Equality (but only when it suits)

[No1newts]

High court due to rule on women's pension age case

https://www.theguardian.com/law/201...on-age?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Whilst the hypocrisy in the "equality" debate has been glaringly obvious for a long time here's another example.

We want to be equal, but not equal if it really means equal, we want to equal only when it benefits us not when it makes it more difficult. We want to be more equal than you, but equal, just more equal, understand?

Got to laugh.

 

[StriderX]

Isn't more because it was mishandled, the WASPY women? Especially in the public sector before pay scales were changed?

 

[VincentHanna]

Your own link gives the real reason for this.

Men knew their pension age, but for women it was changed quite abruptly and some women who were close to the old retirement age and were perhaps relying on the pension hadn't made provisions for it to change suddenly.

My wife's mother is one of the people it affected.

 

[No1newts]

Your own link gives the real reason for this.

Men knew their pension age, but for women it was changed quite abruptly and some women who were close to the old retirement age and were perhaps relying on the pension hadn't made provisions for it to change suddenly.

My wife's mother is one of the people it affected.

So them why is the complaint gender based?

They are complaining saying it's discriminatory against women, it isn't, why not say it's procedural which it may well be? May they be hoping that playing the equality card will get them an easier win?

 

[platypus]

It's a procedural discrimination that happened only to women so I can see why they'd say its an equality issue. It's a really quite tough subject and one that most of us will of course been affected by (given that most of us have mothers that were affected by it). As with any change to pensions though, it's emotive as well, changes like that need a lot more notice.

From the barristers language though:

He said women born in the 1950s had already suffered “considerable inequalities in the workplace”, which he said were the result of “historical factors and social expectations”.

Yes I think the gender is being made use of to try and win the case.

 

[RDM]

So them why is the complaint gender based?

Because it didn't happen as suddenly with men as the difference from 65 to 67 is less than the difference between 60 and 67.

 

[Dis86]

Because it didn't happen as suddenly with men as the difference from 65 to 67 is less than the difference between 60 and 67.

Surely that shows men were already being discriminated against though?

 

[No1newts]

Because it didn't happen as suddenly with men as the difference from 65 to 67 is less than the difference between 60 and 67.

Then it's procedural and nothing to do with gender.

It effects my mother as well and is rubbish but this has nothing to do with equality.

 

[VincentHanna]

They just lost, so i'm sure that will give you a big smile

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49917315

 

[StriderX]

It'll go to the Supreme court no doubt.

 

[McBain]

Glad it lost.

Want equality? Then have equality, work as long as the men.

 

[Em3bbs]

Interesting the judges said that men had been discriminated against historically. Maybe retired men should start taking their ex-employers to court?

 

[robfosters]

Glad it lost.

Want equality? Then have equality, work as long as the men.

That’s not what this is really about though is it?

 

[platypus]

Then it's procedural and nothing to do with gender.

It effects my mother as well and is rubbish but this has nothing to do with equality.

The argument for gender discrimination, was based on the fact that women were discriminated against because they were not given a state pension until more recently then men, and so contributions were obviously smaller. So there is part of it that is gender discrimination. And its hard not to see the gender discrimination that was inherent in the pension system in that regard.

That said, I'm also very pleased to see in the judges summation:

Rather it equalises a historic asymmetry between men and women and thereby corrects historic direct discrimination against men.

a ruling that is genuinely unbiased towards gender.

 

[McBain]

That’s not what this is really about though is it?

Sure seems like it.

"There was no direct discrimination on grounds of sex, because this legislation does not treat women less favourably than men in law. Rather it equalises a historic asymmetry between men and women and thereby corrects historic direct discrimination against men."

 

[StriderX]

Sure seems like it.

And its facile.

Sure it's basically equal because 67=67, but the sudden jump from 60 to 67 with little recourse when the men only went up by two years, is entirely a justified position to call discriminatory.

 

[robfosters]

Sure seems like it.

Men have known their retirement age for years, these women had the rug pulled from under them.

 

[McBain]

Men have known their retirement age for years, these women had the rug pulled from under them.

It had to happen at some stage, or don't we want fairness between sexes as far as retirement age is concerned?

And its facile.

Sure it's basically equal because 67=67, but the sudden jump from 60 to 67 with little recourse when the men only went up by two years, is entirely a justified position to call discriminatory.

Seems the judge disagrees.

 

[robfosters]

It had to happen at some stage, or don't we want fairness between sexes as far as retirement age is concerned?



Seems the judge disagrees.

Yes, but it should have been managed better without putting thousands of women into financial hardship.

 

[McBain]

Yes, but it should have been managed better without putting thousands of women into financial hardship.

How?

Not denying it could've been handled better because it probably could have, I'm not being funny, genuinely interested as to how.