The changes were made several years ago and were phased in according to your date of birth

Explain how you "suddenly" had to wait another 5 years

It doesn't seem to add up

I'm sorry if you think I was being deliberately offensive. I was just trying to work out what the basis of your confusion was. Even if it was 30 years ago, it is quite odd to think that you
a) were on a jury with "volunteers" and "professionals" -- not possible.
b) that the court hearing a criminal case made an order regarding custody of children -- also not possible.

And for your information: the system of jury selection in England and Wales has not changed significantly in our lifetimes (I'm 61).

So you were in your early 50's when the changes were made.

That is not exactly having "the rug snatched" from under you is it?

.....and many other counties have done exactly the same thing

Well if the topic of discussion is pension dates being changed at short notice, the age of person claiming that is relevant. I may want to look up information pertaining to it to better understand the scenario.

The changes were made in 2007 and the changes were phased in according to your birthdate....It was not a " sudden" change to the rules

Do you not get your state pension at 65?

I thought the changes were introduced in 2010?

The Pensions Act 2007 introduced the changes to retirement age

I don't understand why you think that headline is negative. Surely it's a positive that an insurance company is paying out due to flood damage? The floods themselves were a negative event, but reporting on them was important. An insurance company paying out after the damage is a positive.

I think some people just like to see negativity when it really isn't there.

Ironic from you

Not really.

Pension age was 60, now it's 65 (for me), it may have been several years ago, but it was still sudden when you're planning for a future that includes a pension.

a) it sounds to me like it would be possible, for people with nothing better to do, to hang around a court, making it known that they are available:
b) I never said it was a custody case, and they didn't make any orders regarding custody of the child, but the outcome was a criminal conviction and the child taken into care.

It may 'sound to you' but that's your imagination working overtime.

As I've already told you, a criminal court can't make a care order.

So how do you interpret the rule that says anyone can be selected to make up the numbers?
And as I've already told you, they didn't make a care order.