Getting a mortgage is really not a big deal or rocket science. You can do them yourself on-line.
Which is not really the question. Would you trust a 16yo to advise you on the biggest purchase of your life with no qualms? If you needed bereavement counselling, would you welcome a 16yo? If your house were being broken into, would you be OK if a couple of 16yo coppers were sent round to help?
All I'm trying to establish is what you consider "common sense" about declaring 16yos full adults in every sense.
Which is not really the question. Would you trust a 16yo to advise you on the biggest purchase of your life with no qualms? If you needed bereavement counselling, would you welcome a 16yo? If your house were being broken into, would you be OK if a couple of 16yo coppers were sent round to help?
All I'm trying to establish is what you consider "common sense" about declaring 16yos full adults in every sense.
There is a natural age restriction in the form of the amount of time it takes to become qualified to do those sort of jobs. A sixteen year old isn't going to walk into a bank the day after they finish their GCSEs and get put onto mortgage advice straight away. They'd have to spend a few years studying for CeMAP, DipMAP etc. before they could even consider applying for the job of advisor and even then they'd be up against people with much more experience.
Any job with a high level of responsibility also requires a lot of training which naturally takes a lot of time. Just because someone would be considered an adult at 16 doesn't mean they will be performing your triple bypass operation at that age.
However, if they want to have a pint and a **** after a long, hard day of training then I say good luck to them.
There is a natural age restriction in the form of the amount of time it takes to become qualified to do those sort of jobs. A sixteen year old isn't going to walk into a bank the day after they finish their GCSEs and get put onto mortgage advice straight away. They'd have to spend a few years studying for CeMAP, DipMAP etc. before they could even consider applying for the job of advisor and even then they'd be up against people with much more experience.
Any job with a high level of responsibility also requires a lot of training which naturally takes a lot of time. Just because someone would be considered an adult at 16 doesn't mean they will be performing your triple bypass operation at that age.
However, if they want to have a pint and a **** after a long, hard day of training then I say good luck to them.
I deliberately didn't pick an example that would take years of training for - medical, legal and so on. Theoretically it would be possible to become a qualified mortgage adviser very early on (not probable, but possible). Same with the police, if 16yos were adults.
You think there isn't an underground market now of tobacco coming in from all over the globe, people have no idea what they are smoking.
If you don't like an older limit on age then ban it along with alcohol, just stop the drugs altogether.
yeah i am perfectly aware of that, but increasing the age to purchase cigarettes will drastically increase this market.
and where did i say anything about banning anything? Drinking is my favourite pastime, and i enjoy the occasional cigar too. ;-)
I deliberately didn't pick an example that would take years of training for - medical, legal and so on. Theoretically it would be possible to become a qualified mortgage adviser very early on (not probable, but possible). Same with the police, if 16yos were adults.
but if they are trained up and perfectly competent then what exactly is the problem other than your own prejudice? You sound a bit ageist to me.
Should the legal age for buying cigarettes in the UK be reduced to 16, remain 18 or increase?
it certainly should not be decreased - it is a disgusting habit and not only makes your clothes and breath smell but try being an asthma sufferer behind someone smoking (not fun) and unlike many habits - not only poisoning the addict but those around them.
it certainly should not be decreased - it is a disgusting habit and not only makes your clothes and breath smell but try being an asthma sufferer behind someone smoking (not fun) and unlike many habits - not only poisoning the addict but those around them.
Fair enough about the risk of passive smoking but all the rest about making your clothes and breath smell are consequences entirely up to the individual to decide. That's one thing where the government should have no say.
People generally prefer to buy mortgages from those who look as though they've got one themselves. Similar with estate agents, I believe. My point to the other poster was whether s/he would consider a 16yo adult enough to trust with what's probably the biggest purchase of their life.
Both are piece of piss jobs which a 14 year old can do. A mortgage advisor tells you what mortgages they have but unable to make any recommendations, whilst an estate agent opens doors for people and phones around a bit.
I guess you wouldn't buy petrol from a 16 year old manning the Esso kiosk using that logic given that they have never driven a car.
By then you'll have no 'live at home' kids to kill and by the time you've killed yourself and your partner, you'll probably both be dead anyway. :cool:
Alcohol should be higher IMO, so either reduce it to 16 or increase alcohol to 20/21. Other than the passive smoking element which is less of a problem now with the ban on smoking in public places, people are only harming themselves. Alcohol can lead to violent behaviour while people are intoxicated, drink driving and its consequences etc.
By then you'll have no 'live at home' kids to kill and by the time you've killed yourself and your partner, you'll probably both be dead anyway. :cool:
I and many others of my post war generation are still alive and kicking any many of my generation smoked too.. We grew up in a blue fog, when cigs were fashionable and cheap. Mothers smoked through pregnancy. Smoking wasn't banned anywhere at all. Hospital wards, Doctors surgeries, public transport , bars and restaurants, shops, schools, with teachers who smoked in class, Doctors who smoked during consultations etc. etc.etc. Weird isn't it? The angst suffered by people, caused by this Governmental tokenism is the real disgrace.
It's a lot of overblown hype and I don't and never have smoked.
it certainly should not be decreased - it is a disgusting habit and not only makes your clothes and breath smell but try being an asthma sufferer behind someone smoking (not fun) and unlike many habits - not only poisoning the addict but those around them.
Yes of course it should. The law at the moment prevents anyone under the age of 18 from smoking, so effectively.:D:D:D
Yes, but give it 30 odd years and nobody under the age of 50 will be allowed. Kids won't be able to pass themselves off for 50, and very few people are going to start once they approach 50.
Another 50 years and it is going to be near impossible for anyone to buy cigarettes.
Yes, but give it 30 odd years and nobody under the age of 50 will be allowed. Kids won't be able to pass themselves off for 50, and very few people are going to start once they approach 50.
Another 50 years and it is going to be near impossible for anyone to buy cigarettes.
Not if I become the Walter White of nicotine and start growing tons of tobacco in my garden and selling it for a massive profit.
I and many others of my post war generation are still alive and kicking any many of my generation smoked too.. We grew up in a blue fog, when cigs were fashionable and cheap. Mothers smoked through pregnancy. Smoking wasn't banned anywhere at all. Hospital wards, Doctors surgeries, public transport , bars and restaurants, shops, schools, with teachers who smoked in class, Doctors who smoked during consultations etc. etc.etc. Weird isn't it? The angst suffered by people, caused by this Governmental tokenism is the real disgrace.
It's a lot of overblown hype and I don't and never have smoked.
There's a lot of truth in this. When you look at the evidence objectively and without hysteria, it becomes pretty clear that smoking is bad for you, but not to anything like the extent that we're led to believe. Let's take three examples from my own family.
Person 1 died from lung cancer at the age of 78. He started smoking while he was still at school and gave up completely around five years before he died. The stats would record him as a smoking-related death. HOWEVER, for several decades, he worked day in, day out in a dusty quarry. That fact would not be recorded.
Person 2 died in his mid-40s from a heart attack. He was quite a heavy smoker, but also took virtually no exercise, was overweight, and had a poor diet. Was smoking the decisive factor in his death? We cannot be sure.
Person 3 never smoked in his life, but died from a heart attack at the age of around 60. If it matters (and I'm not sure that it does), his wife smoked on and off during their 30 years of marriage. He was a manual worker and was in good shape physically. He was, however, a BIG red meat eater and the post mortem showed that his arteries were in a state.
All three of those people were relatives of mine.
My point being, it's better not to smoke than to smoke. I just think we've lost all sense of proportion.
I wouldn't recommend you smoke 20 cigarettes per day. I also wouldn't recommend you eat five beefburgers a day or spend your entire working life in a coal mine or quarry without adequate breathing apparatus.
However, I'm not convinced that having a few cigarettes while you're relaxing in front of the TV, or over a social drink with friends, will do you any serious harm. You have to look at the whole picture and the lifestyles.
Comments
Which is not really the question. Would you trust a 16yo to advise you on the biggest purchase of your life with no qualms? If you needed bereavement counselling, would you welcome a 16yo? If your house were being broken into, would you be OK if a couple of 16yo coppers were sent round to help?
All I'm trying to establish is what you consider "common sense" about declaring 16yos full adults in every sense.
There is a natural age restriction in the form of the amount of time it takes to become qualified to do those sort of jobs. A sixteen year old isn't going to walk into a bank the day after they finish their GCSEs and get put onto mortgage advice straight away. They'd have to spend a few years studying for CeMAP, DipMAP etc. before they could even consider applying for the job of advisor and even then they'd be up against people with much more experience.
Any job with a high level of responsibility also requires a lot of training which naturally takes a lot of time. Just because someone would be considered an adult at 16 doesn't mean they will be performing your triple bypass operation at that age.
However, if they want to have a pint and a **** after a long, hard day of training then I say good luck to them.
I deliberately didn't pick an example that would take years of training for - medical, legal and so on. Theoretically it would be possible to become a qualified mortgage adviser very early on (not probable, but possible). Same with the police, if 16yos were adults.
I'd be absolutely feckin' gasping if I had to wait that long!
yeah i am perfectly aware of that, but increasing the age to purchase cigarettes will drastically increase this market.
and where did i say anything about banning anything?
but if they are trained up and perfectly competent then what exactly is the problem other than your own prejudice? You sound a bit ageist to me.
it certainly should not be decreased - it is a disgusting habit and not only makes your clothes and breath smell but try being an asthma sufferer behind someone smoking (not fun) and unlike many habits - not only poisoning the addict but those around them.
Fair enough about the risk of passive smoking but all the rest about making your clothes and breath smell are consequences entirely up to the individual to decide. That's one thing where the government should have no say.
Why not ?
There are no health reasons for people not to smoke in open public spaces.
Is it because you think other people shouldn't be allowed to do activities you don't personally approve of ?
Both are piece of piss jobs which a 14 year old can do. A mortgage advisor tells you what mortgages they have but unable to make any recommendations, whilst an estate agent opens doors for people and phones around a bit.
I guess you wouldn't buy petrol from a 16 year old manning the Esso kiosk using that logic given that they have never driven a car.
By then you'll have no 'live at home' kids to kill and by the time you've killed yourself and your partner, you'll probably both be dead anyway. :cool:
I and many others of my post war generation are still alive and kicking any many of my generation smoked too.. We grew up in a blue fog, when cigs were fashionable and cheap. Mothers smoked through pregnancy. Smoking wasn't banned anywhere at all. Hospital wards, Doctors surgeries, public transport , bars and restaurants, shops, schools, with teachers who smoked in class, Doctors who smoked during consultations etc. etc.etc. Weird isn't it? The angst suffered by people, caused by this Governmental tokenism is the real disgrace.
It's a lot of overblown hype and I don't and never have smoked.
Yes because banning things works so well and there's no black market at all...
Interesting. Why exactly? Do you include alcohol in this prohibition approach?
Not that either has a cat in hells chance of working of course:D
I bet you drive a car though.
Yes of course it should.
OOO too much reality there!
Yes, but give it 30 odd years and nobody under the age of 50 will be allowed. Kids won't be able to pass themselves off for 50, and very few people are going to start once they approach 50.
Another 50 years and it is going to be near impossible for anyone to buy cigarettes.
Not if I become the Walter White of nicotine and start growing tons of tobacco in my garden and selling it for a massive profit.
There's a lot of truth in this. When you look at the evidence objectively and without hysteria, it becomes pretty clear that smoking is bad for you, but not to anything like the extent that we're led to believe. Let's take three examples from my own family.
Person 1 died from lung cancer at the age of 78. He started smoking while he was still at school and gave up completely around five years before he died. The stats would record him as a smoking-related death. HOWEVER, for several decades, he worked day in, day out in a dusty quarry. That fact would not be recorded.
Person 2 died in his mid-40s from a heart attack. He was quite a heavy smoker, but also took virtually no exercise, was overweight, and had a poor diet. Was smoking the decisive factor in his death? We cannot be sure.
Person 3 never smoked in his life, but died from a heart attack at the age of around 60. If it matters (and I'm not sure that it does), his wife smoked on and off during their 30 years of marriage. He was a manual worker and was in good shape physically. He was, however, a BIG red meat eater and the post mortem showed that his arteries were in a state.
All three of those people were relatives of mine.
My point being, it's better not to smoke than to smoke. I just think we've lost all sense of proportion.
I wouldn't recommend you smoke 20 cigarettes per day. I also wouldn't recommend you eat five beefburgers a day or spend your entire working life in a coal mine or quarry without adequate breathing apparatus.
However, I'm not convinced that having a few cigarettes while you're relaxing in front of the TV, or over a social drink with friends, will do you any serious harm. You have to look at the whole picture and the lifestyles.