'WASPI women' appeal court ruling

[GrimSisters]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54158832

I'm 41. I'd always wondered why women retired at 60 and men at 65 and have known all about the changes for years because I read the news and don't live under a rock.

Given that, at the moment, I'll get my state pension at 68, I'm struggling to understand what the problem is. Please could someone explain why having to work until 65, along with their male counterparts, is so distressing?

I thought we wanted equality? Must admit that I'm struggling to have much sympathy. I work in a relatively low paid job and have four colleagues aged between 55 and 63 who haven't complained about the situation.

If you're one of the women who has been affected by this change, I'd be interested to know what the real issue is because I'm really confused as to why it is such a massive issue.

Throughout the period of changes , if you referred to the DWP website it still told you retirement age for women was 60.

I heard it was still doing this up to 2015.

Also I keep hearing in the news that the pension age for women is currently 65 - it isn't, I was 65 in July and have to work another year - it's 66.

@Gurufloof

I assume you are not in the UK, then? State pension ages rises to 67 by 2028, no more increases at the moment I am in the UK. A few years ago I got a letter from HMRC stating I could collect my SP at the date which would when I reach 69 years 10 months.

You need to check again. I put a birthdate in 2000 into the automated check and it came up with pension age of 68.

I’ve heard some ill-conceived arguments on this site before, but this thread takes the biscuit.

Tell me, if pension age is such a feminist issue, why are the WASPI women, and their ‘Back to 60’ backers, only interested in reducing the state pension age for a small group of women born in the 1950s? If this were a truly feminist campaign they would be fighting for women born in the sixties, seventies and eighties too. But they aren’t, are they? No, just for themselves.

(I was born in the seventies, BTW, and I think that the changes to the pension age were justified and correct).

I read comments like this:

Yessss feminism is about sisterhood, not about pushing other women down!

Don’t you get it? The WASPI campaign ignores women born later than the 1950s. What is that if not ‘pushing other women down’, especially because posters are queueing up to tell us how hard it is to be a woman, historically and now and how prevalent discrimination and lower pay is for women today. Don’t they matter? Obviously not, as long as you all get your compensation.

@CayrolBaaaskin gave you the answer earlier: yes, women’s lives have been harder than those of men in similar positions. However, reducing the pension age for a subset of women is not the way to address it.

As for the old chestnut that is regularly trotted out: ‘the DWP website said that the retirement age was 60!’. Funny, isn’t it, that the campaigners managed to find one obsolete web page on the gov.uk website but conveniently didn’t notice all of the other web pages giving correct information? It’s almost as if they were trying to construct an argument whilst ignoring most of the evidence base. The courts gave this short shrift first time around.

Finally, somebody upthread offered the considered opinion that compensating the WASPI women, to the tune of > £30 billion, was more important than the furlough scheme. How selfish and deluded can you get?

Yes, let’s sacrifice a load of jobs, predominantly those occupied by younger people, so that people who couldn’t be bothered paying attention to the news, and who didn’t bother to check their retirement age before leaving their jobs, or who read their letters from the DWP but interpreted them as they wished (the poster upthread who decided that despite being told that the pension age would rise to 65 in 2010 she could still get her state pension at 60 because she’d be 60 in 2010), can be handed a lump sum.

@Iamthewombat the WASPI women are fighting for the women that had TWO changes made to their pensions age, the second one without a lot of notice in a lot of cases or even no notice in even more cases.

I may be wrong but I believe their argument is not that the pension age was being raised to make the age the same for men and women but that the way the changes were brought in was wrong i.e. with the second change.

I see you are another one that blames women for "not paying attention to the news" for not knowing about the second change. You really live in smug land don't you?

Also what letters were we to read when WE DID NOT GET ONE? Sorry to shout but, honestly, some posters just seem thick. The DWP has admitted that they did not send out letters to all women (in fact the majority I believe) but you obviously don't let the truth get in the way of your nastiness

the poster upthread who decided that despite being told that the pension age would rise to 65 in 2010 she could still get her state pension at 60 because she’d be 60 in 2010

I'm not sure if you meant me or someone else, but if it is me, what I actually said was:

I think it said ... the retirement age for women would go up to 65 in 2020 ... What I took from this was that as I would be 60 in 2015, I would already have retired by then

60 in 2015 - five years BEFORE they said the date was changing!

Which is not what you have said - that is if you meant me.

However, I obviously know now that I misunderstood it and my point is that the DWP have to deal with people of all levels of intelligence and all levels of political engagement. If I misunderstood then it is likely that others might too. They didn't state in the letter at any point "You will not be able to draw your state pension until you are 65 in 2020". Why couldn't they do that if they were going to the trouble of writing a letter?

In fact this is something I have read about a lot - they contacted some women (not all - I didn't get a letter in 2011) and said things like "When you retire ...but they never actually said "when you retire at age 66 in 20??". They assumed people knew but they didn't.

the WASPI women are fighting for the women that had TWO changes made to their pensions age, the second one without a lot of notice in a lot of cases or even no notice in even more cases.

No, they aren’t. They are backed by the ‘Back to 60’ campaign. Check several news sources and you’ll see it. That is the real end game: they want their pension age moved back to 60.

You really live in smug land don't you

some posters just seem thick

you obviously don't let the truth get in the way of your nastiness

Predictably, you are losing the argument and resort to insults.

Re the letters: there appears to be some confusion in the pro-WASPI camp. Letters were sent out in 1995 when the plan to move the pension age forward to 65 was announced. The government did not individually contact affected women in 2011, when the increase was accelerated, because it was not required to do so. It doesn’t have to contact anybody affected by an impending change to benefits. It is expected that people have the sense to listed to news reports (and the courts found >400 examples of the 2011 change being publicised and discussed in national and local media) and the agency to do something about it.

@Iamthewombat, you’ve completely missed the point. None of us have any issue at all with equalising pension age. It’s how it was done and the widely acknowledged disproportionate effect on a cohort of women born in the 1950s that is the issue. A cohort of women who fought hard for many of the rights subsequent generations of women take for granted.

As I said before, younger women should learn from our experience. Governments will have no compunction in removing women’s rights now they’ve got away with this. Watch out, who knows what they’ll come after next, particularly with the state the economy is about to be in.

I must say it all seems perfectly reasonable to me. The real losers over the years re retirement age were men as they waited longer for their state pensions and had a lower life expectancy than women.

And it’s been pointed out to you repeatedly @Viviennemary, men of the same generation were the winners in virtually every aspect of their existence. For many years women were excluded from private pension schemes.

The judge agreed with me. It is a perfectly fair and reasonable adjustment.

@averylongtimeago

I am 62. When I started work I was asked if my husband minded me working. It was assumed that I would finish work until my children at least went to primary school. If I had wanted to work, the only childcare was nanny's or childminders who were too expensive- there were no private nurseries where I lived. I worked for "pin money" in the evenings and weekends- this was largely for cash and certainly didn't buy any "stamps" for a pension. If we worked for an employer (and I worked for the nhs for a while) we were encouraged to go for the "married woman's stamp" - a much lower national insurance payment and were told it wouldn't make any difference as we would get a pension through our husbands anyway. When you are struggling with children to pay for, this sounds like a good idea! I also worked as part of my husband's business, so have accused some pension years. However, the goal posts for that have changed as well- it has gone up to 35 years from 30. I didn't find out about this and the increased pension age until I was about 55. I don't think younger women always appreciate just how much harder it was to be a married woman with children and still have a successful career.

I expect now to be told that it's all my own fault and that somehow I should have known (perhaps Mystic Meg should have told me?) and also that you all know lots of successful career women in their 70's who are just fine and dandy. Well no one told me until it was too late.

I would like to second this. I always worked. I have a small pension from my job which ended when I was pregnant with my first child.

After that I had the same advice regarding state pension.

I have worked all my life. I did small jobs to help with the finances at home and now I am left with a pension which does not even cover my council tax bill and waiting for my state pension so I can start to live again.

Until then I either have to sell my house or get another job and at 65 I don't think it is wise for me personally as I have had problems I do not want to discuss on here.

Luckily for me I have managed to secure a loan which will last me frugally until I am 66.

Had I known more in advance this was going to happen I would have made provision. As it was my husband left me and went abroad so I am high and dry and even though I am entitled to half his works pension I can't access it ..

For a person who has worked all her life and am now poor it does not sit well. Luckily I am not a materialistic person and am wealthy in so many other ways, but for those ladies less fortunate it is a horrible situation to find yourself in.

you’ve completely missed the point

Another one for my bingo card! It’s fascinating how anyone who disagrees with the pro-WASPI lobby always ‘completely misses the point’ or is thick, or smug etc.

None of us have any issue at all with equalising pension age.

Oh yes you do. Many of the posters on this thread have written at length about how much harder it is to be a woman, and how women work harder and hence should be allowed to retire at 60.

If you truly ‘have no issue with equalising the pension age’, tell me why the WASPI campaign is backed by the ‘Back to 60’ campaign, whose aims are certainly not to equalise the pension age?

Just admit it: you want your pension age to be adjusted to 60.

It’s how it was done and the widely acknowledged disproportionate effect on a cohort of women born in the 1950s that is the issue.

Was it disproportionate? Not compared to the impact on later generations of women, it isn’t. Those who won’t retire until they are 68. The same women you expect to pay you compensation.

A cohort of women who fought hard for many of the rights subsequent generations of women take for granted.

It might have escaped your notice, but earlier cohorts of women also fought. You’re not campaigning for compensation for them, though, are you? Women are still fighting the good fight now: the everyday sexism campaign, for example. And yet, those young women should, according to you, pay for your state pension to be backdated and work several years longer than you.

As I said before, younger women should learn from our experience.

And pay for the privilege?

Governments will have no compunction in removing women’s rights now they’ve got away with this. Watch out, who knows what they’ll come after next, particularly with the state the economy is about to be in.

Men’s retirement ages went up too. Grow up. This isn’t about the government deliberately persecuting women. It’s about what we as a country can afford.

As I said before , if men had been forced to accept the contract breaking from a private pension company there would be hell to pay.
In my experience the DWP gave confusing and misleading information even when queries were raised. The whole idea was to save money by taking it off a group that was less likely to fight it. These women are the same women who fight for benefits for disabled and ill people, for children , for poor and unemployed people and to accuse us of selfishness is just wrong. It is precisely because we care about everyone that we are fighting back.

wombat the country could afford this if it chose not to reward the incompetent people parents in charge of the country. Money is found for all kinds of useless projects. If men and women’s pension ages were equalised at 60 millions of jobs would be freed up for the young, who would pay towards the fund in turn. As it is, the only conclusion that can be reached is that they want us to die as soon as possible.

I don’t know about anyone else but I don’t want my pension to be adjusted to 60. I wanted to be treated fairly. I don’t want compensation either. It’s too late for me. The Back to 60 campaign has jumped on the bandwagon and muddied the waters.

Subsequent generations of women are already having their rights eroded. Means testing child benefit? What earlier cohorts fought for anything apart from universal suffrage? It was second wave feminists who achieved equal pay (in theory), maternity pay and leave, the right for women to have mortgages and credit in their own name - it goes on.

You really seem to hate my generation @Iamthewombat.

the country could afford this if it chose not to reward the incompetent people parents in charge of the country.

What is a ‘people parent’? Have I ‘completely missed the point’ again?

Money is found for all kinds of useless projects

Tell us which ‘useless projects’ you’d cut to find > £30 billion. I’m all ears.

If men and women’s pension ages were equalised at 60 millions of jobs would be freed up for the young, who would pay towards the fund in turn

Have you heard that people are living longer and that there are fewer young people compared to the number of pensioners? Allowing everyone to retire at 60 would cost trillions. Do you genuinely believe that the young could pay for that? In any event, people over 60 still pay NI so the contributions of the young would simply replace the contributions of older people, not augment them.

Parents obviously a mistake. So what is your solution wombat? More rights for men is it? Yes you really do hate older women ...

@Iamthewombat I resorted to insults because, sorry, a lot of posters do seem thick and living in their smug little worlds dutifully and carefully reading a newspaper every day and avidly watching the news just in case there may be something that affect them.

So you think you are not being rude when you say "expected to have the sense to listen to news reports"?

It's a ridiculous argument to say letters don't have to be sent out. Why did they send the first letters out then and not bother on the whole the second time?

I could understand it more now when there is the internet but not back then. Not everyone reads a paper or watches the news and it is not compulsory is it? I don't watch the news because it is too depressing and I have actually been advised not to.

If the WASPI women are not mainly fighting about the second change why is it they always mention "women born between x and x"?

I honestly did not have a problem with the first change. I did wonder why they could not lower the age that men could retire but, let's face it, that is something that this country would never do. I was though bloody furious about the second change especially as I received no letter and knew nothing about for a long time.

I never expected the WASPI women to win. Pigs would fly before there would be any win. As for another poster who said "the Judge agreed with ME. A perfectly fair and reasonable adjustment" because, obviously, Judges never get anything wrong do they? It was a far from fair and reasonable adjustment.

I would be really interested to see the outcome if it had been men affected in this way. I would like to think they would be treated the same but somehow doubt it. They most likely would have received compensation

TBH, I never really expected the appeal to succeed. Fifties women aren't really the demographic to take part in riots and violent protests and the government knows it. I suppose they are also thinking that it won't be long before we're all dead anyway - either way the problem will go away for the government, but it leaves a bad taste.

The real losers over the years re retirement age were men as they waited longer for their state pensions and had a lower life expectancy than women. I can see a point here - although maybe partially balanced by their larger pension pots and earlier access to workplace pensions, however, between 1983 and 2018 a few million men did retire at 60 at the tax payer's expense (I know I posted this link earlier, but still ...)

davidhencke.com/2020/05/22/exclusive-the-4-6-million-men-who-retired-at-60-to-get-a-pension-top-up-paid-by-the-taxpayer/

So it is absolutely ok to discriminate in favour of men. There’s a surprise.

Fifties women aren't really the demographic to take part in riots and violent protests and the government knows it.

Really? If Emmeline Pankhurst were still alive, she’d be interested to hear that.

She and her cohorts had a better cause to fight for, though. One that benefited all women.

So what is your solution wombat? More rights for men is it? Yes you really do hate older women ...

I didn’t advocate for more rights for men. The equalisation of the pension age gives everyone the same rights. Can’t you see that?

When I was cleaning my 86 year old mother’s house last weekend she mentioned the case. She doesn’t support the WASPI women either: thinks they are letting the side down by arguing that women are weaker than men. She also told me that paying the married women’s stamp was a choice, not something women were encouraged to do, and that she always paid the full stamp because it was obvious that she would get less if she paid less. My mother did not work in a high status job but she worked that out all right.

Incidentally, claiming that anyone who disagrees with you ‘really hates older women’ is petulant and undermines your argument.

A lot of women in the fifties and a lot of the sixties had the life of riley. No struggling with childcare and housework in the evenings. Husbands on even a modest wage could support the family. If women wanted a bit extra they could work a few hours a week for pocket money.

This is what the WASPI page says:

WASPI is not opposed to the equalisation of the SPa with men but it was done without adequate notice, leaving no time to make alternative arrangements. Women were informed directly some 14 years after the SPa was first changed, with many only given 18months notice, of up to a six-year increase; many others were not informed at all. This left their retirement plans shattered.

So, as I said, it not about raising the age as such but the women born in certain years who had the second change made with no notification or very little notice.

@Iamthewombat yes paying married woman's stamp was a choice but it definitely was encouraged to do so.

Of course your mother didn't choose it as of course it was obvious to her that she would get less. Again you put down anyone that did opt for it. Your mother sounds as smug as you do. She doesn't support the WASPI women! She is 86 for goodness sake so has been getting her pension for 26 years so far since she was 60 yes? Well as long as she is ok why would she have any sympathy for others?

@Viviennemary we are not talking about women in the 50's and 60's. We are talking about women BORN in the 50's.

Anyway I don't know woman who had a life of riley in the 50's and 60's. My mum worked evenings so she could be home all day to look after us and then my dad looked after us when she was at work. I can assure you that was not for "a bit extra" as you call it. It was to keep a roof over our heads, pay bills and provide food.

Even then I know my mum and dad would go without food to make sure we always ate.

My MIL worked as did my aunts, DH's aunts and none of them for "a bit extra". Your comment about pocket money is condescending and nasty

I didn't opt for it but lots of the women I knew and/or worked with did. I guess they are all stupid in your eyes?

@Viviennemary

A lot of women in the fifties and a lot of the sixties had the life of riley. No struggling with childcare and housework in the evenings. Husbands on even a modest wage could support the family. If women wanted a bit extra they could work a few hours a week for pocket money.

Only someone who wasn’t there would say that. This cohort of women had families and jobs in the 70s. Life of Riley my arse.