It's pretty obvious that 16 year olds should not be in prison with adult offenders, God knows what they would learn, or worse, how they would be treated.
They can't marry, order drinks in a pub ...they have to be accompanied by an adult to even be allowed in a pub, yet Starmer reckons they are equipped to vote.
No doubt he will backtrack soon, as soon as people with more understanding of the world have a word.
Fluffy said
Jul 18 4:02 PM, 2025
Digger wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Digger wrote:
Well, if this is the case then we can hope to see 16 year olds driving, drinking, and getting tried as adults by our courts. Imagine the fucking carnage.
We allow 16 year olds to drive (15 in some cases), but you have to be 21 to drink.
What constitutes an adult is the most confusing set of laws in the world.
Depends if you want sex, seeing naked people, handguns, long guns, voting, contracts, drinking, fighting in war, or driving.
No one can vote for a federal office until 18.
But they have tried letting 16 year olds vote in local elections..
I agree, the laws regarding what constitutes an adult make no sense! I don't understand why American law make people wait until they are 21 to drink yet they can drive at 16?? Being in charge of a car may come easily after years of practice but young men often get into scrapes (some with more repercussions than other's) . I think America should allow people to drink when they are an adult, and possibly consider putting driving back a year.
In the UK you can join the military at 16, which I personally think is too young and would be preferable at 18 when young people hopefully have more clarity of what they're getting into. In some European countries it is permitted a year or so later. If the UK let's 16 yo's participate in armed combat and die for their country I think that's way too young. I don't know what the law requires in America.
The gun laws baffle me as I believe you can own one type of gun at 18 and another at 21. I would be interested to hear your views on gun ownership but it's cool if you would rather keep it to yourself as it's a bit off topic. It merits an entire thread to itself.
How can you state that someone shouldn't join the army at 16 because they are not mentally astute enough to have clarity but then say they have enough mental clarity to vote? Besides which you can't be deployed in combat until 18.
..I didn't say that.
I said the UK government has deemed 16 a suitable age to join the Army. Personally, I think it should be 18 because a reality of joining the Army is you may die in combat or be hurt in some way for life and it's a huge under taking that requires a lot of thinking through. I'm relieved that you can't be deployed in combat until an adult though.
BUT if our Government has decided that 16 year old's can raise a child and join the military then it's not a huge leap to give 16 year-old's the vote.
I keep going back and forth. A part of me would rather the age to vote remained at 18. But one positive outcome of allowing 16 year old's to vote is other parties would have a chance to make headway for a change, instead of the same tired two horse race where both parties seem to need a break.
It wouldn't just be "leftie" parties 16 year old's vote for (although that would be totally permitted in a democracy and just because someone might not agree with their parties of choice is not a reason to disagree with the premise ). Younger men tend to lean towards Reform.
If younger people voting made other parties getting somewhere in the current political system possible it could be worth it for the genuine change the country needs.
-- Edited by Fluffy on Friday 18th of July 2025 04:08:04 PM
Fluffy said
Jul 18 4:05 PM, 2025
Digger wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Red Okktober wrote:
I believe that anyone who is still in education shouldn't be allowed to vote until they are 21, due to all the lefty wokeness that is rife in schools and unis, which will surely influence student voters.
You can be sure Labour are only doing it to get more votes, and nothing to do with any bullshit reasons they will give for lowering the age
A person under 21 who is in work, should be allowed to vote, but only after they have been in work for say 12 months. By then they would have gained experience of wages, taxes, bills etc, and therefore earned their right to vote.
So I would be ok with working 17 year olds getting the vote, but not ok with 20 year old students to getting it
-- Edited by Red Okktober on Thursday 17th of July 2025 01:05:16 PM
I'm glad you have edited out the "purple haired non binary" stereotype regarding students as that is of course the minority of young people , not the norm. Of course the folk who are non binary should also be permitted to vote, that goes without saying.
I'm surprised you don't think 16 year olds don't know about the world of work whilst continuing their studies. I worked in Comet on the weekends and continued my A Levels and many of my peers did the same. The BIB stating young people need to have experience of work, wages, taxes before they are allowed to vote (which many do!) is an interesting mentality as it suggests you believe people need to have worked in order to have the right to vote.Would you deny the right to vote to adults who have never worked?
Your belief that experience of the world of work is essential in order to have the right to vote has wider implications. Would you deny adults the vote if they had an illness that prevents them working? After all they know nothing about wages and tax. Or just healthy people who have for whatever reason remained unemployed?
I have to admit I do think 16 year old's should be permitted to vote since they are allowed and encouraged to enlist in the Armed Forces at 16. It's noteworthy (to me at least!) that the UK is unlike Europe and is the only country which routinely recruits people under the age of 18.
If the UK government has deemed those aged 16 old enough to join the military and raise children then yes I think they should have the vote. In fairness those pursuing academic studies doing A Level politics, law etc will certainly have sufficient knowledge of the world and Westminster to vote.
If the bill is passed only those who care enough to vote will bother to vote (as it is with adults) and if they care about politics they will have acquired knowledge. Many I fear will squander the vote, especially young men who are apparently the most depressed they have been for generations. Sadly they may regard this opportunity with apathy and nothing more.I sincerely hope not as in in only two years what is decided in parliament will apply to them and therefore they deserve to have a say.
-- Edited by Fluffy on Friday 18th of July 2025 10:40:11 AM
Shamima Begum at 16 - she didn’t know what she was doing! She was just a kid! She can’t be held responsible! blah blah blah
How is this relevant?
Maddog said
Jul 18 4:15 PM, 2025
Fluffy wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Digger wrote:
Well, if this is the case then we can hope to see 16 year olds driving, drinking, and getting tried as adults by our courts. Imagine the fucking carnage.
We allow 16 year olds to drive (15 in some cases), but you have to be 21 to drink.
What constitutes an adult is the most confusing set of laws in the world.
Depends if you want sex, seeing naked people, handguns, long guns, voting, contracts, drinking, fighting in war, or driving.
No one can vote for a federal office until 18.
But they have tried letting 16 year olds vote in local elections..
I agree, the laws regarding what constitutes an adult make no sense! I don't understand why American law make people wait until they are 21 to drink yet they can drive at 16?? Being in charge of a car may come easily after years of practice but young men often get into scrapes (some with more repercussions than other's) . I think America should allow people to drink when they are an adult, and possibly consider putting driving back a year.
In the UK you can join the military at 16, which I personally think is too young and would be preferable at 18 when young people hopefully have more clarity of what they're getting into. In some European countries it is permitted a year or so later. If the UK let's 16 yo's participate in armed combat and die for their country I think that's way too young. I don't know what the law requires in America.
The gun laws baffle me as I believe you can own one type of gun at 18 and another at 21. I would be interested to hear your views on gun ownership but it's cool if you would rather keep it to yourself as it's a bit off topic. It merits an entire thread to itself.
When I was young the drinking age was 18. Because we are a society that drives everywhere, it was chaos. But we also didn't enforce DWI laws like we do now. We also won't overserve patrons (much to the chagrin of some British tourists), so we probably could lower it with better results this time.
The gun ownership is arbitrary nonsense. Rifles are allowed at 18. The AR-15 is a rifle. Handguns at 21..
The thought is you can't conceal a rifle so it's not going to be carried around. I guess there is some truth to that, but the lines between what is and isn't a rifle is blurred and the lethality of the weapons isn't that different.
If we let kids operate a 4000 pound vehicle at 85 mph, it's probably fair to let 18 year olds own or carry a firearm..
Fluffy said
Jul 18 4:24 PM, 2025
Syl wrote:
The vast majority of youngsters are still in education till they are 18, then if they are off to UNI, it could be early/middle 20's before they get a full time paid job and learn how to manage, both financially and independently.
I think 18 is about right....people learn an awful lot between the ages of 16 and 18...even if the majority are still living at home and are cushioned from the harsh realities of life.
I think the US law of allowing kids to drive at 16 is crazy.
Tbh Syl I agree it should remain at 18 BUT then I wonder what if other parties get a chance to make changes the main two won't as a result of allowing 16 year old's the vote. I'm undecided. I think possibly it should be tried once.
I disagree with the premise that people should be aged 21 to vote or being 21 and DENIED the right to vote if they are students who have yet to work..that's just a bit random for me.
Fluffy said
Jul 18 5:12 PM, 2025
Red Okktober wrote:
Syl wrote:
The vast majority of youngsters are still in education till they are 18, then if they are off to UNI, it could be early/middle 20's before they get a full time paid job and learn how to manage, both financially and independently.
I think 18 is about right....people learn an awful lot between the ages of 16 and 18...even if the majority are still living at home and are cushioned from the harsh realities of life.
I think the US law of allowing kids to drive at 16 is crazy.
My idea is that anyone under 21 who is still in education shouldn't be allowed to vote, due to all the nonsense that is fife on uni campuses, and the heavy influence of left wing/liberal lecturers.
The 21 minimum age could also apply to the sick and jobless, as they can't be denied the right to vote indefinitely.
But anyone under 21 with 12 months work under their belts (so aged 17 at the earliest) should be allowed to vote due to them being more worldly, and entitled to have a say in matters that effect them as working people. Imo a 17 year old who has secured a job should have more of a say in how the countrty is run than a 17 year old who spends all day on his arse on the PlayStation drinking cider. But at 21, we have to let them all vote regardless.
"Eight in ten university lecturers are “Left-wing”, a survey has found as it warns of the dangers of “group think” in British institutions."
You can't disagree with the premise of younger voting just because parties you personally don't like might receive more votes!
I apologised for our fall out (although you certainly gave as good as you got!) but for some reason you have decided to no longer answer me directly. I think it's a shame, but up to you. I don't have a problem with you at all.
But BIB, you are definitely trolling. Nobody would really want to stop people with genuine health problems from voting!
Fluffy said
Jul 18 5:24 PM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Digger wrote:
Well, if this is the case then we can hope to see 16 year olds driving, drinking, and getting tried as adults by our courts. Imagine the fucking carnage.
We allow 16 year olds to drive (15 in some cases), but you have to be 21 to drink.
What constitutes an adult is the most confusing set of laws in the world.
Depends if you want sex, seeing naked people, handguns, long guns, voting, contracts, drinking, fighting in war, or driving.
No one can vote for a federal office until 18.
But they have tried letting 16 year olds vote in local elections..
I agree, the laws regarding what constitutes an adult make no sense! I don't understand why American law make people wait until they are 21 to drink yet they can drive at 16?? Being in charge of a car may come easily after years of practice but young men often get into scrapes (some with more repercussions than other's) . I think America should allow people to drink when they are an adult, and possibly consider putting driving back a year.
In the UK you can join the military at 16, which I personally think is too young and would be preferable at 18 when young people hopefully have more clarity of what they're getting into. In some European countries it is permitted a year or so later. If the UK let's 16 yo's participate in armed combat and die for their country I think that's way too young. I don't know what the law requires in America.
The gun laws baffle me as I believe you can own one type of gun at 18 and another at 21. I would be interested to hear your views on gun ownership but it's cool if you would rather keep it to yourself as it's a bit off topic. It merits an entire thread to itself.
When I was young the drinking age was 18. Because we are a society that drives everywhere, it was chaos. But we also didn't enforce DWI laws like we do now. We also won't overserve patrons (much to the chagrin of some British tourists), so we probably could lower it with better results this time.
The gun ownership is arbitrary nonsense. Rifles are allowed at 18. The AR-15 is a rifle. Handguns at 21..
The thought is you can't conceal a rifle so it's not going to be carried around. I guess there is some truth to that, but the lines between what is and isn't a rifle is blurred and the lethality of the weapons isn't that different.
If we let kids operate a 4000 pound vehicle at 85 mph, it's probably fair to let 18 year olds own or carry a firearm..
I totally agree. The drinking age should be reduced back to 18 as it's just not logical or in step with other countries.
I think it's should be 21 to own a firearm but it's not my country so not my place to really say. However I'm really pleased it's not legal to own guns here. Obviously people can obtain guns illegally here but your gun laws do cause a higher rate of crime with heart breaking fatalities.
Do you agree with the gun laws as they are or do you think they could be amended in some way to decrease the number of gun related violence? Or do you think gun ownership should not be permitted?
Maddog said
Jul 18 5:32 PM, 2025
Fluffy wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Digger wrote:
Well, if this is the case then we can hope to see 16 year olds driving, drinking, and getting tried as adults by our courts. Imagine the fucking carnage.
We allow 16 year olds to drive (15 in some cases), but you have to be 21 to drink.
What constitutes an adult is the most confusing set of laws in the world.
Depends if you want sex, seeing naked people, handguns, long guns, voting, contracts, drinking, fighting in war, or driving.
No one can vote for a federal office until 18.
But they have tried letting 16 year olds vote in local elections..
I agree, the laws regarding what constitutes an adult make no sense! I don't understand why American law make people wait until they are 21 to drink yet they can drive at 16?? Being in charge of a car may come easily after years of practice but young men often get into scrapes (some with more repercussions than other's) . I think America should allow people to drink when they are an adult, and possibly consider putting driving back a year.
In the UK you can join the military at 16, which I personally think is too young and would be preferable at 18 when young people hopefully have more clarity of what they're getting into. In some European countries it is permitted a year or so later. If the UK let's 16 yo's participate in armed combat and die for their country I think that's way too young. I don't know what the law requires in America.
The gun laws baffle me as I believe you can own one type of gun at 18 and another at 21. I would be interested to hear your views on gun ownership but it's cool if you would rather keep it to yourself as it's a bit off topic. It merits an entire thread to itself.
When I was young the drinking age was 18. Because we are a society that drives everywhere, it was chaos. But we also didn't enforce DWI laws like we do now. We also won't overserve patrons (much to the chagrin of some British tourists), so we probably could lower it with better results this time.
The gun ownership is arbitrary nonsense. Rifles are allowed at 18. The AR-15 is a rifle. Handguns at 21..
The thought is you can't conceal a rifle so it's not going to be carried around. I guess there is some truth to that, but the lines between what is and isn't a rifle is blurred and the lethality of the weapons isn't that different.
If we let kids operate a 4000 pound vehicle at 85 mph, it's probably fair to let 18 year olds own or carry a firearm..
I totally agree. The drinking age should be reduced back to 18 as it's just not logical or in step with other countries.
I think it's should be 21 to own a firearm but it's not my country so not my place to really say. However I'm really pleased it's not legal to own guns here. Obviously people can obtain guns illegally here but your gun laws do cause a higher rate of crime with heart breaking fatalities.
Do you agree with the gun laws as they are or do you think they could be amended in some way to decrease the number of gun related violence? Or do you think gun ownership should not be permitted?
They are fine as they are now. At least here in Texas. They were too restrictive for a while.
And you can't draw the conclusion that our gun laws cause higher crime, because our crime isn't equally distributed. In fact, cities with the most restrictions on guns often have the highest levels of crime.
Crime is complicated and down to a lot of factors in society.
Anonymous said
Jul 18 9:43 PM, 2025
Magica wrote:
Of course it has Fluffs. Thing is, most kids follow their parents thinking and I can't see anyone voting Labour unless they're immigrants tbh.
I've probably misunderstood you here, but it reads like you're saying only immigrants would vote Labour? I might have misread it though.
Magica said
Jul 18 11:58 PM, 2025
Anonymous wrote:
Magica wrote:
Of course it has Fluffs. Thing is, most kids follow their parents thinking and I can't see anyone voting Labour unless they're immigrants tbh.
I've probably misunderstood you here, but it reads like you're saying only immigrants would vote Labour? I might have misread it though.
No not just immigrants, young Brits too I meant.
Labour thinks they will get all the votes from 16 yr olds, but I think Stammer could come unstuck.
Anonymous said
Jul 19 9:24 AM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
And you can't draw the conclusion that our gun laws cause higher crime, because our crime isn't equally distributed. In fact, cities with the most restrictions on guns often have the highest levels of crime.
Gun death or other crime? Are you making a false analogy here?
Maddog said
Jul 19 8:42 PM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Digger wrote:
Well, if this is the case then we can hope to see 16 year olds driving, drinking, and getting tried as adults by our courts. Imagine the fucking carnage.
We allow 16 year olds to drive (15 in some cases), but you have to be 21 to drink.
What constitutes an adult is the most confusing set of laws in the world.
Depends if you want sex, seeing naked people, handguns, long guns, voting, contracts, drinking, fighting in war, or driving.
No one can vote for a federal office until 18.
But they have tried letting 16 year olds vote in local elections..
I agree, the laws regarding what constitutes an adult make no sense! I don't understand why American law make people wait until they are 21 to drink yet they can drive at 16?? Being in charge of a car may come easily after years of practice but young men often get into scrapes (some with more repercussions than other's) . I think America should allow people to drink when they are an adult, and possibly consider putting driving back a year.
In the UK you can join the military at 16, which I personally think is too young and would be preferable at 18 when young people hopefully have more clarity of what they're getting into. In some European countries it is permitted a year or so later. If the UK let's 16 yo's participate in armed combat and die for their country I think that's way too young. I don't know what the law requires in America.
The gun laws baffle me as I believe you can own one type of gun at 18 and another at 21. I would be interested to hear your views on gun ownership but it's cool if you would rather keep it to yourself as it's a bit off topic. It merits an entire thread to itself.
When I was young the drinking age was 18. Because we are a society that drives everywhere, it was chaos. But we also didn't enforce DWI laws like we do now. We also won't overserve patrons (much to the chagrin of some British tourists), so we probably could lower it with better results this time.
The gun ownership is arbitrary nonsense. Rifles are allowed at 18. The AR-15 is a rifle. Handguns at 21..
The thought is you can't conceal a rifle so it's not going to be carried around. I guess there is some truth to that, but the lines between what is and isn't a rifle is blurred and the lethality of the weapons isn't that different.
If we let kids operate a 4000 pound vehicle at 85 mph, it's probably fair to let 18 year olds own or carry a firearm..
I totally agree. The drinking age should be reduced back to 18 as it's just not logical or in step with other countries.
I think it's should be 21 to own a firearm but it's not my country so not my place to really say. However I'm really pleased it's not legal to own guns here. Obviously people can obtain guns illegally here but your gun laws do cause a higher rate of crime with heart breaking fatalities.
Do you agree with the gun laws as they are or do you think they could be amended in some way to decrease the number of gun related violence? Or do you think gun ownership should not be permitted?
They are fine as they are now. At least here in Texas. They were too restrictive for a while.
And you can't draw the conclusion that our gun laws cause higher crime, because our crime isn't equally distributed. In fact, cities with the most restrictions on guns often have the highest levels of crime.
Crime is complicated and down to a lot of factors in society.
Let's compare our nation's capital with my fair city.
DC has about 40 murders per 100K. Fort Worth about 10. Fort Worth is also larger. We're not some sleepy little town like Abilene.
In Fort Worth you can legally open or conceal carry a handgun. You'd be locked up if you tried that in DC, yet they have a murder rate 4 times higher..
Syl said
Jul 20 12:09 AM, 2025
Manchester, The UK's second largest city, has 1.2.
Obviously in the UK we are not allowed to carry guns.
Maddog said
Jul 20 12:58 AM, 2025
Syl wrote:
Manchester, The UK's second largest city, has 1.2. Obviously in the UK we are not allowed to carry guns.
No doubt the UK is lower than the US overall, but we tend to have some off the chart murder rates, and some fairly low ones..
The murder rate for the state of New Hampshire is about 1.6 and they pretty much have the least restrictions on guns in the country..
Syl said
Jul 20 1:21 AM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Manchester, The UK's second largest city, has 1.2. Obviously in the UK we are not allowed to carry guns.
No doubt the UK is lower than the US overall, but we tend to have some off the chart murder rates, and some fairly low ones..
The murder rate for the state of New Hampshire is about 1.6 and they pretty much have the least restrictions on guns in the country..
And yet their gun suicide rate increased 56% from 2013 to 2022. The highest rate in the country.
Seems they use their guns on themselves rather than their neighbours.
Maddog said
Jul 20 2:32 AM, 2025
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Manchester, The UK's second largest city, has 1.2. Obviously in the UK we are not allowed to carry guns.
No doubt the UK is lower than the US overall, but we tend to have some off the chart murder rates, and some fairly low ones..
The murder rate for the state of New Hampshire is about 1.6 and they pretty much have the least restrictions on guns in the country..
And yet their gun suicide rate increased 56% from 2013 to 2022. The highest rate in the country.
Seems they use their guns on themselves rather than their neighbours.
Wonder why that is? 🤷
I imagine that's probably consistent with the rest of the country. We have an epidemic of men killing themselves, and the tool of choice is firearms for men. We like to use the most effective tool for the job..I don't think any of this is centered in NH though..
Syl said
Jul 20 11:50 AM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Manchester, The UK's second largest city, has 1.2. Obviously in the UK we are not allowed to carry guns.
No doubt the UK is lower than the US overall, but we tend to have some off the chart murder rates, and some fairly low ones..
The murder rate for the state of New Hampshire is about 1.6 and they pretty much have the least restrictions on guns in the country..
And yet their gun suicide rate increased 56% from 2013 to 2022. The highest rate in the country.
Seems they use their guns on themselves rather than their neighbours.
Wonder why that is? 🤷
I imagine that's probably consistent with the rest of the country. We have an epidemic of men killing themselves, and the tool of choice is firearms for men. We like to use the most effective tool for the job..I don't think any of this is centered in NH though..
It's horrible that in that state alone, suicide deaths have more than doubled in 10 years...and as the charts I found were a couple of years old, they could have increased further since then.
I'm sure that Covid had an effect on millions of people, and I don't think some have gotten over the isolation...especially people who were isolated or depressed to begin with.
The problem (imo) with easy access to guns, as you say, they are effective and efficient in doing the job, maybe if they were not, more people would have second thoughts.
Anonymous said
Jul 20 11:53 AM, 2025
Fluffy wrote:
Digger wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Red Okktober wrote:
I believe that anyone who is still in education shouldn't be allowed to vote until they are 21, due to all the lefty wokeness that is rife in schools and unis, which will surely influence student voters.
You can be sure Labour are only doing it to get more votes, and nothing to do with any bullshit reasons they will give for lowering the age
A person under 21 who is in work, should be allowed to vote, but only after they have been in work for say 12 months. By then they would have gained experience of wages, taxes, bills etc, and therefore earned their right to vote.
So I would be ok with working 17 year olds getting the vote, but not ok with 20 year old students to getting it
-- Edited by Red Okktober on Thursday 17th of July 2025 01:05:16 PM
I'm glad you have edited out the "purple haired non binary" stereotype regarding students as that is of course the minority of young people , not the norm. Of course the folk who are non binary should also be permitted to vote, that goes without saying.
I'm surprised you don't think 16 year olds don't know about the world of work whilst continuing their studies. I worked in Comet on the weekends and continued my A Levels and many of my peers did the same. The BIB stating young people need to have experience of work, wages, taxes before they are allowed to vote (which many do!) is an interesting mentality as it suggests you believe people need to have worked in order to have the right to vote.Would you deny the right to vote to adults who have never worked?
Your belief that experience of the world of work is essential in order to have the right to vote has wider implications. Would you deny adults the vote if they had an illness that prevents them working? After all they know nothing about wages and tax. Or just healthy people who have for whatever reason remained unemployed?
I have to admit I do think 16 year old's should be permitted to vote since they are allowed and encouraged to enlist in the Armed Forces at 16. It's noteworthy (to me at least!) that the UK is unlike Europe and is the only country which routinely recruits people under the age of 18.
If the UK government has deemed those aged 16 old enough to join the military and raise children then yes I think they should have the vote. In fairness those pursuing academic studies doing A Level politics, law etc will certainly have sufficient knowledge of the world and Westminster to vote.
If the bill is passed only those who care enough to vote will bother to vote (as it is with adults) and if they care about politics they will have acquired knowledge. Many I fear will squander the vote, especially young men who are apparently the most depressed they have been for generations. Sadly they may regard this opportunity with apathy and nothing more.I sincerely hope not as in in only two years what is decided in parliament will apply to them and therefore they deserve to have a say.
-- Edited by Fluffy on Friday 18th of July 2025 10:40:11 AM
Shamima Begum at 16 - she didn’t know what she was doing! She was just a kid! She can’t be held responsible! blah blah blah
How is this relevant?
If you knew about this monster then you wouldn’t be asking.
Magica said
Jul 20 12:20 PM, 2025
Anonymous wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Digger wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Red Okktober wrote:
I believe that anyone who is still in education shouldn't be allowed to vote until they are 21, due to all the lefty wokeness that is rife in schools and unis, which will surely influence student voters.
You can be sure Labour are only doing it to get more votes, and nothing to do with any bullshit reasons they will give for lowering the age
A person under 21 who is in work, should be allowed to vote, but only after they have been in work for say 12 months. By then they would have gained experience of wages, taxes, bills etc, and therefore earned their right to vote.
So I would be ok with working 17 year olds getting the vote, but not ok with 20 year old students to getting it
-- Edited by Red Okktober on Thursday 17th of July 2025 01:05:16 PM
I'm glad you have edited out the "purple haired non binary" stereotype regarding students as that is of course the minority of young people , not the norm. Of course the folk who are non binary should also be permitted to vote, that goes without saying.
I'm surprised you don't think 16 year olds don't know about the world of work whilst continuing their studies. I worked in Comet on the weekends and continued my A Levels and many of my peers did the same. The BIB stating young people need to have experience of work, wages, taxes before they are allowed to vote (which many do!) is an interesting mentality as it suggests you believe people need to have worked in order to have the right to vote.Would you deny the right to vote to adults who have never worked?
Your belief that experience of the world of work is essential in order to have the right to vote has wider implications. Would you deny adults the vote if they had an illness that prevents them working? After all they know nothing about wages and tax. Or just healthy people who have for whatever reason remained unemployed?
I have to admit I do think 16 year old's should be permitted to vote since they are allowed and encouraged to enlist in the Armed Forces at 16. It's noteworthy (to me at least!) that the UK is unlike Europe and is the only country which routinely recruits people under the age of 18.
If the UK government has deemed those aged 16 old enough to join the military and raise children then yes I think they should have the vote. In fairness those pursuing academic studies doing A Level politics, law etc will certainly have sufficient knowledge of the world and Westminster to vote.
If the bill is passed only those who care enough to vote will bother to vote (as it is with adults) and if they care about politics they will have acquired knowledge. Many I fear will squander the vote, especially young men who are apparently the most depressed they have been for generations. Sadly they may regard this opportunity with apathy and nothing more.I sincerely hope not as in in only two years what is decided in parliament will apply to them and therefore they deserve to have a say.
-- Edited by Fluffy on Friday 18th of July 2025 10:40:11 AM
Shamima Begum at 16 - she didn’t know what she was doing! She was just a kid! She can’t be held responsible! blah blah blah
How is this relevant?
If you knew about this monster then you wouldn’t be asking.
Nasty terrorist. The girl who liked looking at heads in buckets. Never coming here. Although if stammer has a hand in it, who knows!
They can't marry, order drinks in a pub ...they have to be accompanied by an adult to even be allowed in a pub, yet Starmer reckons they are equipped to vote.
No doubt he will backtrack soon, as soon as people with more understanding of the world have a word.
..I didn't say that.
I said the UK government has deemed 16 a suitable age to join the Army. Personally, I think it should be 18 because a reality of joining the Army is you may die in combat or be hurt in some way for life and it's a huge under taking that requires a lot of thinking through. I'm relieved that you can't be deployed in combat until an adult though.
BUT if our Government has decided that 16 year old's can raise a child and join the military then it's not a huge leap to give 16 year-old's the vote.
I keep going back and forth. A part of me would rather the age to vote remained at 18. But one positive outcome of allowing 16 year old's to vote is other parties would have a chance to make headway for a change, instead of the same tired two horse race where both parties seem to need a break.
It wouldn't just be "leftie" parties 16 year old's vote for (although that would be totally permitted in a democracy and just because someone might not agree with their parties of choice is not a reason to disagree with the premise ). Younger men tend to lean towards Reform.
If younger people voting made other parties getting somewhere in the current political system possible it could be worth it for the genuine change the country needs.
-- Edited by Fluffy on Friday 18th of July 2025 04:08:04 PM
How is this relevant?
When I was young the drinking age was 18. Because we are a society that drives everywhere, it was chaos. But we also didn't enforce DWI laws like we do now. We also won't overserve patrons (much to the chagrin of some British tourists), so we probably could lower it with better results this time.
The gun ownership is arbitrary nonsense. Rifles are allowed at 18. The AR-15 is a rifle. Handguns at 21..
The thought is you can't conceal a rifle so it's not going to be carried around. I guess there is some truth to that, but the lines between what is and isn't a rifle is blurred and the lethality of the weapons isn't that different.
If we let kids operate a 4000 pound vehicle at 85 mph, it's probably fair to let 18 year olds own or carry a firearm..
Tbh Syl I agree it should remain at 18 BUT then I wonder what if other parties get a chance to make changes the main two won't as a result of allowing 16 year old's the vote. I'm undecided. I think possibly it should be tried once.
I disagree with the premise that people should be aged 21 to vote or being 21 and DENIED the right to vote if they are students who have yet to work..that's just a bit random for me.
You can't disagree with the premise of younger voting just because parties you personally don't like might receive more votes!
I apologised for our fall out (although you certainly gave as good as you got!) but for some reason you have decided to no longer answer me directly. I think it's a shame, but up to you. I don't have a problem with you at all.
But BIB, you are definitely trolling.
Nobody would really want to stop people with genuine health problems from voting!
I totally agree. The drinking age should be reduced back to 18 as it's just not logical or in step with other countries.
I think it's should be 21 to own a firearm but it's not my country so not my place to really say. However I'm really pleased it's not legal to own guns here. Obviously people can obtain guns illegally here but your gun laws do cause a higher rate of crime with heart breaking fatalities.
Do you agree with the gun laws as they are or do you think they could be amended in some way to decrease the number of gun related violence? Or do you think gun ownership should not be permitted?
They are fine as they are now. At least here in Texas. They were too restrictive for a while.
And you can't draw the conclusion that our gun laws cause higher crime, because our crime isn't equally distributed. In fact, cities with the most restrictions on guns often have the highest levels of crime.
Crime is complicated and down to a lot of factors in society.
I've probably misunderstood you here, but it reads like you're saying only immigrants would vote Labour? I might have misread it though.
No not just immigrants, young Brits too I meant.
Labour thinks they will get all the votes from 16 yr olds, but I think Stammer could come unstuck.
Gun death or other crime? Are you making a false analogy here?
Let's compare our nation's capital with my fair city.
DC has about 40 murders per 100K. Fort Worth about 10. Fort Worth is also larger. We're not some sleepy little town like Abilene.
In Fort Worth you can legally open or conceal carry a handgun. You'd be locked up if you tried that in DC, yet they have a murder rate 4 times higher..
Obviously in the UK we are not allowed to carry guns.
No doubt the UK is lower than the US overall, but we tend to have some off the chart murder rates, and some fairly low ones..
The murder rate for the state of New Hampshire is about 1.6 and they pretty much have the least restrictions on guns in the country..
And yet their gun suicide rate increased 56% from 2013 to 2022. The highest rate in the country.
Seems they use their guns on themselves rather than their neighbours.
Wonder why that is? 🤷
I imagine that's probably consistent with the rest of the country. We have an epidemic of men killing themselves, and the tool of choice is firearms for men. We like to use the most effective tool for the job..I don't think any of this is centered in NH though..
It's horrible that in that state alone, suicide deaths have more than doubled in 10 years...and as the charts I found were a couple of years old, they could have increased further since then.
I'm sure that Covid had an effect on millions of people, and I don't think some have gotten over the isolation...especially people who were isolated or depressed to begin with.
The problem (imo) with easy access to guns, as you say, they are effective and efficient in doing the job, maybe if they were not, more people would have second thoughts.
If you knew about this monster then you wouldn’t be asking.
Nasty terrorist. The girl who liked looking at heads in buckets. Never coming here. Although if stammer has a hand in it, who knows!