Discussion:
Women just want equality
Add Reply
Incubus
2018-10-09 12:49:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
...except for when they don't.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousands-women-london-protest

"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"

"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government’s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."

I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.

"...with some left destitute."

They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-10-09 13:20:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousands
-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government’s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It wasn’t so much the graduated change from 60-65 which announced many
years ago, well in advance of the date of the change.

It was the sudden increase to 66 which was added on to the graduation as an
afterthought seven years ago, and clobbered certain women born between April
1953 and April 1955, including my wife.

In order to squeeze everything into the previous timeline (and save money)
those born within the time period had their pensionable age (which had
already risen to around 63 on the original graduation), increased to between
65 and 66 by three monthly increments for every month of birth after April 53
with no prior warning whatsoever.

The Pension Department obviously thought that as it would only be a
relatively small number of old women, they could be safely ignored - which is
what they are still trying to do. This matter has been raised a number of
times in the HoC and has been the subject of select committees, but nothing
has happened, because the Tories think if they ignore it or patronise the
women in their usual arrogant way (yes I watched the select committees live
because my wife was at work), then they need do nothing else.

An illustration of the problem, is that my wife’s sister who was born in
Nov 1951 received her pension at 60. My wife who was born in Jan 1954
(therefore just 26 months later) will not get hers until March 2019 when she
is aged 65 and 2 months.
Phi
2018-10-09 13:39:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousands
-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government’s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It wasn’t so much the graduated change from 60-65 which announced many
years ago, well in advance of the date of the change.
It was the sudden increase to 66 which was added on to the graduation as an
afterthought seven years ago, and clobbered certain women born between April
1953 and April 1955, including my wife.
In order to squeeze everything into the previous timeline (and save money)
those born within the time period had their pensionable age (which had
already risen to around 63 on the original graduation), increased to between
65 and 66 by three monthly increments for every month of birth after April 53
with no prior warning whatsoever.
The Pension Department obviously thought that as it would only be a
relatively small number of old women, they could be safely ignored - which is
what they are still trying to do. This matter has been raised a number of
times in the HoC and has been the subject of select committees, but nothing
has happened, because the Tories think if they ignore it or patronise the
women in their usual arrogant way (yes I watched the select committees live
because my wife was at work), then they need do nothing else.
An illustration of the problem, is that my wife’s sister who was born in
Nov 1951 received her pension at 60. My wife who was born in Jan 1954
(therefore just 26 months later) will not get hers until March 2019 when she
is aged 65 and 2 months.
A modern progressive state like China retires their women at fifty and men
at sixty.
Incubus
2018-10-09 14:06:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousands
-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government’s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It wasn’t so much the graduated change from 60-65 which announced many
years ago, well in advance of the date of the change.
It was the sudden increase to 66 which was added on to the graduation as an
afterthought seven years ago, and clobbered certain women born between April
1953 and April 1955, including my wife.
In order to squeeze everything into the previous timeline (and save money)
those born within the time period had their pensionable age (which had
already risen to around 63 on the original graduation), increased to between
65 and 66 by three monthly increments for every month of birth after April 53
with no prior warning whatsoever.
The Pension Department obviously thought that as it would only be a
relatively small number of old women, they could be safely ignored - which is
what they are still trying to do. This matter has been raised a number of
times in the HoC and has been the subject of select committees, but nothing
has happened, because the Tories think if they ignore it or patronise the
women in their usual arrogant way (yes I watched the select committees live
because my wife was at work), then they need do nothing else.
An illustration of the problem, is that my wife’s sister who was born in
Nov 1951 received her pension at 60. My wife who was born in Jan 1954
(therefore just 26 months later) will not get hers until March 2019 when she
is aged 65 and 2 months.
I can understand why she thinks it is unfair but the system has been unfair to
men for many years and I think her generation is lucky in that pensions are
worth more than my generation is likely to receive. At this rate, I will have to
work until I am 75, possibly until 85 if my wife were to divorce me. The
system needs overall reform (not just the current reforms that are occurring)
and some people are going to be unhappy in the process.
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-10-09 14:35:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousa
nds
-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government’s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It wasn’t so much the graduated change from 60-65 which announced many
years ago, well in advance of the date of the change.
It was the sudden increase to 66 which was added on to the graduation as an
afterthought seven years ago, and clobbered certain women born between April
1953 and April 1955, including my wife.
In order to squeeze everything into the previous timeline (and save money)
those born within the time period had their pensionable age (which had
already risen to around 63 on the original graduation), increased to between
65 and 66 by three monthly increments for every month of birth after April 53
with no prior warning whatsoever.
The Pension Department obviously thought that as it would only be a
relatively small number of old women, they could be safely ignored - which is
what they are still trying to do. This matter has been raised a number of
times in the HoC and has been the subject of select committees, but nothing
has happened, because the Tories think if they ignore it or patronise the
women in their usual arrogant way (yes I watched the select committees live
because my wife was at work), then they need do nothing else.
An illustration of the problem, is that my wife’s sister who was born in
Nov 1951 received her pension at 60. My wife who was born in Jan 1954
(therefore just 26 months later) will not get hers until March 2019 when she
is aged 65 and 2 months.
I can understand why she thinks it is unfair but the system has been unfair to
men for many years and I think her generation is lucky in that pensions are
worth more than my generation is likely to receive. At this rate, I will have
to
work until I am 75, possibly until 85 if my wife were to divorce me. The
system needs overall reform (not just the current reforms that are occurring)
and some people are going to be unhappy in the process.
She didn’t object to the first incremental policy from 60-65. It was simply
the sudden rapid change to 66 which annoyed her; but much worse was the
dismissal of old women by the Tories who took part in all the debates.

They queued to up to imply that women of her age have outlived their
usefulness to men, so who cares what they do.

Well, the MP parasites might care eventually - as none of those women are
going to vote Tory in the future. Lets just hope they all live in marginals.
Yellow
2018-10-09 20:01:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <ppiclo$aui$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousands
-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government?s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It wasn?t so much the graduated change from 60-65 which announced many
years ago, well in advance of the date of the change.
It was the sudden increase to 66 which was added on to the graduation as an
afterthought seven years ago, and clobbered certain women born between April
1953 and April 1955, including my wife.
In order to squeeze everything into the previous timeline (and save money)
those born within the time period had their pensionable age (which had
already risen to around 63 on the original graduation), increased to between
65 and 66 by three monthly increments for every month of birth after April 53
with no prior warning whatsoever.
The Pension Department obviously thought that as it would only be a
relatively small number of old women, they could be safely ignored - which is
what they are still trying to do. This matter has been raised a number of
times in the HoC and has been the subject of select committees, but nothing
has happened, because the Tories think if they ignore it or patronise the
women in their usual arrogant way (yes I watched the select committees live
because my wife was at work), then they need do nothing else.
An illustration of the problem, is that my wife?s sister who was born in
Nov 1951 received her pension at 60. My wife who was born in Jan 1954
(therefore just 26 months later) will not get hers until March 2019 when she
is aged 65 and 2 months.
I can understand why she thinks it is unfair but the system has been unfair to
men for many years and I think her generation is lucky in that pensions are
worth more than my generation is likely to receive. At this rate, I will have to
work until I am 75, possibly until 85 if my wife were to divorce me. The
system needs overall reform (not just the current reforms that are occurring)
and some people are going to be unhappy in the process.
I have no idea how old you are but take some advice - instead of
updating that car or replacing the mobile phone (or whatever weakness
you might have - beer, holidays, clothes or takeaways) save, save, save
and save again.

I know a lot of people say they cannot afford to save and I was in that
position when I was young also, but as you get older you do start to
have more options and the choices you make will be the difference
between having to work until you are 75 and can draw a state pension and
being about to stop work, or perhaps go part time, at a much earlier
age.
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-10-09 20:36:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thous
ands
-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government?s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It wasn?t so much the graduated change from 60-65 which announced many
years ago, well in advance of the date of the change.
It was the sudden increase to 66 which was added on to the graduation as an
afterthought seven years ago, and clobbered certain women born between April
1953 and April 1955, including my wife.
In order to squeeze everything into the previous timeline (and save money)
those born within the time period had their pensionable age (which had
already risen to around 63 on the original graduation), increased to between
65 and 66 by three monthly increments for every month of birth after April 53
with no prior warning whatsoever.
The Pension Department obviously thought that as it would only be a
relatively small number of old women, they could be safely ignored - which is
what they are still trying to do. This matter has been raised a number of
times in the HoC and has been the subject of select committees, but nothing
has happened, because the Tories think if they ignore it or patronise the
women in their usual arrogant way (yes I watched the select committees live
because my wife was at work), then they need do nothing else.
An illustration of the problem, is that my wife?s sister who was born in
Nov 1951 received her pension at 60. My wife who was born in Jan 1954
(therefore just 26 months later) will not get hers until March 2019 when she
is aged 65 and 2 months.
I can understand why she thinks it is unfair but the system has been unfair to
men for many years and I think her generation is lucky in that pensions are
worth more than my generation is likely to receive. At this rate, I will
have to
work until I am 75, possibly until 85 if my wife were to divorce me. The
system needs overall reform (not just the current reforms that are occurring)
and some people are going to be unhappy in the process.
I have no idea how old you are but take some advice - instead of
updating that car or replacing the mobile phone (or whatever weakness
you might have - beer, holidays, clothes or takeaways) save, save, save
and save again.
I know a lot of people say they cannot afford to save and I was in that
position when I was young also, but as you get older you do start to
have more options and the choices you make will be the difference
between having to work until you are 75 and can draw a state pension and
being about to stop work, or perhaps go part time, at a much earlier
age.
I think that is excellent advice.
Yellow
2018-10-10 01:18:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thous
ands
-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government?s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It wasn?t so much the graduated change from 60-65 which announced many
years ago, well in advance of the date of the change.
It was the sudden increase to 66 which was added on to the graduation as an
afterthought seven years ago, and clobbered certain women born between April
1953 and April 1955, including my wife.
In order to squeeze everything into the previous timeline (and save money)
those born within the time period had their pensionable age (which had
already risen to around 63 on the original graduation), increased to between
65 and 66 by three monthly increments for every month of birth after April 53
with no prior warning whatsoever.
The Pension Department obviously thought that as it would only be a
relatively small number of old women, they could be safely ignored - which is
what they are still trying to do. This matter has been raised a number of
times in the HoC and has been the subject of select committees, but nothing
has happened, because the Tories think if they ignore it or patronise the
women in their usual arrogant way (yes I watched the select committees live
because my wife was at work), then they need do nothing else.
An illustration of the problem, is that my wife?s sister who was born in
Nov 1951 received her pension at 60. My wife who was born in Jan 1954
(therefore just 26 months later) will not get hers until March 2019 when she
is aged 65 and 2 months.
I can understand why she thinks it is unfair but the system has been unfair to
men for many years and I think her generation is lucky in that pensions are
worth more than my generation is likely to receive. At this rate, I will
have to
work until I am 75, possibly until 85 if my wife were to divorce me. The
system needs overall reform (not just the current reforms that are occurring)
and some people are going to be unhappy in the process.
I have no idea how old you are but take some advice - instead of
updating that car or replacing the mobile phone (or whatever weakness
you might have - beer, holidays, clothes or takeaways) save, save, save
and save again.
I know a lot of people say they cannot afford to save and I was in that
position when I was young also, but as you get older you do start to
have more options and the choices you make will be the difference
between having to work until you are 75 and can draw a state pension and
being about to stop work, or perhaps go part time, at a much earlier
age.
I think that is excellent advice.
Nothing like a bit of personal experience. :-)
Pamela
2018-10-14 21:39:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-
ag
Post by Yellow
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Incubus
e-rise-thous ands
-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government?s
decision to increase the female state pension age from 60 to
66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for
longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned
around seven years
ago.
It wasn?t so much the graduated change from 60-65 which
announced many years ago, well in advance of the date of the
change.
It was the sudden increase to 66 which was added on to the
graduation as an afterthought seven years ago, and clobbered
certain women born between April
1953 and April 1955, including my wife.
In order to squeeze everything into the previous timeline (and
save money) those born within the time period had their
pensionable age (which had already risen to around 63 on the
original graduation), increased to between
65 and 66 by three monthly increments for every month of birth after April 53
with no prior warning whatsoever.
The Pension Department obviously thought that as it would only
be a relatively small number of old women, they could be safely
ignored - which is
what they are still trying to do. This matter has been raised a
number of times in the HoC and has been the subject of select
committees, but nothing has happened, because the Tories think
if they ignore it or patronise the women in their usual
arrogant way (yes I watched the select committees live
because my wife was at work), then they need do nothing else.
An illustration of the problem, is that my wife?s sister who
was born in Nov 1951 received her pension at 60. My wife who
was born in Jan 1954 (therefore just 26 months later) will not
get hers until March 2019 when she
is aged 65 and 2 months.
I can understand why she thinks it is unfair but the system has been unfair to
men for many years and I think her generation is lucky in that
pensions are worth more than my generation is likely to receive.
At this rate, I will have to
work until I am 75, possibly until 85 if my wife were to divorce
me. The system needs overall reform (not just the current reforms
that are occurring)
and some people are going to be unhappy in the process.
I have no idea how old you are but take some advice - instead of
updating that car or replacing the mobile phone (or whatever
weakness you might have - beer, holidays, clothes or takeaways)
save, save, save and save again.
I know a lot of people say they cannot afford to save and I was in
that position when I was young also, but as you get older you do
start to have more options and the choices you make will be the
difference between having to work until you are 75 and can draw a
state pension and being about to stop work, or perhaps go part
time, at a much earlier age.
I think that is excellent advice.
Nothing like a bit of personal experience. :-)
:)

Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
2018-10-09 17:40:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 14:20:15 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousands
-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government’s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It wasn’t so much the graduated change from 60-65 which announced many
years ago, well in advance of the date of the change.
It was the sudden increase to 66 which was added on to the graduation as an
afterthought seven years ago, and clobbered certain women born between April
1953 and April 1955, including my wife.
In order to squeeze everything into the previous timeline (and save money)
those born within the time period had their pensionable age (which had
already risen to around 63 on the original graduation), increased to between
65 and 66 by three monthly increments for every month of birth after April 53
with no prior warning whatsoever.
The Pension Department obviously thought that as it would only be a
relatively small number of old women, they could be safely ignored - which is
what they are still trying to do. This matter has been raised a number of
times in the HoC and has been the subject of select committees, but nothing
has happened, because the Tories think if they ignore it or patronise the
women in their usual arrogant way (yes I watched the select committees live
because my wife was at work), then they need do nothing else.
An illustration of the problem, is that my wife’s sister who was born in
Nov 1951 received her pension at 60. My wife who was born in Jan 1954
(therefore just 26 months later) will not get hers until March 2019 when she
is aged 65 and 2 months.
And what you get in the UK will seem like a fortune compared to what
you'll get back home in Mother Russia, tavarishch!
Sick old nazoid pedo Andrew "Andrzej" Baron (aka "Shitsack Moishe Goldberg")
2018-10-09 18:29:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>,
A shiteating cowardly nazoid sub-louse PEDO named Andrew "Andrzej"
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
And what you get in the UK will seem like a fortune compared to what
you'll get back home in Mother Russia, tavarishch!
Why are you such a fucking, 'tarded, inferior sub-louse?
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-10-09 19:27:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 9 Oct 2018, Sick old nazoid pedo Andrew Andrzej Baron (aka Shitsack Moishe
Post by Sick old nazoid pedo Andrew "Andrzej" Baron (aka "Shitsack Moishe Goldberg")
A shiteating cowardly nazoid sub-louse PEDO named Andrew "Andrzej"
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
And what you get in the UK will seem like a fortune compared to what
you'll get back home in Mother Russia, tavarishch!
Why are you such a fucking, 'tarded, inferior sub-louse?
I think he was gang raped by a Soviet platoon visiting during the Tito years,
and is desperate for compensation.
Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
2018-10-09 21:03:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 20:27:32 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
[fluhs jew shite]
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
I think he was gang raped by a Soviet platoon visiting during the Tito years,
and is desperate for compensation.
I think YOU are going to be gang raped by what's left of the Red Army
Choir when you get recalled by Moscow Centre, tavarishch! And there
won't BE any compensation/reparations! Nichto!
The Peeler
2018-10-09 21:39:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 14:03:33 -0700, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Sick old nazoid pedo Andrew "Andrzej" Baron (aka "Shitsack Moishe Goldberg")
Why are you such a fucking, 'tarded, inferior sub-louse?
I think he was gang raped by a Soviet platoon visiting during the Tito years,
and is desperate for compensation.
I think YOU are going to be gang raped by what's left of the Red Army
Choir when you get recalled by Moscow Centre, tavarishch! And there
won't BE any compensation/reparations! Nichto!
Come on, talk to us a little more in Russian and Polish, you ridiculous
"Brit" and "WASP" wannabe! <BG>
--
tomcov about poor psychotic asshole Razovic:
"Assholes come
Assholes go
But the revd asshole goes on forever.
(and he speaks through it)"
MID: <83356bf8-8666-4f4f-ac9a-***@n35g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-10-10 08:07:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 20:27:32 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
[fluhs jew shite]
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
I think he was gang raped by a Soviet platoon visiting during the Tito years,
and is desperate for compensation.
I think YOU are going to be gang raped by what's left of the Red Army
Choir
How original. I wonder where you got that idea from?

(Hint: look at the sentence above your pathetic response)
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
when you get recalled by Moscow Centre, tavarishch! And there
won't BE any compensation/reparations! Nichto!
Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
2018-10-10 16:11:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:07:29 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 20:27:32 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
[fluhs jew shite]
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
I think he was gang raped by a Soviet platoon visiting during the Tito years,
and is desperate for compensation.
I think YOU are going to be gang raped by what's left of the Red Army
Choir when you get recalled by Moscow Centre, tavarishch! And there
won't BE any compensation/reparations! Nichto!
How original. I wonder where you got that idea from?
No originality required in response to inanity.

I note that you're more than willing to take full advantage of your
host country's social seciurity system while trying (and failing) to
undermine its investigation of chemical weapons used on its territory.
You KNOW how little a state pension back in Mother Russia is worth!

How very hypocritical of you, tavarishch!

BTW Bellingcat is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY ahead of you!
LOLOK
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-10-10 17:14:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:07:29 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 20:27:32 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
[fluhs jew shite]
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
I think he was gang raped by a Soviet platoon visiting during the Tito years,
and is desperate for compensation.
I think YOU are going to be gang raped by what's left of the Red Army
Choir when you get recalled by Moscow Centre, tavarishch! And there
won't BE any compensation/reparations! Nichto!
How original. I wonder where you got that idea from?
No originality required in response to inanity.
I note that you're more than willing to take full advantage of your
host country's social seciurity system while trying (and failing) to
undermine its investigation of chemical weapons used on its territory.
You KNOW how little a state pension back in Mother Russia is worth!
How very hypocritical of you, tavarishch!
BTW Bellingcat is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY ahead of you!
LOLOK
My stalker seems to be pissed again.
Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
2018-10-10 18:19:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:14:48 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:07:29 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 20:27:32 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
[fluhs jew shite]
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
I think he was gang raped by a Soviet platoon visiting during the Tito years,
and is desperate for compensation.
I think YOU are going to be gang raped by what's left of the Red Army
Choir when you get recalled by Moscow Centre, tavarishch! And there
won't BE any compensation/reparations! Nichto!
How original. I wonder where you got that idea from?
No originality required in response to inanity.
I note that you're more than willing to take full advantage of your
host country's social seciurity system while trying (and failing) to
undermine its investigation of chemical weapons used on its territory.
You KNOW how little a state pension back in Mother Russia is worth!
How very hypocritical of you, tavarishch!
BTW Bellingcat is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY ahead of you!
LOLOK
My stalker seems to be pissed again.
How very paranoid of you, tavarishch...I suppose they taught you that
at Moscow Centre too?
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-10-10 18:55:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:14:48 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:07:29 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 20:27:32 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
[fluhs jew shite]
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
I think he was gang raped by a Soviet platoon visiting during the Tito
years,
and is desperate for compensation.
I think YOU are going to be gang raped by what's left of the Red Army
Choir when you get recalled by Moscow Centre, tavarishch! And there
won't BE any compensation/reparations! Nichto!
How original. I wonder where you got that idea from?
No originality required in response to inanity.
I note that you're more than willing to take full advantage of your
host country's social seciurity system while trying (and failing) to
undermine its investigation of chemical weapons used on its territory.
You KNOW how little a state pension back in Mother Russia is worth!
How very hypocritical of you, tavarishch!
BTW Bellingcat is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY ahead of you!
LOLOK
My stalker seems to be pissed again.
How very paranoid of you, tavarishch...I suppose they taught you that
at Moscow Centre too?
No, but they did teach me how to discover a name and address from an ISP
logon numerical signature.
Ophelia
2018-10-10 19:16:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:14:48 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:07:29 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 20:27:32 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
[fluhs jew shite]
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
I think he was gang raped by a Soviet platoon visiting during the Tito
years,
and is desperate for compensation.
I think YOU are going to be gang raped by what's left of the Red Army
Choir when you get recalled by Moscow Centre, tavarishch! And there
won't BE any compensation/reparations! Nichto!
How original. I wonder where you got that idea from?
No originality required in response to inanity.
I note that you're more than willing to take full advantage of your
host country's social seciurity system while trying (and failing) to
undermine its investigation of chemical weapons used on its territory.
You KNOW how little a state pension back in Mother Russia is worth!
How very hypocritical of you, tavarishch!
BTW Bellingcat is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY ahead of you!
LOLOK
My stalker seems to be pissed again.
How very paranoid of you, tavarishch...I suppose they taught you that
at Moscow Centre too?
No, but they did teach me how to discover a name and address from an ISP
logon numerical signature.

==

Oops. Is there something of great interest you will be revealing to us all
? <g>
Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
2018-10-10 19:34:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:14:48 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:07:29 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 20:27:32 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
[fluhs jew shite]
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
I think he was gang raped by a Soviet platoon visiting during
the Tito
years,
and is desperate for compensation.
I think YOU are going to be gang raped by what's left of the Red Army
Choir when you get recalled by Moscow Centre, tavarishch! And there
won't BE any compensation/reparations! Nichto!
How original. I wonder where you got that idea from?
No originality required in response to inanity.
I note that you're more than willing to take full advantage of your
host country's social seciurity system while trying (and failing) to
undermine its investigation of chemical weapons used on its territory.
You KNOW how little a state pension back in Mother Russia is worth!
How very hypocritical of you, tavarishch!
BTW Bellingcat is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY ahead of you!
LOLOK
My stalker seems to be pissed again.
How very paranoid of you, tavarishch...I suppose they taught you that
at Moscow Centre too?
No, but they did teach me how to discover a name and address from an ISP
logon numerical signature.
==
Oops. Is there something of great interest you will be revealing to us all
? <g>
Perhaps he will tell us that the Foreskin Peeler's real name is Costas
Skatadopoulopoupopoudopoulos and he lives in a shitty immigrant suburb
of Munich? <GB>
The Peeler
2018-10-10 21:46:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 12:34:38 -0700, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
No, but they did teach me how to discover a name and address from an ISP
logon numerical signature.
==
Oops. Is there something of great interest you will be revealing to us all
? <g>
Perhaps he will tell us that the Foreskin Peeler's real name is Costas
Skatadopoulopoupopoudopoulos and he lives in a shitty immigrant suburb
of Munich? <GB>
You mean he might be as psychotic and idiotic as you are, dumb gay anal
Razovic? VERY unlikely! LOL
--
Retarded, anal, subnormal and extremely proud of it: our resident
psychopath, dumb serbian bitch G. Razovic (aka "The Rectum").
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-10-10 19:49:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:14:48 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:07:29 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 20:27:32 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
[fluhs jew shite]
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
I think he was gang raped by a Soviet platoon visiting during
the Tito
years,
and is desperate for compensation.
I think YOU are going to be gang raped by what's left of the Red Army
Choir when you get recalled by Moscow Centre, tavarishch! And there
won't BE any compensation/reparations! Nichto!
How original. I wonder where you got that idea from?
No originality required in response to inanity.
I note that you're more than willing to take full advantage of your
host country's social seciurity system while trying (and failing) to
undermine its investigation of chemical weapons used on its territory.
You KNOW how little a state pension back in Mother Russia is worth!
How very hypocritical of you, tavarishch!
BTW Bellingcat is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY ahead of you!
LOLOK
My stalker seems to be pissed again.
How very paranoid of you, tavarishch...I suppose they taught you that
at Moscow Centre too?
No, but they did teach me how to discover a name and address from an ISP
logon numerical signature.
==
Oops. Is there something of great interest you will be revealing to us all
? <g>
Sadly, it is classified information.
Ophelia
2018-10-10 20:20:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:14:48 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:07:29 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 20:27:32 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
[fluhs jew shite]
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
I think he was gang raped by a Soviet platoon visiting during
the Tito
years,
and is desperate for compensation.
I think YOU are going to be gang raped by what's left of the Red Army
Choir when you get recalled by Moscow Centre, tavarishch! And there
won't BE any compensation/reparations! Nichto!
How original. I wonder where you got that idea from?
No originality required in response to inanity.
I note that you're more than willing to take full advantage of your
host country's social seciurity system while trying (and failing) to
undermine its investigation of chemical weapons used on its territory.
You KNOW how little a state pension back in Mother Russia is worth!
How very hypocritical of you, tavarishch!
BTW Bellingcat is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY ahead of you!
LOLOK
My stalker seems to be pissed again.
How very paranoid of you, tavarishch...I suppose they taught you that
at Moscow Centre too?
No, but they did teach me how to discover a name and address from an ISP
logon numerical signature.
==
Oops. Is there something of great interest you will be revealing to us all
? <g>
Sadly, it is classified information.

==

My addie here is good :))
Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
2018-10-10 19:25:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 19:55:50 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:14:48 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:07:29 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 20:27:32 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
[fluhs jew shite]
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
I think he was gang raped by a Soviet platoon visiting during the Tito
years,
and is desperate for compensation.
I think YOU are going to be gang raped by what's left of the Red Army
Choir when you get recalled by Moscow Centre, tavarishch! And there
won't BE any compensation/reparations! Nichto!
How original. I wonder where you got that idea from?
No originality required in response to inanity.
I note that you're more than willing to take full advantage of your
host country's social seciurity system while trying (and failing) to
undermine its investigation of chemical weapons used on its territory.
You KNOW how little a state pension back in Mother Russia is worth!
How very hypocritical of you, tavarishch!
BTW Bellingcat is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY ahead of you!
LOLOK
My stalker seems to be pissed again.
How very paranoid of you, tavarishch...I suppose they taught you that
at Moscow Centre too?
No, but they did teach me how to discover a name and address from an ISP
logon numerical signature.
Excellent. I hope you're not as much of a bungler as Messrs Mishkin
and Chepiga or their four colleagues who were summarily expelled from
the Netherlands recently!
Sick old nazoid pedo Andrew "Andrzej" Baron (aka "Shitsack Moishe Goldberg")
2018-10-10 21:35:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>,
A shiteating cowardly nazoid sub-louse PEDO named Andrew "Andrzej"
Some GREAT material hacked from David Irving's emails!!
Names, bank accounts, email addresses, and other numerous
info from his email files!
http://wlstorage.net/file/david-irving-emails-2009.txt
TSSK!!!!!!!
The Peeler
2018-10-10 21:58:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 12:25:19 -0700, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
No, but they did teach me how to discover a name and address from an ISP
logon numerical signature.
Excellent. I hope you're not as much of a bungler as Messrs Mishkin
and Chepiga or their four colleagues who were summarily expelled from
the Netherlands recently!
If they get helped by the Mossad (that knows about you already), you are
toast, dreckserb Razovic!
--
Dumb anal Razovic about herself:
"I’m King of the skatologists"
Message-ID: <0f834931-cd3c-4dbc-ab47-***@googlegroups.com>
The Peeler
2018-10-10 19:30:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:19:21 -0700, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
My stalker seems to be pissed again.
How very paranoid of you, tavarishch...I suppose they taught you that
at Moscow Centre too?
Psychosis in full swing again, poor housebound psychotic idiot? How about
you trying to get out of the house for an hour or so and breathing in some
fresh air? No? You've grown allergic to it, housebound idiot? LMAO!
--
Dumb anal Razovic about herself:
"I’m King of the skatologists"
Message-ID: <0f834931-cd3c-4dbc-ab47-***@googlegroups.com>
The Peeler
2018-10-10 17:49:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:11:00 -0700, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
I think YOU are going to be gang raped by what's left of the Red Army
Choir when you get recalled by Moscow Centre, tavarishch! And there
won't BE any compensation/reparations! Nichto!
How original. I wonder where you got that idea from?
No originality required in response to inanity.
Just tell him the truth, dreckserb! You got it from your perverted,
degenerate, psychopathic, dreckserb "mind"!
--
Dumb anal serb peasant Goran Razovic and her "Latin" she learned from her
limey priests:
"Caco ergo sum."
MID: <***@4ax.com>
Sick old nazoid pedo Andrew "Andrzej" Baron (aka "Shitsack Moishe Goldberg")
2018-10-10 21:33:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>,
A shiteating cowardly nazoid sub-louse PEDO named Andrew "Andrzej"
Gook, it's nearly as hilarious as the famous DRESDEN BBQ!
Loading Image...
Mass burning of Germans killed in Dresden's bombing
LOLOK!!
They DESERVED to die, since they betrayed the Fuhrer!
TSSK!
abelard
2018-10-09 19:10:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 10:40:44 -0700, Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 14:20:15 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousands
-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government’s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It wasn’t so much the graduated change from 60-65 which announced many
years ago, well in advance of the date of the change.
It was the sudden increase to 66 which was added on to the graduation as an
afterthought seven years ago, and clobbered certain women born between April
1953 and April 1955, including my wife.
In order to squeeze everything into the previous timeline (and save money)
those born within the time period had their pensionable age (which had
already risen to around 63 on the original graduation), increased to between
65 and 66 by three monthly increments for every month of birth after April 53
with no prior warning whatsoever.
The Pension Department obviously thought that as it would only be a
relatively small number of old women, they could be safely ignored - which is
what they are still trying to do. This matter has been raised a number of
times in the HoC and has been the subject of select committees, but nothing
has happened, because the Tories think if they ignore it or patronise the
women in their usual arrogant way (yes I watched the select committees live
because my wife was at work), then they need do nothing else.
An illustration of the problem, is that my wife’s sister who was born in
Nov 1951 received her pension at 60. My wife who was born in Jan 1954
(therefore just 26 months later) will not get hers until March 2019 when she
is aged 65 and 2 months.
And what you get in the UK will seem like a fortune compared to what
you'll get back home in Mother Russia, tavarishch!
they don't need to pay pensions...they sell you vodka for
a penny a pint and make your life miserable

if you object the use the likes of novichok or polonium to
finish you off...it's like logan's run...
--
www.abelard.org
Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
2018-10-09 19:28:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 10:40:44 -0700, Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 14:20:15 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousands
-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government’s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It wasn’t so much the graduated change from 60-65 which announced many
years ago, well in advance of the date of the change.
It was the sudden increase to 66 which was added on to the graduation as an
afterthought seven years ago, and clobbered certain women born between April
1953 and April 1955, including my wife.
In order to squeeze everything into the previous timeline (and save money)
those born within the time period had their pensionable age (which had
already risen to around 63 on the original graduation), increased to between
65 and 66 by three monthly increments for every month of birth after April 53
with no prior warning whatsoever.
The Pension Department obviously thought that as it would only be a
relatively small number of old women, they could be safely ignored - which is
what they are still trying to do. This matter has been raised a number of
times in the HoC and has been the subject of select committees, but nothing
has happened, because the Tories think if they ignore it or patronise the
women in their usual arrogant way (yes I watched the select committees live
because my wife was at work), then they need do nothing else.
An illustration of the problem, is that my wife’s sister who was born in
Nov 1951 received her pension at 60. My wife who was born in Jan 1954
(therefore just 26 months later) will not get hers until March 2019 when she
is aged 65 and 2 months.
And what you get in the UK will seem like a fortune compared to what
you'll get back home in Mother Russia, tavarishch!
they don't need to pay pensions...they sell you vodka for
a penny a pint and make your life miserable
Surely vodka at a penny a pint would make you oblivious to any misery?
Post by abelard
if you object the use the likes of novichok or polonium to
finish you off...it's like logan's run...
And yet the existence of Novichok and Polonium has neither been
officially confirmed nor denied. Sometimes the old methods of a
7.62x25 in the back of the head work best.
The Peeler
2018-10-09 20:36:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 12:28:07 -0700, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Surely vodka at a penny a pint would make you oblivious to any misery?
So what do YOU use to cope with your endless unbearable misery, you
housebound psychopathic cretin? Your internet connection to troll on Usenet
and to make a total ass of yourself around the clock, year after year,
decade after decade? <BG>
--
The top 5 truths about poor dumb Razovic, our colostomy bag wearing resident
psychopath, aka "The Rectum":

the desperate psycho can't SLEEP anymore,
she can't get out of the house anymore,
she got NOBODY to talk to anymore,
she can't FUCK anymore,
she got no life outside Usenet AT ALL!
abelard
2018-10-09 21:14:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 12:28:07 -0700, Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by abelard
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 10:40:44 -0700, Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 14:20:15 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousands
-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government’s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It wasn’t so much the graduated change from 60-65 which announced many
years ago, well in advance of the date of the change.
It was the sudden increase to 66 which was added on to the graduation as an
afterthought seven years ago, and clobbered certain women born between April
1953 and April 1955, including my wife.
In order to squeeze everything into the previous timeline (and save money)
those born within the time period had their pensionable age (which had
already risen to around 63 on the original graduation), increased to between
65 and 66 by three monthly increments for every month of birth after April 53
with no prior warning whatsoever.
The Pension Department obviously thought that as it would only be a
relatively small number of old women, they could be safely ignored - which is
what they are still trying to do. This matter has been raised a number of
times in the HoC and has been the subject of select committees, but nothing
has happened, because the Tories think if they ignore it or patronise the
women in their usual arrogant way (yes I watched the select committees live
because my wife was at work), then they need do nothing else.
An illustration of the problem, is that my wife’s sister who was born in
Nov 1951 received her pension at 60. My wife who was born in Jan 1954
(therefore just 26 months later) will not get hers until March 2019 when she
is aged 65 and 2 months.
And what you get in the UK will seem like a fortune compared to what
you'll get back home in Mother Russia, tavarishch!
they don't need to pay pensions...they sell you vodka for
a penny a pint and make your life miserable
Surely vodka at a penny a pint would make you oblivious to any misery?
that is the point of the 'treatment'
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by abelard
if you object the use the likes of novichok or polonium to
finish you off...it's like logan's run...
And yet the existence of Novichok and Polonium has neither been
officially confirmed nor denied. Sometimes the old methods of a
7.62x25 in the back of the head work best.
i think they got a 'taste' for poison in the times of ras putin
--
www.abelard.org
Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
2018-10-10 16:09:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 12:28:07 -0700, Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by abelard
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 10:40:44 -0700, Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 14:20:15 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousands
-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government’s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It wasn’t so much the graduated change from 60-65 which announced many
years ago, well in advance of the date of the change.
It was the sudden increase to 66 which was added on to the graduation as an
afterthought seven years ago, and clobbered certain women born between April
1953 and April 1955, including my wife.
In order to squeeze everything into the previous timeline (and save money)
those born within the time period had their pensionable age (which had
already risen to around 63 on the original graduation), increased to between
65 and 66 by three monthly increments for every month of birth after April 53
with no prior warning whatsoever.
The Pension Department obviously thought that as it would only be a
relatively small number of old women, they could be safely ignored - which is
what they are still trying to do. This matter has been raised a number of
times in the HoC and has been the subject of select committees, but nothing
has happened, because the Tories think if they ignore it or patronise the
women in their usual arrogant way (yes I watched the select committees live
because my wife was at work), then they need do nothing else.
An illustration of the problem, is that my wife’s sister who was born in
Nov 1951 received her pension at 60. My wife who was born in Jan 1954
(therefore just 26 months later) will not get hers until March 2019 when she
is aged 65 and 2 months.
And what you get in the UK will seem like a fortune compared to what
you'll get back home in Mother Russia, tavarishch!
they don't need to pay pensions...they sell you vodka for
a penny a pint and make your life miserable
Surely vodka at a penny a pint would make you oblivious to any misery?
that is the point of the 'treatment'
People pay good money for that kind of 'treatment' elsewhere.
Post by abelard
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by abelard
if you object the use the likes of novichok or polonium to
finish you off...it's like logan's run...
And yet the existence of Novichok and Polonium has neither been
officially confirmed nor denied. Sometimes the old methods of a
7.62x25 in the back of the head work best.
i think they got a 'taste' for poison in the times of ras putin
Who was supposedly immune to their poison and had to be despatched
with a bullet to the forehead.
The Peeler
2018-10-10 17:51:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:09:13 -0700, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Who was supposedly immune to their poison and had to be despatched
with a bullet to the forehead.
Would work good on you too, dreckserb Razovic!
--
tomcov about poor psychotic asshole Razovic:
"Assholes come
Assholes go
But the revd asshole goes on forever.
(and he speaks through it)"
MID: <83356bf8-8666-4f4f-ac9a-***@n35g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
Tim
2018-10-09 20:03:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 10:40:44 -0700, Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 14:20:15 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousands
-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government’s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It wasn’t so much the graduated change from 60-65 which announced many
years ago, well in advance of the date of the change.
It was the sudden increase to 66 which was added on to the graduation as an
afterthought seven years ago, and clobbered certain women born between April
1953 and April 1955, including my wife.
In order to squeeze everything into the previous timeline (and save money)
those born within the time period had their pensionable age (which had
already risen to around 63 on the original graduation), increased to between
65 and 66 by three monthly increments for every month of birth after April 53
with no prior warning whatsoever.
The Pension Department obviously thought that as it would only be a
relatively small number of old women, they could be safely ignored - which is
what they are still trying to do. This matter has been raised a number of
times in the HoC and has been the subject of select committees, but nothing
has happened, because the Tories think if they ignore it or patronise the
women in their usual arrogant way (yes I watched the select committees live
because my wife was at work), then they need do nothing else.
An illustration of the problem, is that my wife’s sister who was born in
Nov 1951 received her pension at 60. My wife who was born in Jan 1954
(therefore just 26 months later) will not get hers until March 2019 when she
is aged 65 and 2 months.
And what you get in the UK will seem like a fortune compared to what
you'll get back home in Mother Russia, tavarishch!
they don't need to pay pensions...they sell you vodka for
a penny a pint and make your life miserable
if you object the use the likes of novichok or polonium to
finish you off...it's like logan's run...
I'm imagining you as a more effete version of Michael York ;)
abelard
2018-10-09 21:26:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by abelard
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 10:40:44 -0700, Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 14:20:15 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousands
-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government’s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It wasn’t so much the graduated change from 60-65 which announced many
years ago, well in advance of the date of the change.
It was the sudden increase to 66 which was added on to the graduation as an
afterthought seven years ago, and clobbered certain women born between April
1953 and April 1955, including my wife.
In order to squeeze everything into the previous timeline (and save money)
those born within the time period had their pensionable age (which had
already risen to around 63 on the original graduation), increased to between
65 and 66 by three monthly increments for every month of birth after April 53
with no prior warning whatsoever.
The Pension Department obviously thought that as it would only be a
relatively small number of old women, they could be safely ignored - which is
what they are still trying to do. This matter has been raised a number of
times in the HoC and has been the subject of select committees, but nothing
has happened, because the Tories think if they ignore it or patronise the
women in their usual arrogant way (yes I watched the select committees live
because my wife was at work), then they need do nothing else.
An illustration of the problem, is that my wife’s sister who was born in
Nov 1951 received her pension at 60. My wife who was born in Jan 1954
(therefore just 26 months later) will not get hers until March 2019 when she
is aged 65 and 2 months.
And what you get in the UK will seem like a fortune compared to what
you'll get back home in Mother Russia, tavarishch!
they don't need to pay pensions...they sell you vodka for
a penny a pint and make your life miserable
if you object the use the likes of novichok or polonium to
finish you off...it's like logan's run...
I'm imagining you as a more effete version of Michael York ;)
who is him?
--
www.abelard.org
Tim
2018-10-10 08:41:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Tim
Post by abelard
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 10:40:44 -0700, Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 14:20:15 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousands
-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government’s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It wasn’t so much the graduated change from 60-65 which announced many
years ago, well in advance of the date of the change.
It was the sudden increase to 66 which was added on to the graduation as an
afterthought seven years ago, and clobbered certain women born between April
1953 and April 1955, including my wife.
In order to squeeze everything into the previous timeline (and save money)
those born within the time period had their pensionable age (which had
already risen to around 63 on the original graduation), increased to between
65 and 66 by three monthly increments for every month of birth after April 53
with no prior warning whatsoever.
The Pension Department obviously thought that as it would only be a
relatively small number of old women, they could be safely ignored - which is
what they are still trying to do. This matter has been raised a number of
times in the HoC and has been the subject of select committees, but nothing
has happened, because the Tories think if they ignore it or patronise the
women in their usual arrogant way (yes I watched the select committees live
because my wife was at work), then they need do nothing else.
An illustration of the problem, is that my wife’s sister who was born in
Nov 1951 received her pension at 60. My wife who was born in Jan 1954
(therefore just 26 months later) will not get hers until March 2019 when she
is aged 65 and 2 months.
And what you get in the UK will seem like a fortune compared to what
you'll get back home in Mother Russia, tavarishch!
they don't need to pay pensions...they sell you vodka for
a penny a pint and make your life miserable
if you object the use the likes of novichok or polonium to
finish you off...it's like logan's run...
I'm imagining you as a more effete version of Michael York ;)
who is him?
Tut tut . You're toying with me.
abelard
2018-10-10 11:36:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by abelard
Post by Tim
Post by abelard
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 10:40:44 -0700, Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 14:20:15 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousands
-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government’s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It wasn’t so much the graduated change from 60-65 which announced many
years ago, well in advance of the date of the change.
It was the sudden increase to 66 which was added on to the graduation as an
afterthought seven years ago, and clobbered certain women born between April
1953 and April 1955, including my wife.
In order to squeeze everything into the previous timeline (and save money)
those born within the time period had their pensionable age (which had
already risen to around 63 on the original graduation), increased to between
65 and 66 by three monthly increments for every month of birth after April 53
with no prior warning whatsoever.
The Pension Department obviously thought that as it would only be a
relatively small number of old women, they could be safely ignored - which is
what they are still trying to do. This matter has been raised a number of
times in the HoC and has been the subject of select committees, but nothing
has happened, because the Tories think if they ignore it or patronise the
women in their usual arrogant way (yes I watched the select committees live
because my wife was at work), then they need do nothing else.
An illustration of the problem, is that my wife’s sister who was born in
Nov 1951 received her pension at 60. My wife who was born in Jan 1954
(therefore just 26 months later) will not get hers until March 2019 when she
is aged 65 and 2 months.
And what you get in the UK will seem like a fortune compared to what
you'll get back home in Mother Russia, tavarishch!
they don't need to pay pensions...they sell you vodka for
a penny a pint and make your life miserable
if you object the use the likes of novichok or polonium to
finish you off...it's like logan's run...
I'm imagining you as a more effete version of Michael York ;)
who is him?
Tut tut . You're toying with me.
i'm not...are you trying to intimidate me?
--
www.abelard.org
Tim
2018-10-10 14:38:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Tim
Post by abelard
Post by Tim
Post by abelard
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 10:40:44 -0700, Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 14:20:15 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousands
-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government’s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It wasn’t so much the graduated change from 60-65 which announced many
years ago, well in advance of the date of the change.
It was the sudden increase to 66 which was added on to the graduation as an
afterthought seven years ago, and clobbered certain women born between April
1953 and April 1955, including my wife.
In order to squeeze everything into the previous timeline (and save money)
those born within the time period had their pensionable age (which had
already risen to around 63 on the original graduation), increased to between
65 and 66 by three monthly increments for every month of birth after April 53
with no prior warning whatsoever.
The Pension Department obviously thought that as it would only be a
relatively small number of old women, they could be safely ignored - which is
what they are still trying to do. This matter has been raised a number of
times in the HoC and has been the subject of select committees, but nothing
has happened, because the Tories think if they ignore it or patronise the
women in their usual arrogant way (yes I watched the select committees live
because my wife was at work), then they need do nothing else.
An illustration of the problem, is that my wife’s sister who was born in
Nov 1951 received her pension at 60. My wife who was born in Jan 1954
(therefore just 26 months later) will not get hers until March 2019 when she
is aged 65 and 2 months.
And what you get in the UK will seem like a fortune compared to what
you'll get back home in Mother Russia, tavarishch!
they don't need to pay pensions...they sell you vodka for
a penny a pint and make your life miserable
if you object the use the likes of novichok or polonium to
finish you off...it's like logan's run...
I'm imagining you as a more effete version of Michael York ;)
who is him?
Tut tut . You're toying with me.
i'm not...are you trying to intimidate me?
I'm not the one using what I see as a 'huge' intellect to overwhelm
people. I'm very ordinary and not capable of intimidating anyone. :)
abelard
2018-10-10 14:47:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by abelard
Post by Tim
Post by abelard
Post by Tim
Post by abelard
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 10:40:44 -0700, Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 14:20:15 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousands
-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government’s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It wasn’t so much the graduated change from 60-65 which announced many
years ago, well in advance of the date of the change.
It was the sudden increase to 66 which was added on to the graduation as an
afterthought seven years ago, and clobbered certain women born between April
1953 and April 1955, including my wife.
In order to squeeze everything into the previous timeline (and save money)
those born within the time period had their pensionable age (which had
already risen to around 63 on the original graduation), increased to between
65 and 66 by three monthly increments for every month of birth after April 53
with no prior warning whatsoever.
The Pension Department obviously thought that as it would only be a
relatively small number of old women, they could be safely ignored - which is
what they are still trying to do. This matter has been raised a number of
times in the HoC and has been the subject of select committees, but nothing
has happened, because the Tories think if they ignore it or patronise the
women in their usual arrogant way (yes I watched the select committees live
because my wife was at work), then they need do nothing else.
An illustration of the problem, is that my wife’s sister who was born in
Nov 1951 received her pension at 60. My wife who was born in Jan 1954
(therefore just 26 months later) will not get hers until March 2019 when she
is aged 65 and 2 months.
And what you get in the UK will seem like a fortune compared to what
you'll get back home in Mother Russia, tavarishch!
they don't need to pay pensions...they sell you vodka for
a penny a pint and make your life miserable
if you object the use the likes of novichok or polonium to
finish you off...it's like logan's run...
I'm imagining you as a more effete version of Michael York ;)
who is him?
Tut tut . You're toying with me.
i'm not...are you trying to intimidate me?
I'm not the one using what I see as a 'huge' intellect to overwhelm
people. I'm very ordinary and not capable of intimidating anyone. :)
there you go virtue signalling in the hope of intimidating me
--
www.abelard.org
The Peeler
2018-10-09 19:33:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 10:40:44 -0700, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
An illustration of the problem, is that my wife’s sister who was born in
Nov 1951 received her pension at 60. My wife who was born in Jan 1954
(therefore just 26 months later) will not get hers until March 2019 when she
is aged 65 and 2 months.
And what you get in the UK will seem like a fortune compared to what
you'll get back home in Mother Russia, tavarishch!
<BG> Poor psychotic IDIOT!
--
Retarded, anal, subnormal and extremely proud of it: our resident
psychopath, dumb serbian bitch G. Razovic (aka "The Rectum").
Yellow
2018-10-09 19:52:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <ppi852$emo$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousands-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government?s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It is not the equalisation of the retirement age that is wrong, and it
is a very rare day you hear anyone say otherwise, but that it has been
implemented in an incredibly unfair way for around a million people.

This group were also less likely to have been able to qualify for a full
state pension given that part time work did not count for state pension
purposes and until the 1970s many folk were forced by their employer to
leave their full time job simply because they had got married.

And just a heads up about what we discovered last time this topic came
up and a few of us did some research. The historic reason women had a
retirement age earlier than the men was so that they would both be
retired by the time the husband retired to ensure the women was no
longer working and was at home to look after her spouse. And of course
this scheme was brought in by a government of men.

But I doubt there is anything anyone can tell you on this topic that
would cause you to waver from your long held opinion that it is only men
who are ever ill-used.
Incubus
2018-10-09 21:32:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousands-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government?s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It is not the equalisation of the retirement age that is wrong, and it
is a very rare day you hear anyone say otherwise, but that it has been
implemented in an incredibly unfair way for around a million people.
What would you propose as an alternative?
Post by Yellow
This group were also less likely to have been able to qualify for a full
state pension given that part time work did not count for state pension
purposes and until the 1970s many folk were forced by their employer to
leave their full time job simply because they had got married.
I don't see how the change in qualifying age makes any difference to
those women.
Post by Yellow
And just a heads up about what we discovered last time this topic came
up and a few of us did some research. The historic reason women had a
retirement age earlier than the men was so that they would both be
retired by the time the husband retired to ensure the women was no
longer working and was at home to look after her spouse. And of course
this scheme was brought in by a government of men.
That is patently wrong. The retirement age was lowered for women
because most married men were not receiving the higher, married rate
until the men were well over sixty-five. It had nothing to do with the
wives being at home.
Post by Yellow
But I doubt there is anything anyone can tell you on this topic that
would cause you to waver from your long held opinion that it is only men
who are ever ill-used.
Saying something factual would be a good beginning.
Yellow
2018-10-10 01:41:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <ppj6on$mie$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousands-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government?s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It is not the equalisation of the retirement age that is wrong, and it
is a very rare day you hear anyone say otherwise, but that it has been
implemented in an incredibly unfair way for around a million people.
What would you propose as an alternative?
They should have been given a decent amount of official notice, 10 years
plus, and it should have been brought in over a longer period.

The ship has sailed on the first but there is still time to act on the
second.
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
This group were also less likely to have been able to qualify for a full
state pension given that part time work did not count for state pension
purposes and until the 1970s many folk were forced by their employer to
leave their full time job simply because they had got married.
I don't see how the change in qualifying age makes any difference to
those women.
How can receiving a pension at 65, 66 or 67 instead of 60 make no
difference?
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
And just a heads up about what we discovered last time this topic came
up and a few of us did some research. The historic reason women had a
retirement age earlier than the men was so that they would both be
retired by the time the husband retired to ensure the women was no
longer working and was at home to look after her spouse. And of course
this scheme was brought in by a government of men.
That is patently wrong.
It is patently right.
Post by Incubus
The retirement age was lowered for women
because most married men were not receiving the higher, married rate
until the men were well over sixty-five.
And that is a problem because?
Post by Incubus
It had nothing to do with the wives being at home.
Even if we were to go with your theory, the lowering of the women's
pension age is still to the man's (and the family's) benefit. Yet you
argue above it used to be to the man's disadvantage.

You cannot have it both ways. :-)
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
But I doubt there is anything anyone can tell you on this topic that
would cause you to waver from your long held opinion that it is only men
who are ever ill-used.
Saying something factual would be a good beginning.
No idea why, but whenever you post on the subject of equality you sneer
and curl your lip, so furious that the red mist is palpable.

It makes for uncomfortable reading.
Incubus
2018-10-10 11:22:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousands-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government?s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It is not the equalisation of the retirement age that is wrong, and it
is a very rare day you hear anyone say otherwise, but that it has been
implemented in an incredibly unfair way for around a million people.
What would you propose as an alternative?
They should have been given a decent amount of official notice, 10 years
plus, and it should have been brought in over a longer period.
It was announced not much earlier than ten years ago.
Post by Yellow
The ship has sailed on the first but there is still time to act on the
second.
Unfortunately, the pension funding is at crisis point.
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
This group were also less likely to have been able to qualify for a full
state pension given that part time work did not count for state pension
purposes and until the 1970s many folk were forced by their employer to
leave their full time job simply because they had got married.
I don't see how the change in qualifying age makes any difference to
those women.
How can receiving a pension at 65, 66 or 67 instead of 60 make no
difference?
I am referring to those women who do not qualify; the change makes no
difference to those women. If your argument is that some women might have
purchased extra credits in order to qualify and will now qualify some years
later, I can see why they might be rather disgruntled. However, any one of us
who has purchased pension credits might experience the same.
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
And just a heads up about what we discovered last time this topic came
up and a few of us did some research. The historic reason women had a
retirement age earlier than the men was so that they would both be
retired by the time the husband retired to ensure the women was no
longer working and was at home to look after her spouse. And of course
this scheme was brought in by a government of men.
That is patently wrong.
It is patently right.
I suggest you perform your research rather more diligently.
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
The retirement age was lowered for women
because most married men were not receiving the higher, married rate
until the men were well over sixty-five.
And that is a problem because?
It was in fact a solution to a problem that caused inequality for men some
decades later.
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
It had nothing to do with the wives being at home.
Even if we were to go with your theory,
It is not a theory but rather fact, which you can verify for yourself instead
of arguing about it.
Post by Yellow
the lowering of the women's
pension age is still to the man's (and the family's) benefit. Yet you
argue above it used to be to the man's disadvantage.
You cannot have it both ways. :-)
It benefitted both at the time but later caused inequality for men. Things do
not remain static, you know.
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
But I doubt there is anything anyone can tell you on this topic that
would cause you to waver from your long held opinion that it is only men
who are ever ill-used.
Saying something factual would be a good beginning.
No idea why, but whenever you post on the subject of equality you sneer
and curl your lip, so furious that the red mist is palpable.
In fact, I am perfectly calm and you are either projecting your own anger onto
me or are wishing it were so as a balm to your hurt feelings that manifest when
you are contradicted.
Post by Yellow
It makes for uncomfortable reading.
Factual refutations do make for uncomfortable reading for those who substitute
logic with emotion.
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-10-10 11:45:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thou
sands-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government?s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It is not the equalisation of the retirement age that is wrong, and it
is a very rare day you hear anyone say otherwise, but that it has been
implemented in an incredibly unfair way for around a million people.
What would you propose as an alternative?
They should have been given a decent amount of official notice, 10 years
plus, and it should have been brought in over a longer period.
It was announced not much earlier than ten years ago.
Yes, that people would have to work another 5 years in (what was then) 5
years time.

This protest has been going on for years. It is only now the Tories are
taking notice when they realise how many votes they are going to lose in Tory
constituencies.
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
The ship has sailed on the first but there is still time to act on the
second.
Unfortunately, the pension funding is at crisis point.
Raise the higher tax rates, then.
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
This group were also less likely to have been able to qualify for a full
state pension given that part time work did not count for state pension
purposes and until the 1970s many folk were forced by their employer to
leave their full time job simply because they had got married.
I don't see how the change in qualifying age makes any difference to
those women.
How can receiving a pension at 65, 66 or 67 instead of 60 make no
difference?
I am referring to those women who do not qualify; the change makes no
difference to those women.
Which women don’t qualify? Most women qualify, but the amount varies with
NI contributions.

Why are you forcing an argument on a subject you obviously know nothing
about?
Post by Incubus
If your argument is that some women might have
purchased extra credits in order to qualify and will now qualify some years
later, I can see why they might be rather disgruntled. However, any one of us
who has purchased pension credits might experience the same.
And you would not be pissed off if someone told you at 65 that you would have
to work till you were 72?

Hey. But they have given you 7 years notice...

Rest of this childish “I’m right, you are wrong" nonsense binned.

Grow up.
Incubus
2018-10-10 12:02:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thou
sands-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government?s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like
men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven
years
ago.
It is not the equalisation of the retirement age that is wrong, and it
is a very rare day you hear anyone say otherwise, but that it has been
implemented in an incredibly unfair way for around a million people.
What would you propose as an alternative?
They should have been given a decent amount of official notice, 10 years
plus, and it should have been brought in over a longer period.
It was announced not much earlier than ten years ago.
Yes, that people would have to work another 5 years in (what was then) 5
years time.
More like eight.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
This protest has been going on for years. It is only now the Tories are
taking notice when they realise how many votes they are going to lose in Tory
constituencies.
Previously, you said that the Conservatives are ignoring it. You claimed that
according to the Tories, "...they could be safely ignored - which is what they
are still trying to do. This matter has been raised a number of times in the
HoC and has been the subject of select committees, but nothing has happened,
because the Tories think if they ignore it or patronise the women in their
usual arrogant way (yes I watched the select committees live because my wife
was at work), then they need do nothing else."

Which is it? Either they are ignoring it or they are not.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
The ship has sailed on the first but there is still time to act on the
second.
Unfortunately, the pension funding is at crisis point.
Raise the higher tax rates, then.
Ah, the usual Socialist answer to everything - raise the higher tax rates.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
This group were also less likely to have been able to qualify for a full
state pension given that part time work did not count for state pension
purposes and until the 1970s many folk were forced by their employer to
leave their full time job simply because they had got married.
I don't see how the change in qualifying age makes any difference to
those women.
How can receiving a pension at 65, 66 or 67 instead of 60 make no
difference?
I am referring to those women who do not qualify; the change makes no
difference to those women.
Which women don’t qualify?
Those among whom Yellow referred to of the era we are discussing. Do keep up.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Why are you forcing an argument on a subject you obviously know nothing
about?
Since you are having difficulty following the discussion, I will attribute that
comment to the usual diversionary tactic of accusing someone of not
understanding the subject in order to avoid presenting a rational counter
argument.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
If your argument is that some women might have
purchased extra credits in order to qualify and will now qualify some years
later, I can see why they might be rather disgruntled. However, any one of us
who has purchased pension credits might experience the same.
And you would not be pissed off if someone told you at 65 that you would have
to work till you were 72?
They weren't told at 65 and the retirement age isn't 72.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Rest of this childish “I’m right, you are wrong" nonsense binned.
Do stop projecting.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Grow up.
I might not be at retirement age just yet but I am able to discuss a topic
without resorting to puerile insults.
Yellow
2018-10-10 12:28:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <ppkpp0$vp0$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
This group were also less likely to have been able to qualify for a full
state pension given that part time work did not count for state pension
purposes and until the 1970s many folk were forced by their employer to
leave their full time job simply because they had got married.
I don't see how the change in qualifying age makes any difference to
those women.
How can receiving a pension at 65, 66 or 67 instead of 60 make no
difference?
I am referring to those women who do not qualify; the change makes no
difference to those women.
Which women don?t qualify?
Those among whom Yellow referred to of the era we are discussing. Do keep up.
I did not say they did not qualify or any pension and to recap said they
were forced to give up full time work because they got married and even
if they moved to part time work they could not add to their state
pension entitlement.

The point is these women were already entitled to less than someone
would be entitled to now as no one is forced to give up work when they
marry, you can get credits while working part time and of course you can
get credits while looking after children or disabled folk.
Yellow
2018-10-10 12:30:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
This group were also less likely to have been able to qualify for a full
state pension given that part time work did not count for state pension
purposes and until the 1970s many folk were forced by their employer to
leave their full time job simply because they had got married.
I don't see how the change in qualifying age makes any difference to
those women.
How can receiving a pension at 65, 66 or 67 instead of 60 make no
difference?
I am referring to those women who do not qualify; the change makes no
difference to those women.
Which women don?t qualify?
Those among whom Yellow referred to of the era we are discussing. Do keep up.
I did not say they did not qualify or any pension
FOR any pension.
Incubus
2018-10-10 12:49:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
This group were also less likely to have been able to qualify for a full
state pension given that part time work did not count for state pension
purposes and until the 1970s many folk were forced by their employer to
leave their full time job simply because they had got married.
I don't see how the change in qualifying age makes any difference to
those women.
How can receiving a pension at 65, 66 or 67 instead of 60 make no
difference?
I am referring to those women who do not qualify; the change makes no
difference to those women.
Which women don?t qualify?
Those among whom Yellow referred to of the era we are discussing. Do keep up.
I did not say they did not qualify or any pension and to recap said they
were forced to give up full time work because they got married and even
if they moved to part time work they could not add to their state
pension entitlement.
The point is these women were already entitled to less than someone
would be entitled to now as no one is forced to give up work when they
marry, you can get credits while working part time and of course you can
get credits while looking after children or disabled folk.
Either they had qualified at the previous retirement age or they had not. The
fact that some women were not able to qualify is irrelevant to the discussion -
they are not affected.
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-10-10 14:00:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
This group were also less likely to have been able to qualify for a
full
state pension given that part time work did not count for state
pension
purposes and until the 1970s many folk were forced by their employer
to
leave their full time job simply because they had got married.
I don't see how the change in qualifying age makes any difference to
those women.
How can receiving a pension at 65, 66 or 67 instead of 60 make no
difference?
I am referring to those women who do not qualify; the change makes no
difference to those women.
Which women don?t qualify?
Those among whom Yellow referred to of the era we are discussing. Do keep
up.
I did not say they did not qualify or any pension and to recap said they
were forced to give up full time work because they got married and even
if they moved to part time work they could not add to their state
pension entitlement.
The point is these women were already entitled to less than someone
would be entitled to now as no one is forced to give up work when they
marry, you can get credits while working part time and of course you can
get credits while looking after children or disabled folk.
Either they had qualified at the previous retirement age or they had not. The
fact that some women were not able to qualify is irrelevant to the discussion -
they are not affected.
Nonsense.

The qualification is on a pro-rata basis.
Incubus
2018-10-10 14:12:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
This group were also less likely to have been able to qualify for a
full
state pension given that part time work did not count for state
pension
purposes and until the 1970s many folk were forced by their employer
to
leave their full time job simply because they had got married.
I don't see how the change in qualifying age makes any difference to
those women.
How can receiving a pension at 65, 66 or 67 instead of 60 make no
difference?
I am referring to those women who do not qualify; the change makes no
difference to those women.
Which women don?t qualify?
Those among whom Yellow referred to of the era we are discussing. Do keep
up.
I did not say they did not qualify or any pension and to recap said they
were forced to give up full time work because they got married and even
if they moved to part time work they could not add to their state
pension entitlement.
The point is these women were already entitled to less than someone
would be entitled to now as no one is forced to give up work when they
marry, you can get credits while working part time and of course you can
get credits while looking after children or disabled folk.
Either they had qualified at the previous retirement age or they had not. The
fact that some women were not able to qualify is irrelevant to the discussion -
they are not affected.
Nonsense.
The qualification is on a pro-rata basis.
https://www.gov.uk/state-pension/eligibility
Yellow
2018-10-11 11:53:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <ppkshh$e9m$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
This group were also less likely to have been able to qualify for a full
state pension given that part time work did not count for state pension
purposes and until the 1970s many folk were forced by their employer to
leave their full time job simply because they had got married.
I don't see how the change in qualifying age makes any difference to
those women.
How can receiving a pension at 65, 66 or 67 instead of 60 make no
difference?
I am referring to those women who do not qualify; the change makes no
difference to those women.
Which women don?t qualify?
Those among whom Yellow referred to of the era we are discussing. Do keep up.
I did not say they did not qualify or any pension and to recap said they
were forced to give up full time work because they got married and even
if they moved to part time work they could not add to their state
pension entitlement.
The point is these women were already entitled to less than someone
would be entitled to now as no one is forced to give up work when they
marry, you can get credits while working part time and of course you can
get credits while looking after children or disabled folk.
Either they had qualified at the previous retirement age or they had not. The
fact that some women were not able to qualify is irrelevant to the discussion -
they are not affected.
Again you have this wrong so need to realise that state pension are pro-
rata, based on the number of credits you have.
Incubus
2018-10-11 12:00:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
This group were also less likely to have been able to qualify for a full
state pension given that part time work did not count for state pension
purposes and until the 1970s many folk were forced by their employer to
leave their full time job simply because they had got married.
I don't see how the change in qualifying age makes any difference to
those women.
How can receiving a pension at 65, 66 or 67 instead of 60 make no
difference?
I am referring to those women who do not qualify; the change makes no
difference to those women.
Which women don?t qualify?
Those among whom Yellow referred to of the era we are discussing. Do keep up.
I did not say they did not qualify or any pension and to recap said they
were forced to give up full time work because they got married and even
if they moved to part time work they could not add to their state
pension entitlement.
The point is these women were already entitled to less than someone
would be entitled to now as no one is forced to give up work when they
marry, you can get credits while working part time and of course you can
get credits while looking after children or disabled folk.
Either they had qualified at the previous retirement age or they had not. The
fact that some women were not able to qualify is irrelevant to the discussion -
they are not affected.
Again you have this wrong so need to realise that state pension are pro-
rata, based on the number of credits you have.
If we're talking about those who don't qualify for the full amount then I would
suggest that working longer is to their benefit as they will accrue more
credits.

Really, this is just a storm in a teacup because instead of getting on with
things, as people did in times past, they have fallen prey to victim culture.
It is most unbecoming.
Yellow
2018-10-11 12:42:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <ppne0b$qcr$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
This group were also less likely to have been able to qualify for a full
state pension given that part time work did not count for state pension
purposes and until the 1970s many folk were forced by their employer to
leave their full time job simply because they had got married.
I don't see how the change in qualifying age makes any difference to
those women.
How can receiving a pension at 65, 66 or 67 instead of 60 make no
difference?
I am referring to those women who do not qualify; the change makes no
difference to those women.
Which women don?t qualify?
Those among whom Yellow referred to of the era we are discussing. Do keep up.
I did not say they did not qualify or any pension and to recap said they
were forced to give up full time work because they got married and even
if they moved to part time work they could not add to their state
pension entitlement.
The point is these women were already entitled to less than someone
would be entitled to now as no one is forced to give up work when they
marry, you can get credits while working part time and of course you can
get credits while looking after children or disabled folk.
Either they had qualified at the previous retirement age or they had not. The
fact that some women were not able to qualify is irrelevant to the discussion -
they are not affected.
Again you have this wrong so need to realise that state pension are pro-
rata, based on the number of credits you have.
If we're talking about those who don't qualify for the full amount then I would
suggest that working longer is to their benefit as they will accrue more
credits.
Or they could have this small[er] amount paid on the schedule they
believe they were promised.
Post by Incubus
Really, this is just a storm in a teacup because instead of getting on with
things, as people did in times past, they have fallen prey to victim culture.
It is most unbecoming.
Why then, if it is such a non-issue, are you getting so het up about it?
Incubus
2018-10-11 12:44:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
This group were also less likely to have been able to qualify for a full
state pension given that part time work did not count for state pension
purposes and until the 1970s many folk were forced by their employer to
leave their full time job simply because they had got married.
I don't see how the change in qualifying age makes any difference to
those women.
How can receiving a pension at 65, 66 or 67 instead of 60 make no
difference?
I am referring to those women who do not qualify; the change makes no
difference to those women.
Which women don?t qualify?
Those among whom Yellow referred to of the era we are discussing. Do keep up.
I did not say they did not qualify or any pension and to recap said they
were forced to give up full time work because they got married and even
if they moved to part time work they could not add to their state
pension entitlement.
The point is these women were already entitled to less than someone
would be entitled to now as no one is forced to give up work when they
marry, you can get credits while working part time and of course you can
get credits while looking after children or disabled folk.
Either they had qualified at the previous retirement age or they had not. The
fact that some women were not able to qualify is irrelevant to the discussion -
they are not affected.
Again you have this wrong so need to realise that state pension are pro-
rata, based on the number of credits you have.
If we're talking about those who don't qualify for the full amount then I would
suggest that working longer is to their benefit as they will accrue more
credits.
Or they could have this small[er] amount paid on the schedule they
believe they were promised.
In the same way that I was 'promised' that I could receive the State Pension at 65?
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Really, this is just a storm in a teacup because instead of getting on with
things, as people did in times past, they have fallen prey to victim culture.
It is most unbecoming.
Why then, if it is such a non-issue, are you getting so het up about it?
I'm not.
Yellow
2018-10-11 12:49:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <ppngjp$1s0$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Either they had qualified at the previous retirement age or they had not. The
fact that some women were not able to qualify is irrelevant to the discussion -
they are not affected.
Again you have this wrong so need to realise that state pension are pro-
rata, based on the number of credits you have.
If we're talking about those who don't qualify for the full amount then I would
suggest that working longer is to their benefit as they will accrue more
credits.
Or they could have this small[er] amount paid on the schedule they
believe they were promised.
In the same way that I was 'promised' that I could receive the State Pension at 65?
This difference being you only claim you were 'promised' it - your use
of language. They on the other hand really did believe that is what they
were going to receive.
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Really, this is just a storm in a teacup because instead of getting on with
things, as people did in times past, they have fallen prey to victim culture.
It is most unbecoming.
Why then, if it is such a non-issue, are you getting so het up about it?
I'm not.
And pope doesn't shit in the woods.
Incubus
2018-10-11 12:52:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Either they had qualified at the previous retirement age or they had not. The
fact that some women were not able to qualify is irrelevant to the discussion -
they are not affected.
Again you have this wrong so need to realise that state pension are pro-
rata, based on the number of credits you have.
If we're talking about those who don't qualify for the full amount then I would
suggest that working longer is to their benefit as they will accrue more
credits.
Or they could have this small[er] amount paid on the schedule they
believe they were promised.
In the same way that I was 'promised' that I could receive the State Pension at 65?
This difference being you only claim you were 'promised' it - your use
of language. They on the other hand really did believe that is what they
were going to receive.
In fact it was your use of language and I really did believe I would receive
the State Pension at 65.
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Really, this is just a storm in a teacup because instead of getting on with
things, as people did in times past, they have fallen prey to victim culture.
It is most unbecoming.
Why then, if it is such a non-issue, are you getting so het up about it?
I'm not.
And pope doesn't shit in the woods.
Are you another coprophiliac?
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-10-11 13:26:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
This group were also less likely to have been able to qualify for
a full
state pension given that part time work did not count for state
pension
purposes and until the 1970s many folk were forced by their
employer to
leave their full time job simply because they had got married.
I don't see how the change in qualifying age makes any difference
to
those women.
How can receiving a pension at 65, 66 or 67 instead of 60 make no
difference?
I am referring to those women who do not qualify; the change makes no
difference to those women.
Which women don?t qualify?
Those among whom Yellow referred to of the era we are discussing. Do
keep up.
I did not say they did not qualify or any pension and to recap said they
were forced to give up full time work because they got married and even
if they moved to part time work they could not add to their state
pension entitlement.
The point is these women were already entitled to less than someone
would be entitled to now as no one is forced to give up work when they
marry, you can get credits while working part time and of course you can
get credits while looking after children or disabled folk.
Either they had qualified at the previous retirement age or they had
not. The
fact that some women were not able to qualify is irrelevant to the
discussion -
they are not affected.
Again you have this wrong so need to realise that state pension are pro-
rata, based on the number of credits you have.
If we're talking about those who don't qualify for the full amount then I would
suggest that working longer is to their benefit as they will accrue more
credits.
Or they could have this small[er] amount paid on the schedule they
believe they were promised.
In the same way that I was 'promised' that I could receive the State Pension at 65?
And you would have no objections whatsoever if the told you at 58 that you
would not get your pension until you were 72?; which (because you adopt the
thick as two short planks strategy when faced with this male-orientated
example) is the equivalent of women aged 53 being told they had to work to 65
(back in 2007/8).
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Really, this is just a storm in a teacup because instead of getting on with
things, as people did in times past, they have fallen prey to victim culture.
It is most unbecoming.
Why then, if it is such a non-issue, are you getting so het up about it?
I'm not.
Incubus
2018-10-11 13:29:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
This group were also less likely to have been able to qualify for
a full
state pension given that part time work did not count for state
pension
purposes and until the 1970s many folk were forced by their
employer to
leave their full time job simply because they had got married.
I don't see how the change in qualifying age makes any difference
to
those women.
How can receiving a pension at 65, 66 or 67 instead of 60 make no
difference?
I am referring to those women who do not qualify; the change makes no
difference to those women.
Which women don?t qualify?
Those among whom Yellow referred to of the era we are discussing. Do
keep up.
I did not say they did not qualify or any pension and to recap said they
were forced to give up full time work because they got married and even
if they moved to part time work they could not add to their state
pension entitlement.
The point is these women were already entitled to less than someone
would be entitled to now as no one is forced to give up work when they
marry, you can get credits while working part time and of course you can
get credits while looking after children or disabled folk.
Either they had qualified at the previous retirement age or they had
not. The
fact that some women were not able to qualify is irrelevant to the
discussion -
they are not affected.
Again you have this wrong so need to realise that state pension are pro-
rata, based on the number of credits you have.
If we're talking about those who don't qualify for the full amount then I would
suggest that working longer is to their benefit as they will accrue more
credits.
Or they could have this small[er] amount paid on the schedule they
believe they were promised.
In the same way that I was 'promised' that I could receive the State Pension at 65?
And you would have no objections whatsoever if the told you at 58 that you
would not get your pension until you were 72?;
Probably not. In fact, I anticipate it. Some of us have seen this coming.
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-10-11 13:38:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
This group were also less likely to have been able to qualify
for
a full
state pension given that part time work did not count for state
pension
purposes and until the 1970s many folk were forced by their
employer to
leave their full time job simply because they had got married.
I don't see how the change in qualifying age makes any difference
to
those women.
How can receiving a pension at 65, 66 or 67 instead of 60 make no
difference?
I am referring to those women who do not qualify; the change makes
no
difference to those women.
Which women don?t qualify?
Those among whom Yellow referred to of the era we are discussing. Do
keep up.
I did not say they did not qualify or any pension and to recap said
they
were forced to give up full time work because they got married and
even
if they moved to part time work they could not add to their state
pension entitlement.
The point is these women were already entitled to less than someone
would be entitled to now as no one is forced to give up work when they
marry, you can get credits while working part time and of course you
can
get credits while looking after children or disabled folk.
Either they had qualified at the previous retirement age or they had
not. The
fact that some women were not able to qualify is irrelevant to the
discussion -
they are not affected.
Again you have this wrong so need to realise that state pension are pro-
rata, based on the number of credits you have.
If we're talking about those who don't qualify for the full amount then I
would
suggest that working longer is to their benefit as they will accrue more
credits.
Or they could have this small[er] amount paid on the schedule they
believe they were promised.
In the same way that I was 'promised' that I could receive the State
Pension
at 65?
And you would have no objections whatsoever if the told you at 58 that you
would not get your pension until you were 72?;
Probably not. In fact, I anticipate it. Some of us have seen this coming.
Yes, you have now - because it has happened to an older generation; but they
had no such clever hindsight.
Yellow
2018-10-11 16:23:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
In the same way that I was 'promised' that I could receive the State
Pension
at 65?
And you would have no objections whatsoever if the told you at 58 that you
would not get your pension until you were 72?;
Probably not. In fact, I anticipate it. Some of us have seen this coming.
Yes, you have now - because it has happened to an older generation; but they
had no such clever hindsight.
You are making a very important observation and when my pension age was
raised from 60 to 65 it never occurred to me for a second that it would
be raised again.

And now I am in my mid 50s and am putting my final financial plans in to
place, I am working on the principle that I will be able to claim my
state pension at 67 but if that is bumped again it will drive a bus
though those plans while at the same time the window I have for doing my
skilled work is closing.

At least now I am aware now that my pension age could change again but I
am buggered if I know what I would do to fill the financial gap at this
late stage if it were to happen again - bearing in mind I have already
having to fill a 7 year gap.
abelard
2018-10-10 13:06:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
The point is these women were already entitled to less than someone
would be entitled to now as no one is forced to give up work when they
marry, you can get credits while working part time and of course you can
get credits while looking after children or disabled folk.
isn't there a 'before 2011 get out of liability' clause for the gov't
on that one?
--
www.abelard.org
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-10-10 13:44:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-th
ou
sands-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government?s decision
to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like
men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven
years
ago.
It is not the equalisation of the retirement age that is wrong, and it
is a very rare day you hear anyone say otherwise, but that it has been
implemented in an incredibly unfair way for around a million people.
What would you propose as an alternative?
They should have been given a decent amount of official notice, 10 years
plus, and it should have been brought in over a longer period.
It was announced not much earlier than ten years ago.
Yes, that people would have to work another 5 years in (what was then) 5
years time.
More like eight.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
This protest has been going on for years. It is only now the Tories are
taking notice when they realise how many votes they are going to lose in Tory
constituencies.
Previously, you said that the Conservatives are ignoring it.
They are.
Post by Incubus
You claimed that
according to the Tories, "...they could be safely ignored - which is what they
are still trying to do.
Correct.
Post by Incubus
This matter has been raised a number of times in the
HoC and has been the subject of select committees, but nothing has happened,
because the Tories think if they ignore it or patronise the women in their
usual arrogant way (yes I watched the select committees live because my wife
was at work), then they need do nothing else."
Correct.
Post by Incubus
Which is it? Either they are ignoring it or they are not.
Do you not understand the meaning of “it is only now that the Tories are
taking notice”?

Or are you trying to correct some tiny little grammatically incorrect phrase,
which is your last resort other than shutting up completely on a subject you
have proved to know nothing about?
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
The ship has sailed on the first but there is still time to act on the
second.
Unfortunately, the pension funding is at crisis point.
Raise the higher tax rates, then.
Ah, the usual Socialist answer to everything - raise the higher tax rates.
Bingo, and the automaton has regurgitated the pre-programmed response. Well
done.

Thanks for proving that in a state of pension funding crisis, you support the
removal of pension rights for old women aged 60-65 rather than any attempt to
raise money from those earning six figure salaries.

That’s right; pick on the ones who you believe have no power, rather than
those who might be able to afford an increase.
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
This group were also less likely to have been able to qualify for a full
state pension given that part time work did not count for state pension
purposes and until the 1970s many folk were forced by their employer to
leave their full time job simply because they had got married.
I don't see how the change in qualifying age makes any difference to
those women.
How can receiving a pension at 65, 66 or 67 instead of 60 make no
difference?
I am referring to those women who do not qualify; the change makes no
difference to those women.
Which women don’t qualify?
Those among whom Yellow referred to of the era we are discussing. Do keep up.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Why are you forcing an argument on a subject you obviously know nothing
about?
Since you are having difficulty following the discussion,
Bingo, and the automaton spews out another cliché when backed into a corner.

Well done for following the rules of your programming.
Post by Incubus
I will attribute
that
comment to the usual diversionary tactic of accusing someone of not
understanding the subject in order to avoid presenting a rational counter
argument.
Yes, you do that.
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
If your argument is that some women might have
purchased extra credits in order to qualify and will now qualify some years
later, I can see why they might be rather disgruntled. However, any one of us
who has purchased pension credits might experience the same.
And you would not be pissed off if someone told you at 65 that you would have
to work till you were 72?
They weren't told at 65 and the retirement age isn't 72.
That was an analogy to try and illustrate the point from a dumb male
perspective.

But you seem too dumb even to see that.
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Rest of this childish “I’m right, you are wrong" nonsense binned.
Do stop projecting.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Grow up.
I might not be at retirement age just yet but I am able to discuss a topic
without resorting to puerile insults.
Really?

Read your replies in past threads.

Hypocrite.
Incubus
2018-10-10 13:56:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
This protest has been going on for years. It is only now the Tories are
taking notice when they realise how many votes they are going to lose in Tory
constituencies.
Previously, you said that the Conservatives are ignoring it.
They are.
Post by Incubus
You claimed that
according to the Tories, "...they could be safely ignored - which is what they
are still trying to do.
Correct.
Post by Incubus
This matter has been raised a number of times in the
HoC and has been the subject of select committees, but nothing has happened,
because the Tories think if they ignore it or patronise the women in their
usual arrogant way (yes I watched the select committees live because my wife
was at work), then they need do nothing else."
Correct.
Post by Incubus
Which is it? Either they are ignoring it or they are not.
Do you not understand the meaning of “it is only now that the Tories are
taking notice”?
I do. I also understand the meaning of '...they could be safely ignored' and
'the Tories think if they ignore it'. How can they be taking notice as well as
ignoring it?
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Or are you trying to correct some tiny little grammatically incorrect phrase,
I am trying to reconcile the paradoxical nature of your words.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
which is your last resort other than shutting up completely on a subject you
have proved to know nothing about?
Only we both know that neither of the ideas conveyed in the above sentence are
true.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
The ship has sailed on the first but there is still time to act on the
second.
Unfortunately, the pension funding is at crisis point.
Raise the higher tax rates, then.
Ah, the usual Socialist answer to everything - raise the higher tax rates.
Bingo, and the automaton has regurgitated the pre-programmed response. Well
done.
Thanks for proving that in a state of pension funding crisis, you support the
removal of pension rights for old women aged 60-65 rather than any attempt to
raise money from those earning six figure salaries.
Their rights are not being removed; their pension age is simply being put back
to where it should be.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
That’s right; pick on the ones who you believe have no power, rather than
those who might be able to afford an increase.
I suggest you look into the nature of the entire crisis if you think that would
solve the issue.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
And you would not be pissed off if someone told you at 65 that you would have
to work till you were 72?
They weren't told at 65 and the retirement age isn't 72.
That was an analogy to try and illustrate the point from a dumb male
perspective.
Your perspective is not particularly illuminating.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
I might not be at retirement age just yet but I am able to discuss a topic
without resorting to puerile insults.
Really?
Read your replies in past threads.
Hypocrite.
It's only hypocrisy if I am currently guilty of the same. Perhaps you just
haven't moved on.
Yellow
2018-10-10 12:23:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
It is not the equalisation of the retirement age that is wrong, and it
is a very rare day you hear anyone say otherwise, but that it has been
implemented in an incredibly unfair way for around a million people.
What would you propose as an alternative?
They should have been given a decent amount of official notice, 10 years
plus, and it should have been brought in over a longer period.
It was announced not much earlier than ten years ago.
Yes, that people would have to work another 5 years in (what was then) 5
years time.
I don't think that is 100% correct as some of this group are saying they
were never informed.

And I take them at there word as in following this story I have never
seen that claim rebutted.


<snip>
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
This group were also less likely to have been able to qualify for a full
state pension given that part time work did not count for state pension
purposes and until the 1970s many folk were forced by their employer to
leave their full time job simply because they had got married.
I don't see how the change in qualifying age makes any difference to
those women.
How can receiving a pension at 65, 66 or 67 instead of 60 make no
difference?
I am referring to those women who do not qualify; the change makes no
difference to those women.
Which women don?t qualify? Most women qualify, but the amount varies with
NI contributions.
Why are you forcing an argument on a subject you obviously know nothing
about?
Because he mistaking thought it was an easy opportunity to score "women
are doing better at the expense of men" points.

But pensions are bloody complicated and (in my experience) it is only
those of us who have had who have had problems who have even the first
clue let alone a second because we have had to learn how they work.

My 'problem' was that company I worked for in the 80s and 90s plundered
our scheme both by underfunding it but also by inflating entitlements
and then 'retiring' the management just before the company went bust so
they got their all their money out leaving us even worse off. Our case
was one of the keys reason the law was changed re the funding and the
valuation of schemes but we still all ended up with around 70% of what
we should have got as there was only so much that the law allowed when
it came to recovering the money.


<snip>
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-10-10 13:55:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
It is not the equalisation of the retirement age that is wrong, and it
is a very rare day you hear anyone say otherwise, but that it has been
implemented in an incredibly unfair way for around a million people.
What would you propose as an alternative?
They should have been given a decent amount of official notice, 10 years
plus, and it should have been brought in over a longer period.
It was announced not much earlier than ten years ago.
Yes, that people would have to work another 5 years in (what was then) 5
years time.
I don't think that is 100% correct as some of this group are saying they
were never informed.
I think that might be partly true, in that (as is always the case with bad
news) the announcement was not widely publicised at the time.

However, the pensions service could argue that the information was there if
people looked for it, but they seem a little bemused when asked “how can
you look for something you were unaware of in the first place?”
Post by Yellow
And I take them at there word as in following this story I have never
seen that claim rebutted.
<snip>
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
This group were also less likely to have been able to qualify for a full
state pension given that part time work did not count for state pension
purposes and until the 1970s many folk were forced by their employer to
leave their full time job simply because they had got married.
I don't see how the change in qualifying age makes any difference to
those women.
How can receiving a pension at 65, 66 or 67 instead of 60 make no
difference?
I am referring to those women who do not qualify; the change makes no
difference to those women.
Which women don?t qualify? Most women qualify, but the amount varies with
NI contributions.
Why are you forcing an argument on a subject you obviously know nothing
about?
Because he mistaking thought it was an easy opportunity to score "women
are doing better at the expense of men" points.
Point scoring has always been his raison d’être.
Post by Yellow
But pensions are bloody complicated and (in my experience) it is only
those of us who have had who have had problems who have even the first
clue let alone a second because we have had to learn how they work.
My 'problem' was that company I worked for in the 80s and 90s plundered
our scheme both by underfunding it but also by inflating entitlements
and then 'retiring' the management just before the company went bust so
they got their all their money out leaving us even worse off. Our case
was one of the keys reason the law was changed re the funding and the
valuation of schemes but we still all ended up with around 70% of what
we should have got as there was only so much that the law allowed when
it came to recovering the money.
<snip>
That doesn’t surprise me in the slightest.I believe companies were quietly
encouraged to plunder pension schemes in those Thatcherite times, in order to
boost their share price for the benefit of rich Tory shareholders and voters.
Yellow
2018-10-11 12:14:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Yellow
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
It was announced not much earlier than ten years ago.
Yes, that people would have to work another 5 years in (what was then) 5
years time.
I don't think that is 100% correct as some of this group are saying they
were never informed.
I think that might be partly true, in that (as is always the case with bad
news) the announcement was not widely publicised at the time.
However, the pensions service could argue that the information was there if
people looked for it, but they seem a little bemused when asked ?how can
you look for something you were unaware of in the first place??
I knew about this because I followed the case, as worker's rights is an
interest of mine, and because it affected the works pension scheme I was
a member at the time.

But I have racked my brains over if I was ever official informed that my
state pension date was changing from 60 to 65 and I do not recall ever
receiving a letter - but I would not bet the house on that.

Meanwhile, the government's pension forecast site is very good but as
you say, why would anyone look at it just for the sake of it? I only
realised this info was there a couple of years ago when I was made
redundant and I was interested in my NI record to see how many more
credits I needed to ensure I qualified for the full state pension as I
already have a couple of gaps.



<snip>
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Yellow
But pensions are bloody complicated and (in my experience) it is only
those of us who have had who have had problems who have even the first
clue let alone a second because we have had to learn how they work.
My 'problem' was that company I worked for in the 80s and 90s plundered
our scheme both by underfunding it but also by inflating entitlements
and then 'retiring' the management just before the company went bust so
they got their all their money out leaving us even worse off. Our case
was one of the keys reason the law was changed re the funding and the
valuation of schemes but we still all ended up with around 70% of what
we should have got as there was only so much that the law allowed when
it came to recovering the money.
<snip>
That doesn?t surprise me in the slightest.I believe companies were quietly
encouraged to plunder pension schemes in those Thatcherite times, in order to
boost their share price for the benefit of rich Tory shareholders and voters.
The company I worked for was private but as you say, they were actively
encouraged to reduce their reserves.

Now however the law says that schemes have to contain enough to cover
all their liabilities should the company go bust, which was not the case
back in the 80s and early 90s.

Not all schemes achieve this but at least it makes it more difficult for
schemes to be actively run in a way that would mean it did not have
enough to cover their liabilities in the worst case.
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-10-11 13:10:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Yellow
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
It was announced not much earlier than ten years ago.
Yes, that people would have to work another 5 years in (what was then) 5
years time.
I don't think that is 100% correct as some of this group are saying they
were never informed.
I think that might be partly true, in that (as is always the case with bad
news) the announcement was not widely publicised at the time.
However, the pensions service could argue that the information was there if
people looked for it, but they seem a little bemused when asked ?how can
you look for something you were unaware of in the first place??
I knew about this because I followed the case, as worker's rights is an
interest of mine, and because it affected the works pension scheme I was
a member at the time.
But I have racked my brains over if I was ever official informed that my
state pension date was changing from 60 to 65 and I do not recall ever
receiving a letter - but I would not bet the house on that.
I asked the wife and she says she did get a letter on both occasions, so
there were some sent out.

I wonder if people just took a look at them, saw something official and threw
them in the bin.
Post by Yellow
Meanwhile, the government's pension forecast site is very good but as
you say, why would anyone look at it just for the sake of it? I only
realised this info was there a couple of years ago when I was made
redundant and I was interested in my NI record to see how many more
credits I needed to ensure I qualified for the full state pension as I
already have a couple of gaps.
<snip>
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Yellow
But pensions are bloody complicated and (in my experience) it is only
those of us who have had who have had problems who have even the first
clue let alone a second because we have had to learn how they work.
My 'problem' was that company I worked for in the 80s and 90s plundered
our scheme both by underfunding it but also by inflating entitlements
and then 'retiring' the management just before the company went bust so
they got their all their money out leaving us even worse off. Our case
was one of the keys reason the law was changed re the funding and the
valuation of schemes but we still all ended up with around 70% of what
we should have got as there was only so much that the law allowed when
it came to recovering the money.
<snip>
That doesn?t surprise me in the slightest.I believe companies were quietly
encouraged to plunder pension schemes in those Thatcherite times, in order to
boost their share price for the benefit of rich Tory shareholders and voters.
The company I worked for was private but as you say, they were actively
encouraged to reduce their reserves.
Now however the law says that schemes have to contain enough to cover
all their liabilities should the company go bust, which was not the case
back in the 80s and early 90s.
Not all schemes achieve this but at least it makes it more difficult for
schemes to be actively run in a way that would mean it did not have
enough to cover their liabilities in the worst case.
Although Carrillion seemed to be still treating the pension fund as a way of
improving the company bottom line almost until they went bust.
Yellow
2018-10-11 16:04:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Yellow
But I have racked my brains over if I was ever official informed that my
state pension date was changing from 60 to 65 and I do not recall ever
receiving a letter - but I would not bet the house on that.
I asked the wife and she says she did get a letter on both occasions, so
there were some sent out.
That's interesting. Thank her for the info. :-)
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
I wonder if people just took a look at them, saw something official and threw
them in the bin.
Some people just glaze over but also it depends on exactly how the
letter was written.

I say that because it was a revelation to discover, when I was involved
in writing letters to a mixed group of people while on a particular
committee, the number of people who could tell you what was in the first
paragraph but not what was in the last.

I used to joke when we were writing the drafts that if there was
something in our interest for people to know then we should put it in
the first two sentences but if there was our interest for people not to
know then we should put in the last two sentences.
abelard
2018-10-11 17:05:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Yellow
But I have racked my brains over if I was ever official informed that my
state pension date was changing from 60 to 65 and I do not recall ever
receiving a letter - but I would not bet the house on that.
I asked the wife and she says she did get a letter on both occasions, so
there were some sent out.
That's interesting. Thank her for the info. :-)
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
I wonder if people just took a look at them, saw something official and threw
them in the bin.
Some people just glaze over but also it depends on exactly how the
letter was written.
I say that because it was a revelation to discover, when I was involved
in writing letters to a mixed group of people while on a particular
committee, the number of people who could tell you what was in the first
paragraph but not what was in the last.
I used to joke when we were writing the drafts that if there was
something in our interest for people to know then we should put it in
the first two sentences but if there was our interest for people not to
know then we should put in the last two sentences.
the press works the bias the other way..they put their dishonest
message in para 1..

then bury the inconvenient facts which contradict their spin
towards the end
--
www.abelard.org
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-10-10 08:15:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousa
nds-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government?s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It is not the equalisation of the retirement age that is wrong, and it
is a very rare day you hear anyone say otherwise, but that it has been
implemented in an incredibly unfair way for around a million people.
What would you propose as an alternative?
As the age has to be raised by 6 years i.e. 72 months, they could have phased
it in over a longer time period, say 12 years with the retirement age
increasing by one month for every two months of d.o.b.
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
This group were also less likely to have been able to qualify for a full
state pension given that part time work did not count for state pension
purposes and until the 1970s many folk were forced by their employer to
leave their full time job simply because they had got married.
I don't see how the change in qualifying age makes any difference to
those women.
Well, try thinking about it - instead of rapid rebuttal.
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
And just a heads up about what we discovered last time this topic came
up and a few of us did some research. The historic reason women had a
retirement age earlier than the men was so that they would both be
retired by the time the husband retired to ensure the women was no
longer working and was at home to look after her spouse. And of course
this scheme was brought in by a government of men.
That is patently wrong. The retirement age was lowered for women
because most married men were not receiving the higher, married rate
until the men were well over sixty-five. It had nothing to do with the
wives being at home.
Post by Yellow
But I doubt there is anything anyone can tell you on this topic that
would cause you to waver from your long held opinion that it is only men
who are ever ill-used.
Saying something factual would be a good beginning.
Why? Where are your facts on this subject?
Incubus
2018-10-10 11:34:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousa
nds-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government?s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It is not the equalisation of the retirement age that is wrong, and it
is a very rare day you hear anyone say otherwise, but that it has been
implemented in an incredibly unfair way for around a million people.
What would you propose as an alternative?
As the age has to be raised by 6 years i.e. 72 months, they could have phased
it in over a longer time period, say 12 years with the retirement age
increasing by one month for every two months of d.o.b.
They could but there is that rather unfortunate problem known as the 'pension
crisis'.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
This group were also less likely to have been able to qualify for a full
state pension given that part time work did not count for state pension
purposes and until the 1970s many folk were forced by their employer to
leave their full time job simply because they had got married.
I don't see how the change in qualifying age makes any difference to
those women.
Well, try thinking about it - instead of rapid rebuttal.
Ah, but I did think about it and expanded further in my reply to Yellow since
explanation was deemed necessary.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
And just a heads up about what we discovered last time this topic came
up and a few of us did some research. The historic reason women had a
retirement age earlier than the men was so that they would both be
retired by the time the husband retired to ensure the women was no
longer working and was at home to look after her spouse. And of course
this scheme was brought in by a government of men.
That is patently wrong. The retirement age was lowered for women
because most married men were not receiving the higher, married rate
until the men were well over sixty-five. It had nothing to do with the
wives being at home.
Post by Yellow
But I doubt there is anything anyone can tell you on this topic that
would cause you to waver from your long held opinion that it is only men
who are ever ill-used.
Saying something factual would be a good beginning.
Why? Where are your facts on this subject?
I have presented, among others, a factual rebuttal of Yellow's hilarious
assertion that the pension age for women was reduced in order that women wait
on their husbands. Is that not enough for you?
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-10-10 11:48:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thou
sa
nds-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government?s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It is not the equalisation of the retirement age that is wrong, and it
is a very rare day you hear anyone say otherwise, but that it has been
implemented in an incredibly unfair way for around a million people.
What would you propose as an alternative?
As the age has to be raised by 6 years i.e. 72 months, they could have phased
it in over a longer time period, say 12 years with the retirement age
increasing by one month for every two months of d.o.b.
They could but there is that rather unfortunate problem known as the 'pension
crisis'.
Which everyone has seen coming for at least 30 years.

It is not the pensioners fault that governments always shy away from making
difficult decisions; and leave it to the next generation.

(Everyone is now doing the same with renewable energy; and also atmospheric
pollution.)
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
This group were also less likely to have been able to qualify for a full
state pension given that part time work did not count for state pension
purposes and until the 1970s many folk were forced by their employer to
leave their full time job simply because they had got married.
I don't see how the change in qualifying age makes any difference to
those women.
Well, try thinking about it - instead of rapid rebuttal.
Ah, but I did think about it and expanded further in my reply to Yellow since
explanation was deemed necessary.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
And just a heads up about what we discovered last time this topic came
up and a few of us did some research. The historic reason women had a
retirement age earlier than the men was so that they would both be
retired by the time the husband retired to ensure the women was no
longer working and was at home to look after her spouse. And of course
this scheme was brought in by a government of men.
That is patently wrong. The retirement age was lowered for women
because most married men were not receiving the higher, married rate
until the men were well over sixty-five. It had nothing to do with the
wives being at home.
Post by Yellow
But I doubt there is anything anyone can tell you on this topic that
would cause you to waver from your long held opinion that it is only men
who are ever ill-used.
Saying something factual would be a good beginning.
Why? Where are your facts on this subject?
I have presented, among others, a factual rebuttal of Yellow's hilarious
assertion that the pension age for women was reduced in order that women wait
on their husbands. Is that not enough for you?
Yellow
2018-10-10 11:53:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
It is not the equalisation of the retirement age that is wrong, and it
is a very rare day you hear anyone say otherwise, but that it has been
implemented in an incredibly unfair way for around a million people.
What would you propose as an alternative?
As the age has to be raised by 6 years i.e. 72 months, they could have phased
it in over a longer time period, say 12 years with the retirement age
increasing by one month for every two months of d.o.b.
They could but there is that rather unfortunate problem known as the 'pension
crisis'.
Which everyone has seen coming for at least 30 years.
It is not the pensioners fault that governments always shy away from making
difficult decisions; and leave it to the next generation.
(Everyone is now doing the same with renewable energy; and also atmospheric
pollution.)
And social care.
Incubus
2018-10-10 12:07:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thou
sa
nds-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government?s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like
men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven
years
ago.
It is not the equalisation of the retirement age that is wrong, and it
is a very rare day you hear anyone say otherwise, but that it has been
implemented in an incredibly unfair way for around a million people.
What would you propose as an alternative?
As the age has to be raised by 6 years i.e. 72 months, they could have phased
it in over a longer time period, say 12 years with the retirement age
increasing by one month for every two months of d.o.b.
They could but there is that rather unfortunate problem known as the 'pension
crisis'.
Which everyone has seen coming for at least 30 years.
Unfortunately, it can't be fixed retroactively.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
It is not the pensioners fault that governments always shy away from making
difficult decisions; and leave it to the next generation.
By the same token, is it the Government's fault that previous governments have
left that decision to it?
Yellow
2018-10-10 12:03:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <ppko3u$je6$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
And just a heads up about what we discovered last time this topic came
up and a few of us did some research. The historic reason women had a
retirement age earlier than the men was so that they would both be
retired by the time the husband retired to ensure the women was no
longer working and was at home to look after her spouse. And of course
this scheme was brought in by a government of men.
That is patently wrong. The retirement age was lowered for women
because most married men were not receiving the higher, married rate
until the men were well over sixty-five. It had nothing to do with the
wives being at home.
Post by Yellow
But I doubt there is anything anyone can tell you on this topic that
would cause you to waver from your long held opinion that it is only men
who are ever ill-used.
Saying something factual would be a good beginning.
Why? Where are your facts on this subject?
I have presented, among others, a factual rebuttal of Yellow's hilarious
assertion that the pension age for women was reduced in order that women wait
on their husbands. Is that not enough for you?
You have disagreed with something that some research found to be true
because it does not fit your bias narrative - not unexpected. But
whatever, it does not alter the core fact that women's retirement age
being earlier than men's was not to men's disadvantage when it was
brought in and of course was brought in by men.

Further, the reason it changed was because a women claimed she was
discriminated against by being forced to retire earlier than her male
colleagues, not because a man complained - which is another interesting
fact when examining how we got here.

But of course, how we got here has little to do with how the folk we are
discussing are being treated - which is extremely badly.
Incubus
2018-10-10 12:47:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
And just a heads up about what we discovered last time this topic came
up and a few of us did some research. The historic reason women had a
retirement age earlier than the men was so that they would both be
retired by the time the husband retired to ensure the women was no
longer working and was at home to look after her spouse. And of course
this scheme was brought in by a government of men.
That is patently wrong. The retirement age was lowered for women
because most married men were not receiving the higher, married rate
until the men were well over sixty-five. It had nothing to do with the
wives being at home.
Post by Yellow
But I doubt there is anything anyone can tell you on this topic that
would cause you to waver from your long held opinion that it is only men
who are ever ill-used.
Saying something factual would be a good beginning.
Why? Where are your facts on this subject?
I have presented, among others, a factual rebuttal of Yellow's hilarious
assertion that the pension age for women was reduced in order that women wait
on their husbands. Is that not enough for you?
You have disagreed with something that some research found to be true
because it does not fit your bias narrative - not unexpected.
Your research obviously didn't uncover the fact that the Spinsters' Association
lobbied the government to reduce the retirement age of women to 55 and that
they compromised by reducing it to 60 to benefit spinsters and married couples.

Do stop pontificating on matters about which you do not possess the facts. I
tell you this for your own benefit.
Post by Yellow
But
whatever, it does not alter the core fact that women's retirement age
being earlier than men's was not to men's disadvantage when it was
brought in and of course was brought in by men.
Being 'brought in by men' has the reek of chippiness to it, and you are now
aware that the Spinsters' Association made that request. In any event, no one
disputed that it didn't disadvantage men at the time; that came later.
Post by Yellow
But of course, how we got here has little to do with how the folk we are
discussing are being treated - which is extremely badly.
I'm afraid the Government can't please everyone and it would be worse for all
if they assuaged the feelings of those women.
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-10-10 13:58:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
And just a heads up about what we discovered last time this topic came
up and a few of us did some research. The historic reason women had a
retirement age earlier than the men was so that they would both be
retired by the time the husband retired to ensure the women was no
longer working and was at home to look after her spouse. And of course
this scheme was brought in by a government of men.
That is patently wrong. The retirement age was lowered for women
because most married men were not receiving the higher, married rate
until the men were well over sixty-five. It had nothing to do with the
wives being at home.
Post by Yellow
But I doubt there is anything anyone can tell you on this topic that
would cause you to waver from your long held opinion that it is only men
who are ever ill-used.
Saying something factual would be a good beginning.
Why? Where are your facts on this subject?
I have presented, among others, a factual rebuttal of Yellow's hilarious
assertion that the pension age for women was reduced in order that women wait
on their husbands. Is that not enough for you?
You have disagreed with something that some research found to be true
because it does not fit your bias narrative - not unexpected.
Your research obviously didn't uncover the fact that the Spinsters' Association
lobbied the government to reduce the retirement age of women to 55 and that
they compromised by reducing it to 60 to benefit spinsters and married couples.
Wikipedia seems to be coming to your aid, in a time of your ignorance of
practical experience.
Post by Incubus
Do stop pontificating on matters about which you do not possess the facts. I
tell you this for your own benefit.
Too much irony here for me.
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
But
whatever, it does not alter the core fact that women's retirement age
being earlier than men's was not to men's disadvantage when it was
brought in and of course was brought in by men.
Being 'brought in by men' has the reek of chippiness to it, and you are now
aware that the Spinsters' Association made that request.
Blimey, your Wikipedia-ing is being promoted to top billing now.

We had better watch out.
Post by Incubus
In any event, no one
disputed that it didn't disadvantage men at the time; that came later.
Post by Yellow
But of course, how we got here has little to do with how the folk we are
discussing are being treated - which is extremely badly.
I'm afraid the Government can't please everyone and it would be worse for all
if they assuaged the feelings of those women.
Care to give any figures for the first time in your attempt at an argument?
Incubus
2018-10-10 14:11:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Your research obviously didn't uncover the fact that the Spinsters' Association
lobbied the government to reduce the retirement age of women to 55 and that
they compromised by reducing it to 60 to benefit spinsters and married couples.
Wikipedia seems to be coming to your aid, in a time of your ignorance of
practical experience.
I doubt you'll find anything about that on Wikipedia. It certainly isn't where
I obtained that information. The Telegraph was one of my sources.

Just how does ones 'practical experience' of something that hasn't happened yet
mean anything?
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
But of course, how we got here has little to do with how the folk we are
discussing are being treated - which is extremely badly.
I'm afraid the Government can't please everyone and it would be worse for all
if they assuaged the feelings of those women.
Care to give any figures for the first time in your attempt at an argument?
Not if you're going to be rude about it.
Yellow
2018-10-11 12:36:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <ppksco$e9m$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
But
whatever, it does not alter the core fact that women's retirement age
being earlier than men's was not to men's disadvantage when it was
brought in and of course was brought in by men.
Being 'brought in by men' has the reek of chippiness to it, and you are now
aware that the Spinsters' Association made that request. In any event, no one
disputed that it didn't disadvantage men at the time; that came later.
Then you misunderstand my meaning which is simply that women were not
behind their retirement age being 60 and men's being 65.

And I mentioned it as a point of interest to counter you claim that men
were being discrimination against by the differential and that is all
there was to it.

The differential existed for a reason, agree with it or not, but that
reason was not intended to be a disadvantage to men.


This is however quite interesting, although of course as they did not
get what they wanted -

"Women who did not marry did not fare better. Marriage rates at any time
up to World War Two were lower than later in the century: in 1931 only
about three-quarters of women aged 35-44 had ever married. Unmarried
women generally had more restricted job opportunities, lower pay and
less opportunities for saving than men, even when they had equivalent
qualifications. They were less likely to be in pensionable employment.
Many were carers for ageing relatives.

To highlight these problems, in 1935 the National Spinsters' Pensions
Association was formed to demand state pensions for unmarried women at
55. They argued that, in addition to their other disadvantages, women
were often forced into involuntary retirement at earlier ages than men,
for various reasons: women's poorer health; discrimination by employers
against post-menopausal women; and the fact that many unmarried women
gave up work in middle life to care for ageing parents and could not,
thereafter, find employment."

http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/the-scandal-of-
womens-pensions-in-britain-how-did-it-come-about

http://tinyurl.com/ydhpleur
Incubus
2018-10-11 12:41:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
But
whatever, it does not alter the core fact that women's retirement age
being earlier than men's was not to men's disadvantage when it was
brought in and of course was brought in by men.
Being 'brought in by men' has the reek of chippiness to it, and you are now
aware that the Spinsters' Association made that request. In any event, no one
disputed that it didn't disadvantage men at the time; that came later.
Then you misunderstand my meaning which is simply that women were not
behind their retirement age being 60 and men's being 65.
Yet I have demonstrated that is not exactly correct.
Post by Yellow
And I mentioned it as a point of interest to counter you claim that men
were being discrimination against by the differential and that is all
there was to it.
The differential existed for a reason, agree with it or not, but that
reason was not intended to be a disadvantage to men.
I didn't say that was the intended reason so please do refrain from presenting
spurious straw-man arguments.
Post by Yellow
This is however quite interesting, although of course as they did not
get what they wanted -
"Women who did not marry did not fare better. Marriage rates at any time
up to World War Two were lower than later in the century: in 1931 only
about three-quarters of women aged 35-44 had ever married. Unmarried
women generally had more restricted job opportunities, lower pay and
less opportunities for saving than men, even when they had equivalent
qualifications. They were less likely to be in pensionable employment.
Many were carers for ageing relatives.
To highlight these problems, in 1935 the National Spinsters' Pensions
Association was formed to demand state pensions for unmarried women at
55. They argued that, in addition to their other disadvantages, women
were often forced into involuntary retirement at earlier ages than men,
for various reasons: women's poorer health; discrimination by employers
against post-menopausal women; and the fact that many unmarried women
gave up work in middle life to care for ageing parents and could not,
thereafter, find employment."
They didn't get exactly what they wanted; the retirement age was nevertheless
reduced for women.
Yellow
2018-10-11 12:46:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <ppngei$1s0$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
But
whatever, it does not alter the core fact that women's retirement age
being earlier than men's was not to men's disadvantage when it was
brought in and of course was brought in by men.
Being 'brought in by men' has the reek of chippiness to it, and you are now
aware that the Spinsters' Association made that request. In any event, no one
disputed that it didn't disadvantage men at the time; that came later.
Then you misunderstand my meaning which is simply that women were not
behind their retirement age being 60 and men's being 65.
Yet I have demonstrated that is not exactly correct.
Er... no. What you have done is stated that in the 1930s there was a
lobby group that called on the government to change the way unmarried
women were treated when it came to the state pension.

They asked for a retirement age of 55 and they did not get it.
Incubus
2018-10-11 12:47:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
But
whatever, it does not alter the core fact that women's retirement age
being earlier than men's was not to men's disadvantage when it was
brought in and of course was brought in by men.
Being 'brought in by men' has the reek of chippiness to it, and you are now
aware that the Spinsters' Association made that request. In any event, no one
disputed that it didn't disadvantage men at the time; that came later.
Then you misunderstand my meaning which is simply that women were not
behind their retirement age being 60 and men's being 65.
Yet I have demonstrated that is not exactly correct.
Er... no. What you have done is stated that in the 1930s there was a
lobby group that called on the government to change the way unmarried
women were treated when it came to the state pension.
They asked for a retirement age of 55 and they did not get it.
They did, however, get a reduction of the retirement age after lobbying the
government so it is not exactly correct to say that they were not behind the
change.
Yellow
2018-10-11 16:51:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <ppngpp$1s0$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
But
whatever, it does not alter the core fact that women's retirement age
being earlier than men's was not to men's disadvantage when it was
brought in and of course was brought in by men.
Being 'brought in by men' has the reek of chippiness to it, and you are now
aware that the Spinsters' Association made that request. In any event, no one
disputed that it didn't disadvantage men at the time; that came later.
Then you misunderstand my meaning which is simply that women were not
behind their retirement age being 60 and men's being 65.
Yet I have demonstrated that is not exactly correct.
Er... no. What you have done is stated that in the 1930s there was a
lobby group that called on the government to change the way unmarried
women were treated when it came to the state pension.
They asked for a retirement age of 55 and they did not get it.
They did, however, get a reduction of the retirement age after lobbying the
government so it is not exactly correct to say that they were not behind the
change.
How much of an influence do you think they had?
Incubus
2018-10-11 16:53:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
But
whatever, it does not alter the core fact that women's retirement age
being earlier than men's was not to men's disadvantage when it was
brought in and of course was brought in by men.
Being 'brought in by men' has the reek of chippiness to it, and you are now
aware that the Spinsters' Association made that request. In any event, no one
disputed that it didn't disadvantage men at the time; that came later.
Then you misunderstand my meaning which is simply that women were not
behind their retirement age being 60 and men's being 65.
Yet I have demonstrated that is not exactly correct.
Er... no. What you have done is stated that in the 1930s there was a
lobby group that called on the government to change the way unmarried
women were treated when it came to the state pension.
They asked for a retirement age of 55 and they did not get it.
They did, however, get a reduction of the retirement age after lobbying the
government so it is not exactly correct to say that they were not behind the
change.
How much of an influence do you think they had?
I can't say with certainty but the sources I read suggested they were
instrumental.
Yellow
2018-10-11 17:18:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <ppnv6l$ukp$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Then you misunderstand my meaning which is simply that women were not
behind their retirement age being 60 and men's being 65.
Yet I have demonstrated that is not exactly correct.
Er... no. What you have done is stated that in the 1930s there was a
lobby group that called on the government to change the way unmarried
women were treated when it came to the state pension.
They asked for a retirement age of 55 and they did not get it.
They did, however, get a reduction of the retirement age after lobbying the
government so it is not exactly correct to say that they were not behind the
change.
How much of an influence do you think they had?
I can't say with certainty but the sources I read suggested they were
instrumental.
The site I linked to earlier says -

A government enquiry found substance in these arguments: rates of
unemployment among 'spinsters' over 45 were higher than among men of the
same age, and they found it harder to re-enter employment; women showed
a marked deterioration in health from age 55. The committee expressed
concern about the numbers of women left in poverty after caring for
elderly relatives. In 1940 the state pensionable age for all women was
reduced to 60. But the level of pension remained very low. Government
surveys during World War Two found appalling levels of poverty among
pensioners, most of them female, even after the introduction, also in
1940, of Supplementary Assistance, a means-tested boost to the already
means-tested pension. One-third of all pensioners immediately qualified
for this, again mostly female.


If we take this article to be accurate, it is clear the NSPA drew some
facts to the government's attention - good on them - but 'instrumental'
is a far stronger assertion which suggests there would have been no
change without their lobbying.

So can you show that?
Incubus
2018-10-11 21:58:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Then you misunderstand my meaning which is simply that women were not
behind their retirement age being 60 and men's being 65.
Yet I have demonstrated that is not exactly correct.
Er... no. What you have done is stated that in the 1930s there was a
lobby group that called on the government to change the way unmarried
women were treated when it came to the state pension.
They asked for a retirement age of 55 and they did not get it.
They did, however, get a reduction of the retirement age after lobbying the
government so it is not exactly correct to say that they were not behind the
change.
How much of an influence do you think they had?
I can't say with certainty but the sources I read suggested they were
instrumental.
The site I linked to earlier says -
A government enquiry found substance in these arguments: rates of
unemployment among 'spinsters' over 45 were higher than among men of the
same age, and they found it harder to re-enter employment; women showed
a marked deterioration in health from age 55. The committee expressed
concern about the numbers of women left in poverty after caring for
elderly relatives. In 1940 the state pensionable age for all women was
reduced to 60. But the level of pension remained very low. Government
surveys during World War Two found appalling levels of poverty among
pensioners, most of them female, even after the introduction, also in
1940, of Supplementary Assistance, a means-tested boost to the already
means-tested pension. One-third of all pensioners immediately qualified
for this, again mostly female.
If we take this article to be accurate, it is clear the NSPA drew some
facts to the government's attention - good on them - but 'instrumental'
is a far stronger assertion which suggests there would have been no
change without their lobbying.
So can you show that?
The evidence is the fact that the Government found substance in their
arguments. There is no evidence for the Government considering reducing
the pension age for women before the Spinsters' Association lobbied
them. Based on the evidence at hand, therefore, I am satisfied that
they were instrumental.

If you wish to 'show' otherwise, all you need do is present evidence
that the Government was considering a reduction of the voting age for
women independently of the Spinsters' Association. Until you do that,
the logical conclusion is as I have stated.
Yellow
2018-10-12 12:28:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <ppoh1i$p54$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Then you misunderstand my meaning which is simply that women were not
behind their retirement age being 60 and men's being 65.
Yet I have demonstrated that is not exactly correct.
Er... no. What you have done is stated that in the 1930s there was a
lobby group that called on the government to change the way unmarried
women were treated when it came to the state pension.
They asked for a retirement age of 55 and they did not get it.
They did, however, get a reduction of the retirement age after lobbying the
government so it is not exactly correct to say that they were not behind the
change.
How much of an influence do you think they had?
I can't say with certainty but the sources I read suggested they were
instrumental.
The site I linked to earlier says -
A government enquiry found substance in these arguments: rates of
unemployment among 'spinsters' over 45 were higher than among men of the
same age, and they found it harder to re-enter employment; women showed
a marked deterioration in health from age 55. The committee expressed
concern about the numbers of women left in poverty after caring for
elderly relatives. In 1940 the state pensionable age for all women was
reduced to 60. But the level of pension remained very low. Government
surveys during World War Two found appalling levels of poverty among
pensioners, most of them female, even after the introduction, also in
1940, of Supplementary Assistance, a means-tested boost to the already
means-tested pension. One-third of all pensioners immediately qualified
for this, again mostly female.
If we take this article to be accurate, it is clear the NSPA drew some
facts to the government's attention - good on them - but 'instrumental'
is a far stronger assertion which suggests there would have been no
change without their lobbying.
So can you show that?
The evidence is the fact that the Government found substance in their
arguments.
But that is not evidence that has this group not existed there would
have been no change - and you have claimed they were "instrumental".
Post by Incubus
There is no evidence for the Government considering reducing
the pension age for women before the Spinsters' Association lobbied
them. Based on the evidence at hand, therefore, I am satisfied that
they were instrumental.
On what basis have you concluded there is "no evidence"? Where have you
looked for example?
Post by Incubus
If you wish to 'show' otherwise, all you need do is present evidence
that the Government was considering a reduction of the voting age for
women independently of the Spinsters' Association. Until you do that,
the logical conclusion is as I have stated.
Oh no you don't. This is *your* assertion and therefore you are the one
who has to prove it.
Incubus
2018-10-12 12:41:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Then you misunderstand my meaning which is simply that women were not
behind their retirement age being 60 and men's being 65.
Yet I have demonstrated that is not exactly correct.
Er... no. What you have done is stated that in the 1930s there was a
lobby group that called on the government to change the way unmarried
women were treated when it came to the state pension.
They asked for a retirement age of 55 and they did not get it.
They did, however, get a reduction of the retirement age after lobbying the
government so it is not exactly correct to say that they were not behind the
change.
How much of an influence do you think they had?
I can't say with certainty but the sources I read suggested they were
instrumental.
The site I linked to earlier says -
A government enquiry found substance in these arguments: rates of
unemployment among 'spinsters' over 45 were higher than among men of the
same age, and they found it harder to re-enter employment; women showed
a marked deterioration in health from age 55. The committee expressed
concern about the numbers of women left in poverty after caring for
elderly relatives. In 1940 the state pensionable age for all women was
reduced to 60. But the level of pension remained very low. Government
surveys during World War Two found appalling levels of poverty among
pensioners, most of them female, even after the introduction, also in
1940, of Supplementary Assistance, a means-tested boost to the already
means-tested pension. One-third of all pensioners immediately qualified
for this, again mostly female.
If we take this article to be accurate, it is clear the NSPA drew some
facts to the government's attention - good on them - but 'instrumental'
is a far stronger assertion which suggests there would have been no
change without their lobbying.
So can you show that?
The evidence is the fact that the Government found substance in their
arguments.
But that is not evidence that has this group not existed there would
have been no change - and you have claimed they were "instrumental".
What you are asking is to disprove a hypothetical. That is not how logical
argument works. There is a rational basis for believing that the Spinster's
Association was instrumental in reducing the voting age for women. There is no
rational basis not to believe it.
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
There is no evidence for the Government considering reducing
the pension age for women before the Spinsters' Association lobbied
them. Based on the evidence at hand, therefore, I am satisfied that
they were instrumental.
On what basis have you concluded there is "no evidence"? Where have you
looked for example?
There was nothing of that nature when I researched into the history of pension
age adjustments. Where I looked is irrelevant; if such existed, it should not
be difficult to find.
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
If you wish to 'show' otherwise, all you need do is present evidence
that the Government was considering a reduction of the voting age for
women independently of the Spinsters' Association. Until you do that,
the logical conclusion is as I have stated.
Oh no you don't. This is *your* assertion and therefore you are the one
who has to prove it.
In actual fact, you asked me a question and I answered it. I have given
evidence in support of my position; your subsequent assertion was that the
Spinsters' Association was not instrumental in lowering the voting age for
women. I have told you what you need to do in order to disprove what I said.
abelard
2018-10-09 21:41:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
But I doubt there is anything anyone can tell you on this topic that
would cause you to waver from your long held opinion that it is only men
who are ever ill-used.
women raised in that culture were given priority
beliefs that differ from males...the pensions were
set up in that context and with those inherited
beliefs

i suggest reneging in the present is inequitable
--
www.abelard.org
Basil Jet
2018-10-10 13:20:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousands-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government?s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It is not the equalisation of the retirement age that is wrong, and it
is a very rare day you hear anyone say otherwise, but that it has been
implemented in an incredibly unfair way for around a million people.
Hahaha. Women are a huge lifetime drain on the treasury. Men break even
over their life. The money given to women comes from increasing national
debt and gradually bankrupting the country. I doubt this latest move
will change that, although hopefully it will reduce it slightly. It's
hilarious that an attempt to slightly reduce the torrential flow of
unearned cash to women could be portrayed as unfair to women.
--
Basil Jet - listening... S.Y.P.H.. SPK. Saccharine Trust. Saint Etienne.
San Fermin. Sananda Maitreya (Terence Trent D'Arby). Sarah Cracknell.
Sarah Neufeld. Sarandon. Sarathy Korwar. Sascha Funke. Savage Republic.
Savath+Savalas. Scars. Schizo Fun Addict. Scientists. Scritti Politti.
Seasick Steve. Section 25. Set Fire To Flames. Severed Heads. Sex
Pistols. Shack. Shackleton. Sharon Van Etten. Shed 7. Shigeto. Shock
Headed Peters. Shrag. Shriekback. Shut Up.
abelard
2018-10-10 13:41:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousands-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government?s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It is not the equalisation of the retirement age that is wrong, and it
is a very rare day you hear anyone say otherwise, but that it has been
implemented in an incredibly unfair way for around a million people.
Hahaha. Women are a huge lifetime drain on the treasury. Men break even
over their life. The money given to women comes from increasing national
debt and gradually bankrupting the country. I doubt this latest move
will change that, although hopefully it will reduce it slightly. It's
hilarious that an attempt to slightly reduce the torrential flow of
unearned cash to women could be portrayed as unfair to women.
a lot of 'wimmin's work' is not monetised
(eg, baby sitting and coffee mornings,
let alone washing by the river side))

and
society is changing very rapidly

wouldn't it be better to adapt rather than set up a competition?
--
www.abelard.org
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-10-10 14:06:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousa
nds-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government?s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It is not the equalisation of the retirement age that is wrong, and it
is a very rare day you hear anyone say otherwise, but that it has been
implemented in an incredibly unfair way for around a million people.
Hahaha. Women are a huge lifetime drain on the treasury.
Oh dear. The unreconstructed chauvinist dinosaur has joined the thread.

Time to make a dignified exit, I think.
Post by Basil Jet
Men break even
over their life. The money given to women comes from increasing national
debt and gradually bankrupting the country. I doubt this latest move
will change that, although hopefully it will reduce it slightly. It's
hilarious that an attempt to slightly reduce the torrential flow of
unearned cash to women could be portrayed as unfair to women.
Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
2018-10-10 16:15:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 15:02:33 +0100, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Incubus
...except for when they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/09/state-pension-age-rise-thousa
nds-women-london-protest
"State pension age rise: thousands of women expected to join march"
"Women in their 50s and 60s have been hit by the government?s decision to
increase the female state pension age from 60 to 66..."
I don't recall any of them marching about men having to work longer.
"...with some left destitute."
They don't have to be destitute; they could simply work for longer like men
currently have to, in addition to which this was planned around seven years
ago.
It is not the equalisation of the retirement age that is wrong, and it
is a very rare day you hear anyone say otherwise, but that it has been
implemented in an incredibly unfair way for around a million people.
Hahaha. Women are a huge lifetime drain on the treasury.
Oh dear. The unreconstructed chauvinist dinosaur has joined the thread.
Time to make a dignified exit, I think.
Charasho, tavarishch!

----------------------------------------------------> Maskva
The Peeler
2018-10-10 17:53:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:15:15 -0700, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Charasho, tavarishch!
----------------------------------------------------> Maskva
dreckserb Razovic -> loony bin (shortest way)
--
The top 5 truths about poor dumb Razovic, our colostomy bag wearing resident
psychopath, aka "The Rectum":

the desperate psycho can't SLEEP anymore,
she can't get out of the house anymore,
she got NOBODY to talk to anymore,
she can't FUCK anymore,
she got no life outside Usenet AT ALL!
Basil Jet
2018-10-11 09:52:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Basil Jet
Hahaha. Women are a huge lifetime drain on the treasury.
Men break even
over their life. The money given to women comes from increasing national
debt and gradually bankrupting the country. I doubt this latest move
will change that, although hopefully it will reduce it slightly. It's
hilarious that an attempt to slightly reduce the torrential flow of
unearned cash to women could be portrayed as unfair to women.
Oh dear. The unreconstructed chauvinist dinosaur has joined the thread.
Time to make a dignified exit, I think.
Facts don't care about your feelings.
--
Basil Jet - listening... S.Y.P.H.. SPK. Saccharine Trust. Saint Etienne.
San Fermin. Sananda Maitreya (Terence Trent D'Arby). Sarah Cracknell.
Sarah Neufeld. Sarandon. Sarathy Korwar. Sascha Funke. Savage Republic.
Savath+Savalas. Scars. Schizo Fun Addict. Scientists. Scritti Politti.
Seasick Steve. Section 25. Set Fire To Flames. Severed Heads. Sex
Pistols. Shack. Shackleton. Sharon Van Etten. Shed 7. Shigeto. Shock
Headed Peters. Shrag. Shriekback. Shut Up.
Loading...