|
That question to hjb
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 10:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:06 |
|
|
Cerv posted:First time an SA post has ever advocated raising the age of sexual consent
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 10:17
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Better yet, ban them both. Save a lot of trouble in the long run. Pretty sure this is how you end up in the Children of Men universe
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 10:18
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Pretty sure this is how you end up in the Children of Men universe the extinction of humanity bit i can get behind
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 10:20
|
|
|
Breath Ray posted:That question to hjb Thanks for the question. 16 year olds are schoolchildren, not schooladults. Give them a chance to get out of that bubble and experience the real world for a bit before having the opportunity to make decisions that will affect them for the rest of their life. Cerv posted:First time an SA post has ever advocated raising the age of sexual consent I've said it before! If you put the AoC up then it means for certain that schoolkids aren't legal, so you don't get newly-passed drivers rocking up outside schools in their souped-up Saxos seeing who they can pull. In theory. Reminder I live in Essex.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 10:27
|
|
I can't get enough of are Dan
|
HJB posted:I've said it before! If you put the AoC up then it means for certain that schoolkids aren't legal, so you don't get newly-passed drivers rocking up outside schools in their souped-up Saxos seeing who they can pull. In theory. Reminder I live in Essex. Make it half your age plus 7 and get Danczuk sent down.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 10:33
|
|
|
Dunno about the uk but some places have a 2 year gap for nonverbal charges around the age of consent, so a 17 year old dating a 19 year old is fine, but not a 21 year old, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 10:35
|
|
|
I think 2 years is a bit close, but it could see Liz and Philip locked up so let's give it a go.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:You also get 17 year olds being done for noncery just for having consensual sex with other 17 year olds. Unless the country is riddled with 15 year old nonces under the current law I don't think this would be the case. Maybe make it 17 as a compromise if it was though, still does the job.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 10:38
|
|
|
It happens in the US. Usually when the parents disapprove of the relationship and decide to press charges. I'm not sure what checks and balances have been included to preserve sanity in the UK.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 10:43
|
|
|
whereas in france you become the president
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 10:47
|
|
|
HJB posted:Thanks for the question. 16 year olds are schoolchildren, not schooladults. Give them a chance to get out of that bubble and experience the real world for a bit before having the opportunity to make decisions that will affect them for the rest of their life. Teenagers aren't stupid, and they're being sold up the river even harder than us.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 10:49
|
|
|
TACD posted:I disagree, at 16 they're still young enough to think politicians are actually bad for lying and dodging questions instead of being inured to it all. Plus, getting teenagers asking pointed questions to politicians makes for really good soundbite TV and politicians look super–duper bad when they're inevitably condescending liars in response. poo poo, look at that 8 (?) year old who 'knighted' Nigel Farage and then said he hated foreigners 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 10:52
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:You also get 17 year olds being done for noncery just for having consensual sex with other 17 year olds. The CPS has general guidelines against prosecuting cases where both parties are consenting minors above the age of 13 with no aggravating factors (coercion, duty of care etc). Technically it is an offence but its considered contrary to the public interest to prosecute. CPS posted:It should be noted that where both parties to sexual activity are under 16, then they may both have committed a criminal offence. However, the overriding purpose of the legislation is to protect children and it was not Parliaments intention to punish children unnecessarily or for the criminal law to intervene where it was wholly in appropriate. Consensual sexual activity between, for example, a 14 or 15 year-old and a teenage partner would not normally require criminal proceedings in the absence of aggravating features. The relevant considerations include: Theoretically If you knocked up consent to 18 the underlying principle of the guidelines would probably hold
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 10:58
|
|
|
I'm in a cafe in some middle of nowhere village in Northern Sweden and I just heard a news report on the radio about the leaked Labour manifesto. I don't speak Swedish but I can pick out words like "manifesto", "Labour", "Jeremy Corbyn" and "Royal Mail privatisation". Clearly Corbyn's message is reaching someone!
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 11:10
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:Theoretically If you knocked up consent to 18 the underlying principle of the guidelines would probably hold You'd get that even if you upped the age of consent to 47, simply because schools contain people who are 17-18 and newly passed drivers are often 17-18. I think the only people who would benefit from a raise to 18 were the people who complained that equalizing the male-male AoC to 16 gave free license to perverts and pederasts (and who were strangely silent about the fact that the female-female AoC was increased by the same act).
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 11:14
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:I'm in a cafe in some middle of nowhere village in Northern Sweden and I just heard a news report on the radio about the leaked Labour manifesto. I don't speak Swedish but I can pick out words like "manifesto", "Labour", "Jeremy Corbyn" and "Royal Mail privatisation". There are some good policies in the manifesto- it could perhaps be said to be the most strident and principled Labour manifesto for at least 30 years. It saddens me to consider the fact that even if Labour win the election, Brexit will see to it that none of the proposed policies could possibly be implemented thanks to an economic Armageddon brought about by a steadily weakening pound, ballooning trade deficit, degrading of national credit rating forcing the interest on the national debt to triple, a tax base that haemorrhages away to the EU and US, the necessity of supporting at least three million newly unemployed people and a drought of inward investment for British industries still afflicted with the British disease of short term planning and low investment- which will cause further hits to productivity and increase wage stagnation. All of this points to a severely diminished tax base, and a significant increase in the interest on our national debt repayments. As one shrinks and the other grows, the only possible outcome is national bankruptcy. The treasury will be lucky to be able to fund the activities of auditors and bailiffs in assisting international corporations to asset strip what remains of our public services when the government goes bankrupt- backed up by special detachments of Police and Military units paid in hard currency (US Dollar or Euro) to ensure their continued loyalty to the bankrupt state, in case any member of the public decides to object. In saner times, and with the EU cushioning our chronically dysfunctional economy, this manifesto would have been excellent- Now, it is simply rhetoric echoing within a dilapidated hall called Crisis Management. Lord_Adonis fucked around with this message at 11:38 on May 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 11:34
|
|
|
Lord_Adonis posted:There are some good policies in the manifesto- it could perhaps be said to be the most strident and principled Labour manifesto for at least 30 years. It saddens me to consider the fact that even if Labour win the election, Brexit will see to it that none of the proposed policies could possibly be implemented thanks to an economic Armageddon brought about by a steadily weakening pound, ballooning trade deficit, degrading of national credit rating forcing the interest on the national debt to triple, a tax base that haemorrhages away to the EU and US, the necessity of supporting at least three million newly unemployed people and a drought of inward investment for British industries still afflicted with the British disease of short term planning and low investment- which will cause further hits to productivity and increase wage stagnation. All of this points to a severely diminished tax base, and a significant increase in the interest on our national debt repayments. As one shrinks and the other grows, the only possible outcome is national bankruptcy. The treasury will be lucky to be able to fund the activities of auditors and bailiffs in assisting international corporations to asset strip what remains of our public services when the government goes bankrupt- backed up by special detachments of Police and Military units paid in hard currency (US Dollar or Euro) to ensure their continued loyalty to the bankrupt state, in case any member of the public decides to object. In saner times, and with the EU cushioning our chronically dysfunctional economy, this manifesto would have been excellent- Now, it is simply rhetoric echoing within a dilapidated hall called Crisis Management. Let's set up Soviets.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 11:44
|
|
|
Lord_Adonis posted:There are some good policies in the manifesto- it could perhaps be said to be the most strident and principled Labour manifesto for at least 30 years. It saddens me to consider the fact that even if Labour win the election, Brexit will see to it that none of the proposed policies could possibly be implemented thanks to an economic Armageddon brought about by a steadily weakening pound, ballooning trade deficit, degrading of national credit rating forcing the interest on the national debt to triple, a tax base that haemorrhages away to the EU and US, the necessity of supporting at least three million newly unemployed people and a drought of inward investment for British industries still afflicted with the British disease of short term planning and low investment- which will cause further hits to productivity and increase wage stagnation. All of this points to a severely diminished tax base, and a significant increase in the interest on our national debt repayments. As one shrinks and the other grows, the only possible outcome is national bankruptcy. The treasury will be lucky to be able to fund the activities of auditors and bailiffs in assisting international corporations to asset strip what remains of our public services when the government goes bankrupt- backed up by special detachments of Police and Military units paid in hard currency (US Dollar or Euro) to ensure their continued loyalty to the bankrupt state, in case any member of the public decides to object. In saner times, and with the EU cushioning our chronically dysfunctional economy, this manifesto would have been excellent- Now, it is simply rhetoric echoing within a dilapidated hall called Crisis Management.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 11:47
|
|
|
OfficialGBSCaliph posted:Let's set up Soviets. That was fine for a former Empire that encompassed not much less than half of Eurasia, with ample reserves of most of the necessary industrial and agricultural resources to draw upon, eliminating the need for the new Soviet state to go begging for cheap imports form people who were wholly inimical to their success. Unfortunately, Britain is not in that position. Establishing Soviets, whilst emotionally uplifting, would probably only hasten our post-Brexit drive towards the 17th Century as what remains of the economy routs abroad, and importers refuse to deal with us. If Soviets were established, it would hopefully occur just before the harvest. Lord_Adonis fucked around with this message at 12:08 on May 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 11:52
|
|
|
TACD posted:Teenagers aren't stupid Yes they are.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 11:53
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Or we could like just not leave the EU? I agree, that would be the best outcome. However, both the Conservatives ('Red White and Blue Brexit') and Labour ('We will respect the people's decision to leave the EU') are committed to leaving. As such, I take Brexit economic decline as a given.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 11:54
|
|
|
Lord_Adonis posted:I agree, that would be the best outcome. However, both the Conservatives ('Red White and Blue Brexit') and Labour ('We will respect the people's decision to leave the EU') are committed to leaving. As such, I take Brexit economic decline as a given.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 11:56
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Yes they are. It's more that teenagers aren't any more stupid than the rest of the voting public.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 11:57
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Yes they are.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:In the highly unlikely event they actually win I reckon they could and would manage to stop it. It is an outcome that I hope for should Labour win. I am willing to entertain the possibility that Labour Brexit rhetoric is a simple holding pattern with regards to leaving the EU to allow their election campaign to attract Leavers as well as Remainers, which would be disregarded once they win and start negotiating. However, unfortunately there is no way to know whether Labour would drop their 'respect' for the Brexit decision or not, at least until they win. Lord_Adonis fucked around with this message at 12:02 on May 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:It's more that teenagers aren't any more stupid than the rest of the voting public. Yes they are. It's a smart move for Labour because the ones that care about voting lean heavily left. But let's not pretend 16 and 17 year olds are real people.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
The feeling in the party is mixed - a lot think that there isn't the political to remain in the political body of the EU and/or that remaining with no changes is a huge middle finger to everyone who voted Brexit. However I think staying in the single market would really be a red line for Labour, which would avoid the catastrophic economic meltdown that will probably happen if we did leave that. Having said that there is a significant section of the party & membership who are extremely staunch remainers so who the gently caress knows. There definitely isn't an appetite for hard brexit within the party though, despite how people want to portray Corbyn as some kind of closeted arch-Brexiteer.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Yes they are. I'm sorry, have you met the average British person? Because as a nation I'm not sure a 4 year old could be more uninformed about reality than the average Mail reader.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 12:12
|
|
|
I agree with the thread that children should neither be able to vote nor join the armed forces.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
While searching out some heraldry I just stumbled across the best thing - the scottish wikipedia.quote:Walcome tae Wikipaedia, Coohoolin love did you make this?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 12:17
|
|
|
When I was 16 I was a complete loving idiot with very strong opinions, it took me at least 4 years to become a regular human.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:When I was 16 I was a complete loving idiot with very strong opinions, it took me at least 4 years to become a regular human. Same, except it also took the army shoving that poo poo in my face for me to become a human being.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 12:24
|
|
|
Lord_Adonis posted:hard currency (US Dollar or Euro) Oberleutnant posted:While searching out some heraldry I just stumbled across the best thing - the scottish wikipedia.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 12:26
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:When I was 16 I was a complete loving idiot with very strong opinions, it took me at least 4 years to become a regular human. When I was 16 I mostly had correct politics, except I was a lot more naive about the realities of the Soviet Union's worst excesses. Still wasn't actually a Tankie, more that I'd just have tolerated them a bit more. I should have been allowed to vote at 16, I was certainly better qualified than my Tory gran. Oberleutnant posted:While searching out some heraldry I just stumbled across the best thing - the scottish wikipedia. Zoology (study o beasts) And they try to say that Scots isn't a language, it's just a dialect. Pffft.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
"Let's let the 16 year olds vote because they agree with our ideas" is getting dangerously close to "my dog would not have voted for Brexit" territory tbh
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 12:31
|
|
|
Everyone thinks they've got "correct politics". That's not a qualification.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 12:32
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Everyone thinks they've got "correct politics". That's not a qualification. Yeah, but some of us are correct and tories are wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
A lot of people are stupid, or at least devote so little thought to politics that they are effectively stupid when it comes to voting. The point of democracy isn't for all voters to be super smart, it's for them to express what they think is in their interests. I think 16 year olds are perfectly capable of doing that, and they are in fact possibly the age group that will be most profoundly affected by government policies. I also think it would be a good thing if people could vote in sixth form, that way you have a chance to get them properly engaged with politics so they can make better decisions in future.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 12:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:06 |
|
|
i really recommend reading this trump interview while you eat lunch or whatever its spectacular http://time.com/4775040/donald-trump-time-interview-being-president/
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 12:47
|
|