Of course not. It hasn't been acting so irresponsibly in the past.
It depends what your definition of acting irresponsibly is. Remember only 36.9% voted Tory at the last election and your party blocked Lords reform in 2012. You cannot complain.
It's even worse than that, Mike. The Tories could not win even 25% of the support of registered voters. And now they keep on about having a democratic mandate!
Cameron doesn't have a mandate for anything!
Strange how you never use that argument about any other party.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
Join yes, fight no. It's not difficult, why do people not understand this, it gets explained often enough.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
You think 16 years olds can understand complex political matters. Well it's a POV, I suppose. Mind you there are 66 year olds who can't, as we are seeing.
That wasn't the basis for you saying that they should get the vote though, was it. It was based o the fact that they would have to live longest with the consequences. Should that principle be extended elsewhere in relation to the franchise?
If mental maturity and capability are the basis for granting the vote, how is this to be measured? Should those who don't have it not get the vote?
On your second point; well I never claimed it was the basis for saying they should get the vote. It was in response to criticism made of my argument, in regards to how far you should take the franchise if you are assessing it on long-term impact. Ergo, I replied that obviously you have to balance this with the ability of a vote to actually understand how decisions will affect them, complex political matters etc. While a 16 year olds certainly can in my experience, those younger generally can't; and that's why the franchise should not be extended to those group. As for your third point; well surely part the basis of granting the vote is mental maturity and capability. After all, there is a reason why we deem those 18+ as those who can pay mortgages, get married (without parental permission) and so on. It's not for nothing. It's because we believe they have the mental maturity and capability to make those decisions. Likewise with voting.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
Join yes, fight no. It's not difficult, why do people not understand this, it gets explained often enough.
I didn't say they could fight though. I said join.
On the contractor stuff earlier. What kicked this off (I understand) was the large number of people at the top of the public sector who seem to have got themselves employed in this manner. Many are very active in blocking any reform or accountability in their areas.
If you use this calculator, it gives you 2 options - using their "umbrella company" setup. This is where you are, in effect, an employee of Parasol (geddit??). The company you want to do work for signs a contract with Parasol, with you as the named employee who will do the work.
The second is the classic limited company approach.
For £500 a day (not exactly unknown in the IT sector), the umbrella company arrangement brings in £6.6K post tax per month (approx). The limited company can bring in £9K post tax per month
If the government goes ahead with the 1 month-means-you-must-be-an-employee plan, all contractors will simply join umbrella companies. It would be impossible to differentiate between such companies and full consultancies legally - if act many such "umbrella" companies already offer their members services that make them half way to being a classic employers.
For reference, a permanent position equivalent in seniority/skill to £500 a day would probably be on about £60,000 - which gives a take home of £3500. So going contracting would pretty much double your take home, after the changes.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
They can join with parental permission at 16, they can't fight until 18. What does that have to do with your argument?
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
As others have said joining the army requires parental permission and are limited as to what they can do. Therefore they are not treated the same as adults. Same with the police, although I think they did away with the cadets years ago.
It depends what your definition of acting irresponsibly is. Remember only 36.9% voted Tory at the last election and your party blocked Lords reform in 2012. You cannot complain.
It's even worse than that, Mike. The Tories could not win even 25% of the support of registered voters. And now they keep on about having a democratic mandate!
Cameron doesn't have a mandate for anything!
Strange how you never use that argument about any other party.
No other party in this Parliament is advancing the spurious claim that it has a mandate to do whatsoever it chooses.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
Join yes, fight no. It's not difficult, why do people not understand this, it gets explained often enough.
I didn't say they could fight though. I said join.
So what is your point? They need parental permission and are deemed not mature enough to carry out the roles that an 18 year old can. Which pretty much says 18 is the age of maturity.
It depends what your definition of acting irresponsibly is. Remember only 36.9% voted Tory at the last election and your party blocked Lords reform in 2012. You cannot complain.
It's even worse than that, Mike. The Tories could not win even 25% of the support of registered voters. And now they keep on about having a democratic mandate!
Cameron doesn't have a mandate for anything!
Strange how you never use that argument about any other party.
No other party in this Parliament is advancing the spurious claim that it has a mandate to do whatsoever it chooses.
Yes its only the Labour Party that is doing that, after all its not in the business of politics, just trying to hari kiri itself.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
They can join with parental permission at 16, they can't fight until 18. What does that have to do with your argument?
See my previous post. I didn't claim that they could fight; you've brought this point up twice now.
Very serious, I know a fair few people with plenty to say...
Yet Suemas Milne has distracted half the political press.
And tragic (though of mercifully limited scope) - not quite up their with potential PM unsure on whether Police should use deadly force, or senior politician regarding mental illness as an appropriate vehicle for personal attack.....
Regarding the doctrine about global jihad, ISIS, Mohammed etc.. can we at least put that into some context, and say that any supernatural faith, whether it be Islam, christianity, paganism, scientology, father christmas, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny are all as utterly ludicrous as the other and anyone believing in such is stupid.
Or are there people around who are happy to come out and say that their supernatural belief is right and the others are stupid?
Very serious, I know a fair few people with plenty to say...
Yet Suemas Milne has distracted half the political press.
And tragic (though of mercifully limited scope) - not quite up their with potential PM unsure on whether Police should use deadly force, or senior politician regarding mental illness as an appropriate vehicle for personal attack.....
I think the relative prominence is the result of Newsnight having done some actual digging whereas a discussion of say, Paris, would mirror other news outlets.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
They can join with parental permission at 16, they can't fight until 18. What does that have to do with your argument?
He seems to be backing up the claim that 16 year olds aren't yet mature, since they're not allowed to fight and need parental permission to join up.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
They can join with parental permission at 16, they can't fight until 18. What does that have to do with your argument?
See my previous post. I didn't claim that they could fight; you've brought this point up twice now.
Because you won't answer the question. What point are you trying to make by highlighting that 16 year olds cannot carry out the full range of activities that 18 year olds can?
It depends what your definition of acting irresponsibly is. Remember only 36.9% voted Tory at the last election and your party blocked Lords reform in 2012. You cannot complain.
It's even worse than that, Mike. The Tories could not win even 25% of the support of registered voters. And now they keep on about having a democratic mandate!
Cameron doesn't have a mandate for anything!
Strange how you never use that argument about any other party.
No other party in this Parliament is advancing the spurious claim that it has a mandate to do whatsoever it chooses.
Under our existing system it is a mandate to attempt to do what they want. I remain utterly baffled at this idea that a system that the public have, to my annoyance, not voted to change (or voted in parties who want to change it) which grants the power of majority to parties on the sorts of vote share the Tories did is somehow not able to have a mandate because I personally would prefer a system which produces a better mandate. They have a legal mandate, so it is not in any way spurious to claim so. One could claim it is not a great mandate if one does not like the electoral system, but it is not spurious to regard winning a majority fairly via the legal processes that the public have endorsed by not voting to change it or vote for those who want to change it as having a mandate. Ridiculous
My point is that they can join the army. I thought that was evident. They need parental permission And? That wasn't something I denied either. and are deemed not mature enough to carry out the roles that an 18 year old can. Which pretty much says 18 is the age of maturity. Again; I've never said 18 years old isn't the age of maturity in regard to the law. I said that 16 and 17 year olds can be mentally mature and understand how decisions affect them. That sixteen and seventeen year olds can begin making important decisions (yes, with parental permission but even so) recognises this coming of age into maturity. Otherwise, these kinds of decisions would not at all be available to this age group.
Regarding the doctrine about global jihad, ISIS, Mohammed etc.. can we at least put that into some context, and say that any supernatural faith, whether it be Islam, christianity, paganism, scientology, father christmas, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny are all as utterly ludicrous as the other and anyone believing in such is stupid.
Or are there people around who are happy to come out and say that their supernatural belief is right and the others are stupid?
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
They can join with parental permission at 16, they can't fight until 18. What does that have to do with your argument?
He seems to be backing up the claim that 16 year olds aren't yet mature, since they're not allowed to fight and need parental permission to join up.
My point is that they can join the army. I thought that was evident. They need parental permission
And? That wasn't something I denied either. and are deemed not mature enough to carry out the roles that an 18 year old can. Which pretty much says 18 is the age of maturity. Again; I've never said 18 years old isn't the age of maturity in regard to the law. I said that 16 and 17 year olds can be mentally mature and understand how decisions affect them. That sixteen and seventeen year olds can begin making important decisions (yes, with parental permission but even so) recognises this coming of age into maturity. Otherwise, these kinds of decisions would not at all be available to this age group.
How about... They can vote with parental permission, or... They can vote the way their parents tell them?
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
They can join with parental permission at 16, they can't fight until 18. What does that have to do with your argument?
See my previous post. I didn't claim that they could fight; you've brought this point up twice now.
Because you won't answer the question. What point are you trying to make by highlighting that 16 year olds cannot carry out the full range of activities that 18 year olds can?
See in my recent response to you (and @watford30 as well).
That sixteen and seventeen year olds can begin making important decisions (yes, with parental permission but even so) recognises this coming of age into maturity.
No it doesn't. It recognises that they arn't fully mature.
i think we need to decide if 16-18 is or is not full adulthood, not this halfway house as at present)
Indeed. And there's been a general move away from 16 to 18 - why should this buck the trend?
And if it should, it needs to be done for all elections in one go, not piecemeal.
If the argument is that 16 should be the age of majority, then let's debate it. Are we agreed that 16 year olds can become prostitutes and take part in pornographic films? Fight on the front line? Marry without parental consent? Buy and sell land? Serve on juries? Act as company directors and trustees? Buy alcohol and cigarettes? Drive?
If our society is agreed that all these things are appropriate, then by all means, give 16 year olds the vote. If not, then what the devil is the argument for giving them the vote in this referendum?
Post of the day.
Seconded.
Edit: to answer the question, the only real argument is that they're more europhile and will help Remain.
Fortunately they won't turn out.
They did in Scotland - in fact the proportion of 16/17s voting in the indyref was a fair bit higher than the 18-24 group.
My point is that they can join the army. I thought that was evident. They need parental permission
And? That wasn't something I denied either. and are deemed not mature enough to carry out the roles that an 18 year old can. Which pretty much says 18 is the age of maturity. Again; I've never said 18 years old isn't the age of maturity in regard to the law. I said that 16 and 17 year olds can be mentally mature and understand how decisions affect them. That sixteen and seventeen year olds can begin making important decisions (yes, with parental permission but even so) recognises this coming of age into maturity. Otherwise, these kinds of decisions would not at all be available to this age group. You have descended into wibble now, so I'll leave it. You believe you have some killer argument about being allowed to join the army, I believe you have made an error but can't or won't recognise it.
Very serious, I know a fair few people with plenty to say...
Yet Suemas Milne has distracted half the political press.
And tragic (though of mercifully limited scope) - not quite up their with potential PM unsure on whether Police should use deadly force, or senior politician regarding mental illness as an appropriate vehicle for personal attack.....
I think the relative prominence is the result of Newsnight having done some actual digging whereas a discussion of say, Paris, would mirror other news outlets.
I don't think that's unreasonable.
Yes, it looks like a solid story well researched and worthy of airing. Tho I bet they are cursing Seamus Milne!
@Baskerville It'd be great for a GE. 16-17 year olds all over Britain could trick their Tory parents into thinking they'll vote Tory, and then spring up a surprise that they've voted for someone else!
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
They can join with parental permission at 16, they can't fight until 18. What does that have to do with your argument?
He seems to be backing up the claim that 16 year olds aren't yet mature, since they're not allowed to fight and need parental permission to join up.
For the love of god I am NOT a he. I am a SHE.
I must have missed the subtle feminine lilt to the name, 'The Apocalypse'.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
They can join with parental permission at 16, they can't fight until 18. What does that have to do with your argument?
He seems to be backing up the claim that 16 year olds aren't yet mature, since they're not allowed to fight and need parental permission to join up.
My point is that the concept of Christianity (and any other stupid supernatural belief) is as equally ridiculous as Islam. Christianity is actually more ridiculous because Christianity believes that Jesus was the biological child of a supernatural god; the virgin birth and all that. At least Mohammed was a human entity- slightly more rational IMO. FFS- when I was a kid, I used to say prayers to the father, the son and the holy ghost- weird shit.
My point is until we can all actually say that religion of any kind is stupid- it leads to stupid divisions, it leads to people doing stupid things, it leads to stupid feelings of superiority and inferiority. It leads to horrible brainwashing and erratic behaviours.
Until then, we have to put up with these ridiculous people doing stupid things.
Regarding the doctrine about global jihad, ISIS, Mohammed etc.. can we at least put that into some context, and say that any supernatural faith, whether it be Islam, christianity, paganism, scientology, father christmas, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny are all as utterly ludicrous as the other and anyone believing in such is stupid.
Or are there people around who are happy to come out and say that their supernatural belief is right and the others are stupid?
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
They can join with parental permission at 16, they can't fight until 18. What does that have to do with your argument?
He seems to be backing up the claim that 16 year olds aren't yet mature, since they're not allowed to fight and need parental permission to join up.
For the love of god I am NOT a he. I am a SHE.
Yeah, so you say.
Yeah, and you've in the past claimed that the right have been the barons of equality all along, and have been playing a joke on the Left, and I'm supposed to believe that. @watford30 So I need a blatantly feminine username in order for you to identify me as a woman? How about just not seeing PBers as by default male all the time? After all, the right's all about equality/tolerance these days....
My point is that the concept of Christianity (and any other stupid supernatural belief) is as equally ridiculous as Islam. Christianity is actually more ridiculous because Christianity believes that Jesus was the biological child of a supernatural god; the virgin birth and all that. At least Mohammed was a human entity- slightly more rational IMO. FFS- when I was a kid, I used to say prayers to the father, the son and the holy ghost- weird shit.
My point is until we can all actually say that religion of any kind is stupid- it leads to stupid divisions, it leads to people doing stupid things, it leads to stupid feelings of superiority and inferiority. It leads to horrible brainwashing and erratic behaviours.
Until then, we have to put up with these ridiculous people doing stupid things.
Regarding the doctrine about global jihad, ISIS, Mohammed etc.. can we at least put that into some context, and say that any supernatural faith, whether it be Islam, christianity, paganism, scientology, father christmas, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny are all as utterly ludicrous as the other and anyone believing in such is stupid.
Or are there people around who are happy to come out and say that their supernatural belief is right and the others are stupid?
What do you believe in, o wise one?
Well, we're all marching out of step with you, the fount of wisdom.
Yeah, and you've in the past claimed that the right have been the barons of equality all along, and have been playing a joke on the Left, and I'm supposed to believe that. @watford30 So I need a blatantly feminine username in order for you to identify as a woman? How about just not seeing PBers as defaulty male all the time? After all, the right's all about equality/tolerance these days....
The amount of male privilege on display tonight is disgusting.
Belgian authorities seem rather confident that terrorist, mastermind, Jihadi minor legend and all round Bond level villian, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, is dead.
The French have yet to confirm.
What though has the sudden burst of activity come from that resulted in a series of actions in Germany, Belgium and France in the space of about 12 or so hours? The raid in St Denis in particular, thats a lot of people on one location to arrest/kill given the situation. Either someone forgot their terrorist tradecraft or people were readying to commit some kind of act.
Critically, very good source of information has emerged. Singular.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
They can join with parental permission at 16, they can't fight until 18. What does that have to do with your argument?
He seems to be backing up the claim that 16 year olds aren't yet mature, since they're not allowed to fight and need parental permission to join up.
For the love of god I am NOT a he. I am a SHE.
Yeah, so you say.
Yeah, and you've in the past claimed that the right have been the barons of equality all along, and have been playing a joke on the Left, and I'm supposed to believe that. @watford30 So I need a blatantly feminine username in order for you to identify me as a woman? How about just not seeing PBers as by default male all the time? After all, the right's all about equality/tolerance these days....
Yeah, and you've in the past claimed that the right have been the barons of equality all along, and have been playing a joke on the Left, and I'm supposed to believe that. @watford30 So I need a blatantly feminine username in order for you to identify as a woman? How about just not seeing PBers as defaulty male all the time? After all, the right's all about equality/tolerance these days....
The amount of male privilege on display tonight is disgusting.
Yeah, I'm somehow not surprised that those on the right of British politics don't buy into that either.
Labour’s Shadow Chancellor called for British intelligence service MI5 to be “disbanded” and the police to be “disarmed” earlier this year, The Sun can reveal.
In April John McDonnell signed a pre-election letter of hard-left demands that included a call to “disband MI5 and special police squads, disarm the police.”
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
They can join with parental permission at 16, they can't fight until 18. What does that have to do with your argument?
He seems to be backing up the claim that 16 year olds aren't yet mature, since they're not allowed to fight and need parental permission to join up.
For the love of god I am NOT a he. I am a SHE.
Yeah, so you say.
Yeah, and you've in the past claimed that the right have been the barons of equality all along, and have been playing a joke on the Left, and I'm supposed to believe that. @watford30 So I need a blatantly feminine username in order for you to identify me as a woman? How about just not seeing PBers as by default male all the time? After all, the right's all about equality/tolerance these days....
I'm a lady too. So calm down please.
You can still be a lady and see people as by default male online; and it still be an issue. Also, I'm perfectly calm. We don't need flashbacks to that Cameron PMQs moment....
The former Doncaster offices of UKIP have re-opened - as an advice centre for Polish people.
The office in East Laith Gate, which was used by the party for campaigning during this year’s General Election re-opened earlier this month as a help centre for Eastern Europeans.
My point is that the concept of Christianity (and any other stupid supernatural belief) is as equally ridiculous as Islam. Christianity is actually more ridiculous because Christianity believes that Jesus was the biological child of a supernatural god; the virgin birth and all that. At least Mohammed was a human entity- slightly more rational IMO. FFS- when I was a kid, I used to say prayers to the father, the son and the holy ghost- weird shit.
My point is until we can all actually say that religion of any kind is stupid- it leads to stupid divisions, it leads to people doing stupid things, it leads to stupid feelings of superiority and inferiority. It leads to horrible brainwashing and erratic behaviours.
Until then, we have to put up with these ridiculous people doing stupid things.
Regarding the doctrine about global jihad, ISIS, Mohammed etc.. can we at least put that into some context, and say that any supernatural faith, whether it be Islam, christianity, paganism, scientology, father christmas, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny are all as utterly ludicrous as the other and anyone believing in such is stupid.
Or are there people around who are happy to come out and say that their supernatural belief is right and the others are stupid?
What do you believe in, o wise one?
Well, we're all marching out of step with you, the fount of wisdom.
Belgian authorities seem rather confident that terrorist, mastermind, Jihadi minor legend and all round Bond level villian, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, is dead.
The French have yet to confirm.
What though has the sudden burst of activity come from that resulted in a series of actions in Germany, Belgium and France in the space of about 12 or so hours? The raid in St Denis in particular, thats a lot of people on one location to arrest/kill given the situation. Either someone forgot their terrorist tradecraft or people were readying to commit some kind of act.
Critically, very good source of information has emerged. Singular.
They were about to bomb the business district, allegedly.
That's not fair, in all likelihood Cameron's been told it is necessary. The cost saving argument makes no sense if the aircraft will have defensive systems like infrared countermeasures added. Somebody is probably seriously concerned that groups like ISIS are talking about taking shots at the aircraft carrying the PM and other British VIPs.
@faisalislam: A group of Labour backbenchers in favour of action against ISIL are to go public with their case next week
@faisalislam: if PM can address these concerns, these Labour rebels have counted their numbers tonight, and that could mean up to another 50 on top of 20
@faisalislam: Obviously if these numbers remotely accurate, then the PM will have no problem commanding a majority in the House for extending airstrikes..
Note the scale of the defeat as well - the Government probably has no way past the Lords if the numbers are as stark as this.
I'm a long-term supporter of votes at 16, and proposed a supportive council motion which was passed by a big majority (about half the Tories against) but was interesting that night how all the comments against we're what I'd call distractions - 'the wrong time' 'not a council issue' 'not a priority' I was struck how the lack of substantive arguments against 16 year olds being ready, was a good indicator that the argument was being won nationally.
Obviously helpful for Remain, and hopefully for politicians across the spectrum to have to take youth issues that little more seriously.
What other concessions follow? Drinking, smoking, leaving school, driving, minimum ages for all gender and age related military rules .....
Nah - there's been no move in this direction since IndyRef as these are all separate. The one you haven't mentioned is taxation - on the principle of no taxation without representation it does make sense to lower, although then you are left wondering why 16. Is there a minimum age you're liable for tax?
3 other thoughts from the thread: 1- I'd agree with several posters that just because young people are affected 'more' by the referendum decision is a rubbish reason for votes at 16. Who says they'll be affected more? If it's right to change, then it should be because 16 and 17 year olds are ready to have their say. 2- IndyRef blew apart the argument that 16/17 year olds didn't want the vote, higher turnout than 19-24 year olds. 3-no-one will persuaded by the spin on 2012 Lords Reform now, on either side. My real frustration, as a Lib Dem hoping for change, was that there was no real debate on the function of the Lords. It just went straight on to composition, and no surprise it floundered. Big strategic mistake, this was a once in a generation opportunity, and the Lib Dems (and reformers from other parties) weren't up to it when the chance came.
Why are they separate? Isn't this about an age of personal responsibility and decision making? I would contend that consistency can only be served by having a consistent benchmark. Being a LibDem I completely understand why you would think that it should be different only because you say it should. The fact that you ask such a simple question about the tax system also speaks volumes.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
They can join with parental permission at 16, they can't fight until 18. What does that have to do with your argument?
He seems to be backing up the claim that 16 year olds aren't yet mature, since they're not allowed to fight and need parental permission to join up.
For the love of god I am NOT a he. I am a SHE.
Yeah, so you say.
Yeah, and you've in the past claimed that the right have been the barons of equality all along, and have been playing a joke on the Left, and I'm supposed to believe that. @watford30 So I need a blatantly feminine username in order for you to identify me as a woman? How about just not seeing PBers as by default male all the time? After all, the right's all about equality/tolerance these days....
The ability to take a joke really does help on here, The_Apocalypse
My point is that the concept of Christianity (and any other stupid supernatural belief) is as equally ridiculous as Islam. Christianity is actually more ridiculous because Christianity believes that Jesus was the biological child of a supernatural god; the virgin birth and all that. At least Mohammed was a human entity- slightly more rational IMO. FFS- when I was a kid, I used to say prayers to the father, the son and the holy ghost- weird shit.
My point is until we can all actually say that religion of any kind is stupid- it leads to stupid divisions, it leads to people doing stupid things, it leads to stupid feelings of superiority and inferiority. It leads to horrible brainwashing and erratic behaviours.
Until then, we have to put up with these ridiculous people doing stupid things.
Regarding the doctrine about global jihad, ISIS, Mohammed etc.. can we at least put that into some context, and say that any supernatural faith, whether it be Islam, christianity, paganism, scientology, father christmas, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny are all as utterly ludicrous as the other and anyone believing in such is stupid.
Or are there people around who are happy to come out and say that their supernatural belief is right and the others are stupid?
What do you believe in, o wise one?
My point is until we can all actually say that religion of any kind is stupid- it leads to stupid divisions, it leads to people doing stupid things, it leads to stupid feelings of superiority and inferiority. It leads to horrible brainwashing and erratic behaviours.
Until then, we have to put up with these ridiculous people doing stupid things.
i think we need to decide if 16-18 is or is not full adulthood, not this halfway house as at present)
Indeed. And there's been a general move away from 16 to 18 - why should this buck the trend?
And if it should, it needs to be done for all elections in one go, not piecemeal.
If the argument is that 16 should be the age of majority, then let's debate it. Are we agreed that 16 year olds can become prostitutes and take part in pornographic films? Fight on the front line? Marry without parental consent? Buy and sell land? Serve on juries? Act as company directors and trustees? Buy alcohol and cigarettes? Drive?
If our society is agreed that all these things are appropriate, then by all means, give 16 year olds the vote. If not, then what the devil is the argument for giving them the vote in this referendum?
Post of the day.
Seconded.
Edit: to answer the question, the only real argument is that they're more europhile and will help Remain.
Thirded. And the last people who thought they had secured advantage in a referendum with votes for 16 and 17 year olds were the SNP.
These limits are by necessity arbitrary - there are some 16 year olds easily mature enough to come to a considered decision, some 25 year olds not.....
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
They can join with parental permission at 16, they can't fight until 18. What does that have to do with your argument?
He seems to be backing up the claim that 16 year olds aren't yet mature, since they're not allowed to fight and need parental permission to join up.
For the love of god I am NOT a he. I am a SHE.
Yeah, so you say.
Yeah, and you've in the past claimed that the right have been the barons of equality all along, and have been playing a joke on the Left, and I'm supposed to believe that. @watford30 So I need a blatantly feminine username in order for you to identify me as a woman? How about just not seeing PBers as by default male all the time? After all, the right's all about equality/tolerance these days....
The ability to take a joke really does help on here, The_Apocalypse
I can take a joke, I just didn't find that one particularly funny, tbh.
I just wish Corbyn and his merry band of lettuce growing warriors just go instead and organise an allotment cooperative to further their political objectives. First, they would be more fulfilled. And second they would be more likely to fulfil their aims and desires.
Labour’s Shadow Chancellor called for British intelligence service MI5 to be “disbanded” and the police to be “disarmed” earlier this year, The Sun can reveal.
In April John McDonnell signed a pre-election letter of hard-left demands that included a call to “disband MI5 and special police squads, disarm the police.”
During the 1987 general election campaign, Neil Kinnock was asked by David Frost how he would respond were the United Kingdom threatened by a nuclear-armed Soviet Union. The Labour leader, then an advocate of unilateral disarmament, replied: “This is a classical choice between exterminating everything you stand for and the flower of your youth, or using all the resources you have to make any occupation totally untenable.”
Margaret Thatcher ruthlessly exploited his remarks, deriding the party’s policy as one “for defeat, surrender, occupation and, finally, prolonged guerilla fighting”. Kinnock protested that his comments had been distorted – “There is no question of guerilla warfare or a Dad’s Army” – but the charge stuck. Labour was irrevocably branded as “soft on defence”.
When Jeremy Corbyn remarked two days after the Paris attacks that he was “not happy” with a “shoot-to-kill” policy against terrorists, it was the 1980s that MPs recalled.
That's not fair, in all likelihood Cameron's been told it is necessary. The cost saving argument makes no sense if the aircraft will have defensive systems like infrared countermeasures added. Somebody is probably seriously concerned that groups like ISIS are talking about taking shots at the aircraft carrying the PM and other British VIPs.
Voyagers are already configured to carry passengers under the air tanker contract. When they're not refuelling, the aircraft are used for military transport and are fitted with self defence equipment for that role. It's a complete non story whipped into something it isn't by frothing Kippers.
The MoD hide all this secret information in plain sight on the web.
So Cameron claims Russia would veto a UN resolution in order to prevent the UK bombing IS in Syria.
Meanwhile Russia says that they would like the UK to join the offensive.
Conclusion - Cameron is a numpty.
Spell out exactly what the Russians said. Would they in fact agree to a resolution which would encourage the world to bomb their friend Assad?
If Cameron is stupid enough to try and link bombing ISIL with bombing Assad as well then he deserves all he gets. If he went to the UN for a vote on bombing ISIL then he would easily get it passed. If he intends to bomb Assad as well then it shows he is not really interested in dealing with the problem at all. I wonder what his reaction will be the first time a Russian anti-aircraft unit shoots down a British plane which is bombing Syrian Government forces.
So Cameron claims Russia would veto a UN resolution in order to prevent the UK bombing IS in Syria.
Meanwhile Russia says that they would like the UK to join the offensive.
Conclusion - Cameron is a numpty.
They only said that after PMQ's. It is encouraging that Russia is engaging with the UK no doubt as a result of David Cameron's recent meeting with Putin and his sharing of British Intelligence with him over the downing of the Russian jet. No matter what you may think of David Cameron there is no one near him at present to lead the Country in these dangerous times. It is time labour boycotted Corbyn and refused the whip. He made a career of doing that and only by showing complete loss of confidence in him will there be any chance of the Country getting a decent oppostion
If the morning after the night before is never a good look, the morning after the day before is even worse. Fed up, lacklustre and sleep-deprived didn’t begin to cover how wretched Jeremy Corbyn looked: just about everything that could go wrong for the man who had never really wanted the top job in the first place had gone wrong in the past 24 hours. That much of the trouble was of his own making only added to the sense of despair.
When you’re in the middle of an existential crisis, the last thing you need is another outing under the spotlight, but the Labour leader had no choice but to return to the Commons for the weekly bunfight of prime minister’s questions. As he took his place on the front bench, Jezza looked a man diminished, as if the beating he has received had taken it out of him physically as well as mentally.
“Isil seeks to exploit the idea that there’s war between Islam and the west, and when you see individuals in positions of responsibility suggesting Christians are more worthy of protection than Muslims are in a war-torn land, that feeds the Isil narrative. It’s counter-productive. And it needs to stop.
“And I would add, these are the same folks who suggested they’re so tough that just ‘talk to Putin’ or staring down Isil [will work] … but they are scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America as part of our tradition of compassion. At first they were too scared of the press being too tough on them in the debates. Now they are scared of three-year-old orphans. That doesn’t seem so tough to me.”
i think we need to decide if 16-18 is or is not full adulthood, not this halfway house as at present)
Indeed. And there's been a general move away from 16 to 18 - why should this buck the trend?
And if it should, it needs to be done for all elections in one go, not piecemeal.
If the argument is that 16 should be the age of majority, then let's debate it. Are we agreed that 16 year olds can become prostitutes and take part in pornographic films? Fight on the front line? Marry without parental consent? Buy and sell land? Serve on juries? Act as company directors and trustees? Buy alcohol and cigarettes? Drive?
If our society is agreed that all these things are appropriate, then by all means, give 16 year olds the vote. If not, then what the devil is the argument for giving them the vote in this referendum?
Post of the day.
Thanks.
It's not a rhetorical series of questions. Many medieval societies would have answered Yes to all those questions (including voting for borough representatives).
I've commented before that I could be persuaded of value in 16 - 18 year olds having the vote as part of a considered addition to the curriculum.
But we do need to think through the consequences of politicians pitching explicitly for the child vote.
A vision of the Child Catcher in full flow came suddenly to mind
Belgian authorities seem rather confident that terrorist, mastermind, Jihadi minor legend and all round Bond level villian, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, is dead.
The French have yet to confirm.
What though has the sudden burst of activity come from that resulted in a series of actions in Germany, Belgium and France in the space of about 12 or so hours? The raid in St Denis in particular, thats a lot of people on one location to arrest/kill given the situation. Either someone forgot their terrorist tradecraft or people were readying to commit some kind of act.
Critically, very good source of information has emerged. Singular.
Wonder what the plod will make of the owner of the apartment trying to claim with a straight face that he just let some friends of friends come over and stay. That would be 8 Jahadi's complete with explosives and 5000+ rounds of ammunition...oh and the guys flat had reinforced security doors. You know as you do...
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
My point is that the concept of Christianity (and any other stupid supernatural belief) is as equally ridiculous as Islam. Christianity is actually more ridiculous because Christianity believes that Jesus was the biological child of a supernatural god; the virgin birth and all that. At least Mohammed was a human entity- slightly more rational IMO. FFS- when I was a kid, I used to say prayers to the father, the son and the holy ghost- weird shit.
My point is until we can all actually say that religion of any kind is stupid- it leads to stupid divisions, it leads to people doing stupid things, it leads to stupid feelings of superiority and inferiority. It leads to horrible brainwashing and erratic behaviours.
Until then, we have to put up with these ridiculous people doing stupid things.
Regarding the doctrine about global jihad, ISIS, Mohammed etc.. can we at least put that into some context, and say that any supernatural faith, whether it be Islam, christianity, paganism, scientology, father christmas, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny are all as utterly ludicrous as the other and anyone believing in such is stupid.
Or are there people around who are happy to come out and say that their supernatural belief is right and the others are stupid?
What do you believe in, o wise one?
My point is until we can all actually say that religion of any kind is stupid- it leads to stupid divisions, it leads to people doing stupid things, it leads to stupid feelings of superiority and inferiority. It leads to horrible brainwashing and erratic behaviours.
Until then, we have to put up with these ridiculous people doing stupid things.
Sounds a lot like politics, to me.
The point being that where Islam differs from Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc, etc is that it is not only a religion but a political creed also.
Sandy- roll the clock back another 15 years and we'd all be wishing for a Saddam comeback. Sorry Saddam- sorry we got you hung old mate my old Baathist, secularist mucker. Can we just put the clock back and get you back in to sort out those bunch of Islamic fuckwits. We'd even arm you, and turn a blind eye to you using WMD on those fanatical, Islamic nobheads.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
Join yes, fight no. It's not difficult, why do people not understand this, it gets explained often enough.
Comments
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/18/ken-livingstone-backtracks-on-apology-over-psychiatric-help-remarks
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34858722
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
Yet Suemas Milne has distracted half the political press.
Or something bad for the Tories.
(some guy I'd never heard of...)
The BBC must surely see the sense in avoiding any hint of hostility to the Tories because they have put a noose around it's necks.
Take a look at - http://www.parasolgroup.co.uk/take-home-pay-calculator/
If you use this calculator, it gives you 2 options - using their "umbrella company" setup. This is where you are, in effect, an employee of Parasol (geddit??). The company you want to do work for signs a contract with Parasol, with you as the named employee who will do the work.
The second is the classic limited company approach.
For £500 a day (not exactly unknown in the IT sector), the umbrella company arrangement brings in £6.6K post tax per month (approx). The limited company can bring in £9K post tax per month
If the government goes ahead with the 1 month-means-you-must-be-an-employee plan, all contractors will simply join umbrella companies. It would be impossible to differentiate between such companies and full consultancies legally - if act many such "umbrella" companies already offer their members services that make them half way to being a classic employers.
For reference, a permanent position equivalent in seniority/skill to £500 a day would probably be on about £60,000 - which gives a take home of £3500. So going contracting would pretty much double your take home, after the changes.
Or are there people around who are happy to come out and say that their supernatural belief is right and the others are stupid?
I don't think that's unreasonable.
What an utterly useless, ineffective chump he is.
They need parental permission
And? That wasn't something I denied either.
and are deemed not mature enough to carry out the roles that an 18 year old can. Which pretty much says 18 is the age of maturity.
Again; I've never said 18 years old isn't the age of maturity in regard to the law. I said that 16 and 17 year olds can be mentally mature and understand how decisions affect them. That sixteen and seventeen year olds can begin making important decisions (yes, with parental permission but even so) recognises this coming of age into maturity. Otherwise, these kinds of decisions would not at all be available to this age group.
Better to get to "separation of church from state" and leave their faith to themselves.
and are deemed not mature enough to carry out the roles that an 18 year old can. Which pretty much says 18 is the age of maturity.
Again; I've never said 18 years old isn't the age of maturity in regard to the law. I said that 16 and 17 year olds can be mentally mature and understand how decisions affect them. That sixteen and seventeen year olds can begin making important decisions (yes, with parental permission but even so) recognises this coming of age into maturity. Otherwise, these kinds of decisions would not at all be available to this age group.
How about... They can vote with parental permission, or... They can vote the way their parents tell them?
and are deemed not mature enough to carry out the roles that an 18 year old can. Which pretty much says 18 is the age of maturity.
Again; I've never said 18 years old isn't the age of maturity in regard to the law. I said that 16 and 17 year olds can be mentally mature and understand how decisions affect them. That sixteen and seventeen year olds can begin making important decisions (yes, with parental permission but even so) recognises this coming of age into maturity. Otherwise, these kinds of decisions would not at all be available to this age group.
You have descended into wibble now, so I'll leave it. You believe you have some killer argument about being allowed to join the army, I believe you have made an error but can't or won't recognise it.
It's the same with Syria.
Maggie or dare I say it, Blair, wouldn't have vacillated like this.
Show some leadership.
Come on pb Tories stick up for your man.
My point is until we can all actually say that religion of any kind is stupid- it leads to stupid divisions, it leads to people doing stupid things, it leads to stupid feelings of superiority and inferiority. It leads to horrible brainwashing and erratic behaviours.
Until then, we have to put up with these ridiculous people doing stupid things.
@watford30 So I need a blatantly feminine username in order for you to identify me as a woman? How about just not seeing PBers as by default male all the time? After all, the right's all about equality/tolerance these days....
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2015/11/249666.htm
http://www.sunnation.co.uk/the-pm-is-getting-his-own-plane-like-president-obamas-air-force-one/
Meanwhile Russia says that they would like the UK to join the offensive.
Conclusion - Cameron is a numpty.
The French have yet to confirm.
What though has the sudden burst of activity come from that resulted in a series of actions in Germany, Belgium and France in the space of about 12 or so hours? The raid in St Denis in particular, thats a lot of people on one location to arrest/kill given the situation. Either someone forgot their terrorist tradecraft or people were readying to commit some kind of act.
Critically, very good source of information has emerged. Singular.
In April John McDonnell signed a pre-election letter of hard-left demands that included a call to “disband MI5 and special police squads, disarm the police.”
http://www.sunnation.co.uk/shadow-chancellor-in-call-to-disband-secret-service-and-disarm-police
The former Doncaster offices of UKIP have re-opened - as an advice centre for Polish people.
The office in East Laith Gate, which was used by the party for campaigning during this year’s General Election re-opened earlier this month as a help centre for Eastern Europeans.
http://bit.ly/1MVAf99
In terms of credibility I'd put paganism as number 1, buddhism 2, Islam 3, Hinduism 4, Christianity 5 and Judaism a very poor 6.
Paganism is slightly more captivating because it all a bit open ended; Christianity and Judaism are all too anachronistic- so their low positions.
Anyway they are all silly and unbelievable.
Well done, Dave.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EURZuzHyWb0
For the GE, why not give the youth their own STV constituency?
@faisalislam: if PM can address these concerns, these Labour rebels have counted their numbers tonight, and that could mean up to another 50 on top of 20
@faisalislam: Obviously if these numbers remotely accurate, then the PM will have no problem commanding a majority in the House for extending airstrikes..
Until then, we have to put up with these ridiculous people doing stupid things.
Sounds a lot like politics, to me.
The MoD hide all this secret information in plain sight on the web.
http://www.airtanker.co.uk/raf-voyager/capability/air-transport
Perhaps someone at The Sun might learn to read, and have a look for themselves?