About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

arista · 22-04-2023, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I'm not "sorting out" anyone, both are common misconceptions.

Fair Point

bots · 22-04-2023, 10:16 AM

Peoples perspective changes as they get older, does that mean that someone aged 16 shouldn't vote? I don't think 18 is a magical age in terms of human development. It's purely arbitrary

Redway · 22-04-2023, 10:22 AM

Good. It’s time to reverse the trend of treating young adults like actual children: 16/17-year-olds used to be taken a lot more seriously and have more rights.

Livia · 22-04-2023, 10:24 AM

Let them vote at 16. Of course of they commit a crime, they must be sentenced as adults. And we'll be able to send them into war zones... Unless people think 16 is too young?

bots · 22-04-2023, 10:45 AM

the thing is, once 16 year olds become eligible to vote, it moves from being conjecture to reality in terms of their voting preferences and that rarely works out the way people think it will

arista · 22-04-2023, 02:53 PM

Sure Joey
there are PR options.
Until now Starmer, standing clear
of change in that way.

Scottish Conservative would rather have
Labour in Lead Power.
Then the well "Dodgy Money" SNP group.

So all kind of possible changes are fighting ahead

GoldHeart · 22-04-2023, 02:56 PM

Tbh I always found it weird how you could do other stuff at 16 but not vote ,so this should be interesting.

Liam- · 22-04-2023, 03:11 PM

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.

16 year old are also considered legally adult enough to make their own medical decisions for themselves, so they are more than capable of deciding what they want to vote for

Oliver_W · 22-04-2023, 03:21 PM

Quote:

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.

joeysteele · 22-04-2023, 03:56 PM

Quote:

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.

Oliver_W · 22-04-2023, 05:29 PM

Quote:

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 · 22-04-2023, 05:49 PM

Quote:

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.

Alf · 22-04-2023, 04:04 PM

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.

Crimson Dynamo · 22-04-2023, 05:54 PM

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

arista · 22-04-2023, 06:45 PM

"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

Alf · 22-04-2023, 07:38 PM

Quote:

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.

joeysteele · 22-04-2023, 07:46 PM

Quote:

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 · 22-04-2023, 07:49 PM

Quote:

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 · 22-04-2023, 07:55 PM

Quote:

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.

bots · 22-04-2023, 07:42 PM

Boris, Truss and Sunak are so morally upstanding

Alf · 22-04-2023, 07:45 PM

Quote:

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?