John Ward July 21, 2020 Uncategorized

At the End of the Day

At the end of Day1 in the Appeal Court, this is where we are in the process of bringing justice to the approximately 3.8 million British women who were born in the 1950s and had their State pension rights denied.

Draconian changes under the 1995 and 2011 Acts respectively affected such women. The Backto60 group has always maintained they were not given sufficient enough notice to prepare for the changes to the State Pension age, and were left with up to to six years in poverty.

Julie Delve and Karen Glynn decided to bring their case to court, maintaining they had been discriminated against on the grounds of sex and age. The pair, who were supported by the Backto60 campaign group, lost their first landmark court battle, but vowed to fight on.

In an opening statement at today’s Appeal Court hearing, Michael Mansfield QC said: “The impact on this cohort – they are bearing the brunt and shouldering the onerous situations that arise after the statutes that come into force – has been dramatic and I am not overestimating in my language. This has been catastrophic and their lives have been totally fractured having to face a situation of this kind…..Besides the economic – almost poverty line – existence they have to face, it goes without saying that the psychological and mental stress placed upon them, has reduced many people to an inability to go and do what they need to do to make ends meet”.

He added that many women were not made aware of the changes to the State Pension age until one, two or three years before it was due to take effect. The DWP has alwas denied this, but the facts suggest otherwise: successive administrations put out information (a) in media these women were unlikely to see – for example, at Job Centres or in the Financial Times – and (b) in a syntax somewhat lacking on the candid dimension.

Later, Barrister Adam Straw went on to assert the obvious: that women born in the 1950s are likely to be in a worse socio-economic position to be able to take the hit of a raised State Pension age by comparison with others both more affluent and erudite.

The problem as ever in going legal against the State is that it often winds up being a collection of fusty precedents, mediaeval statutes and umpteen other ways the Establishment can wriggle out of its undertakings.

This is precisely such an instance. The Backto60/Waspi case is based on a natural ethic – a promise is a promise. No amount of clever-dick legalese or bureaucratic double-talk has any relevance at the end of the day: the UK State awarded all women a pension at 60. End of.

If, following 55 years of budgetary incompetence, waste, political vanity projects and electoral bribes, the Government of the Day can’t afford to keep its word, then such is their problem, not ours.

We pay these idiots to fight our corner. If they fail in that endevour, then the Social Contract has been broken…..and they must pay – not us

17Comments

Add yours

1

Kim lonergan on July 24, 2020 at 12:29 pm

I was born in 1957 with the expecation of retiring at 60 , when I became 60 I was diagnosed with non Hodgkin’s lymphoma t-cell which i was told was rare and aggressive, after 6 courses of chemo and intensive course of chemo and stem cell transplant I am in remission, I have had to return to work instead of being able to receive my state pension at 60 , I have also had to reduce my hours from full time to part time, as I can no longer manage as I get tired easily and have memory problems.

This is so unfair , if I retired at 60 as promised my life would be so much better, instead of the stress of having to continue to work for another 3years. The government has and do not think things through. You have people work all there life take out a works pension to look after themselves in retirement, you then cannot get any help with dental treatment , opticians , tv licence. Yet the people who prefer not work and live off benefits for the majority if not all of there lives, get everything paid for. Firstly the government should force people to work in some form, there is always work to be done, maybe not what people want, but they should be responsible for themselves and not on tax payers. Not enough is done to enforce this, there is not enough funding for fraud investigation into benefit cheats, so us the tax payers keep having to shoulder the burden of the lazy. Time the workers of this country were looked after

LikeLike
2

mro on July 22, 2020 at 5:41 pm

John its not a case of can not afford it,they have a money tree and can spend whatever they like on whatever they like, and they do,its just policy to eventually put the plebs into penury,same as interest rates,as a OAP my income has been taken away from me by the government.

LikeLiked by 2 people
3

Lesley munro on July 22, 2020 at 5:23 pm

When I started part time work when my children started school I wasn’t allowed to join the pension scheme , I joined the pension scheme when they allowed me to . I worked for the nhs for 37 years and had to retire at 63 due to ill health , I get £270 a month for my pension and no state pension , I have never claimed any money from the state , I think I have been treated unfairly

LikeLiked by 2 people
4

Karen on July 22, 2020 at 4:51 pm

I can remember saying to my parents I have 17yrs before I retire at 60 let’s save the date. That 17 years stayed for a few years because everytime there was a budget or amendment my retirement age never got closer😢 sadly both my parents aren’t going to be sharing my retirement now and I still have another 6 yrs and 6 months … I have never had a letter to state the change I have always relied on my parents to text me to say sorry another few years added to your save the the date pension … all parties are con artist it’s all about their own pockets and their wages.. sadly I struggle and if Covid19 said me or another few years added to your pension. I think I would take the first option because I can’t struggle I more ….

LikeLiked by 4 people
5

Debbie on July 22, 2020 at 4:15 pm

If the government concentrated on who had paid into the system instead of giving all our money to asylum seekers and people who have never paid a penny into the system, there would be enough in the kitty to pay us what we are entitled too. It is our money,had we known we were gonna be robbed we might of taken life a bit easier and not worked so hard. Shame on our politicians, look after our own before all the parasites who come and rob our benefit system and nhs.

LikeLiked by 2 people
6

Carolynn Anderson. on July 22, 2020 at 2:20 pm

It wasn’t just a promise, it is an expectation and a right to have the money we expected when we expected it. If we had been told this would happen then we would never have paid the large stamp on what at the time were probably rubbish wages. Wages often earned doing part time work so we could look after our children. Wages that were less for doing
the same job as you were female! Another discrimination! When I had my kids you left work to bring them up and be a mother, no such thing as a year off on Maternity pay and your job there when you got back. And Paternity pay didn’t exist either!

I’ve been lucky I’ve never had the need to claim benefits. But this is not a benefit it’s what we paid into. I’m very angry that I can’t get it and have to wait six years.

We have been discriminated against for years and so it continues… we are a soft target.

They should be ashamed of themselves for treating anyone this way.

LikeLiked by 5 people
7

Elaine Caddy on July 22, 2020 at 1:56 pm

The government have a duty to its citizens we had a contract with them, we honoured it they need to do the same !
Otherwise it’s theft pure and simple.

LikeLiked by 3 people
8

JHay on July 22, 2020 at 1:03 pm

I listened to quite a bit of the first day and although I really do hope that this case is successful, my gut feeling isn’t positive. I totally agree with John’s previous comments about why he does not think it will succeed. The previous judgment by the lower court was so outrageously dismissive about any requirement to be fair or open to 1950s women indicating that, in this case, judicial decision making appears to be about giving governments a green light to do almost anything. I felt I was watching the closing of ranks between Government and the Judiciary,achieved through legalese type intellectualisation of points on issues such as ‘comparators’ and ‘disproportionate’ until they disappear up their own… So much for the separation of powers! There are so many women suffering as a result of what’s been done. They need a good outcome, which will only happen if this bench show that they are more than Establishment lackeys. The body language doesn’t make me hopeful.

LikeLiked by 7 people
9

Jacklynne Jeffret on July 22, 2020 at 12:01 pm

👍 thank you..well said!!

LikeLiked by 4 people
10

clshannon on July 22, 2020 at 8:54 am

Obviously, there are promises and then there are “promises” … these women are being cheated by the very institutions they once trusted because they have no power other than a moral claim … which seems to be the ‘weak tea’ of promises these days. But this so-called pension ponzi scheme scenario has all sorts of variations and will be forced on lots of working folks all across the developed world. It’s a scandal, it’s robbery and yet it’s somehow legal or will be made legal via economic austerity. This is simply the thin end of the wedge.

LikeLiked by 3 people
11

Lorraine Curd on July 22, 2020 at 5:52 am

My point is, these women have worked all their adult life paying into their pension and were promised that at the age of sixty to start receiving their pension.
We have illegals coming over the English Channel, who have never worked or paid into ANY pension who received £37 per day as soon as they set foot on our shores………where is the fairness

LikeLiked by 7 people
12

Horseman on July 21, 2020 at 11:47 pm

Watch this in follow this guy……I have his 2 books and working though them now…scary stuff!

LikeLike
13

Deenaz on July 21, 2020 at 11:46 pm

So this old chestnut still has hairy legs.
The real reason is that since Independent Public Service Pensions Commission: final report by Lord Hutton – theres no more money.
Pure and simple.
OK son?
So stop bonking on about it.
————————–
Deenaz,
As your brief time here continues, it becomes increasingly obvious that making a straight line from one dot to another is beyond you.
Since Brexit, the UK has paid £18 billion purely for the right to negotiate with them.
In his agreement with the EIB, Hammond left us on the line for up to £1.6 trillion.
We paid a ‘divorce fee’ of some £63 billion to them despite nothing being in any of the Treaties of Rome or Lisbon about such a thing.
This year alone, we have trashed £3 trillion in lost gdp by ordering a Lockdown for which there was no reason.
No money?
There’s always money once their arm is twisted. Nobody wants HS2, but there’s money for it.
And don’t “son” me, please.
A simple suggestion – why don’t you bonk off?
JW

LikeLiked by 1 person
14

Peter Charles on July 21, 2020 at 11:41 pm

Hear, hear John. Like you I doubt very much the Ladies will win if for no other reason than Parliament can do what they like and cannot be held to a political ‘promise’, or so the Judiciary believe. Well, just so long as they obey EU Law of course as it still has primacy.

As you say, this is really a moral or ethical question and while judges like to slap offenders as being short on both they assiduously avoid the question when it is their or government decisions on the spot. I rather suspect you would have to go back a long way to find a judge who would embrace such.

And while we may pay them, they sure as eggs is eggs do not work for us, never really have, never really will.

LikeLiked by 4 people
15

Caratacus on July 21, 2020 at 11:38 pm

To begin with, may I plead for JW’s indulgence as my language descends to the gutter. One of the reasons why this action is likely to fail is because the bastards and fuckwits in positions of authority in this matter feel insulated from any consequences deriving from their actions/inaction. Unless and until these specious shit-for-brains can be made to experience what these ladies are going through there will never be any possibility of remedy. Sadly, the Faceless Ones can afford the limitless fees and refreshers (paid ultimately by us through taxes) hauled in hand-over-fist by the barristers retained by HMG in this reprehensible rearguard action, while the ladies have no such resources.

It is precisely because of this sort of generally careless and dismissive behaviour by the supposed custodians of our constitution that I fear that violent upheaval is made more likely in due course. This will benefit no-one in the long term and is just so fucking unnecessary.

My apologies once again, JW.

LikeLiked by 9 people
16

Carol Thompson on July 21, 2020 at 11:14 pm

Thank you John. It makes perfect sense when you explain it to me. Who knows what tomorrow brings. We just have to wait and see.

LikeLiked by 2 people
17

Paul.Traynor on July 21, 2020 at 10:40 pm

Let’s call out the Turd called Brown his hands are not Clean if you know what i mean, wink wink nudge nudge ,pension raider gold seller PFI king

LikeLiked by 2 people