Another Dark Side of Football

[Pope John XXIII]

radfordinlondon - 9/11/2017 13:14

mao tse tung - 9/11/2017 11:00

radfordinlondon - 8/11/2017 22:49

wesimmo - 8/11/2017 19:18

Calvin Plummer - 6/11/2017 17:43

Even assuming everything you say is true, whose responsibility was it to educate and nurture that generation? To create a society that instilled a sense of purpose and strength within them? Surely the failure is ours?

TBF, in my experience, much of what he says is true.

I indirectly oversee roughly 1,200 staff in a call centre, predominantly the 18-30 age group and their work ethic is shocking.

On average 10% and higher of them don't turn up for work, and a large proportion of those who do turn up do so on their terms, ignoring their shift patterns and just going on breaks when they feel like it, taking 20 minutes for a piss etc etc.

They'll walk out of a job halfway through a day on a regular basis just because they've been mildly reprimanded.

They'll give horrendous abuse to the security guards who legitimately challenge them about parking, entering the building without a pass or using mobile phones on the call centre floor.

You think the toilets at Forest at half time are bad? You should see the state people leave them in what is supposed to be a professional environment.

The question, as you rightly ask, is why do they feel they can be that way?

I don't know the specific causes, but certainly the generation before have a massive, if not total, responsibility for it, we're the ones who raised them and created today's society.

I also know my sister gave up teaching, in part due to a lack of respect from parents who will not except that little Chardonnay could ever be wrong and will not reinforce any discipline the school tries to instill in them.

You can boil it down to this wes- why should they make an effort for a system and older generations who take the piss out of them and are destroying the planet to boot?

What began as a decline in deference and a rise in challenging the mainstream became the turn on, tune in, drop out. snowflakes have cottoned on quick but can't do much more than not give a shit.

If people don't believe in or respect their society then they won't participate.

wow going deep this evening

The decline in deference is hardly a new concept Radford; the 18 to 25 grouping have been like that for ever.

Successive governments have treated young people with contempt for decades; they get away with it for one reason - young people do not turn out in numbers to vote like the OAPs do.

Actually mao that generation has not been like that forever and can be traced as an evolving trend post wwii and particularly from the 1950s on. Not claiming any major insight either.

agree that more young people voting would make interest groups take more.notice but would not solve the fundamental issue I suggest which is that they don't believe or have any stake or trust in the system. participatInG through voting seems pointless to them.

Tbf seems fooking pointless to me more and more.

The Tories in particular would take more notice if young people were donors more than voters. But society doesn't allow them to have that kind of money in general- young footballers aside.

Last election I bullied my students into voting. I sat them all in front of computers and made them register and bullied each one of them as to whether they had voted yet or when they were going to vote on polling day. I never told them how to vote- just to do it.

To be honest, it didn't need much cajoling- they were motivated and 95% were already keen to vote. I'd estimate about 90% at least voted for one particular party as well.

I'd support 16 year olds voting as well. All the arguments against were also made about 18 year olds. You'll find that if they can vote far more will take the trouble to find out what they are voting for

 

[da fuq]

If 16 and 17 year olds had been allowed to vote

We would probably not have had a Tory party fooking up the country for the last 7 years and we defo would not be in the cluster fook that is Brexit

The baby boomer generation have royally fooked up this country and given, Viscount Rothermer, Murdoch, the Barclay Bros etc exactly what they wanted

They hood winked 17m people with lies and even now that most of what they have said is being found out to be bullshit

We are still hearing people say dry your eyes you lost

No you cosmic fooking Masterbate splats

We all lost

Every person who voted leave should be dragged out into the street and put in stocks with a dunces hat on and people allowed to throw rotten vegetables at them

 

[paplane]

Pope John XXIII - 10/11/2017 15:08

radfordinlondon - 9/11/2017 13:14

mao tse tung - 9/11/2017 11:00

radfordinlondon - 8/11/2017 22:49

wesimmo - 8/11/2017 19:18

Calvin Plummer - 6/11/2017 17:43

Even assuming everything you say is true, whose responsibility was it to educate and nurture that generation? To create a society that instilled a sense of purpose and strength within them? Surely the failure is ours?

TBF, in my experience, much of what he says is true.

I indirectly oversee roughly 1,200 staff in a call centre, predominantly the 18-30 age group and their work ethic is shocking.

On average 10% and higher of them don't turn up for work, and a large proportion of those who do turn up do so on their terms, ignoring their shift patterns and just going on breaks when they feel like it, taking 20 minutes for a piss etc etc.

They'll walk out of a job halfway through a day on a regular basis just because they've been mildly reprimanded.

They'll give horrendous abuse to the security guards who legitimately challenge them about parking, entering the building without a pass or using mobile phones on the call centre floor.

You think the toilets at Forest at half time are bad? You should see the state people leave them in what is supposed to be a professional environment.

The question, as you rightly ask, is why do they feel they can be that way?

I don't know the specific causes, but certainly the generation before have a massive, if not total, responsibility for it, we're the ones who raised them and created today's society.

I also know my sister gave up teaching, in part due to a lack of respect from parents who will not except that little Chardonnay could ever be wrong and will not reinforce any discipline the school tries to instill in them.

You can boil it down to this wes- why should they make an effort for a system and older generations who take the piss out of them and are destroying the planet to boot?

What began as a decline in deference and a rise in challenging the mainstream became the turn on, tune in, drop out. snowflakes have cottoned on quick but can't do much more than not give a shit.

If people don't believe in or respect their society then they won't participate.

wow going deep this evening

The decline in deference is hardly a new concept Radford; the 18 to 25 grouping have been like that for ever.

Successive governments have treated young people with contempt for decades; they get away with it for one reason - young people do not turn out in numbers to vote like the OAPs do.

Actually mao that generation has not been like that forever and can be traced as an evolving trend post wwii and particularly from the 1950s on. Not claiming any major insight either.

agree that more young people voting would make interest groups take more.notice but would not solve the fundamental issue I suggest which is that they don't believe or have any stake or trust in the system. participatInG through voting seems pointless to them.

Tbf seems fooking pointless to me more and more.

The Tories in particular would take more notice if young people were donors more than voters. But society doesn't allow them to have that kind of money in general- young footballers aside.

Last election I bullied my students into voting. I sat them all in front of computers and made them register and bullied each one of them as to whether they had voted yet or when they were going to vote on polling day. I never told them how to vote- just to do it.

To be honest, it didn't need much cajoling- they were motivated and 95% were already keen to vote. I'd estimate about 90% at least voted for one particular party as well.

I'd support 16 year olds voting as well. All the arguments against were also made about 18 year olds. You'll find that if they can vote far more will take the trouble to find out what they are voting for

How can a 16 year old have amassed sufficient life experience to be considered responsible enough to place a vote? At most they would only have a few months experience of paying tax, have little to no experience of the higher education system and zero experience of socio-economic issues such as housing need or the availability/suitability of benefits.

The more intelligent of them may have the ability & inclination to go and research these things but their conclusions reached will undoubtedly be informed by the opinions of their parents. As such, 90% of 16 y/olds would vote for who they were told to.

 

[da fuq]

Why should old people be allowed to vote on a future they will have no part in

As we have seen the older generation just fooked this country for decades

And some 16/17 year olds are more world wise than you give them credit for especially the teenagers now, who have seen what the older generation have done to their futures and they have now become more politicalised

 

[Pope John XXIII]

paplane - 10/11/2017 17:10

Pope John XXIII - 10/11/2017 15:08

radfordinlondon - 9/11/2017 13:14

mao tse tung - 9/11/2017 11:00

radfordinlondon - 8/11/2017 22:49

wesimmo - 8/11/2017 19:18

Calvin Plummer - 6/11/2017 17:43

Even assuming everything you say is true, whose responsibility was it to educate and nurture that generation? To create a society that instilled a sense of purpose and strength within them? Surely the failure is ours?

TBF, in my experience, much of what he says is true.

I indirectly oversee roughly 1,200 staff in a call centre, predominantly the 18-30 age group and their work ethic is shocking.

On average 10% and higher of them don't turn up for work, and a large proportion of those who do turn up do so on their terms, ignoring their shift patterns and just going on breaks when they feel like it, taking 20 minutes for a piss etc etc.

They'll walk out of a job halfway through a day on a regular basis just because they've been mildly reprimanded.

They'll give horrendous abuse to the security guards who legitimately challenge them about parking, entering the building without a pass or using mobile phones on the call centre floor.

You think the toilets at Forest at half time are bad? You should see the state people leave them in what is supposed to be a professional environment.

The question, as you rightly ask, is why do they feel they can be that way?

I don't know the specific causes, but certainly the generation before have a massive, if not total, responsibility for it, we're the ones who raised them and created today's society.

I also know my sister gave up teaching, in part due to a lack of respect from parents who will not except that little Chardonnay could ever be wrong and will not reinforce any discipline the school tries to instill in them.

You can boil it down to this wes- why should they make an effort for a system and older generations who take the piss out of them and are destroying the planet to boot?

What began as a decline in deference and a rise in challenging the mainstream became the turn on, tune in, drop out. snowflakes have cottoned on quick but can't do much more than not give a shit.

If people don't believe in or respect their society then they won't participate.

wow going deep this evening

The decline in deference is hardly a new concept Radford; the 18 to 25 grouping have been like that for ever.

Successive governments have treated young people with contempt for decades; they get away with it for one reason - young people do not turn out in numbers to vote like the OAPs do.

Actually mao that generation has not been like that forever and can be traced as an evolving trend post wwii and particularly from the 1950s on. Not claiming any major insight either.

agree that more young people voting would make interest groups take more.notice but would not solve the fundamental issue I suggest which is that they don't believe or have any stake or trust in the system. participatInG through voting seems pointless to them.

Tbf seems fooking pointless to me more and more.

The Tories in particular would take more notice if young people were donors more than voters. But society doesn't allow them to have that kind of money in general- young footballers aside.

Last election I bullied my students into voting. I sat them all in front of computers and made them register and bullied each one of them as to whether they had voted yet or when they were going to vote on polling day. I never told them how to vote- just to do it.

To be honest, it didn't need much cajoling- they were motivated and 95% were already keen to vote. I'd estimate about 90% at least voted for one particular party as well.

I'd support 16 year olds voting as well. All the arguments against were also made about 18 year olds. You'll find that if they can vote far more will take the trouble to find out what they are voting for

How can a 16 year old have amassed sufficient life experience to be considered responsible enough to place a vote? At most they would only have a few months experience of paying tax, have little to no experience of the higher education system and zero experience of socio-economic issues such as housing need or the availability/suitability of benefits.

The more intelligent of them may have the ability & inclination to go and research these things but their conclusions reached will undoubtedly be informed by the opinions of their parents. As such, 90% of 16 y/olds would vote for who they were told to.

Why on earth would life experience be a qualification to vote?

I thought in a democracy, mere existance was the only qualification needed for voting?

If we are going on life experience then let's set a test and rerun the Brexit vote- half the working class baby boomer ***** who have done fook all in their lives will be excluded and we'll win it this time.

I know plenty of 16 year olds who have had far more experience of the harsh realities of life than many older people

 

[paplane]

da fuq - 10/11/2017 17:27

Why should old people be allowed to vote on a future they will have no part in

As we have seen the older generation just fooked this country for decades

And some 16/17 year olds are more world wise than you give them credit for especially the teenagers now, who have seen what the older generation have done to their futures and they have now become more politicalised

Because elder people have life experience and so have the ability to reach a rational decision on who/what they should vote for. And what should happen? Should OAP's be assessed by a doctor at the door of the polling station to ensure that they are going to live for another 5 years? I suspect that when you yourself are more elderly you'll have a different view.

You say old people have fooked the country for decades. At 16 you don't have sufficient experience to be able to evaluate these things you claim have happened to young person's futures. Right or wrong the issues you cite are just your opinions, which you have arrived at based on your own experiences.

The line needs to be drawn at some point. You need a degree of perspective to judge things and at 16 you'll have not have had the opportunity of gaining any.

 

[Pope John XXIII]

I've struggled to meet many boomers with this famous perspective. Especially the racist bastards I saw the day after Brexit talking about sending people away on boats.

Most people have never been to India or Africa yet many feel they have sufficient experience of those countries to declare we should slash their foreign aid?

If someone had never been to Europe, should they have been prevented from voting in the referendum? After all, how could they know what they were voting to leave?

 

[paplane]

Pope John XXIII - 10/11/2017 17:57

paplane - 10/11/2017 17:10

Pope John XXIII - 10/11/2017 15:08

radfordinlondon - 9/11/2017 13:14

mao tse tung - 9/11/2017 11:00

radfordinlondon - 8/11/2017 22:49

wesimmo - 8/11/2017 19:18

Calvin Plummer - 6/11/2017 17:43

Even assuming everything you say is true, whose responsibility was it to educate and nurture that generation? To create a society that instilled a sense of purpose and strength within them? Surely the failure is ours?

TBF, in my experience, much of what he says is true.

I indirectly oversee roughly 1,200 staff in a call centre, predominantly the 18-30 age group and their work ethic is shocking.

On average 10% and higher of them don't turn up for work, and a large proportion of those who do turn up do so on their terms, ignoring their shift patterns and just going on breaks when they feel like it, taking 20 minutes for a piss etc etc.

They'll walk out of a job halfway through a day on a regular basis just because they've been mildly reprimanded.

They'll give horrendous abuse to the security guards who legitimately challenge them about parking, entering the building without a pass or using mobile phones on the call centre floor.

You think the toilets at Forest at half time are bad? You should see the state people leave them in what is supposed to be a professional environment.

The question, as you rightly ask, is why do they feel they can be that way?

I don't know the specific causes, but certainly the generation before have a massive, if not total, responsibility for it, we're the ones who raised them and created today's society.

I also know my sister gave up teaching, in part due to a lack of respect from parents who will not except that little Chardonnay could ever be wrong and will not reinforce any discipline the school tries to instill in them.

You can boil it down to this wes- why should they make an effort for a system and older generations who take the piss out of them and are destroying the planet to boot?

What began as a decline in deference and a rise in challenging the mainstream became the turn on, tune in, drop out. snowflakes have cottoned on quick but can't do much more than not give a shit.

If people don't believe in or respect their society then they won't participate.

wow going deep this evening

The decline in deference is hardly a new concept Radford; the 18 to 25 grouping have been like that for ever.

Successive governments have treated young people with contempt for decades; they get away with it for one reason - young people do not turn out in numbers to vote like the OAPs do.

Actually mao that generation has not been like that forever and can be traced as an evolving trend post wwii and particularly from the 1950s on. Not claiming any major insight either.

agree that more young people voting would make interest groups take more.notice but would not solve the fundamental issue I suggest which is that they don't believe or have any stake or trust in the system. participatInG through voting seems pointless to them.

Tbf seems fooking pointless to me more and more.

The Tories in particular would take more notice if young people were donors more than voters. But society doesn't allow them to have that kind of money in general- young footballers aside.

Last election I bullied my students into voting. I sat them all in front of computers and made them register and bullied each one of them as to whether they had voted yet or when they were going to vote on polling day. I never told them how to vote- just to do it.

To be honest, it didn't need much cajoling- they were motivated and 95% were already keen to vote. I'd estimate about 90% at least voted for one particular party as well.

I'd support 16 year olds voting as well. All the arguments against were also made about 18 year olds. You'll find that if they can vote far more will take the trouble to find out what they are voting for

How can a 16 year old have amassed sufficient life experience to be considered responsible enough to place a vote? At most they would only have a few months experience of paying tax, have little to no experience of the higher education system and zero experience of socio-economic issues such as housing need or the availability/suitability of benefits.

The more intelligent of them may have the ability & inclination to go and research these things but their conclusions reached will undoubtedly be informed by the opinions of their parents. As such, 90% of 16 y/olds would vote for who they were told to.

Why on earth would life experience be a qualification to vote?

I thought in a democracy, mere existance was the only qualification needed for voting?

If we are going on life experience then let's set a test and rerun the Brexit vote- half the working class baby boomer ***** who have done fook all in their lives will be excluded and we'll win it this time.

I know plenty of 16 year olds who have had far more experience of the harsh realities of life than many older people

But those '*****' had a degree of perspective and a point of reference from which to base their voting decision, however uninformed you consider it might have been.

 

[paplane]

Pope John XXIII - 10/11/2017 18:04

I've struggled to meet many boomers with this famous perspective. Especially the racist bastards I saw the day after Brexit talking about sending people away on boats.

Most people have never been to India or Africa yet many feel they have sufficient experience of those countries to declare we should slash their foreign aid?

If someone had never been to Europe, should they have been prevented from voting in the referendum? After all, how could they know what they were voting to leave?

All good points but again, views developed from your own life experiences, or yes, your own 'existence'.

 

[AdebolaCornflakes]

paplane - 10/11/2017 18:00

da fuq - 10/11/2017 17:27

Why should old people be allowed to vote on a future they will have no part in

As we have seen the older generation just fooked this country for decades

And some 16/17 year olds are more world wise than you give them credit for especially the teenagers now, who have seen what the older generation have done to their futures and they have now become more politicalised

Because elder people have life experience and so have the ability to reach a rational decision on who/what they should vote for. And what should happen? Should OAP's be assessed by a doctor at the door of the polling station to ensure that they are going to live for another 5 years? I suspect that when you yourself are more elderly you'll have a different view.

You say old people have fooked the country for decades. At 16 you don't have sufficient experience to be able to evaluate these things you claim have happened to young person's futures. Right or wrong the issues you cite are just your opinions, which you have arrived at based on your own experiences.

The line needs to be drawn at some point. You need a degree of perspective to judge things and at 16 you'll have not have had the opportunity of gaining any.

At what age would you say someone has sufficient life experience to then vote?

 

[Pope John XXIII]

paplane - 10/11/2017 18:08

Pope John XXIII - 10/11/2017 17:57

paplane - 10/11/2017 17:10

Pope John XXIII - 10/11/2017 15:08

radfordinlondon - 9/11/2017 13:14

mao tse tung - 9/11/2017 11:00

radfordinlondon - 8/11/2017 22:49

wesimmo - 8/11/2017 19:18

Calvin Plummer - 6/11/2017 17:43

Even assuming everything you say is true, whose responsibility was it to educate and nurture that generation? To create a society that instilled a sense of purpose and strength within them? Surely the failure is ours?

TBF, in my experience, much of what he says is true.

I indirectly oversee roughly 1,200 staff in a call centre, predominantly the 18-30 age group and their work ethic is shocking.

On average 10% and higher of them don't turn up for work, and a large proportion of those who do turn up do so on their terms, ignoring their shift patterns and just going on breaks when they feel like it, taking 20 minutes for a piss etc etc.

They'll walk out of a job halfway through a day on a regular basis just because they've been mildly reprimanded.

They'll give horrendous abuse to the security guards who legitimately challenge them about parking, entering the building without a pass or using mobile phones on the call centre floor.

You think the toilets at Forest at half time are bad? You should see the state people leave them in what is supposed to be a professional environment.

The question, as you rightly ask, is why do they feel they can be that way?

I don't know the specific causes, but certainly the generation before have a massive, if not total, responsibility for it, we're the ones who raised them and created today's society.

I also know my sister gave up teaching, in part due to a lack of respect from parents who will not except that little Chardonnay could ever be wrong and will not reinforce any discipline the school tries to instill in them.

You can boil it down to this wes- why should they make an effort for a system and older generations who take the piss out of them and are destroying the planet to boot?

What began as a decline in deference and a rise in challenging the mainstream became the turn on, tune in, drop out. snowflakes have cottoned on quick but can't do much more than not give a shit.

If people don't believe in or respect their society then they won't participate.

wow going deep this evening

The decline in deference is hardly a new concept Radford; the 18 to 25 grouping have been like that for ever.

Successive governments have treated young people with contempt for decades; they get away with it for one reason - young people do not turn out in numbers to vote like the OAPs do.

Actually mao that generation has not been like that forever and can be traced as an evolving trend post wwii and particularly from the 1950s on. Not claiming any major insight either.

agree that more young people voting would make interest groups take more.notice but would not solve the fundamental issue I suggest which is that they don't believe or have any stake or trust in the system. participatInG through voting seems pointless to them.

Tbf seems fooking pointless to me more and more.

The Tories in particular would take more notice if young people were donors more than voters. But society doesn't allow them to have that kind of money in general- young footballers aside.

Last election I bullied my students into voting. I sat them all in front of computers and made them register and bullied each one of them as to whether they had voted yet or when they were going to vote on polling day. I never told them how to vote- just to do it.

To be honest, it didn't need much cajoling- they were motivated and 95% were already keen to vote. I'd estimate about 90% at least voted for one particular party as well.

I'd support 16 year olds voting as well. All the arguments against were also made about 18 year olds. You'll find that if they can vote far more will take the trouble to find out what they are voting for

How can a 16 year old have amassed sufficient life experience to be considered responsible enough to place a vote? At most they would only have a few months experience of paying tax, have little to no experience of the higher education system and zero experience of socio-economic issues such as housing need or the availability/suitability of benefits.

The more intelligent of them may have the ability & inclination to go and research these things but their conclusions reached will undoubtedly be informed by the opinions of their parents. As such, 90% of 16 y/olds would vote for who they were told to.

Why on earth would life experience be a qualification to vote?

I thought in a democracy, mere existance was the only qualification needed for voting?

If we are going on life experience then let's set a test and rerun the Brexit vote- half the working class baby boomer ***** who have done fook all in their lives will be excluded and we'll win it this time.

I know plenty of 16 year olds who have had far more experience of the harsh realities of life than many older people

But those '*****' had a degree of perspective and a point of reference from which to base their voting decision, however uninformed you consider it might have been.

Says who?

How can you quantify perspective or experience? How can you prove the differential experience between two people of different t ages?

You can be 60 and never have been in love, never have changed job, never have travelled, maybe not have suffered loss.

You can be 16 and have experienced all these things.

And ultimately, if experience and perspective really were all important in informing your opinion wouldn't we all vote the same way?

The fact that one 50 year old uses their experience to decide that 5 more years of the Tories is the answer and another 50 year old with a similar perspective deduced that Jeremy Corbyn is the answer makes a mockery of the assertion that experience is all important. Both think they are right. Two 16 year olds could (and would) make exactly the same choice.

I was ready and informed enough to vote at 16- as much as I was at 18.many young people I know are too. Give them a reason to learn about political issues and many more will

 

[da fuq]

paplane - 10/11/2017 18:00

da fuq - 10/11/2017 17:27

Why should old people be allowed to vote on a future they will have no part in

As we have seen the older generation just fooked this country for decades

And some 16/17 year olds are more world wise than you give them credit for especially the teenagers now, who have seen what the older generation have done to their futures and they have now become more politicalised

Because elder people have life experience and so have the ability to reach a rational decision on who/what they should vote for. And what should happen? Should OAP's be assessed by a doctor at the door of the polling station to ensure that they are going to live for another 5 years? I suspect that when you yourself are more elderly you'll have a different view.

You say old people have fooked the country for decades. At 16 you don't have sufficient experience to be able to evaluate these things you claim have happened to young person's futures. Right or wrong the issues you cite are just your opinions, which you have arrived at based on your own experiences.

The line needs to be drawn at some point. You need a degree of perspective to judge things and at 16 you'll have not have had the opportunity of gaining any.

I really do believe that anyone 16 and older should be allowed to vote

I was just making a comparison in that old people as well as the young should be allowed to vote

 

[Pope John XXIII]

paplane - 10/11/2017 18:13

Pope John XXIII - 10/11/2017 18:04

I've struggled to meet many boomers with this famous perspective. Especially the racist bastards I saw the day after Brexit talking about sending people away on boats.

Most people have never been to India or Africa yet many feel they have sufficient experience of those countries to declare we should slash their foreign aid?

If someone had never been to Europe, should they have been prevented from voting in the referendum? After all, how could they know what they were voting to leave?

All good points but again, views developed from your own life experiences, or yes, your own 'existence'.

The views are developed by my experiences yes, but I didn't need those experiences to read a manifesto and say "this party will be better for me over the next 5 years"

 

[paplane]

AdebolaCornflakes - 10/11/2017 18:22

paplane - 10/11/2017 18:00

da fuq - 10/11/2017 17:27

Why should old people be allowed to vote on a future they will have no part in

As we have seen the older generation just fooked this country for decades

And some 16/17 year olds are more world wise than you give them credit for especially the teenagers now, who have seen what the older generation have done to their futures and they have now become more politicalised

Because elder people have life experience and so have the ability to reach a rational decision on who/what they should vote for. And what should happen? Should OAP's be assessed by a doctor at the door of the polling station to ensure that they are going to live for another 5 years? I suspect that when you yourself are more elderly you'll have a different view.

You say old people have fooked the country for decades. At 16 you don't have sufficient experience to be able to evaluate these things you claim have happened to young person's futures. Right or wrong the issues you cite are just your opinions, which you have arrived at based on your own experiences.

The line needs to be drawn at some point. You need a degree of perspective to judge things and at 16 you'll have not have had the opportunity of gaining any.

At what age would you say someone has sufficient life experience to then vote?

18 seems fine to me. It would be like voting in arrears. You live as an adult for 2 years and make a judgement based on that.

 

[paplane]

Pope John XXIII - 10/11/2017 18:26

paplane - 10/11/2017 18:13

Pope John XXIII - 10/11/2017 18:04

I've struggled to meet many boomers with this famous perspective. Especially the racist bastards I saw the day after Brexit talking about sending people away on boats.

Most people have never been to India or Africa yet many feel they have sufficient experience of those countries to declare we should slash their foreign aid?

If someone had never been to Europe, should they have been prevented from voting in the referendum? After all, how could they know what they were voting to leave?

All good points but again, views developed from your own life experiences, or yes, your own 'existence'.

The views are developed by my experiences yes, but I didn't need those experiences to read a manifesto and say "this party will be better for me over the next 5 years"

So on that basis then the voting age should be 7 or 8 when one can read?

 

[radfordinlondon]

da fuq - 10/11/2017 17:27

Why should old people be allowed to vote on a future they will have no part in

As we have seen the older generation just fooked this country for decades

And some 16/17 year olds are more world wise than you give them credit for especially the teenagers now, who have seen what the older generation have done to their futures and they have now become more politicalised

:14:

 

[paplane]

Anyway most arguments I hear for lowering the voting age are from people who I suspect think their own political aims will be enhanced by 16 year olds voting.

 

[radfordinlondon]

paplane - 10/11/2017 18:13

Pope John XXIII - 10/11/2017 18:04

I've struggled to meet many boomers with this famous perspective. Especially the racist bastards I saw the day after Brexit talking about sending people away on boats.

Most people have never been to India or Africa yet many feel they have sufficient experience of those countries to declare we should slash their foreign aid?

If someone had never been to Europe, should they have been prevented from voting in the referendum? After all, how could they know what they were voting to leave?

All good points but again, views developed from your own life experiences, or yes, your own 'existence'.

popes experience is the same as mine. Think he's called it right imho.

 

[radfordinlondon]

AdebolaCornflakes - 10/11/2017 18:22

paplane - 10/11/2017 18:00

da fuq - 10/11/2017 17:27

Why should old people be allowed to vote on a future they will have no part in

As we have seen the older generation just fooked this country for decades

And some 16/17 year olds are more world wise than you give them credit for especially the teenagers now, who have seen what the older generation have done to their futures and they have now become more politicalised

Because elder people have life experience and so have the ability to reach a rational decision on who/what they should vote for. And what should happen? Should OAP's be assessed by a doctor at the door of the polling station to ensure that they are going to live for another 5 years? I suspect that when you yourself are more elderly you'll have a different view.

You say old people have fooked the country for decades. At 16 you don't have sufficient experience to be able to evaluate these things you claim have happened to young person's futures. Right or wrong the issues you cite are just your opinions, which you have arrived at based on your own experiences.

The line needs to be drawn at some point. You need a degree of perspective to judge things and at 16 you'll have not have had the opportunity of gaining any.

At what age would you say someone has sufficient life experience to then vote?

Have to ask cornflake- look around- u think the current system is fooking rational?

Young people (and a shit load of middle aged people) don't buy this bullshit.

 

[orbitalforest]

Worst thread ever .
fook this... does anyone fancy a pint ? :8: