BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Commonwealth has no clear role; it confers no trade privileges upon its members, does not coordi...

The Commonwealth has no clear role; it confers no trade privileges upon its members, does not coordinate their defence or foreign policy, and lacks both the budget and the executive authority to make a practical difference in the world. Periodic meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government are at best a talking-shop and at worst an expensive junket. It would be far better for its members to commit their attention and goodwill to more meaningful international organisations, such as the UN, NATO, regional free-trade areas, etc.
The Commonwealth is a sham as its members always pursue their own self-interest when it conflicts wi...

The Commonwealth is a sham as its members always pursue their own self-interest when it conflicts with Commonwealth solidarity. Britain’s involvement in the European Union has resulted in the removal of preferential trading terms from many Commonwealth members and its support a fortress of European tariffs which help to restrict economic development in much of the third world. On important issues naked self-interest always wins out over Commonwealth solidarity, for example Britain’s refusal to place sanctions on South Africa in the 1980s.
In practice the Commonwealth is ineffectual. It is indecisive, dithering for years about imposing ev...

In practice the Commonwealth is ineffectual. It is indecisive, dithering for years about imposing even symbolic sanctions upon Nigeria in the 1990s when it was under a corrupt and brutal military dictatorship. It also has no real means of ensuring that member states live up to the principles it preaches, for example, flagrant human rights abuses in Zimbabwe have gone unpunished, as did those of Idi Amin in Uganda in the 1970s.
The Commonwealth is a pointless legacy of the British Empire, which serves only to bolster Britain’s...

The Commonwealth does not deny the injustices of history, but instead transforms them positively by building upon the common links between the member nations, almost all of which have English as a major language and political and legal systems modelled upon the British precedent. Today all the countries of the Commonwealth have equal status and Britain is no longer dominant in the way it was in the immediate post-colonial era. Many of the members have entered through deliberate choice, not just through an accident of history, and countries such as Rwanda and Cambodia, which have no historic link to the British Empire, are also considering joining.
The Commonwealth has no clear role; it confers no trade privileges upon its members, does not coordi...

1. The Commonwealth does not deny the injustices of history, but instead transforms them positively by building upon the common links between the member nations, almost all of which have English as a major language and political and legal systems modelled upon the British precedent. Today all the countries of the Commonwealth have equal status and Britain is no longer dominant in the way it was in the immediate post-colonial era. Many of the members have entered through deliberate choice, not just through an accident of history, and countries such as Rwanda and Cambodia, which have no historic link to the British Empire, are also considering joining. 2. Aside from the UN, the Commonwealth is the only major international organisation to unite a diverse range of developed and developing countries, covering nearly 30% of the world’s population. This makes it valuable in fostering dialogue on democracy and development, as well as a great deal of cultural and academic exchange. The Harare Declaration of 1991 committed the Commonwealth to principles of human rights and democratic government, and the Commonwealth has provided practical and moral support for states in transition from dictatorship or colonial rule. Nor is there a conflict between membership of the Commonwealth and of other major global organisations.Smaller, developing nations perhaps gain the most from the Commonwealth, which gives their voice greater prominence than it could achieve in the much larger, more polarised United Nations. They gain technical assistance on a range of development issues, a forum in which bilateral trade and investment deals can be negotiated in an atmosphere of goodwill, and practical help in maintaining permanent missions to the UN.
If the allegation or conviction came from an unfounded source, it can be deleted

Some allegations or convictions do not come from reliable sources. The individual need not be worried about these coming to light through a background check because they can be deleted. Employment barrister, Yvette Genn, receives an increasing number of calls from people wanting to know how such damaging intelligence can be deleted: “You can now apply to the Care Standards Tribunal to have information weeded out. Because in some cases, it may be a wholly unfounded allegation based on one anonymous source… The HRA is a balancing act between the privacy rights of an individual and the well-being of society. But if you could prove that the holding of such information was disproportionate, you might have an arguable case.”(1) (1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3313099.stm
Could lead to vigilante attacks

If parents have a means to stay informed and alert to those people who may threaten their children, they are less likely to become afraid and angry to the point where they would take such action. Vigilante attacks are a means of action for parents who otherwise feel powerless to protect their children; if we can empower them with information, they will not need to go outside legal channels. wilkeyboy here agreeing with above,and yes let us know who they are. And to no opposite, who is going to object to a check unless they have something to hide ?. And yes we will(well I would) take the weak law into my own hands because the pathetic individuals have no deterent and no punishment when caught and no regard for the victim.
Parents should be able to do everything to protect their children

"Children are the most precious things in the world". I would argue there are two things which are more important than a single child. -Fundamental Human Rights Giving away such information takes away a persons right to privacy. They may never intend to touch a child again, the offence could have been consensual sex with a 15 year old who told the "Sex offender" they were 18, the "sex offender" could have been wrongly convicted. Whatever warrants the label sex offender will be punished by the state, there need be no more punishment when a sentence according to the judge has been served. -Justice Giving away such information will lead to vigilantes, people taking the law into their own hands. One mistake should not lead to a life of torture.
Would be very hard to maintain

In saving the lives and welfare of potentially thousands of children, this hardly matters. Yes, it would be extra work, but this does not compare to the welfare of the children of our society. It would also create many extra jobs and reduce unemployment in the country. Wilkseyboy agreeing wholeheartedly with above. To no opposite there are enough police and office staff to cover it. It will give many something to do anyway. I occasions I see them it is for the curry run in the cars or vans to avoid the 400 mtr walk,or on one of the many many tv programes,cops with cameras,cop chase etc etc. Prior to Christmas there were 7 tv programmes with different police authorities across the country. Yes, more cameras,more checks,and more parents informed about deviant characters. Children are more important.
Yes more checks more innocents saved.

Unfortunately and regrettably some of the swines will avoid being detected or informed about but it will save SOME children. We need more cameras all over the place,more readily available checks to find out WHO is living by our children. But what I feel we need and would be better is REAL DETERENT,there is non. Why protect them ? what good are they ? how soft is prison. Let them be named and shamed. Anyone who objects to a check must have something to hide.
Could lead to vigilante attacks

If a person is to be found with previous convictions for child abuse, has served their time and is deemed to be no longer dangerous to society, their details would become available to parents. Parents could act irrationally and organise attacks on the individual. This most certainly is not unheard of. Paedophiles have already been subject to attacks, abuse and taunting. This is obviously a breach of their human rights and could lead to a backlash against background checks.
Parents should be able to do everything to protect their children

When a person brings children into this world, adopts or assumes care for a child, they should be able to do everything possible to protect them. This cannot be done if there is a dangerous sex offender living next-door, who has slipped past the police and is in a position to abuse your child. Children are the most precious things in the world, the future of tomorrow. It is our duty to take care of them. Donald Findlater, of the child protection charity Lucy Faithfull Foundation, added: “The biggest risk to children is not from the registered sex offender who the police know and are managing; it is from the sex offender who is not registered and who no one knows about.”(1) In light of this, it seems more than reasonable that a parent should be able to ask the police to check records of someone who they think might be potentially dangerous. Surely it cannot be breaching an individual’s human rights for information on any violent or sexual crimes that may have been committed, in contrast with the safety of a child. (1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/2957971/Parents-to-get-access-to-background-checks-on-suspected-paedophiles.html
Single mothers can check out their new partner

Unfortunately in today’s society, some people are not what they appear to be. Karen Matthews, mother of Shannon Matthews, who went missing in February of this year, was living with her boyfriend for five years before it emerged that he had 49 images on his computer of child pornography. No matter how much you think you may know someone, you never can be too careful. This is why background checks can be so important. Imagine if something happened to Shannon or any of her siblings. It need not be a case of not trusting a new partner: it is acting in the best interests of your children, before allowing a potential stranger to come into contact with them.
Some will still be able to fool the system

Fake identifications can be made to obtain jobs with children by paedophiles. An example of this would be paedophile James Chester, aged 22, who posed as a year ten student after obtaining fake identification and abducted and engaged in sexual activity with a thirteen year-old girl. He fooled the school and even the girl’s family into believing he was a fifteen year-old boy. Now this young girl is having counselling in an attempt to stop horrific flashbacks and put this whole experience behind her. How difficult would it be to obtain a fake birth certificate? The answer is, not very. Background checking would not be able to intervene and prevent abuse in this instance.
What police tell parents will be confidential

Critics also worry that once a parent knows that someone coming into contact with their child does have previous records for child abuse, not only will they withdraw the contact between them, they will also alert other parents to the situation. However, the parent will face penalties if they do so and the police have assessed that the situation is not dangerous. If the parents discloses information to any others, that lead to violence on the individual who has been background checked, they may face criminal prosecution. This protects all individual’s human rights.
Could spark a wave of suspicion and unnecessary claims

Yes, it could possibly spark off a wave of suspicion, but this would all be settled when the background checks are returned. Many staff members, such as at schools and at clubs, are already background checked when they are employed, so that parents know they have no previous convictions that would deem them unsafe to work with children. The British Judo Association is just one example of a club who do this. Agreed with the above but for no opposite let it be a witch trials if you like. If it saves innocents,which it will,then so be it. Also it would stop a lot of it happening anyway and drive the sickos out, hurrah yes because the courts do not punish them.
Only two in three sexual predators have records

It is inevitable that perhaps great atrocities will still, and perhaps always will happen. The aim of background checking is to help save as many youths as is possible and does not promise to save everyone. It merely encourages previous convictions to become knowledge to those who need it to protect their children. Combine this with the good works done by the police and hopefully more child abusers will obtain records which can be known by the appropriate people.
If the allegation or conviction came from an unfounded source, it can be deleted

Great, just what this country needs, more litigation. This would mean that a person would have to prove their innocence if such information came out on their record check. The idea behind the English legal system is innocent until proven guilty. The onus of proof is on the prosecution, they have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If a person had a slur on their record due to an unfounded, uninvestigated claim it would break against that traditional principle.
Could spark a wave of suspicion and unnecessary claims

If parents are allowed to background check anyone who comes into contact with their children, it is possible that hundreds and possibly even thousands of individuals will come under scrutiny. Everyone would be suspicious of each other. It could spark off a ‘witch hunt’. Guy Herbert, general secretary of the civil liberties group No2ID, said: "It's virtually a return to the witch trials, and is the logical conclusion of our zero-trust society. Everybody is being encouraged to be suspicious of everybody else.”(1) The police would become inundated with calls from parents, who are perhaps too concerned and question every adult who forms a relationship with their children: neighbours; parents of their friends; school staff; club leaders – the list would go on and on. (1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/2957971/Parents-to-get-access-to-background-checks-on-suspected-paedophiles.html
Only two in three sexual predators have records

One third of sexual predators have managed to slip through the net, undetected by the police for whatever reason. An example of this is Ian Huntley, who was subject to rigorous background checking before being allowed to become a caretaker, before going on to murder Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. A subsequent enquiry revealed that, between 1995 and 2001, Huntley had sexual contact with eleven underage girls, ranging between 11 and 17 years old(1). Russell Lee commented: “The Criminal Records Bureau is only as effective as the information it can access”(2). Since roughly a third of sexual crimes are committed by people without a precious conviction, it is inevitable that some people with apparently excellent credentials but sinister intentions are going to get jobs working with children or vulnerable adults. And we will only know when it is too late. (1) http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/famous_criminal/21/biography/1/Ian_Huntley_The_Soham_Murderer.htm (2) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3313099.stm
Alienation

Secondly, it is argued that not allowing 16 and 17 year-olds the vote further adds to young people’s feelings of political alienation and suggests that the views of 16 and 17-year olds are not valid. "The exclusion of 16 and 17 year olds from elections is fuelling the disengagement of 18-24 year olds. The longer young people are denied involvement in the formal democratic process, the less chance there is of engaging them ever. There is no evidence to suggest that once 18, young people are likely to become more engaged." - Electoral Reform Society
Rights of the 16 year old are not as far reaching as supposed so they do not warrant the vote on the 'rights'/consistency argument

16/17 year olds joining the armed forces sign up to a period of at least 4 years, meaning that at 16, they are making decisions which may place their lives in danger for half of their minimum time in the armed forces. Similarly, while 16/17 year olds in England and Wales require the permission of their parents or legal guardians to marry, being granted the legal responsibility over ones sex life, with potential health risks and/or creation of new life should not be underestimated. Finally, while VAT is indeed paid by anyone, this is clearly different to direct contributions to national insurance and jobseekers allowance paid by those over the age of 16. The Electoral Reform Society Why should discriminatory laws mean that uner 18s cannot vote, when these laws in of themselves are justified by the inability to vote.
Increase turnout

A further argument in favour of reducing the voting age is that reducing the voting age will increase turnout. This is because people are more likely to maintain the habit of voting throughout their lives if they start at a younger age. At present, a child will usually leave school at 16. They are leaving an environment where political issues can be discussed and debated, increasing their interest in politics. Once they have left school, they may have to wait up to 8 years before they have their first opportunity to vote at a general election. By this time, they have lost interest and are less likely to vote.
Rights

"The rights based argument maintains that as voting is the central way in which citizens express their judgement and support of government policy, it is only fair that those who are affected by major government decisions are given the opportunity to express their opinions via the ballot box. The most common examples of these are the responsibilities of joining the armed forces, raising a family and paying tax, the argument being that if you can die for your country, get married and pay tax, you should have the right to indicate your feelings to the government." - Electoral Reform Society Your voice is your vote- how can people expect the needs of under 18s to be met if their is no incentive (ie votes for the parties that help them)
YES, give them the rights they deserve!

First of all, your proposed scheme here poses a practicality problem: who or what, will be deciding on the maturity of 16 years-old voters? How would "maturity" be measured? Through tests? If we do let a group of 16 years old vote, and we ban another group of 16 years old from voting, then the problem of injustice will arise. Protests are likely to be sparked. From your argument, it can be seen that your only reason for lowering the voting age to 16 is that "David Cameron ruined this country". But it is unfair, if not dangerous, to damage existing voting system and democracy to exercise one group's political views.
Consistency

It is important to note that in England a 16-year-old can only marry or leave home with their parents’ permission. A 16-year-old also cannot buy alcohol, buy cigarettes, or drive a car. You cannot argue on the grounds of ‘consistency’ without also arguing to lower the legal age for these activities as well. Furthermore how is it argued or by whom? by you? painstakingly not you create a logical fallacy by saying because 16 year olds do this they should be able to do that. My 12 year old nephew can run does that mean he should be able to participate in a marathon? obviously not because he lacks certain qualities that it takes to run a marathon just like 16 year olds lack certain qualities to vote at 16
They are still maturing, and have not learned enough yet through education as well as experience to make fully informed decisions.

Research has shown the brains of young adults are not fully mature. Thus, they may not be able to fully comprehend the consequences of their choices, including who or what they might vote for. Below is an excerpt of an article from the website "Live Science" which describes what research has uncovered concerning the brain development of young adults: At an age when Americans are first considered adults, their brains are still maturing, a new study suggests. Researchers at Dartmouth College scanned the brains of nineteen 18-year-old students who had moved more than 100 miles to attend school. "During the first year of college, students have many new experiences," said psychologist Abigail Baird, the study's principal investigator. "They are faced with new cognitive, social, and emotional challenges." A group of 17 older students, ranging in age from 25 to 35, served as a control group for comparison. The results showed that the freshmen students' brains underwent significant changes and were very different from that of the older adults. The researchers believe the changes represent an increased awareness of the students' inner feelings and an improved ability to organize and integrate incoming sensory information; this synthesis helps shape the kinds of emotional and behavioral responses they have to new experiences. The results are consistent with other research suggesting that the human brain continues to grow and mature right up to the point when we become adults and even beyond. In another study, researchers found that humans don't really develop the ability to handle multiple pieces of information at once until about the ages of 16 or 17. "The brain of an 18-year-old college freshman is still far from resembling the brain of someone in their mid-twenties," said Craig Bennett, a graduate student who was involved in the new research. "When do we reach adulthood? It might be much later than we traditionally think." (end of article). In fact, this research, although it doesn't address the issue of voting, suggests through extrapolation, that the age at which a person should be allowed to vote be RAISED instead!
Effected be the policy makers decisions

The average 16 year old in this country seems completely uninterested in politics and relatively unaware of its significance. Whilst they may realise that whatever happens has an effect on them and their lives, and may loosely follow the goings on of the world, they are not doing so to the point where they have warranted a vote. Do you really want uninformed children deciding the next Government? It is true that many 16 year olds are informed, clever, interested and desperate to make changes. However, these 16/17 year olds are a minority in this.
YES, give them the rights they deserve!

yes, I do understand that sixteen year olds are you and some may be irresponsible but that shouldn't determine why other 16 year olds cant vote, there should be a voting list of which 16 year olds are mature and responsible enough to vote there are plenty of other things they are aloud to do so why jepordise how this country is ran by not letting 16 year olds be able to vote, huh? This isn't just affecting you guys because you are old enough to vote. David Cameron has ruined this country and let the people of Britain down if we where aloud to vote then we could of changed that, for the better of Britain and the folks that live here! Thank you for reading my viewpoint.
Consistency

It is argued that the voting age should be reduced to provide consistency between the age a person can vote; with the age they can leave school; marry; have children; leave home; pay taxes; work full time; and join the armed forces. and also at the age of 16 you can choose to have sex it is legal to have sex at 16 which is a big responsibility in its self also as you can have sex you can choose whether to have a baby which would make you a parent and on all the medicines and food if you are over 10/13 you are classed as a adult so why can’t they have the opportunity to vote? Can you please specify these qualities that at 16 year old lacks.