|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 21, 2024 21:02:23 GMT
No its alright. I'm in the market for a woman in her 25s with good money at this stage. That's why I'm not with anyone, I simply have wholly unrealistic expectations. What I'm looking for is a drop-dead gorgeous, sex-mad 24-year-old girl who is aroused by poverty.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 21, 2024 21:03:23 GMT
Your secret's safe amongst friends Mr Stabby Rog
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 21, 2024 21:16:04 GMT
No its alright. I'm in the market for a woman in her 25s with good money at this stage. That's why I'm not with anyone, I simply have wholly unrealistic expectations. What I'm looking for is a drop-dead gorgeous, sex-mad 24-year-old girl who is aroused by poverty. Thats really interesting. It amazing how people are so different. I suppose its the old liquorice allsorts. Never the same thing twice. I am looking for a really attractive 26 year old woman who views a male with no money as an asset. I just found the age difference thing fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 22, 2024 9:39:53 GMT
His hair is very well coiffured ... spends a lot of money on that boyish natural look. Rog Not so. I just wake up and there it is, Silver Fox. The "through a hedge backwards" look is a babe magnet obvs.
|
|
|
Post by brummieboy on Mar 22, 2024 18:04:11 GMT
The pension changes may have been necessary and the right thing to do, but the affected individuals should have had personal notification to allow them to plan accordingly.As with many government changes, the implementation was poor hence the report recommendations. The danger is I fear, the Tories will fudge it and once Labour win the election, they'll be able to just blame the previous government and bin it too. We shall see. Rog I wasn't given any personal notifications by the government when Gordon Brown stole from my pension plans. I wasn't given any personal notifications when the Bank of England decided to print non existent money to give to bankers and let them keep their bonuses by giving me neglible interest on my pension savings. I wasn't given the option of withdrawing my pension pot, I was forced to purchase a low return annuity which has remained at that pitifully low rate. The pension plans were first put in law in 1995 and even given the small early implementation, a reasonable person should have seen the light, but we are now conditioned to rely on the Nanny State and not take any responsibility for our own decisions. Looking at the Ombudsmans decision, and his projected compensation recommendations, they seem pitifully low for what he considers to be a bad decision. It is yet another stick brought out against this government when if any blame should be apportioned, it should be against all parties as we've had all colours since 1995, 14 of which were Labour, 5 were Lib Dems/Conservative, and latterly Conservative. Again, the cries of anguish are all directed to politicians, when the real villains of the piece are the sclerotic Civil Servants, who once again will accept no responsibility for their crass performance.
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 22, 2024 18:08:29 GMT
Gordon Brown was seriously bad news. He should never have been born.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 22, 2024 18:34:43 GMT
The ombudsman has reported and been critical of the implementation of the pension reforms ... that's fact.
I'm not expressing my opinion.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 22, 2024 18:37:56 GMT
I feel the title should be "women's pensions"
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 22, 2024 20:34:06 GMT
WASPI- 'Women against state pension inequality'. A misnomer, if ever there were one.
It doesn't quite roll off the tongue in the same way but a more accurate title for this group: WFTMOSPI. 'Women for the maintenance of state pension inequality'.
If any awards are made it leaves the door wide open for men to claim direct sexual discrimination and fight for parity of pension payments with women. Backdated for many years of course, as were the payments made to many women when it was decided, many years later, that some jobs carried out mainly by women should have had higher pay rates, matching jobs done mainly by men.
I doubt such a group would be formed, men tend to just get on with it and don't have the 'benefit' of many loud voices perpetually telling them that they are victimised throughout their lives. In any case, it's highly unlikely any women would back such as case, unlike the many men of a certain politics who back every feminist argument, by default, including this WFTMOSPI one.
Incidentally, the government gave me no notice that they would be printing multiple billions of pounds in order to carry out their big state initiatives, for which they were not prepared to levy sufficient taxes. This devalued my holding of cash. I should have been notified of this theft in order that I could manage my capital in a more suitable manner. I should be compensated for this.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 22, 2024 20:55:45 GMT
Well I for one am shocked that you don't agree with the ladies claim ... even though the ombudsman has recognised the government errors in not properly communicating to these ladies how the changes would definitely affect them. Their complaint (which has been independently upheld) wasn't that the changes shouldn't happen, or were not required, or were unfair, but rather that they were prevented from making any alternative financial arrangements because they simply were not notified of the change. Mr Stabby 's analogy was perfect ... the finishing tape on the marathon was moved back 5 or 6 years, just as the runners hit the home straight NOT in the first half of the race. If men 'just get on with it ' you demonstrate little evidence of the trait. Rog
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 22, 2024 21:03:16 GMT
The change to 65 was announced many years prior. In the previous century actually. Quite rightly as there are laws agains discriminating on the basis of sex/ gender. It was widely discussed at the time. The ombudsman decided that compensation should be paid based on the technicality that the affected people were not written to personally.
When I was younger I expected to receive my pension at 65. It was pushed back to 66, then 67. I have received no written confirmation of this from the pension service. Therefore, following the ombudsman's logic, me, and everyone so affected, should be compensated. Ridiculous? I guess so.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 22, 2024 21:20:53 GMT
The change to 65 was announced many years prior. In the previous century actually. Quite rightly as there are laws agains discriminating on the basis of sex/ gender. It was widely discussed at the time. The ombudsman decided that compensation should be paid based on the technicality that the affected people were not written to personally. When I was younger I expected to receive my pension at 65. It was pushed back to 66, then 67. I have received no written confirmation of this from the pension service. Therefore, following the ombudsman's logic, me, and everyone so affected, should be compensated. Ridiculous? I guess so. You are, as always entitled to your opinion. It is a fact however that the ombudsman has agreed that the implementation of the pension increases was mishandled and unfair to many of the affected ladies. That's not me saying what I think, that's FACT. Now my guess is that having examined all the evidence, and despite the outcome of the report being a major blow to government, independently the unfairness claim has been proven and accepted. If you can't see a difference between your pension age moving back a year (as mine and many others did) as opposed to moving back six years (and without personal notification) then I can't help you. I suspect your anger and protest is more about the fact that in this case the 'victims' are ladies ... your personal misogynistic demons. The reality is that despite the PROVEN unfairness of the change, I suspect the ladies will receive nothing due to politics. We shall see. Rog
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 22, 2024 21:40:56 GMT
The change to 65 was announced many years prior. In the previous century actually. Quite rightly as there are laws agains discriminating on the basis of sex/ gender. It was widely discussed at the time. The ombudsman decided that compensation should be paid based on the technicality that the affected people were not written to personally. When I was younger I expected to receive my pension at 65. It was pushed back to 66, then 67. I have received no written confirmation of this from the pension service. Therefore, following the ombudsman's logic, me, and everyone so affected, should be compensated. Ridiculous? I guess so. You're are, as always entitled to your opinion. It is a fact however that the ombudsman has agreed that the implementation of the pension increases was mishandled and unfair to many of the affected ladies. That's not me saying what I think, that's FACT. Now my guess is that having examined all the evidence, and despite the outcome of the report being a major blow to government, independently the unfairness claim has been proven and accepted. If you can't see a difference between your pension age moving back a year (as mine and many others did) as opposed to moving back six years (and without personal notification) then I can't help you. I suspect your anger and protest is more about the fact that in this case the 'victims' are ladies ... your personal misogynistic demons. The reality is that despite the PROVEN unfairness of the change, I suspect the ladies will receive nothing due to politics. We shall see. Rog I suspect the government will 'sound out' public opinion on this. I think it's unclear what the overall consensus is. A smart move could be to leak the probability of tax increases, should awards be made. That should set public opinion very strongly against any awards. Otherwise they could provaricate in the knowledge that a Labour government is on the way, let them deal with the problem. By the way, you talk of facts. It's a fact that the ombudsman has made a ruling but this is just their opinion on the matter, nothing more. The ombudsman isn't the ultimate force, it can be overruled by government. Nor is it a divine thinker. This matter has already been tried in the courts, several times, resulting in failure, on each occasion, for the case for compensation. Can we say that all the courts were mistaken, that the ombudsman was right?
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 22, 2024 21:53:11 GMT
Yes, fine, as you like.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 24, 2024 10:21:06 GMT
Interesting discussion just now on BBC1. From both sides. If there are in fact two sides, any more. Anyway:
Jeremy Hunt pointed out something which the vast majority of commentaries on this either missed, or perhaps more accurately, chose to ignore. The Parliamentary Ombudsman concluded that an injustice had taken place then made recommendations to government as to how to correct this. Everyone following this case already knows knows this. Hunt went on to explain that the case was 'complex'. The following is the bit most commentaries didn't include: Courts of the land have concluded that there was no injustice. He left it at that. Presumably to avoid being confrontational. He could of course have gone on to say that the highest court in the land has already concluded that there was no injustice. That the Parliamentary Ombudsman only has the power of recommendation. Sure, the Ombudsman has the power to instigate legal action in support of its conclusions but, given that the High Court has already decided, there is no legal recourse open to it.
I imagine Hunt may now be labelled a 'misogynist' by the liberal left, this often being their preferred response to logical arguments put forward by those against the interests of one of their most favoured groups, in the misnomer that is 'equality'.
Meanwhile Ms. Dodds for Labour, appeared to perform yet another u turn on behalf of the party. Previously, they had undertaken to 'pay the WASPI women in full' and when asked where the tens of billions of pounds would come from they stated 'we will find it from somewhere'. Yet another sign of Labour copying the Tories in their desperate lust for power. Anyway, Ms. Doods wouldn't commit to anything. As usual, you might say.
|
|