Wanting the age for being an adult to be lowered from age 18 in all countries

I don't think there is anything wrong with working as soon as u can,and maybe it makes people mature. Think too much is put on people to go to university. And like colleges,universities from what i've seen make them close minded,particularly politically(all think the same way judged on no life experience!). Maybe doing dead end jobs to pay bills teaches responsibility,where getting learing debts causes all the problems of 'anxieties' they all seem to have. Or staying in a hostel cos ur homeless is a good way to see how some people have it. 

They also say they are so open minded,yet never accept any other point of view is one thing!

Agree with everything but last sentence,21 maybe! Lol

The voting age in Scotland for council and Scottish Parliamentry elections is 16,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33173488

The word ' wise ' is the last word I would associate with the whole of Brexit. Hysterical or fear maybe  better words.

Peter said:

But I don’t think it was because they carefully weighed the options with a full understanding of the diplomatic, economic and legal implications.

You're getting closer. 

Peter said:

I think it had a lot more to do with the culture they espoused and their identity as British rather than european.

I would change the words " they espoused " to ' the information and propaganda they choose to sign up to time and time again without any critical thought.

Peter said:

Not all decisions boil Down to simple objective  cost benefit analysis.

Definitely not, especially when they are never spoke or written about in the places people choose to get their information from. If people are driven by fear, then fear is what the propaganda they read will feed them. There is no analysis, cost benefit, or any other sensible, logical or moral considerations needed for fear propaganda. They don't deal with detail, they deal in simple slogans and repeat them over years and decades. Bit like Farage, that multi- millionaire, supported by billionaires, who play the common bloke down the British pub, *** smoking, Barber Jacket, Range Rover,  who's fighting the establishment, yet flys to EU meetings on a private jet. Lol.

The adult brain doesn't stop developing until around 25 so I disagree. I don't believe one is automatically an adult because of their age and honestly the law should reflect that.

I'm in my 30s but I still have a lot of child-like traits - no shame about it though!

It sounds like you're feeling a lack of respect! 

As a mother and someone who had to 'grow up' too early, there are so many bad things happening in the world and without a hard line between childhood and adulthood, we wouldn't be able to prosecute criminals properly. Males would marry as young as they could or even younger, which is legal still in some places where the wife is not protected from her husband in cases of rape - this is horrifying when the girl is Nine or Thirteen. Legal ages affect voting which affects the Laws and Judgements in countries.

If you're coerced into criminal activity under 18, you're not locked up with hard 50-year-old criminals. At a legal age we vote on how prisoners are treated, how citizens are protected from corporations, how water and sewage is handled, where roads are built. Public servants are voted in by those with enough years on them to (supposedly) see a wolf in sheep's clothing. Would you like all of this responsibility? It will be yours some day.

But I think the error you are running into just now has to do with how humans in society treat each other, and learning to steer clear or how to respond back to the ones who are disrespectful, disregarding, un-kind, un-generous, who lack grace, and patience and do not care to see you for who you are! Which is a worthwhile being with so much potential. Adults have to deal with this sort to our grave, so it may never go away... sadly.

Maybe spend these years in a commitment to researching the psychology behind humans with Control Issues who are stuck survival mode: Fight, Flight, Freeze, Fawn. How Capitalism closes in on society and pushes it to these extremes of competition while pushing those who do not fit it's model out. Spend time researching how to become a human with good principles and you will find you begin to find a level of expectation with everyone you meet & quickly extract yourself from those who do not "play" at your level. Take this time which is allotted to you to learn to intake as much as you can! This research can take 10 years, so start now. Because once you cross that legal threshold, little time will be afforded for education and growth; most of us are thrown into a workforce at 17 or 18 trying to survive and catch up to where we can learn something to help us into a better life. 

The best place to not find yourself treated like a child is in the research section of the Public Library (once opened back up).

Desmond79 said:

If I had my way, Schools would be abolished and Homeschooling would be mandatory.

there are a few technical problems with this - as if every family can afford to have a parent at home - but the biggest problem is IQ,

Years ago, when only 10% of the population was capable of getting into uni, that equates to a minimum 117 IQ,

The general population has an IQ of 100 by definition.

That means that however rubbish you might think teachers are, the homeschooling option means being 'educated' by people who are woefully underqualified for the job.

And 'life experience' from very average people will never make high-achievers or qualify someone to be a brain surgeon.

It's unfortunate that right now I don't have access to the university library. I recall reading an excellent book where a social researcher had gone through and interviewed numerous people with learning / intellectual disabilities about their sex lives / relationships or as it turned out the lack of. It would be instructive to quote that book.

As I seem to recall for those living in care facilities the vast majority found their carers were largely unwilling to consider that they should have any kind of sex life or serious romantic relationship. Those lifting independently but with assistance in their own homes did engage in sexual / romantic relationships but often found them to be exploitative.

Offering assistance to make the decision is largely a one off event. To marry or not to marry in general not with respect to a particular person.

M said:

I've never been the social worker in that scenario but not being able to read shouldn't prevent someone from getting married

I'm assuming they can read to a basic level but don't understand what the words on the form mean in context.

...

I've read the code of practice. Even it doesn't say the IMCA has to be called. I quote

An IMCA must be instructed, and then consulted, for people lacking capacity who have no-one else to support them (other than paid staff), whenever:

• an NHS body is proposing to provide serious medical treatment, or
• an NHS body or local authority is proposing to arrange accommodation (or a change of accommodation) in hospital or a care home, and
  • the person will stay in hospital longer than 28 days, or
  • they will stay in the care home for more than eight weeks.

An IMCA may be instructed to support someone who lacks capacity to make decisions concerning:

• care reviews, where no-one else is available to be consulted
• adult protection cases, whether or not family, friends or others are involved

The kind of situation I outline will fall under the later 2 if it falls within this definition at all. So the IMCA MAY be instructed but there is no requirment to do so.

A referral to social services would be made and they would refer for an imca for each of them if they were needed. Then they'd have formal capacity assessments to see what they understand of what they are asking for, in this case to get married. 

I've never been the social worker in that scenario but not being able to read shouldn't prevent someone from getting married so I'd have thought they would be able to with support to understand the paperwork. Part of the MCA states that to determine someone lacks capacity you need to take practicable steps to help them to understand the decision so you couldn't just ignore them at the point your situation ends at... 

Desmond79 said:

If I had my way, Schools would be abolished and Homeschooling would be

I Will have to disagree.

Homeschooling to me sounds like some middle class idea.

If schools were abolished the majority of children would receive no schooling and be illiterate.

i spend so much time trying to achieve the "Baby  Eyes" attitude to life lmao

just because 

i agree  teenagers are the future and they certainly are showing they have the ability to fix this world,,, in with the new,, out with the defective old 

Ok we'll lets take a hypothetical scenario then. 2 intellectually disabled adults at a care home are able to leave without supervision (and so not deprived of their liberty). One day they go, with out the knowledge of staff, to the registry office and ask for a marriage licence. They are unable to fill out the paperwork without help so staff doubt they have mental capacity. They determine that the couple are from the care home and contact the care home which confirms that, in the care homes opinion, they lack the capacity to marry. The families of both individuals are contacted by the care home and registry office who confirm that in their opinion they lack the capacity to marry. The couple are adamant they still wish to marry. At that stage will IMCA be called?

I very much doubt it.

Even if a subject cannot say "I don't agree", if there are signs that the person doesn't agree with whatever the decision is then the case should be referred to the court of protection. I've had this happen in a case of my own where the client couldn't directly say they wanted their case to go to court and their sole family member couldn't act on their behalf due to their own health reasons, so various safeguards then come into play, namely referring for an IMCA and getting the second opinion of a DoLS assessor, AND seeking the services of a solicitor. Even where there is a power of attorney making decisions it can still be challenged in the same way. The only person who can have the final say is a judge in the court of protection but even that involves consulting with each interested party.

If there is any doubt that an informal advocate I.e. family or friend taking on the role would NOT support the person to challenge a decision then they have a right to an IMCA to advocate for them. There are so many different professionals involved in such scenarios, it would be highly unlikely (not impossible) that not a single person would take such action to ensure people have independent advocacy and access to legal challenge.

I'd be amazed to hear of an example where someone didn't have any disagreement amongst professionals at all. It would be like finding a unicorn. There may be consensus about someone lacking capacity - sometimes this is straightforward to determine, but usually complex - but agreeing the decision in someone's best interests is rarely clear cut and there are usually lengthy conversations about the pros and cons of benefits and consequences of decisions. 

I'm a big fan of this area of law and feel it works well. It isn't perfect, people are complex and so are their lives. The real problem is funding the services to be able to be responsive to challenges, but it is something most LAs take seriously because of the legal implications of not following the law promptly.

M said:

No, they cannot block an IMCA. If there is an obvious conflict of interest - in the case you mentioned the potential abuse of an arranged marriage becoming more like a forced marriage - would mean it is a priority to arrange for an IMCA.

Respectfully that's not the kind of scenario I'm saying needs addressing. You are ignoring my earlier hypothetical. What if there is a non obvious conflict of interests. what if the family and local authorities are in agreement that the subject lacks capacity but the subject protests that they think they do have capacity. Will the IMCA be called in automatically when the only person who is dissatisfied is the subject? Yes or no?

I don't know what the social services / care home code of practice says about when IMCA should be called but I very much doubt that's legally binding what ever it says. The law says the only situation in which IMCA must be called in, regardless of what the advocate thinks, is involuntary detention. I don't believe thats enough protection.

Also what if the IMCA gets it wrong and also, wrongly, asses that it's not in a subjects best interest to take the matter to the court?

M said:

I'd be happy to be assessed under this piece of legislation providing the person doing the assessment understood it properly.

That is a truly massive if. There is no indication that the doctor in KMs case acted maliciously or negligently. She just got it wrong. She didn't understand. And she was an educated psychiatrist who regularly deals with such things. I feel very strongly if there is any question at all over a case, even if the subject of the capacity decision is the only one who thinks they do have capacity, even if it's 'obvious' to everyone involved but the subject that they don't have capacity, it should still go to the court of protection by default.

If a subject of a capacity decision is capable of saying "I don't agree" that it self should be enough to send it to court.

No, they cannot block an IMCA. If there is an obvious conflict of interest - in the case you mentioned the potential abuse of an arranged marriage becoming more like a forced marriage - would mean it is a priority to arrange for an IMCA. The presence of family doesn't immediately negate the need for an IMCA as there are many reasons why family may not be appropriate or able to be an advocate, even if they volunteer to be. 

If a client of mine wanted to challenge a decision or I thought they would object to the decision if they are able to, then I would have a duty to refer for an IMCA and initiate court proceedings. Failing to follow the law and promote my clients' rights to this could see me lose my registration to practice. It would be a breach of a person's human rights to ignore it and I take that very seriously. 

As it happens though, social care is a pretty defective system and as I mentioned, I recently left to work in a different role because I felt there were seriously shortfalls in practice. The law is pretty good though around mental capacity in my opinion. I'd be happy to be assessed under this piece of legislation providing the person doing the assessment understood it properly. It is designed to support people to make their own decisions, not to impose "professional" decisions or opinions on people. 

M said:

When decisions are made on behalf of people there are safeguards in place to ensure people do have the opportunity to challenge them in the form of independent mental capacity advocates, otherwise known as IMCAs, if there isn't an advocate already available to the client. 

Except as I previously mentioned and you seem to have confirmed there is no requirement to call in the IMCA if there is a friend or family member willing to speak for the intellectually disabled person. As far as I am aware there is no law that forces a family member acting as an advocate to act in accordance with the intellectually disabled persons wishes or argue they have capacity if that is what they wish. My understanding is if the family and health / care providers agree they can in practice block the IMCA from being called in and prevent the case going to the court of protection.

I believe there should be a legal requirement to refer cases to the court of protection when a person subject to a mental capacity decision requests it, even if they are not competent to act as a litigant.