From: punditster@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/13/2026 6:23 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   > On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 11:00:46 +0000, Julian    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> I launched the Votes at 12 campaign to lampoon the madness of   
   >> enfranchising young teenagers   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> “Did you know that at age 12 you can have your ears pierced, you’re   
   >> legally allowed to buy a spoon, but you’re not allowed to vote for your   
   >> future?” These were the words with which I launched the Votes at 12   
   >> campaign, eight years ago. It was born out of frustration and   
   >> procrastination. As a student at the end of January 2018, I sat aghast   
   >> watching Emily Thornberry stand in for Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn at   
   >> Prime Ministers’ Questions.   
   >>   
   >> Readers may remember the crises the country was struggling through at   
   >> that time: the wake of the disastrous 2017 election, a hung Parliament,   
   >> Brexit gridlock. And yet, Dame Emily decided, again and again, to throw   
   >> the issue of lowering the voting age to 16 across the dispatch box at de   
   >> facto deputy PM David Lidington. Seriously.   
   >>   
   >> Instead of finishing some essay or other, I quickly registered a   
   >> website, had a couple of t-shirts printed, grabbed my camera and decided   
   >> to turn the satire up to 11. Now, nearly a decade later, I’m tempted to   
   >> re-start my campaign. This week MPs will vote on what was once fantasy   
   >> Corbyn-era policy becoming a reality. But as was the case back in 2018,   
   >> the arguments in favour of lowering the franchise to include children   
   >> are astonishingly thin; so thin that almost all of them can be applied   
   >> to 12-year-olds too.   
   >>   
   >> Kids aged 12 aren’t allowed to buy alcohol, fireworks, or lottery   
   >> tickets. They are not allowed to drive, fight for their country, marry   
   >> without permission, sign a contract, leave education or some form of   
   >> training, watch pornography, or serve on a jury. Remarkably, society has   
   >> decided that all of these age-based prohibitions should apply to   
   >> 16-year-olds as well. So if 16, why not 12?   
   >>   
   >> It’s not as if society in any other sphere treats 16-year-olds as   
   >> adults. In fact, law after law has been passed to raise the bar for   
   >> participating in society from 16 to 18. The Education and Skills Act   
   >> (2008) legislated to end the absolute right of children to leave school   
   >> at the age of 16. Instead, since 2013, young people had to remain in   
   >> education or training until the end of the academic year in which they   
   >> turned 17. In 2015 this was tightened up to 18.   
   >>   
   >> Under Rishi Sunak, the legal age for marriage rose to 18 (in England and   
   >> Wales it had previously been legal from 16, but only with parental   
   >> consent) after a brave campaign from victims of forced child-marriage.   
   >> The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as updated this century,   
   >> has outlawed the use of child soldiers, forbidding participation in   
   >> hostilities by anyone under the age of 18.   
   >>   
   >> And most recently, of course, the free and open internet has been   
   >> blocked to anyone under the age of 18 (and for that matter any adult who   
   >> doesn’t want to hand over age identifying credit card details or webcam   
   >> face scans), meaning that huge portions of the internet are now blocked   
   >>from view for the very people the Government now wants to give the vote.   
   >>   
   >> Most astonishingly, this censorship has extended to war reporting from   
   >> Ukraine and Gaza, court transcripts from rape gang trials, and even a   
   >> parliamentary speech by Tory MP Katie Lam. All of this is too graphic   
   >> for the delicate ears and eyes of 16 and 17-year-olds, according to   
   >> Parliament.   
   >>   
   >> In fact it seems that the only real responsibility that lowering the   
   >> franchise to 16 would match is the age of sexual consent, which is the   
   >> outlier, not the norm (and to be honest a quite creepy right to peg our   
   >> voting age to). There once was a time when campaigners for giving   
   >> 16-year-olds the vote used the slightly lurid slogan, “You can have sex   
   >> with your MP but not vote for him”. Strangely, they quietly dropped that   
   >> one in the post #MeToo world.   
   >>   
   >> Today, just like eight years ago, the country is in a rut. While we’re   
   >> no longer living under the instability of a hung parliament, it sure   
   >> feels like we are. Today’s growth statistics were so abysmal that, in   
   >> per capita terms, they would constitute a technical recession at the end   
   >> of last year.   
   >>   
   >> The Starmer ministry is collapsing around him, and Britain can’t even   
   >> rule the waves of the English Channel. And yet what are our MPs devoting   
   >> their time and energy today? They want to give kids the vote. They are   
   >> fiddling with children’s enfranchisement while Rome burns.   
   >>   
   >> Tom Harwood   
   >>   
   >>   
   > Crazy people are fun, and brits are simply so very crazy...   
    >   
   Don't you just love those Brits and Canadians!   
      
   The legal age of consent for sexual activity in Canada is 16 years old.   
      
   However, there are exceptions and some close in restrictions: 14- or   
   15-year-olds can consent to sex with a partner no more than 5 years   
   older. 12- or 13-year-olds can consent with a partner no more than 2   
   years older.   
      
   Even Robert Ripley couldn't make this stuff up!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)