Published on 12, July, 2020
Hello my name is Shola and I would like for the age for being an adult to be lowered from age 18 to age 16, 15 or even 14 or 13 in this country and all other countries too because I am so angry with older people and people who are young treating younger people which includes children and teenagers like they are babies/little children when they are all not babies or little children anymore. People seriously need to stop treating children and teenagers like they are babies or little children right now as that is not acceptable and children and teenagers should be allowed to have more rights, responsibilities and freedoms like adults already have please I need to know what are the full list of things young people want to change and what are the list of changes that they want to see happen on this planet?
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).
I think your view is very biased.
Sex work is work, people who do that kind of work are not "super-entitled". There are plenty of male escorts/porn stars/content creators too.
I really don't think any girls think that they will marry a millionaire... none of my female friends are like that so I'm not sure where you get that view from... it sounds rather bitter, tbh
Teenagers these days are extremely sexualised - and the internet fosters really bad habits - young girls get thousands of compliments per day which is making them have an over-inflated opinion of themselves. This makes them all think they will marry a millionaire - so they will ignore 'lesser' males even though they will never meet their prize. A lonely life is in front of them.
Boys on the other hand get kicked so much on the internet that their self-worth is through the floor.
It leads young men to thinking the only way to get female attention is to pay - and so super-entitled girls will be stealing their money while they can..
Sorry if this sounds sexist but it's the modern reality.
I wouldn’t say you have to be a genius to take considered decisions about where you want to live or work or vote for at 16 or even 14. The opposing side In the debate over the age of majority always seems to reduce the argument to sex.
there is no law that stops a manipulative and charming individual taking advantage of a naive consenting 16 year old sexually. The reason for setting the age there is obviously at that age a great many teenagers are sexually active in a way that is mostly not manipulative and the government is only willing to criminalise so much innocent activity.
as I’ve said with other areas of capacity and consent a simple binary yes / no isn’t always helpful. An all or nothing age limit isn’t either. You don’t suddenly gain impeccable wisdom in sexual maters on your 16th birthday.
refusel to move beyond a hard age limit to some sort of vulnerability or exploitation based test because it would be ‘too complicated’ is just intellectual and legislative lazyness.
so called Romeo / Juliet laws might be an improvement but I think largely we should be looking at the intent of the other party not their age. A 16 year old can still exploit other teenagers after all.
It's a slippery slope though if you lower the age you are saying kid's can have sex at 13 or 14 or 15 ? that is already the case in some countries which i am not for to be an adult means a lot of things. Self proficiency, job, Able to think for yourself must adults in early 20s don't even have that 13,14 is stupid besides the few geniuses that exist.
Yeah - uni has nothing to do with education unless you're doing STEM subjects - the rest is all about pushing £50k debt onto people who could have worked hard at minimum wage and be +£60k rather than -£50k after 3 years and still doing the same shelf-stacking job.
Research shows only 2% will ever have a 'career' - and that career will demand 100 hrs/week for most of their lives - so it's only for the exceptional and committed to even consider.
Everyone else will have a job - the definition of which is doing something the company owner either can't or won't do themselves.
Many, including myself, believed it was a protection against the flood of political and economic migrants flooding into the country from Europe. We also hoped that it would put an end or at least reduce the flood of immigration from muslim countries, which has decimated communities in the country's urban areas.
true, i went to college later on and there was no real learning or work, it was basically just signing forms to say you attended and then you get the certificate after they wasted the amount of time the course says it needs.
Everyone and anyone can go to university these days. There's no real academic standards to achieve anymore. It's all part of the No Thicko Left behind and Everyone Gets An Award mentality. It's also very lucrative for the 'academic-industrial' complex too. Thankfully, they mainly provide these kind of students with meaningless degrees in Business Administration or the ubiquitous Media Studies. Evidence suggests that the standards in real subjects has dropped too. So many people leave degree without understanding the basic rules of English grammar. That's a particularly sad reflection on the state of our Universities.
I'm not convinced that they ever stop being useless... regardless of their age.
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 IMCA may be instructed to support someone who lacks capacity to make decisions concerning:
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
Yes I'm sure I read some research that scientists have done showing that the human brain doesn't mature until early to mid 20s. I read it a while ago though. Certainly I don't think I was mature til about 25, I was going around in a fog but everything started to click around 25 or so.
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.