<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry-schoolgirl-12-put-isolation-32060937>
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on ‘culture celebration day’ for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a speech about British culture.
Are the school’s actions in this matter lawful?
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 15:43:42 +0000, Spike wrote:
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry-schoolgirl-12-put-isolation-32060937>
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on ‘culture
celebration day’ for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a speech
about British culture.
Are the school’s actions in this matter lawful?
Difficult to say without some facts.
In other news
https://www.thenational.scot/news/25320559.union-jack-dress-girl-12- gofundme-set-far-right-fraudster/
On 18/07/2025 05:05 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 15:43:42 +0000, Spike wrote:
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry-schoolgirl-12-put-isolation-32060937>
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on ‘culture
celebration day’ for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a speech >>> about British culture.
Are the school’s actions in this matter lawful?
Difficult to say without some facts.
In other news
https://www.thenational.scot/news/25320559.union-jack-dress-girl-12-
gofundme-set-far-right-fraudster/
Here's a fact.
According to the website you referenced above, the girl's school has apologised for its high handedness and lack of respect for British culture.
Open and shut?
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry-schoolgirl-12-put-isolation-32060937>
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on ‘culture celebration day’ for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a speech about British culture.
Are the school’s actions in this matter lawful?
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry-schoolgirl-12-put-isolation-32060937>
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on ‘culture celebration day’ for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a speech about British culture.
Are the school’s actions in this matter lawful?
On 18/07/2025 17:56, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 05:05 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 15:43:42 +0000, Spike wrote:
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry-schoolgirl-12-put-isolation-32060937>
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on ‘culture
celebration day’ for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a speech >>>> about British culture.
Are the school’s actions in this matter lawful?
Difficult to say without some facts.
In other news
https://www.thenational.scot/news/25320559.union-jack-dress-girl-12-
gofundme-set-far-right-fraudster/
Here's a fact.
According to the website you referenced above, the girl's school has
apologised for its high handedness and lack of respect for British
culture.
Open and shut?
How can we be sure that the school is sincere?
On 18 Jul 2025 at 16:43:42 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry-schoolgirl-12-put-isolation-32060937>
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on ‘culture
celebration day’ for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a speech
about British culture.
Are the school’s actions in this matter lawful?
Of course it's lawful, it's a school! But undeniably foolish and irrational, given that her speech was only slightly offensive and a good topic for discussion.
On 18 Jul 2025 at 16:43:42 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry-schoolgirl-12-put-isolation-32060937>
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on ‘culture
celebration day’ for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a speech
about British culture.
Are the school’s actions in this matter lawful?
Of course it's lawful, it's a school!
But undeniably foolish and irrational,
given that her speech was only slightly offensive and a good topic for discussion.
On 18/07/2025 11:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jul 2025 at 16:43:42 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry-schoolgirl-12-
put-isolation-32060937>
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on ‘culture
celebration day’ for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a speech >>> about British culture.
Are the school’s actions in this matter lawful?
Of course it's lawful, it's a school! But undeniably foolish and irrational,
given that her speech was only slightly offensive and a good topic for
discussion.
Has the speech neen published?
If so, do you have a link to it, please?
If not, on what basis do you say that it is, or was to be, "offensive"?
On 18/07/2025 11:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jul 2025 at 16:43:42 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry- schoolgirl-12-put-isolation-32060937>
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on ‘culture
celebration day’ for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a
speech about British culture.
Are the school’s actions in this matter lawful?
Of course it's lawful, it's a school! But undeniably foolish and
irrational,
given that her speech was only slightly offensive and a good topic for
discussion.
Has the speech neen published?
If so, do you have a link to it, please?
If not, on what basis do you say that it is, or was to be, "offensive"?
On 19/07/2025 10:36, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 11:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:I have seen it on facebook,and I assume the part that might be
On 18 Jul 2025 at 16:43:42 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry- schoolgirl-12-
put-isolation-32060937>
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on ‘culture
celebration day’ for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a
speech about British culture.
Are the school’s actions in this matter lawful?
Of course it's lawful, it's a school! But undeniably foolish and
irrational,
given that her speech was only slightly offensive and a good topic for
discussion.
Has the speech neen published?
If so, do you have a link to it, please?
If not, on what basis do you say that it is, or was to be, "offensive"?
"offensive" to some is that she comments that they sometimes, at school,
only hear about other cultures ( and says that it is great to learn
about other countries, uses the words interesting and important) , and
then comments that it can feel like being British doesn't count, and it should.
She finishes by saying we should celebrate all cultures.
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 10:36:22 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 11:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:schoolgirl-12-put-isolation-32060937>
On 18 Jul 2025 at 16:43:42 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry-
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on ‘culture
celebration day’ for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a
speech about British culture.
Are the school’s actions in this matter lawful?
Of course it's lawful, it's a school! But undeniably foolish and
irrational,
given that her speech was only slightly offensive and a good topic for
discussion.
Has the speech neen published?
If so, do you have a link to it, please?
If not, on what basis do you say that it is, or was to be, "offensive"?
AIUI the school took zero interest in the speech.
On 19/07/2025 10:36, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 11:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jul 2025 at 16:43:42 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry-schoolgirl-12-
put-isolation-32060937>
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on ‘culture
celebration day’ for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a speech >>>> about British culture.
Are the school’s actions in this matter lawful?
Of course it's lawful, it's a school! But undeniably foolish and
irrational,
given that her speech was only slightly offensive and a good topic for
discussion.
Has the speech neen published?
If so, do you have a link to it, please?
If not, on what basis do you say that it is, or was to be, "offensive"?
I have seen it on facebook,and I assume the part that might be
"offensive" to some is that she comments that they sometimes, at school,
only hear about other cultures ( and says that it is great to learn
about other countries, uses the words interesting and important) , and
then comments that it can feel like being British doesn't count, and it should.
She finishes by saying we should celebrate all cultures.
On 19/07/2025 11:47 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 10:36:22 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 11:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jul 2025 at 16:43:42 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry-schoolgirl-12-put-isolation-32060937>
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on ‘culture
celebration day’ for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a
speech about British culture.
Are the school’s actions in this matter lawful?
Of course it's lawful, it's a school! But undeniably foolish and
irrational,
given that her speech was only slightly offensive and a good topic for >>>> discussion.
Has the speech neen published?
If so, do you have a link to it, please?
If not, on what basis do you say that it is, or was to be, "offensive"?
AIUI the school took zero interest in the speech.
All the more reason to wonder why and how a poster here could
characterise it as "offensiv".
Unless any speech in praise of British culture is automatically regarded
as offensive, that is.
On 19/07/2025 11:47 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 10:36:22 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 11:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:schoolgirl-12-put-isolation-32060937>
On 18 Jul 2025 at 16:43:42 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry-
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on ‘culture
celebration day’ for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a
speech about British culture.
Are the school’s actions in this matter lawful?
Of course it's lawful, it's a school! But undeniably foolish and
irrational,
given that her speech was only slightly offensive and a good topic
for discussion.
Has the speech neen published?
If so, do you have a link to it, please?
If not, on what basis do you say that it is, or was to be,
"offensive"?
AIUI the school took zero interest in the speech.
All the more reason to wonder why and how a poster here could
characterise it as "offensive".
Unless any speech in praise of British culture is automatically regarded
as offensive, that is.
On 19/07/2025 10:36, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 11:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jul 2025 at 16:43:42 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry-schoolgirl-12-put-isolation-32060937>
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on ‘culture
celebration day’ for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a speech >>>> about British culture.
Are the school’s actions in this matter lawful?
Of course it's lawful, it's a school! But undeniably foolish and irrational,
given that her speech was only slightly offensive and a good topic for
discussion.
Has the speech neen published?
If so, do you have a link to it, please?
If not, on what basis do you say that it is, or was to be, "offensive"?
I have seen it on facebook,and I assume the part that might be "offensive" to some is that she comments that they sometimes, at school, only hear about other
cultures ( and says that it is great to learn about other countries, uses the words interesting and important) , and then comments that it can feel like being
British doesn't count, and it should.
She finishes by saying we should celebrate all cultures.
On 19/07/2025 12:18 PM, kat wrote:
On 19/07/2025 10:36, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 11:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jul 2025 at 16:43:42 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry-
schoolgirl-12-
put-isolation-32060937>
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on ‘culture
celebration day’ for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a
speech
about British culture.
Are the school’s actions in this matter lawful?
Of course it's lawful, it's a school! But undeniably foolish and
irrational,
given that her speech was only slightly offensive and a good topic for >>>> discussion.
Has the speech neen published?
If so, do you have a link to it, please?
If not, on what basis do you say that it is, or was to be, "offensive"?
I have seen it on facebook,and I assume the part that might be
"offensive" to some is that she comments that they sometimes, at school,
only hear about other cultures ( and says that it is great to learn
about other countries, uses the words interesting and important) , and
then comments that it can feel like being British doesn't count, and it
should.
She finishes by saying we should celebrate all cultures.
Have you a link to it on Facebook, please?
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry-schoolgirl-12-put-isolation-32060937>
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on 'culture
celebration day' for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a speech
about British culture.
From the "British" episode of the already quoted 3rd series of Stewart Lee's "Comedy Vehicle"
On 19 Jul 2025 at 12:18:05 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 19/07/2025 10:36, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 11:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jul 2025 at 16:43:42 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry-schoolgirl-12-put-isolation-32060937>
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on ‘culture
celebration day’ for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a speech >>>>> about British culture.
Are the school’s actions in this matter lawful?
Of course it's lawful, it's a school! But undeniably foolish and irrational,
given that her speech was only slightly offensive and a good topic for >>>> discussion.
Has the speech neen published?
If so, do you have a link to it, please?
If not, on what basis do you say that it is, or was to be, "offensive"?
I have seen it on facebook,and I assume the part that might be "offensive" to
some is that she comments that they sometimes, at school, only hear about other
cultures ( and says that it is great to learn about other countries, uses the
words interesting and important) , and then comments that it can feel like >> being
British doesn't count, and it should.
That was it. I am all for the girl celebrating British culture, but I do think
it was a bit passive aggressive to say it "doesn't count" when it is what most
of us still live every day. But, as I say, only mildly offensive and should not have got the speech banned.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:mdv8deFkv7mU1@mid.individual.net...
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry- schoolgirl-12-put-isolation-32060937>
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on 'culture
celebration day' for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a speech
about British culture.
quote:
I had to catch a taxi on Sunday night from Liverpool Street to Hackney.
And you know what the driver turned round and said to me ?
TD: "Did you know that you can now be arrested and locked up just for saying that you're English ? "
SL: "Really ? You can now be arrested and locked up for just for saying
that you're English ?"
TD:. "Yes. If you now say you're English you can now be arrested and
locked up."
SL: "Really ? If you now say you're English you can now be arrested and locked up.?
TD:" Yes. You can now be arrested and locked up just for saying that
you're English. "
Repeat 10 more times
SL: "Really ? If you now say you're English you can now be arrested and locked up.?
TD; "No"
SL: "See that. I wore him down in the end"
unquote
From the "British" episode of the already quoted 3rd series of Stewart >>Lee's"Comedy Vehicle"
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 21:22:29 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in messageschoolgirl-12-put-isolation-32060937>
news:mdv8deFkv7mU1@mid.individual.net...
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry-
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on 'culture
celebration day' for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a speech
about British culture.
quote:
I had to catch a taxi on Sunday night from Liverpool Street to Hackney.
And you know what the driver turned round and said to me ?
TD: "Did you know that you can now be arrested and locked up just for
saying that you're English ? "
SL: "Really ? You can now be arrested and locked up for just for saying
that you're English ?"
TD:. "Yes. If you now say you're English you can now be arrested and
locked up."
SL: "Really ? If you now say you're English you can now be arrested and
locked up.?
TD:" Yes. You can now be arrested and locked up just for saying that
you're English. "
Repeat 10 more times
SL: "Really ? If you now say you're English you can now be arrested and
locked up.?
TD; "No"
SL: "See that. I wore him down in the end"
unquote
From the "British" episode of the already quoted 3rd series of Stewart >>>Lee's"Comedy Vehicle"
The (understandably cut) repetition forms part of the punchline. It
echoes and highlights how dealing with rather thick racists will result
in endless parroting of memes as "debate" until finally cornered the poor racist is forced to admit they are full of shit.
The only point missed (by now it probably would have been unwatchable) is
the bit where a second after their encounter with SL, the racist reverts
to the same starting point again.
On 19/07/2025 13:41, JNugent wrote:
On 19/07/2025 12:18 PM, kat wrote:
On 19/07/2025 10:36, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 11:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jul 2025 at 16:43:42 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry-
schoolgirl-12-
put-isolation-32060937>
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on ‘culture >>>>>> celebration day’ for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a >>>>>> speech
about British culture.
Are the school’s actions in this matter lawful?
Of course it's lawful, it's a school! But undeniably foolish and
irrational,
given that her speech was only slightly offensive and a good topic for >>>>> discussion.
Has the speech neen published?
If so, do you have a link to it, please?
If not, on what basis do you say that it is, or was to be, "offensive"? >>>>
I have seen it on facebook,and I assume the part that might be
"offensive" to some is that she comments that they sometimes, at school, >>> only hear about other cultures ( and says that it is great to learn
about other countries, uses the words interesting and important) , and
then comments that it can feel like being British doesn't count, and it
should.
She finishes by saying we should celebrate all cultures.
Have you a link to it on Facebook, please?
It's at the bottom of this article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvj289y788o
On 19 Jul 2025 at 13:40:27 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/07/2025 11:47 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 10:36:22 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 11:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:AIUI the school took zero interest in the speech.
On 18 Jul 2025 at 16:43:42 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry-schoolgirl-12-put-isolation-32060937>
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on ‘culture >>>>>> celebration day’ for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a >>>>>> speech about British culture.
Are the school’s actions in this matter lawful?
Of course it's lawful, it's a school! But undeniably foolish and
irrational,
given that her speech was only slightly offensive and a good topic for >>>>> discussion.
Has the speech neen published?
If so, do you have a link to it, please?
If not, on what basis do you say that it is, or was to be, "offensive"? >>>
All the more reason to wonder why and how a poster here could
characterise it as "offensiv".
Unless any speech in praise of British culture is automatically regarded
as offensive, that is.
It suggested that British culture was "neglected" and every thing nowadays was
about all these foreign immigrants.
All the rest was about the virtues of
English culture and personally I would thoroughly applaud it being presented.
If you really want the text DYOR and don't let me stand in your way.
On 19 Jul 2025 at 13:40:27 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/07/2025 11:47 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 10:36:22 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 11:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:AIUI the school took zero interest in the speech.
On 18 Jul 2025 at 16:43:42 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry-schoolgirl-12-put-isolation-32060937>
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on ‘culture >>>>>> celebration day’ for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a >>>>>> speech about British culture.
Are the school’s actions in this matter lawful?
Of course it's lawful, it's a school! But undeniably foolish and
irrational,
given that her speech was only slightly offensive and a good topic for >>>>> discussion.
Has the speech neen published?
If so, do you have a link to it, please?
If not, on what basis do you say that it is, or was to be, "offensive"? >>>
All the more reason to wonder why and how a poster here could
characterise it as "offensiv".
Unless any speech in praise of British culture is automatically regarded
as offensive, that is.
It suggested that British culture was "neglected" and every thing nowadays was
about all these foreign immigrants. All the rest was about the virtues of English culture and personally I would thoroughly applaud it being presented.
If you really want the text DYOR and don't let me stand in your way.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Jul 2025 at 12:18:05 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 19/07/2025 10:36, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 11:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jul 2025 at 16:43:42 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry-schoolgirl-12-put-isolation-32060937>
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on 'culture
celebration day' for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a speech >>>>>> about British culture.
Are the school's actions in this matter lawful?
Of course it's lawful, it's a school! But undeniably foolish and irrational,
given that her speech was only slightly offensive and a good topic for >>>>> discussion.
Has the speech neen published?
If so, do you have a link to it, please?
If not, on what basis do you say that it is, or was to be, "offensive"? >>>>
I have seen it on facebook,and I assume the part that might be "offensive" to
some is that she comments that they sometimes, at school, only hear about other
cultures ( and says that it is great to learn about other countries, uses the
words interesting and important) , and then comments that it can feel like >>> being
British doesn't count, and it should.
That was it. I am all for the girl celebrating British culture, but I do think
it was a bit passive aggressive to say it "doesn't count" when it is what most
of us still live every day. But, as I say, only mildly offensive and should >> not have got the speech banned.
When people from 'minority' groups are interviewed they tend to make
similar comments - their culture isn't recognised, allowance isn't made for ... Without agreeing or disagreeing, with them or this young lady, the
point is, that is their perception.
Either you accept this young lady has a point or you dismiss anyone who
ever complains their culture is ignored.
Think about that.
This incident occurred on a day scheduled to celebrate different cultures. The school hadn't just dismissed British culture, it punished the girl.
On 19/07/2025 04:30 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Jul 2025 at 13:40:27 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/07/2025 11:47 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 10:36:22 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 11:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jul 2025 at 16:43:42 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com>
wrote:
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry- schoolgirl-12-put-isolation-32060937>
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on ‘culture >>>>>>> celebration day’ for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a >>>>>>> speech about British culture.
Are the school’s actions in this matter lawful?
Of course it's lawful, it's a school! But undeniably foolish and
irrational,
given that her speech was only slightly offensive and a good topic >>>>>> for discussion.
Has the speech neen published?
If so, do you have a link to it, please?
If not, on what basis do you say that it is, or was to be,
"offensive"?
AIUI the school took zero interest in the speech.
All the more reason to wonder why and how a poster here could
characterise it as "offensiv".
Unless any speech in praise of British culture is automatically
regarded as offensive, that is.
It suggested that British culture was "neglected" and every thing
nowadays was about all these foreign immigrants. All the rest was about
the virtues of English culture and personally I would thoroughly
applaud it being presented.
If you really want the text DYOR and don't let me stand in your way.
I have now had the opportunity to read the (proposed) speech
and can say that there is nothing the slightest bit "offensive" about
it.
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:105i8s6$1geqj$49@dont-email.me...
[quoted text muted]
Just watched the "Context" episode again
What the black guy actually said at the traffic lights, was "Move your
ass, n...a"
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 10:27:09 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:105i8s6$1geqj$49@dont-email.me...
[quoted text muted]
Just watched the "Context" episode again
What the black guy actually said at the traffic lights, was "Move your
ass, n...a"
Why the coy full stops ?
Although it would be interesting to know which
variant of the word was being used; "nigga" at is the version
appropriated by the hip-hop artists of the 80s as opposed to the full fat "nigger" which is more traditional in English parlance.
I feel that Reginald D. Hunter (who gets namechecked in that very
episode) tends towards the former from his (eloquent and very extensive) explanation of why he uses the word and doesn't apologise for it. (A
theme he expounds in his second DVD which addresses the FA
controversy ... "The reason they were shocked is they weren't used to
hearing that language *off* the pitch .....").
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:105j2ii$1geqj$51@dont-email.me...
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 10:27:09 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:105i8s6$1geqj$49@dont-email.me...
[quoted text muted]
Just watched the "Context" episode again
What the black guy actually said at the traffic lights, was "Move your
ass, n...a"
Why the coy full stops ?
So as not to engage the trigger word filter, which I assume is applied
to all UKLM posts prior to moderation.
Or should that be trigga word filter ?
Although it would be interesting to know which variant of the word was
being used; "nigga" at is the version appropriated by the hip-hop
artists of the 80s as opposed to the full fat "nigger" which is more
traditional in English parlance.
I feel that Reginald D. Hunter (who gets namechecked in that very
episode) tends towards the former from his (eloquent and very
extensive) explanation of why he uses the word and doesn't apologise
for it. (A theme he expounds in his second DVD which addresses the FA
controversy ... "The reason they were shocked is they weren't used to
hearing that language *off* the pitch .....").
I'm far more interested in the fact - as presumably was Stewart Lee in
the fact that while his use of the word "nigga" was met with stunned
silence by his audience, his references to his violent, drunken, Irish Catholic bigoted wife , this in reality being Bridget Christie as
presumbly some of his audience must have known, were met with roars of laughter,
Similarly Reg Hunter was criticised by the FA for including the word in
a speech/rooutine he gave to a football dinner.
( Had Reg Hunter been a professional footballer being regularly
barracked by racists or having bananas thrown at him, as presumably
doesn't happen at his concerts then maybe his reaction might have been different)
Stewart Lee's reaction to the FA was as follows
" If they don't try and tell comedians which words to use, then I won't
try and tell them how to change ends with drunken teenagers on hotel
beds in smart hotels.
At which again his audience laughed.
" Nice misogynist joke there !"
The point being that his audience was reduced to stunned silence by an essentially meaningless word; whereas they were laughing their heads off
at the idea of his drunken Irish wife; or drunken teenagers being raped
by footballers in hotels.
Roger Hayter wrote:Here's Leo Kearse reciting it ...
Of course it's lawful, it's a school! But undeniably foolish and
irrational, given that her speech was only slightly offensive and
a good topic for discussion.
Has the speech been published?
If so, do you have a link to it, please?
Have you a link to it on Facebook, please?
JNugent wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
Of course it's lawful, it's a school! But undeniably foolish and
irrational, given that her speech was only slightly offensive and
a good topic for discussion.
Has the speech been published?
If so, do you have a link to it, please?
Here's Leo Kearse reciting it ...
<https://youtu.be/PE2jV5qxE4g&t=215>
I have now had the opportunity to read the (proposed) speech and
can say that there is nothing the slightest bit "offensive" about it.
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry-schoolgirl-12-put-isolation-32060937>
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on ‘culture >celebration day’ for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a speech >about British culture.
Are the school’s actions in this matter lawful?
JNugent wrote:
Have you a link to it on Facebook, please?
deleted
<https://www.facebook.com/stuart.field.100/posts/pfbid02wPoTfLdinm3e3268DN4UvKGNP25mAzEoMWSFHXuyhRv58KXuo9HFJBKb7ixCZE1Wl>
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Two extracts from the speech
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:37:28 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Has the recent announcement about lowering the voting age (where the fuck
has this clunky "16 and 17 year old" come from ? "AI" ?) also mentioned allowing 16 year olds to stand for office as well ?
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 22:02:40 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
Two extracts from the speech
Discussing the speech is an irrelevance to the actions of the school
which were predicated solely on the choice of costume.
I have now had the opportunity to read the (proposed) speech and
can say that there is nothing the slightest bit "offensive" about it.
On 22/07/2025 08:24, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:37:28 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Has the recent announcement about lowering the voting age (where the
fuck has this clunky "16 and 17 year old" come from ? "AI" ?) also
mentioned allowing 16 year olds to stand for office as well ?
No, that remains at 18. They can't buy a lottery ticket, a cigarette or
a celebratory pint either.
On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 08:59:11 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/07/2025 08:24, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:37:28 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Has the recent announcement about lowering the voting age (where the
fuck has this clunky "16 and 17 year old" come from ? "AI" ?) also
mentioned allowing 16 year olds to stand for office as well ?
No, that remains at 18. They can't buy a lottery ticket, a cigarette or
a celebratory pint either.
Interesting asymmetry.
Not unprecedented. To become POTUS you need to be 35 (amongst other
things).
However discussion of the speech *is* relevant, when replying to J.Nugent's observation, thatQuoting is messed-up there, it was Roger's comment, not JNugent's
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:me3s0rFe0cgU3@mid.individual.net...
I have now had the opportunity to read the (proposed) speech and
can say that there is nothing the slightest bit "offensive" about it.
As I was attempting to do
billy bookcase wrote:
Quoting is messed-up there, it was Roger's comment, not JNugent's
However discussion of the speech *is* relevant, when replying to J.Nugent's >> observation, that
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:me3s0rFe0cgU3@mid.individual.net...
I have now had the opportunity to read the (proposed) speech and
can say that there is nothing the slightest bit "offensive" about it.
As I was attempting to do
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:37:28 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Has the recent announcement about lowering the voting age (where the fuck
has this clunky "16 and 17 year old" come from ? "AI" ?) also mentioned allowing 16 year olds to stand for office as well ?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
I have now had the opportunity to read the (proposed) speech and
can say that there is nothing the slightest bit "offensive" about it.
The Culture Celebration Day was presumably intended to celebrate the
diverse cultures of children who were born in this country, intend to
live in this country for the whole of their lives, and wish to feel
welcome in this country.
The Cultures being celebrated will be the cultures these children will
often be experiencing, at home. And doubtless wish to continue
practising.
Two extracts from the speech
quote:
But sometimes at school, we only hear about other cultures - which is great because learning about different countries is interesting and important.
I think culture should be for everyone - not just for people from other countries
or backgrounds.
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvj289y788o
So that it would seem that according to the actual writer of the speech, whoever
he or she may actually be, The Culture Celebration Day should help remind these
"other" children of the fact that in fact, they're from different, foreign countries.
Which is a "Celebration" of what, exactly ?
billy bookcase wrote:
Quoting is messed-up there, it was Roger's comment, not JNugent's
However discussion of the speech *is* relevant, when replying to J.Nugent's >> observation, that
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:me3s0rFe0cgU3@mid.individual.net...
I have now had the opportunity to read the (proposed) speech and
can say that there is nothing the slightest bit "offensive" about it.
As I was attempting to do
billy bookcase wrote:
However discussion of the speech *is* relevant, when replying to J.Nugent's >> observation, that
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:me3s0rFe0cgU3@mid.individual.net...
I have now had the opportunity to read the (proposed) speech and
can say that there is nothing the slightest bit "offensive" about it.
As I was attempting to do
Quoting is messed-up there, it was Roger's comment, not JNugent's
On 19/07/2025 04:30 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Jul 2025 at 13:40:27 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/07/2025 11:47 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 10:36:22 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 11:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:AIUI the school took zero interest in the speech.
On 18 Jul 2025 at 16:43:42 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
<https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/coventry-schoolgirl-12-put-isolation-32060937>
A 12-year old schoolgirl was hauled out of her class on 'culture >>>>>>> celebration day' for wearing a Spice-Girls dress and preparing a >>>>>>> speech about British culture.
Are the school's actions in this matter lawful?
Of course it's lawful, it's a school! But undeniably foolish and
irrational,
given that her speech was only slightly offensive and a good topic for >>>>>> discussion.
Has the speech neen published?
If so, do you have a link to it, please?
If not, on what basis do you say that it is, or was to be, "offensive"? >>>>
All the more reason to wonder why and how a poster here could
characterise it as "offensiv".
Unless any speech in praise of British culture is automatically regarded >>> as offensive, that is.
It suggested that British culture was "neglected" and every thing nowadays was
about all these foreign immigrants. All the rest was about the virtues of
English culture and personally I would thoroughly applaud it being presented.
If you really want the text DYOR and don't let me stand in your way.
I have now had the opportunity to read the (proposed) speech and can say that there is
nothing the slightest bit "offensive" about it.
On 22 Jul 2025 at 16:04:53 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
However discussion of the speech *is* relevant, when replying to J.Nugent's >>> observation, that
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:me3s0rFe0cgU3@mid.individual.net...
I have now had the opportunity to read the (proposed) speech and
can say that there is nothing the slightest bit "offensive" about it.
As I was attempting to doQuoting is messed-up there, it was Roger's comment, not JNugent's
No, my view was that it was somewhat offensive, but not intolerable.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 22 Jul 2025 at 16:04:53 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: >>> billy bookcase wrote:
However discussion of the speech *is* relevant, when replying to J.Nugent's
observation, that
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:me3s0rFe0cgU3@mid.individual.net...
I have now had the opportunity to read the (proposed) speech and
can say that there is nothing the slightest bit "offensive" about it.
As I was attempting to doQuoting is messed-up there, it was Roger's comment, not JNugent's
No, my view was that it was somewhat offensive, but not intolerable.
Have you again changed your position regarding the speech or merely forgot what you wrote earlier about it?
On 22/07/2025 08:24 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:37:28 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Has the recent announcement about lowering the voting age (where the fuck
has this clunky "16 and 17 year old" come from ? "AI" ?) also mentioned
allowing 16 year olds to stand for office as well ?
Instead of "16 and 17 year old", why not the much more descriptive
"older children"?
On 22 Jul 2025 at 19:28:20 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 22 Jul 2025 at 16:04:53 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: >>>> billy bookcase wrote:
However discussion of the speech *is* relevant, when replying to J.Nugent's
observation, that
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:me3s0rFe0cgU3@mid.individual.net...
I have now had the opportunity to read the (proposed) speech and
can say that there is nothing the slightest bit "offensive" about it.
No, my view was that it was somewhat offensive, but not intolerable.
Have you again changed your position regarding the speech or merely forgot >> what you wrote earlier about it?
Just show me anything different I wrote. I really don't think you can.
On 21/07/2025 10:02 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
I have now had the opportunity to read the (proposed) speech and
can say that there is nothing the slightest bit "offensive" about it.
The Culture Celebration Day was presumably intended to celebrate the
diverse cultures of children who were born in this country, intend to
live in this country for the whole of their lives, and wish to feel
welcome in this country.
That's a view. There's nothing in anything I've seen elsewhere to support it (and
neither should there be), but thank you for expressing it.
The Cultures being celebrated will be the cultures these children will
often be experiencing, at home. And doubtless wish to continue
practising.
That would, to borrow a phrase, be "presumably intended" to include the writer of the
speech.
Two extracts from the speech
quote:
But sometimes at school, we only hear about other cultures - which is great >> because learning about different countries is interesting and important.
I think culture should be for everyone - not just for people from other countries
or backgrounds.
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvj289y788o
So that it would seem that according to the actual writer of the speech, whoever
he or she may actually be, The Culture Celebration Day should help remind these
"other" children of the fact that in fact, they're from different, foreign >> countries.
Which is a "Celebration" of what, exactly ?
Have you ever heard the word "inclusive"?
If you have, do you know what it means?
Do you think it means "inclusive of some but exclusive of others"?
Inclusively means treating everyone, on *equal terms*
On 22/07/2025 15:11, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 08:24 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:37:28 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Has the recent announcement about lowering the voting age (where the
fuck has this clunky "16 and 17 year old" come from ? "AI" ?) also
mentioned allowing 16 year olds to stand for office as well ?
Instead of "16 and 17 year old", why not the much more descriptive
"older children"?
Because once you mention children the question gets asked why are we
giving children the vote?
On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 20:14:05 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
Inclusively means treating everyone, on *equal terms*
Within reason, naturally.
On 22/07/2025 15:11, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 08:24 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:37:28 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Has the recent announcement about lowering the voting age (where the
fuck has this clunky "16 and 17 year old" come from ? "AI" ?) als
mentioned allowing 16 year olds to stand for office as well ?
Instead of "16 and 17 year old", why not the much more descriptive
"older children"?
Because once you mention children the question gets asked why are we
giving children the vote?
On 22/07/2025 09:02 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/07/2025 15:11, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 08:24 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:37:28 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Has the recent announcement about lowering the voting age (where the
fuck has this clunky "16 and 17 year old" come from ? "AI" ?) als
mentioned allowing 16 year olds to stand for office as well ?
Instead of "16 and 17 year old", why not the much more descriptive
"older children"?
Because once you mention children the question gets asked why are we
giving children the vote?
They *are* children - and why is the Labour Party intending to give them
the vote?
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 11:24:52 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 09:02 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/07/2025 15:11, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 08:24 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:37:28 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Has the recent announcement about lowering the voting age (where the >>>>> fuck has this clunky "16 and 17 year old" come from ? "AI" ?) als
mentioned allowing 16 year olds to stand for office as well ?
Instead of "16 and 17 year old", why not the much more descriptive
"older children"?
Because once you mention children the question gets asked why are we
giving children the vote?
They *are* children - and why is the Labour Party intending to give them
the vote?
Why not ? There are many instances around the world of enfranchised 16
year olds. Not least in Scotland and Wales. Maybe England is the outlier
here ?
Incidentally, it is His Majesties Government of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland that is proposing to introduce this law. This being a
legal minded forum, accuracy is worth striving for.
On 23 Jul 2025 at 12:33:08 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 11:24:52 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 09:02 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/07/2025 15:11, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 08:24 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:37:28 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Has the recent announcement about lowering the voting age (where the >>>>>> fuck has this clunky "16 and 17 year old" come from ? "AI" ?) als
mentioned allowing 16 year olds to stand for office as well ?
Instead of "16 and 17 year old", why not the much more descriptive
"older children"?
Because once you mention children the question gets asked why are we
giving children the vote?
They *are* children - and why is the Labour Party intending to give them >>> the vote?
Why not ? There are many instances around the world of enfranchised 16
year olds. Not least in Scotland and Wales. Maybe England is the outlier
here ?
Incidentally, it is His Majesties Government of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland that is proposing to introduce this law. This being a
legal minded forum, accuracy is worth striving for.
And Parliament that will agree with it, or not. So not a decision of a political party.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:me9kdlFd1h9U1@mid.individual.net...
On 21/07/2025 10:02 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
I have now had the opportunity to read the (proposed) speech and
can say that there is nothing the slightest bit "offensive" about it.
The Culture Celebration Day was presumably intended to celebrate the
diverse cultures of children who were born in this country, intend to
live in this country for the whole of their lives, and wish to feel
welcome in this country.
That's a view. There's nothing in anything I've seen elsewhere to support it (and
neither should there be), but thank you for expressing it.
The Cultures being celebrated will be the cultures these children will
often be experiencing, at home. And doubtless wish to continue
practising.
That would, to borrow a phrase, be "presumably intended" to include the writer of the
speech.
Two extracts from the speech
quote:
But sometimes at school, we only hear about other cultures - which is great >>> because learning about different countries is interesting and important. >>>
I think culture should be for everyone - not just for people from other countries
or backgrounds.
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvj289y788o
So that it would seem that according to the actual writer of the speech, whoever
he or she may actually be, The Culture Celebration Day should help remind these
"other" children of the fact that in fact, they're from different, foreign >>> countries.
Which is a "Celebration" of what, exactly ?
Have you ever heard the word "inclusive"?
If you have, do you know what it means?
Do you think it means "inclusive of some but exclusive of others"?
How exactly does emphasising the fact that some of the children originate from *other* countries, contribute to the idea of *inclusivity*
Inclusively means treating everyone, on *equal terms*
But the terms can't be equal, if *some* of the children originate from *other* countries, while others originate in *this* country*. Which is
the dominant everyday culture; which all the children, already experience
in their everyday lives
Whereas if the Culture Celebration Day was limited to children
originating from *other* countries, then the children would all
be on equal terms. Which would then be genuinely "inclusive".
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 11:24:52 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 09:02 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/07/2025 15:11, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 08:24 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:37:28 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Has the recent announcement about lowering the voting age (where the >>>>> fuck has this clunky "16 and 17 year old" come from ? "AI" ?) als
mentioned allowing 16 year olds to stand for office as well ?
Instead of "16 and 17 year old", why not the much more descriptive
"older children"?
Because once you mention children the question gets asked why are we
giving children the vote?
They *are* children - and why is the Labour Party intending to give them
the vote?
Why not ? There are many instances around the world of enfranchised 16
year olds. Not least in Scotland and Wales. Maybe England is the outlier
here ?
Incidentally, it is His Majesties Government of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland that is proposing to introduce this law. This being a
legal minded forum, accuracy is worth striving for.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 11:24:52 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 09:02 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/07/2025 15:11, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 08:24 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:37:28 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Has the recent announcement about lowering the voting age (where the >>>>> fuck has this clunky "16 and 17 year old" come from ? "AI" ?) als
mentioned allowing 16 year olds to stand for office as well ?
Instead of "16 and 17 year old", why not the much more descriptive
"older children"?
Because once you mention children the question gets asked why are we
giving children the vote?
They *are* children - and why is the Labour Party intending to give them
the vote?
Why not ?
There are many instances around the world of enfranchised 16
year olds. Not least in Scotland and Wales. Maybe England is the outlier
here ?
Incidentally, it is His Majesties Government of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland that is proposing to introduce this law. This being a
legal minded forum, accuracy is worth striving for.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 11:24:52 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 09:02 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/07/2025 15:11, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 08:24 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:37:28 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Has the recent announcement about lowering the voting age (where the >>>>> fuck has this clunky "16 and 17 year old" come from ? "AI" ?) als
mentioned allowing 16 year olds to stand for office as well ?
Instead of "16 and 17 year old", why not the much more descriptive
"older children"?
Because once you mention children the question gets asked why are we
giving children the vote?
They *are* children - and why is the Labour Party intending to give them
the vote?
Why not ? There are many instances around the world of enfranchised 16
year olds. Not least in Scotland and Wales. Maybe England is the outlier
here ?
Because once you mention children the question gets asked why are we
giving children the vote?
On 22/07/2025 21:02, Norman Wells wrote:
Because once you mention children the question gets asked why are we
giving children the vote?
If we must alter the voting age, we would do better to give
16-17yos half a vote. We could use a different colour of voting
slip to make counting easy.
Next step: give N votes to people of age N. Can't see the gov't cutting the WFA in such a regime.
On 23/07/2025 12:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Jul 2025 at 12:33:08 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 11:24:52 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 09:02 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/07/2025 15:11, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 08:24 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:37:28 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Has the recent announcement about lowering the voting age (where >>>>>>> the fuck has this clunky "16 and 17 year old" come from ? "AI" ?) >>>>>>> als mentioned allowing 16 year olds to stand for office as well ?
Instead of "16 and 17 year old", why not the much more descriptive >>>>>> "older children"?
Because once you mention children the question gets asked why are we >>>>> giving children the vote?
They *are* children - and why is the Labour Party intending to give
them the vote?
Why not ? There are many instances around the world of enfranchised 16
year olds. Not least in Scotland and Wales. Maybe England is the
outlier here ?
Incidentally, it is His Majesties Government of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland that is proposing to introduce this law. This being a
legal minded forum, accuracy is worth striving for.
And Parliament that will agree with it, or not. So not a decision of a
political party.
As it's a substantial constitutional matter, it should actually be put
to us all in a referendum. Like we had when there was a proposal to
change the voting system in 2011.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 11:33:08 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 11:24:52 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 09:02 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/07/2025 15:11, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 08:24 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:37:28 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Has the recent announcement about lowering the voting age (where
the fuck has this clunky "16 and 17 year old" come from ? "AI" ?)
als mentioned allowing 16 year olds to stand for office as well ?
Instead of "16 and 17 year old", why not the much more descriptive
"older children"?
Because once you mention children the question gets asked why are we
giving children the vote?
They *are* children - and why is the Labour Party intending to give
them the vote?
Why not ? There are many instances around the world of enfranchised 16
year olds. Not least in Scotland and Wales. Maybe England is the outlier >>here ?
18 is overwhelmingly the most common, globally. Disregarding subnational territories with different arrangements for local assemblies, there are
only eleven countries which allow voting for national elections at 16
and a further four which set the minimum at 17. Meanwhile, at the other
end of the scale, there are fourteen counties where the minimum voting
age is higher than 18 (mostly 21).
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/voting-age-by-country
On 22/07/2025 21:02, Norman Wells wrote:16-17yos
[quoted text muted]
If we must alter the voting age, we would do better to give
half a vote. We could use a different colour of voting slip to make
counting easy.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 14:28:30 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
18 is overwhelmingly the most common, globally. Disregarding subnational
territories with different arrangements for local assemblies, there are
only eleven countries which allow voting for national elections at 16
and a further four which set the minimum at 17. Meanwhile, at the other
end of the scale, there are fourteen counties where the minimum voting
age is higher than 18 (mostly 21).
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/voting-age-by-country
Unfortunately, it is settled law that the UK isn't allowed to use other jurisdictions as reference.
On 22/07/2025 08:14 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:me9kdlFd1h9U1@mid.individual.net...
On 21/07/2025 10:02 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
The Culture Celebration Day was presumably intended to celebrate the
I have now had the opportunity to read the (proposed) speech and
can say that there is nothing the slightest bit "offensive" about it. >>>>
diverse cultures of children who were born in this country, intend to
live in this country for the whole of their lives, and wish to feel
welcome in this country.
That's a view. There's nothing in anything I've seen elsewhere to support it (and
neither should there be), but thank you for expressing it.
The Cultures being celebrated will be the cultures these children will >>>> often be experiencing, at home. And doubtless wish to continue
practising.
That would, to borrow a phrase, be "presumably intended" to include the writer of the
speech.
Two extracts from the speech
quote:
But sometimes at school, we only hear about other cultures - which is great
because learning about different countries is interesting and important. >>>>
I think culture should be for everyone - not just for people from other countries
or backgrounds.
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvj289y788o
So that it would seem that according to the actual writer of the speech, whoever
he or she may actually be, The Culture Celebration Day should help remind these
"other" children of the fact that in fact, they're from different, foreign >>>> countries.
Which is a "Celebration" of what, exactly ?
Have you ever heard the word "inclusive"?
If you have, do you know what it means?
Do you think it means "inclusive of some but exclusive of others"?
How exactly does emphasising the fact that some of the children originate
from *other* countries, contribute to the idea of *inclusivity*
Inclusively means treating everyone, on *equal terms*
But the terms can't be equal, if *some* of the children originate from
*other* countries, while others originate in *this* country*. Which is
the dominant everyday culture; which all the children, already experience
in their everyday lives
Whereas if the Culture Celebration Day was limited to children
originating from *other* countries, then the children would all
be on equal terms. Which would then be genuinely "inclusive".
Evasion!
Why exclude one culture?
On 23 Jul 2025 at 12:33:08 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 11:24:52 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 09:02 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/07/2025 15:11, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 08:24 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:37:28 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Has the recent announcement about lowering the voting age (where the >>>>>> fuck has this clunky "16 and 17 year old" come from ? "AI" ?) als
mentioned allowing 16 year olds to stand for office as well ?
Instead of "16 and 17 year old", why not the much more descriptive
"older children"?
Because once you mention children the question gets asked why are we
giving children the vote?
They *are* children - and why is the Labour Party intending to give them >>> the vote?
Why not ? There are many instances around the world of enfranchised 16
year olds. Not least in Scotland and Wales. Maybe England is the outlier
here ?
Incidentally, it is His Majesties Government of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland that is proposing to introduce this law. This being a
legal minded forum, accuracy is worth striving for.
And Parliament that will agree with it, or not. So not a decision of a political party.
On 23/07/2025 12:42 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Jul 2025 at 12:33:08 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 11:24:52 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 09:02 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/07/2025 15:11, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 08:24 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:37:28 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Has the recent announcement about lowering the voting age (where >>>>>>> the fuck has this clunky "16 and 17 year old" come from ? "AI" ?) >>>>>>> als mentioned allowing 16 year olds to stand for office as well ?
Instead of "16 and 17 year old", why not the much more descriptive >>>>>> "older children"?
Because once you mention children the question gets asked why are we >>>>> giving children the vote?
They *are* children - and why is the Labour Party intending to give
them the vote?
Why not ? There are many instances around the world of enfranchised 16
year olds. Not least in Scotland and Wales. Maybe England is the
outlier here ?
Incidentally, it is His Majesties Government of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland that is proposing to introduce this law. This being a
legal minded forum, accuracy is worth striving for.
And Parliament that will agree with it, or not. So not a decision of a
political party.
Sophistry.
The policy was in the Labour Party's manifesto. "Parliament" didn't
dream it up.
And it was not included because they thought it would maintain or
improve the democratic process. It is an obvious gerrymander.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mebvjbFp17gU1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/07/2025 08:14 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:me9kdlFd1h9U1@mid.individual.net...
On 21/07/2025 10:02 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
The Culture Celebration Day was presumably intended to celebrate the >>>>> diverse cultures of children who were born in this country, intend to >>>>> live in this country for the whole of their lives, and wish to feel
I have now had the opportunity to read the (proposed) speech and
can say that there is nothing the slightest bit "offensive" about it. >>>>>
welcome in this country.
That's a view. There's nothing in anything I've seen elsewhere to support it (and
neither should there be), but thank you for expressing it.
The Cultures being celebrated will be the cultures these children will >>>>> often be experiencing, at home. And doubtless wish to continue
practising.
That would, to borrow a phrase, be "presumably intended" to include the writer of the
speech.
Two extracts from the speech
quote:
But sometimes at school, we only hear about other cultures - which is great
because learning about different countries is interesting and important. >>>>>
I think culture should be for everyone - not just for people from other countries
or backgrounds.
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvj289y788o
So that it would seem that according to the actual writer of the speech, whoever
he or she may actually be, The Culture Celebration Day should help remind these
"other" children of the fact that in fact, they're from different, foreign
countries.
Which is a "Celebration" of what, exactly ?
Have you ever heard the word "inclusive"?
If you have, do you know what it means?
Do you think it means "inclusive of some but exclusive of others"?
How exactly does emphasising the fact that some of the children originate >>> from *other* countries, contribute to the idea of *inclusivity*
Inclusively means treating everyone, on *equal terms*
But the terms can't be equal, if *some* of the children originate from
*other* countries, while others originate in *this* country*. Which is
the dominant everyday culture; which all the children, already experience >>> in their everyday lives
Whereas if the Culture Celebration Day was limited to children
originating from *other* countries, then the children would all
be on equal terms. Which would then be genuinely "inclusive".
Evasion!
Why exclude one culture?
If you check the poster, the children were supposed to wear "National
Dress"
How many children, or adults for that matter, do you know who walk aroung
in "Union Jack" outfits, as their national dress ?
I'll give you bit of a clue.
Four.
Ginger Spice, this child, BNP supporters and football hooligans.
Mind you, they all probably like a nice cup of tea.
bb
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 13:08:38 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/07/2025 12:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Jul 2025 at 12:33:08 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 11:24:52 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 09:02 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/07/2025 15:11, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 08:24 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:37:28 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Has the recent announcement about lowering the voting age (where >>>>>>>> the fuck has this clunky "16 and 17 year old" come from ? "AI" ?) >>>>>>>> als mentioned allowing 16 year olds to stand for office as well ? >>>>>>Instead of "16 and 17 year old", why not the much more descriptive >>>>>>> "older children"?
Because once you mention children the question gets asked why are we >>>>>> giving children the vote?
They *are* children - and why is the Labour Party intending to give
them the vote?
Why not ? There are many instances around the world of enfranchised 16 >>>> year olds. Not least in Scotland and Wales. Maybe England is the
outlier here ?
Incidentally, it is His Majesties Government of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland that is proposing to introduce this law. This being a >>>> legal minded forum, accuracy is worth striving for.
And Parliament that will agree with it, or not. So not a decision of a
political party.
As it's a substantial constitutional matter, it should actually be put
to us all in a referendum. Like we had when there was a proposal to
change the voting system in 2011.
Exactly. The same way enfranchising women was put to a referendum and the lowering of the voting age to 18.
Alternatively, we could wake up, remember that our MPs are our representatives and let them do their job.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 14:48:29 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/07/2025 12:42 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Jul 2025 at 12:33:08 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 11:24:52 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 09:02 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/07/2025 15:11, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 08:24 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:37:28 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Has the recent announcement about lowering the voting age (where >>>>>>>> the fuck has this clunky "16 and 17 year old" come from ? "AI" ?) >>>>>>>> als mentioned allowing 16 year olds to stand for office as well ? >>>>>>Instead of "16 and 17 year old", why not the much more descriptive >>>>>>> "older children"?
Because once you mention children the question gets asked why are we >>>>>> giving children the vote?
They *are* children - and why is the Labour Party intending to give
them the vote?
Why not ? There are many instances around the world of enfranchised 16 >>>> year olds. Not least in Scotland and Wales. Maybe England is the
outlier here ?
Incidentally, it is His Majesties Government of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland that is proposing to introduce this law. This being a >>>> legal minded forum, accuracy is worth striving for.
And Parliament that will agree with it, or not. So not a decision of a
political party.
Sophistry.
The policy was in the Labour Party's manifesto. "Parliament" didn't
dream it up.
And it was not included because they thought it would maintain or
improve the democratic process. It is an obvious gerrymander.
Regardless, it was in the manifesto, so presumably has the legitimacy of
the will of the people.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mebvjbFp17gU1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/07/2025 08:14 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:me9kdlFd1h9U1@mid.individual.net...
On 21/07/2025 10:02 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
The Culture Celebration Day was presumably intended to celebrate the >>>>>> diverse cultures of children who were born in this country, intend to >>>>>> live in this country for the whole of their lives, and wish to feel >>>>>> welcome in this country.
I have now had the opportunity to read the (proposed) speech and >>>>>>> can say that there is nothing the slightest bit "offensive" about it. >>>>>>
That's a view. There's nothing in anything I've seen elsewhere to support it (and
neither should there be), but thank you for expressing it.
The Cultures being celebrated will be the cultures these children will >>>>>> often be experiencing, at home. And doubtless wish to continue
practising.
That would, to borrow a phrase, be "presumably intended" to include the writer of
the
speech.
Two extracts from the speech
quote:
But sometimes at school, we only hear about other cultures - which is great
because learning about different countries is interesting and important. >>>>>>
I think culture should be for everyone - not just for people from other countries
or backgrounds.
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvj289y788o
So that it would seem that according to the actual writer of the speech, whoever
he or she may actually be, The Culture Celebration Day should help remind these
"other" children of the fact that in fact, they're from different, foreign
countries.
Which is a "Celebration" of what, exactly ?
Have you ever heard the word "inclusive"?
If you have, do you know what it means?
Do you think it means "inclusive of some but exclusive of others"?
How exactly does emphasising the fact that some of the children originate >>>> from *other* countries, contribute to the idea of *inclusivity*
Inclusively means treating everyone, on *equal terms*
But the terms can't be equal, if *some* of the children originate from >>>> *other* countries, while others originate in *this* country*. Which is >>>> the dominant everyday culture; which all the children, already experience >>>> in their everyday lives
Whereas if the Culture Celebration Day was limited to children
originating from *other* countries, then the children would all
be on equal terms. Which would then be genuinely "inclusive".
Evasion!
Why exclude one culture?
If you check the poster, the children were supposed to wear "National
Dress"
How many children, or adults for that matter, do you know who walk aroung
in "Union Jack" outfits, as their national dress ?
I'll give you bit of a clue.
Four.
Ginger Spice, this child, BNP supporters and football hooligans.
Mind you, they all probably like a nice cup of tea.
If you read the school's social media post regarding the event, the
children were not limited to 'national dress'.
There was an alternative choice, which could well have been reflected in
the girl's outfit.
Nice try, no cigar.
--
Spike
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 13:08:38 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/07/2025 12:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Jul 2025 at 12:33:08 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 11:24:52 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 09:02 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/07/2025 15:11, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 08:24 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:37:28 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Has the recent announcement about lowering the voting age (where >>>>>>>> the fuck has this clunky "16 and 17 year old" come from ? "AI" ?) >>>>>>>> als mentioned allowing 16 year olds to stand for office as well ? >>>>>>Instead of "16 and 17 year old", why not the much more descriptive >>>>>>> "older children"?
Because once you mention children the question gets asked why are we >>>>>> giving children the vote?
They *are* children - and why is the Labour Party intending to give
them the vote?
Why not ? There are many instances around the world of enfranchised 16 >>>> year olds. Not least in Scotland and Wales. Maybe England is the
outlier here ?
Incidentally, it is His Majesties Government of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland that is proposing to introduce this law. This being a >>>> legal minded forum, accuracy is worth striving for.
And Parliament that will agree with it, or not. So not a decision of a
political party.
As it's a substantial constitutional matter, it should actually be put
to us all in a referendum. Like we had when there was a proposal to
change the voting system in 2011.
Exactly. The same way enfranchising women was put to a referendum and the lowering of the voting age to 18.
Alternatively, we could wake up, remember that our MPs are our representatives and let them do their job.
Maybe if Cameron and co. hadn't bollixed up the last referendum, there
might have been a different response.
On 23/07/2025 03:38 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The lowering of the voting age to 18 was never put to a referendum. It
was part of the 1969-ish legislation which lowered the age of majority
to 18 from 21.
On 23/07/2025 15:38, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 13:08:38 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/07/2025 12:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Jul 2025 at 12:33:08 BST, "Jethro_uk"
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 11:24:52 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 09:02 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/07/2025 15:11, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 08:24 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:37:28 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Has the recent announcement about lowering the voting age (where >>>>>>>>> the fuck has this clunky "16 and 17 year old" come from ? "AI" >>>>>>>>> ?)
als mentioned allowing 16 year olds to stand for office as well >>>>>>>>> ?
Instead of "16 and 17 year old", why not the much more
descriptive "older children"?
Because once you mention children the question gets asked why are >>>>>>> we giving children the vote?
They *are* children - and why is the Labour Party intending to give >>>>>> them the vote?
Why not ? There are many instances around the world of enfranchised
16 year olds. Not least in Scotland and Wales. Maybe England is the
outlier here ?
Incidentally, it is His Majesties Government of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland that is proposing to introduce this law. This being >>>>> a legal minded forum, accuracy is worth striving for.
And Parliament that will agree with it, or not. So not a decision of
a political party.
As it's a substantial constitutional matter, it should actually be put
to us all in a referendum. Like we had when there was a proposal to
change the voting system in 2011.
Exactly. The same way enfranchising women was put to a referendum and
the lowering of the voting age to 18.
Alternatively, we could wake up, remember that our MPs are our
representatives and let them do their job.
If there was a general move to recognise ascent to adulthood as being at
16, I'd be more inclined to agree. However, most adult rights will
remain to be granted at 18, including the ones I've mentioned, ie buying
a lottery ticket or a drink in a pub, but also getting a tattoo, getting married, being conscripted into the armed forces to die for your
country, entering into any contract, and indeed leaving full-time
education. On what basis do you think being able to vote should apply
any earlier than those? Should we really be giving important voting
rights to compulsory schoolchildren who can't do any of those?
On 23/07/2025 04:55 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 14:48:29 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/07/2025 12:42 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Jul 2025 at 12:33:08 BST, "Jethro_uk"
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 11:24:52 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 09:02 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/07/2025 15:11, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 08:24 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:37:28 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Has the recent announcement about lowering the voting age (where >>>>>>>>> the fuck has this clunky "16 and 17 year old" come from ? "AI" >>>>>>>>> ?)
als mentioned allowing 16 year olds to stand for office as well >>>>>>>>> ?
Instead of "16 and 17 year old", why not the much more
descriptive "older children"?
Because once you mention children the question gets asked why are >>>>>>> we giving children the vote?
They *are* children - and why is the Labour Party intending to give >>>>>> them the vote?
Why not ? There are many instances around the world of enfranchised
16 year olds. Not least in Scotland and Wales. Maybe England is the
outlier here ?
Incidentally, it is His Majesties Government of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland that is proposing to introduce this law. This being >>>>> a legal minded forum, accuracy is worth striving for.
And Parliament that will agree with it, or not. So not a decision of
a political party.
Sophistry.
The policy was in the Labour Party's manifesto. "Parliament" didn't
dream it up.
And it was not included because they thought it would maintain or
improve the democratic process. It is an obvious gerrymander.
Regardless, it was in the manifesto, so presumably has the legitimacy
of the will of the people.
The loveless landslide?
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 01:14:05 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/07/2025 03:38 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The lowering of the voting age to 18 was never put to a referendum. It
was part of the 1969-ish legislation which lowered the age of majority
to 18 from 21.
But you just opined that "such constitutional changes" must be put to a referendum.
Clearly not.
You may feel they should. However our entire system of government is
ranged against you.
And, frankly, given the pigs ear the government made of the last
referendum, I'm happy to never have another again.
However that is really the start of a new topic (as indeed this should
have been).
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:mecd6vFr81gU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mebvjbFp17gU1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/07/2025 08:14 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:me9kdlFd1h9U1@mid.individual.net...
On 21/07/2025 10:02 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
The Culture Celebration Day was presumably intended to celebrate the >>>>>>> diverse cultures of children who were born in this country, intend to >>>>>>> live in this country for the whole of their lives, and wish to feel >>>>>>> welcome in this country.
I have now had the opportunity to read the (proposed) speech and >>>>>>>> can say that there is nothing the slightest bit "offensive" about it. >>>>>>>
That's a view. There's nothing in anything I've seen elsewhere to support it (and
neither should there be), but thank you for expressing it.
The Cultures being celebrated will be the cultures these children will >>>>>>> often be experiencing, at home. And doubtless wish to continue
practising.
That would, to borrow a phrase, be "presumably intended" to include the writer of
the
speech.
Two extracts from the speech
quote:
But sometimes at school, we only hear about other cultures - which is great
because learning about different countries is interesting and important.
I think culture should be for everyone - not just for people from other countries
or backgrounds.
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvj289y788o
So that it would seem that according to the actual writer of the speech, whoever
he or she may actually be, The Culture Celebration Day should help remind these
"other" children of the fact that in fact, they're from different, foreign
countries.
Which is a "Celebration" of what, exactly ?
Have you ever heard the word "inclusive"?
If you have, do you know what it means?
Do you think it means "inclusive of some but exclusive of others"?
How exactly does emphasising the fact that some of the children originate >>>>> from *other* countries, contribute to the idea of *inclusivity*
Inclusively means treating everyone, on *equal terms*
But the terms can't be equal, if *some* of the children originate from >>>>> *other* countries, while others originate in *this* country*. Which is >>>>> the dominant everyday culture; which all the children, already experience >>>>> in their everyday lives
Whereas if the Culture Celebration Day was limited to children
originating from *other* countries, then the children would all
be on equal terms. Which would then be genuinely "inclusive".
Evasion!
Why exclude one culture?
If you check the poster, the children were supposed to wear "National
Dress"
How many children, or adults for that matter, do you know who walk aroung >>> in "Union Jack" outfits, as their national dress ?
I'll give you bit of a clue.
Four.
Ginger Spice, this child, BNP supporters and football hooligans.
Mind you, they all probably like a nice cup of tea.
If you read the school's social media post regarding the event, the
children were not limited to 'national dress'.
There was an alternative choice, which could well have been reflected in
the girl's outfit.
That "alternative choice" being presumably, what those who couldn't
afford to comply with the poster.
"British National Dress".
As to be found on the racks of all in all largest branches of Tosco,
Ads, and all branches of Premark.
Whereas a the "British Child" herself came all rigged out in that
"Special" outfit.
With all of its "inclusive" connotations.
Nice try, no cigar.
You're now up to a box,
bb
--
Spike
On 24/07/2025 12:05 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 01:14:05 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/07/2025 03:38 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The lowering of the voting age to 18 was never put to a referendum. It
was part of the 1969-ish legislation which lowered the age of majority
to 18 from 21.
But you just opined that "such constitutional changes" must be put to a
referendum.
No. That was someone else, though I don't disagree with it in principle.
Clearly not.
You may feel they should. However our entire system of government is
ranged against you.
And, frankly, given the pigs ear the government made of the last
referendum, I'm happy to never have another again.
Yes, that's probably how most Labour supporters think.
However that is really the start of a new topic (as indeed this should
have been).
Possibly. Perhaps we should expect a new piece of legislation nearer
the next GE, disenfranchising anyone over 60. It would not surprise me.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 01:14:05 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/07/2025 03:38 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The lowering of the voting age to 18 was never put to a referendum. It
was part of the 1969-ish legislation which lowered the age of majority
to 18 from 21.
But you just opined that "such constitutional changes" must be put to a referendum.
Clearly not.
You may feel they should. However our entire system of government is
ranged against you.
And, frankly, given the pigs ear the government made of the last
referendum, I'm happy to never have another again.
On 24/07/2025 12:05 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 01:14:05 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/07/2025 03:38 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The lowering of the voting age to 18 was never put to a referendum. It
was part of the 1969-ish legislation which lowered the age of majority
to 18 from 21.
But you just opined that "such constitutional changes" must be put to a
referendum.
No. That was someone else, though I don't disagree with it in principle.
Clearly not.
You may feel they should. However our entire system of government is
ranged against you.
And, frankly, given the pigs ear the government made of the last
referendum, I'm happy to never have another again.
Yes, that's probably how most Labour supporters think.
However that is really the start of a new topic (as indeed this should
have been).
Possibly. Perhaps we should expact a new piece of leguislation nearer
the next GE, disenfranchising anyone over 60. It would not surprise me.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 17:27:21 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/07/2025 15:38, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 13:08:38 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/07/2025 12:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Jul 2025 at 12:33:08 BST, "Jethro_uk"
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 11:24:52 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 09:02 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/07/2025 15:11, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 08:24 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:37:28 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Has the recent announcement about lowering the voting age (where >>>>>>>>>> the fuck has this clunky "16 and 17 year old" come from ? "AI" >>>>>>>>>> ?)
als mentioned allowing 16 year olds to stand for office as well >>>>>>>>>> ?
Instead of "16 and 17 year old", why not the much more
descriptive "older children"?
Because once you mention children the question gets asked why are >>>>>>>> we giving children the vote?
They *are* children - and why is the Labour Party intending to give >>>>>>> them the vote?
Why not ? There are many instances around the world of enfranchised >>>>>> 16 year olds. Not least in Scotland and Wales. Maybe England is the >>>>>> outlier here ?
Incidentally, it is His Majesties Government of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland that is proposing to introduce this law. This being >>>>>> a legal minded forum, accuracy is worth striving for.
And Parliament that will agree with it, or not. So not a decision of >>>>> a political party.
As it's a substantial constitutional matter, it should actually be put >>>> to us all in a referendum. Like we had when there was a proposal to
change the voting system in 2011.
Exactly. The same way enfranchising women was put to a referendum and
the lowering of the voting age to 18.
Alternatively, we could wake up, remember that our MPs are our
representatives and let them do their job.
If there was a general move to recognise ascent to adulthood as being at
16, I'd be more inclined to agree. However, most adult rights will
remain to be granted at 18, including the ones I've mentioned, ie buying
a lottery ticket or a drink in a pub, but also getting a tattoo, getting
married, being conscripted into the armed forces to die for your
country, entering into any contract, and indeed leaving full-time
education. On what basis do you think being able to vote should apply
any earlier than those? Should we really be giving important voting
rights to compulsory schoolchildren who can't do any of those?
Staggered age restrictions are nothing new.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 01:15:16 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/07/2025 04:55 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 14:48:29 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/07/2025 12:42 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Jul 2025 at 12:33:08 BST, "Jethro_uk"
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 11:24:52 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 09:02 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/07/2025 15:11, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 08:24 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:37:28 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Has the recent announcement about lowering the voting age (where >>>>>>>>>> the fuck has this clunky "16 and 17 year old" come from ? "AI" >>>>>>>>>> ?)
als mentioned allowing 16 year olds to stand for office as well >>>>>>>>>> ?
Instead of "16 and 17 year old", why not the much more
descriptive "older children"?
Because once you mention children the question gets asked why are >>>>>>>> we giving children the vote?
They *are* children - and why is the Labour Party intending to give >>>>>>> them the vote?
Why not ? There are many instances around the world of enfranchised >>>>>> 16 year olds. Not least in Scotland and Wales. Maybe England is the >>>>>> outlier here ?
Incidentally, it is His Majesties Government of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland that is proposing to introduce this law. This being >>>>>> a legal minded forum, accuracy is worth striving for.
And Parliament that will agree with it, or not. So not a decision of >>>>> a political party.
Sophistry.
The policy was in the Labour Party's manifesto. "Parliament" didn't
dream it up.
And it was not included because they thought it would maintain or
improve the democratic process. It is an obvious gerrymander.
Regardless, it was in the manifesto, so presumably has the legitimacy
of the will of the people.
The loveless landslide?
Call it what you will, it is what it is. A clear choice by the British
public overall that they wanted the policies put forward by the Labour manifesto.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 12:09:44 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 24/07/2025 12:05 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 01:14:05 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/07/2025 03:38 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The lowering of the voting age to 18 was never put to a referendum. It >>>> was part of the 1969-ish legislation which lowered the age of majority >>>> to 18 from 21.
But you just opined that "such constitutional changes" must be put to a
referendum.
No. That was someone else, though I don't disagree with it in principle.
Clearly not.
You may feel they should. However our entire system of government is
ranged against you.
And, frankly, given the pigs ear the government made of the last
referendum, I'm happy to never have another again.
Yes, that's probably how most Labour supporters think.
They may do. I can't say.
However that is really the start of a new topic (as indeed this should
have been).
Possibly. Perhaps we should expect a new piece of legislation nearer
the next GE, disenfranchising anyone over 60. It would not surprise me.
Was it in the manifesto ? If not it would surprise me.
On 24/07/2025 12:05 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 01:14:05 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/07/2025 03:38 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The lowering of the voting age to 18 was never put to a referendum. It
was part of the 1969-ish legislation which lowered the age of majority
to 18 from 21.
But you just opined that "such constitutional changes" must be put to a
referendum.
No. That was someone else, though I don't disagree with it in principle.
Clearly not.
You may feel they should. However our entire system of government is
ranged against you.
And, frankly, given the pigs ear the government made of the last
referendum, I'm happy to never have another again.
Yes, that's probably how most Labour supporters think.
However that is really the start of a new topic (as indeed this should
have been).
Possibly. Perhaps we should expact a new piece of leguislation nearer
the next GE, disenfranchising anyone over 60. It would not surprise me.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 17:27:21 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/07/2025 15:38, Jethro_uk wrote:
Alternatively, we could wake up, remember that our MPs are our
representatives and let them do their job.
If there was a general move to recognise ascent to adulthood as being at
16, I'd be more inclined to agree. However, most adult rights will
remain to be granted at 18, including the ones I've mentioned, ie buying
a lottery ticket or a drink in a pub, but also getting a tattoo, getting
married, being conscripted into the armed forces to die for your
country, entering into any contract, and indeed leaving full-time
education. On what basis do you think being able to vote should apply
any earlier than those? Should we really be giving important voting
rights to compulsory schoolchildren who can't do any of those?
Staggered age restrictions are nothing new.
Recent increases to 18 include prostitution, porn subjects,
sex with a step sibling, smoking, marriage.
I think what you're saying is that the last one didn't give the result
you wanted. Well, that's too bad. It was organised perfectly well, the question asked was fair, and the result was not what the government
wanted, which just goes to show how valuable and relevant it was to
determine the true will of the people.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 24/07/2025 12:05 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 01:14:05 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/07/2025 03:38 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The lowering of the voting age to 18 was never put to a referendum. It >>>> was part of the 1969-ish legislation which lowered the age of majority >>>> to 18 from 21.
But you just opined that "such constitutional changes" must be put to a
referendum.
No. That was someone else, though I don't disagree with it in principle.
Clearly not.
You may feel they should. However our entire system of government is
ranged against you.
And, frankly, given the pigs ear the government made of the last
referendum, I'm happy to never have another again.
Yes, that's probably how most Labour supporters think.
However that is really the start of a new topic (as indeed this should
have been).
Possibly. Perhaps we should expact a new piece of leguislation nearer
the next GE, disenfranchising anyone over 60. It would not surprise me.
No, no… Given the government’s record to date, that would be to disenfranchise everyone over 60, then after yet another backlash to disenfranchise only those over 60 who are not in work and not in receipt of some form of benefit/credit.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 16:07:17 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
I think what you're saying is that the last one didn't give the result
you wanted. Well, that's too bad. It was organised perfectly well, the
question asked was fair, and the result was not what the government
wanted, which just goes to show how valuable and relevant it was to
determine the true will of the people.
*Before* it was even held, I was very much (and am still minded) that a
super majority should have been built in.
No constitutional change should ever be predicated on a 2% majority.
On 24/07/2025 12:09, JNugent wrote:
On 24/07/2025 12:05 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 01:14:05 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/07/2025 03:38 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The lowering of the voting age to 18 was never put to a referendum. It >>>> was part of the 1969-ish legislation which lowered the age of majority >>>> to 18 from 21.
But you just opined that "such constitutional changes" must be put to a
referendum.
No. That was someone else, though I don't disagree with it in principle.
Clearly not.
You may feel they should. However our entire system of government is
ranged against you.
And, frankly, given the pigs ear the government made of the last
referendum, I'm happy to never have another again.
Yes, that's probably how most Labour supporters think.
However that is really the start of a new topic (as indeed this should
have been).
Possibly. Perhaps we should expact a new piece of leguislation nearer
the next GE, disenfranchising anyone over 60. It would not surprise me.
How about disenfranchising anyone who isn't a card-carrying Labour
supporter?
That would work surely?
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 16:07:17 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
I think what you're saying is that the last one didn't give the result
you wanted. Well, that's too bad. It was organised perfectly well, the
question asked was fair, and the result was not what the government
wanted, which just goes to show how valuable and relevant it was to
determine the true will of the people.
*Before* it was even held, I was very much (and am still minded) that a
super majority should have been built in.
No constitutional change should ever be predicated on a 2% majority.
On 24/07/2025 12:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 01:15:16 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/07/2025 04:55 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 14:48:29 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/07/2025 12:42 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Jul 2025 at 12:33:08 BST, "Jethro_uk"
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 11:24:52 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 09:02 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/07/2025 15:11, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 08:24 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:37:28 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Has the recent announcement about lowering the voting age >>>>>>>>>>> (where the fuck has this clunky "16 and 17 year old" come from >>>>>>>>>>> ? "AI" ?)
als mentioned allowing 16 year olds to stand for office as >>>>>>>>>>> well ?
Instead of "16 and 17 year old", why not the much more
descriptive "older children"?
Because once you mention children the question gets asked why >>>>>>>>> are we giving children the vote?
They *are* children - and why is the Labour Party intending to >>>>>>>> give them the vote?
Why not ? There are many instances around the world of
enfranchised 16 year olds. Not least in Scotland and Wales. Maybe >>>>>>> England is the outlier here ?
Incidentally, it is His Majesties Government of Great Britain and >>>>>>> Northern Ireland that is proposing to introduce this law. This
being a legal minded forum, accuracy is worth striving for.
And Parliament that will agree with it, or not. So not a decision
of a political party.
Sophistry.
The policy was in the Labour Party's manifesto. "Parliament" didn't
dream it up.
And it was not included because they thought it would maintain or
improve the democratic process. It is an obvious gerrymander.
Regardless, it was in the manifesto, so presumably has the legitimacy
of the will of the people.
The loveless landslide?
Call it what you will, it is what it is. A clear choice by the British
public overall that they wanted the policies put forward by the Labour
manifesto.
Well, 33.7% of the 'British public overall' to be accurate, or just
minutely over one in three.
Probably in the next manifesto, but in invisible ink.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 16:19:05 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/07/2025 12:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 01:15:16 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/07/2025 04:55 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 14:48:29 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/07/2025 12:42 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Jul 2025 at 12:33:08 BST, "Jethro_uk"
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 11:24:52 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 09:02 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/07/2025 15:11, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2025 08:24 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:37:28 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:
Vote for Courtney Wright in 4 years time!!
Has the recent announcement about lowering the voting age >>>>>>>>>>>> (where the fuck has this clunky "16 and 17 year old" come from >>>>>>>>>>>> ? "AI" ?)
als mentioned allowing 16 year olds to stand for office as >>>>>>>>>>>> well ?
Instead of "16 and 17 year old", why not the much more
descriptive "older children"?
Because once you mention children the question gets asked why >>>>>>>>>> are we giving children the vote?
They *are* children - and why is the Labour Party intending to >>>>>>>>> give them the vote?
Why not ? There are many instances around the world of
enfranchised 16 year olds. Not least in Scotland and Wales. Maybe >>>>>>>> England is the outlier here ?
Incidentally, it is His Majesties Government of Great Britain and >>>>>>>> Northern Ireland that is proposing to introduce this law. This >>>>>>>> being a legal minded forum, accuracy is worth striving for.
And Parliament that will agree with it, or not. So not a decision >>>>>>> of a political party.
Sophistry.
The policy was in the Labour Party's manifesto. "Parliament" didn't >>>>>> dream it up.
And it was not included because they thought it would maintain or
improve the democratic process. It is an obvious gerrymander.
Regardless, it was in the manifesto, so presumably has the legitimacy >>>>> of the will of the people.
The loveless landslide?
Call it what you will, it is what it is. A clear choice by the British
public overall that they wanted the policies put forward by the Labour
manifesto.
Well, 33.7% of the 'British public overall' to be accurate, or just
minutely over one in three.
To which you add the 30% who didn't vote and so are happy with this
outcome (as they would have been with any other).
On 24/07/2025 12:05 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 01:14:05 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/07/2025 03:38 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The lowering of the voting age to 18 was never put to a referendum. It
was part of the 1969-ish legislation which lowered the age of majority
to 18 from 21.
But you just opined that "such constitutional changes" must be put to a
referendum.
No. That was someone else, though I don't disagree with it in principle.
Clearly not.
You may feel they should. However our entire system of government is
ranged against you.
And, frankly, given the pigs ear the government made of the last
referendum, I'm happy to never have another again.
Yes, that's probably how most Labour supporters think.
However that is really the start of a new topic (as indeed this should
have been).
Possibly. Perhaps we should expact a new piece of leguislation nearer
the next GE, disenfranchising anyone over 60. It would not surprise me.
On 24/07/2025 20:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No. Those who didn't vote didn't express any 'clear choice' at all, did they?
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 07:52:26 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/07/2025 20:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No. Those who didn't vote didn't express any 'clear choice' at all, did
they?
Not voting is the clearest possible way of saying you are happy with
whatever the outcome the election delivers.
Because otherwise ... you would have voted.
It's faintly amusing the quantum state non-voters exist in. When it suits
the arguments purpose they are including in the "for" column. However in
the same discussion they can simultaneously be used to argue that "these people didn't vote for it".
It's pure cakeism.
On 25/07/2025 12:17, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 07:52:26 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/07/2025 20:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No. Those who didn't vote didn't express any 'clear choice' at all, did >>> they?
Not voting is the clearest possible way of saying you are happy with
whatever the outcome the election delivers.
Not at all. It means the complete opposite - you are not happy whatever
the outcome because you haven't been asked for your specific input on
matters you are interested in for the election:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 07:52:26 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/07/2025 20:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No. Those who didn't vote didn't express any 'clear choice' at all,
did they?
Not voting is the clearest possible way of saying you are happy with
whatever the outcome the election delivers.
Because otherwise ... you would have voted.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 07:52:26 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/07/2025 20:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No. Those who didn't vote didn't express any 'clear choice' at all, did
they?
Not voting is the clearest possible way of saying you are happy with
whatever the outcome the election delivers.
Because otherwise ... you would have voted.
It's faintly amusing the quantum state non-voters exist in. When it suits
the arguments purpose they are including in the "for" column. However in
the same discussion they can simultaneously be used to argue that "these people didn't vote for it".
It's pure cakeism.
On 24/07/2025 12:09, JNugent wrote:
On 24/07/2025 12:05 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 01:14:05 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/07/2025 03:38 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The lowering of the voting age to 18 was never put to a referendum. It >>>> was part of the 1969-ish legislation which lowered the age of majority >>>> to 18 from 21.
But you just opined that "such constitutional changes" must be put to a
referendum.
No. That was someone else, though I don't disagree with it in principle.
Clearly not.
You may feel they should. However our entire system of government is
ranged against you.
And, frankly, given the pigs ear the government made of the last
referendum, I'm happy to never have another again.
Yes, that's probably how most Labour supporters think.
However that is really the start of a new topic (as indeed this should
have been).
Possibly. Perhaps we should [expect] a new piece of leguislation nearer
the next GE, disenfranchising anyone over 60. It would not surprise me.
Since they wouldn't need to buy the votes of oldies, they could cancel
the bus pass, free prescriptions, pensions, and, hell, go full Soylent
Green.
On 25/07/2025 12:17, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 07:52:26 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/07/2025 20:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No. Those who didn't vote didn't express any 'clear choice' at all, did >>> they?
Not voting is the clearest possible way of saying you are happy with
whatever the outcome the election delivers.
Not at all. It means the complete opposite - you are not happy whatever
the outcome because you haven't been asked for your specific input on
matters you are interested in for the election:
~ A manifesto which can be counted on to be ignored when the party
concerned comes to power and whatever they told you to get your vote
doesn't suit them now.
~ An MP who decides to change their mind and either loses the whip or
crosses the House and will vote for the complete opposite of what was in
the manifesto. Not exactly satisfactory if it's /your/ MP, is it?
~ MPs of any party who get the result of a referendum and put everything possible in the way of not following the *democratic* majority in that referendum.
Because otherwise ... you would have voted.
See above.
It's faintly amusing the quantum state non-voters exist in. When it suits
the arguments purpose they are including in the "for" column. However in
the same discussion they can simultaneously be used to argue that "these
people didn't vote for it".
It's pure cakeism.
You're missing the point in that almost every time we don't know what
we're voting for other than "a Party". Unless, of course, you believe
what you've been told in the manifesto and political speeches.
On 2025-07-25, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 25/07/2025 12:17, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 07:52:26 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/07/2025 20:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No. Those who didn't vote didn't express any 'clear choice' at all, did >>>> they?
Not voting is the clearest possible way of saying you are happy with
whatever the outcome the election delivers.
Not at all. It means the complete opposite - you are not happy whatever
the outcome because you haven't been asked for your specific input on
matters you are interested in for the election:
Spoil your ballot paper then.
Not voting at all cannot send any other message than that you don't care...
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 07:52:26 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/07/2025 20:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No. Those who didn't vote didn't express any 'clear choice' at all, did
they?
Not voting is the clearest possible way of saying you are happy with
whatever the outcome the election delivers.
Because otherwise ... you would have voted.
It's faintly amusing the quantum state non-voters exist in. When it suits
the arguments purpose they are including in the "for" column. However in
the same discussion they can simultaneously be used to argue that "these >people didn't vote for it".
It's pure cakeism.
On 2025-07-25, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 25/07/2025 12:17, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 07:52:26 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/07/2025 20:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No. Those who didn't vote didn't express any 'clear choice' at all, did >>>> they?
Not voting is the clearest possible way of saying you are happy with
whatever the outcome the election delivers.
Not at all. It means the complete opposite - you are not happy whatever
the outcome because you haven't been asked for your specific input on
matters you are interested in for the election:
Spoil your ballot paper then.
Not voting at all cannot send any other message than that you don't care.
On 2025-07-25, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 25/07/2025 12:17, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 07:52:26 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/07/2025 20:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No. Those who didn't vote didn't express any 'clear choice' at all, did >>>> they?
Not voting is the clearest possible way of saying you are happy with
whatever the outcome the election delivers.
Not at all. It means the complete opposite - you are not happy whatever
the outcome because you haven't been asked for your specific input on
matters you are interested in for the election:
Spoil your ballot paper then.
Not voting at all cannot send any other message than that you don't care.
[1] I didn't vote in the 1997 general election, the year of Tony Blair's landslide, for that reason. My employer sent me to Belgium at short
notice because the Brussels office was unexpectedly short staffed, so I missed the election. I probably could have arranged a proxy vote, but I didn't really have time.
On 25/07/2025 20:06, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-25, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 25/07/2025 12:17, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 07:52:26 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/07/2025 20:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No. Those who didn't vote didn't express any 'clear choice' at all, did >>>>> they?
Not voting is the clearest possible way of saying you are happy with
whatever the outcome the election delivers.
Not at all. It means the complete opposite - you are not happy whatever
the outcome because you haven't been asked for your specific input on
matters you are interested in for the election:
Spoil your ballot paper then.
Why bother? If I do it means that I have taken part in the voting system
and therefore agree with how it works, at least to some extent.
The Australian system of compulsory voting (actually, compulsory
attendance) is amusing. You force people to go to a voting station, but
they don't have to vote once they get there. Isn't that rather
pointless? All it can do is point to a high turnout, and one that is artificially high.
Not voting at all cannot send any other message than that you don't care.
No, you've ignored my reply to Jethro. It mean I *do* care, and enough
to not wish to take part in a barely-democratic system.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 22:28:54 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
[1] I didn't vote in the 1997 general election, the year of Tony Blair's
landslide, for that reason. My employer sent me to Belgium at short
notice because the Brussels office was unexpectedly short staffed, so I
missed the election. I probably could have arranged a proxy vote, but I
didn't really have time.
Proving the fact that a vote is utterly worthless.
On 25/07/2025 08:06 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-25, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 25/07/2025 12:17, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 07:52:26 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/07/2025 20:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No. Those who didn't vote didn't express any 'clear choice' at all, >>>>> did they?
Not voting is the clearest possible way of saying you are happy with
whatever the outcome the election delivers.
Not at all. It means the complete opposite - you are not happy
whatever the outcome because you haven't been asked for your specific
input on matters you are interested in for the election:
Spoil your ballot paper then.
Not voting at all cannot send any other message than that you don't
care...
...or that your preferred party does not have a dog in the race.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 10:34:34 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Not all votes are worthless.
On 2025-07-26, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 13:13:27 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 10:34:34 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Not all votes are worthless.
What is the compensation for person who was unable to vote due to
official incompetence ?
£0
So worthless. (And therefore not actionable).
Have you ever heard the expression "knows the price of everything,
and the value of nothing"?
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 13:13:27 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 10:34:34 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Not all votes are worthless.
What is the compensation for person who was unable to vote due to
official incompetence ?
£0
So worthless. (And therefore not actionable).
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 15:52:55 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-26, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 13:13:27 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 10:34:34 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Not all votes are worthless.
What is the compensation for person who was unable to vote due to
official incompetence ?
£0
So worthless. (And therefore not actionable).
Have you ever heard the expression "knows the price of everything,
and the value of nothing"?
Harold Macmillan would be 131.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 22:13:13 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 25/07/2025 08:06 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-25, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 25/07/2025 12:17, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 07:52:26 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/07/2025 20:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No. Those who didn't vote didn't express any 'clear choice' at all, >>>>>> did they?
Not voting is the clearest possible way of saying you are happy with >>>>> whatever the outcome the election delivers.
Not at all. It means the complete opposite - you are not happy
whatever the outcome because you haven't been asked for your specific
input on matters you are interested in for the election:
Spoil your ballot paper then.
Not voting at all cannot send any other message than that you don't
care...
...or that your preferred party does not have a dog in the race.
In that case form it. If you are sitting around waiting for your perfect candidate then you are a "ends in 'ing' idiot".
On 2025-07-26, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 15:52:55 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-26, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 13:13:27 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 10:34:34 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Not all votes are worthless.
What is the compensation for person who was unable to vote due to
official incompetence ?
£0
So worthless. (And therefore not actionable).
Have you ever heard the expression "knows the price of everything,
and the value of nothing"?
Harold Macmillan would be 131.
Oscar Wilde would be 170.
On 24/07/2025 12:09, JNugent wrote:
On 24/07/2025 12:05 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 01:14:05 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/07/2025 03:38 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The lowering of the voting age to 18 was never put to a referendum. It >>>> was part of the 1969-ish legislation which lowered the age of majority >>>> to 18 from 21.
But you just opined that "such constitutional changes" must be put to a
referendum.
No. That was someone else, though I don't disagree with it in principle.
Clearly not.
You may feel they should. However our entire system of government is
ranged against you.
And, frankly, given the pigs ear the government made of the last
referendum, I'm happy to never have another again.
Yes, that's probably how most Labour supporters think.
However that is really the start of a new topic (as indeed this should
have been).
Possibly. Perhaps we should expact a new piece of leguislation nearer
the next GE, disenfranchising anyone over 60. It would not surprise me.
Since they wouldn't need to buy the votes of oldies, they could cancel
the bus pass, free prescriptions, pensions, and, hell, go full Soylent
Green.
On 25/07/2025 12:28 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 24/07/2025 12:09, JNugent wrote:
Possibly. Perhaps we should [expect] a new piece of leguislation nearer
the next GE, disenfranchising anyone over 60. It would not surprise me.
Since they wouldn't need to buy the votes of oldies, they could cancel
the bus pass, free prescriptions, pensions, and, hell, go full Soylent
Green.
We all know that Labour wants to!
Look at the scare story they've floated today.
On 25/07/2025 16:27, JNugent wrote:
On 25/07/2025 12:28 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 24/07/2025 12:09, JNugent wrote:
Possibly. Perhaps we should [expect] a new piece of leguislation nearer >>>> the next GE, disenfranchising anyone over 60. It would not surprise me.
Since they wouldn't need to buy the votes of oldies, they could cancel
the bus pass, free prescriptions, pensions, and, hell, go full Soylent
Green.
We all know that Labour wants to!
Look at the scare story they've floated today.
Which particular "scare story" are you thinking of?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:44:08 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,835 |
| Posted today: | 1 |