Kitz Forum
Chat => Chit Chat => Topic started by: sevenlayermuddle on November 08, 2019, 08:31:12 PM
-
Today’s headline link
This matters: is this the ‘climate election’?
We are linked to a video that presents climate change extremists, like the well known Swedish child, as if they were undisputed scientific experts. The whole tone seems dumbed down, as if aimed at teenage disciples of said child, who wouldn’t know the difference between a real scientist and a Labrador.
I gather the BBC will be publishing further episodes, on other topics, telling us what matters. But imho, we should be making up our own minds about what matters, rather than being told by BBC. :(
-
I tuned out of the BBC a few years ago and very, very, very rarely use any part of their website. I have uninstalled all of their apps from my phone. My opinion is that a lot of what comes out of the BBC is metrocentric, and there are videos that are not conspiracy floating around that would indicate that there are some biases within their studios that have presented themselves in some of their programmes.
It is a shame really since the BBC has been involved in some pretty decent productions in the past, especially some of the documentaries in the past.
As you said, this publication is not really aimed at us. To me, it is oversimplified and aimed out those who are impressionable and a bit wet behind the ears. People may disagree with me, but I truly hope that the voting age for general elections is never reduced to 16 since the potential of this stuff being shown in schools is pretty high with actual information and understanding being pretty low.
Anyway, the thing that really humoured me in this video is the tone used to say "and Jane Fonda's out getting herself arrestedat climate protests now." So cool to be arrested, right?
I was reluctant to share my views here since I do not use this forum to give political opinions or opinions on the political leaning of certain organisations. I have kept it pretty tame.
-
the swedish child is being used as a puppet.
also, shouldn't she be at school rather than sailing around the world (and getting lost).
-
To talk on topic about BBC bias but in a slightly different context - politics. My word, it is so biased to the left it is incredible. I'd always assumed that the BBC were supposed to be impartial, but this is not the case.
I do agree with the earlier point about 16/17 year old's voting - they are too young. I mean, they can't buy a pint, why should they be voting? (as an aside, parliament tried to rush that through because they think they'll get more people wanting to vote remain, but that's another debate for another thread)
-
isn't "bias" totally objective?
you'll get people on the right saying it's bias to the left and the people on the left saying it's bias to the right.
with regards to age, if they are old enough to pay tax then they are old enough to vote.
is the ability to buy alcohol a primary gauge for allowing a vote? i'd suggest that people who buy too much alcohol should not be allowed the vote.
-
I’m not so sure it’s a political bias, maybe more of a bias to whatever stories they think might become a hit on social media, thus drawing in more casual viewers, to screen and website.
The “getting arrested is cool” message, relating to climate extremists, is an example. Even if not subsequently convicted it’s something they’ll always carry with them and have to recall and declare, such as if ever - even decades later - they apply to travel to USA or some other countries. And if they are convicted or cautioned same applies with even more emphasis. It’s not cool, and I think BBC should be stressing that fact, over and over again.
The sixteen year old voting certainly worries me. From what I remember of being sixteen, we tended to form into groups of friends, with one or two more dominant members possessing natural leadership skills - probably destined to be ‘captains of industry’ later in life. At that age, if such a pal said “let’s all vote for Spotty Dog from the Woodentops, it’ll be a laugh”, I’d probably have done so. :o
-
The sixteen year old voting certainly worries me. From what I remember of being sixteen, we tended to form into groups of friends, with one or two more dominant members possessing natural leadership skills - probably destined to be ‘captains of industry’ later in life. At that age, if such a pal said “let’s all vote for Spotty Dog from the Woodentops, it’ll be a laugh”, I’d probably have done so. :o
plenty of people much older who could quite easily do the same thing.
-
plenty of people much older who could quite easily do the same thing.
Yes I agree.
There’s been a few electoral outcomes around the world would in recent years (avoiding specifics) that have surprised me so much, I have genuinely wondered if it might be attributable to some SM message going viral, saying “do this, it’ll be a laugh”.
-
Today’s headline link
We are linked to a video that presents climate change extremists, like the well known Swedish child, as if they were undisputed scientific experts. The whole tone seems dumbed down, as if aimed at teenage disciples of said child, who wouldn’t know the difference between a real scientist and a Labrador.
Greta is honest. She in no way pretends to be a scientific expert, instead her message is listen to the scientists and do something about it.
If anything the BBC in the past has leaned the other way by repeatedly trotting out Nigel Lawson who knew sod all about it (except that doing something about it would damage him and his buddies finances because of the impact on companies in which they had investments/directorships) to "balance" the scientists who actually knew about it. There's a reason the BBC couldn't find genuine scientists saying climate change is bunkum - there aren't any!
-
with regards to age, if they are old enough to pay tax then they are old enough to vote.
This.
I'm a big fan of votes for 16 year olds and proud Scotland have introduced it for the Scottish Parliament elections.
If you can get married, have kids and pay taxes at 16 then you should be allowed to vote.
It's no surprise to me that only 1 major party objects to votes for 16-17 year olds.
-
I think there has to be a limit on the lower age for voting and I'm inclined to agree the current age is certainly as low as it should go. Yes there are some 17 year olds who would take it seriously but I very much doubt that many 16 year olds would fall into that category. I believe that some experience of real life would be a good thing prior to being able to vote and personally think raising to 21 would not be a bad thing. There is a lot more to deciding on how to vote than climate change, since until we can get India, China and the USA to fully sign up nothing significant will change.
Stuart
-
you can't take tax off someone who isn't allowed to vote, as they are essentially paying into the country but having no say in it.
so you would be happy for someone to die in combat working for the country, but have no say in the way it is run?
-
I’d also favour a voting age of 21, though there’s not much chance of that.
That said, imo, the thing that makes 18 a ‘special age’ and the right compromise is that 18 is the age at which citizens cease to be children. Details vary among UK nations but for most purposes, below that age, a person is legally a child. And rightly so in my view, being termed ‘children’ affords them extra protections in recognition of their immaturity.
I don’t think that the taxation argument holds water in relation to a voting age of 16. Everybody in the UK pays taxes, including income tax at any age, nothing changes at age 16. It might be unusual for young children to earn enough to pay income tax but it’s not impossible. And each time they buy a new toy out of pocket money they are paying VAT, regardless of age.
-
so you'd apply an age limit of 21.
but that 21yo can work, pay income pay, gamble, drink, fight in the army, but no say in how the country is run?
IMO i'd remove the vote from anyone over the age of 80.
if the likelood of you not living long enough for the term of government to expire than you lose the right to have a say in how the country is run.
and 80 is a reasonable age to limit that to.
-
so you'd apply an age limit of 21.
I went on to qualify that with a reasoned case why I think 18 is the right compromise, in recognition of the fact that others may/will disagree. :)
-
but you didn't qualify why you think 21 would be the correct age.
it's just as sensible to suggest 21 as my suggestion of excluding 80+.
maybe we should also exclude women, the unemployed, the lower classes, and anyone who isn't white.
the minute you start to try and restrict who can vote then you degrade "democracy" and turn it into a "old boys club".
-
but you didn't qualify why you think 21 would be the correct age.
It was just an opinion, am I not entitled to one? Especially as I followed with a recognition that it may not be entirely rational?
As regards fighting in the army at age 16, I believe that to be a myth. You can join the armed forces, but you won’t be sent into combat.
-
I also agree that the age for voting should not be reduced, if my children and their friends are anything to go by then they just get taken in by all the promises which us older generation through experience know are all mostly going to be broken, or simply cost too much or have other more severe implications.
By the way a 16 or 17 year old can not fight in a war, the legal age a soldier can be sent to a combat zone is 18, it is a myth that a 16 year old is allowed to fight spread by labour (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/diane-abbott-wrongly-claims-16-year-olds-can-fight-for-their-country-in-latest-gaffe-a3676491.html), who want the age lowered as they know how gullible youngsters can be - just look at what happened in Canterbury due to the massive student population in the last election.
-
IMO i'd remove the vote from anyone over the age of 80.
if the likelood of you not living long enough for the term of government to expire than you lose the right to have a say in how the country is run.
and 80 is a reasonable age to limit that to.
Now that is something I'd totally disagree with!
Stuart
-
By the way a 16 or 17 year old can not fight in a war, the legal age a soldier can be sent to a combat zone is 18, it is a myth that a 16 year old is allowed to fight
Most relevant to that is my father’s generation. As I approached 18, main thing I looked forwards to was being able to order a beer legally, having sneaked in the occasional illegal drink at the students’ union bar.
Dad, in contrast, turned 18 in 1943. He knew as I did what was coming, but in his case it wasn’t beer. He got conscripted, training for invasion of Europe, subsequently landing on a Normandy beach on D-Day, seeing many of his friends slaughtered. Just doesn’t bear thinking about really, does it?
I’ve met other D-Day veterans who had heart-warming and sometimes heroic stories to tell. Not a single one has complained that “we weren’t allowed to vote”.
-
IMO i'd remove the vote from anyone over the age of 80.
you can't take tax off someone who isn't allowed to vote, as they are essentially paying into the country but having no say in it.
As someone over 80, I'm warming to this idea. Will this apply to all tax? Income tax, VAT, Inheritance tax etc?
-
you can't take tax off someone who isn't allowed to vote, as they are essentially paying into the country but having no say in it.
Erm.. it’s a common misconception but taxes actually apply regardless of age. So a 1 year old needs to pay tax if they are fortunate to have enough income.. and also benefits from the same personal tax free allowance as an adult.
-
I think voting should remain at 18. That is when you are legally classed as an adult. One must draw a line somewhere. It was also laughable how parties suddenly wanted to move to get the vote for 16/17 year olds for this election. Another ploy to get the kids to vote for all the freebies!
-
personally i would trust 16/17yos to vote more than some of the utter morons that are "adults" to vote.
if the colour of a passport (that they probably don't even have) is their prime motivation in a vote then they should have their voting privelidge removed.
-
If people want to vote simply on that basis, that is their democratic right to do so.
-
It does indeed seem that there is no logical reason to reduce the voting age. That suggests that those in favour of doing so are either
A) acting on personal opinions. Nothing wrong with that, but legislators imho should ask for more than personal opinions, before enacting new laws.
Or...
B) acting upon some theory that lowering the age will affect the electoral outcome, in a way that favours their own political stance. That one is a bit disturbing, because the legislators making the judgement could easily be the ones who stand to gain...
-
I think B is the reason some want it approved, just like some of the more recent laws designed to stop Brexit.
-
It absolutely was to try and stop Brexit. We're trying to get Brexit done, yet they wanted to try and rush through legislation to allow 16/17 year olds the vote?
-
Trouble is, whilst allowing children to vote might be momentarily beneficial to those in favour of some particular cause, we’d likely be stuck with it for evermore, as likely to backfire on one party as much as the other.
Precedent being set, it’d be very hard to restrict the vote to adults against in future. Might even only be achievable by a referendum. Everybody ready for that? :D
-
No more referendums!
Although if the wrong party wins the election I think we should have another election ;D
-
Someone tell Nicola Sturgeon that, will they?
:D
-
Broadstairs wrote
Yes there are some 17 year olds who would take it seriously but I very much doubt that many 16 year olds would fall into that category. I believe that some experience of real life would be a good thing prior to being able to vote
I'm undecided, if being in work, which I take as the meaning of real life in the quote is entirely accurate. Just for one example take the early teenager, who sees the damage, economic, social and relational wrought on a family by unemployment or similar misfortune, I believe that can be the experience, albeit by proxy. Equally some who are in work lack the experience of real life, because their or parental wealth has eased their paths into very cushioned existences.
-
I suppose another comparison, with hopefully no political element, would be jury service. How many of us can say, hand on heart, they’d be comfortable being put on trial in front of a jury comprised of children?
Yet if children were deemed fit to vote in democratic events, why not juries?
-
SLM; maybe that one person's vote in an election is only effective if many more vote the same way to make a majority, but a jury can decide on one's fine, or incarceration, o,r as wished by some, forfeiture of life.
Come to think of it some adult jury decisions can be as perverse, as many of those feared of youngsters. ::) :)
-
As mentioned briefly in a different thread, I recently got summonsed for Jury service, first time in my life. It got cancelled, for which I was immensely grateful.
I was grateful because it meant I didn’t have to get up early each day, but also because it is a pretty daunting task and not sure I’d have enjoyed it. I’ve heard from others that attitudes among fellow jurors can be depressing, such as “his sort are always guilty”, or “I need to be home on time so I’ll agree with whatever the other jurors think”. :(
-
Jury duty. My other half enjoyed hers, I’ve never been asked. Not sure how selection works but I think I would liked to experience it. Life is short experiences are great.
-
Yes I had mixed feelings. Trial by Jury is pretty fundamental to the justice system and I’d have liked to experience it for myself, if only it didn’t involve a horrible commute with no public transport.
I think selection is meant to be completely random, as long as you meet the criteria. If you’ve a good excuse such as a pre-booked holiday you might be allowed to defer it, but then you are no longer random - you can definitely expect another letter quite soon. After serving you return to the ‘random pool’ so it’s statistically possible to get summonsed multiple times in your life, and that does happen.
I got completely let off this year at their own discretion, but my chances of being summonsed again next year, or even next week, are now the same as anybody else’s. And I shouldn’t tempt fate by gloating as the horrible commute would be even more horrible in winter. :D
-
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmgcbsFFY1A[/youtube]
and i'm fairly sure it's true
-
:D
I did receive advice that if I turned up in a T-Shirt decorated with the logo “bring back hanging”, I might be less likely to be selected. But after some research of my own I concluded that doing so might also place me in jeopardy of being charged with various offences from Contempt of Court upwards, facing a possible lengthy prison sentence. So I decided against that strategy. ::)
-
:P