Thank you for publishing the article regarding the outcome of the High Court hearing after the judicial review brought by the campaign group Back To 60. There are, however, some points I need to clarify;
Firstly, Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) has a different ‘ask’ to Back To 60. Its course of action – the court case – was not ‘backed’ by WASPI. To the contrary, it was felt to claim discrimination was not a strong case and therefore to be avoided.
However, WASPI have commended Its efforts to get to that stage, it takes a lot of hard work, and is why through the Department of Work and Pensions complaints process and maladministration has been deemed an effective way forward.
Secondly, WASPI is not just campaigning for ‘a better pension’, they are bringing to the attention of government and the 3.8 million women affected, the unfair way the scheduling was rolled out, then escalated in the later 2011 Pensions Act, doubling or sometimes tripling the state pensionage changes for some women.
The successive governments failed to inform the majority of women this was happening for over 14 years (1995 to 2009) and, while the first phase got underway, the coalition government decided to change retirement ages yet again.
Thirdly, the WASPI campaign greatly appreciates the ongoing support from cross-party MPs and is heartened by the recent strengthening of back-up at the two party political conferences held in the south last month.
As all campaigns challenging the government on this (there are over 15 variations) hope to derive a successful outcome, knowing who is who is essential, and I hope this is helpful.