//
sign in
Profile
by @danabra.mov
Profile
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
Profile
by @jimpick.com
AviHandle
by @danabra.mov
AviHandle
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
AviHandle
by @katherine.computer
EventsList
by @katherine.computer
ProfileHeader
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileHeader
by @danabra.mov
ProfileMedia
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePlays
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileReplies
by @danabra.mov
Record
by @atsui.org
Skircle
by @danabra.mov
StreamPlacePlaylist
by @katherine.computer
+ new component
ProfileReplies









Loading...
Because 1961 born women had their SP age was set in the original '95 act and it was not changed later. The 1950s born women had a second change made to their SP age in 2011. It was the second change they are claiming they did not get adequately informed about.
This person says it better than me.
Raw milk is one of the reasons women had 15 children - it was one of the hazards that meant only a few of them reached adulthood.
Anyone that lives, works and pays tax in the UK has more right to a say in UK elections than Thai based billionaires buying influence by bribing politicians.
Maybe. But I refuse to believe any woman born in the 50s had no idea the SP age had risen from 60. By the time they got to 60 the '95 changes were in force for almost 20 years. Not one colleague, one retirement planner, one employer, one trade union mentioned the SP age had gone up? Nah!
Why should anyone that lives, works and pays taxes in a country not be allowed to have a vote (after a qualifying period)? They pay taxes, why can't they have a say in how they are spent or be represented in parliament?