Starmer's vision quest

[Psamathe]

Were the WASPI women informed in writing that they would get a state pension at 60?
If not, why expect to be informed when the retirement age changes.

An interesting consideration. Other than through my own checks and statements I requested the only notification I ever got was shortly before starting my pension asking for my bank account number. I only ever "knew" my pension age from "common knowledge" and/or checking up, only got to find out about the revision to my pension age through press reports/"common knowledge"/checking myself.

Ian

 

[monkers]

Were the WASPI women informed in writing that they would get a state pension at 60?
If not, why expect to be informed in writing when the retirement age changes.

https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/public...ound-relating-changes-state-pension-age-women

 

[briantrumpet]

https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/public...ound-relating-changes-state-pension-age-women

And there you have it. Maybe not great administration of their own codes, but legal.

Maybe we should add another extra year onto the projected pensionable age of people born in 1990 to pay for something which was legal anyway.

 

[monkers]

And there you have it. Maybe not great administration of their own codes, but legal.

Yes quite so. The Ombudsman states that no rules were broken because no rules had been put in place. Therefore in their judgment, there was maladministration rather than unlawfulness.

In effect they are saying that parliament were negligent in not legislating the requirement. Thereafter the notification system is reported as being somewhat inconsistent.

However please note that I have not strongly advocated here for WASPI women, I supported another poster's point that there is no need for pensioner poverty in the UK - demonstrably the money is there to avoid it. Likewise the government need to stop pretending there isn't the money to compensate the WASPI women and instead be honest that they are making the political decision not to respect the findings of the ombudsman after saying when in opposition that they would.

This is a common theme though isn't it in these threads and elsewhere - Starmer U turns?

 

[Bromptonaut]

a. I was responding to men having to contribute and women not having to contribute. Saying discrimination against women is unfair (it is wrong/unfair) but then saying discrimination against men is "collective responsibility" - I don't see how that's justified.

b. Collective responsibility: responsibility should apply to both genders, not men having to pay and not women

c. I posted a comment about people (applying equally to all genders) and you started turning it into "Are you saying that women aren't in the real world?".

I'd guess that if women didn't contribute then their husband's didn't get a pension if they died in harness either.

How long ago was this?

 

[briantrumpet]

Yes quite so. The Ombudsman states that no rules were broken because no rules had been put in place. Therefore in their judgment, there was maladministration rather than unlawfulness.

In effect they are saying that parliament were negligent in not legislating the requirement. Thereafter the notification system is reported as being somewhat inconsistent.

However please note that I have not strongly advocated here for WASPI women, I supported another poster's point that there is no need for pensioner poverty in the UK - demonstrably the money is there to avoid it. Likewise the government need to stop pretending there isn't the money to compensate the WASPI women and instead be honest that they are making the political decision not to respect the findings of the ombudsman after saying when in opposition that they would.

This is a common theme though isn't it in these threads and elsewhere - Starmer U turns?

Yes re Starmer, not least on the EU from my perspective. I voted Labour to GTTO, and they did that nicely, but have been disappointing ever since (though, TBF, they are getting some stuff done that needed doing, and aren't Johnson or Truss bad).

Though, in defence of U-turns, when is a U-turn better called 'pragmatism'? We do need politicians with principles, but we also need politicians who can look the electorate in the eye and say "Circumstances have changed, and if we don't change our plans in light of that, we'll only make things worse. That's why we're going to do this, and here's the reasoning."

Basically I don't believe the details of any election manifesto, as the electorate always rewards the biggest lies and never learns the lesson, so politicians lie in every manifesto.

 

[Bazzer]

I trust your qualification did not include collecting the sperm 😂

Quite a profitable enterprise (or at least was) as I recall from having dealt with a bull sperm bank some years ago.

 

[briantrumpet]

Quite a profitable enterprise (or at least was) as I recall from having dealt with a bull sperm bank some years ago.

Absolutely. If a breeder hits the jackpot with a bull (please forgive the unfortunate imagery), that bull can make a fortune for its owner. I can't remember the figures, but each ejaculation is divvied up into hundreds of frozen straws (each containing enough semen for a single insemination), and they can 'perform' pretty frequently. I've no idea what a single straw sells for now, but I'd guess £10-£50 depending on the pedigree/demand.

 

[Pross]

IIRC, @Dorset Boy does pensions professionally, so might know a bit more about it than Copilot. One to put in the AI fails thread, it seems. A single human knew more.

It’s always amusing on these sites when someone argues against a person regarding what they do for a living especially when Wiki or Co-Pilot are their sources.

 

[Pross]

I trust your qualification did not include collecting the sperm 😂

I thought that might be what he meant by a ‘blow by blow’ account 😳

 

[Stevo 666]

Previously ...


That's a false statement in the first sentence. That's an opinion in the second, and an ill-formed one.

None of your arguing is related to fact.

It is a fact that NICs is ring-fenced in statute. That is a statement.

The sum that Reeves is trying to raise is about £50bn. It would be a modest sum if the wealthy were prepared to contribute, but too few of them are. They are happy to pay donations to political parties to protect themselves from wealth tax however.

Lord Bamford, along with his brother Mark Bamford, is currently under investigation by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) over alleged aggressive tax avoidance spanning two decades. The inquiry focuses on offshore family trusts in Bermuda that hold shares in the JCB empire, which the Bamfords inherited in 2001.

💰 Potential Tax Liability​

• The Bamford brothers could face a tax bill of over £500 million.
• This figure includes:
  • Unpaid tax on dividends from offshore-held shares
  • Interest on that unpaid tax
  • Penalties of up to 200%, as per HMRC guidance

🕵️‍♂️ Investigation Details​

• The HMRC probe has been ongoing for three years.
• It’s described as a serious investigation, typically launched only when HMRC suspects substantial tax loss.
• The Guardian reported that Lord Bamford has not yet informed parliamentary authorities of the investigation.

🧾 Political Implications​

• The Bamfords have donated over £10 million to the Conservative Party.
• A Labour MP has called for the party to return these donations if the allegations are proven.

Less of of your AI generated tosh.

I said upthread that NI was not in reality ring fenced and you agreed with me - and were at pains to point out that you had already said so. So which bit of what I said does not stack up? 😉

 

[Stevo 666]

That's a good catch!

I pressed Copilot further using your evidence.




You're absolutely right to question that—and your instincts are spot on. The BR19 form was in use well before 2012, despite some sources mistakenly citing that year as its "introduction."
🔍 Clarifying the confusion:

• The November 2012 date refers to a specific version of the BR19 form published on GOV.UK—not its original creation.
• In fact, BR19 was already being used by the Retirement Pension Forecasting Team and referenced in Hansard as early as 2007, as you noted. That exchange included monthly statistics on how many forecasts were processed via BR19 and telephone requests.

📜 So yes, BR19 was active and officially recognized in government operations well before 2012. The misunderstanding likely stems from the way online publication dates are sometimes mistaken for inception dates.

Do ever use any other method of trying to argue? One for the AI fails thread. In fact, you should go in there 🙂

 

[Stevo 666]

A day and a half and that's the best you can do?

Nope, it's just that I have a life outside of his forum.

Is this half arsed trolling attempt your best effort?

 

[monkers]

It’s always amusing on these sites when someone argues against a person regarding what they do for a living especially when Wiki or Co-Pilot are their sources.

To be clear - I did not argue. I did not know that Dorsetboy was involved in that industry. I posted what copilot had said, and subsequently debunked the misinformation using copilot pro which wrote a full report rather than a quick answer. I also agreed that it was an AI fail. My reply to Dorsetboy was that it was a good catch. Please stop stirring the pot.

 

[Pross]

Form BR19 was introduced in November 2012.

So this reply to DB originally mentioning the form wasn’t arguing? OK, it seemed to me you were suggesting he was wrong which would be considered arguing by most people.