Let me say it is a delight to read this sort of well thought out informative post which so effectively explains why the desire of a few grumpy exiles to enrich themselves at the expense of the taxpayers in a country they have abandoned should be elevated to the level of a human right. I now understand why their desire for more gin in Canada is equal to the need of people in other countries not to starve or undergo torture.

Nope, I'm quite happy to amuse myself on this thread thanks.

What else can you say about this topic that's not already been said? If it wasn't for us you'd have nothing or nobody to rant at and this thread would be dead, which rhymes and would be a shame...

OK, so why don't you spend some time finding out instead of just guessing.
Your time and input would at least be productive to the discussion.

Allow me....


http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/natlex...fication=15.02

A lot of information there and I can't be bothered to go through it all, but you retired folk have time on your hands.

Countries without state pensions paid to citizens abroad:

India
China
Korea
USA

There, that's most of the world's population.

Now, which article of the UN Declaration of Human Rights deals with pensions? Is it 23(2) you think applies?

Now, which article of the UN Declaration of Human Rights deals with pensions? Is it 23(2) you think applies?[/QUOTE]
>>
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
>>
I don't see pensions mentioned there !! Ask me another !

Thank you for that - I have not seen that site before and will go and look.

You may like to look at Article 2 of the UN DHR.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

In other words - no discrimination.

but you're defeating your own argument here. In claiming a right to UK pension, you are claiming to "belong" to the UK. Nobody is denying that claim or discriminating against you because of your Britishness. In being British, you are goverened by UK laws and statutes, which do not provide for the index-linking of pensions payable to residents of some foreign countries. Which right is it that you've lost, exactly?

Quite. Not A Human Right.

Equality. The same pension that others enjoy. So no discrimination as to where I choose to live.

It seems to me that non-discrimination, as described in that clause, would require everyone in the world to receive the pension you seek, otherwise there is discrimination in favour of the British. I suppose that would reduce the number of refugees; a British pension, indexed linked or not, would be worth quite a bit in Somalia.

My line of thought in citing 23(2) btw was that maybe there's a case that a pension is a deferred wage for work performed. If so, some people are being paid more than others for the same work. This is bullshit, of course, but I think it's better bullshit than trying to use a clause aimed at ethnic discrimination.

It is saying that all countries should treat their citizens fairly and without discrimination. Not as you are suggesting that all people everywhere shoud be exactly equal in every respect which is a Utopian ideal and unrealistic. Many countries have a lower standard of living to those that we enjoy and some are probably higher and each has a responsibility to its citizens. Yes , there are many countries whose governments fail miserably to play fair.
I am talking about a British pension being paid to a British citizen. I may be in Canada but I am a British citizen the same as the British citizen in the USA that gets the full pension. The same as the British citizen in the Philippines that gets the full pension. The same as the British citizen in the UK that gets the full pension.. What is it about that that you do not or choose not to understand. You are trying to sidetrack the argument to make some sort of invalid point. We are not talking about Somalia or anywhere else but the UK and it's pension policy.
Things would be different if I were Canadian born and in receipt of a Canadian pension as I would get the full pension irrespective of where I chose to live in retirement. I would, naturally have to meet any tax liability in that country the same as I do in Canada with my pension. So why does not Canada be selective and pay some and not others any yearly increase ? Because the Canadian government choose to play fair with all citizens unlike the British government. If, as I think you suggested before, that the pension was only paid to RESIDENTS IN THE UK, then we would have no argument but that is not the case, is it ? We would probably still try to get our just and paid for pension even if that were the case but it is'nt.

Why are you in Canada? Did someone coerce you? Might I suggest that you replace "British" with, shall we say, "Indian", or "Somalian" and see if it still works for you.


Jeez, some folk!

OK. "I am a Somalian citizen the same as the Somalian citizen in the USA that gets the full pension." There's still discrimination there. Your point is.....??? Jeez, some folk.