Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott wrongly claims 16-year-olds can fight for their country in a pitch to lower the voting age as she says 'if they're old enough to die, they're old enough to vote'

Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott has wrongly claimed 16-year-olds can fight for their country as reason or why the voting age should be lowered.
Speaking in a video posted on her official Facebook page, the Labour MP said: 'I believe in votes at 16.
'If you're old enough to fight for your country, you're old enough to vote.'
But Abbott didn't realise that soldiers cannot be selected for combat until they are 18.
It is the latest in a series of gaffes by the shadow home secretary. In May she was humiliated in an LBC radio show when she said it would cost just £300,000 to pay for an extra 10,000 police officers.

Abbott made today's gaffe ahead of the second reading of a private members' bill seeking to reduce the voting age to 16 on Friday.
The bill was later shelved after MPs failed to get to a vote in time.
While soldiers can technically join the army at 16, current legislation prohibits anyone under the age of 18 from engaging in a hostile situation. 
Facebook users were quick to point out the gaffe, with one person writing: 'You can't fight at 16. You can join the forces but definitely no fighting until your 18. That is international law. Straight away wrong with a simple fact.' 
'Sixteen-year-olds don't fight on the frontline... yet again Abbott doesn't know the facts,' a man added.
While another joked: 'She was never good with numbers!'
It's not the first time the Labour MP has been criticised for not getting her facts straight.
In July Ms Abbott appeared confused in a TV interview about Labour's plans to fund the police.




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5049521/Diane-Abbott-wrongly-claims-16-year-olds-fight.html

She's the clown that just keeps giving.

Not that far out:

UK under fire for recruiting an 'army of children'
MoD finds itself in the company of countries such as North Korea over use of teenage soldiers

More than one in 10 new Army recruits are boy soldiers of just 16 years old, according to the latest figures released by the Ministry of Defence. And more than one in four of all new Army recruits are under 18 – too young to be sent into combat.

The figures, released last week, have sparked renewed criticism of the British Army's use of boy soldiers. Following an outcry over the deployment of 17-year-olds to the Gulf War in 1991, and to Kosovo in 1999, the Army amended its rules stopping soldiers under 18 from being sent on operations where there was a possibility of fighting. Despite this, at least 20 soldiers aged 17 are known to have served in Afghanistan and Iraq due to errors by the MoD.

Critics claim the figures mean Britain stands alongside some of the world's most repressive regimes by recruiting children into the armed forces – among under 20 countries, including North Korea and Iran, that allow 16-year-olds to join up. They accused the MoD of deliberately targetting teenagers not old enough to vote in a bid to boost recruitment.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-under-fire-for-recruiting-an-army-of-children-9431966.html

So she was stupidly wrong again and completely far out.

A reference to 1999 was 18 years ago. And some errors made with 20 odd 17 year olds.

So why has she not come up to speed on the fact you have to be over 18 to be sent to the combat zone?

Either she is being incredible thick or disingenuous

Getting mixed up with the Army taking 16 year olds as young CADETS, They cannot be excepted into the Regular Army until they are 18, although they can "work" with a Regiment until they reach that age .

The figures, released last week, have sparked renewed criticism of the British Army's use of boy soldiers. Following an outcry over the deployment of 17-year-olds to the Gulf War in 1991, and to Kosovo in 1999, the Army amended its rules stopping soldiers under 18 from being sent on operations where there was a possibility of fighting. Despite this, at least 20 soldiers aged 17 are known to have served in Afghanistan and Iraq due to errors by the MoD.

typical claptrap from the defender of all stupidity lefty wise.

trust YOU to defend Abbots stupidity by relying on the errors of others

Not of course that we dont understand, after all your "blessed leader" would totally neuter the armed forces.

Lord Foul wrote:The figures, released last week, have sparked renewed criticism of the British Army's use of boy soldiers. Following an outcry over the deployment of 17-year-olds to the Gulf War in 1991, and to Kosovo in 1999, the Army amended its rules stopping soldiers under 18 from being sent on operations where there was a possibility of fighting. Despite this, at least 20 soldiers aged 17 are known to have served in Afghanistan and Iraq due to errors by the MoD.

typical claptrap from the defender of all stupidity lefty wise.

trust YOU to defend Abbots stupidity by relying on the errors of others  

Not of course that we dont understand, after all your "blessed leader" would totally neuter the armed forces.

Seriously just spat out my drink of tea laughing....

HoratioTarr wrote:She's the clown that just keeps giving.

Agreed....horrible woman.

She's just not very bright is she .

Labour = lies & spin

Politicians of all persuasions = lies and spin.