| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
And what age would that be?Originally Posted by Robin Friday's Ghost
18?
If you can't be trusted to buy a pint of Fosters in a pub or a lottery ticket in a corner shop, I'm not sure you can be trusted to decide who runs my kids schools or the hospitals my parents can be treated in.
Voting is a right people have sacrificed everything for, I'm not sure it should be given at 16 as a little more life experience is necessary, IMO. Appreciate everyone does mature at different ages though.
What age do you think someone should be allowed to fight and die for their country out of interest.
I tend to agree that 18 is the correct age to be regarded as an adult, with all the rights and responsibilities it brings.
Just clarifying until what age society should regard you as a child/young person, particularly in relation to the threads topic.
You can drive and get married at 17. You can work and pay taxes when you’re 16, have sex, leave full time education and are charged as an adult for trains and busses.
I’ve no strong opinions on the voting age but I wouldn’t say putting an X in a box requires any more maturity than driving a 1500kg lump of metal at 70mph. We already give 16 and 17 year olds the chance to make plenty of big, life changing decisions.
A bit later than you've decided that joining a group which decapitates people is a good idea
But people several months younger can't be expected to know that beheading people is wrong?
Seems an odd argument. So Jihadi John was in his early 20s when he joined ISIS.
I’m not sure what your point is.
18. I don't believe you can go into active service and 'fight and die' in the British Armed Forces until 18, although you can join at 16
You are right of course, and I acknowledge there is no easy fit. I just think when you vote you are making a decision for the next 4-5 years and at 16 you are doing that with zero adult experience.
It's not something I feel hugely strongly about, but I think 18 is preferable to 16 in terms of voting.
I don't really have a strong opinion about the age at which you should be able to vote, although I think 18 is more sensible than 16. However, I do think that if you believe someone is mature enough to decide the future of your country at age 16 then claiming that they were not mature enough to know that beheading and burning people alive is wrong just months prior to this is ludicrous.
Looking at this thread, I'd say that the voting rights for fifty plusses should be assessed by a psychologist and, in the same way that driving licences can be taken away from over seventy years olds by GPs, a decision should be made as to whether the person is sane enough to retain their right to vote - one contributor to this thread in particular really seems to have lost it in recent weeks.
Also, I'd have no problem with votes for sixteen year olds.
so this was a 15 year old child, born in this country, who was groomed online and then ran away abroad, where she was immediately "married" to a much older man she had met for a total of 10 minutes before she was "married". she cot pregnant almost immediately, so you can add statutory rape to that too.
it honestly sounds like she's the victim in all this. yes she's joined a terrorist organisation, so let her face the appropriate justice for that here.
does anyone genuinely think that she represents a threat to the UK any more? it seems to me that she's being made an example of to appease the tabloid reading section of the population.
I think in the case of the Brexit referendum in particular, 16 year olds should have been able to vote because their generation is the one which is most affected by the decision and for the longest.
Exactly.
What a weird thing to think of, even if it's a 'joke'.
You know she's not 15 any more, right?
My point is that I have heard people argue that as a 15 year old she wasn't mature enough to know that joining a group which was infamous for the barbarity of its behaviour was wrong while also arguing that people just a few months older are mature enough to determine the future of the whole population of their country through voting. We're not talking about not understanding the implications of vandalism or bullying. We're talking about not being able to see that beheading people and burning them alive is obviously wrong. And if someone is not able to see that at the age she was when she left for ISIS then I don't believe she would have experienced an epiphany a few months later which would have equipped her to be deciding mine or your political, economic and social fate. You may think otherwise of course. If you do then I think you are wrong.
I don't think I can put it any clearer than that so I will leave it there.
High profile media campaign, a team of lawyers, her PR seem pretty busy - so the question - who is paying for all this.
This was asked on LBC last night and her 'representative' wouldnt answer
Let's assume it 'us' the UK tax payer as Shamima Begum is getting Legal Aid?
That's the same UK tax payers stumping up for Boris Johnsons legal fees.
Can a non-UK citizen really be a recipient of Legal Aid?
I'd query Johnsons entitlement to receiving legal costs too as he was born in New York.
I'm not getting involved in the descent into the inevitable Punch and Judy / Labour v Conservatives spats that are so tiresome when the thread isn't party political.
Not sure why you bring Johnson into the argument. I was coming from it - that I know she is entitled to legal aid (how much Im not sure) - but she has 2 KC's , a legal team , her case is being run Birnberg Peirce solicitors and there are countless others involved - so either someone somewhere is bank rolling it - or the legal profession can smell a nice long drawn out process - where they can apply exorbitant fees.
And on LBC last night when being interviewed one of her representatives refused to answer that question re who else is involved in funding her
I know that old fruit, I think it's a decent comparison though as some tabloid were apoplectic about Begum receiving Legal Aid although technically until all the appeals processes have been exhausted she is still entitled to legal aid (?)
Any legal knowledge here on the board?
Personally I got no issue her having it if it means she's getting the hearing in the UK courts and they can conclude the matter.
Boris Johnson receiving legal costs for Partygate is a bitter of a piisstake in my eyes.
I wonder which individual (Begum or Boris) was more of a risk and caused more damage to UK society?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote