sandyf

You perfectly free believe the British overseas territories were not under foreign rule.

It is a sad state of affairs when countries that claim to be civilised are not prepared to move away from that. But then Americans have never really seen the cost of war on their own soil.

You have highlighted how over the years indiginous peoples were beaten into submission to such an extent they do not have any say. Some should remember where they came from when running down Europe. Ukraine however does have a voice which should be heard. There is something like 63 countries that have negotiated severence from dominence by Westminster over the years.

So you are saying that policy will be extended to Finland and it will also be invaded by Russia.

The Trump mentality, "a big 'no' for Russia," equates to surrender for Ukraine. If countries have a dispute over territorial rights there are pathways to resolution, occupation by force should not be one of them. Of course it is no surprise the US is in favour of taking what it wants by force. Remind us, what was said about Greenland.

It was just a suggestion, which could equally apply to the big boys. Operating costs,in my humble opinion, would more likely be affected by location than variety.

Funny how the trumpeteers can put different spins on the same scenario. The first deal was nothing more than a manipulated surrender.

Please enlighten us, Why didn't he agree to the deal on the table back in Feb.

Indeed. We have about 20 mango trees and about as many varieties. As they ripen the taste can change almost daily. Also affected by the weather, 2 of our trees that I know of, for the first time have not produced any fruit at all this year. In the markets, price may well depend on locality rather than variety.

You are having a laugh. Twice a day, yes, one coming and one going. I only ever went on it once, took about 4 hours from Chonburi, that would be about 5 hours from Pattaya. It was dark by the time we got to Bangkok and with only 3rd class all the windows were open. Carriage full of all flying wildlife known to man. No wonder it is a free service to the locals, foreigners are charged as they would never find the same experience elsewhere.

I don't need to wait for the summer, already a significant saving this year. Number of units used in the first 4 months is nearly a third down on the same period last year, 1462 units this year as opposed to 2062 units last year. It's all about the weather and the summer may well wipe it out.

Historical precedance isn't really a definitive guide. As far as I am aware there hasn't been a case based on the 2010 Equality act, or a case based on the earnings related pension. The regulation on uprating only refers to "Retirement Pensions" there is no reference to "Earnings Related Pensions". There is no way the two can be considered the same, as the government doesn't see it that way. Retirement pensions are under the triple lock and Earnings Related pensions under CPI.

You are talking rubbish, there is no such thing.

There is no "monthly income" requirement. The requirement is based on monthly transfers of income, a subtle difference. When the UK stopped the letters I had to wait for the 12 months to pass before I could do another 12 month extension. If you cannot make use of an overseas account then money in the bank may be the most convenient option. Apparently agents have a magic wand.

You are talking rubbish. The legislation that denies an uprated pension is covered in this "The Social Security Benefit (Persons Abroad) Regulations 1975" It should be noted that there is no reference to a "state pension" as technically it doesn't exist. It is a term coined by the government to promote their agenda. This is the applicable text, Sect 5, para 3, sub para (c) Application of disqualification in respect of up-rating of benefit 5.—(1) Where regulations made in consequence of an order under section 124 of the Act(up-rating of benefits) provide for the application of this regulation to any additional benefit becoming payable by virtue of that order, the following provisions of this regulation shall, subject to regulation 12 below and the provisions of those regulations, have effect in relation to the entitlementto that benefit of persons absent from Great Britain. (2) In this regulation— (a) references to additional benefit of any description are to be construed as referring to additional benefit of that description which is, or but for this regulation would be, payableby virtue (either directly or indirectly) of the said order; and (b) “the appointed date” means the date appointed for the coming into force of the said order. (3) Where a person is not ordinarily resident in Great Britain immediately before the appointed date the provisions of these regulations (except this regulation) shall not, unless and until he becomes ordinarily resident in Great Britain, affect his disqualification while he is absent from Great Britain for receiving — (a) in the case of a woman who immediately before the appointed date was a married woman and had not retired, any additional Category B retirement pension, if immediately before that date her husband had retired and was not ordinarily resident in Great Britain; (b) in the case of a woman who immediately before the appointed date is a widow, any additional Category B retirement pension, if her husband had died before the appointed date; (c) in any other case, any additional retirement pension of any category, if that person had retired or had otherwise become entitled to a retirement pension before the appointed date; (d) any additional widow's benefit if her husband had retired or died be-before the appointed date; (e) any additional child's special allowance if her former husband had died before the appointed date. The legislation applies to everyone absent from the UK. The government however created exemptions to the legislation for certain situations. The legality of that is another matter.

That would have to be the captain, putting the towing crew's lives in danger. The court of enquiry will make the determination if the manoeuvre was justified while an aircraft was being moved. The brakeman was very lucky to have got out of the cockpit in time.

What I cannot understand is why the media have not challenged Starmer on this paragraph from Page 76 of the 2019 labour Party Manifesto. "We will ensure that the pensions of UK citizens living overseas rise in line with pensions in Britain." Obviously I was mistaken in thinking that if something was seen to need changing in 2019, unless already addressed, it would still need changing in 2025.

There is a great deal of ignorance among the UK population over the state pension. I have to hold my hand up, i never paid a great deal of attention until I became self employed. The government tries to use that ignorance to their advantage. Between 1961 and the pension reforms in 2016 many were contributing to 2 different pension arrangements, a retirement pension and an earnings related pension. many are quite unaware of the second state pension. Whenever this topic is ever raised, the government only ever comment on the singular. The arguments they put forward are tenuous to say the least in respect of the retirement pension and become outright lies in respect of the earnings related pension. In Feb last year Paul Maynard stood in the HOC and claimed there was no exclusive link between NI and the state pension. An earnings related pension can only be calculated from NI contributions, but his comment went unchallenged by both the House and the media. It is a sad fact of life that equality issues are perceived in numbers, once the numbers get to a point they may cost votes, then the government may start to pay attention. Mention "trans" and the law will be rewritten before you blink. This matter will only ever be resolved in the courts which is not an easy option. Despite what the government may claim the issue has not been before the courts under current equality legislation.

You are perfectly free to take any distorted view you wish, and disagree with the APPG. You are in good company, the Labour Party gave it's support in 2018 to the APPG, and now renaged on that committment. From the Chairman, "Successive governments of differing political persuasions have sheltered behind the assertion that “we can only uprate pensions for UK citizens living overseas in countries with which we have a reciprocal agreement”. That is quite simply factually and morally wrong. There is no requirement upon the Government of the United Kingdom to enter into any “reciprocal agreement” with another country before honouring its obligation to pay the full and uprated State pension to any UK citizen who has paid the requisite National Insurance contributions upon which State pensions are based." http://frozenbritishpensions.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Frozen-Pensions-APPG-1.pdf

I think you are referring to the Carson case which actually started in 2002, with final judgement in 2010. The item you mention, Article 14 was actually dismissed on the basis it had not been brought before a domestic court. The main argument surrounded the right to an uprated pension and the court found that did not constitute a "human right". The government has claimed the frozen pension policy has been supported by the courts, but that is misleading. The court decision was against the claimants case, it did not mean the government was not guilty of discrimination under current equality legislation. In the final summation one of the judges made the following statement which the government has quoted quite regularly. "Unlike private pension schemes, National Insurance contributions had no exclusive link to retirement pensions." That is a distorted statement as the "Retirement Pension" is what many will be entitled to under the National Insurance Act of 1959/60. How exclusive a link is required. If there were no exclusive link, then everyone would be paid the same and that is certainly not the case.

I am too old to be getting over anything. Your response only highlights the "I am all right Jack" attitude to injustice.

You are wrong. Contracting out came about in the 60s under the GP scheme. that came to an end in 1975 and in 1978 the SERPS version was introduced. It wasn't until 1989 that people had a choice. Your distorted view is irrelevant, the policy was blatant discrimination.

A common misunderstanding is people thinking the "state pensions" are funded from income tax. There is no such thing as the "state pension" it is a collective term for various pension payments. The Retirement Pension was funded by NI contributions as specified in the 1946 National Insurance Act, only the shortfall in contributions is funded from income tax.

Not surprising. the Carson case from 2002 was based on human rights and failed. The strongest case would be under the current equality laws with personal circumstances a significant factor. The discrimination has been more definitive against some more than others.

One of the greatest acts of discrmination perpetrated by the UK government was "contracting out". Parliament passed an arrangement that benefitted them and only part of the UK population. Under the scheme, the government allowed the "select" to put part of their NI contributions into an occupational/private pension scheme. In 1989 they even bribed some to contract out. Those that could do so, now get the returns from that part of their NI index liked globally. Those not allowed to contract out had to remain in the government second state pension and then be faced with it being frozen in certain jurisdictions.