Out, apparently, doesn't mean Out

[Tom Joad]

What does Wikipedia say Lilly

See if you wait long enough another bus will come round.

Tom

[Flame Lily FX]

Aw.. you're hurtin' my feelings. I need to find a safe space. *Triggered*

[Tom Joad]

Another Queen moves

Tom

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

She probably became a politician.

Nope.
She became the U15 hockey Captain (my team), the First XI Captain, and Head Girl. Last time I met her, when she was 25, she was running her own import/export business, and driving a shiny new car.

[Flame Lily FX]

There, there, Tom!

Font off!

[Tom Joad]

That sounds like a line from Forest Gump. The girl did well Fox and who says the youth are snowflakes.

Tom

[Tom Joad]

Lilly, I think instead of Chess your skills may be better challenged on Tiddly Winks. Check Wikipedia for the rules.

Tom

[BackToAllNightLights]

substantial re-negotiation of the UK's terms of membership and possibly of the EU's modus operandi

Brexit indeed might not happen but neither will the above.
The lunatics running the place are too far up their own arses to ever think they are wrong.
And, better terms for Britain would mean better terms for all the others, and that is never going to happen.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Well, as I think I've said before, the ones who come out of small boarding schools having done lots of sports and activities, with good discipline, aren't snowflakes.
Sadly, even in such institutions, I am told by colleagues who remain that traces of snowflakery are creeping in. The decreasing level of all three of the above factors appears to be the cause, not least because of the ever-increasing proportion of female teachers who aren't prepared to put the time in that the male staff do.
How's it North of the Wall, Tom?

[Tom Joad]

Fox, we knock any signs of snowflakery out of their heads by age of 7. Scottish kids got to get used to horizontal rain, hail, sleat and snow if they are going to stand a chance at the summer sports day.

Tom

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Summer??? When did you last have one of those, 1863? The Cretaceous?

[Tom Joad]

Nope it was a little earlier, around 1345 pm, promptly followed by the other three seasons before tea

Tom

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

"Winter is com...ooh, that was quick!"

[ian16th]

Can't delete it.

But edited it to nowt!

[ian16th]

Ian:

Lily,
Sorry, but my RR Avon damaged ears could not understand the garbled words through my cheap Logitech speakers.

From the comments between your post and mine, I take it that somewhere in the words; that were chosen because of their rhyme or how they fitted the rhythm of the music; there was some sort of message that implies that my opinion is incorrect because I am misinformed, I lack information, or has less value than someone who resides in or has resided the UK more recently than I.

In this age of satellite TV and Internet communications, to say nothing of people and mail travelling by jet a/c, I can only find this argument facetious.

Being retired, I have time on my hands, many of my peers do lots of travelling and being aware that I am not exactly hard up they are surprised that my wife & I don't partake of this pastime. But during virtually the whole of my working life, travel was part of the job, and the glamour of being a member of 'the jet set' and staying in hotels, wore off years ago. After six weeks or so, a 4* hotel room takes on the characteristics of a prison cell. I don't want to start an 'I've been to more places than you' competition, but I have been to many countries and seen many things. In most cases I have worked with the locals, not just spoken to the Hotel receptionists and waiters.

I may not travel much these days but I do use the Internet and I exchange views and opinions on forums such as this, and several others.

I was not, and so far have not been banned from TOP, I came here because I wanted to. Even more, as Alison was quietly creating this forum; as I know how, in parallel I created a Yahoo Mailing List. Because of the instant popularity of this forum, I closed down the Mailing List, it never exceeded 3 members. Yahoo Mailing List's are not as user friendly as this type of forum is, but I am the Owner and/or Moderator of 4 such Mailing Lists and a member of 2 others. Via these I am in daily communications with many people of different background, ages, interests, professions and nationalities.

As I am aware that different editors and publishers will give a 'slant' to the news, I don't take any report as gospel and most days I read the online versions of The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Mail and The Middlesbrough Evening Gazette, I used to read The Northern Echo but it has gone behind a pay wall.

My satellite TV channels include Sky News, BBC World, CNN and even Aljazeera and Russia Today.

All this, I believe make me more and better informed about the worlds affairs than at any other time in my life.

If you wish to hold a different opinion; so be it.

[ian16th]

I used to think it was the right thing to lower the voting age, now I'm not so sure.

Tom

And then Cape said:

It's not just about age but there need to be qualifications to vote, based on education and achievement.

As one that had a poor education and did not enjoy the privilege of voting until I was 21, my 1st tendency is to put forward the case for qualified voting.

But, and isn't there always a but or even two?

Who draws the lines and what i/p is given to the decision making?

The certified insane are pretty obvious candidates for exclusion from the Voters Roll; I personally think that the inmates of HM Prisons should be excluded, but this is not a universal opinion.

I would be aggrieved if I was excluded because I did not even take an exam for a School Certificate/GCE.

I have heard the case that only registered Income Tax payers should qualify.

Please discuss.

[Capetonian]

It is a complex issue and lack of academic education and paper qualifications should certainly not be an excluding factor. What is needed is an awareness of what is being voted for and the consequences thereof, and education alone is not a factor in that. Of course this is only a pipe dream, but the franchise to vote should be based on what a person has achieved and I suppose being a taxpayer is to some extent a determinant of that. Idle useless layabouts who sit and watch Jeremy Vile whilst necking cheap lager and filling their fat faces with pies and MuckDonalds should be excluded (prefersbly from the gene pool, not just from voting.)

I realise that some of you may find this view a bit liberal!

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

One could work backwards from what (eventually) tends to go wrong with democracy.

Lazy people will always vote for free stuff - remove the right to vote from those on benefits that haven't contributed (or contributed enough) to the tax system.

Criminals will vote for a system which fails to deal effectively* with their kind of crime - remove the right to vote from criminals (in prison), and ex-cons after 'x' crimes (e.g. 3 strikes = 'career' criminal)

Stupid (and Insane) people will not vote logically - I'm not talking opinions, I mean voting for a party that will not do what the voter says they want. Problem is, schools do not teach the politics or economics that would enable this to be tested. This is deliberate. No current political party wants a public able to work through their arguments carefully and find all the holes. Compulsory citizenship courses contain nothing on how to decide who rules one, just how they rule one. So, at present, one is unable to determine who is stupid (i.e.mentally incapable of sufficient logic to make sound decisions), who is wilfully ignorant, who is ignorant, and who is capable. Academic qualifications currently do not provide ANY clear indication of who votes intelligently.

One should also remove the vote from all addicts - same arguments as lazy & stupid.

Immoral people will not vote to preserve the democratic rights of others++. This is the biggest problem, as it involves religion and principles. At the most basic level, this should ban all muslims from voting, as they advocate Sharia. One can also exclude some of the fringe Christian groups that don't allow universal suffrage and democracy to decide the Laws, such as the Mormons. It is logically insane to allow a mechanism for a system to permanently destroy itself.

Cowardly people will not defend democracy against external or internal threats. F#ck knows how you police this. One thing you can't have is the cowardly finding a way to force the brave not to fight (effectively). Sadly, this is the way Europe is headed.

*They want a system that[i] purports to work, as this provides cover, but not one that actually works. Recreational drug enforcement is a good example.

++That's assuming democracy is regarded as moral.[/i]

[Tom Joad]

I have heard the case that only registered Income Tax payers should qualify.

Please discuss.

I tend to agree with a lot of what you have said Ian, particularly re registered Tax payers - there would of course need to be one of your buts here to protect those who are non tax payers for genuine reasons.

In so far as a qualification bar is concerned - I think there is a definite case for such to be applied to MPs themselves. I'd also like to see a minimum age limit of 30 years. That way we may ensure that MPs have actually worked in the real world for a while.

Tom

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I'd also like to see a minimum age limit of 30 years.

Most of the career politicians work as researchers, SpAds and other non-jobs till after this age anyway. Corbyn was first elected at age 34. A better mechanism than age is needed, I feel.