Legal challenge

[SoCo]

[MEDIA=twitter]941267237478060032[/MEDIA]

[jellytot]

Hi jellytot I h


Not read through today’s report yet jellytot.
But I reckon it will be weeks before you get a decision.

Basicly the QC is arguing that the employers have breeched the age discrimination act by treating younger members differently. The judges have to look at the moral and legal implications before reviewing and deciding.

Will need to see the summary of day 4 to see what happened today.

There is a post on the cops Twitter thread expected March/April 2018.

It will be a long wait but from my limited understanding of it all and what I have read they seem to have a had a bloody good shot at it at least.

[bill.advanced]

Will need to see the summary of day 4 to see what happened today.

There is a post on the cops Twitter thread expected March/April 2018.

It will be a long wait but from my limited understanding of it all and what I have read they seem to have a had a bloody good shot at it at least.

They have had a good go at it.
They have to convince the judges that the actions of the government fall within the ADA.
It looks to be in the balance, but I would not be surprised either way.

But the fire brigades union hsve fought this battle, and deserve so much credit no matter what the result. They have pulled out all the stops here.

Hopefully we will all get some good news next year, and make it three in a row for the fire brigades union.

[southpaw]

A couple of questions , does the outcome of this have far reaching consequences for other public sectors, and if so why is it not more in the news.
Secondly if we win can the government then take it to a higher court, where they can have more influence over the result.

[bill.advanced]

A couple of questions , does the outcome of this have far reaching consequences for other public sectors, and if so why is it not more in the news.
Secondly if we win can the government then take it to a higher court, where they can have more influence over the result.

I would think yes to your first question, but there are few pension schemes that did allow you to retire at 50. Most were set to a higher age, but yes it’s possible.

Your next question is a leading question.
I happen to believe in our justice system, and at the risk of sounding naive I have complete faith that the government will have no more influence than the appellants, who are indeed the government themselves in the case of the judges. Take our commutation campaign, £811 million, PPI heading for £50 billion, sexual discrimination claims at work running into billions for women.

Yes they most certainly will go to the House of Lords if the are given leave to appeal, which would seem likely in this case. What is doubtful is wether or not the fire brigades union would have the finances to further appeal if we lose, the costs may be to costly.
Let’s wait and see.

[southpaw]

Cheers bill, you have more faith in the system than me

[bill.advanced]

Cheers bill, you have more faith in the system than me

It’s got nothing to do with faith.
We don’t live in a banana republic, or a despotic state.
Our governments are held to account, morally, legally, financially, and factually.
They have to abide by the rules just like you and I.
They make them.

If Thompson’s and the fire brigades union thought otherwise they would not be puting all of their time money, and effort into this. I have lots of faith in Thompson’s, and the man in charge at the fire brigades union Sean Starbuck.

If we lose here, it won’t be because of corrupt practice, it will be because the judges have decided that what the government have done does not breech the age discrimination act of 2006, plain and simple.

My fingers are crossed for you all good luck.

[Red44]

I'm gonna don my flameproof suit before asking this question but please don't think I'm being a selfish sod for asking it:-

Will the outcome of the appeal have any possible detrimental effect on those still in the 1992 scheme who are fully protected at this current time? I read that the Government can't simply remove protection for everyone so they 'aren't discriminating against anyone' because they will not be permitted to 'worsen conditions' for existing members. But what are the options here and how could they affect folk with a couple of years to go before retirement?

Genuine question. Don't chuck flack at me for asking, I'm not the only one at my station wondering this.

[bill.advanced]

I'm gonna don my flameproof suit before asking this question but please don't think I'm being a selfish sod for asking it:-

Will the outcome of the appeal have any possible detrimental effect on those still in the 1992 scheme who are fully protected at this current time? I read that the Government can't simply remove protection for everyone so they 'aren't discriminating against anyone' because they will not be permitted to 'worsen conditions' for existing members. But what are the options here and how could they affect folk with a couple of years to go before retirement?

Genuine question. Don't chuck flack at me for asking, I'm not the only one at my station wondering this.

It’s a fair question red, and I get your logic.
If the employers treated everyone the same then this would take out the age discrimination act from the dispute. But there are buts.
But the government who have argued a moral case for these changes would now find it difficult to retreat from their position. Also from a practical point of view it would be very difficult to carry this out.
But the main reason that they cannot do this is not a moral one, men and women have already retired on the 1992 FPS, it could therefore be argued that you would have been discriminated against under the 2006 ADA.

Happy retirement when it comes red.

[Lou1z]

On the above point, I would say that if they removed the protection for older members of the FPS, NFPS then this would have to be applied across the whole public sector as they blanketed the whole public sector within "within 10 years of retirement of the normal retirement age of their scheme"
That would cause another uproar in itself although it would probably be the opposite and the people already affected probably wouldn't kick up that much as the winds already been taken out of their sails. Remember we were here in 2006 with the NFPS and that has came back to bite us.
I'm not sure what the outcome of this can be?
If it is proven they are being age discriminate, what are the possible outcomes or remedies?
1. Everybody gets turned over in the interest of fairness?
2. Nobody gets turned over?
3. Some sort of compromise between the above? But what?

I don't see number 2 happening as that defeats the object of what they were trying to achieve.
Number 1 would cause an uproar from those protected but is a posssibility.
Number 3? Perhaps they will come back with a new form of words based on something other than age?

And let's not forget that the FBU got them to admit that they shouldn't be using the pension fund to prop up the deficit but the judge ruled that they could in the interest of the country?
So it's anyone's' guess but in reply to Red44's question, I would say that those in protection are currently on slightly thinner ice than they were before this appeal started.