Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Fridayismyfunday · 11/11/2025 22:25

Vaxtable · 11/11/2025 21:56

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

It was all over the press and the news when first announced in c. 1993. The first women to be affected were only 43 then, it continued to be widely discussed. There were leaflets, news articles, discussions on radio and tv. My friends and colleagues discussed it. It’s just not true to claim otherwise.

Augarden · 11/11/2025 22:26

I had hoped I'd heard the last of this ridiculous nonsense.

Garamousalata · 11/11/2025 22:31

When did Mumsnet get so ageist?

Anonymouseposter · 11/11/2025 22:32

I fall into the category of wasps women. I don’t think money should be spent on this. I had a letter explaining my new retirement age well in advance. There are many more important priorities.

Ticklyoctopus · 11/11/2025 22:39

Garamousalata · 11/11/2025 22:31

When did Mumsnet get so ageist?

Age is literally the central pillar here so it’s impossible NOT to discuss it in terms of age

OP posts:
musicalfrog · 11/11/2025 22:48

Fridayismyfunday · 11/11/2025 22:25

It was all over the press and the news when first announced in c. 1993. The first women to be affected were only 43 then, it continued to be widely discussed. There were leaflets, news articles, discussions on radio and tv. My friends and colleagues discussed it. It’s just not true to claim otherwise.

Maybe they were busy dealing with their families?

There was no social media then, people were far less informed.

plumclafoutis · 11/11/2025 22:56

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!

I agree with this. It’s not going to happen.

1dayatatime · 11/11/2025 22:57

So where exactly is the £10 billion coming from?

For those in favour which other services should be cut to pay for it or which taxes would they like to see increased?

Noseyoldcow · 11/11/2025 23:14

Since I am a WASPI woman, vintage 1955, whose expected pension age jumped from 60 to 66, of course I would love to get a payout. Wouldn’t you? But I’m quite sure I won’t. Labour politicians were full of support for WASPI women when they were in opposition - wasn’t it in Corbyn’s manifesto in 2020 ish that he’d pay out?- but now they’re in government, their tune has changed. Quelle surprise!

carpool · 11/11/2025 23:16

I am in this age group and I am sure I did know although can't remember actually receiving a letter. I do remember it being discussed at work however as there were a few of us of about the same age and there were conversations about it. I certainly don't think I need compensating, but I understand some women have suffered financial hardship so I feel sorry for them.

Viviennemary · 11/11/2025 23:16

Absolute madness. Labour are going to bankrupt the country at this rate. In any case it's men who got the worst deal. Shorter life expectancy and later retirement age

Peridoteage · 11/11/2025 23:18

It's ridiculous.
My mum is the same age as the Waspi campaigners and said you would have had to have been living on mars to not know about the changes.

Imfat · 11/11/2025 23:20

I was born may 1960 so it doesn't effect me. I knew about the change when it was announced.
Yet my friend born February 1960 insists it wasn't in the news.
Money is tight so I don't think this compensation should be paid.

KTheGrey · 11/11/2025 23:20

musicalfrog · 11/11/2025 21:11

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

They just want to throw money and change their minds daily about where. It’s not much of a policy.

Peridoteage · 11/11/2025 23:22

It was all over the press and the news when first announced in c. 1993. The first women to be affected were only 43 then, it continued to be widely discussed. There were leaflets, news articles, discussions on radio and tv. My friends and colleagues discussed it. It’s just not true to claim otherwise.

This. A lot of people just really didn't want to accept and buried their heads in the sand/ignored the widespread information.

WestwardHo1 · 11/11/2025 23:24

Garamousalata · 11/11/2025 22:31

When did Mumsnet get so ageist?

I'm absolutely FED UP of that accusations being flung around whoever we try and discuss public finances. It's lazy and inaccurate and rudely dismissive of genuine concerns.

TroyTheTough · 11/11/2025 23:26

Awful. Why should people who won't get to retire until 67-68 pay compensation to people who retired at 65 and couldn't be bothered to keep themselves informed?

The changes occurred in 1995 and 2011. Amazingly people did manage to follow the news in those days, even without social media 😂

StrikeForever · 11/11/2025 23:29

AnneLovesGilbert · 11/11/2025 21:20

TEN BILLIONS POUNDS.

This is being quoted because Starmer said. Financial experts have said it would be nowhere near this figure. This is happening because new evidence has come to light and the case will be coming to court will a likelihood that the Government wouldn’t have a case against it and would lose. Compensation for past injustices always cost a lot of money. The way to save that money is to ensure that things are done without injustice.

This is pensioners though. You lot carry on not giving a shit about them until you get there. Then it will be, oops “I wasn’t careful what I wished for”!

Ticklyoctopus · 11/11/2025 23:31

Noseyoldcow · 11/11/2025 23:14

Since I am a WASPI woman, vintage 1955, whose expected pension age jumped from 60 to 66, of course I would love to get a payout. Wouldn’t you? But I’m quite sure I won’t. Labour politicians were full of support for WASPI women when they were in opposition - wasn’t it in Corbyn’s manifesto in 2020 ish that he’d pay out?- but now they’re in government, their tune has changed. Quelle surprise!

Why should you get a payout because the retirement age changed? Nobody else has. I simply don’t believe that these women never heard ANYTHING about the changes. I liken them to people who hide red envelopes before insisting they had no idea they were going into debt.

OP posts:
Ticklyoctopus · 11/11/2025 23:31

StrikeForever · 11/11/2025 23:29

This is being quoted because Starmer said. Financial experts have said it would be nowhere near this figure. This is happening because new evidence has come to light and the case will be coming to court will a likelihood that the Government wouldn’t have a case against it and would lose. Compensation for past injustices always cost a lot of money. The way to save that money is to ensure that things are done without injustice.

This is pensioners though. You lot carry on not giving a shit about them until you get there. Then it will be, oops “I wasn’t careful what I wished for”!

Pensioners have had everyone ‘giving a shit about them’ for decades and have basically got us into the financial mess we’re in!

OP posts:
StrikeForever · 11/11/2025 23:32

CraftyNavySeal · 11/11/2025 21:24

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

That cohort didn’t have the same employment or pay for decades after they started work. Even after the Equal Pay Act, women were still paid a fraction of what men were paid for work of equal value. It was a long time before that was tidied up.

Peridoteage · 11/11/2025 23:36

StrikeForever · 11/11/2025 23:32

That cohort didn’t have the same employment or pay for decades after they started work. Even after the Equal Pay Act, women were still paid a fraction of what men were paid for work of equal value. It was a long time before that was tidied up.

Thats not why the pension ages were originally set differently. It was because most women were 5 years or so younger than their husbands and it was intended that women typically could retire at the same age as their husbands.

StrikeForever · 11/11/2025 23:37

Ticklyoctopus · 11/11/2025 23:31

Pensioners have had everyone ‘giving a shit about them’ for decades and have basically got us into the financial mess we’re in!

Really? This doesn’t deserve a reply 🙄

StrikeForever · 11/11/2025 23:38

Peridoteage · 11/11/2025 23:36

Thats not why the pension ages were originally set differently. It was because most women were 5 years or so younger than their husbands and it was intended that women typically could retire at the same age as their husbands.

My point remains valid.

Teado · 11/11/2025 23:42

There was plenty of information about this. Why are people pretending otherwise !

Paying compensation would be an egregious waste of public funds.

Swipe left for the next trending thread