Latest news with #UNConventionontheRightsoftheChild
Spectator
5 days ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Labour's votes for teenagers ruse will backfire
Our economy is on the rocks, legal and illegal immigration remains out of control, public services are creaking, and a looming debt crisis is on the horizon. But fear not. Labour has announced its big idea for turning around Britain's fortunes: votes for children. Around 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds will be able to vote at the next general election, under government plans to lower the voting age. Keir Starmer says older teenagers are 'old enough to go out to work, they are old enough to pay taxes' and, so, they are old enough to vote. Democracy Minister Rushanara Ali has pretentiously described the change as 'seismic' – as if this is somehow comparable with the extension of the franchise to women or the working class. Let's be clear: Labour is not striking a blow for electoral equality. They are engaging in student gesture politics. Votes for 16-year-olds is the kind of policy that wins a cheap round of applause on university campuses, but for which there is little public demand and even less intellectual reasoning. Labour has never been able to make up its mind about when adulthood truly begins. In 2003, the Licensing Act made it illegal to sell alcohol to under-18s at licensed premises. In 2005, the Gambling Act set the minimum age for gambling at 18. You're not even allowed to play the National Lottery until your 18th birthday. In 2008, the school leaving age was effectively raised to 18. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the UK is a signatory, says no person under the age of 18 should participate in hostilities. And, in 2022, the age at which someone can marry was increased from 16 to 18. So if 16 is too young to fight, marry, drink, gamble or leave school – why is it somehow old enough to vote? The most nauseating response is that teenagers are increasingly affected by government decisions, whether about education, climate change or online regulation. But as GB News's Tom Harwood brilliantly demonstrated with his satirical 'Votes at 12' campaign a few years ago: the same argument can be made about children of almost any age. If you accept the need for the line to be drawn somewhere when it comes to voting, surely it makes sense to draw it at the point of adulthood? There is a reasonable case that adulthood begins at 16, but if Labour truly believes that, then it should first begin by undoing the prohibitive legislation of recent decades. The Reform party's appointment of teenage councillors to run local services was met with fierce criticism from Labour types; yet the Starmer's party is now advocating votes at 16. Will the government's new Elections Bill also allow 16 and 17-year-olds to run for office? If so, will Labour MPs keep schtum when the councillor in charge of children's services is themselves a child? I have long suspected that Labour's real reason for wanting votes at 16 is to further its own electoral interests. But this, too, is wrong on a number of levels. Firstly, no constitutional change should ever happen for party political reasons. Secondly, it is deeply naive to assume that 16 and 17-year-olds are more likely to be attracted to Starmer's technocratic government than to the radicalism of Reform or a new left-wing party led by Jeremy Corbyn. There is a reason Nigel Farage is by some distance the most followed British politician on TikTok. As unlikely as it may seem, the tweed-clad former City boy connects with younger voters in a way the Labour leadership simply doesn't. If Morgan McSweeney and the bright sparks in Downing Street think this teenage voting ruse will help Starmer's prospects at the next election, they should be careful what they wish for.
The Herald Scotland
13-07-2025
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
There's a price for gentrification. I've met the people paying it
It turned out that on the other side was a family who very much disagree with the theory that the new bridge and the flats and the regeneration is 100% good for Govan. One of the people from the council said to me that gentrification wasn't part of the picture with the bridge and the flats because the development was bringing in people with a bit of money in their pockets to support the services and wasn't displacing a community. The Stringfellow family, the family living on the other side of the fence near the bridge, beg to differ. The bottom line is that Glasgow City Council want to expand the development of the Govan side of the bridge and want the Stringfellow family off the site so they can build more flats and landscape the area. The Stringfellows – who are travellers and make their living, or used to, from taking their rides and shows round Scotland – say they've been on the site for more than 40 years and should have the right to remain. I say 'used to make their living' because the family say the council blocked off the exit at the site, meaning the Stringfellows can't get their trucks in and out so effectively can't work. The situation between the two sides is pretty tense it has to be said and will come to a head in September when the council's attempt to evict the Stringfellows reaches the Court of Session. The council argues a straightforward commercial lease applies therefore the family can be evicted with 28 days' notice, but the Stringfellows' lawyers will argue that not giving the family the same rights as other council tenants is discrimination based on the fact they don't live in a house. They also argue that the youngest member of the family, who's five, has protection under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I went to visit the family the other week and it's obvious the situation is taking its toll. The patriarch Jimmy, who I liked a lot even though he wasn't taking any nonsense from me, told me he had 'stainless steel skin' and was up for the fight. But his health isn't what it was and his daughter Chanel said the case had aged her parents. She said her mum Diane cries and cries at night because she doesn't know where she's going to be; she doesn't know if her family is about to be split up. Read more Will the 'Clydeside Clearance' go ahead? A court is about to decide | The Herald Do not believe the middle-class moaning about private schools No-shows. Screamers. And locked doors. Are our social norms breaking down? Obviously, court cases cannot be decided on emotions alone but I genuinely do not understand why the council is so insistent on this one. The Stringfellows have lived in their Govan yard for 44 years and there's a lot of support for them in the community. It's also striking that just across the river in the transport museum there are exhibits celebrating Glasgow's travellers and yet here is the council seeking to evict travellers from their homes. We either respect their non-traditional way of life or we don't. The case the council is making seems to be that one family shouldn't be able to stand in the way of a development that will benefit many more people and improve Govan and I do understand that new flats, and hopefully new businesses, will be good for the area. The man from the council told me the development of the bridge area isn't gentrification because a community isn't being displayed. But the truth is that an important part of the community absolutely is being displaced. The Stringfellows want to stay where they are in Govan and the council is telling them they can't. What's particularly frustrating is that I think a compromise is possible. I'm sure Jimmy isn't always easy to deal with, but he showed me plans they'd had drawn up by an architect that would allow the development to go ahead, albeit on a slightly reduced scale, and allow the family to stay where they are. The council say they've looked at the plans and they aren't feasible. But most of the land the Stringfellows live on wouldn't be built on anyway so the question here is one of proportion: is it proportionate to evict the Stringfellows when most of the flats could be built anyway, or built elsewhere? If we respect the right of the Stringfellows to live the way they want to, and if we respect the diverse history of Govan and the history of travellers, the answer must be no. Jimmy Stringfellow at home in Glasgow. (Image: Colin Mearns) So, despite what the man from the council said to me, this does look like the downside of gentrification. There have definitely been some great improvements in the area – the renovation of the shop fronts, the restoration of the library and gates in Elder Park, and the bridge itself, all of these things have been good for a part of Glasgow that has great potential because it was largely spared most of the big 1960s planning disasters that decimated other working-class communities in the city. So let's not get it wrong now. And it's still not too late to introduce a bit of compassion into the process. The council say they've made exhaustive attempts to engage with the family without success and that they've proposed a number of alternative sites that would allow them to continuing living in caravans as they do at the moment, and all of that may be true. But answer me this. Have they really tried to put themselves in the place of the family? Have they imagined what it might be like to feel, as Jimmy put it to me, caged in like monkeys at the zoo? The Stringfellows aren't opposed to the development and regeneration of Govan, they're just asking for a bit of respect for the way they live and the right to stay in the place that's been their home for more than 40 years. I don't think that's unreasonable And I don't think their eviction is necessary. Let them stay.
Powys County Times
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Powys County Times
PM's Europe ‘reset' has delivered change in French tactics on small boats: No 10
Sir Keir Starmer's 'reset' with Europe has delivered a change in French tactics on tackling small boats crossing the Channel, Downing Street has said. Number 10 said reports French police officers had used knives to puncture a boat in waters off the French coast for the first time were a 'significant moment' that could have 'a major impact' on smuggling gangs. A spokesman said: 'We welcome action from French law enforcement to take action in shallow waters, and what you have seen in recent weeks is a toughening of their approach.' The Government has repeatedly pushed for French authorities to do more to prevent boats leaving the shore, including changing existing rules to allow police officers to intervene when dinghies are in the water. Those changes have not yet come into effect, but reports on Friday suggested tougher action was already being taken. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said she welcomed the reports, adding she had been 'working very closely with the French interior minister' to ensure the rules were changed 'as swiftly as possible'. Downing Street attributed the change in stance from French law enforcement was thanks to the Prime Minister's 'reset' in relations with Europe, as he has looked to heal the wounds caused by the Brexit years. The spokesman said: 'No government has been able to get this level of co-operation with the French. That is important. 'We are looking to see France change its maritime tactics, and that is down to the Prime Minister's efforts to reset our relationship across Europe.' But a charity operating in northern France told the PA news agency that French police had already been intervening in crossing attempts in shallow waters despite the new rules not yet being in place. Kate O'Neill, advocacy coordinator at Project Play, said: 'This is not a new tactic … it's something that has been happening for a long time in Calais and surrounding areas.' She also warned it was a 'dangerous' tactic as children were 'often in the middle of the boats'. Responding to footage of Friday's incident broadcast by the BBC, Ms O'Neill said: 'The events taking place in the BBC coverage are not only upsetting to watch, but show clear evidence of police officers endangering a child.' She added: 'While talks are ongoing to allow the interception of boats in shallow water, it remains illegal at this time under maritime law and violates the obligations of the UK and France under international law – including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. 'This footage highlights the danger involved in intercepting and slashing boats in the water, and we implore decision makers to consider the potentially fatal consequences of allowing this to take place even more frequently.' In its manifesto last year, Labour promised to 'smash the gangs' smuggling people across the Channel in small boats. But a year into Sir Keir's premiership, the number of people making the journey has increased to record levels. Some 20,600 people have made the journey so far this year, up 52% on the same period in 2024. Downing Street acknowledged that the numbers 'must come down', but could not guarantee that they would in the next year. On Friday, Ms Cooper said part of the reason for the increase in crossings was a rise in the number of people being crammed onto each boat. She suggested that all migrants who arrive on an overcrowded boat where a child has died should face prosecution. Ms Cooper told the BBC's Today programme it was 'totally appalling' that children were being 'crushed to death on these overcrowded boats, and yet the boat still continues to the UK'. The Government has already included a new offence of 'endangering life at sea' in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill currently making its way through Parliament. Ms Cooper has previously said this would allow the authorities to act against people 'involved in behaviour that puts others at risk of serious injury or death, such as physical aggression, intimidation, or rejecting rescue attempts'. But on Friday, she appeared to go further by suggesting even getting on an overcrowded boat could result in prosecution. She said: 'If you've got a boat where we've seen all of those people all climb on board that boat, they are putting everybody else's lives at risk.' Some 15 children are reported to have died while attempting the crossing in 2024, and Ms O'Neill told PA police tactics were making the situation more dangerous. During a series of broadcast interviews, Ms Cooper also declined to confirm reports the UK was looking at a 'one in, one out' policy that would see people who had crossed the Channel returned to Europe in exchange for asylum seekers with connections to Britain. Asked about the policy, she would only tell Sky News that ministers were 'looking at a range of different issues' and 'different ways of doing returns'.
Indian Express
01-07-2025
- Indian Express
How handling of minors in conflict with law by police has evolved over decades
In the Netflix miniseries Adolescence, a 13-year-old boy accused of the murder of a girl in his class is questioned by the police in the presence of his father and solicitor. Later, a psychologist works with him at the youth detention facility to prepare a pre-trial report on his mental capacity. Over the past few decades, especially following the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) signed in 1989 – of which India is a signatory – there has been a higher level of sensitivity when it comes to dealing with minors in conflict with law. 'In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration,' the Convention states. In the incident that took place along the eastern suburbs of the city last week where a 16-year-old male allegedly pushed his 15-year-old friend, a female, from atop the terrace of a 32-storeyed building, the Mumbai Police that suspected something amiss in his statement spoke to the 16-year-old in the presence of his father. The boy had initially told the police that the girl had been under academic stress and hence had died by suicide and he had nothing to do with it. 'The version of events he gave was not adding up. Since he is a minor, as per the Juvenile Justice Act, we asked his father to be present when we questioned him regarding the inconsistencies in his statement. The tone of questioning is much different from usual cases and we tried to take his father's help to arrive at the truth,' an official said. While the police registered an FIR in the case on Monday, they sent the boy home to his parents and produced him before the Dongri Observation home in line with the JJ Act. An officer said that usually when they are questioning a minor, it is done in the presence of someone they are comfortable with. 'Usually, we get a woman officer to question minors. If they are too nervous, we also go to the residence of the minor and do not wear a uniform so that the minor is more at ease to talk,' the officer said. The officer added, 'Initially, we just conduct basic enquiry. The actual statement of the minor is taken in the presence of a Probation Officer appointed in the case by the Children Welfare Committee (CWC) where the child is comfortable.' Section 10 of the JJ Act that deals with Apprehension of child alleged to be in conflict with law mentions, ' ..in no case, a child alleged to be in conflict with law shall be placed in a police lockup or lodged in a jail….The State Government shall make rules consistent with this Act,—(i) to provide for persons through whom (including registered voluntary or non-governmental organisations) any child alleged to be in conflict with law may be produced before the Board..' The JJ Act further provides details about various aspects in dealing with a juvenile in conflict with law from the role of a person in whose charge a child in conflict with law is to be placed to bail to the role of parents and probation officers. While under the JJ Act 2000, punishment awarded to juveniles in conflict is law was lesser as compared to adults, the amended JJ Act 2015, allows for juveniles in conflict with law in the 16-18 age group to be tried as adults in case of heinous crimes following the approval of the court.
JAMnews
27-06-2025
- Politics
- JAMnews
Azerbaijan warns against children attending religious ceremonies, sparking rights concerns
Children and religious rituals in Azerbaijan Azerbaijan's Ministry of Internal Affairs and the State Committee for Work with Religious Organisations have issued a joint warning, stating that some parents are bringing underage children to religious ceremonies — particularly memorial gatherings — and stressed that children's physical and psychological safety must be taken into account in such situations. In the official statement, parents are urged to consider that participation in such mass ceremonies is 'inadvisable' and are called on to show particular sensitivity in cases that may contradict the law. However, the statement has raised questions in the context of human rights, freedom of religion, and children's rights. JAMnews has analysed the situation from multiple perspectives. Legal expert: 'The limits of the ban are unclear' Khalid Bagirov | photo: RFE/RL Lawyer Khalid Bagirov argues that vague and abstract wording in government restrictions creates legal uncertainty and opens the door to abuse. In a comment to JAMnews, he stated: 'If a parent of Shia faith wants to bring their child to an Ashura ceremony, that is their right. The state must clearly define what exactly is being prohibited: mourning rituals, self-flagellation, chest-beating? Or merely presence? Such legal ambiguity is unacceptable.' Bagirov also refers to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, emphasising that raising children in accordance with parents' religious beliefs is a fundamental right. In his view, the government's approach is part of a broader, systemic policy of restricting the rights of the Shia community in Azerbaijan. He points to Ashura processions in regions like Lankaran, which raise concern among the authorities — but, he argues, at the heart of that concern lies the issue of freedom of peaceful assembly. 'Under the pretext of regulating religious rituals, the state is attempting to limit the freedom of assembly and public processions.' Bagirov adds that if such vague and restrictive measures continue, increased police control near mosques and bans on minors entering with their parents could soon follow. Believer: 'This is a continuation of the hostile attitude toward the Shia community' Alemdar Bunyatov | photo: Meydan TV Alemdar Bunyatov, representative of the Muslim Unity Movement in Europe, views the issue in a broader context. Speaking to JAMnews, he said the policy reflects a systemic and hostile attitude by the Azerbaijani authorities toward the Shia community: 'This is not just about religious ceremonies. It's part of a long-standing hostile policy toward people who identify as Shia. Now, under the pretext of protecting children, they are targeting the religious rights of families.' Bunyatov also stressed that such an approach is rooted in double standards. He questioned: 'What exactly is so concerning about a child being present at a mourning ceremony alongside adults that it warrants a ban? These people are part of society too — how can participation in such rituals possibly harm a child's upbringing?' Militarist propaganda in schools In Azerbaijan, there is a growing practice of introducing military-themed propaganda in schools from an early age. Officially promoted patriotic campaigns centre on the cult of martyrdom, alongside events and lesson formats that emphasise military symbolism. The authorities offer no critical commentary on these activities — on the contrary, such rhetoric is presented as a model of patriotism. This highlights the selective nature of official warnings regarding religious rituals: on one hand, state-approved and even state-promoted militarist and emotional narratives; on the other, administrative warnings against personal religious practices. Social worker: 'The state should keep equal distance from both religious and military rhetoric' Sanubar Heydarova | photo: personal archive Social worker Sanubar Heydarova approaches the issue from the perspective of child psychology. In an interview with JAMnews, she emphasised that to understand the authorities' concerns about children attending religious ceremonies, one must also consider parallel practices: 'From an early age, children in Azerbaijani schools are exposed to military rhetoric filled with images of blood, martyrdom, war, people crushed by tanks. This can be psychologically damaging. Yet the state presents it as patriotism and sees no threat in it.' Heydarova believes that if the government truly wants to protect children from harmful influences, its approach should be comprehensive and balanced, not selective. She proposes an alternative model for cultivating civic values: 'Children should be taught that loving your country means not littering, volunteering, caring for public property. Patriotism cannot be measured only through war.' In her view, schools should offer neutral, objective religion classes, where children receive information about different faiths. This, she argues, helps develop an informed and healthy capacity to make decisions about religious participation.
