Oct 2019
9:30am, 30 Oct 2019
18,927 posts
|
DeeGee
So why are Scottish teenagers more trustworthy than their English counterparts? Or is it totally OK to have different ages of majority across what is effectively a local authority boundary?
|
Oct 2019
9:36am, 30 Oct 2019
2,371 posts
|
J2R
Standing back and watching as Scots respond to DeeGee's suggestion that Scotland is just another local authority... 
|
|
Oct 2019
9:46am, 30 Oct 2019
18,928 posts
|
DeeGee
To be fair, I'm trying to downplay the international nature of the border.
|
Oct 2019
9:56am, 30 Oct 2019
15,411 posts
|
Chrisull
Stander - with respect that's complete bollocks. We should just accept society's norms? So how about the homosexual age of consent which was until relatively recently was 21 for males and 16 for females. Then it was lowered to 18 for males. And then even more recently 16. Please defend that one. Allegedly, it stemmed back to Victorian times when homosexuality between men was outlawed, "gross indecency" as it was described, was not well defined but was assumed to encompass sodomy, and therefore, in theory, only men could be capable of it, but not women (who urban myth would have it Queen Victoria couldn't conceive of female homosexuals). It was only after high profile convictions in the 1950s and 1960s (Alan Turing of course committed suicide after such a conviction), that in 1967 it was decriminalised. So because it was unjust, not because society was any less homophobic. (Same goes for capital punishment, which is morally unconscionable, but I'd suggest a majority of the public probably still back it). The age of consent for sex I'd argue is largely down to the fact you cannot prevent 16 or 17 year olds from having sex, not because society deems it ok. A lot of laws have this historical baggage, that it suits the governing party to not change. Here's Tobias Ellwood admitting this is exactly why he won't give 16 and 17 year olds the vote: theneweuropean.co.uk In 1916 in rural America society deemed it ok to sell picture postcards of lynchings. en.wikipedia.org We shouldn't rock the boat though because society says it's ok???? |
Oct 2019
10:14am, 30 Oct 2019
9,331 posts
|
larkim
I think what Stander was actually saying was that society should be free to pick different ages for different activities depending on what society considers to be acceptable. A blanket 16 for everything "significant" might not be appropriate. So 16 for sexual consent, 17 for driving, 18 for marriage without parental consent, 18 for voting etc is as logical as 16 for all of those, or 18 for all of those. It's just up to society to decide on what is right. |
|
Oct 2019
10:17am, 30 Oct 2019
15,412 posts
|
Chrisull
Yes - and I'm arguing against that aren't I?
|
Oct 2019
10:21am, 30 Oct 2019
3,622 posts
|
Raemond
Beyond the aforementioned societal bagge for each of those limitations, the rational is allegedly that it's to do with ability to adequately understand the implications and consequences of each thing - which should surely mean that sexual consent for heterosexual couples should be at least as high as driving - and both should behigher than voting - as it could lead to procreation and irrevocably alter not just the lives of the participants but also any new person to issue from it, much like driving has the potential to cause serious harm or death to bystanders, whereas a single vote is very unliekly to have such immediate and serious impact.
|
|
Oct 2019
10:23am, 30 Oct 2019
2,372 posts
|
J2R
DeeGee, I know, I was only causing trouble! Chrisull, what do you reckon the chances are of an attempt being made to bring back capital punishment under the Johnson government (which, sadly, I'm pretty sure were going to get)? Pretty high, I would say, and I think it would be very close in the Commons. I suspect the vast majority of new intake hard Brexiter Conservative MPs will be very much in favour. |
Oct 2019
10:26am, 30 Oct 2019
30,414 posts
|
LindsD
*covers ears*
|
|
Oct 2019
10:27am, 30 Oct 2019
15,413 posts
|
Chrisull
So we gonna do election predictions this time round? Most of us got them laughably wrong last time.... (me included). This time I'm predicting a Tory majority between 10 and 20 (closer to 20), on the grounds that the Lib Dem stand candidates in London against Labour (such as Kensington) and allow the Tories to come through the middle and take some seats they otherwise wouldn't. Scotland will be a wasteland for the Tories, but not a Tory free one. Labour will lose a lot of the Midlands, but remain resilient in unexpected places. Lib Dems won't pick up as much of the South West as they think they will (they never do I predict 1 seat in Cornwall, possibly 2, but no more). They won't make any inroads in Surrey. The Tories will be shaky in some other big towns and cities, (as they were in 2017, almost losing all of Swindon) but this is a direction of travel for the future and not something Corbyn can capitalise on. Remainers will look back and on 2019 say if we'd tactically voted more concertedly, Johnson could have been beaten. Anyone else care to make predictions? |
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Oct 2024
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018
