Going Deeper: How Britain Is Stealing From Its Women
Read Time:7 Minute, 52 Second
My recent article on the treatment of British women regarding the loss of their state pensions, the comments section of the article seemed to suggest I had opened something of a ‘hornets’ nest’. A number of people commenting seemed to believe passionately, that the women did not deserve their pensions for a number of reasons.
Never one to flinch from the debate, I decided to investigate the claims from a quite vocal minority, that their belief was just.
I say a vocal minority purely on the grounds that, while they had a lot to say, their numbers in comparison to the many thousands of women affected by this scandal seem small.
That is not to say that their claims would prove invalid of course.
One accusation against the pension campaigners was that they should have begun planning to receive a later pension as far back as 1993 when the plan to increase the retirement age was first proposed, or at least by 1995 when the bill was passed through Parliament.
As no letters were sent to any woman affected by the Department for Social Security, regarding this change in their retirement age until April 2009, for women born in 1950, October 2009 for women born in 1951 and so on, how were they supposed to even consider planning anything?
I would suggest that it is not unreasonable to state that women would not be constantly glued to our political system, in order to make sure they don’t miss anything.
I would further suggest that the responsibility for ensuring all the women affected by this dramatic change was solely the responsibility for the government department designated to bring it into force.
That is, in my view, an important part of their job. A job they failed abysmally to do.
Indeed, I have previously seen claims that letters were sent out in 1995 by The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). If this were correct it would be quite remarkable, as the DWP didn’t come into existence until 2001.
I dismissed the thought that, perhaps, they had employed Doctor Who or Marty McFly to facilitate this letter sending from the past.
I equally dismissed one comment for the reasons stated above, from a different person, that women should have known in 1995. How do you know if nobody actually tells you?
The fact that this issue has been debated in Parliament on a number of occasions was also put forward as a reason why these unfortunate women are now in, or facing, destitution. I’m sorry. The majority of us have no idea what Parliament are debating most of the time, quite simply because we have busy lives to lead. It’s as simple as that.
Another critic of the pension campaigners said: “28 years notice was enough.” Again, completely oblivious to the fact that, without any communication from the government, the women had absolutely no idea.
The campaigners were accused by one critic of, and I paraphrase as I can’t remember the comment exactly as it was written, “being wealthy, having homes abroad and taking money from impoverished campaigners”
I supplied my personal e-mail for evidence of this to be supplied. Suffice to say, none has been forthcoming, at least as I write.
Another critic suggested that ‘means testing’ to establish those in greatest need is the solution.
At that point I realized that I was dealing with entrenched views held, for whatever reason and debate was pointless. We were very much in the ‘I am right, you are wrong’ area.
In the meantime, thousands and thousands of women are in, or facing, destitution quite simply because various government departments failed to do their jobs and even attempt to notify women of the changes in their pension status.
Another valid question, I believe, is, even if they had been notified, if you are in an occupation that pays relatively little, were can you find ‘extra money’ to compensate for a delayed pension anyway?
Perhaps the magic money tree at the bottom of the garden?
“Between April 2009 and March 2011, 1.2 million personalized letters were sent to women born between 6 April 1950 and 5 April 1953” states a parliamentary communication.
So, women born in 1950 were given 12 months to try and financially arrange their lives without a state pension? Can anyone in their right mind consider that to be acceptable?
The parliamentary communication goes on to state, “Until 2009, direct communication with people affected by increases in state pension age was very limited. Leaflets explaining the changes were available from the Benefits Agency from 1995 and accompanied any state pension forecasts that were requested”
Ah. I see. So the government acknowledges that there was only limited – limited to what exactly is not explained – communication with affected women. Apparently they were supposed to somehow – psychically? – know they had to go and get a leaflet from the Benefits Agency.
The parliamentary communication also includes a woman pensioner born in 1954, Helen Cherry, who understandably points out –
“Why would I have been seeking out information about my retirement age when I had known all my life that women retired at 60? It was absolute.”
The communication includes this quote from Sally West of Age UK, who concurred that “people did not ask what their pension age would be because they thought they knew it”.
The communication acknowledges that ‘this perception may have been reinforced by the absence of any state pension age increase from the Automatic Pension Forecasts.’
Given that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is in sole charge of this debacle since 2001, it is alarming, to say the least, that their behavior regarding benefits – of which the pension is one – is often so, shall we say, questionable?
Don’t miss: The Great British Scandal of the ‘Windrush’ Generation
As Wikipedia writes :
“In 2019 the DWP was found by an independent inquiry to have broken its own rules, in a case where a disabled woman killed herself in 2017 after her benefits were stopped when she missed a Work Capability Assessment because she had pneumonia.
Previous research published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health by Oxford University and Liverpool University had found that there were an additional 590 suicides between 2010 and 2013 in areas where such assessments were carried out. The researchers said that the DWP had introduced the policy of moving people off benefits without understanding the consequences.”
One point made by a comment that opposed the pension campaign women said something to the effect that ‘why should women who are financially stable get a lump sum back on their pensions when they don’t need it?’
Now that is a valid question.
Certainly, it is the women in and facing, hardship and destitution who should be prioritized, if a government decides to ‘do the right thing’ and refund these women their pensions.
However, I disagree that women who have the good fortune to be financially secure should be left out.
Take this analogy.
Someone with very little is burgled and $200 is taken from a container in their kitchen.
Someone who is wealthy is burgled and $200 is taken from a container in their kitchen.
The wealthy person is not entitled to their $200 back, should the burglar be caught with the money, because they are wealthy and don’t need it.
Really? So we have one law or rule for the poor, and another for the wealthy. How divisive can you get?
Incidentally, I used dollars as this is an American based internet magazine you know 😉
A sensible question is, of course, what has happened to the pension money that so many thousands of women have been robbed of?
The answer can be found in a number of places. This version is from Money Marketing.co.uk (The ‘NI fund’ incidentally, for readers not familiar with the term, is the National Insurance contributions everybody makes towards the state pension)
“Raiding the NI fund to pay for the expansion of higher education, generous statutory maternity pay and childcare subsidy have benefited the younger generation. While all these innovations are welcome, they have been earned by the tax and NI contributions made by older women, who are now facing hardship due to successive and rapid changes in the state pension age, of which they were not warned until very recently.”
I have no doubt those I have found myself calling ‘the Naysayers’ will pop up again in the comments section and wail away about how the country cannot afford to pay these women the money they are owed and deserve.
Indeed, based on the previous articles comments, they seemed to believe the women do not deserve their pensions.
One such ‘naysayer’ will, at least to me, be most welcome back. Patrick wrote as if he was the living embodiment of David Brent from British TV show The Office. Actually, David Brent on speed would be more accurate.
I look forward to his contribution very much. I enjoy a laugh as do we all.
In the meantime, I will wholeheartedly support the many thousands of women denied their rightful pension at the rightful age. Nothing will deter me from supporting them, and nothing will deter them from fighting such a clear injustice.
In case you missed it: Observations of An Englishman: Transgender Issues In Sport
Source:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmworpen/899/89906.htm
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
100 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
Thank you so much for your support, as a 1950s woman with 3 years still to go before i can get my pension, which i expected when i turned 60. In the past 10 years i have had 5 heart attacks, have diabetas and many other ailments, my pension would be helping me right now, but instead i have to watch every penny, run my heating for a dew hours in the evening and watch what i buy as money is tight. If i had my pension i would be entitled to the heating allowance as such i dont get this as i didnt get my pension, its not only about losing out on your pension it has a knock-on effect to other benefits. Again thank you for your support.
Everyone is keen to know what the Queen really thinks but cannot say because she has to act on the advice of her Ministers.
When I wrote to Her Majesty to tell her what had happened to women born in the year of her Coronation (women born in 1953 reaching SPA in 5 different years at ages ranging from 62 years 8 months to 65 years 3 months) it was at the time of her 90th birthday. With my report (it was very good with pictures) I enclosed some responses women had sent to The Government Inquiry into Early Release (my own included). In her birthday card (a painting of nearby Portobello Beach) I said I lived next door to the Sheep Heid Inn (supposedly oldest pub in Scotland) and round the corner from the cottage where Bonnie Prince Charlie held his Council of War and slept the night before the Battle of Prestonpans. I suggested that the next time she was staying at Holyrood Palace she should take a wee 5 minute run round the Park to Duddingston Village to have a look.
If you google ‘Queen Visits Pub’ you will see headlines such as ‘Lamb Scran, thank you ma’am’ and ‘er, er is that ER?’ I hadn’t told her Majesty beforehand that our lovely old village pub had been taken over by a chain called ‘Mitchell and Butler’ and was now a naff gastro joint. They have kept the old skittle alley though and she liked that and thought Prince Philip would have enjoyed a go but they had spent the afternoon at the races at Musselburgh and he decided to put his feet up back at the Palace instead of enjoying a jaunt to the pub. The pub is even more naff now because they have had yet another refurb and put up a plaque to commemorate the Queen’s visit above a couple of throne type chairs. That place should be giving me free drink for years!!
Mike – I hope you don’t have too big an audience in America. Sometimes you can hardly move round here for Outlander fans (women of a certain age – well all ages actually) from the USA hoping to meet their very own Jamie Fraser and I wouldn’t really want to attract any more.
Bev C no further comment from me needed as regards name calling to people’s faces. Thank you for confirming pack instinct mentality. Your myths have been well and truly addressed for their inaquaracy.
I see the mythical number of women who have died has risen, some nplaques say 82,000, some 82,500, but now you are saying 84,000. I have asked and asked where these figures came from and no one can give me the answer. Justice for women of Swansea said it was presented at the JR hearing. But that has been confirmed tonight as untrue. So do tell. Not that it bears any relevance as unfortunately people of all genders and ages are dying all the time. I see it as another cheap sick stunt like the burning effigy!
Who are we?
You don’t know me so don’t presume what I have done or not done. Our group met with the APPG back in February 2017 with CWAG so hardly hiding behind a keyboard.
The facts are out there whether you like them or not and by not understanding them then the campaign will continue to go round in circles with zilch achievement.
You can demand all you want but it makes no difference. The only route for any recompense is via Parliament and that is through the APPG. But to be honest there has been too much flanelling about and time has run out thanks to Waspi and Back to 60. So the very women who could have had help had the record changed won’t be helped and that makes me very sad.
So enjoy your name calling if that’s what floats your boat. Personally I have far more dignity.
Janice, talking of records – What did you think of the DWP campaign in the press a couple of years ago encouraging people to check out their State Pension entitlement? For example, the woman in the record shop who knew what went at 33 and a third rpm but didn’t know what her State Pension entitlement might be and the man working in the bakery who knew what a ‘soggy bottom’ was but didn’t know what his State Pension might be.
I sent the following to every Minister and MP and some of the Lords:
Most Recent State Pension Ads
Guitar Man – Walk of Life/Park Life
Desperate Housewife lookalike in Evening Dress who knows where not to put ‘Baby’
Is the target audience for your pension ads still those born in the 50s?
Did you trial the ads on Ministers born in the 50s? Did you discover Theresa May was a fan of Blur? Had Damian Green ever seen Dirty Dancing?
Probably not. If my research is anything to go by no one will have seen the ads and when shown them they do not understand the references.
I think the price of a stamp on a letter which states clearly what you mean is the way forward.
I suggest the following:
“When we said ‘They will benefit from the New State Pension*’ we did not mean you would benefit.
You may have paid shedloads in Tax and National Insurance over the previous 48 years but you were ‘contracted out’ for some of that time. We meant the people who had paid next to nothing in Tax and National Insurance but had managed to get 35 years NI credits and never been ‘contracted out’. They will benefit. Stop questioning our calculations. It is getting mighty annoying. You will get what we say you will get when we say you will get it and that’s that.”
You need to include a special paragraph in the letter for the women born in 1954 who are still annoyed that they have a State Pension Age 6 years greater than friends/sisters born in 1950 (66 v 60) and 3 years greater than friends born the year before them in April 53 (66 v 63). This paragraph should also cover women born at the end of 1953 who are still a trifle miffed that they have to wait until 2019 to receive their state pension when those born at the beginning of the same year have been in receipt since 2015.
I suggest the following:
“What part of ‘We don’t GAF’ do you not understand? We are prepared to pretend we do not understand your problem from here till eternity. We now have Labour onside pretending they do not understand too. Admittedly many of them are genuinely thick and really do not understand but it all helps.”
* Extract from my letter to David Cameron 10 April 2016
I have heard you say the same 3 things on 3 separate occasions.
Myth 1 “They will benefit from the New State Pension”
Ask someone at DWP to explain it to you. You are far from being the only one who doesn’t understand it.
Myth 2 “No one is waiting more than 18 months” They are waiting 6 years. They didn’t know they were already waiting 4 years 6 months
Myth 3 “They will benefit from the triple lock” 2.5% of 0 is 0. They are only missing out on more than they were already.
If you still insist on keeping advertising using songs and film references to encourage people to get in touch with the DWP, may I suggest “Ball of Confusion” by The Temptations or the American spoof ‘SOAP’ which I seem to remember had the tagline “Confused? You soon will be….”
Yours in Hope, with Dignity and whatever the other one is
Christine Bell/Justice for 50s Women 28 November 2017
I heard some one on another feed comment.Well women wanted equality to retire like men. Well there you have it. My Reply why then did they not let men retire at 60? Again women lose out again.
David said “What other EU countries do is a matter for them. We have the ability to make sovereign decisions about this issue, that is entirely right.” I said “I wonder what our sovereign, Her Majesty the Queen, will think when I tell her that women born in the year of her coronation (1953) reach State Pension Age in 5 different years (2015,16,17,18,19) at ages ranging from 62 years 8 months to 65 years 3 months.”
Her Majesty’s reply stated that as a constitutional Sovereign, she acts on the advice of her Ministers and, therefore, I was quite correct to address my appeal in the first instance directly to the Prime Minister and my local Member of Parliament. Nevertheless it was thoughtful of me to wish to make The Queen aware of my views on this matter.
When David Cameron was in charge he had ‘Ask No 10’ where you could email him questions.
‘Ask No 10’
State Pension Injustice
“Phased in over 10 years”
DOB 5.04.1950 SPA 60
DOB 6.11.1953 SPA 65
When did 10 years become 3 years 7 months?
You can phone a friend. Try the chap next door.
Please look again at the way equalisation of state pension ages is being achieved in other countries in Europe – some not equalising until 2044.
“When did 10 years become 3 years 7 months?”
You know perfectly well that the 10 years of phasing refers to the 10 calendar years from 2010 to 2020 where the SPA was meant to rise from 60 to 65 via the 1995 Pensions Act.
So 1995 Act – 15 years to actually implement and 10 years to complete making a total of 25 years’ notice at least for anyone whose SPA changed from 60 to 65.
Yes before you say we didn’t get informed of it – we did just in the same way we get informed about every single UK Act.
But then you know all of this already and whilst some see it as unfair it’s neither illegal nor unlawful. If something is going to change, we need to change the record.
Theresa May
Prime Minister
10 Downing Street
LONDON
SW1A 2AA
6 February 2018
Dear Mrs May
How can we best honour the Suffragettes?
You asked today “How can we best honour the Suffragettes?”
I suggest that it should not be by throwing the women born end ’53/54 under a bus.
DOB 5 May 1950 SPA 60 years and one day
DOB 5 Jan 1953 SPA 62 years 8 months and one day
DOB 6 Dec 1953 SPA 65 years 3 months
DOB 6 Sept 1954 SPA 66 years
Yours sincerely
Christine Bell
It’s been great watching the regular trolls (who constantly attack the WASPI women on various groups) desperately copying and pasting propoganda and links to justify their argument!
Are the 50s born women THAT much of a threat?!!
Well, yes we must be, as the Tories have been told “not to engage or communicate” with us. The BBC TV are biased and there is a blanket ban on promoting us. But guess what? We won’t go away, we have been robbed of a pension we ARE entitled to..
How they don’t realise it would save money and decrease their benefit figures is beyond me.
Bullet points:
Vast increase in women over 60 claiming benefits
By making women work longer, less jobs for younger people
It’s cheaper to pay our pension than to give benefits to younger people out of work
84000 women have died without getting their pension, where has that money gone?
Imagine reaching your pension age and contacting the DWP to find out you have to work another six years .
We are not just fighting for OUR pension, it’s for the future as the Government will move the goalposts again if we let them. They seem to forget that they work for US.
And don’t say there’s no money, they find it for everyone else, especially themselves.
Oh, and ‘Lynne’ yes it would be the same face to face, in fact it would be worse, because we are VERY VERY ANGRY 🤬🤬🤬🐝🐝
I challenge any of you trolls to come to a rally and make yourself known to us, I’m sure you’ll know when they are as you seem to follow all our groups.
Thank you again trolls for raising our profile, you’ve done a great job😂😂🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝
But you won’t because you’re brave behind a keyboard.
“Vast increase in women over 60 claiming benefits”
That may be so but figures as from Nov 18 show 226,421 women claiming benefits and 223,521 men claiming benefits. Only 3k of a difference yet you want those men to continue suffering whilst the women gain.
“By making women work longer, less jobs for younger people”
There is no evidence to back up that claim. Quite the opposite in fact – google Lump of Labour fallacy. There is no finite number of jobs.
“It’s cheaper to pay our pension than to give benefits to younger people out of work”
No it isn’t. JSA for under 25s is £57.90 and for over 25s is £73.10. The full new State Pension is £168.60. Even the old Basic State pension at £129.90 is greater than either of the JSA amounts.
“84000 women have died without getting their pension, where has that money gone?”
84k now? Last week it was 82.5k. Perhaps you could provide the actual source reference for that claim? While you’re at it how many men and children died before reaching their state pension age?
As to where the money has gone – it’s gone where it always was intended to go and has paid the pensions of those already in receipt. It’s an Insurance scheme and relies on some people never claiming it just like any Insurance policy.
“I challenge any of you trolls to come to a rally and make yourself known to us, I’m sure you’ll know when they are as you seem to follow all our groups.”
Many have been to rallies and attended the APPG meeting putting forward our ideas for a realistic solution. Why would we wish to attend a rally supporting a cause we don’t agree with? Surely you are not inciting violence?
“Thank you again trolls for raising our profile, you’ve done a great job😂😂🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝”
As Neil’s article has been shared around the groups and Twitter, it wouldn’t matter if we had commented or not as far as your “profile” is concerned.
However for those people who are not quite so entrenched and perhaps are considering their stance, our comments and links will have done their job. The fact that quite a few neutral observers, including Mike the website owner himself, have decried the name calling which you think is acceptable I think this article may well have had the opposite effect that you think it has. Try stepping out of your closed groups/bubbles and see what the real world thinks of your “profile”.
Yes Bev C , the extent of your anger is manifestly plain , as displayed by your lack of reason , willingness to consider alternative views , and your rude , petulant and childlike outbursts.
If those holding alternative views were to attend your rallies , they would no doubt be subjected to similar torrents of abuse , as has been the case for MPs such as Carolyn Harris ( Labour ) and Tim Loughton ( Tory ) , both of whom head the APPG that is seeking to find ways to assist you. Such has been the levels of bile directed towards them by certain prominent campaigners , that Carolyn has considered withdrawing her support for you out of disgust and frustration.
In any event Bev , your rallies only ever attract a few hundred like-minded women at best , and are really nothing more than an opportunity for you to socialise and compare banner and poster designs. As with Twitter or your Facebook groups , they are not platforms that lend themselves to reasoned , adult discussion.
I will not address each of your points , as there is little chance of getting through to you. However , I will mention the one point regarding the 84,000 women who have died before reaching State Pension Age.
It is obvious , that by asking the question… ‘ Where has that money gone ? ‘ you clearly have no understanding , even now , 4 years into this saga , of the nature , mechanics and design of the National Insurance Fund. I won’t detail them here , you’ve had long enough now to learn.
You and women like you who have resorted to using the ‘ 84,000 deaths ‘ as a plank in your campaigning , appear oblivious to deaths of any man prior to receiving their State Pensions , or for that matter , any other woman of any age other than 50’s born.
You also appear to be oblivious to the lack of taste and decency this use of ‘ 84,000 deaths ‘ is , especially in the eyes of the wider public , outside of your self-interest , campaign groups.
There was a complete disconnect to employment contracts requiring retirement at 60. The government didn’t involve any body representing employers . By the time the foxes raided the hen house the majority of employers were unhappy to offer extensions to contracts or offer jobs to those over 65.
28 February 2017
Doing the Right Thing
To all members of the APPG (State Pension Injustice)
There is no point in keeping asking the Government to ‘do the right thing’. Remember Steven Crabb said “We’re not going to do anything because nobody knows what to do”.
You need to tell them exactly what to do and how to do it.
Parties must stop blaming one another for the parts they played in this fiasco. It does nothing to help the women involved and just wastes more time which is a luxury many of these women do not have.
Labour – You are sending out very confusing messages. Women are receiving letters from their MPs based on your Press Release of November 20, 2016 which was complete nonsense.
Most women do not know what their SPA was under the 1995 Act and evidently the person who wrote your Press Release and the Labour MPs who are sending out the letters do not understand the 1995 Act either.
The 61 year old woman you use as your example would not be eligible for help under your scheme because her birthdate will fall outside the band of the ‘half million women’ you propose to help. Even the woman, Jean, in Mary Lawson’s latest poster who would just make your cut off date for help would still have to survive till her 65th birthday (her 1995 Act SPA) before she would be eligible for help under your scheme.
The 1995 Act moves the SPA for women over far too short a timescale. That is the root of the problem. Every woman born on or after 6 March 1955 has an SPA of 65 under the 1995 Act.
The Early Release ‘cost neutral’ option which Frank Field and Waspi Voice are promoting would only be offered to women who already have another source of pension income which would ensure they would never be eligible for pension credit otherwise it would not be ‘cost neutral’.
There is no way around this other than changing the dates. Poland managed to do it quickly with no fuss. Any fair solution could never nor should ever be ‘cost neutral’.
SPA 63 for those born up to 5 April ’55 and then rising at a ‘real’ 6 months per year thereafter.
See ‘Where’s Justice?’ attached.
Christine Bell
Well said Mark! You didn’t warrant such rudeness. I wonder if that would happen face to face?
As a 50’s woman with family and therefore one of the 3.8m affected I am sick of groups speaking on my behalf. They have been doing it for 4 and a half years now and achieved zilch. Meanwhile there are people struggling to manage. I want to see them helped. I don’t see how that makes us bad. It is a difference of opinion.
Mark
If you bothered to read my post you would see my point. Anyway, I’m far too busy to bother with trolls, bye
Hi Bev
I answered your post in some detail – I could have given you links to follow and can do so if you wish.
Here goes- and this is not aimed personally at you.But
Argue your case
or
Fall back on accusing people with a different viewpoint as trolls without ansewring the question
You appear to have made your choice,but by all means reply ,as this is an open discussion.
Dear Mark (confirming you are a troll by replying to my post)
I am a tax payer and have paid in MORE than my required contribution and at 62 am STILL paying into it, probably to pay YOUR pensions, don’t preach to me with your higher than thou attitude. You are typical of the ‘Im alright Jack’ brigade. Now be a good boy and get back under your rock.
Dear Bev
Thank you for your graceless response
I am a taxpayer,still working and reach my SPA next March with 47 years of contributions at an age of 65 and 8 months
NI is a tax and we pay it until we reach SPA.I assume you know that ?
What was your point ?
Dear Mark (confirming you are a troll by replying to my post)
I am a tax payer and have paid in MORE than my required contribution and at 62 am STILL paying into it, probably to pay YOUR pensions, do don’t preach to me with your higher than thou attitude. You are typical of the ‘Im alright Jack’ brigade. Now be a good boy and get back under your rock.
Thanks for your support Neil 👍
Go Bev!!! 😁👍
It’s been good fun watching the trolls crawl out from their rocks!! We’ve really hit a nerve haven’t we. You mustn’t have anything better to do as you seem to spend all your time blasting 50s born women!!
As for ex bankers, wasn’t the pension fund robbed to help bail you out?!!
Get back under your rocks. 3.8 million women and their families are sick of you.
The NIF was not robbed to bail out the economy.
My wife and myself are both 50’s born
Our SPA has been equalised and increased
Bit of a bummer
But I am not going to ( nor my children ) pay you tax payer’s money to which you you are not legally entitled
Me and my family ,like so many,form no part of your claimed 3.8million
Why Bev C , whenever an online petition is raised to seek support for this point or that regarding the 50’s women’s claims ( and heaven knows , there have been dozens of petitions ! ) do those petitions never exceed 25,000 signatures ? Where are the 3.8 million then ?
Why did BackTo60’s Crowdfunder only attract 5,000 donors ? Where were the 3.8 million and their families for that one ?
The only ‘ nerve ‘ that you, and others like you have struck , is the one that cringes in reaction to foolishness , ignorance and childish remarks from people in their 60’s who should know better.
There are circa 300,000 50’s born women in receipt of Universal Credit. I’ve no doubt those women would welcome some very early assistance if it could be provided.
Let’s be extremely generous and say that there are maybe a further 3 times that number , barely getting by financially for whatever reason.
That still leaves 2.6 million women unaccounted for. Are they all struggling financially apart from Teresa May , Cherie Blair , Janice Mason and the others who have commented here in opposition to the views held by you , Neil Bamforth and the BT60 crew ?
Has it occurred to you , that there will be 00’s of 000’s of 50’s born women that are sick to death of being portrayed as silly little women who missed the news in 1995 and were unable to take personal ownership of their financial futures for the next 20 years ? Women who don’t sign your petitions , don’t join your campaign groups , don’t wear daft outfits or parade in Parliament Square because they simply don’t agree with you and your aims , and who take a very dim view of being told by Joanne Welch or any other so-called campaign group leader that she ‘ Speaks for them ‘ !
The immature commentators in this post , of which Neil Bamforth has been one , resort to puerile comments and name calling . Perhaps , if you truly seek a resolution , its time to end the childish remarks and start engaging in reasoned discussion and start considering facts rather than myth , fallacy and deception ?
Christine… You have something of the genius about you 😁👍
26 November 2016
DWP Officers and Government Ministers answer some of your State Pension questions:
Linda: Why am I getting less under the New State Pension system than I was under the old one?
Answer: That’s not possible Linda – unless you have an old statement to prove that it is and then we’ll amend our forecast. The likely answer is that you’ve worked for much longer – you’d only worked 41 years when we sent you that old statement showing your basic state pension with SERPS and SP2 added. Now you’ve worked 47 years and we are taking off a much bigger chunk for any years spent ‘contracted out’.
See leaflet WTF 000101 “The Hokey Cokey of the State Pension System”. It was produced by Ex Shadow Chancellor Balls and he will be available soon to man our phone lines (Premium Rate) when he doesn’t pass muster tonight with his Tango.
Christine: Can I please have my pension at Age 63 in 2017 if I promise to check into one of the St Theresa Dying Rooms which you are opening in 2021 if I’m still alive in 2030?
Answer: Christine – The Dying Room dates have still to be confirmed. It’s dependent on opening times for the new runway at Heathrow and a hard v. soft boiled Brexit.
Rita: I don’t understand why my best friend from school, Joan, who is just 6 months older than me gets her State Pension nearly 3 years before me. She’s hopping on and off buses with her free travel pass, has a heating allowance to help her get through the winter and keeps her life savings while I lose all of mine.
Answer: Rita – That’s just your Donald Duck. When any change is made some people will feel they have lost out. There will be winners and losers. We need multiple £trillions to pay all our unfunded gold plated index linked pensions (UGPILPs). We don’t all possess the wit and charisma of George Osborne to trouser £80k for a half hour speech. Most of us will need our UGPILPs. How many Ritas, Christines and Lindas do you think we need to chuck on the Bonfire of our Vanities to bankroll that? I can assure you Rita, it wouldn’t even touch the sides. I hope this helps.
Christine
I will pick you up on yout first point and leave the rest aside
The move from two tier to single tier state pension involved a calculation that provides the higher starting amount as at 6.4.2016 under the previous or new calculation
So no-one is worse off at the date of change
However,it is really important for people to obtain a state pension forecast and challenge/correct any gaps in their forecast that might affect their entitlement
15 February 2017
The Prime Minister
10 Downing Street
LONDON
Dear Mrs May
Mental Health and State Pension Injustice
The Times published a letter today from the CEOs of Mind, The Centre for Mental Health, Rethink Mental Illness, The Mental Health Network, The Mental Health Foundation and the President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The letter is entitled ‘Mental Health Crisis’ and marks one year since the publication of the Five Year Forward View for Mental Health. The writers say ‘In that time we have been encouraged by the initial progress and promises of change from the Prime Minister, who described the “burning injustice” of the current state of affairs.’
Linda DOB 5 January 1953 SPA 62 years 8 months Mary DOB 6 December 1953 SPA 65 years 3 months
What effect do you think it had on Mary’s mental health when she discovered her life long friend Linda, born earlier the same year would receive her state pension in 2015, while she has to wait until 2019 to receive hers?
Mary has worked since she was 15 and has never claimed one penny in state benefits of any kind. She has managed (after paying off the mortgage on her small flat) to save £21,500 towards her retirement. Mary received a forecast last year stating she has so far earned an entitlement to £154.48 per week state pension. The statement says in big bold letters ‘£155.65 is the most you can get’. When you reach £155.65, you still need to pay National Insurance until 2019 as it funds other state benefits and the NHS.’
Meanwhile Linda (who had built up a similar entitlement of £154 per week) has been enjoying all the benefits of reaching state pension age since 2015 (heating allowance, travel pass) and gains £20,000 more in state pension than Mary by being born earlier the same year.
I sent a similar letter to Mr Cameron last year (copies to Chancellor, DWP Ministers etc) after he had spoken at PMQs about the importance of mental health. The reply I received in April said ‘Mr Cameron was most grateful for the time and trouble you have taken to inform him of your views. As both the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health are best placed to respond to the matters you raise, he has asked me to forward your correspondence to those Departments so that they may reply to your concerns directly. I hope this is helpful.’
I have quite a collection of letters from the DWP but I’m still waiting for a reply from the Department of Health.
Yours sincerely
Christine Bell
https://mobile.twitter.com/nearlylegal/status/1193657871109636096?s=19
I don’t understand the comments from those who bang on about the poorest and those in need getting help now. I am not unsympathetic to poverty but how is a pensionless 50s woman any poorer than a skint unemployed person of any age? Surely there is provision for those adults most in need already? State Pension was never means tested, helping the poor usually includes means testing, so are these people suggesting that a 50s born woman will receive more means tested benefits than a 50s born man or 60s born man or woman? I think conflating poverty issues with 50s women’s pension issues is a red herring and whilst withholding the state pension for 50s women will certainly create hardship for those who are without other means, it is the same hardship suffered by those born at other times without means so surely if we are addressing poverty it should be addressed universally not just for one cohort of the population? No-one ever paid NIC’s expecting to be means tested on their state pension when the time came to receive it. Means testing state pension has never happened before so why should that change now? Why should average 50s women lose out because a handful of wealthy women may get more than they need and a couple of others appear to not like that idea? It is interesting to note that when 50s women had their state pensions raided that men also lost the right to claim means tested pension credit at 60 years if they became too sick to work, so much for helping those most in need. Raiding state pensions of 50s women has indeed created more poverty, those with no private pensions who saved to supplement their state pensions are now living off those savings, for many of them their life savings will be depleted by the time they reach the new state pension age, ensuring future poverty to death, these women deserve compensation to avoid such future poverty and to put them back in the position they would have been in had state pension age remained at 60 years, particularly single women and those with no family who have been slaughtered by pension age changes. We are fighting for our state pensions not welfare benefits for the poor, I support better welfare benefits for the poor and those suffering hardship of any age, but I support them within the appropriate campaigns, 50s women are campaigning for justice for state pension inequality they have suffered not welfare benefits.
Hear hear Bernadette!!!
Girls in the same school year as me reached state pension age in November 2017 whereas I don’t qualify until July 2020. We all left school at the same age and potentially started working and paying into the system at the same time. Not only have we suffered inequality with men all these years we now suffer inequality with other women based purely on where your birthday happens to fall. How is that equality?
Clearly it isn’t!!! The only way this campaign will end is when we’ve shuffled off, that’s for sure!!
The 2011 Act timetable was a complete mess. It should never have happened.
Surely the point is that women are suffering and dying (there have been suicides tragically) from the mismanagement and misuse of money that could have been paid to women born in the 1950s, as their pensions should have been. Most women, as Neil said, were not in a position to cough up the money to pay into private pensions, nor were most of them paid as much as men were. Even now there is a gender pay gap and women do the majority of the emotionally -draining and heavy care-giving in this society which is unappreciated and, largely, unpaid. Once we had a society that acknowledged women’s contributions but now we seem only to valorise those who accumulate money. It is an indictment on us as a nation that elder women can be treated this way. It is terrifying that the state has become so abusive to its citizens that it is prepared to let them suffer poverty and degradation in their elder age. One wonders if Agenda 21 is underway and our lives, like those of the sick, homeless, unemployed and disabled, are without any value to the ruling powers.
I completely agree…except the Agenda 21 bit. Never heard of it. I’ll go and have a look when I’ve made my coffee 🙂
From The Guardian : “Theorists argue that Agenda 21, a 23-year-old non-binding UN resolution that suggests ways for governments and NGOs to promote sustainable development, is the linchpin in a plot to subjugate humanity under an eco-totalitarian regime.”
A bit conspiracy theory like for me to be honest….but as we say oop north ‘tha never knows does thi?’ 🙂
Sheila, Joani, Christine – excellent. Thank you.
F Kennedy : also excellent and, I suspect, you are correct regarding the Twitter connection.
Sean : as I’m not aware of your name via any FB sites supporting these women, I presume you’re of the Twitter variety?
I’ve actually moved on to other articles but, given the response to this and the previous one, I’m keeping tabs on the comments.
Nice to hear from women actually affected who clearly know the truth 😁
“Nice to hear from women actually affected who clearly know the truth 😁”
Every one of those people you have described as “trolls”, “naysayers” etc, etc (apart from Sean and Patrick) have been women who are actually affected. Yet you ignore their truth which is backed up with clear facts.
I don’t think you would know truth if it bit you on the bum 😉
Janice : When tens of thousands of women tell me that the changes in pensionable age has sent / is sending them into various stages of poverty and even destitution, I am inclined to believe them over the relatively few people arguing otherwise.
Returning women’s pensionable age to 60, and recompensing those who have been robbed of their pension is something I passionately believe in, and will support their fight for.
Ultimately, if it’s a question of ‘equality’ with men, fine. Men are ok retiring at 65 but, no doubt, would like the option to retire earlier if they could – I did, but I had a couple of private pensions.
The UK should be looking at ways to reduce men’s retirement age to achieve equality.
Besides, retirement isn’t compulsory anymore – and rightly so. Many men and women love their jobs and happily continue willingly beyond retirement.
It is the removal of the right to retire at 60, with such poor communication from government – and, indeed, late communication when it came at all – that incenses me.
The truth? As Mulder and Skully knew, it’s out there, and you can find it by talking and listening to the tens of thousands of women who are living it.
“Janice : When tens of thousands of women tell me that the changes in pensionable age has sent / is sending them into various stages of poverty and even destitution, I am inclined to believe them over the relatively few people arguing otherwise.”
Tens of thousands of women haven’t been commenting on here Even on the FB groups that you’ve been frequenting you’ve had a few hundred agreeing with you.
However every single one of those women you say are arguing otherwise are actually arguing for immediate help for those in poverty and destitution. What you are ignoring is that it’s the campaigns that are preventing this help from being considered and which are actively rejecting that help in favour of full restitution for all.
“Returning women’s pensionable age to 60, and recompensing those who have been robbed of their pension is something I passionately believe in, and will support their fight for.”
Absolutely fine and I have no objections to that. Just don’t try to dress it up as you fighting for women in poverty and destitution as you’re not.
“Ultimately, if it’s a question of ‘equality’ with men, fine. Men are ok retiring at 65 but, no doubt, would like the option to retire earlier if they could – I did, but I had a couple of private pensions.”
As do many women who have also retired before SPA yet you want them to get their state pension at 60 too.
“The UK should be looking at ways to reduce men’s retirement age to achieve equality.”
They did look at this – all you have to do is look at all the consultation that happened before the 1995 Act. The conclusion was that it was not sustainable to have people spend 40% of their adult life in retirement paid by the state. Life Expectancy has risen enormously from what it was when the SPA was set at 60/65.
“It is the removal of the right to retire at 60, with such poor communication from government – and, indeed, late communication when it came at all – that incenses me.”
It may well incense you but the JR concluded that the DSS/DWP had done enough to inform people.
“The truth? As Mulder and Skully knew, it’s out there, and you can find it by talking and listening to the tens of thousands of women who are living it.”
You seem to forget that I am a 50s’ woman living through it, talking and listening to friends, family and colleagues all of whom are 50s’ born too. All see the 1995 Act as right and fair, all knew about it from the 90s. Any anger is over the 2011 Act which came in too late for some of them that had already made decisions based on their 95 Act SPA.
You’re listening to FB groups full of women that agree with you but you’re not listening to those women and men on other FB groups, Twitter, various forums and simply in real life that disagree with those campaigns.
Every single one of those other people want immediate help for all men and women in poverty and destitution.
“Every single one of those other people want immediate help for all men and women in poverty and destitution.”
We agree completely.
“What you are ignoring is that it’s the campaigns that are preventing this help from being considered and which are actively rejecting that help in favour of full restitution for all.”
I’m not ignoring anything. I support full restitution for all. A campaign can’t stop others getting help. Campaigns are just that. This campaign couldn’t stop the poor getting help even if it wanted to. That’s a ridiculous assertion.
“It may well incense you but the JR concluded that the DSS/DWP had done enough to inform people.”
It did indeed. I disagree. The DWP sent letters to women born in 1950 in 2009. 12 months to make some kind of financial arrangement – assuming they financially could???
I don’t, for one minute, think you’re a bad person for your views. I don’t even think Frances is – at least intentionally.
Feelings are running very high – Even I can see that in my thick head – but, I fully support full reparation for women born 1950 onwards who, in my view, should have received a full state pension aged 60.
I’ll never move from that belief as, I expect, you won’t from yours. Fair enough. Never the twain and all that.
I will say one thing though. I wouldn’t ‘go after you’ in these comments. Unlike some others, you at least argue and debate your view passionately without any hint of arrogance or superiority.
I thank you for that and, whether other women disagree with you as I do, you know how to argue your corner with respect and dignity.
See…I’m not mouthy all the time 😉
“I’m not ignoring anything. I support full restitution for all.”
That is a change from your stance on your previous article. You clearly told us that the campaigns weren’t about full restitution for all 50s’ women and were about helping those in poverty and destitution. We showed you otherwise.
Why the about turn?
“A campaign can’t stop others getting help. Campaigns are just that. This campaign couldn’t stop the poor getting help even if it wanted to. That’s a ridiculous assertion.”
I’m afraid it’s not a ridiculous assertion. While the focus for the last 4 years has been on every 50s’ woman getting a state pension from 60, the Government has found it easy to simply say no. If the focus switched to those in real poverty it would have been harder to ignore.
“It did indeed. I disagree. The DWP sent letters to women born in 1950 in 2009. 12 months to make some kind of financial arrangement – assuming they financially could???”
Those women born in 1950 had a maximum of 9 months added on to their SPA. Staying in work for an extra 9 months would probably have seen them better off.
The whole point though was that the official notification is the passing of the Act itself in 1995.
“I don’t, for one minute, think you’re a bad person for your views. I don’t even think Frances is – at least intentionally.”
No Frances is not a bad person. Quite the opposite really as her compassion is all for those men and women who really are struggling due to these changes. She also argued for something to be done with those women who really were caught out by the short notice of the 2011 Act. Unlike many, she actually has come up with proposals to solve the situation.
Many 50s’ women don’t like her simply because she doesn’t agree with them and is able to provide facts and figures as to why not. Those campaigners that actually have met her have a very different view.
“Feelings are running very high – Even I can see that in my thick head – but, I fully support full reparation for women born 1950 onwards who, in my view, should have received a full state pension aged 60.”
Including Theresa May, Cherie Blair and many of the other extremely successful 50s’ born women?
“I will say one thing though. I wouldn’t ‘go after you’ in these comments. Unlike some others, you at least argue and debate your view passionately without any hint of arrogance or superiority.”
There have been quite a few on here that have done that too but you dismissed them earlier and in your last article in particular. Perhaps take another read and take on board what they’re saying.
We cannot just take one decade of women into consideration. We have to take into consideration all the men and younger women too, many of which already have a SPA of 67 and 68.
The NI Fund is due to deplete by 2033 according to the Government Actuary Department. A return to 60 for 50s’ women would see that happen faster. GAD is already suggesting an increase of 5% onto NICs and that’s without full restitution. That’s a pretty hefty hike for our children and grandchildren. I don’t want to see that happen, do you? If you suggest it comes from another Budget then what would you like to see cut instead? Foreign Aid would hardly make a dent in it.
“I thank you for that and, whether other women disagree with you as I do, you know how to argue your corner with respect and dignity.”
Thank you. It’s all I’ve ever tried to do but it gets me blocked by people who simply don’t want to listen. For me it’s just not about my opinion of the campaigns but also that they are full of misinformation. Many women simply don’t understand many of the aspects of the state pension system and very few of the FB groups give out the correct information which I find a real shame.
As I said before thank you for allowing me to comment without any censorship.
“See…I’m not mouthy all the time 😉”
It took a while. 😉
Boris Johnston PM 15 October 2019
10 Downing Street
LONDON
Boris
State Pension Injustice
Letters being sent out with your signature contain errors.
“Those affected by the 1995 changes were also contacted between April 2009 and March 2011.”
This should read “Those affected by the 1995 changes only were also contacted between April 2009 and March 2011.” The DWP have admitted (as a result of a Freedom of Information request) that the first time women born in 1954 were written to was in 2012. The DWP had stopped sending out letters once they decided to hammer women born end ’53/54 with the 2011 Act.
“The Pensions Act 1995 legislated for this to be done gradually after 2010”
1995 Act
6 March 1950 60 years
6 March 1951 61 years
6 March 1952 62 years
6 March 1953 63 years
6 March 1954 64 years
6 March 1955 65 years
I suppose it could be viewed as ‘gradual’. It is more accurate than the ‘slowly between 2010 and 2020’ description used elsewhere but I think ‘brutal’ is a more accurate description.
“the Government had to accelerate this process slightly in the Pensions Act 2011”
2011 Act
5 January 1953 62 years 8 months
6 December 1953 65 years 3 months
6 September 1954 66 years
‘slightly?’ The Pensions Act 2011 made women born in one year (1953) reach SPA in 5 different years (2015,16,17,18,19) at ages ranging from 62 years 8 months to 65 years 3 months.
“Making further transitional arrangements would not only complicate the system but could also cost taxpayers many billions of pounds and the potential cost of reversing the 2011 changes has been estimated at £39billion.”
Changing arrangements would ‘complicate the system’ because we are now many years down the line from when the grave errors were first pointed out.
Sir Steve Webb (Pensions Minister in 2011) said long ago that the 2011 Act was ‘a step too far’, he had ‘been wrongly advised and did not understand the consequences’.
The Coalition Government wanted to save a lot of money in the aftermath of the banking crisis. George Osborne said of the 2011 Pension Act: “These changes, when you’re a finance minister, the savings dwarf almost everything else you do”
We might have been up shit creek without a paddle but it was the fault of the bankers and the Government – not women born in 1954.
“Cost taxpayers many billions of pounds” What about the single woman born on 6 September 1954 who has been working full time since she was 15 without the support of a husband or family? She’s now 65+ trying to get to her SPA of 66 having paid income tax and National Insurance for 50 years. Is she not a taxpayer?
Christine Bell
The MP’s who voted for this protected themselves by having their Occupational Pension changed so that any female MP’s negatively affected by the changes to their State Pension Age would receive a transitional pension from it for the intervening years. The justification for this? Because they
said they wouldn’t have enough time to prepare for the change in their State Pension Age!
Complete and utter nonsense!
All members of ALL Public Sector schemes ( including thousands of 50s’ born women who were teachers, nurses, civil servants and local government workers) received a Transitional Protection if they were within 10 years of their scheme’s normal retirement age in April 2012. This applied to men and women. For some it meant that those men and women kept their NRA of 60 but for many it meant 65.
The justification for this was that it didn’t give them enough time to make alternative arrangements for their occupational pensions – nothing whatsoever to do with state pensions as men were equally protected. This had the full backing of the Unions at the time.
That protection has now been called into question and declared unlawful. So all those PS workers who had protection are likely to lose it now. You can be sure it will have far-reaching effects on all PS workers, perhaps even Neil’s wife who has an NHS pension and was given the same protection.
Neil,as on Twitter you’ve been troLledrod by the usual bunch-self-interest driven as keeping people’s pensions for an extra 6,7,8 yrs they’ll be quids in.
At JR DWP QC admitted ‘it was difficult to notify all women’ & they’re not obliged to tell anyone of pension (or presumably other changes). Judge was shocked said’are you saying women have no recourse’ to that information!
How can trolls know more about notification than 50s women? Many had no letters this was proved by Gov own surveys. Or like me 2 yrs notice at 58. My plans to retire up in smoke. Using savings meant for children/grandchildren or few hols now being used for living/existing.
Just one point Neil,B260 not asking forpension age to go back to 60. A UN Convention for elimination of discrimination measure can be put through government by MPs for full restitution for all current and past discrimination -no change to bills required.
Thanks for clarifying that the group “Backto60” are not looking for women’s state pension to go back to 60.
So state pension age remains the same for everyone? Out of interest, what date of birth is the cut-off point for being eligible for full restitution?
“Neil,as on Twitter you’ve been troLledrod by the usual bunch-self-interest driven as keeping people’s pensions for an extra 6,7,8 yrs they’ll be quids in.”
Presumably that accusation is levelled at me and the many other 50s’ women who have replied here with an alternative view to full restitution.
As we all stand to gain around £50k should BT60 be successful, perhaps you could explain what our financial interest is in keeping SPA at 66, 67 and 68?
“How can trolls know more about notification than 50s women?”
That’s an easy one to answer – we are not “trolls”. We are 50s’ women who knew via the media in one form or another.
As to Government surveys, that’s another easy one to answer as they showed over 80% of our age group knew that the SPA was rising.
“Just one point Neil,B260 not asking forpension age to go back to 60.”
So glad you’ve clarified that as Neil didn’t believe us.
“A UN Convention for elimination of discrimination measure can be put through government by MPs for full restitution for all current and past discrimination -no change to bills required.”
Ah I wondered when the mention of CEDAW would appear – took you long enough.
Basically a UN Treaty which is not in UK Domestic Law. You appear to think a Secretary of State is going to use a Statutory Instrument ( even though no such route is specified in the original Acts which by law it must be )via a Temporary Special Measure to spend £181bn. Even if there was such a route it would have to go through Parliament for approval. Good Luck with that one.
Thank you for a well researched and clearly explained up to date article on the issue of up to six years stolen income from 50’s born women and their families, by stealth, by denying them their rightful paid for pensions.
The following articles show that between £271-400b is missing from the NI fund, as the treasury stopped paying into it from the ’80’s; thereby reneging on the tripartite agreement that workers, employers & govt would would pay into fund
David hencke report
https://t.co/XsByhca18P
Paul lewis report
https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/depriving-1950s-women-state-pension/
we are not going away and i am
Happy to support crowdfunding to take our appeal to the highest level
govt could sort this out and provide swift resolution using CEDAW and a temporary special measure, which does not alter primary legislation. The party that puts this in their manifesto will win votes from between 9-18,000 people per constituency if you combine the women, their families and friends.
Paul Lewis pushed for years to pay out the surplus in the National Insurance fund to pay pensions and other benefits. If the government had followed his suggestions the country would probably have been bankrupt when the financial crisis hit.
Hencke’s article makes no sense. If people had paid more in taxes there would have been more to pay out in benefits. Yes, but they would have paid more in taxes and had less money to begin with. What is he suggesting, we go back and reclaim 30+ years of tax from everyone?!?
“We have not been assisted by reference to CEDAW, it adds nothing to
the Claimants’ case” – direct quote from the Judicial Review.
Sally : Possibly because there are no politicians prepared to talk about it. If you’ve nobody to interview there’s no interview?
That’s all I can think, along with 60 plus women not being considered newsworthy?
Hi Neil, I’d love to know why British TV refuse to report on this issue, political discussion programmes refuse to discuss it and news programmes refuse to cover protest marches and demonstrations. Why? Is it because we’re women so they think it doesn’t matter, or because we’re old so they think it doesn’t matter?
Born 1954 and have 49 years of tax/NI contributions to date
Annie / Helen : You have been appallingly treated and, in my view, there is no sane argument against that view.
Janice : If the retirement age for women was returned to 60 for all there would be no ‘cliff edge’. The country could afford it simply by redirecting funds from, for example, international aid. There is no reason why this has to be ring fenced as a ‘separate pot’
Neil
Well said Neil couldn’t agree with you more.
We send money to help fund other countries but we can’t help our own!
A friend of mine (and many others) has just been severely affected with the floods from the recent rain, so bad that they had to be rescued from their home by boat from the emergency services!
We send money to help disasters in other countries – I wonder if we will receive any help from them
This Country is in a complete mess!!
PAY ME MY STOLEN PENSION!
“Janice : If the retirement age for women was returned to 60 for all there would be no ‘cliff edge’. The country could afford it simply by redirecting funds from, for example, international aid. There is no reason why this has to be ring fenced as a ‘separate pot’”
Now we get to the real reason for your support. You simply don’t believe in equal state pension ages for men and women. Well count me out on that one as I believe in equality.
As to redirecting foreign aid, its £13.4bn compared to £100bn already being spent on state pensions alone. Shocking, although not surprising, to think that you feel giving women a state pension at 60 is more important than helping people suffering in situations that very few of us here in the UK could ever imagine.
I’ll leave you to your insular view of the world.
Ok, so we slash foreign aid to £0 for next year, and direct every single penny to women born in the 1950s. Some might consider that a bit controversial, but let’s run with it anyway.
That still leaves us £60bn light to cover “lost” payments upto 2019/20, and we still then need to find another £100bn over the next 7 years.
Maybe if we get Diane Abbott to do the sums it will all be ok?
As a woman born in 1954, bringing up 2 children with no govt funded childcare, I had to leave work until the children started school, and then work part time until they were old enough to look after themselves before and after school and in holidays. This meant that for much of my career I was unable to apply for promotion, and was also debarred from paying into my work pension scheme: only available to full time employees. Now I can’t receive my state pension until I’m 66. Loser all round. Of course, all benefits related to pension age such as a bus pass are not available to me either. My husband, who is 3 years older than me, receives his full pension and has a bus pass too. I just feel I’ve lost out all round.
There were a lot of women who didn’t work in the public sector and were not informed. I actually started work in a bank – I started the same day as a man(boy) my age -16. He was in a non contributory pension scheme – I was not! Women weren’t allowed to join until they reached 21 (I think) so that was the start of inequality and higher wages for men doing the same jobs as women.
When the age increase was introduced I was working in a private company and we didn’t have the luxury of public sector workers, pension contributions, informed choices, sick pay etc.
I say again we are not against equal retirement ages for both sexes just the way it has been introduced with many women missing out on their due pension date because they were born a couple of days too late!
“I say again we are not against equal retirement ages for both sexes just the way it has been introduced with many women missing out on their due pension date because they were born a couple of days too late!”
Annie being born a couple of days later than someone else would only have seen an extra wait of 2 months ( 4 months if in the accelerated section of 2011 Act). It would certainly not have made a difference of getting it at age 60 or getting it years later.
The solution being proposed though would see this cliff edge happen as women born 31/12/59 would get a pension at age 60 and a woman born 1/1/60 ( maybe just minutes later) would have to wait till age 66. That cannot be right either.
You’re a bit late mate!
Already moved on to another article.
Still, I’m sure I’ll do more on this.
Keep up now 😁
I note you are no longer responding to comments
Reading your piece above it is possible to believe that the quote from Money Marketing regarding raiding of the NI fund is from their editorial team
For clarity ,you quote is from an opinion piece by an IFA named Kay Ingram
At no point in her piece does she justify this assertion,nor does she reply subsequently to the comments pointing out that this assertion is untrue
I’m sure your readers will be grateful to learn that your quote is from an unreliable source and is unsupported by fact
https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/lebc-1950s-born-women-are-subsidising-next-generations/
Are you lot stalking me or what? 😂😂😂
@ Neil
My reference to censoring was exactly that. There hasn’t been any attempt to censor posts (as far as I can see), which is refreshing.
It’s of course upto you what you have the time and inclination to do. If you consider taking the piss out of strangers on the internet to be a constructive use of your time, that’s your call. Likewise, if addressing counter-points raised on your article isn’t, again your shout.
Not something you need to justify to anyone or anything. Have a good day, but you don’t really need to post again telling everyone that you won’t be posting again.
Mmmm…. Censoring? Nothing has been censored. That’s two who’ve mentioned censoring. How odd…
Mike? Censoring? 😂😂😂😂
I obviously didn’t make myself clear, so let’s put it another way.
I have better things to do than waste my time ‘debating’ with self rightious individuals who are as set against the campaign as I am in favor.
There is absolutely no point and my time is precious to me.
Any comment expressing a view that is not supportive of the campaign to reimburse women who’s pensions have been stolen, while the commenter has every right to make it under freedom of speech, will be ignored by me purely due to time and, indeed, inclination.
No censoring here.
This article, along with the previous one, is in support of the campaign.
Just in case you missed it.
Censoring?? I’ve heard it all now 😂😂😂😂
You do seem to have difficulty reading and/or understanding posts so just to make it clear, this is what I actually said.
“Thank you for allowing the debate and not censoring.”
Stephanie : my wife retired from The NHS after 30 years… Mainly as a Senior Microbiologist.
As a result she was aware.
Almost all of her women friends in other occupations would have been oblivious had she not told them.
As well she did. Nobody else did.
“Almost all of her women friends in other occupations would have been oblivious had she not told them.”
The good old word of mouth is alive and kicking. Bad news travels fast. It’s how we hear about most things.
I was notified by my employers, the NHS, some 30+ years ago! A series of meetings over a few days/weeks to ensure all shift patterns could attend were held, to explain the changes to the pension age and how we would be affected. A friend working for local authority also had similar. It was hardly a big ‘secret’ if the UK’s two largest employers were telling women so long ago!
Add all teachers to that list. The Public Sector workers knew from a mixture of being told plus Combined Pension Statements. That’s how one of the claimants to the BT60 case was told but she didn’t apparently read her letter properly. Rather ironic.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂…how many referrings do you need?
Sean : I refer you to my ‘final comment’ above.
@ Neil
That’s fine. Your choice as to whether you wish to respond.
Thanks for encouraging the debate and not attempting to censor it.
It is of course incorrect to state that no letters with details of state pension age increases were sent to women before 2009.
As Neil’s link to Frank Field’s report shows (and as confirmed in the Judicial Review), 16m+ unprompted letters were sent out between 2003 and 2006. These letters included a booklet explaining that state pension age would be equalised for women.
In the section “What is State Pension Age?”, it stated that for women it was “between 60 and 65 for women born between 6 April 1950 and 5 April 1955” – this was correct at the time.
The Judicial Review also contains details of the regular campaigns the government ran, which was argued to be “proper and reasonable”.
The “I would have known if I had got a letter” argument falls down spectacularly in the JR, as one of the women bringing the case had got two letters from her employer confirming the increase, but had ignored them.
The “notice” argument is a dead duck, as are the “contract” and “discrimination” angles. There is a legitimate case though that the labour market and benefit system did not adjust with the change of pension law, and more needs to be done to help those struggling.
It is of course incorrect to state that no letters with details of state pension age increases were sent to women before 2009. 1st mistake! 16m+ letters were sent out between 2003 and 2006. 2nd mistake!
How is it possible that I was
1. not one of the lucky recipients of those informative letters and
2..when I asked for a state pension forecast in 2005 (10 years after the 1995 act, and 8 years before my 60th birthday) guess what ! My actual retirement date was nowhere to be found.
Lastly, the QC for the DWP stated that from at least 2005 onwards anyone requesting a state pension forecast would also be given their SP date.
Even worse, when I finally did receive my state pension after spending all my savings to survive, they tried to underpay me. I have written evidence of the incompetence of the DWP. One day it may be useful! My advice to you is don’t believe everything you read especially where the DWP is involved, we are not the ones telling lies.
So I have written evidence
@ Brenda
The DWP in their defence of the Judicial Review stated that they sent:
‘17.8 million unsolicited printed state pension statements, called “Automatic Pension Forecasts”. These were accompanied by a supplementary leaflet, giving general information about SPA equalisation’
This point did not appear to have been disputed by Backto60’s legal representatives. As it is evidence submitted in a court of law that has not been disputed, it appears to have been accepted as a statement of fact.
This of course is not the same as saying that you (or anyone else) personally received one of them.
If you received incorrect or incomplete information in an individual state pension forecast (again this is possible), I would definitely suggest making a maladministration claim (if not already done so).
Janice : I refer you to my ‘final comment’ above.
That’s fine – your choice whether or not to respond. People will draw their own conclusions on that choice.
Thank you for allowing the debate and not censoring. No thanks though for the gratuitous insults here and elsewhere towards those with different views.
Angie : I can do no more than continue trying to publicise this scandal – I wish I could do more.
I do find it interesting that the two prime objecters to full restitution, in these comments, are a retired banker and a former Financial Advisor.
Assuming they were successful in their respective fields, it follows that they are financially secure I would have thought?
That doesn’t preclude them from their views of course, but it does make me wonder why they should want to be so vocal in their protests against full restitution.
Odd. Distinctly odd.
“I do find it interesting that the two prime objecters to full restitution, in these comments, are a retired banker and a former Financial Advisor.”
Your so-called retired banker is not retired. She is still working full-time. Her role in Banking years ago was in the IT Department. Thousands of 50s’ women worked in banks, including one of the Waspi co-founders.
Your retired IFA advised many clients who were 50s’ born so he’s well placed to make comments. He’s not seeking money for either himself nor his wife, both 50s’ born.
Both of these people would also gain if the campaigns were successful as would you via your wife. They are vocal against such a solution, you are vocal for such a solution. It does make me wonder why.
All of the “naysayers”, “trolls” and similar insults have been directed at those posters who are against full restitution and who favour instead a targeted and immediate help for those women who really are in severe financial difficulties.
It is obvious that we will not change the minds of those deeply entrenched in their views and who whip up support on FB groups and Twitter. I find it sad that you feel the need to “please feel free to pop over and take the piss out of them. It’s such good fun!!!” via your own FB page. Very grown up, not!
What will be obvious to the casual observer here is that some good points have been made and as yet no answers from you as to why we should support a campaign that wants to give £181bn to ALL 50s’ women regardless of circumstances and excludes those men and younger women in severe hardship. So basically Theresa May gets her £48k windfall and the homeless man living on the streets gets zero, zilch!
Yep caring, sharing Britain where the men want their Waspi wives to get an extra £50k or so. Tough luck everyone born 6/4/60 onwards (plus all men no matter what their DOB is, unless you have a Waspi wife) – you don’t count.
The campaign has been going on now for 4 years and still no help for those who really do need the help. Stop and ask yourself why? Is it all the fault of the Government or might it just have something to do with the campaigners asking too much? Then ask yourself why some of us, even though we stand to gain around £50k if they were to be successful, are against the proposed solutions as they stand?
Why is it that these people want to silence us?
@ Neil
Two fundamental issues:
1) Cost – the £180bn elephant in the room that campaigners like to pretend isn’t an issue. The country doesn’t have £180bn to spend, and if it did, there are far better and fairer things to spend it on.
2) Fairness – All of the campaigns demand money for themselves, but with an arbitrary cut-off point after which apparently it is fine for women to have a state pension age of 66+. This seems to be either December 1959 or April 1960, depending on where the tail was pinned on that particular donkey.
(any change to this effect would probably be illegal as well, but hey ho)
Over the last 4 and a half years, there has yet to be a credible, coherent counter argument to these points. The only comeback is to attack the messenger, rather than the message itself.
Until campaigners come to terms with this, they will stay rooted at square one.
In all likelihood, what we will get is another few years of circular and pointless internet arguments, insults and virtue signalling.
Thank you thank you for your article. I was one of the few women who got a letter. 4 years before I was due to retire I got notice of a 6 year hike. 4 years to plan after I had scaled back my working week due to arthritis. I was so looking forward after working solid, no time off, for 44 years. 44 years of dancing to an employers tune. We didn’t get full equality, it was still in its infancy. Men were still expected to “look after” their women and the women to look after the family. In 1995 there was no internet, we had, wait for it, letters!!!! Yay!!!! I was lucky if I had time to read a book never mind a newspaper. I knew my pension age was 60 because that was what we had been told at the beginning.
The other problem we have was “opting out” I was opted out by an employer, never told it would affect my pension, so that’s another blow! £30 a week down, which will not be made up by my own meagre pensions. In the 80’s interest on mortgages was up to at least 18%, I could only afford my bills, eating was a luxury. Every penny counted. We have done what society asked of us and a whole lot more, paid our dues, bills, scrimped and got on with it safe in the knowledge we would have time for us at 60. They lied.
FINANCIALLY ABUSED BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT
A final comment to those who seem to be somewhat upset / offended etc at my method of responding to those disagreeing with my article / stance :
I am not a paid, professional writer. I write here by invitation.
I express my views on this site, not necessarily the views of the editor.
I hold, and have expressed my views regarding the theft of pensions from women born in the 50s and 60s.
My method of responding to those who clearly hold another view on this issue is the way I’ve always responded and I make no apology for being me.
If anybody has been offended, then I suggest they go and buy a newspaper to read instead, written by professionals, who will not offend them.
I have been made aware that the vast majority reading my articles agree with me and, seemingly enjoyed my responses to those who disagreed.
If I find I am upset and offended by any number of things written by others all over the Internet….(having a hide like a Rhino, I admit this is a very rare occurrence)…
My solution is to not go there.
Any view that does not include full and deserved recompense for these women, will, no doubt, be responded to in my inimitable way.
If you don’t like that, nobody is forcing you to read them.
I will vigorously defend the campaign for a full restoration of these women’s pensions against all who disagree, whether wholly or partially.
If my method of responding is not to your liking, perhaps you should seek somewhere else to express your view.
I will defend your right to say what you say, here or elsewhere, regardless of disagreeing with you.
However, I will respond as I see fit and, if it upsets you, then such is life.
It’s called freedom of speech.
You are free to question my stance, and the stance of the women campaigning.
I am free to respond as I wish.
If you have an issue with that, frankly, you’re in the wrong place.
That is all.
Also Neil Johnson has already reneged on his commitment to look at this issue. Corbyn has stated that we are in Labour manifesto I guess we will see this week when the manifestos come out however we were in Labour’s last manifesto but they lost the election
I was born Aug 1954 and my pension was put back TWICE just because I was born that month. First in1995 to 64 years 5 months and then again in 2011 to 65 years 11 months it’s the second increase that pissed me off the most. Of i was born just 1 year earlier I would get my pension three and a half years earlier that can’t be right
Annie. You’re like me then. I ‘opted’ out too. We are actually quite fortunate because we have another pension (not sure about you but mine is quite small but very welcome). You still have the option of continuing to pay NICs and go for a full state pension. I actually chose not to although I’m still considering buying my missing years.
Just to be clear….. It doesn’t matter when you get the 35 years and there is no obligation to continue paying unless, of course, you continue to earn above the nic threshold.
Some people replying here are being deliberately provocative, please don’t let them wind you up with hyperbole. Neil you can be sure that the ‘small cohort’ of 1950’s ladies will continue to fight this injustice.
We all very much appreciate your unswerving support.
Judi I did opt out (although I really didn’t know what I was doing) but even so I have had several pension forecasts and all of them tell me that because I haven’t paid NI for the last few years I will NOT get the full pension.
I have been told by DWP (as we all know they are right)! that I need 4 more years to get the full pension
So again that is what we are fighting for!!
Judi, you are correct when you say that only 35 years NI contributions are needed to get the full state pension, but if you carry on working past those 35 years you still have to pay contributions until you stop…which gain you precisely nothing as far as a pension is concerned.
It affects men too. My husband, who has just retired, had paid 35 years worth of contributions by 2006, but he kept working until last week, so eventually paid 48 years worth. It would have been 49 if he hadn’t retired a year early.
This may be what Annie is alluding to.
Annie I’m not sure who told you this. Have you sent for your forecast? I can assure you that 35 full years is what you need regardless of when you contributed. I paid NICs for 42 years but I was contracted out for 10 so I have 32 full years. I could buy the extra years or I could continue to pay NI but my age makes no difference to this. If I had achieved 35 years FULL contributions when I gave up work then I would get full SP at SP age. Please check out what I am saying so you see I’m telling you the truth.
If you have 42 years then I imagine you have also paid into another pension
Neil, we’ve had this conversation before. I have campaigned since 2016 for help for women struggling because of the change to their pension age. Patrick, Frances and most of the others that you chose to insult would also like to see targeted help for those most affected but we understand the system and know that there was never a legal obligation for the government to personally notify each and every 50s woman. We also know the JR rejected all points and recognised that the changes were widely publicised at the time. Now this may be unfair, it may have caught some women on the hop but that won’t be reason enough for the government to reverse the increases just for one small cohort of women. If we want to help those most in need (as you say you do) then we need to be realistic, stop peddling lies and myths, listen to people like Frances and get together with a reasonable solution.
Stephanie you don’t have to work to 66. That’s why many of us have a problem with this site. It is just peddling untruths and myths and confusing people. To get a full SP you need 35 years NICs. If you contracted out of serps into a private / occ pension then you will need more but it doesn’t matter when you get the years. If you have 35 full years and are only 55 but give up work then you will still get full state pension at your state pension age.
If Neil would do a spot of research, or listen to those like Patrick and Frances he may even learn something
Judi you are so wrong on this!
I have 42 years contribution and still don’t get the full pension! I have to still contribute until I’m 66! This is one of the main issues of our fight.
Please don’t comment until you know exactly what the implications are for us all. This is what makes our cause so hard
Don’t worry Annie… I’m not going anywhere x
Neil you are backed by thousands of women (and men) the “facts” are flawed!
You are the only one from the media supporting our cause – We think there has been a black out of anything we do – no coverage of the demonstration at Media City and even more important the rally held outside parliament on the 5th November.
Nothing to do with getting older/ill etc but the unfairness of the dates imposed that we are due to get our pensions!
Before people comment they really should look at the facts!
Judi / Douglas : Tell that to the thousands of women without a pension.
I doubt they’ll be as polite as me.
It’s not about the issue at hand, but the demeaning, childish, and unprofessional manner in which you address those who have the temerity to disagree with you. Your colourful language and weak attempts at humor diminish rather than elevate this very important matter. I actually agree with your position but cringe at your horrid comments to people who clearly care but approach the matter from a different direction. That’s too bad.
Neil, without wanting to be rude you are making a fool of yourself in your replies to Frances. She has provided factual information from reliable sources and your response is to her is something I would expect from a child. Why not read the links she has provided so you can hold an adult discussion?
I agree with you Judi, and I don’t know what sort of bug has gotten under Neil’s bonnet. He is reminding me of Trump, and I do think he’s a fan anyway. Try to act like an adult Neil, a sober one I might add.
Well written piece. Disgrace by British Govt hiding behind equality for both men and woman. Men can’t have babies. So obviously there will never be 100percent equality.. woman like myself born in 1956 are well due to retire comfortable but it’s now very difficult for the majority of woman who are like me in their 60s and still having to work just to live.
Well done for supporting us 1950’s women ! I am disappointed with this country’s lack of concern towards this injustice I question why British media is not reporting ? Especially after our very vocal demo last week where traffic was delayed in London etc surely some news ? Er NO ??
I sadly continue to work aged *62 years (already worked 43 years) with another 4 long years to serve Until I reach the new state pension age of 66 years 😰This change was not notified to me I had no idea until I was approaching 58 year and it was a colleague who told me! This affected my health and I have been on medication ever since.I am now trying to sell my home to materialise some equality so I can retire.This increase should never have been more than a year at a time spread over many more years a slow transition.
Thank you Neil, at least you are highlighting our cause unlike to British media.
I actually didn’t mean you, I meant the spiteful comments from people not affected and also those who think they know what we are all about without any in depth knowledge
Neil, thank you so much for caring. It’s so nice to have someone “on our side”.
My retirement pension is not now due until April 2021, when I’ll be 66. I carried on working past my 60th birthday, so that I could contribute to the household finances, and not have to rely on my husband for absolutely everything. I had to give up work, a while ago, though, due to poor health.
I had no idea that our Government had moved the pension “goalposts”, so I made no plans for this eventuality, assuming my pension, at 60, was secure.
Like every woman in the same situation, I have been left with absolutely no income and, at my age, that’s scary.
It’s not as if we’re asking for something for nothing; we paid our National Insurance for all those years, believing there would be a payout at the age of 60. It didn’t happen.
If an actual insurance company had changed the rules in such an arbitrary way, without any notification, there’d have been an outcry, but because it’s the Government, they get away with it.
There are women living, and dying, in poverty because of this. It’s not only unjust, and unfair, it’s downright cruel.
Annie C : The ‘name calling’ is me responding to people who support the current position – sometimes with the exception of the 2011 change.
As it’s my article and it’s in defence of women, like yourself, I’m afraid I will respond as I do to those who think everything’s fine.
I can take a bit of getting used to, but my hearts in the right place… Last time I checked anyway 😁
Those I’m taking the mickey out of seem to think it’s your own fault.
There are some weird people out there
What a shame this has turned into name calling! The fact still remains that the way the pension age hike was implemented was unfair.
We are not fighting to return women’s pension age to 60, I’m sure we all agree in equality so it should be the same for both sexes what we are fighting for is a fair implementation of the age increase.
Many women born in the 50’s worked alongside men doing the same job but were not paid the same rate or even included in the work pension scheme. Inequality from the first day of work.
We accept that the age increase needed to happen but what we are unhappy about is the way it was implemented dependant on not only the year you were born but the month. So by being born 2 days later than someone else means another year wait for our pension.
On social media its so obvious that there are many women suffering both financially and mentally. We were not informed and some only found out a couple of years before they were 60, so too late to make informed decisions. Also one of the other facts that people seem to overlook is that unless we pay our NI up to 66 we will not get a full pension, even with over 40 years contribution. Very difficult for women who are already struggling to live!
Here here Annie, well said couldn’t have put it better myself.
This is so accurate to what we are fighting for.
I do wish I saw more respect in this thread and looks like the author is the cause of such nastiness.
I didn’t realise you have to work until 66 to get full pension, I thought it was now 30/35 years to qualify, although I have worked 45 years. If you have been opted out of SERPS you don’t get the full pension. When I have asked the question I was told that I had worked enough years, I will ring the Pensions office again.
I have enjoyed reading this article and the follow up comments. It is hard as a 50’s born woman not to feel unfairly treated by our governments and also our employers who paid us a lower wage because we are women…. I have paid NI and have 43 full years but as I am now not working will have another 5 years to wait my SP. For the last few years I have cared for my mother (who has Alzheimer’s) and my grandchildren so my daughter can work, Due to a diagnosis of a chronic long term disease I worked part time until a few years ago. I have not claimed any benefits. I am fortunate to have a very small private pension but mostly I am living off my savings.
To be able to access my SP now would be a god send. The way the increase was implemented was harsh and unfair on 50’s women, and the positive support to adjust and amend this would be to right this injustice. Thank you to all who continue to fight our cause.
Thank you Neil. As a fellow (and very proud) Northerner who was taught by her miner father to call a spade a ‘shovel’ I loved your articles and your replies to certain individuals who shall remain nameless. Keep up the good work!
Thanks Irene. I do my best! 🙂
Don’t give up on us Neil. I hate injustice and having your support means more than I can say. Holding back some tears and hope you have a great weekend. This affects not just us 50s Women but our families too. My husband is retiring age but working on without complaining but I see it is taking its toll on him. Why have they done this⁉️ Hx
I’ll never give up on you Hilda! – well..other than an unfortunate incident with a bus anyway 🙂
Why they have done this is difficult to say at the moment.
The reasons are all wrapped up in the bluff and bluster that you get from the likes of Frances and Patrick and so forth in the comments above.
While they may not be ‘establishment’ themselves as such, it is the kind of double talk the establishment will always give over this sort of thing.
Johnson and Corbyn have both said they will look at it but, of course, politicians will invariably feign support for votes so, whether either of them mean it is debatable at best.
You ladies will keep fighting, and we who support you will always support you regardless.
You have a great weekend too – and give your husband a man hug from me eh? x
😂😂😂😂😂 You’re marvellous fun Frances, marvellous! 😂😂😂😂😂
Oh and tell those who run this Blog to upgrade the primitive comments facility. Even Facebook allows you to edit posts. Pathetic.
Ah!!! You’re a former banker! That explains it! I wondered why you didn’t have a clue 🙂
Neil, so now you double down on rudeness instead of engaging with the factual evidence I have provided. It is abundantly clear that your agenda is not accura”Given your supposed determination to be factually correct, this is not a ‘blog’.”
Er, according to this statement from the Comment Policy section of this site, yes it is:
“By posting content to the Blog, you warrant and represent that you either own or otherwise control all of the rights to that content, including, without limitation, all the rights necessary for you to provide, post, upload, input or submit the content, or that your use of the content is a protected fair use. You agree that you will not knowingly provide material and misleading false information. You represent and warrant also that the content you supply does not violate these Terms. It is your sole responsibility to ensure that your postings do not disclose confidential and/or proprietary information, including personal financial information, information covered by a nondisclosure agreement, and information that you are not authorized to disclose. We caution you not to disclose personal information about yourself or your children, such as social security numbers, credit card numbers, etc.”
Feel free to look it up. Along with all the other sources I have provided.
Good grief! I hoped you paused for breath typing that lot out!
I wonder….does anyone ever get a word in edge ways when you go off on one?
By the way, what’s an “accura”?…..Oh! Got it! Accurate!…calm down dear…you’re babbling on your keyboard so quickly it clearly can’t keep up! 🙂 🙂
I could be very much mistaken – often am – but I’m starting to get the impression that you hope to be taken seriously?
Ah well. There’s nowt wrong with hope I suppose……
Many thousands of women have been robbed of their pensions, but you, of course, being such an extraordinary person, know better.
Jolly good. Now go and take your medication, there’s a good girl.
Neil, so now you double down on rudeness instead of engaging with the factual evidence I have provided. It is abundantly clear that your agenda is not accurate reporting, it is getting clicks. You’re nothing but a dishonest hack.
Ah ok must have misread
Frances, my dear Dominatrix, I’m so sorry. I thought you’d take it as a compliment, with your mindset of dismissing and even denigrating pensioners denied their pension.
Given your supposed determination to be factually correct, this is not a ‘blog’. A modicum of research would allow you to be factual.
Perhaps the boots are a little tight? 😘
Hi Neil, I was born in Oldham, such friendly people up there. I’m disappointed in your comments / replies to the lady called Frances. You say that you are married, does your wife not mind that you are speaking to a woman you clearly don’t know in such terms ? Would it not be better to thank Frances for furnishing you with the correct information, I’m shocked at some of your comments.
Neil,
Why are you being rude to me? I have only posted two comments on your blog, both of which have been to provide you with factual information. Being rude to someone who is politely correcting your errors and providing you with sources is really not a good look. No doubt you will get lots of clicks from women who love to be told what they want to hear. But is writing dishonest clickbait really what you want to do?
Sheena : I am over here. I’m British based and, indeed, British – born in Oldham. 👍
Brilliant piece of journalism Neil . I am a 1950s widow effected by these changes … can you please come over here and be our becon of Hope …. for all the groups fighting this cause … we need a speaker of your caliber to get this plight more out in the open .. well done great reading
Oh Neil, you’ve made my morning! Bless you xx
Well hello there! 😁
I put my feet up to watch the football and who should pop up in my absence but David Brent on Speed (Patrick) and The Dominatrix (Frances)…. Only one minion in tow up to now it seems.
Still, How the devil are you both?
I’m so sorry Patrick. Really I am. Having so little ‘romance’ in your life turning you into such a pompous windbag is such a shame.
Still. There’s alway your right hand isn’t there?
… For the pc keyboard I mean… Obviously…
And Frances! My favourite Dominatrix!
I have this vision of you striding over a mass of destitute women pensioners, wearing your black leather thigh boots and demanding they all lick them.
Your comments are invariably novelettes, so I can but thank you for your time and thigh boots 😘
Oh yes, by the way, Patrick old chum. You appear to be under a misconception regarding MMA… A little research perhaps?
Now be good children and play nicely you two..
I was expecting a better response to the comment from Frances, but it seems you have no counter arguments, or points, to put forward? If you had, why would you resort to, “playing the player” and “shoot the messenger” tactics? So disappointing. If I wanted to read petty, insulting, posts, which do absolutely nothing to address the points raised, I may as well stick to Twitter! Pretty abysmal really from a, how do they refer to you on here? Oh yes, a senior author! Perhaps you should let one of the junior authors try in future…
Ah! Another minion of David and The Dominatrix! Welcome! 🙂
Catherine M, what do you know about how the state pension is funded?
Neil, it seems I must again pick you up on factual errors. I do wish you would do more research before attacking your keyboard.
Firstly, the NI fund has not been “raided” to pay for anything that it is not mandated by law to do. The audited accounts are available online. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-insurance-fund-accounts
There have been no unusual transfers or payments out of the fund. The claim that it has been used to pay for higher education and childcare subsidy is, I’m afraid, fiction. Re statutory maternity pay: the NI Fund does pay statutory maternity pay, and has been mandated by law to do so since 1946, but this is now clawed back from employers.
Secondly, NI contributions don’t just pay for pensions, they also pay for a range of contributory welfare benefits including JSA, ESA and bereavement benefits. You can find the full list of benefits paid from national insurance contributions in section 20(i) of the 1992 Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act (note that the names of some of the benefits have changed): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/4/section/20/enacted
NI contributions also part-fund the NHS, though this payment does not go through the NI fund.
Finally, the NI fund is not, and never has been, an investment fund. It is a clearing house for NI contributions and payments. NI contributions received are disbursed to existing pensioners and beneficiaries, not invested for a future return. It has operated like that since 1946, when Beveridge’s original plan for a fully-funded scheme was abandoned because it would have meant those who lived through two wars and the Depression being excluded.
The NI Fund maintains statutory reserves of at least 1/6 of outgoings to ensure it can continue to pay pensions and benefits if NI receipts fall, for example in a recession. These are placed on deposit at the Government’s Debt Management Office, where they earn interest which forms part of the NI Fund’s income (you will find this in the accounts). The accounting effect of placing the reserves at the DMO is to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement. This is the source of the oft-repeated claim that the NI Fund has been “raided” to “reduce the national debt”. However, deposits at the DMO belong to the NI fund. It can withdraw them at any time. So I am afraid there is not, and never has been, any “raid” on the NI fund, nor any diversion of funds to other purposes.
FYI, here is an explanation of how the NI Fund works. http://www.coppolacomment.com/2016/04/the-fund-that-isnt-fund.html
Annette Joyce, for goodness sake, what do you know about the future? In the 60’s we thought a nuclear war was imminent; in the 1980’s we were told that due to technology there would be early retirement and a three day week with plenty of money on the pot, what a joke. We can never be sure of what the future holds. Apart from that I’ve paid in for 45 years and funded other people’s pensions by doing so and I would like to retire before I drop dead at work…and no, I’m not bring melodramatic, my dear friend died at 63 with no warning. Take your negativity elsewhere please, I’m sick to death of energy vampires.
Jacqueline Hughes, You won’t be ruining my day but you will be ruining the days (and years and decades) of those who will be having to fund our early state pension.
Fortunately, those people will be working longer and paying NI for longer than us in order to fund an early state pension to which we are not entitled.
Unfortunately, it will be our own children (and in some cases, grandchildren) who will be coughing up money to pay higher NI rates to pay for our early state pension.
Is this a negative comment? No, but an early SP will have a negative effect on the younger generations.
‘early state pension to which we are not entitled’? The entitlement was there until it was callously removed by politicians without any sensible warnings – the government themselves admit there was only ‘limited communication’ – what ever that is supposed to mean.
What’s early about women retiring at 60? I think you need to go and have a large brandy and relax love 🙂
Hi Neil
Can you please clarify where the government admitted there was only “limited communication”?
In the Judicial Review, they provided a detailed breakdown of publicity regarding the changes and concluded that it was “proper and reasonable”, so I’m curious as to when and why they contradicted what was submitted in a court of law?
You can read it via the link at the bottom of the article Sean. It’s there in black and white.
That is from the WPSC (aka Frank Field). Not from the government.
Born in the 50,s as was my colleague who retired on a Thursday 2 weeks ago aged 66. On the Saturday (2days later) she was dead. Unexpected, but she had spent 6 years more than necessary to pay into the pot and what for, just to pay for her funeral! Keep this fight alive because all women rich or poor born the the 1950’s have been robbed and deserve justice.
PS Patrick, I helped with the funding too, I can ill afford it but I’d do it again.
Catherine , I would strongly recommend that you don’t throw still more good money after bad.
Is there really a need to be a 50’s woman rather than a 50’s man to understand pension legislation and how it has affected us all ? Isn’t that a rather silly thing for you to have said ?
If we get any more hot air rising from you old bean, you might be re-designated as a cause of climate change! 🙂
Okay Patrick, you’ve had your say now, when I asked if you were a woman I should have phrased it differently, I was implying that if you were a 50’s woman you would have first hand knowledge, you’re not, so you can go away now, we’re bored. Bye!
Thank you again for your support. To all the trolls and negative comments I would say carry on enjoy your little laugh. We are not deterred by you, we are not going away, we are telling the truth despite what you say, we are united and we are stronger than ever. Sorry to ruin your day, not. The UK politicians have robbed us and we are claiming our rightfully earned pensions back.
Apparently Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal is now being prepared by Back to 60’s Legal Team since ‘leave refused’ advised.
Let’s hope Catherine that this last throw of the dice doesn’t necessitate yet another Crowdfunder from the purses of women who can ill-afford it ?
Oh and by the way Neil , just to help you try to keep up to date , the BackTo60 appeal against their failed Judicial Review judgement has been denied. This gives me no pleasure whatsoever , given that 5,000 desperate women were fooled into parting with over £70,000 to fund this appeal. Time to study this case in depth Neil , and use your blog platform to assist those in genuine need , rather than just look for cheap ‘ Likes ‘ ?
We aren’t a for-profit website. The likes are meaningless beyond knowing people are liking what you write.
They’re likely to like what you say Michael , when all you are doing is agreeing with them without undertaking any meaningful research of the subject . It’s easy to be popular . Not so easy to actually study a subject in depth !
Patrick, I’m not the author of the article. I am the publisher of the website. The author, Neil, isn’t writing his doctoral dissertation or his Master’s thesis, but a piece about a pressing social issue in his country. Should the casual reader wish to do additional research he or she is welcome to do so. I thank you for your contribution.
Rubbish! Not even been heard in Supreme Court yet – why are you trolling this story? Also we raised over £81,000 do try to keep up!
@ Primrose
It needs to get past the Court of Appeal before it can be heard in the Supreme Court.
If it does get to the Supreme Court, will the claimants potentially need to cover the costs of the defence?
Pity British journalists are not covering us. born 1955
Patrick Keeble you clearly have No Idea do you? When are you born? Are you a woman? What is your income/pension? Why have you so much interest and why so vindictive towards 50’s women? Not surprised you have been blocked from so many sites.
Not sure how many women you know with the name ‘ Patrick ‘ . I’ve certainly not met one ! To answer your first question , I do have a few ideas , based primarily around the fact that I was a practising IFA for 25 years with considerably more knowledge of pension legislation than your average campaigner or blogger .
I am not in the slightest bit vindictive towards 50’s women or women generally. I adore women , but hate to see those most in need of assistance denied it by the ignorance , greed and avarice of the egotistical leaders of the campaign groups.
Being blocked from sites is invariably an indication that the ‘ blocker ‘ has lost the argument and can offer no defence of their case.
No it means we are bored with your drivel.
You readily admit that you have more knowledge than the average person. The average person had no knowledge of the change. All we can do is apologise for being average, hard working honest people.
No, on second thoughts, not apologising for that.
We hold our heads up high.
Thank you for this and all your support. 1956, no letter. My husband has been retired for seven years, I have another three years. Our time for being together enjoying life is disappearing due to ill health. I want to spend time with him. I would also like time to look after my grandchildren and help my children. My many health problems are exacerbated by having to do part-time, manual work, the only job I could get after being bullied out of my full time, better paid employment. We need all the help we can get.
I guess that despite your clear lack of understanding of the fine detail of this saga Neil , and the dreadful characters within the many and various campaign groups that have caused those in genuine need of assistance to be frustrated in their hope for help , as a consequence of their greed, ego and ambition to be top mouthpiece of the women’s campaign groups , EVEN YOU must have spotted from the confines of your minor blog platform , that the United Kingdom High Court dismissed in it’s entirety the case brought by the BackTo60 campaign group. You did spot that Neil , didn’t you ?
Patrick, Court said women had a case but for Government not Court to rectify and even thar may be over turned on appeal.
@ Primrose
Where did it say that they “had a case”?
The wording in the JR was “The wider issues raised by the Claimants, about whether these choices were right or wrong or good or bad, are not
for us; they are for members of the public and their elected representatives”.
This is completely neutral as to whether they believed the changes were right or wrong – they made it clear that the law did not (and could not) have a view on this.
Great article thank you.
Thank you so much for your factual reporting. It was very refreshing to read. August ’54
Britain is becoming more like America where services are always being taken away. I read their Republicans are trying to raise the pension age there all the time. Not done it yet but keep trying.
Loved the article I am a 1955 woman and have another 2 years to work had no time to prepare for the added 6 years and Im physically knackered would have tried to get an easier job had i been notified.