Age is just a number?

Okay I have edited the text and as promised its now free of any dodgy highlighter!

Age is just a number?

The eighteenth birthday. A coming of age that represents many things in modern-day Britain, from the customary booze up, to being able to get a tattoo. But many responsibilities that we are handed in life are thrown at us long before we enter adulthood.

When we pass the magical time barrier from seventeen to eighteen  only then are we deemed suitable to make the decision of who the prime minister is, because when we are a ‘child’ the choices that we can make are not important are they? It’s not as if driving could put some one’s life in danger, or being responsible for a new born baby? Forgive me for proposing the idea that we have had any possible experiences of responsibility before we are eighteen. The potential that we are given in the later part of our mid-teens make the ones at eighteen pale into insignificance. At sixteen you can be responsible for your own medical decisions, including whether or not to have an abortion.   When you are eighteen you can change your name by deed poll. That really helps to put the Government’s priorities into order.

 When we are ‘children’, we are offered more legal options that put others’ lives at risk, such as driving, than our own when we are eighteen. Maybe we should take it as a compliment, that we are viewed as mature enough. Or maybe it’s just easier for the law to pass the blame back to us if we go wrong. Also it appears to be fine for us to pay a full adult fare or price, sometimes from as young as seven years old. Then we are seen as old enough to be considered an adult; although a few companies have seen the light, VUE cinema offer a cheaper ticket for 13 to 18 years old and it’s cheaper than the student card. It’s good to see that someone out there understands us.

The public perception of teenagers does not help. The media is swarming with new stories of either the perfect model child that achieved 20 A* GCSEs, and still manage to read the newspaper to old Mrs Jones down the street and whilst doing their GCSEs they resuscitated an invigilator.  The other portrait is just as much of a turn off, a hoodlum that has no respect for their ‘elders and betters’. The news informs us that it’s a common sight to see them desecrate a war memorial and ignorant of anything that isn’t on the internet. There is a high chance that they will also be whiny and screech “You don’t understand!” and have never done an honest day’s work in their life, or use swear words as adjectives in ordinary conversation where unnecessary. Being honest there is the occasional person who is genuinely like this and they reinforce a stereotype that results in the rest of us being tarred with the same brush. If we allow ourselves to be portrayed as emotional or irresponsible, we will never be taken seriously enough to get support from over eighteens.

Another irksome fact is that in the last year the court of human rights decided that some prisoners are to be granted the right to vote. Why are they going to be given this privilege when we, who have done nothing wrong are denied what is surely a basic right? It may be the case that there are people who have been falsely imprisoned due to legal anomalies or offenders who have reformed, but the majority of inmates are justifiably convicted and imprisoned. However by gaining suffrage criminals may potentially opt for policies that hasten their release rather than support the greater good of the nation.

Two of the major parties here in the UK support lowering the voting age, both the Liberal Democrats and Labour featured lowering the age to 16 in their education policy manifestos in 2010. From as early as 2002 Nick Clegg’s predecessor Charles Kennedy proposed the idea that if a sixteen year old had a baby surely they should be able to vote for the future of their child. In December 2003 the former Lord Chancellor Falconer reinforced the appeal. In 2006 Labour dismissed the appeal, stating that the electoral commission decided that there were other more pressing issues to be resolved. This shows that although there are some politicians fighting our corner, the issue seems to disappear as quickly as it appears. It could almost be said that they are simply paying us lip service to keep us from having one of our tantrums that we are so often accused of. And to add insult to injury some argue that we are not psychologically mature enough and suggest the voting age should be raised to twenty one! It seems we have regressed back to times when people were denied the vote because of class, race or gender. This is a mass over looked form of ageism; would someone of the age of sixty five be denied suffrage because they could possibly retire, no they would not!

Of all the eligible voters from the ages of eighteen to twenty four only 44% voted, so I can understand why politicians question the reason why we are asking to vote, but do they ever think that it could be because they have been put off after years of being told no?

 

Voting age

Hi all,
Recently I have been thinking about the voting age (again !) and so the following happened as a part of my CW... sorry about the text boxes, highlighter and lack of image, I will sort that out later, just let me know what you think for now please!

The eighteenth birthday. A coming of age that represents many things in modern-day Britain, from the customary booze up to being able to get a tattoo. But many responsibilities that we are handed in life are thrown at us long before we enter adulthood.

When we pass the magical time barrier from seventeen to eighteen  only then are we deemed suitable to make the decision of who the prime minister is, because when we are a ‘child’ the choices that we can make are not important are they? It’s not as if driving could put some one’s life in danger? Or being responsible for a new born baby. Or being taught how to fire a gun. Forgive me for proposing this idea that we have had any possible experiences of responsibility until we are eighteen. The potential that we are given at the later part of our mid-teens make the ones at eighteen pale into insignificance. At sixteen you can be responsible for your own medical decisions, including whether or not to have an abortion, at eighteen change your name by deed poll. That really helps to put the Government’s priorities into clear view to us, when we are children we are offered more legal options that put others’ lives at risk than our own at eighteen. Maybe we should take it as a compliment, that we are viewed as mature enough. Or maybe it’s just easier for the law to pass the blame back to us. Also it’s fine for us to pay a full adult fare, sometimes from as young as seven years old, a few companies have seen the light, VUE cinema offer a cheaper ticket for 13 to 18 years old and it’s cheaper than the student card. It’s good to see that someone out there understands us.

The public perception of teenager does not help, the media swarms the news with either the perfect model child that achieved 20 A* GCSEs, and still manage to read the newspaper to old Mrs Jones down the street, oh and whilst doing their GCSEs they resuscitated an invigilator.  The other portrait is just as much of a turn off, a hoodlum that has no respect for their ‘elders and betters’, the news informs us that it’s a common sight to see them defecating a war memorial and ignorant of anything that isn’t on the internet. There is a high chance that they will also be whiny and screech “You don’t understand!” and have never done an honest day’s work in their life or use swear words as adjectives in ordinary conversation where unnecessary. Being honest there is the occasional person who is genuinely like this and they reinforce a stereotype that results in the rest of us in between people being tarred with the same brush. If we are being portrayed as emotional or irresponsible you can see why we are not taken seriously enough to get support from over eighteens.

Another irksome fact is that in the last year the court of human rights decided that some prisoners are to be granted the right to vote. Why are they given this privilege rather when, we who have done nothing wrong, are denied what is surely a basic right. I do comprehend that there are people who have been sent under false charges due to legal ammonites or may have reformed but to be in prison they must have done something to flout the legal system. However by gaining suffrage they could potentially just go for the option that means they get out of prison fastest and therefore putting our security at peril.

Two of the major parties here in the UK support lowering the age, both the Liberal Democrats and Labour featured lowering the age to 16 in their education policy manifestos in 2010. From as early as 2002 Nick Cleggs predecessor Charles Kennedy proposed the idea that if a sixteen year old had a baby surely they should be able to vote for the future of their child. In December 2003 the former Lord Chancellor Falconer reinforced the appeal for Labour to dismiss the appeal in 2006 stating that the electoral commission decided that there were more pressing issues. This shows that although there are some politicians fighting our corner the issue seems to disappear as soon as it appears, it could almost be said that they are simply paying us lip service to keep us from having one of our tantrums that we are so often accused of. And to add insult to injury some even argue that we are not psychologically mature enough so it should be made higher with the old age of twenty one! Have we regressed back to times when people were denied the vote because of class, race or gender, this is a mass over looked form of ageism; would someone of the age of sixty five be denied suffrage because they could possibly retire, no they would not!

I do understand the counter argument, of all the eligible voters from the ages of eighteen to twenty four only 44% turned up so when politician’s why they question the reason why we are asking to vote l can understand, but do they ever think that it could be because they have been put off after years of being told no?

Crucially the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, after being requested by the governments Power Commission conducted a review to attempt to derive why voting turnout was at an all-time low. The results were published in a report in February 2006.   During the report they suggest that making the age sixteen would help, to contradict a possible dismissal by politicians they included the following statement “we have also heard the claim that reducing the voting age to 16 will drive down turnout figures as the youngest age groups have the lowest turnouts. This argument suggests that a significant reform should be rejected on the grounds that its results may embarrass politicians and reinforce the widespread view that the party and electoral system are disliked. This cannot be accepted by the Commission as an adequate reason to reject reform.” This comes from a group that has made radical changes in the past for the better in our country; it was because of Rowntree and other trusts in the past that we have such a strong moral country and health system.  Therefore was of our most erudite trusts in Britain at this time is plainly telling the government that there is cause for change. Surely this cannot be dismissed after all the learned trust has done to better our standard of life?  

 So to who ever said that age is just a number was clearly lying when it comes to Britain, where even convicted criminals score higher than teenagers when it comes to political rights.