Today In Parliament: I'm sure they mentioned WASPI but.....

I know many men who retired at 60 and some much earlier. Of course they had well paid jobs with good pensions. They had those at least partly because they were male. They had no time off raising their families and a woman at home to sort all the domestic stuff out.

It wasn't a level playing field for most Waspi women when they started work. Men were always paid more and promoted quickly.

Few went to university back then and very few women. From memory a handful of girls in my year went into nursing and teacher training. Two jobs that did pay men and women the same. The vast majority went straight from school at 15/16 into shops, factories, and clerical work. All poorly paid and in those days with no company pension.

eazybee

I still do not understand why some women think they were entitled to retire at 60 and receive a full pension, while men were expected to work until 65.
What price equality?

Yes and Men live shorter than women so if anything should retire earlier than women so they can enjoy the same number of years retired.

Not sure that comment is going to go down well with some people.

I still do not understand why some women think they were entitled to retire at 60 and receive a full pension, while men were expected to work until 65.
What price equality?

Sasta

theworriedwell

So the oldest are 74 and youngest are 64. The way people talk it's like we are more like late 70s and 80s. Also the older ones only had to wait a fairly short time as it didn't just change overnight but was staggered. The second change was the bigger issue in my view.

I’m 69, 70 next month (born in 1954) and I am in the ‘hardest hit’ bracket. 18 months before my planned retirement at 60 I got a letter saying my retirement was going up to 62, that was a complete shock, then another about a year later saying 64, then another letter before I was 64 saying it would be 66. So I am £48,000 out of pocket by having to wait the full six years for it. George Brown did this callously with no regard to how it would affect people. It should have been phased in much more slowly.

I certainly agree that it was beyond ridiculous to come back and "have another bite of the cherry" at the exact same women. Bad enough being hit once by that raising of the State Pension Age - but to have them come back for another "bite" and then another "bite". I'd be scared stiff just how many "bites" they planned to have at me. It was defo not remotely fair, by any reckoning, to come back even for a 2nd "bite" - but 3 "bites" in a row = I wouldnt trust them if they said the sun was going to rise again tomorrow.

How on earth could someone have the remotest trust in Society/the Government/etc if you never knew if you could believe a thing they said - as it would seem a lot more likely they'd attack you again?

After one "bite" at me - but I still retired at my retirement age (ie 60th birthday) I didn't dare count just how much of my savings it took to subsidise my low job pension through for about 3 years as it was and it all got rather mixed-up with all the house renovation costs on the house I moved to then - but I feel pretty sure they took quite a bit of my savings subsidising myself until I reached that age (certainly up into 5 figures worth being made to subsidise myself like that).

So I certainly sympathise with those who had little, if any, notice and got to just before their expected retirement or even into their expected retirement before they realised "Where's my expected income?".

The Government also seemed to have taken no account whatsoever that "being a carer" tends to be very sexist still. I have known men put into the position of being a carer - but it does still seem to be usually women (even though it's the 21st century now - and should be 50/50). It must be a heck of a struggle to try and combine a full-time job one has been forced to keep (despite reaching 60) and being a carer and "having a life".

theworriedwell

So the oldest are 74 and youngest are 64. The way people talk it's like we are more like late 70s and 80s. Also the older ones only had to wait a fairly short time as it didn't just change overnight but was staggered. The second change was the bigger issue in my view.

I’m 69, 70 next month (born in 1954) and I am in the ‘hardest hit’ bracket. 18 months before my planned retirement at 60 I got a letter saying my retirement was going up to 62, that was a complete shock, then another about a year later saying 64, then another letter before I was 64 saying it would be 66. So I am £48,000 out of pocket by having to wait the full six years for it. George Brown did this callously with no regard to how it would affect people. It should have been phased in much more slowly.

I’m 71 and got my state Pension at 63.
I am not expecting to get anything. Do you really think Rachel Reeves is going to pursue this when she’s already taken away the winter fuel payment from a lot of vulnerable pensioners?

surely they are a small minority?

They are on here, where everyone is IT literate, can afford devices from which to access the Internet and is confident enough in their education and literacy to post. But that’s not true for a lot of people. It’s easy to assume that everyone is ‘like us’, but there are huge differences in outlook and lifestyles.

Yes, most people on here will find that most of their friends and family will have known about the changes before they happened (but not all, as we’ve seen on previous threads). In other demographics that is simply not the case though, and in the 90s, when the changes were happening by no means everyone had access to social media - smartphones didn’t exist, home computers were expensive and by no means everyone could use them.

Many women did not know - even the government enquiry accepted that. I find it harder to understand why others can’t accept the findings than to I do to believe what those women say. Some of the stories are heartbreaking, and the women have nothing to gain by lying.

It isn't about refusing to believe it, it is about not understanding how they missed it. If someone mentioned Boris Johnson being PM would you think it odd that they'd missed Truss Sunak and Starmer? Somethings are so well publicised and discussed that it is hard to understand. Yes there are always people who don't read papers, don't discuss current affairs, don't watch anything about news or politics on TV but surely they are a small minority?

theworriedwell

Yes can't do right for doing wrong.

I don't understand how people didn't know, it was in the papers, on TV, on the internet. All my friends round my age discussed it and made plans. My union put out information about and it wouldn't affect our work pension. As it got closer it was even more widely known. I don't remember if I got a letter but it wasn't a secret.

No, it wasn't a secret, but a lot of women didn't know. I have always wondered why other women refused to believe that, but it's becoming clear.

I am not a lawyer, but can't imagine that there could be payments based on who knew and who didn't. How would anyone prove one way or the other, and in any case it wouldn't matter. Ignorance is not a defence in law, and the compensation would be for the general maladministration of the government at the time.

So 7 in 10 women would be receiving something to which they're not entitled because they did know.
No. They would be receiving compensation for the fact that the system they had worked within had changed. It may be true that some had the chance to make up their pensions, but many on low wages could not. Also, the difference between the male and female retirement ages was to compensate for the various sex-based discriminations that surrounded pension payments when many 50s born women started work.

Even now, the gender pay gap means that female pensioners get an average of £7000 a year less than men.

Yes can't do right for doing wrong.

I don't understand how people didn't know, it was in the papers, on TV, on the internet. All my friends round my age discussed it and made plans. My union put out information about and it wouldn't affect our work pension. As it got closer it was even more widely known. I don't remember if I got a letter but it wasn't a secret.

There was a thread recently about the government wasting money sending letters to people affected by the withdrawal of the WFP. I expect that was because there are possibly a few people who still don't know and the government is covering its back . Seems it can't win.

Doodledog

*I don't refuse to believe anything, but a survey was done about 20 years ago which seemed to indicate that about 70% (from memory) of those women who were going to be affected did know.*
I'm not sure of your point. If one in three people didn't know, according to official figures, then that was a communication failure of the first order, and in no way suggests that people are lying. I wasn't saying you personally thought that women were lying, but that there have been many posts on here from people who very definitely suggested that. The word 'liar' may not have been used, but 'I can't believe that people didn't know' amounts to the same thing.

I did know, but I was not informed. Years later, I couldn't be sure whether I had been or not, so I submitted a FOI request and was told that no letter had been sent. I don't remember how I found out.

So 7 in 10 women would be receiving something to which they're not entitled because they did know.

What on earth are people expecting to happen if they are given blood from a vaccinated person?

sassenach512

Is that really how some people are viewing blood donations from vaccinated people cariad? they think it's 'dirty' blood and would prefer not to be given it? I find that insulting and outrageous

I agree, but anyway, how would they know? I have never been asked what immunisations I’ve had, just when the most recent one of any kind was.

I don't refuse to believe anything, but a survey was done about 20 years ago which seemed to indicate that about 70% (from memory) of those women who were going to be affected did know.
I'm not sure of your point. If one in three people didn't know, according to official figures, then that was a communication failure of the first order, and in no way suggests that people are lying. I wasn't saying you personally thought that women were lying, but that there have been many posts on here from people who very definitely suggested that. The word 'liar' may not have been used, but 'I can't believe that people didn't know' amounts to the same thing.

I did know, but I was not informed. Years later, I couldn't be sure whether I had been or not, so I submitted a FOI request and was told that no letter had been sent. I don't remember how I found out.

Agree 62Granny - we are never going to see any compensation, they are just not interested or tbh have the money to do this with which is extrememly frustrating for us WASPI women.

In the current financial climate there is no way they are going to acknowledge that the government at the time was wrong. If Labour were still in opposition they would be bringing it up at ever opportunity as it wouldn't be their problem to find the cash.

sassenach512

Is that really how some people are viewing blood donations from vaccinated people cariad? they think it's 'dirty' blood and would prefer not to be given it? I find that insulting and outrageous

This reminds me of a 'friend' of my mother, who was due to have a hip replacement. Before the op, she had her own blood saved to be used if she needed a transfusion, in case 'black blood' (ie blood from black people) was used. It's difficult to understand how some people can be so ignorant.

Doodledog

I don't think there is any suggestion that women should be compensated differently depending on whether they knew about the plans or not, or whether they are in WASPI or not.

If there is to be compensation it has to be across the board, as whether we knew or not is not the fault (or achievement) of the government, but about the circumstances of the individual women.

Is the thought that those who knew might somehow be singled out to be refused compensation what is behind the perception that some women are lying about not being aware until too late? I've always wondered why there are those who refuse to believe that just because they knew about it meant that everyone else should have done.

I don't refuse to believe anything, but a survey was done about 20 years ago which seemed to indicate that about 70% (from memory) of those women who were going to be affected did know.

I don't think there is any suggestion that women should be compensated differently depending on whether they knew about the plans or not, or whether they are in WASPI or not.

If there is to be compensation it has to be across the board, as whether we knew or not is not the fault (or achievement) of the government, but about the circumstances of the individual women.

Is the thought that those who knew might somehow be singled out to be refused compensation what is behind the perception that some women are lying about not being aware until too late? I've always wondered why there are those who refuse to believe that just because they knew about it meant that everyone else should have done.

Is that really how some people are viewing blood donations from vaccinated people cariad? they think it's 'dirty' blood and would prefer not to be given it? I find that insulting and outrageous

To say our blood is unclean if we've had COVID jabs is rude.

I'm not really getting the reasoning on "men put up to 65"??

As I've always known from birth that women were 60 and men were 65. Men's retirement age has been 65 as long as I've known it.

I know that I'm one of the ones that had read the newspapers/did realise they were going to do this to me as soon as they had decided it. I don't think I should be penalised by losing out on anything we can manage to get of what's due because I knew. Put like that - I could really be clocked one personally because I "knew" years before they'd even decided that. I was still in my 30's when I realised chances are the Government would do that at some point - though it wasn't until my 40's (some years later) that they actually brought that cut in. Should I be penalised for having a nature that's more cynical and/or more intuitive than most and so I made extra arrangements for them pulling that stunt years before they announced they were going to do so? After all - I saved them loads of money on the fact I never got married persons tax allowance, child benefit money, a degree course at university (back when grants still existed and loans didn't).

Though I certainly do agree obviously that the Post Office situation is a scandal and being compounded by how long the Government is playing one of their favourite tactics (ie the "drag it out as long as possible" one). I also sympathise with those that received faulty blood transfusions in the past and with those that will find at some point over the next few years that they also received faulty blood transfusions that have made them ill (ie which I know because a friend of mine is having to accept blood donations regularly now and asked for "clean" ones only - ie only from people who've not had the Covid jabs - and they refused and said they don't separate out "jabbed" and "unjabbed" blood) and they then refused offers of blood from unjabbed people he knows.

Yes the post office and blood is far worse as they really suffered. We are just saying they we did not know in time so did not have enough time to plan. I must admit I knew years before so really have no right to complain. The change had to be made as it was illegal to discriminate against men and force them to work longer than women.