Should widows lose their pension if they re-marry?

[vetran]

And husbands?

IMO, it's right that the bereaved spouse/civil partner of a forces person killed on duty (as opposed to keeling over from too many burgers) gets a good pension, and should keep that pension regardless of whether they get a new partner.

as the deceased, along with husbands (which was all the widows pension covered).


Agree it should be for life and irrespective of remarrying. Its a throwback that it did.

[vwdan]

1>

2> Women aren't allowed to serve in combat roles, so there's not really any need for a war-wodower's pension.

This is a long way from accurate - they can't be infanteers (yet) but they absolutely do serve in front line roles. Even more so in modern warfare where the front line is hard to define. Medics, engineers and drivers are all very much exposed while on the ground.

[SpontaneousOrder]

This is a long way from accurate - they can't be infanteers (yet) but they absolutely do serve in front line roles. Even more so in modern warfare where the front line is hard to define. Medics, engineers and drivers are all very much exposed while on the ground.

Your definition of combat role differs from that of the Uk armed forces.

[vwdan]

Your definition of combat role differs from that of the Uk armed forces.

No it doesn't, because I never said combat role - I said front line roles. You're correct in that women aren't allowed to serve in what the army define as "combat roles", but to make the conclusion that "there's not really any need for a war-widower's pension." is beyond ludicrous.

While the army may not count it as a teeth arm, I'd suggest doing top cover on a convoy through Helmand is a pretty dangerous way to spend an afternoon. Or what about being mortared? Or giving first aid while in open ground and under enemy fire? Contact is contact, no matter what your cap badge says you are.

[SpontaneousOrder]

No it doesn't, because I never said combat role - I said front line roles. You're correct in that women aren't allowed to serve in what the army define as "combat roles", but to make the conclusion that "there's not really any need for a war-widower's pension." is beyond ludicrous.

While the army may not count it as a teeth arm, I'd suggest doing top cover on a convoy through Helmand is a pretty dangerous way to spend an afternoon. Or what about being mortared? Or giving first aid while in open ground and under enemy fire? Contact is contact, no matter what your cap badge says you are.

Well as far as I'm aware, there is a war widower's pension too. But the difference between a support role & a combat role is enormous when it comes to danger - combat soldiers go out on fighting patrols, etc, looking to pick a fight (people die working in supermarkets, but it would be much more likely to be an incentive to be offered some kind of pension if they instead worked down a mine or something).

It's all just part of the deal to incentivize people into taking a job. When risking your life, knowing that your partner will be taken care of might make a big difference.

I'm not a woman, but I'll still get a payout should my other half croak. It all comes down to planning - which is what insurance is all about.

This may well be for the benefit of VectraMan, or whoever asked the 21st century woman related question.

[mudskipper]

Well as far as I'm aware, there is a war widower's pension too. But the difference between a support role & a combat role is enormous when it comes to danger - combat soldiers go out on fighting patrols, etc, looking to pick a fight (people die working in supermarkets, but it would be much more likely to be an incentive to be offered some kind of pension if they instead worked down a mine or something).

It's all just part of the deal to incentivize people into taking a job. When risking your life, knowing that your partner will be taken care of might make a big difference.

I'm not a woman, but I'll still get a payout should my other half croak. It all comes down to planning - which is what insurance is all about.

This may well be for the benefit of VectraMan, or whoever asked the 21st century woman related question.

If you're right, and women aren't on danger in the battlefield, then providing a widower's pension for the husbands of women killed on active duty won't cost anything, so what's the issue?

[SpontaneousOrder]

If you're right, and women aren't on danger in the battlefield, then providing a widower's pension for the husbands of women killed on active duty won't cost anything, so what's the issue?

I don't think I ever suggested that they weren't in danger on the battlefield. In fact I did suggest that they were even in danger in the supermarket.

[vetran]

they already provide a death in service pension for serving women and civil partners. see link.

This is about should 'the little woman' (or man) lose their pension if they remarry?

frankly I don't think so.

[SueEllen]

they already provide a death in service pension for serving women and civil partners. see link.

This is about should 'the little woman' (or man) lose their pension if they remarry?

frankly I don't think so.

I think they should.

They will not necessarily marry another person in the armed forces so they can go and get a job.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Is this to apply retrospectively? Or just going forwards for new recruits? If it's the latter then who cares. If it's applied retrospectively it might feel a bit fraudulent.