marclouis

Thank you, that is an excellent summery, can i ask you two things,

when can we expect the european ruling?

would a new petition, leaving out mention of the excess funds available, but just mentioning the unfair discrepancy, have a different answer than the previous petition, as surely it diverted attention from the fact that the disparity is unfounded?

iaink

But it is entirely a financial matter. Who can say what motivates anything that happens in a ECHR context? Because thats what lawyers do. Group action cases tend to bring the sharks to the surface So go back to the UK then if you think the amount at issue here matters so much. The UK government isnt stopping you. That would be a human rights infringement after all Yes. Trust me, its not going to change 12 19 22 35 36 40 41 Bonus 39

But if you think Im telling you next weeks and then end up having to split the jackpot with the rest of you, then you have another thing coming Im sorry you were insulted, I figure the effort going into this would be better directed at a more worthwhile issue, and one with more chance of progress.

My facts hold up. This is not about not getting NO pension, its about the few percent annual increase after you start to claim whatever you are entitled to from the time you spent paying into the UK system. For most expats thats not going to be a huge amount. Not since they got rid of the retirement class anyway, and if you came on that boat without checking out your retirement benefits here, then you deserve trouble in my opinion. By the time most expats emmigrating in there 20s or 30s retire the amount we are talking about in index linking will be laughably small in real terms. If you think it will affect your material well being in retirement in any real way, then you are not saving enough for your own independent plan.

I know right from wrong yada yada yada, but I know a hiding to nothing when I see it too. This is wrong, we agree its wrong, we signed the petition to try and fix it, but beating your head against the wall wont change it now. Carrying on this thread wont change it either.

That was my point, someone should kill this thread, it degenerated into name calling and its not stating anything new that wasnt stated 300 posts again. Its time to euthanise it. If you want to go on protesting till you are blue in the face, then good luck to you, its just sad to keep a 300+ post thread alive long after the original topic for discussion has closed, especially as it has degenerated into personal remarks about other posters, and long after all the points have been made, (and agreed with in large part) .)DOZENS of times. You are all either preaching to the converted, or in dbds case to the unconvertable.

dbd33

Surely he speaks as a wise person making a mature assessment of what is and what is not a matter of justice. He speaks as a vertiable Solomon.


(Just defending a poster against the dirty tactic of ad hominen attack, not reentering the debate).

bazzz

What do old people need money for, anyway? Sitting around stinking of piss doesn't sound like a very expensive hobby.

smiges33

[
You are all either preaching to the converted, or in dbds case to the unconvertable.[/QUOTE]

smiges33

presume you will be old one day unless you plan on leaving the planet early

bazzz

I imagine one of those internet-messageboard-death-threats will catch up with me long before then.

smiges33

could be. probably from the canadian tax man for not declaring your taxes.

BristolUK

What's that got to do with it? Even if one accepts complete impartiality in those rulings, they ruled on the law. And it wouldn't be the first time the European court ruled differently; it's happened a few times, even on Pensions matters.

But Law can be changed. Think about all those courts that ruled on poll tax issues - didn't stop the law from being changed did it.

Where you're right is to say there's no great push for this particular change. That could be because few people are affected by it. Or it could be so few people know about it. Campaigns may increase awareness leading to a bigger push.

Someone mentioned what would people in Britain say if they were asked if those moving abroad should get increases. I'm pretty sure most would say no. But what do you think the answer would be if the question was worded in a different way. "Having paid in for your pension, do you think that when the time comes you should get the same returns as everyone else whether you live in the UK, Country A or Country B?"

I think the results would be somewhat different when the question directly involves the person being polled. I'm pretty sure not many would agree they should lose it in leaving the UK. I'm absolutely positive nobody (of sound mind) would say give it to me in Country A but not Country B.

Of course they're not. But Human Rights issues - as has already been stated - are not just about minimum standards; they are also about discrimination.

British law has put this law in place. Not surprisingly the British courts have backed it just as they backed that case discriminating against Widowers a few years ago. But the European Court ruled that the (British) law did, in fact, discriminate against Widowers. So British law got changed. Did you not hear about that one? It was about bereaved women qualifying for something while bereaved men did not. Sound familiar? One group of Brits getting something that another group did not. All backed up by the British courts but overturned by the European court as discriminatory.

Of course none of this guarantees anything. The European Court is not always consistent. But the fact that a country's legal system has backed it's law means nothing. That's the whole point of having the European Court for such matters surely? The UK signed up to it. What would be the point of that if a different ruling wasn't possible?

Biiiiink

I think this thread has run its course and turned to name calling, so it's now closed.

Please remind yourselves of the site rules .