners?

What’s sexist about them having the same retirement age as men?

AnnaQuayInTheUk · 11/11/2025 21:24

@margegunderson why is it sexist?
The WASPI argument is unfounded.

margegunderson · 11/11/2025 21:22

Arguing against sexist treatment of women? Right. Because they’re pensioners?

Genevieva · 11/11/2025 21:21

So we have to pay more tax for this. Utterly ridiculous.

OmNomShiva · 11/11/2025 21:21

Anything for the boomers. Anything they want.

AnneLovesGilbert · 11/11/2025 21:20

TEN BILLIONS POUNDS.

LadyKenya · 11/11/2025 21:19

They will always find the money, when they wish to. They are making some strange decisions lately. I wonder about their advisers.

musicalfrog · 11/11/2025 21:11

They seem to want to throw money in all the wrong directions and none of the right ones.

AnnaQuayInTheUk · 11/11/2025 21:09

Ridiculous.

Ticklyoctopus · 11/11/2025 21:09

I could cry.

OP posts:
HelenaWaiting · 11/11/2025 21:04

Deeply disappointing.

Swipe left for the next trending thread