|
Post by hedleyverity on Jul 30, 2024 11:25:22 GMT
Using the death of young children to politically point score is really low. And if the demographic is calculated capable of voting or not by the actions of the worst amongst it then I imagine every demographic is absolutely screwed. I fully agree on the point scoring. There is an awful lot of it going on across social media though. There’s an awful lot of having learnt absolutely nothing from leaping to instant conclusions only a couple of weeks ago about the trouble in Leeds
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Jul 30, 2024 11:34:41 GMT
I fully agree on the point scoring. There is an awful lot of it going on across social media though. There’s an awful lot of having learnt absolutely nothing from leaping to instant conclusions only a couple of weeks ago about the trouble in Leeds And indeed also vis a vis the cop kicking stamping incident last week.
|
|
|
Post by herbiedumplings on Jul 30, 2024 11:36:58 GMT
On the subject, why is so much time and money wasted on exit exams for 16 year olds when they no longer exit? O levels made sense when so many left education at that point but not any more. Level 2 quals can still be available, but don’t see the point in the mass deployment of them at 16 - a waste of money and time. That could free up money to help finance breakfast clubs and free school dinners. You don’t have to study post-16 at the same place as you studied 11-16, so there has to be something portable to demonstrate to your future FE setting that you can cope with your L3 choices. Similarly, everyone needs a decent level of English and Maths whatever they do post-16, so an L2 qualification in those is pretty important whatever happens later in life. And while you can say “what’s the point in a GCSE in History when I want to do Physics at university?” or whatever, I would argue making that choice at 13/14 is too soon. And once you’ve started, you might as well finish IMO.
|
|
|
Post by vicar on Jul 30, 2024 11:46:20 GMT
Using the death of young children to politically point score is really low. And if the demographic is calculated capable of voting or not by the actions of the worst amongst it then I imagine every demographic is absolutely screwed. If we had to pass a test to vote sadly a lot more over 80 would probably fail it than 16 to 18 year olds, there's an argument for anyone reaching adulthood during the next parliament having a vote but that would take it down to 14 so I think 16 is fair. This is nothing to do with the tragic events in Southport.
|
|
|
Post by desmond on Jul 30, 2024 13:03:15 GMT
Using the death of young children to politically point score is really low. And if the demographic is calculated capable of voting or not by the actions of the worst amongst it then I imagine every demographic is absolutely screwed. If that was aimed at me then I take exception to it and was certainly not my intention. We see the same “they are only a child” line across many offences and as this is a political thread and the age of voting has been discussed recently it seemed reasonable to make mention of it. Seems despite being told having alternative views on here is welcome that once again anyone doing so is called out/shut down. Like a few others have said previously I’ll avoid this thread in future.
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Jul 30, 2024 13:13:54 GMT
Using the death of young children to politically point score is really low. And if the demographic is calculated capable of voting or not by the actions of the worst amongst it then I imagine every demographic is absolutely screwed. If that was aimed at me then I take exception to it and was certainly not my intention. We see the same “they are only a child” line across many offences and as this is a political thread and the age of voting has been discussed recently it seemed reasonable to make mention of it. Seems despite being told having alternative views on here is welcome that once again anyone doing so is called out/shut down. Like a few others have said previously I’ll avoid this thread in future. So avoid it. Do you want a f*cking cookie? Not that it matters but it wasn't aimed at you anyhow as I read the post I responded to after yours.
|
|
|
Post by herbiedumplings on Jul 30, 2024 13:14:06 GMT
Using the death of young children to politically point score is really low. And if the demographic is calculated capable of voting or not by the actions of the worst amongst it then I imagine every demographic is absolutely screwed. If that was aimed at me then I take exception to it and was certainly not my intention. We see the same “they are only a child” line across many offences and as this is a political thread and the age of voting has been discussed recently it seemed reasonable to make mention of it. Seems despite being told having alternative views on here is welcome that once again anyone doing so is called out/shut down. Like a few others have said previously I’ll avoid this thread in future. It’s already been explained that the law allows for the suspect to be tried as an adult due to the seriousness of the offences, though. Perhaps you missed that?
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Jul 30, 2024 13:15:43 GMT
If that was aimed at me then I take exception to it and was certainly not my intention. We see the same “they are only a child” line across many offences and as this is a political thread and the age of voting has been discussed recently it seemed reasonable to make mention of it. Seems despite being told having alternative views on here is welcome that once again anyone doing so is called out/shut down. Like a few others have said previously I’ll avoid this thread in future. It’s already been explained that the law allows for the suspect to be tried as an adult due to the seriousness of the offences, though. Perhaps you missed that? Mate. You can't respond to them, criticise them, attack their point of view, argue with them. Or they'll take their ball home and say we're an echo chamber and there's no point posting blah blah blah Jesus, they say us lefties are snowflakes.
|
|
|
Post by Nik on Jul 30, 2024 13:16:03 GMT
Using the death of young children to politically point score is really low. And if the demographic is calculated capable of voting or not by the actions of the worst amongst it then I imagine every demographic is absolutely screwed. If that was aimed at me then I take exception to it and was certainly not my intention. We see the same “they are only a child” line across many offences and as this is a political thread and the age of voting has been discussed recently it seemed reasonable to make mention of it. Seems despite being told having alternative views on here is welcome that once again anyone doing so is called out/shut down. Like a few others have said previously I’ll avoid this thread in future. I don't recall anyone saying that about this bloke though, so you've made a straw man argument. Alternative views are welcome with the expectation that said views will be discussed/debated. All you need to do is look back a few pages to see a really good discussion between bigmartin and Mozzer who disagreed on a subject, yet discussed it fervently yet respectfully. If you aren't going to fight your corner when you express your view then there's no point complaining about it.
|
|
|
Post by vicar on Jul 30, 2024 14:12:58 GMT
Using the death of young children to politically point score is really low. And if the demographic is calculated capable of voting or not by the actions of the worst amongst it then I imagine every demographic is absolutely screwed. If that was aimed at me then I take exception to it and was certainly not my intention. We see the same “they are only a child” line across many offences and as this is a political thread and the age of voting has been discussed recently it seemed reasonable to make mention of it. Seems despite being told having alternative views on here is welcome that once again anyone doing so is called out/shut down. Like a few others have said previously I’ll avoid this thread in future. I don't think it was, somebody suggested the killer wouldn't have been British, you made a reasonable point.
|
|
|
Post by mattyovrio on Jul 30, 2024 15:55:13 GMT
On the subject, why is so much time and money wasted on exit exams for 16 year olds when they no longer exit? O levels made sense when so many left education at that point but not any more. Level 2 quals can still be available, but don’t see the point in the mass deployment of them at 16 - a waste of money and time. That could free up money to help finance breakfast clubs and free school dinners. You don’t have to study post-16 at the same place as you studied 11-16, so there has to be something portable to demonstrate to your future FE setting that you can cope with your L3 choices. Similarly, everyone needs a decent level of English and Maths whatever they do post-16, so an L2 qualification in those is pretty important whatever happens later in life. And while you can say “what’s the point in a GCSE in History when I want to do Physics at university?” or whatever, I would argue making that choice at 13/14 is too soon. And once you’ve started, you might as well finish IMO. You don’t need external exams for that. They only had them as they were an exit point for a lot of 16 year olds but not any more. A massive waste of resource IMVHO.
|
|
|
Post by redhatter on Jul 30, 2024 15:56:30 GMT
Yes, another Labour idea. God help us! It’s as if some people actually want Labour to do a bad job so they can say, told you so. Labour absolutely deserves a chance and we shouldn’t be just following whatever the Daily Mail or Daily Express Tory propaganda rags tell people how they should think. As far as trying to engage young people in politics, probably a good idea, it’s their future, generally old people voted for Brexit , screwing up opportunities for young people for their own self centred warped view of the world. Labour had votes for 16 and 17 year olds as a manifesto commitment and they were elected on the basis of that, so I can't see how anyone can have any complaints. We've seen the Tories try to manipulate and gerrymander the voting process. Voter ID, accepting voter ID for 65+, but not the equivalent documentation for younger people. They've bribed elderly voters for years and weighted everything in their favour. It didn't work, but they did manage to disenfranchise around 3% of the population and reduce voter turnout, which is very bad for democracy. Meanwhile, like Ricky say, those older voters predominantly voted Brexit and it has absolutely screwed the country. The black hole is the public finances, the lack of investment in public services is all due to the lack of economic growth since 2016. If the UK economy had grown at the same rate of other OCED countries, our economy would be around £140bn bigger and there would have been £58bn for the government in revenues. I'm sorry but the Tories can go to hell. Labour has every right to bring in votes at 16 and they should make sure it is in place for the next election.
|
|
|
Post by hedleyverity on Jul 30, 2024 16:04:11 GMT
In the minimum age debate the comparison is always against joining the army, that needs to go up to 18 more than any of the 18s need reducing to 16
|
|
|
Post by mreckless on Jul 30, 2024 18:05:35 GMT
In the minimum age debate the comparison is always against joining the army, that needs to go up to 18 more than any of the 18s need reducing to 16 I always say, yes you can join the army at 16, however you can’t see frontline duty until 18. Also we are the only country in Europe and one of only 20 in the world who recruit at 16. The recruitment of 16 year olds is criticised by, amongst others United Nations and many children’s charities if we really want to discuss this topic, ask me for the medical evidence from every medical organisation in the world to show it as a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by herbiedumplings on Jul 30, 2024 18:14:46 GMT
In the minimum age debate the comparison is always against joining the army, that needs to go up to 18 more than any of the 18s need reducing to 16 I always say, yes you can join the army at 16, however you can’t see frontline duty until 18. Also we are the only country in Europe and one of only 20 in the world who recruit at 16. The recruitment of 16 year olds is criticised by, amongst others United Nations and many children’s charities if we really want to discuss this topic, ask me for the medical evidence from every medical organisation in the world to show it as a bad idea. Is it mental health or physical health that’s the main concern? If it’s the latter, I wonder how this compares to teenagers training for competitive sports. Or mental health for that matter, considering the proportion of academy players cast aside when it turns out they’re not good enough after all?
|
|