A regular reader has sent this petition over for those it interests.
Posted by Skimmington
A regular reader has sent this petition over for those it interests.
Posted by Skimmington
Posted at 21:54 in Pensions/Welfare State | Permalink | Comments (0)
Reblog
(0)
| Digg This
|
|
A few recent items and thanks to those who passed many of them on:
Roger Helmer MEP: Resignation update - Discrimination by the Conservative Party against a man
The Independent: The man who was the target of Britain's worst stalker (Gerard Gilbert) - An old story but one not covered here before but certainly always worth forwarding whenever stalking in spoken in the context of women only.
Hull Daily Mail - Domestic abuse against men up by 30%
BBC News - Where women rule and men are suffragettes (Timothy Allen)
Daily Mail - Woman's Hour psychologist who made false claim in custody battle is found guilty of misconduct. (Chris Brooke)
The Guardian - We tell boys not to cry then wonder about male suicide (Ally Fogg) - Great stuff by Ally and his comment is most telling "As I've written before, attempts by men to address their own gender-specific issues are often greeted with hostility and disdain."
Daily mail - Why I'll never let my Ex's new girlfriend meet my son (Kelly Rose Bradford) - A record 1287 comments surely on this rant.
Daily Telegraph - New equality rules could cost companies millions (Louise Peacock) - Equality is equality so why the moaning from the National Association of Pension Funds - surely not another body that thinks it is OK to discriminate against men.
Posted by Skimmington
Posted at 22:24 in Current Affairs/Political, Domestic Violence, Health, Pensions/Welfare State | Permalink | Comments (2)
Reblog
(0)
| Digg This
|
|
At the end of last year the site highlighted the hypocrisy of the feminist movement in complaining about bringing the equalisation of the pension age for men and women forward to 2018. Equality does not mean equality if changes effect women more than men is their mantra.
It had all gone quiet but now the tanks are on the move as the legislation comes soon.
Ros Altmann, the director general of the 50+ Saga group goes on the offensive (literally) in the Telegraph. She said the 'changes are discriminatory' and affect 500,000 women. The Guardian reports that a campaign is brewing and reports further today that the campaign has been launched by Unions Together with their Hands off our Pensions campaign. Linda Murray has started a petition.
It is hard sometimes in writing for the blog not to become angry about the sexism and the sexist attitudes toward men and pleas for special treatment for women in areas like this.
Altmann forgets that for 70 years millions of men have been discriminated against because the state retirement age has been later than women's and they live shorter lives. Where is her complaint there, where was she and Saga campaigning for the equality of pension ages on behalf of their male members. As for the male members of Unions Together - what do they think?
Analysis from the Men's Network showed that men live 13 years in retirement whilst women enjoy 20 years. No mention from Saga and Unions Together on that point?
Equality means equality and men have been the most discriminated group when it comes to state pension age. For anyone to claim otherwise shows they have no sense or belief in what equality really means. They purposely only have one eye open.
The government has to stick to its guns if it believes in equality.
Posted by Skimmington
Posted at 01:26 in Current Affairs/Political, Pensions/Welfare State | Permalink | Comments (4)
Reblog
(0)
| Digg This
|
|
Amongst the voluminous coverage, announcements and suchlike from yesterday's Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) was the announcement that the state pension age for men and women would be equalised at 66 from 2020, rather than 66 for men from 2016 (as previously suggested by the Coalition Government in Opposition and in power) and 66 for women in 2020 as had been suggested in June's Budget. Equalisation at 65 will take place in November 2018.
This was an increase from the last Government's plans to make the state pension age 66 in 2024 and 65 for both genders in 2020 (are you still following?).
It was due to the sterling work of Parity that we have equalisation at all otherwise the five year sexist gap would still be with us in the future rather than just today.
There are a number of important issues here.
Firstly, this site raised the issue that the move (as did Parity again) would be sexist against men and it looks as though the Government has also realised that if it went ahead it would be subject to legal challenge by increasing the gap between men and women's retirement age from five years to six. Sites like this help raise these issues because anyone researching it would have read the post.
Secondly, when a move like this which has greater implications for women than men, draws all the anti-male sexists out of the woodwork.
Anti-male in that they never complained about the blatant discrimination that has meant men have a retirement age five years shorter than women (even though men lives are shorter) for decades and they never publicly complained when it was mooted that male retirement age should be brought forward to 66 in 2016 without any commensurate change to a women's retirement age.
Step forward our friend Ceri Goddard at the Fawcett Society for a particularly frenzied rant about this and also other issues raised the CSR. The recession, of which the budget cuts are a symptom, decimated male employment in the private sector but not a peep from Goddard about that even though it would have affected wives, partners, daughters etc. A theme we have picked up before. Honestly, if you were a man in Fawcett Towers when George Osborne was speaking yesterday you'd have to run to the hills!
Others came out of the woodwork as well, who glibly 'accepted' that previous plans were more harmful to men as this statement by the Saga Group shows.
Dr Ros Altmann, the director general then astoundingly has the nerve to let fly by stating that "Women ar bearing the brunt of the changes. Pension policy always seems to be made by men for men. Women are being sent a simple message - keep on working. That's what the Government's announcement means."
Since 1948, state pension has been paid to women at 60 and men at 65, it is only in 2018 that this injustice against men will be rectified, some 70 years later. And Altmann says pension policy is always against women. Unbelievable. I wonder what the male members of Saga think of her 'balanced' statement.
A good look at this and other issues about the effect on the genders was produced by Mark Easton of the BBC.
Update - Read this inexplicable and laughable rant in the Daily Mail and then read the comments section. Many men are pointing the that women wanted equality - now theyhave got!!
Posted at 22:04 in Current Affairs/Political, Pensions/Welfare State, Women-only | Permalink | Comments (2)
Reblog
(0)
| Digg This
|
|
Posted at 06:40 in Current Affairs/Political, Pensions/Welfare State, Women-only | Permalink | Comments (1)
Reblog
(0)
| Digg This
|
|
Posted at 06:39 in Current Affairs/Political, Pensions/Welfare State, Women-only | Permalink | Comments (4)
Reblog
(0)
| Digg This
|
|
Posted at 00:05 in Current Affairs/Political, Justice System, Pensions/Welfare State | Permalink | Comments (6)
Reblog
(0)
| Digg This
|
|
Part three of our review of manifestos for the election takes a look at the Conservative's offerings.
By far the most concerning item in the manifesto is the Conservative policy on state pensions. At present men have to work five years longer than women to get a pennons despite the fact that they've put in more hours at work on average and thus contributed far more in taxes on average. On top of this, male life expectancy is rather poor in the UK (a fact which even the manifesto even touches on) and as a result your average woman can expect to receive some £81,000 in pension payments in her life, compared with £55,000 for a man.
Such is the unfairness of this situation we even have excellent groups such as PARITY campaigning for pension's equality and even Labour finally agreed to end this sexism one day far into the future. So what's the Conservative policy here? Are they going to equalise retirements ages as soon as possible and live up to their promise of "change"? Well actually, the manifesto promises change, but change that makes the problem even worse! They propose raising the retirement age to 66 in 2016, but only for men. Women will continue to be able to retire at 60 right up until 2020. Thus we'll have a six year difference in retirement ages instead of the present five and £49,000 paid to men compared to £81,000 for women. By my calculations the total sum the Tories will be denying men over the four years is a staggering nine billion pounds. Further still, David Cameron suggests the money is going directly to women so that they all get a full pension, I don't think I've ever seen a more sexist idea.
Obviously such a policy instantly rules anyone interested in equality out of voting for the Tories, which is perhaps a shame given that its proposals do contain a few positives. The first thing of note is the more incisive language used in the document. There's no sexist terminology anywhere to be found. For example the two party manifestos I've reviewed so far focus on the trafficking of women for sex, whereas Conservatives address "people trafficking" which is far more appropriate given forced labour is a massively larger problem. As most people know, the issue of women trafficked for purposes of prostitution has been blown out of all proportion by Labour.
The Conservative's plans in eduction also appear quite reasonable from an equality perspective. They recognise how broken and the current system is, not to mention how devalued qualifications have now become and appreciate the need to focus on core subjects such a maths and science. They also promise more challenging activities for especially gifted pupils, as well as help fro the least able. The Conservative perhaps don't' realise but this is in fact a gender, given that boys dominate both extremes of the intelligence spectrum. More significantly, they specifically mention the issue of false allegations against teachers and promise to protect staff.
Further help from the falsely accused can be found in the section on crime, with the Conservatives promising to remove innocent people from the government DNA database and instead replace them with convicted criminals. Other positives include numerous polices from helping those in the armed services, most notably policies helping them after leaving, and also support for married couples thus helping to remove the current financial incentives for divorcing. Finally there's a commitment to shared maternity leave, which is certainty preferable to Labour's 4 weeks for fathers and 52 for mothers.
However, overall the document is something of a disappointment. Whilst you fell the party has their heart in the right place, the generally feeling you get from the manifesto is that while the Conservatives mostly understand what's important, they really don't seem to quite have the right solutions yet and still seem out of touch. The polices on marriage are commendable for example, but you get the feeling the Conservatives just want to push the clock back to a different era. The party recognises more needs to be done in terms of contact after separation even recognising that we have " some of the worst rates of family breakdown in the world", yet there's no actual commitment to shared parenting. Yes they mention false accusations, but why restrict such polices to the teaching profession when the issue can ruin anyone's life regardless of their profession? The problem isn't schools in this instance, it's society as a whole and the lack of punishment and prosecution of the crime.
Similarly there are also concerns with the Conservative's "Big Society" theme. Concerns about government bureaucracy, waste and interference are sound, but the Conservative approach also brings concerns. For example they want to see charities proving public services, but in some areas that's already the case to some extent. Take domestic violence for example, do we really want to hand even more power to gender feminist organisations such as Women's Aid and Refuge so they can continue to deny help to male vicitms and pretend most of them are making it up?
In conclusion, it's a decent enough document for the most part, but the pensions policy is so horrific it essentially cancels everything else out. It shows us the traditional Conservative way of hurting men is still alive and well. Whereas the Labour party hates men due to it's gender feminist influence, Conservatives harm men through chivalry. The pensions policy shows they expect men to work even harder and longer than women for less reward. It sends out the message that men are an expendable resource to exploit, rather than people deserving of equal treatment and you have to fear that such an attitude will find it's way into other areas of policy. It's all very well coming up with decent education and civil liberties polices, but no one is going to take your seriously if your idea of pensions reform is to ring-fence women's income whilst his taking £9 billion from men to fund it.
John Kimble
Posted at 02:37 in Current Affairs/Political, Education, False Accusations, Family Law, Pensions/Welfare State | Permalink | Comments (5)
Reblog
(0)
| Digg This
|
|
Posted at 18:01 in Pensions/Welfare State | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| Digg This
|
|
Recent Comments