[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

True
But isn't it weird how you can have sex at 16
And run away and get married at Gretna Green without parents permission ,yet can't vote .....It's daft .

I agree it's weird and daft, but it's just the way it is

Tbh I think the age of consent should be 18. Not because of my opinion about who should be doing what, but to give more protection to teens from older perves. As ToyBoy said, I think the AoC should be completely reformed, to make ot higher but to add some allowances for people of similar ages.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Liam-

16 and older have to pay tax if they earn more than a certain amount, 16 year - 17 year olds are off to college at that age, which isn’t compulsory.

If they earn more than like a grand a month, which at 16 you'd have to work more than 50 hours even without the still compulsory full time education, that'd be a stretch. Someone who's 16 is unlikely to be hired for anything which pays more than minimum.

College has to be full time too, for under 18s. But I guess full time might not take the same amount of hours per week as school, and even sixth formers get free study periods.

But either way, they're unlikely to be paying taxes.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I agree it's weird and daft, but it's just the way it is

Tbh I think the age of consent should be 18. Not because of my opinion about who should be doing what, but to give more protection to teens from older perves. As ToyBoy said, I think the AoC should be completely reformed, to make ot higher but to add some allowances for people of similar ages.

Exactly
I never understood why age of consent was 16 , I've always said it should be 18 aswell.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

If they earn more than like a grand a month, which at 16 you'd have to work more than 50 hours even without the still compulsory full time education, that'd be a stretch. Someone who's 16 is unlikely to be hired for anything which pays more than minimum.

College has to be full time too, for under 18s. But I guess full time might not take the same amount of hours per week as school, and even sixth formers get free study periods.

But either way, they're unlikely to be paying taxes.

.... but not impossible to pay taxes, or NI.
As you say unlikely but that's not impossible.

Say in a family.business if a 16 year old was employed on more than a minimum wage.
They could, a minority likely admittedly, be In a tax range bracket.

Plus the minimum wage is the minumum to be paid, firms CAN pay more than that if they wished to.
I think Liam made a fair point really.

It's not impossible for 16 year olds to be in a tax bracket.

Plus too, as to the armed services.
They won't, no way be on the front lines
However, they won't be just making coffee or tea.
They'll be being TRAINED for to be potentially engaged in active service in the future.

If they can be trained to do that, then it's ridiculous frankly that they are refused the right to vote.
In my view anyhow.

[Alf]

Bring it on, more youngsters these days are moving to the right. Wokeness is destroying the left. Most people don't want any part of it. Then take the Muslim community and most Asian communities, which are Conservative communities.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

.... but not impossible to pay taxes, or NI.
As you say unlikely but that's not impossible.

Say in a family.business if a 16 year old was employed on more than a minimum wage.
They could, a minority likely admittedly, be In a tax range bracket.

Plus the minimum wage is the minumum to be paid, firms CAN pay more than that if they wished to.
I think Liam made a fair point really.

It's not impossible for 16 year olds to be in a tax bracket.

That would be the exception rather than the rule.

I'm not even arguing that 16 year olds shouldn't vote, but I am saying that people's arguments should be factually correct

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

That would be the exception rather than the rule.

I'm not even arguing that 16 year olds shouldn't vote, but I am saying that people's arguments should be factually correct

If it's an exemption rather than the rule though.
The fact it's an exemption shows it's not impossible .
So I'm just saying Liam has a point.
You are too really as you indicate it isn't impossible too.

I'm pleased you're another who seem to think it maybe right to have a vote at 16.
I have for a good while now.
I'd have loved to be able to vote when I was 16.
My Father got me really interested in politics from me turning 13 in 2005.
At 16 then onwards it was something I followed constantly.

So anyhow I hope this gets the chance to happen.
The younger generation surely cannot make things any worse than what the current generations have in voting in elections.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I really think that if your mum still washes your underwear you should not be anywhere near a polling station

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

If it's an exemption rather than the rule though.
The fact it's an exemption shows it's not impossible .
So I'm just saying Liam has a point.
You are too really as you indicate it isn't impossible too.

If your argument for allowing all under-18s to vote is that the minority of them can pay taxes, under relatively rare circumstances ... the naysayers' response will be "fine, people under 18 can vote, as long as they're taxpayers."

Honestly I find "because it's a democracy, duh lol" or "sixteen year olds will have longer to live with the consequences lolol oldies be dying" to be stronger and more respectable attempts than talking about tax payers, and they're pretty low-efforted

If a change that big is to be made, it should be for bulletproof and unconditional reasons.

The kind of sixteen year old who's likely to be in the position to be paying taxes is more likely to come from a Conservative background and vote accordingly; if they're the only under-18s who can vote, it might not go the way Sir Kier expects!

[arista]

"it might not go the way Sir Kier expects!"


Very Possible
But they have been out of power for a long time
Picking Corbyn wasted years.

So Labour only have their selves to blame.



Starmer is Keeping Brexit
and improving trade
to help him get the voters back.

So Many Dumped Labour
in 2019.


Good on Labour Voters Back Our Brexit

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

If your argument for allowing all under-18s to vote is that the minority of them can pay taxes, under relatively rare circumstances ... the naysayers' response will be "fine, people under 18 can vote, as long as they're taxpayers."

Honestly I find "because it's a democracy, duh lol" or "sixteen year olds will have longer to live with the consequences lolol oldies be dying" to be stronger and more respectable attempts than talking about tax payers, and they're pretty low-efforted

If a change that big is to be made, it should be for bulletproof and unconditional reasons.

The kind of sixteen year old who's likely to be in the position to be paying taxes is more likely to come from a Conservative background and vote accordingly; if they're the only under-18s who can vote, it might not go the way Sir Kier expects!

Well that's not my argument at all so how you've arrived at that is a surprise.

If it was impossible in any scenario for anyone of 16 to pay tax.
I'd still be advocating those aged 16 should have the vote.

It's not an issue for me whether they'd vote Labour, Con or any other Party.
I simply support giving votes to those aged 16 as a right.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by arista

"it might not go the way Sir Kier expects!"


Very Possible
But they have been out of power for a long time
Picking Corbyn wasted years.

So Labour only have their selves to blame.



Starmer is Keeping Brexit
and improving trade
to help him get the voters back.

So Many Dumped Labour
in 2019.


Good on Labour Voters Back Our Brexit

Kier Starmer, the guy who gained his knighthood by turning a blind eye to the most prolific sex offender in the country, Jimmy Saville. Had he have taken the correct action against Saville, his career would have gone downhill, no doubt. He's a guy that chose his career and hunger for power over principle, doing what's right and protecting the victims of Jimmy Saville.

Shame on who ever votes to put him in charge. You'd have to have zero morals to do so.

[bots]

Boris, Truss and Sunak are so morally upstanding

[Alf]

Youtube video

[Alf]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Boris, Truss and Sunak are so morally upstanding

Is this your defense of the man who failed to prosecute Jimmy Saville and allowed him to go on raping women and children, simply so his career could progress?

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Alf

Kier Starmer, the guy who gained his knighthood by turning a blind eye to the most prolific sex offender in the country, Jimmy Saville. Had he have taken the correct action against Saville, his career would have gone downhill, no doubt. He's a guy that chose his career and hunger for power over principle, doing what's right and protecting the victims of Jimmy Saville.

Shame on who ever votes to put him in charge. You'd have to have zero morals to do so.

Shame on me then because I will be voting for Labour.
Plus I've extremely good morals thank you instilled in me from my parents and grandparents

Maybe you'd like to too ask who was possibly protecting Saville mostly and who one of his greatest admirers was.
Namely the Con Party and then Mrs Thatcher who all helped enable him to get his very high profile and even gave him a Knighthood.

It wasn't just down to Starmer whether he was prosecuted or not.
He should have been no doubt.
However no ONE person is responsible that he wasn't from the protective ring there clearly was around him.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Shame on me then because I will be voting for Labour.
Plus I've extremely good morals thank you instilled in me from my parents and grandparents

Maybe you'd like to too ask who was possibly protecting Saville mostly and who one of his greatest admirers was.
Namely the Con Party and then Mrs Thatcher who all helped enable him to get his very high profile and even gave him a Knighthood.

It wasn't just down to Starmer whether he was prosecuted or not.
He should have been no doubt.
However no ONE person is responsible that he wasn't from the protective there ckeerkybwas around him.

Margaret Thatcher is dead. The public were not aware of Saville's crimes when voting her in.

Starmer is alive and hoping to be the Prime minister. We now know about Saville's crimes and how Starmer turned a blind eye to them when it was his job to prosecute them.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Alf

Margaret Thatcher is dead. The public were not aware of Saville's crimes when voting her in.

Starmer is alive and hoping to be the Prime minister. We now know about Saville's crimes and how Starmer turned a blind eye to them when it was his job to prosecute them.

No you don't know at all.

Plus Thatcher wasn't dead when she fought to get him his Knighthood.
Just how many doors did that Knighthood open up for him.

You can selectively ignore that if you wish.
You only however weaken further your more uninforned statement.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

No you don't know at all.

Plus Thatcher wasn't dead when she fought to get him his Knighthood.
Just how many doors did that Knighthood open up for him.

You can selectively ignore that if you wish.
You only however weaken further your more uninforned statement.

Charles was besties with Savile aswell. It looked like Savile had him in his pocket.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Charles was besties with Savile aswell. It looked like Savile had him in his pocket.

Yes he was a favourite of the Royals too.

He did though have leading Cons and Thatcher firmly in his camp.

He should have been prosecuted, however Starmer was not one of the investigative lawyers.
He could only act on what was presented.
Which wasn't enough to prosecute.

He stated after all the revelations,which flooded in more after Saville's death, that changes to prosecutions of this nature would be strengthened.

I am no fan of Starmer, however whoever, police, detectives and lawyers who worked on the Saville allegations while he was alive.
It appears didn't present enough to prosecute.
So he'd have to stick to only what was said in the documents presented.

Were the lawyers and even the police leaned on?
Who knows.

Saville was evil.
He had strong influential friends in high places, such as in the Con government and in Thatcher.
As you stated Charles too.
Being fair to them, were they all fooled by him too?
Because he was clearly one vile, evil devious individual.
Even to having hospitals trust him and give him keys to hospital wards.

I say again though.
The Knighthood FOUGHT for him by Thatcher, how many more doors to vulnerable victims did that help open up for him.

[BBDodge]

Originally Posted by Alf

Yes they did, and Kier Starmer was one of them and he was in a position to prosecute Saville, and he wants our vote to be Prime Minister.

No he wasn't. The case didn't escalate beyond local level as no-one was prepared to testify in court.

[Glenn.]

Anyone over the age of 55 should not be able to vote

[arista]

Labour is not going to Ban,
buy one, get one free offers

J. Ashworth MP (New) Labour Fella
speaking on Laura BBC2HD today

[Kate!]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

Anyone over the age of 55 should not be able to vote

wtah.

Stupid statement. Do we suddenly become mentally impaired at this specific age? No.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Livia

Teenagers weren't a thing till the 1950s. Experience is everything.

Yeah, well, I’m talking from my experience and partly anecdotal tongue-in-cheek and that’s just the way it is, Liv.