[National Service] "I don't know what I've been told..."

"But David Cameron is mighty boring". (I can't think of anything better)

16 year-olds into national service? Not in today's world


Thoughts on politics? (I'm very bored)

Added in a news link

 

I'm a Conservative, yet I abhor David Cameron. I used to kind of agree with the idea of National Service. However, it shouldn't be for 16 year olds and it would be detrimental to the armed forces. My opinion of Gordon Brown has improved vastly after the way he's handled the difficult beginning to his premiership, however. If he were to call a snap election, I might be inclined to vote for him.

 

In some ways national service makes a hell of a lot of sense and in others it's a god awful idea.


From friends who have been involved in a heavily structured rule and respect based environment such as Air/Army/Navy cadets to those involved in the less structured but still respect based environments like scouts, the majority have a strong respect for their fellow man.

What level of impact this is has in addition to parenting skills I would want to guess but from experience there have been a couple of bad eggs at my old school who turned things round in a HUGE way after they went into army cadets.

From a discipline point of view getting everyone involved one way or another would be a good idea.



HOWEVER


Enforced national service is ridiculously extreme to a stupid level. The British armed forces are as affective as they are be cause the people we have in there want to be there. They then get let down hugely by an incompetant government that slashes defence budgets and causes our one proud and self sufficient armed service to become reliant on America and others. Lord help us if the Argies decided to go for the Falklands again, we couldn't defend them these days.




Anyway I disagree with compulsory national service.

 

It was one thing to make people join the army when the World Wars were on, it's another to do it when we're fighting in countries we don't need to fight in.

 

Absolute national service is a terrible idea, and there is no way I would support it. But there's an argument to be made for a middle ground. How about a compulsory year's military training (without actually having to go to war).

What is the point in sending soldiers to fight who basically don't want to do that. That sort of person (which includes me) would probably be a liability to the unit.

 

I personally couldn't join the army because of my eye sight, however, I sure as hell wouldn't want to see my mates go off to any war because the government said so. I'd be devastated.

 

Don't mass produce soldiers if these soldiers will be inefficient.
That's just making cannon fodder.

 

Exactamundo. The British Army is one of the best trained in the world. Mass conscription will only make the training less efficient.

 

National Service is a good idea, in theory.

As long as it's not purely military service. There's a lot of things Britain's youth can do without being turned into trained killers.

 

no way. why should i be made to serve in a nations forces for a year? what if i was 16 and wanted to carry on lernin?

even the 'middle ground'. not going abroad, just serving for a year. totally ridiculous idea, you shouldnt be forced to do anything like that. making it compulsory is ridiculous. you dont choose to be born here, and at that age you cant really leave on your own. so you shouldnt make people do that

 

Other countries manage to get around it. Young people can delay service until they're 18, or until after they've finished university.

 

We're already "forced" to do stuff that we may not want to do. Pay taxes and bills. TV licence, drive at a certain limit (and have to go through "training" to be able to do that). Any notion that we live in a "free" society is rubbish. We don't at all, but that's just part of life.

We used to have national service and I'd be the first to agree that the youngsters back then were a lot more well-behaved than they are now (biggest mistake was getting rid of corporal punishment)

But don't be under the illusion that we shouldn't be forced to do stuff, because we are. All the time.

 

sorry thats not what i meant. theres a difference between paying taxes and going away from home at a young age on a years service. you've got to realise that.

it'd destroy so many young people. i know certainly wouldnt be loving it. its just a stupid idea to stop the 'hoodie culture'. "kick some discipline into 'em"



also...cloney overhyped this dramatically

http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL0676145020070906

 

A year may possibly be too much, I agree. But a 6 week course for all "young adults" is certainly something to seriously consider.

Sadly though, most youth problems develop before the school leaving age, and that is down to the whole PC/human rights brigade. In the past, teachers were respected as they had authority. That authority has been stripped away over the past 10-20 years and kids know that they can basically do what they like at school and won't suffer any consequences.

In a ridiculously poor attempt to correct that, the government has decided to punish the parents for kids not attending school. Yeah, that'll work

 

yeah its getting ridiculous in schools. there was a case in the north east where kids were sent home for wearing trainers (against uniform regulations) and parents complained...if youre sending your kid off to school..give him the right clothes. totally ridiculous.

my mother is a teacher actually, and she constantly has children who wont do as theyre told, dont join in when the class have to get together, lie on the floor without doing anything...and she cant touch them to make them sit up or anything, isnt allowed to touch children that are in her care. she cant even administer plasters without calling a parent.

 

There are several countries in Europe that require National Service from their youth. Greece is one, from what I've heard, Norway is another. I haven't heard about their kids being destroyed, or in fact, reports of terrible youth crime going on there.

Seriously, it'd give kids discipline that some of them badly need. I'd advocate sending every kid to a boxing club when they hit puberty to let them both blow off steam and learn ideas about self-discipline and restraint, as it certainly helped me through my teenage years; but countless "mothers" don't want to send their kids to one because of the "mindless violence" that doesn't go on there, but seems to be stereotyped all because they don't want their delicate little flowers being hurt . Seriously, boxing is good for kids, national service would be good for kids. We certainly wouldn't have the youth problems we have now.

 

im sorry i cant agree with that. i can see your point.

but what about those who have no violent (even in a controlled, boxing environment) tendencies? if i were in the ring, id just get hit/try to dodge. im not gonna be made to hit someone. ill use myself personally, if i were in the army for a year i have no doubt that id be absoloutely destroyed by the people there that i would live with.

i spent a day last year at a camp as part of a prefect thing at school. total hell, id say im a fairly decent person, never get violent (all this 'yob culture') but when i was in the barracks, it was hell. people pushing you out of the way being totally rude, insulting to me and to other ways of life ('homo' etc), just because...well i dont know why, cos theyre bigger, they enjoy having pathetic power over others. you'd be subjecting people to a group of small minded idiots.

yeah all that stuff isnt really insulting, you just laugh it off. but why would you want to give someone a year of that?

the army is good for people who like the regulations and order of it all, they want to be there, they thrive on the structure of it all. it isnt for everyone.

youd be making people spend a year of their life doing something they dont want to do constantly

 

you spent "one day" there? Of course you hated it. You were with the people that national serive and the like is supposed to help, and they ain't gonna learn in one day. Yes it will be crap for some for a while, but after a month with military discipline then things change.

And I disagree with Spike about the boxing thing, and agree with elbertino. I would NOT advocate people learning and being forced into combat and/or fighting. But I would advocate military training (discipline, physical exercise etc etc)

 

yeah i know it was a poor example (one day) but my point was. i have discipline, i show respect to people. putting me in an environment where i wouldnt be happy wouldnt help at all. there'd be no need for it. maybe if youre charged with antisocial behaviour, instead of being sent to young offenders you get sent to a barracks for 6 months. that may work.

they probably dont hear about youth crime over here either

 

"i have discipline, i show respect to people"

//looks up Woodlebert's admin notes

 

oh @"%^ you

 

elbertino:

but what about those who have no violent (even in a controlled, boxing environment) tendencies? if i were in the ring, id just get hit/try to dodge. im not gonna be made to hit someone. ill use myself personally, if i were in the army for a year i have no doubt that id be absoloutely destroyed by the people there that i would live with.

Half the time at a boxing club you don't even have to get in a ring with anyone at all. I know people who've gone through their entire boxing club careers without having to spar with an opponent. It has its benefits outside of learning to fight. One: Self discipline: or, in a geek's term, "with great power comes great responsibility." You know how to handle yourself, but you also have the discipline to make yourself not retaliate when some charver wants to try and prove himself a big man. Too many kids these days get into gang fights that escalate to the point where young kids are shot, simply because they don't have the discipline to just walk away. Two: Physical fitness: If kids aren't roaming the streets trying to kill each other, they're sitting at home being couch potatoes and gaining fat. A bit of exercise is a lot more beneficial in the long-run to Britain's youths' health than allowing them to "do what they want" and get fat.

i spent a day last year at a camp as part of a prefect thing at school. total hell, id say im a fairly decent person, never get violent (all this 'yob culture') but when i was in the barracks, it was hell. people pushing you out of the way being totally rude, insulting to me and to other ways of life ('homo' etc), just because...well i dont know why, cos theyre bigger, they enjoy having pathetic power over others. you'd be subjecting people to a group of small minded idiots.

yeah all that stuff isnt really insulting, you just laugh it off. but why would you want to give someone a year of that?

Yeah, that's not particularly on, and I have heard of instances of barrack bullying, some even leading to the point of death. Then again, these people could've just been ********s and you met the wrong people. In first joining up with national service, all 18 year olds are stuck in the same boat, much like you are when you join new schools. You don't like it, but eventually you'll learn something.

the army is good for people who like the regulations and order of it all, they want to be there, they thrive on the structure of it all. it isnt for everyone.

youd be making people spend a year of their life doing something they dont want to do constantly

Some people see it as a matter of duty. What if this was 1939 and you'd just been conscripted to fight Germany? Would you refuse because you'd be spending time doing something you didn't want to do?

hal: And I disagree with Spike about the boxing thing, and agree with elbertino. I would NOT advocate people learning and being forced into combat and/or fighting. But I would advocate military training (discipline, physical exercise etc etc)

I said it ^ but I'll repeat, some people have gone through years at boxing clubs without having to be put into a ring. Most trainers are very understanding, and the most contact you'll get with an opponent will involve one-way "boxercise" with pads. (i.e., the discipline and physical exercise you're talking about).

 

they probably dont hear about youth crime over here either

You'd be wrong. The Rhys Jones incident, for example, has been reported all over the world, to the shock and abject horror of people in countries that we think have a problem.

 

I have no doubt that the occasional incident gets worldwide press, but I think elbertino's point is about general youth crime. In the last week or so (apart from Rhys), we've had 2 youth stabbings, a 14 yr old girl admitting to killing her 16 yr old sister and several other serious offences. We had the Bulger case (which didn't get as much international press as Rhys), and Damiola Taylor. We DO have a high youth crime rate, but there is no way we'd know what other countries are like unless we visit their equivalent of our BBC news page every day. In this country, we're more interested in Pete Doherty having a gram of cocaine in his back pocket than we are about a 13 yr old stabbing someone in Belarus. That's just part of modern culture unfortunately.

And WRT the boxing thing, you should have been more clear in your first post

 

And WRT the boxing thing, you should have been more clear in your first post

Sorry, I forget sometimes that most people have never so much as put on a pair of gloves and therefore have no idea what I'm talking about