|
|
Post by patman post on Jun 26, 2024 15:36:22 GMT
Could lowering the age of legal responsibility be the answer?
If so, they’d be thought old enough and responsible enough to sign contracts, join the military as combat troops, get married or enter into legal partnerships — so why not old enough to vote…?
PS — if 16 year olds are not thought responsible enough to do these and other things, why should they be thought responsible enough to vote for people who will decide who can…?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 26, 2024 15:43:03 GMT
Could lowering the age of legal responsibility be the answer? If so, they’d be thought old enough and responsible enough to sign contracts, join the military as combat troops, get married or enter into legal partnerships — so why not old enough to vote…? PS — if 16 year olds are not thought responsible enough to do these and other things, why should they be thought responsible enough to vote for people who will decide who can…? You can't legally buy a pint in a pub until you are 18, yet again Starmer hasn't thought it through. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jun 26, 2024 15:50:08 GMT
Could lowering the age of legal responsibility be the answer? If so, they’d be thought old enough and responsible enough to sign contracts, join the military as combat troops, get married or enter into legal partnerships — so why not old enough to vote…? PS — if 16 year olds are not thought responsible enough to do these and other things, why should they be thought responsible enough to vote for people who will decide who can…? You can't legally buy a pint in a pub until you are 18, yet again Starmer hasn't thought it through. Or maybe he’s happy to keep the sprogs out of the way (and influence) of the Reform leader… |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 26, 2024 15:52:45 GMT
You can't legally buy a pint in a pub until you are 18, yet again Starmer hasn't thought it through. Or maybe he’s happy to keep the sprogs out of the way (and influence) of the Reform leader… Or to make use of the sprogs that have been brain washed by leftie grooming . |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jun 26, 2024 16:05:49 GMT
and then only adult men who own land... and then only adult men who own land who don't hope for a Starmer/Davey coalition... Ah, but you can't dictate who people can or can't vote for. Otherwise it defeats the object. Who would decide who you are allowed to vote for? No offence but I hope it's not you! 😂 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2024 16:19:42 GMT
Or maybe he’s happy to keep the sprogs out of the way (and influence) of the Reform leader… Or to make use of the sprogs that have been brain washed by leftie grooming . We can see why Starmer helped Jimmy Savile. Every Labour supporter on this forum is in favour of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 26, 2024 16:36:08 GMT
and then only adult men who own land who don't hope for a Starmer/Davey coalition... Ah, but you can't dictate who people can or can't vote for. Otherwise it defeats the object. Who would decide who you are allowed to vote for? No offence but I hope it's not you! 😂 Here's a tip that will stand you in good stead for the future ..... never tell anyone publicly that you would like to see a Starmer/Davey coalition ... or you're liable to be taken away by the men in white coats.  |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 26, 2024 17:05:29 GMT
Could lowering the age of legal responsibility be the answer? If so, they’d be thought old enough and responsible enough to sign contracts, join the military as combat troops, get married or enter into legal partnerships — so why not old enough to vote…? PS — if 16 year olds are not thought responsible enough to do these and other things, why should they be thought responsible enough to vote for people who will decide who can…? They cannot join the military as combat troops - you have to be 18. If you join at 16 you need your Mums permission.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2024 17:23:18 GMT
Children should not vote. It should only be for adults. and then only adults who own land... Not sure what the argument is for that, tbh. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jun 26, 2024 17:45:33 GMT
Could lowering the age of legal responsibility be the answer? If so, they’d be thought old enough and responsible enough to sign contracts, join the military as combat troops, get married or enter into legal partnerships — so why not old enough to vote…? PS — if 16 year olds are not thought responsible enough to do these and other things, why should they be thought responsible enough to vote for people who will decide who can…? They cannot join the military as combat troops - you have to be 18. If you join at 16 you need your Mums permission.. My apologies if it wasn’t clear that was my meaning… |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jun 26, 2024 17:49:50 GMT
Or to make use of the sprogs that have been brain washed by leftie grooming . We can see why Starmer helped Jimmy Savile. Every Labour supporter on this forum is in favour of it.
Wasn’t Jimmy Savile courted by all and every political leader — even Maggie — something I’ll never understand, but I wasn’t actively engaged In politics at that time… |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 26, 2024 17:50:33 GMT
They cannot join the military as combat troops - you have to be 18. If you join at 16 you need your Mums permission.. My apologies if it wasn’t clear that was my meaning… Not sure what you are suggesting though. As far as I am aware there is no such thing as an 'age of legal responsibility'. We do have an 'age of criminal responsibility' which is currently 10 years. We do need to tidy up the Law and make it a set date to become an adult (and thus have full authority) for everything - whether that be 16 or 18 I don't really care. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 26, 2024 17:52:07 GMT
and then only adults who own land... Not sure what the argument is for that, tbh. The Representation of the People Act 1918 removed all property qualifications and gave women the vote - at that time we had the largest empire in the world but since then it's all been downhill. Progress? |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jun 26, 2024 17:55:04 GMT
My apologies if it wasn’t clear that was my meaning… Not sure what you are suggesting though. As far as I am aware there is no such thing as an 'age of legal responsibility'. We do have an 'age of criminal responsibility' which is currently 10 years. We do need to tidy up the Law and make it a set date to become an adult (and thus have full authority) for everything - whether that be 16 or 18 I don't really care. It’s a hot afternoon, and iced drinks are sinking well, but wasn’t 21 the age of majority/legal responsibility once? Now it’s 18, can bits of what comes with it be hived off on a political whim…? |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jun 26, 2024 18:00:32 GMT
Not sure what the argument is for that, tbh. The Representation of the People Act 1918 removed all property qualifications and gave women the vote - at that time we had the largest empire in the world but since then it's all been downhill. Progress? Is holding a quarter of the world’s population under the cosh something you hanker after? Those halcyon days are long gone. Now the U.K. is on its own, scouring the world for trading partners that offer it more that additional immigration and outlets for Spice Girls’ downloads… |
|
