Oct 2019
11:22am, 30 Oct 2019
16,196 posts
|
Stander
You might want to take a gander at UN resolution 1261 with regards to child soldiers.
|
Oct 2019
11:23am, 30 Oct 2019
1,553 posts
|
Surelynot
Jo Swinson is talking about the possibility of the Lib Dems getting hundreds of seats in the next election. See theguardian.com It will be interesting to see how she fares in her Parliamentary seat of East Dunbartonshire where she has a majority of 5,339 and having lost the seat once before in 2015. I think her voting record while part of the coalition and backing via fracking companies will be to the forefront of the local and national campaign against the LDs. |
Oct 2019
11:24am, 30 Oct 2019
3,623 posts
|
Raemond
I don't have any wars, I'm a pacifist. I also don't see any notable distinction between nationalities when it comes to dead bodies. Under international law conscripting or enlisting those under 15 years of age to the armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities, so regardless of what age 'we' limit 'our' troops to, there's still the chance of children being killed. |
Oct 2019
11:24am, 30 Oct 2019
18,930 posts
|
DeeGee
Yes, it gives fifteen as a minimum age.
|
|
Oct 2019
11:25am, 30 Oct 2019
3,624 posts
|
Raemond
(missed out the ' is a crime' bit from that summary of humanitarian law, pagolopies, but I suspect you got the drift)
|
Oct 2019
11:28am, 30 Oct 2019
15,415 posts
|
Chrisull
So if we went by that, then the as decided by 30 years ago "societally" accepted limits you'd want a 18 year old man locked up for having sex with an 18 year old man, but a 16 year old woman having sex with a 16 year old woman would be fine? Watching the first world war testimonies, there were quite a lot of women who went round flashing white feathers in the faces of 17 year olds it seems, who dared to say they weren't old enough to fight. Yet the age for criminal culpability is 14. One size fits all has its drawbacks but arbitrary numbers based on historical baggage is a worse solution. |
Oct 2019
11:30am, 30 Oct 2019
2,373 posts
|
J2R
I'll probably go along with your prediction there, Chris. When I saw that Sam Gyimah was standing in Kensington, I realised that we really are screwed. What is it that they just don't get? The only way we are going to avoid a devastating hard Brexit and what will probably be 5 years of the most far right government this country has had in my lifetime (and probably far longer) is if Labour and the LibDems don't fight each other but fight the Tories instead. Yet here the LibDems are, straight away launching a big name candidate in a seat held by Labour. It's as if they are in the contest to come second, rather than prevent a Conservative majority. And I have no doubt Labour will do exactly the same. I do feel inordinately pessimistic about the prospects of preventing a Johnson victory, given that the Mail, Sun, Express and Telegraph will all be 100% behind him, spewing out their daily diet of lies to dupe the electorate. It will be extraordinarily difficult to win against this. The one bit of hope I have is that, now the Conservatives are committed to one specific Leave outcome as defined in the 'deal', they will find it much harder to present leaving the EU as being all things to all people. They will have to start finding positive things about this specific deal, beyond just 'getting Brexit done' (which of course it doesn't), and that will be much more difficult. Remainers have six weeks to tear the thing to pieces. Six weeks is also a long enough time for the real hard Brexit headbangers to find plenty about the deal which is too BRINO for them, thereby ensuring that the Brexit Party eats into the Tory vote. But what is vitally important is for Labour and Lib Dem to work together, along with SNP, Greens, Plaid Cymru, to help make tactical voting work. Sadly, I don't see this happening. Swinson has played things very wrongly, I think, by attacking Corbyn as a way of appealing to more moderate Tories. She should just have pushed a centrist, moderate position which appealed to people's common sense and there would be enough Tories to be swayed by that, along with left of centre people. And the Corbynistas have been just as misguided. |
Oct 2019
11:38am, 30 Oct 2019
9,337 posts
|
larkim
The problem is that Labour's defined policy is more pro-Brexit than the LibDems can swallow. Hence we will see battles dividing that left of centre vote. Equally though you could see the Brexit Party doing the same to the Tory vote, so it isn't all doom and gloom. If the RW don't win an overall majority, we could see a rise in RW activism as opponents to the left / liberal conspiracy. If the RW do win, they'll get what they want anyway. Neither is a particularly appealing outcome. |
|
Oct 2019
11:38am, 30 Oct 2019
15,416 posts
|
Chrisull
Sorry age is 10 not 14. (and the internationally recommended norm is 12). Swinson is quite frankly deluded. The Lib Dems will not break 100 mps. They've had far more favourable winds behind them before and barely broken 50. |
Oct 2019
11:44am, 30 Oct 2019
30,417 posts
|
LindsD
Also a pacifist and I agree with DeeGee.
|
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
