|
Post by dogless on Mar 24, 2024 13:02:34 GMT
Why do you struggle with such an easy idea ?
The pension changes, whilst entirely legal were unfair and caused hardship and injustice, which could easily have been avoided with good communication.
Apartheid was legal but entirely unfair.
Imprisoning gay men was legal but entirely unfair.
What could possibly be clouding your judgement on this issue I wonder.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 24, 2024 13:23:19 GMT
Why do you struggle with such an easy idea ? The pension changes, whilst entirely legal were unfair and caused hardship and injustice, which could easily have been avoided with good communication. Apartheid was legal but entirely unfair. Imprisoning gay men was legal but entirely unfair. What could possibly be clouding your judgement on this issue I wonder. Rog You're way off the mark with your comparisons. While there may have been a defecit in communication this alone, in the mind of a reasonable person, wouldn't conclude that justice be obtained by way of paying compensation, effectively discarding the change. Let's not forget, equalisation of state pension age was brought about to end an injustice, on the basis of equality law. It's not equality to perpetuate a discriminatory state pension arrangement. It's quite the opposite. If a ruling were made to pay sums of money to women equality law should dictate that the same be paid to men. The fact that the system used to be discriminatory is no basis for argument in the present day. Men cannot use the defence, having beaten their partner, that the law used to allow for it. This is 2024, equality law applies, not discriminatory law. Your last bit is a typical response to plain logic which doesn't fit your biased pro-female outlook. You've already called me a misogynist once, why hold back this time?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 24, 2024 13:31:44 GMT
Why do you struggle with such an easy idea ? The pension changes, whilst entirely legal were unfair and caused hardship and injustice, which could easily have been avoided with good communication. Apartheid was legal but entirely unfair. Imprisoning gay men was legal but entirely unfair. What could possibly be clouding your judgement on this issue I wonder. Rog You're way off the mark with your comparisons. While there may have been a defecit in communication this alone, in the mind of a reasonable person, wouldn't conclude that justice be obtained by way of paying compensation, effectively discarding the change. Let's not forget, equalisation of state pension age was brought about to end an injustice, on the basis of equality law. It's not equality to perpetuate a discriminatory state pension arrangement. It's quite the opposite. If a ruling were made to pay sums of money to women equality law should dictate that the same be paid to men. The fact that the system used to be discriminatory is no basis for argument in the present day. Men cannot use the defence, having beaten their partner, that the law used to allow for it. This is 2024, equality law applies, not discriminatory law. Your last bit is a typical response to plain logic which doesn't fit your biased pro-female outlook. You've already called me a misogynist once, why hold back this time? No need, nowts changed.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 24, 2024 13:39:35 GMT
Why worry about what the 'reasonable person' would think as we have an investigation and recommendations that are public knowledge.
It's not really a debatable point ... read the recommendations.
Your whine seems entirely focussed on the award of compensation and to women.
This isn't happening and I fear will never happen (as I've said earlier) whichever party is in power.
They were treated unfairly as the report makes clear ... not illegally but unfairly.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by fi on Mar 24, 2024 13:39:46 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 I am glad you now choose to use the collective women and not ladies.......
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 24, 2024 13:48:16 GMT
Why worry about what the 'reasonable person' would think as we have an investigation and recommendations that are public knowledge. It's not really a debatable point ... read the recommendations. Your whine seems entirely focussed on the award of compensation and to women. This isn't happening and I fear will never happen (as I've said earlier) whichever party is in power. They were treated unfairly as the report makes clear ... not illegally but unfairly. Rog Read the conclusions of the County Court and the High Court. The judiciary, rather than an advisory panel. The rule of law applies in Britain. Not the rule of advisory panels. The matter has already been decided. Conclusively, to the full extent of the law.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 24, 2024 16:40:06 GMT
That was never in question.
Unfair not illegal.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 24, 2024 17:51:21 GMT
That was never in question. Unfair not illegal. Rog It's ironic that you played the 'misogyny' card. Simply for relating a series of facts. Ironic, from someone whose own deep seated misogyny fails to grasp that 'ladies' are not weak, mystical creatures. Rather, they are strong human beings, more than capable of opening doors for themselves. Just as well as men. Yes, it might seem like a nice thing to do but if you're opening doors for 'ladies', but not men, your subconscious misogyny is driving your actions. You won't see this of course, but others will. It's all fine and dandy to agree with and argue for every proposal put forward by women. It will make you popular, in many circles. Who doesn't like to be popular? Words are one thing of course, but then there are actions. I'm wondering, did you perhaps go to a single sex school?
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 24, 2024 18:38:30 GMT
🤣🤣
I open doors for anyone ... it's polite and how I was brought up.
Thank you for your psychoanalysis, and I shall certainly be giving it an appropriate level of consideration.
The ladies were treated unfairly according to the report recommendations.
That's a fact.
That you don't like it and don't agree doesn't change that fact.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by brummieboy on Mar 24, 2024 18:57:48 GMT
That was never in question. Unfair not illegal. Rog Yes Rog, it is unfair in exactly the same way it was unfair to penalise pension funds by Gordon Brown, and unfair to savers to savage interest rates ( and also pension annuities), but no compensation was offered to the victims. I'm waiting for the tweets etc and public statements of the ombudsman to show some level of political bias to pour cold water on his opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 24, 2024 18:57:50 GMT
🤣🤣 I open doors for anyone ... it's polite and how I was brought up. Thank you for your psychoanalysis, and I shall certainly be giving it an appropriate level of consideration. The ladies were treated unfairly according to the report recommendations. That's a fact. That you don't like it and don't agree doesn't change that fact. Rog What you say is true. However, you seem to have overlooked the system this country operates under. Laws, and amendments, are made by a democratically elected parliament and overseen by an independent judiciary. Unlected beaurocrats, such as the parlimentary ombudsman, do not hold sway over either. Thank goodness say I, as a believer in democracy. Not as a perfect system, but better than any other. In my opinion, of course. Maybe there's a third way here. Parliament could pass a new law to order a public referendum on this matter. The public would be paying any bill, it would therefore be fair to consult them. A 'yes' to paying out the WASPI women would include details of the tax rises required, or cuts in public spending, or a combination of the two, in order to settle the bill. A 'no' vote would uphold the current law, equality law and decisions of the courts, including the highest court in the land. It would also, of course, allow for current tax and spending policy of the government of the time to remain unchanged. It would be interesting to see how many male virtue signallers would turn turtle, in the knowledge that they would personally become poorer, should they see their virtue signalling through. More generally now: Equality legislation has been, almost exclusively, beneficial to women. Associated new laws have enabled women to become measurably more successful in the workplace. I think it's a little rich to expect one group to receive all the benefits of change, but be protected from what is, as far as I know, the one and only negative consequence to women resulting from the introduction of equality law.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 24, 2024 20:32:30 GMT
Whatever you say ... frankly my only point was made, not by me, but by the recommendations which clearly identified the ladies unfair treatment.
For the third time , I do not see them receiving compensation whether entitled or not.
I'll leave you to rant about how unfairly men are treated.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 24, 2024 20:55:51 GMT
Whatever you say ... frankly my only point was made, not by me, but by the recommendations which clearly identified the ladies unfair treatment. For the third time , I do not see them receiving compensation whether entitled or not. I'll leave you to rant about how unfairly men are treated. Rog You haven't confirmed whether you went to a single sex school, or not. If it's a secret, that's OK. I'm not sure I have ranted about how unfairly men are treated. If my memory serves me right I stated my belief that if women were awarded sums of money for this, the same sums should go to men. Is this a rant? My assertion is on the basis of equality. The law. A law championed and celebrated by a certain type, but now, only if it goes the 'right' way, it seems. Otherwise, equality appears to be twisted on its head, becoming inequality.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 24, 2024 21:10:52 GMT
I'm one of seven kids ... three girls and four boys , born and raised on a pit estate in South Yorkshire.
I went to local mixed state schools.
None of which alters the simple fact that the ladies WERE treated unfairly and this simply injustice could have been avoided by good communication.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 24, 2024 21:36:44 GMT
I'm one of seven kids ... three girls and four boys , born and raised on a pit estate in South Yorkshire. I went to local mixed state schools. None of which alters the simple fact that the ladies WERE treated unfairly and this simply injustice could have been avoided by good communication. Rog Many modern day feminists consider the use of the word 'ladies' inappropriate. 'Women' should be the term used, in 2024. The reasons are somewhat complex but there's plenty of reading out there, should you wish to progress on this. Not that I consider the forensic examination of language to be the grand determiner of an 'ism' that some purport it to be. It might be useful for you to know this though. Thanks for confirming re. your school. This has stalled a theory I have for now, but thanks for sharing.
|
|