Re: Today’s headlines .........
While still on the subject of British politics, I've noticed UKIP, who were at their high point during the early-mid 2010s, seem to be much lower-key of late, and the BNP, who in turn were at their highest point during the latter half of the 2000s (concurrent with the then-rise of UKIP, but eventually superseded by them) barely ever seem to get mentioned at all these days.
Obviously both have now been largely superseded by Reform UK who are basically just another 'UKIP'/'BNP' party in all but name.
Another potent example of fickle fads and fashions in the world of politics.
Re: Today’s headlines .........
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pain
As I mentioned, not a fag paper between ‘em!
Haven't quite a few people perceived that for ages now, especially since the Blair era?
Mind you, for better or worse, it might sound like some kind of possible Labour-Tory 'Coalition' govt in the making?
I could be wrong though.
Re: Today’s headlines .........
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pain
Well, I’ve certainly perceived for a long time the lamentable state of affairs that is centrist politics – no effective left or right wing identities, just that great grey graveyard where political ideals go to wither and die, mostly from a terminally chronic lack of will to live.
I do remember Corbyn getting it in the neck for supposedly being too Leftist during his tenure as Labour leader, let alone all the anti-Semitic allegations he was on the receiving end of at the same time, though the latter is a whole 'nother story altogether.
Re: Today’s headlines .........
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pain
Child’s Play....
Apparently, Sir Keir Starmer’s not kidding when he says he sees no problem in allowing 16 year-olds the vote, even though the age of majority in the UK is 18. Presumably he’s been toying with this idea because the vast majority of teenage children could more easily be, erm...
persuaded to vote for him?...
‘
Asked by reporters on the campaign trail in Staffordshire whether Labour would lower the voting age, Sir Keir said: “Yes, I want to see both 16 and 17-year-olds. If you can work, if you can pay tax, if you can serve in your armed forces, then you ought to be able to vote.”’
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2551455.html
‘
The party leader said anyone paying tax should “have a say” in how their money is spent as he was questioned about the commitment on Saturday.’
Now just a vote-grabbing minute! No one should be under the democratic illusion that having a vote confers any sort of right to
“have a say” that will be heard or acted upon by any government; not even the one for which they voted.
Anyway, didn’t Sir Keir Starmer support Rishi Sunak’s Peter Pan law – the one in which children would be treated as children forever when it came to their purchasing of cigarettes?...
Responsible enough to be trusted with a vote for a parliamentary candidate, but never responsible enough to be trusted with their own health?
I suppose that's a bit of a grey area and certainly makes for a classic case of 'whataboutery'.
The minimum legal age for voting in elections and purchasing alcohol has always been 18, the minimum legal age for driving cars has always been 17, and 16 for driving motorbikes, having the legal right to have relationships and live independently, and historically, 16 was the minimum legal age for purchasing tobacco products, which of course was raised to 18 in 2007 soon after England's smoking ban.
I think as to what constitutes the minimum age of majority has always been controversial and a subject of much confusion and debate.
Plus of course, chances are there will always be some 16-17-year-olds who will instead vote for parties other than Labour (like any age group) if the legal minimum voting age was lowered to 16.
Re: Today’s headlines .........
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pain
Criminally Minded....
Have you been considering committing a crime, doing a bit of wrongdoing, or simply wondered how far you can push your illegal luck without having your collar felt? Well now’s your chance, because there’s never been a better time to avoid doing time.
‘
Police are reportedly being advised to arrest fewer people in a bid to ease overcrowding in prisons.’
http://https://www.itv.com/news/2024...rowding-report
Should upstanding, law-abiding members of society take offence while criminals are told to feel free to do whatever they like? I dunno, perhaps whoever it was who came up with the directive should be locked up for this arrested development?...
Although this post is from a few days ago, it's yet another one of those 'grey area' issues IMO.
While I'm certainly not acting as an apologist for criminals, nor making excuses for them per se, it's often been thought over more recent times that prison can actually make criminals worse, and inadvertently be a lesson in bad behaviours, with the only real benefits being the crims are 'out of sight, out of mind' from the law-abiding majority of the general public for a set period, often reoffending (sometimes in even worse ways) following release. Unless the crims have committed the most extreme offences that warrant a life sentence (e.g, murder).
It's often been said that Norway, for example, actually has a far more effective criminal justice system that deals with crims who have committed 'lesser' offences, which probably should have been looked into elsewhere in the world (including here in Britain), but instead; given many of us Brits are so set in our ways and profoundly resistant to change, and still believe in the same old 'Prison Works' ideology, as (in)famously uttered by Michael Howard back in 1993.
Same as many of us here in England are still hesitant towards the banning of smacking children on the basis of the popular belief that it 'never did past generations any harm', 'kids today are more out of control than ever before'*, etc, while Scotland and Wales have already moved with the times and banned it, despite the common stereotypical assumptions of both nations often being 'behind the times' in general compared to England.
But the 'status quo' will pretty much always be the rule with many things here, regardless of people's general understandings, and the vote for Brexit in 2016 in particular, most ironically seemed to be for 'one big change to end all change'.
*BTW, there doesn't currently appear to be any hard evidence that 'kids today' are actually more out of control than ever before. In fact, I've hardly noticed overhearing any conversations about said topic for at least a decade or so now, unlike back in the 90s and 2000s when and where such conversations seemed almost ubiquitous, especially among people beyond the age of 30.
Re: Today’s headlines .........
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pain
The uk age of majority certainly isn’t legally a ‘grey area’ Lencoboy, and it hasn’t always been 18; it was lowered in 1969 from 21 (a move which some folks think should be reversed). Furthermore, 'whataboutery' doesn't come into it!
.
I kind of see the point about 21 being the 'historical' age of majority.
After all, don't we have the 'Challenge 21' policy regarding the purchase of alcohol in shops, pubs, etc, even though there's always some who still continue to sell to under-agers 'on the sly'?
Plus on the face of it the 16-18 age range of 'age of majority' does seem rather haphazard as it covers various age-related restrictions, whereas 21 for everything would probably be far more logical in many ways. Especially as many seem to appear younger than their actual age for longer nowadays.
Re: Today’s headlines .........
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pain
Child’s Play....
Apparently, Sir Keir Starmer’s not kidding when he says he sees no problem in allowing 16 year-olds the vote, even though the age of majority in the UK is 18. Presumably he’s been toying with this idea because the vast majority of teenage children could more easily be, erm...
persuaded to vote for him?...
‘
Asked by reporters on the campaign trail in Staffordshire whether Labour would lower the voting age, Sir Keir said: “Yes, I want to see both 16 and 17-year-olds. If you can work, if you can pay tax, if you can serve in your armed forces, then you ought to be able to vote.”’
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2551455.html
‘
The party leader said anyone paying tax should “have a say” in how their money is spent as he was questioned about the commitment on Saturday.’
Now just a vote-grabbing minute! No one should be under the democratic illusion that having a vote confers any sort of right to
“have a say” that will be heard or acted upon by any government; not even the one for which they voted.
Anyway, didn’t Sir Keir Starmer support
Rishi Sunak’s Peter Pan law – the one in which children would be treated as children forever when it came to their purchasing of cigarettes?...
Responsible enough to be trusted with a vote for a parliamentary candidate, but
never responsible enough to be trusted with their own health?
Also, didn't Sunak say the other day that he's now decided to U-turn on that proposal since he's now at long last conceded to the GE on 4th July after previously wanting to wait until around the end of this year?
Re: Today’s headlines .........
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pain
This doesn’t alter the fact that Sir Keir Starmer supported/supports the Peter Pan bill and has indicated an intent to bring it back to parliament if he’s given the chance. It also doesn’t alter the fact, or the substance of my post, that there’s a whiff of smouldering hypocrisy about treating children as adults, but only when there’s a perceived political advantage to be had; and vice versa....
TBH, I already pointed out when this proposal was first announced upthread that I think it's unworkable (despite me being as anti-smoking as it gets), especially as there will always be certain 'untouchables' who either manage to obtain tobacco products underage or those who sell/supply them to underagers 'on the sly' with impunity.
Ditto for the tiny minority of parents/carers who still continue to smoke 'on the sly' in cars with children present, which is one of my biggest bugbears; especially when satff at my day centre and even my own dad tells me to 'get a life' to and 'stop worrying about other people's problems' whenever I mention it.
Re: Today’s headlines .........
I have to say I agree with you Pain. As a child and young man I would always enjoy fishing, but especially so under my umbrella with the rain pattering on the canvas. And you'd always get that fresh smell that comes with rain. Sounds are more distinct too, something to do with sound waves travelling faster with a humid atmosphere.
In the family building firm my Dad would say 'you can hear the trains'. Meaning wet weather was on it's way. And we'd be in a mess without it, think Mars.
Re: Today’s headlines .........
Fishy, I also used to do a fair bit of fishing of all types, and the best time to go after tench was a sultry summer’s day just as a thunder storm was breaking. These days, especially with modern carbon fibre poles, there’re probably horror warnings about doing that!