Campaigner to lose £51k in pension payments ‘I have worked all my life, only to find I have been robbed’

A campaigner fighting “unjust” changes to women’s pensions claims she is being pushed into poverty.

Deena Wild - one of 3.8 million women forced to wait up to an extra six years to get their state pension under a government shake-up - says she will lose more than £51,000 in pension payments and will be reliant on her already dwindling savings until she turns 66.

The 60-year-old, who moved to Canterbury from Manchester in 2014 to be closer to her disabled granddaughter, previously worked as a set and costume designer and then a business advisor for creative industries.

“I have struggled, fought my way up and raised two children as a single parent,” she said.

“I’ve faced discrimination in terms of promotion and comparative wage and only received my first equal pay when I worked for a female-led company in 2009.

“The system in those days did not make it easy for the majority of women to take out or access a work pension because in that era, women were often employed part-time or in several part-time roles due to raising children.”

Mrs Wild, who lives in Guilton in Ash, says she heard “through the grapevine” that the women’s pension age was being raised from 60 to 62 as part of a government push to bring the age in line with men’s, which is 65. This will steadily rise to 67 by 2028.

“It was a blow, but I thought my savings would take me through to my new retirement date,” said Mrs Wild, who works part time.

“But then I found out last year that the date had been raised again, with no letter and certainly no notice from the Department for Work and Pensions.

“I have worked all my life to come to an age when I really need and deserve some respite and a chance to enjoy my grandchildren, only to find I have been robbed of what I have paid in for all my life. I have no problem with equalisation - I do have a problem, however, with being reduced to near-poverty without a choice or the chance to prepare for that massive blow.”

Many women born in the 1950s, who had been expecting a state pension at 60, claim they were not told about the changes and set up campaign groups Backto60 and Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI), of which Mrs Wild is a member.

In November, a High Court judge granted a judicial review into how the raising of the pension age has been handled.

n Your article on the hundreds of fixedterm exclusions from local schools draws much-needed attention to a serious problem.

More information is needed, however, to shed light on whether or not all these exclusions are really necessary. For example, in your article the head of the Spires Academy suggests that she has given fixed-term exclusions to pupils for using their mobiles during school time.

If this is against the rules than a punishment may be required; but does it really justify an exclusion? Is this what constitutes ‘persistent disruptive behaviour’?

In my own experience as a parent who has had two kids in the system for the last nine years, such terms are used very broadly on occasion by some school staff.

Also, what is included under such terms as ‘verbal abuse’ and even ‘physical assault’?

There is a difference between a pupil telling another pupil or member of staff to ‘get stuffed’ or ‘sod off’ or ‘I hate you’, and, at the other end of the scale, a foulmouthed, aggressive tirade in someone’s face (and at all times age, context and other factors are important).

Yet, ‘verbal abuse’ is often used in schools as a catch-all term for rudeness, disrespect and offensiveness, even where some of it is relatively minor. ‘

‘Physical assault’ may also be used very broadly, referring to anything from pushing and grabbing through to punching, kicking and worse. Is it possible that some of these exclusions are for incidents that are not as serious as the terms used suggest they are?

It is worrying to think that some children may be being excluded for simply being difficult or demanding. Indeed, many pupils with special needs are regularly excluded.

There are, of course, laws and regulations concerning exclusions, but in my experience there is a lot of room for interpretation of the law by head teachers, and schools are often quick to exclude before exploring other more constructive options, despite what some head teachers say about exclusion being a ‘last resort’.

The editor welcomes letters on any topical subject, but reserves the right to edit them. Letters must include your name and address even when emailed and a daytime telephone number. Write to Room B119 Canterbury College, New Dover Road, Canterbury CT1 3AJ fax 01227 762415, email kentishgazette@thekmgroup.co.uk

n Your correspondent RG Barton should check his history [‘What would Churchill think?’, Letters, Jan 24].

Churchill was strongly in favour of our nation being a member of the (then) Common Market, indeed argued for a federal Europe, and Margaret Thatcher campaigned for us to stay in when the question was put to the people in the referendum of 1975.

There has been quite enough misinformation peddled on behalf of Brexit.