Do WASPI women have a strong case?
How frustrating for the women Against State Pension Inequality (wASPI), born in the 1950s, that the Parliamentary and Health Service ombudsman found in their favour, yet people are saying it would cost too much to pay them the compensation they are claiming for the raising of the state pension age from 60 to 65, starting in 2010.
Let’s put the issue in perspective. Most of those women lost thousands and consequently the Government are billions in pocket. Pay the poor betrayed women some money.
AllAn Holden, Clay Cross, derbys. workInG in a public library and issuing bus passes to those eligible to receive one, I lost track of the number of women who went away in tears when told they would have to wait five years longer not only for their bus pass but also their state pension. There were also angry husbands and partners who realised what a massive impact this would have on family finances. Library staff were on the spot, notifying people about the change, when it should have been the DwP doing their job properly. KAren CHennells,
Camberley, surrey.
I wAS born in February 1950 and was fully aware of the change to the pension age for women.
There was plenty of information available, so there was no excuse. we are turning into a nation of compensation-seekers and this country can no longer afford it. Although I could have collected my pension at age 60, I had to continue to work until 65 to get my full, small occupational pension because of the changes to private pensions to bring women in line with men.
I did not object to working the extra years — in fact, I welcomed them. Living on a pension is not all it’s cracked up to be, unless you are a civil servant with a final-salary, index-linked scheme.
l. Boon, Corsham, Wilts. I AM one of the wASPI women whose state pension age was changed overnight. I don’t think we should receive any compensation. Everyone was advised by letter, provided they had kept the relevant authorities up to date with their address. Admittedly the letters were sent some time after the decision came into law but at the time, it was well publicised. why should public money be used to compensate those who choose not to keep up with the news or to read their post?