# Conscription



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 2, 2014)

Heard a story tonight that the government is bringing out a bill to re-introduce conscription for 18 to 26 year olds.

Anyone know about this or is it Chinese whispers.


----------



## guest100718 (Sep 2, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Heard a story tonight that the government is bringing out a bill to re-introduce conscription for 18 to 26 year olds.

Anyone know about this or is it Chinese whispers.
		
Click to expand...


BS of the highest order.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 2, 2014)

A little bit early for April Fools 

Why would they bring conscription when they are making defence cuts


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Sep 2, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Heard a story tonight that the government is bringing out a bill to re-introduce conscription for 18 to 26 year olds.

Anyone know about this or is it Chinese whispers.
		
Click to expand...

To call it Chinese Whispers is a slander on the Chinese, that story is utter poo.

Someone is on the wind up!

either that or it's the only way salmond could get an armed forces, post-yes!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 2, 2014)

Would be interesting to know where this story was heard


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 2, 2014)

It is seemingly on a Gov website.
Two separate guys, both seem quite genuine, said they have seen it, might be just a bit of a hi jack but seems a bit weird.

I did a quick check but can't find anything.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 2, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			It is seemingly on a Gov website.
Two separate guys, both seem quite genuine, said they have seen it, might be just a bit of a hi jack but seems a bit weird.

I did a quick check but can't find anything.
		
Click to expand...

Which guys ? And which website ?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 2, 2014)

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/09/16/324243/uk-new-forced-conscription-bill-a-look/

Don't know how genuine this is?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 2, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/09/16/324243/uk-new-forced-conscription-bill-a-look/

Don't know how genuine this is?
		
Click to expand...

Well it's over a year old anyway can you not read the date ? and it's one MP wanting to re introduce the bill and was squashed immediately and wasn't even discussed


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 2, 2014)

Good idea though.    Some countries that operate it have an opt out to do alternate community work if you don't like it up em.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 2, 2014)

I know recruiting is down and the TA numbers (oops Army Reserves) are down but this is a huge WAH.


----------



## beck9965 (Sep 2, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Well it's over a year old anyway can you not read the date ? and it's one MP wanting to re introduce the bill and was squashed immediately and wasn't even discussed
		
Click to expand...

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/nationalservice.html


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 2, 2014)

Our armed forces are not set up for national service - there is no need for national service.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 2, 2014)

beck9965 said:



http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/nationalservice.html

Click to expand...

Mr Hollobone was instructed on the length of time it takes to train people to use today's modern equipment and agreed that 5 years national service might be a tad unpopular. :angry:


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 2, 2014)

beck9965 said:



http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/nationalservice.html

Click to expand...

Bill failed


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 2, 2014)

beck9965 said:



http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/nationalservice.html

Click to expand...


Sorry it was read once but not debated and never read again


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 2, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Our armed forces are not set up for national service - there is no need for national service.
		
Click to expand...

Having people with a basic military training can be useful in times of National emergency when you may need to boost numbers quickly.   It wont create highly skilled technicians but if it was for something like eight months it would create a second line reserve that could be mobilised into further training fairly quickly, they could also carry out say a further two years reserve training.    There could also be the opt out to cary out community service.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 2, 2014)

I was told that the UK Army is down to 80,000 diluting to about 18,000 fighting troops.
Navy down to 19 warships and two unusable aircraft carriers.

Not sure if that is good or bad.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 2, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I was told that the UK Army is down to 80,000 diluting to about 18,000 fighting troops.
Navy down to 19 warships and two unusable aircraft carriers.

Not sure if that is good or bad.
		
Click to expand...

Who told you!  Someone down the pub?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 2, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			Having people with a basic military training can be useful in times of National emergency when you may need to boost numbers quickly.   It wont create highly skilled technicians but if it was for something like eight months it would create a second line reserve that could be mobilised into further training fairly quickly, they could also carry out say a further two years reserve training.    There could also be the opt out to cary out community service.
		
Click to expand...

So you want the military people to train people who won't actually provide anything for the military ? We already have the TA or the RNR or the RAF Reservists 

Plus how do you pay for it all ? 

When was the last national emergency we had ? 

Thankfully it appears the politicians realise what a ridiculous and unworkable idea it is and it wasn't even debated. 

The country has no need for national service - there is no need to make any 18-26 go through basic military training - any gobernemmg that even suggests such a ludicrous thing won't last long in power.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 2, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I was told that the UK Army is down to 80,000 diluting to about 18,000 fighting troops.
Navy down to 19 warships and two unusable aircraft carriers.

Not sure if that is good or bad.
		
Click to expand...

The aircraft carriers are unusable because they are still being built and waiting for the JSF to be ready for service - that's not a new thing 

And yes there is about 80-90 thousand in the army - no idea what diluted nonsense you are talking about 

When someone tells you all this stuff do actually do any research first to see of it's not nonsense


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 2, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So you want the military people to train people who won't actually provide anything for the military ? We already have the TA or the RNR or the RAF Reservists 

Plus how do you pay for it all ? 

When was the last national emergency we had ? 

Thankfully it appears the politicians realise what a ridiculous and unworkable idea it is and it wasn't even debated. 

The country has no need for national service - there is no need to make any 18-26 go through basic military training - any gobernemmg that even suggests such a ludicrous thing won't last long in power.
		
Click to expand...

I did explain they would be partially trained and some would be doing public service and they could also do reserve service for a few years as well, I believe the reserves are struggling for people.

I think there may be some national emergencies coming along before too long. 

Maybe it could be partially funded by the benefits many of them get and people who are in education or certain professions could be excluded.

Maybe the Kippers would go for it.   It may even get a lot of popular support.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 2, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			I did explain they would be partially trained and some would be doing public service and they could also do reserve service for a few years as well, I believe the reserves are struggling for people.

I think there may be some national emergencies coming along before too long. 

Maybe it could be partially funded by the benefits many of them get and people who are in education or certain professions could be excluded.

Maybe the Kippers would go for it.   It may even get a lot of popular support.
		
Click to expand...

So which professions do you want exclude ? 

Or would it be just people on benefits ? 

Partially trained ?! Where do you stop then ? 

The "Kippers " could try it - maybe they would go one step further and make immigrants do it 

What national emergencies do you see coming along ? 

The idea of introducing national service in this country is unworkable and not needed - simple as that.


----------



## williamalex1 (Sep 2, 2014)

I missed out on national service by about 3 years the last time round. I've often wondered how it would have changed my life.
I think some form of training should be compulsory for the long term unemployed.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 2, 2014)

beck9965 said:



http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/nationalservice.html

Click to expand...

On the same day he introduced a number of other bills (deemed the alternative Queen's Speech) including ones to decriminalise the the non-payment of TV License, to reintroduce Capital Punishment for certain crimes, to facilitate the transfer of asylum seekers to the safe country nearest their country of origin, to force Head Teachers to make provision to keep schools open in adverse weather conditions and to rename the August Bank Holiday Margaret Thatcher Day! 

I don't believe any of these Bills , except maybe the Decriminalising of Non-payment of TV License (currently at Committee stage), made it further than the 1st Reading!

The guy should be invoiced for wasting Parliamentary time!


----------



## MadAdey (Sep 2, 2014)

Stick national service up yer arse as far as I'm concerned. I found the younger generation was not too hot at times for showing respect for rank, or doing as they are told and they want to be in the forces. What would some reprobate that is being made to do service because he has been on the dole for 3 years be like?

long gone are the days where you can throw people in a nice bath and wash them yard brushes. You can't even swear at them now or force them to do something that they do not want to, as they can report you for harassment as you are infringing on their human rights.....


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 3, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			Stick national service up yer arse as far as I'm concerned. I found the younger generation was not too hot at times for showing respect for rank, or doing as they are told and they want to be in the forces. What would some reprobate that is being made to do service because he has been on the dole for 3 years be like?

long gone are the days where you can throw people in a nice bath and wash them yard brushes. You can't even swear at them now or force them to do something that they do not want to, as they can report you for harassment as you are infringing on their human rights.....
		
Click to expand...


All that can be changed if you have the will to do it.   It just may give those people some pride in themselves rather than a life without self respect.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 3, 2014)

I'm ready and waiting to be called up and I've just been practicing ready for it

" they don't like it up em them fuzzy wuzzies"

"Permission to speak Captain Mainwairing"

"We're all doomed, we're all doomed"

"Stupid boy"

Wonder if I'll be on the front line?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 3, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			Who told you!  Someone down the pub?
		
Click to expand...

No it was a former Westminister MP.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 3, 2014)

Need to bin this thread. The Yes voters on the Scottish debate actually believe it.

As I have indicated before, it's going to take more than 2 years to train people to use today's toys.

The figure for Regular Army for 2018 is 80,000, not enough to fill Wembley.  A tad worrying. Numbers for RAF & Navy, unsure - what do they do 

The numbers for the STABS required, never going to happen.

Government insisting other NATO members increase their defense spending after a massive reduction in ours.

Promising to build lots of new shinny tanks - problem, they have shut the production line down and no longer have the facilities, that's not taking into account how many MBT regiments we will now have.

Time for Trident to come into its own, I can give two targets if they need them, three if you count the country to the north


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 3, 2014)

Bugger, it's not even a tank http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-29040182


----------



## MadAdey (Sep 3, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			Need to bin this thread. The Yes voters on the Scottish debate actually believe it.

As I have indicated before, it's going to take more than 2 years to train people to use today's toys.
		
Click to expand...

what toys are you on about? You would not take conscripts and teach them to use tanks, that would be left to the career soldiers. It takes how long to teach someone to shoot an SA85-A2, Some NBC training and battle first aid? That is what you use the 3 year conscripts for. Teach them to be infantry men and then if we ever did have another large battle field war we would have a large pool of soldiers for it.


----------



## Val (Sep 3, 2014)

More likely to compulsory conscription in Scotland post YES when potentially many of the current Scottish soldiers serving in the UK forces don't want to join a Scottish military


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 3, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			what toys are you on about? You would not take conscripts and teach them to use tanks, that would be left to the career soldiers. It takes how long to teach someone to shoot an SA85-A2, Some NBC training and battle first aid? That is what you use the 3 year conscripts for. Teach them to be infantry men and then if we ever did have another large battle field war we would have a large pool of soldiers for it.
		
Click to expand...

You have seen the grunts new toys then. You obviously are fully aware that they no longer run around screaming banzie and use trench warfare any more. You might also take a look at the vehicles they could be fighting from and their commas and target acquisition equipment. Long has gone the day when a front line soldier just runs around with a rifle.

I suppose they could be truckies logies and policemen.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 3, 2014)

Valentino said:



			More likely to compulsory conscription in Scotland post YES when potentially many of the current Scottish soldiers serving in the UK forces don't want to join a Scottish military
		
Click to expand...

Have a like


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 3, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			Need to bin this thread. The Yes voters on the Scottish debate actually believe it.

As I have indicated before, it's going to take more than 2 years to train people to use today's toys.

The figure for Regular Army for 2018 is 80,000, not enough to fill Wembley.  A tad worrying. Numbers for RAF & Navy, unsure - what do they do 

The numbers for the STABS required, never going to happen.

Government insisting other NATO members increase their defense spending after a massive reduction in ours.

Promising to build lots of new shinny tanks - problem, they have shut the production line down and no longer have the facilities, that's not taking into account how many MBT regiments we will now have.

Time for Trident to come into its own, I can give two targets if they need them, three if you count the country to the north 

Click to expand...

Skier.....I think you may have been misled by my last post when I was replying to SR re the size of the UK army and navy.

If you read the posts the conscription thing came about by a young lad bringing it up at a meeting. The audience [95%] yes voters shook their heads and called it rubbish. Another young lad [not connected] also said that he had seen it on a government website.

That is why I opened this thread, to try and find out what it was all about.
Now we all know.
It was not rubbish, it happened and as it was posted on a government website.
The problem seemed to be caused by the dates, they confused folk as they say 2013/4


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 3, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Skier.....I think you may have been misled by my last post when I was replying to SR re the size of the UK army and navy.

If you read the posts the conscription thing came about by a young lad bringing it up at a meeting. The audience [95%] yes voters shook their heads and called it rubbish. Another young lad [not connected] also said that he had seen it on a government website.

That is why I opened this thread, to try and find out what it was all about.
Now we all know.
It was not rubbish, it happened and as it was posted on a government website.
The problem seemed to be caused by the dates, they confused folk as they say 2013/4
		
Click to expand...

Must have misread your http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/showthread.php?63444-Scotland-Debate/page374

where you found out about the Governments conscription plans.


----------



## MadAdey (Sep 3, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			You have seen the grunts new toys then. You obviously are fully aware that they no longer run around screaming banzie and use trench warfare any more. You might also take a look at the vehicles they could be fighting from and their commas and target acquisition equipment. Long has gone the day when a front line soldier just runs around with a rifle.

I suppose they could be truckies logies and policemen.
		
Click to expand...

they do not have to know how to operate a vehicle to fight from one. You do not need to teach conscripts either to use the live updating battle field plotting and target identifying systems. That level of high tech would be left to non conscript soldiers, that would be fully trained in its use. Not sure who brought up trench warfare, but you will always need soldiers trained to use a rifle in the battle field. The advanced vehicles being used are not that difficult to be trained on, so that the standard functions can be operated.


----------



## Val (Sep 3, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			they do not have to know how to operate a vehicle to fight from one. You do not need to teach conscripts either to use the live updating battle field plotting and target identifying systems. That level of high tech would be left to non conscript soldiers, that would be fully trained in its use. Not sure who brought up trench warfare, but you will always need soldiers trained to use a rifle in the battle field. The advanced vehicles being used are not that difficult to be trained on, so that the standard functions can be operated.
		
Click to expand...

Conscripts would be cannon fodder. Basic infantry skills inc weapons training, NBC, battlefield first aid and lots of fitness training.

All pie in the sky, never going to happen anyway.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 3, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			Must have misread your http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/showthread.php?63444-Scotland-Debate/page374

where you found out about the Governments conscription plans.
		
Click to expand...

Well he was a Tory MP:lol:


----------



## Beezerk (Sep 3, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			No it was a former Westminister MP.
		
Click to expand...

A complete jerk then.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Sep 3, 2014)

On a slight tangent, rather than out and out conscription, would it not be more viable to have some sort of national service and actually give some of the 16-18 year olds in this country a chance to learn a trade, improve educational skills out of a classroom (school/college) environment, and generally equip them to be more able to survive and find employment rather than drifting straight from school into a spiral of benefits. 

Granted, many leave school with qualifications and go onto further education or employment and so perhaps this does need to be a phased thing so that it doesn't jepordise their decision or ability to study or work. I'm not necessarilt advocating equipping them for military service and it has to be more than these government school leaver/apprenticeship schemes we've seen over the years that to my jaded eyes at least are short lived and achive little.

No doubt I'm looking for some utopia that's unachievable but surely there has to be some middle ground somewhere on this. Had there been national service in the 1980's as I was leaving school, I may not have wanted it but I feel I'd have got something out of it.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 3, 2014)

People that leave school at 16 with no qualifications have their own choice to join the forces if they wish - and then they can go on and have a full military career learning a trade as long as they have the right attitude and aptitude for it 

The military have enough on their hands training the people that actually want to be there and have a career in their mind 

Let the military do their job and let the government find other ways to sort out lay about who can't be bothered to do anything to earn money and will prefer benefits.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 3, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			Promising to build lots of new shinny tanks - problem, they have shut the production line down and no longer have the facilities,
		
Click to expand...

Longcross 'Tank Factory' is now used as (Longcross) Film Studios - lots of Skyfall and Harry Potter stunts were planned/filmed there. Easy access to Wentworth Edinburgh's 8th on one side and 'best' road for mad motorcyclists pulling wheelies - well made as they sneak onto the M3 from a couple of gates if required. They actually had a course of their own at Barrowhill!


----------



## williamalex1 (Sep 3, 2014)

HomerJSimpson said:



			On a slight tangent, rather than out and out conscription, would it not be more viable to have some sort of national service and actually give some of the 16-18 year olds in this country a chance to learn a trade, improve educational skills out of a classroom (school/college) environment, and generally equip them to be more able to survive and find employment rather than drifting straight from school into a spiral of benefits. 

Granted, many leave school with qualifications and go onto further education or employment and so perhaps this does need to be a phased thing so that it doesn't jepordise their decision or ability to study or work. I'm not necessarilt advocating equipping them for military service and it has to be more than these government school leaver/apprenticeship schemes we've seen over the years that to my jaded eyes at least are short lived and achive little.

No doubt I'm looking for some utopia that's unachievable but surely there has to be some middle ground somewhere on this. Had there been national service in the 1980's as I was leaving school, I may not have wanted it but I feel I'd have got something out of it.
		
Click to expand...

Much the same as in my post 24.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 3, 2014)

williamalex1 said:



			I missed out on national service by about 3 years the last time round. I've often wondered how it would have changed my life.
I think some form of training should be compulsory for the long term unemployed.
		
Click to expand...


What the government could do is employ the military people they have made redundant in the past 5 years to form a "Benefits School" where young people get taught life skills etc by ex military - a bit like that bad lads army that used to be around


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Sep 3, 2014)

I'm actually pretty keen on national service.Slightly tweaked from the old version I managed to avoid, but will aspects of military training, public service, teaching life skills and basics such as minor sparking/plumbing/engineering.Possibly as an alternative to university ( too many kids go to uni now imo).A degree of regimented life for todays youth ins't the worst idea.


Here's a question that maybe crosses from this thread to the referendum thread, and interesting given there seems to be loads ( and loads) of serving/ex forces on here:

Would you prefer The UK to become nuclear free if the capital investment was moved to 'normal' military budgets?Increased spending on equipment, increased numbers of troops instead on nukes?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 3, 2014)

There is no reasons why the country can't have a nuclear deterrent and more troops and equipment 

Don't believe it should be a choice between one or the other - both are vital to our defence of this country and the countries that are part of NATO


----------



## Ethan (Sep 3, 2014)

HomerJSimpson said:



			On a slight tangent, rather than out and out conscription, would it not be more viable to have some sort of national service and actually give some of the 16-18 year olds in this country a chance to learn a trade, improve educational skills out of a classroom (school/college) environment, and generally equip them to be more able to survive and find employment rather than drifting straight from school into a spiral of benefits. 

Granted, many leave school with qualifications and go onto further education or employment and so perhaps this does need to be a phased thing so that it doesn't jepordise their decision or ability to study or work. I'm not necessarilt advocating equipping them for military service and it has to be more than these government school leaver/apprenticeship schemes we've seen over the years that to my jaded eyes at least are short lived and achive little.

No doubt I'm looking for some utopia that's unachievable but surely there has to be some middle ground somewhere on this. Had there been national service in the 1980's as I was leaving school, I may not have wanted it but I feel I'd have got something out of it.
		
Click to expand...

This bad idea is generally proposed by people who have passed the age of eligibility for same, although they sometimes throw in "it might have done me some good".

It isn't 40s or 50s Britain now, the world has changed and national service is a relic of the past. Changing the economy so there is full employment would be a better strategy, but the people who pay the Government don't want that because part of it would be to get them to pay their taxes.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 3, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			There is no reasons why the country can't have a nuclear deterrent and more troops and equipment
		
Click to expand...

Apart from the huge cost!



Liverpoolphil said:



			Don't believe it should be a choice between one or the other - *both are vital to our defence of this country and the countries that are part of NATO*

Click to expand...

Are they? I'm certain that there would be no change to UK's ability to defend itself, or any other Nato ally, if it scrapped the 'Nuclear deterrent'! They are, after all, not UK's warheads anyway!

They are certainly not Defensive weapons!


----------



## Val (Sep 3, 2014)

Adi2Dassler said:



			I'm actually pretty keen on national service.Slightly tweaked from the old version I managed to avoid, but will aspects of military training, public service, teaching life skills and basics such as minor sparking/plumbing/engineering.Possibly as an alternative to university ( too many kids go to uni now imo).A degree of regimented life for todays youth ins't the worst idea.
		
Click to expand...

Join the Royal Engineers, TA version and you can get that currently 



Adi2Dassler said:



			Here's a question that maybe crosses from this thread to the referendum thread, and interesting given there seems to be loads ( and loads) of serving/ex forces on here:

Would you prefer The UK to become nuclear free if the capital investment was moved to 'normal' military budgets?Increased spending on equipment, increased numbers of troops instead on nukes?
		
Click to expand...

Nukes form an important part of the defence, they have to form part of the plan. It is inconceivable in my eyes NOT to have nukes.


----------



## Val (Sep 3, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Apart from the huge cost!



Are they? I'm certain that there would be no change to UK's ability to defend itself, or any other Nato ally, if it scrapped the 'Nuclear deterrent'! They are, after all, not UK's warheads anyway!

*They are certainly not Defensive weapons*!
		
Click to expand...

As a weapon you are correct but as a deterrent it's a perfect defense. It basically says "try your luck and see what you get".

It's our countries version of a guard dog


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 3, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Apart from the huge cost!



Are they? I'm certain that there would be no change to UK's ability to defend itself, or any other Nato ally, if it scrapped the 'Nuclear deterrent'! They are, after all, not UK's warheads anyway!

They are certainly not Defensive weapons!
		
Click to expand...

There are lots of areas that are a hugh cost that could be reduced to allow our forces to be better equipped 

And yes Nuclear weapons are vital to our defence in a world where other countries still hold a nuclear threat - the day that threat disappears is the day we no longer need nuclear arms


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Sep 3, 2014)

The reason I ask, is my attention was drawn to an article from last year in the NY Times.All of this prior to the problems we face in East Ukraine.Having nukes doesn't seem to be bothering Putin as he wanders thru there, and Belarus must be ******** themselves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/w...ding-under-scrutiny.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 3, 2014)

The UK forces have more than pulled their own weight in any NATO led missions 

The US will have to deal with their own trigger happy consequences - the US as with anything will always go on the offensive using quantity - that costs them a lot of money.

The UK prefer to deal with things using the quality that we have as an armed forces - superior training has meant a far more effective force even if it's a lot smaller. 

The UK have recently committed Â£5bn to new Scout vehicles plus billions to new Hercules replacements , Warships , JSF and more typhoons.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Sep 3, 2014)

Ethan said:



			This bad idea is generally proposed by people who have passed the age of eligibility for same, although they sometimes throw in "it might have done me some good".

It isn't 40s or 50s Britain now, the world has changed and national service is a relic of the past. Changing the economy so there is full employment would be a better strategy, but the people who pay the Government don't want that because part of it would be to get them to pay their taxes.
		
Click to expand...

I fully understand we're not in those sepia coloured days of yore. Full employment would be a much better option but surely something more formulated that all these government training schemes which seem to be continually rolled up in new guises. I'm not actually keen on the full military discipline side of things and feel at this time, it's best left to the army and reservists and assume should the nation ever been drawn into a global war again conscription would come in anyway if the need arose.

I do think if there is a way of getting those from 16-22 into some kind of formulated regime (if only for a three-six month period) we may be better off longer term. That said, national (military) service exists in many nations across Europe and beyond, so maybe there is still a degree of merit in there somewhere and we're just not doing it right


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 3, 2014)

Adi2Dassler said:



			Here's a question that maybe crosses from this thread to the referendum thread, and interesting given there seems to be loads ( and loads) of serving/ex forces on here?
		
Click to expand...

Fair Q and one that needs an honestly thought out response .  My view, and one debated with the last armed forces minister is " What is the point of a nuclear weapon if your not prepared to use it, and as it's nuclear, you would have to be prepared to be the first to use it". His response was that the UK would not be the first to strike. Things may have changed now, who knows.

Being no 2 in a nuclear strike means it's to late.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 3, 2014)




----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 3, 2014)

Old Skier said:



View attachment 12135

Click to expand...


Shame it missed one country that harbours and trains a great deal amount of terrorists


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 3, 2014)

Ethan said:



			This bad idea is generally proposed by people who have passed the age of eligibility for same, although they sometimes throw in "it might have done me some good".

It isn't 40s or 50s Britain now, the world has changed and national service is a relic of the past. Changing the economy so there is full employment would be a better strategy, but the people who pay the Government don't want that because part of it would be to get them to pay their taxes.
		
Click to expand...

The World has indeed changed and not for the better.   The hand wringing Liberal experiment that promotes something for nothing, the breakdown of Family virtues, multiculturalism and a legal system that favours criminals has failed spectacularly.   We now need to step back and look again on what really matters and how we can give people purpose and a pride in themselves and their country.

National Service of a form will do this, anyone who has carried out basic training in the Military will know what its like to parade as a tight knit group in front of their loved ones with their chests pumped with pride.   Unfortunately this is something many young people will never experience, instead they will grow up with resentment and a feeling of worthlessness.

These suggestions that it's not possible to bring back National Service or train people so that they can be quickly made ready for service is just an example of the wishy washy claptrap we are feed these days.   It's not whether we can afford it, it's whether we can afford not to.

In my opinion of course.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 3, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			The World has indeed changed and not for the better.   The hand wringing Liberal experiment that promotes something for nothing, the breakdown of Family virtues, multiculturalism and a legal system that favours criminals has failed spectacularly.   We now need to step back and look again on what really matters and how we can give people purpose and a pride in themselves and their country.

National Service of a form will do this, anyone who has carried out basic training in the Military will know whats its like to parade as a tight knit group in front of their loved ones with their chests pumped with pride.   Unfortunately this is something many young people will never experience, instead they will grow up with resentment and a feeling of worthlessness.

These suggestions that it's not possible to bring back National Service or train people so that they can be quickly made ready for service is just an example of the wishy washy claptrap we are feed these days.   It's not whether we can afford it, it's whether we can afford not to.

In my opinion of course.
		
Click to expand...

Or possibly the people that are saying it's not possible have spent 22 years in the military 

Making people do military training isn't the answer to social problems 

Still interested to know exactly who you wish to send to do military training


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 3, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			Fair Q and one that needs an honestly thought out response .  My view, and one debated with the last armed forces minister is " What is the point of a nuclear weapon if your not prepared to use it, and *as it's nuclear, you would have to be prepared to be the first to use it*". His response was that the UK would not be the first to strike. Things may have changed now, who knows.

Being no 2 in a nuclear strike means it's to late. 

Click to expand...

No you dont.   You launch a second strike from a Nuclear Submarine out in the Oceans.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 3, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Or possibly the people that are saying it's not possible have spent 22 years in the military 

Making people do military training isn't the answer to social problems 

Still interested to know exactly who you wish to send to do military training
		
Click to expand...

Possibly, but I'm one myself Phil.

Of course it's not the only answer to social problems but it's a component.   National Service could be for people in a certain age group, say 18 to 30.   As I have said already there could be an option to do a longer period if you want to opt for work in Social Services.    People in certain types of education and vocational training could be exempt as could be people in certain reserved occupations (Just like it was before)   I know you would like me to say its should only be for unemployed and immigrants


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 3, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			No you dont.   You launch a second strike from a Nuclear Submarine out in the Oceans.
		
Click to expand...

Which is to late as you are already suffering from incoming.

Back to the thread. Don't disagree something needs doing but force feeding people into the military is not IMHO the answer, for one thing it would remove to many resources from the military that they don't have.

The old German model may be a possibility where those who were against joining the military had to do a couple of years in the emergency services and public sector.

To much human rights issues that would pop up every five minutes if anything like this came about.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 3, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			Possibly, but I'm one myself Phil.

Of course it's not the only answer to social problems but it's a component.   National Service could be for people in a certain age group, say 18 to 30.   As I have said already there could be an option to do a longer period if you want to opt for work in Social Services.    People in certain types of education and vocational training could be exempt as could be people in certain reserved occupations (Just like it was before)   I know you would like me to say its should only be for unemployed and immigrants 

Click to expand...

So which types of education should be exempt and which occupations are exempt ? 

What about our budding sports stars ?

What about people with illnesses that mean they normally couldn't join the military ? 

Is it just men or is it women ? 

What if they are fathers and mothers ? 

What if they are single parents with children to look after ? 

And no doubt a lot more questions 

Certainly a lot to consider


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Sep 3, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So which types of education should be exempt and which occupations are exempt ? 

What about our budding sports stars ?

What about people with illnesses that mean they normally couldn't join the military ? 

Is it just men or is it women ? 

What if they are fathers and mothers ? 

What if they are single parents with children to look after ? 

And no doubt a lot more questions 

Certainly a lot to consider
		
Click to expand...

Valid points but it has worked elsewhere. These type of issues would be huge stumbling blocks and not sure how you'd overcome them


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 3, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			No you dont.   You launch a second strike from a Nuclear Submarine out in the Oceans.
		
Click to expand...

That's not Defence! That's Revenge!


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 3, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			The World has indeed changed and not for the better.   The hand wringing Liberal experiment that promotes something for nothing, the breakdown of Family virtues, multiculturalism and a legal system that favours criminals has failed spectacularly.   We now need to step back and look again on what really matters and how we can give people purpose and a pride in themselves and their country.

National Service of a form will do this, anyone who has carried out basic training in the Military will know what its like to parade as a tight knit group in front of their loved ones with their chests pumped with pride.   Unfortunately this is something many young people will never experience, instead they will grow up with resentment and a feeling of worthlessness.

These suggestions that it's not possible to bring back National Service or train people so that they can be quickly made ready for service is just an example of the wishy washy claptrap we are feed these days.   It's not whether we can afford it, it's whether we can afford not to.

In my opinion of course.
		
Click to expand...

There is so..oo much wrong with the above, imo, that it defies any attempt to counter it.

But the fact that we can both hold different opinions says a lot for the current society. Plenty of other environments where opinions just couldn't be expressed!


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 4, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So which types of education should be exempt and which occupations are exempt ? 

What about our budding sports stars ?

What about people with illnesses that mean they normally couldn't join the military ? 

Is it just men or is it women ? 

What if they are fathers and mothers ? 

What if they are single parents with children to look after ? 

And no doubt a lot more questions 

Certainly a lot to consider
		
Click to expand...

Phil the detail could be sorted out but don't expect me to resolve every case on here.   It has been done before and in many countries and still happens in some European ones.   If there is a will then there will be a way.

Whats the problem with sports stars, the Sun would still rise in the morning without them.   You have been in the Military and know that many people are married.   Illness's are obviously exempt depending on what they are.  We have Men and Women in the Services.  And so on and so forth, none of this retracts from the position that it would do many people a lot of good and the country as well.   You seem to be just looking for loopholes and not focusing on the mainstream.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 4, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			There is so..oo much wrong with the above, imo, that it defies any attempt to counter it.

But the fact that we can both hold different opinions says a lot for the current society. Plenty of other environments where opinions just couldn't be expressed!
		
Click to expand...


In your opinion of course!


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 4, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			That's not Defence! That's Revenge!
		
Click to expand...

Its called a Deterrent.  Why do you think Submarines are used as the launch platform?   If you wanted to make a first strike then you would save money by siting them on land.   The deterrent is that if you Nuke Us we will Nuke you, call that revenge if you will.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 4, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			Phil the detail could be sorted out but don't expect me to resolve every case on here.   It has been done before and in many countries and still happens in some European ones.   If there is a will then there will be a way.

Whats the problem with sports stars, the Sun would still rise in the morning without them.   You have been in the Military and know that many people are married.   Illness's are obviously exempt depending on what they are.  We have Men and Women in the Services.  And so on and so forth, none of this retracts from the position that it would do many people a lot of good and the country as well.   You seem to be just looking for loopholes and not focusing on the mainstream.
		
Click to expand...

Actually I'm just trying to show you the holes in your idea on national service - holes the size of the Grand Canyon it appears 

It's just blurting an idea without thinking of the actual details involved in the implementation of the idea

To put it simply - national service will never be introduced into this country because there is no need for it and it is not practical 

There is a reason why the idea was thrown out before it was even discussed 

This country will not vote in a government that suggests National
Service for any age.

We have a military - they will do their job - thankfully we will still allow the generations to chose their own path in life


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 4, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Actually I'm just trying to show you the holes in your idea on national service - holes the size of the Grand Canyon it appears 

It's just blurting an idea without thinking of the actual details involved in the implementation of the idea

To put it simply - national service will never be introduced into this country because there is no need for it and it is not practical 

There is a reason why the idea was thrown out before it was even discussed 

This country will not vote in a government that suggests National
Service for any age.

We have a military - they will do their job - thankfully we will still allow the generations to chose their own path in life
		
Click to expand...

Well you are not convincing me of anything.   You just seem to have a negative view and wont consider or admit to any of the positives.  Or, you are being argumentative.  I wonder which?

You suggested earlier that all people with 22 years service are against this, now where did you get that from?    I had 30 years service and I know well that many of my comrades think the same way.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 4, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			Its called a Deterrent.  Why do you think Submarines are used as the launch platform?   If you wanted to make a first strike then you would save money by siting them on land.   The deterrent is that if you Nuke Us we will Nuke you, call that revenge if you will.
		
Click to expand...

Mutually Assured Destruction! Note the initials!

Better to save money by not having them at all! There's more than enough nuclear arms about to achieve the MAD/Revenge destruction that the Trident program provides!

Anyway, back to conscription for the 'tardy' - a ridiculous concept! About as sensible as earlier (not all that long ago) government views that those that had out of wedlock children were mentally ill - so were placed in asylums!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 4, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			Well you are not convincing me of anything.   You just seem to have a negative view and wont consider or admit to any of the positives.  Or, you are being argumentative.  I wonder which?

You suggested earlier that all people with 22 years service are against this, now where did you get that from?    I had 30 years service and I know well that many of my comrades think the same way.
		
Click to expand...


I don't need to convince you about anything because I know full well it's an idea that will not be considered by anyone who has the ability to make the choice 

An MP tried a bill and it was thrown out without a debate - that should give you a hint of how the idea is received 

Also you can point out where I suggest all people with 22 years of military service are against the idea

In my whole time in the military I haven't witnessed one single person suggest nary national service be re introduced 

Heard a few suggest that youth offenders get a good old lesson in discipline from ex military in a bad lads army style course but certainly not putting the burden onto are already stretched armed forces. 

Sorry but until someone points out a positive to national service then I will consider it - so far haven't seen any


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 4, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I don't need to convince you about anything because I know full well it's an idea that will not be considered by anyone who has the ability to make the choice 

An MP tried a bill and it was thrown out without a debate - that should give you a hint of how the idea is received 

Also you can point out where I suggest all people with 22 years of military service are against the idea

In my whole time in the military I haven't witnessed one single person suggest nary national service be re introduced 

Heard a few suggest that youth offenders get a good old lesson in discipline from ex military in a bad lads army style course but certainly not putting the burden onto are already stretched armed forces. 

Sorry but until someone points out a positive to national service then I will consider it - so far haven't seen any
		
Click to expand...

Up to you.  You can believe what you want.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 4, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Mutually Assured Destruction! Note the initials!

Better to save money by not having them at all! There's more than enough nuclear arms about to achieve the MAD/Revenge destruction that the Trident program provides!

Anyway, back to conscription for the 'tardy' - a ridiculous concept! *About as sensible as earlier (not all that long ago) government views that those that had out of wedlock children were mentally ill - so were placed in asylums!*

Click to expand...

Thats being ridiculous!


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 4, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			Thats being ridiculous!
		
Click to expand...

Indeed! But that's what happened! At Holloway Sanatorium if you want an example. And no doubt many other such institutions.

Yep. That sort of thing, Child Labour - down mines etc - prejudice against anyone who was 'different' - whether it was Sexual orientation, Race,  Disability or simply attitude - really was a superior 'Family Virtue' (I think you meant Value) period - NOT!


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 4, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Indeed! But that's what happened! At Holloway Sanatorium if you want an example. And no doubt many other such institutions.

Yep. That sort of thing, Child Labour - down mines etc - prejudice against anyone who was 'different' - whether it was Sexual orientation, Race,  Disability or simply attitude - really was a superior 'Family Virtue' (I think you meant Value) period - NOT!
		
Click to expand...

JeeZ!!   I didn't suggest we shoved them up chimneys or down mines!    I am talking about National Service, Period!   Nothing else,  got it!

EDIT:   As you seem to be on a silly program of stalking my every post, which has long passed the boring stage, I am taking the advice I have been given and putting you on my ignore list so I will no longer have to suffer your nauseous diatribe!

CLICK!!    Done :whoo:


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 4, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			JeeZ!!   I didn't suggest we shoved them up chimneys or down mines!    I am talking about National Service, Period!   Nothing else,  got it!

EDIT:   As you seem to be on a silly program of stalking my every post....
		
Click to expand...

Not stalking at all. Simply respectfully disagree-ing with some of your opinions and occasionally even noting my agreeing with them.



SocketRocket said:



			The World has indeed changed and not for the better.   The hand wringing Liberal experiment that promotes something for nothing, the breakdown of Family virtues, multiculturalism and a legal system that favours criminals has failed spectacularly.   We now need to step back and look again on what really matters and how we can give people purpose and a pride in themselves and their country.

National Service of a form will do this.....

...In my opinion of course.
		
Click to expand...

As I posted, there is so much of this I disagree with the above but, as we both posted, that's my opinion!

We ARE fortunate that we are allowed to have and express those different opinions. We should be absolutely resolute in the need to allow both of them! And yes, certainly Ignore or Refute them (respectfully). To not do so would amount to Totalitarianism/Dictatorship - of course 'in my opinion'!

Btw. I forgot the obvious other category of prejudice in my earlier post. Simply being Female used to be a severe handicap in many areas - and there were occasional instances where being Male was too!


----------



## MadAdey (Sep 4, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			Well you are not convincing me of anything.   You just seem to have a negative view and wont consider or admit to any of the positives.  Or, you are being argumentative.  I wonder which?
		
Click to expand...





SocketRocket said:



			You suggested earlier that all people with 22 years service are against this, now where did you get that from?    I had 30 years service and I know well that many of my comrades think the same way.
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that many of my comrades are very keen on the idea of national service as there is enough people already in an over stretched budget. There is no way the defence budget could handle having to take another 50,000 people into the armed forces, that is why we have had the defence reviews that cut the budget, making the MOD drop the number of service personnel actively serving. If you took in 10,000 people into national service and paid them a basic soldier starting pay it would cost Â£120m just to pay them. Now take into account the subsidised accommodation and food, the kit that would need to be issued, the old camps that would need re opening and making fit for people to live in. These camps would need a full chain of command installing and the support personnel. National Service would cost the country probably Â£200m + a year to start. Who's paying for that, we struggle to give enough beds to hospitals and keep classroom sizes under 30.

I think what would better in this modern age would be to not do National Service in the old way, but make these people join the TA or the Royal auxiliary Air Force. Make them carry out 5 years of service in one of them and they might just enjoy it and carry it on for life. This is how I see the pros and cone of giving people 3 years national service or reserve service that might just keep doing.

National Service:



Young unemployed people are given a sense of purpose and self respect.
large reserve made up of personnel that are trained to a basic level.
Going to cost a small fortune and the defence budget does not have the money.

can't think of any others....

5 years reserve service.


Young unemployed people are given a sense of purpose and self respect
 large reserve made up of personnel that are trained to a basic level.
We will have a large reserve pool of people that decide to stay with it for life that will be keep up to date with all the latest kit and training, giving us a highly skilled reserve force should the day arrive that we need it.
not going to cost the tax payer a small fortune to foot the bill as they are not getting paid full time and would not need to re open old camps to accommodate them.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Sep 4, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Our armed forces are not set up for national service - there is no need for national service.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed, there is no need for conscripts. But the benefits regarding discipline, respect etc etc are enormous.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 4, 2014)

MadAdey said:






I wouldn't say that many of my comrades are very keen on the idea of national service as there is enough people already in an over stretched budget. There is no way the defence budget could handle having to take another 50,000 people into the armed forces, that is why we have had the defence reviews that cut the budget, making the MOD drop the number of service personnel actively serving. If you took in 10,000 people into national service and paid them a basic soldier starting pay it would cost Â£120m just to pay them. Now take into account the subsidised accommodation and food, the kit that would need to be issued, the old camps that would need re opening and making fit for people to live in. These camps would need a full chain of command installing and the support personnel. National Service would cost the country probably Â£200m + a year to start. Who's paying for that, we struggle to give enough beds to hospitals and keep classroom sizes under 30.

I think what would better in this modern age would be to not do National Service in the old way, but make these people join the TA or the Royal auxiliary Air Force. Make them carry out 5 years of service in one of them and they might just enjoy it and carry it on for life. This is how I see the pros and cone of giving people 3 years national service or reserve service that might just keep doing.

National Service:


Young unemployed people are given a sense of purpose and self respect.
large reserve made up of personnel that are trained to a basic level.
Going to cost a small fortune and the defence budget does not have the money.

can't think of any others....

5 years reserve service.

Young unemployed people are given a sense of purpose and self respect
 large reserve made up of personnel that are trained to a basic level.
We will have a large reserve pool of people that decide to stay with it for life that will be keep up to date with all the latest kit and training, giving us a highly skilled reserve force should the day arrive that we need it.
not going to cost the tax payer a small fortune to foot the bill as they are not getting paid full time and would not need to re open old camps to accommodate them.



Click to expand...




I agree with that, good thinking.


----------



## Ethan (Sep 4, 2014)

HomerJSimpson said:



			I fully understand we're not in those sepia coloured days of yore. Full employment would be a much better option but surely something more formulated that all these government training schemes which seem to be continually rolled up in new guises. I'm not actually keen on the full military discipline side of things and feel at this time, it's best left to the army and reservists and assume should the nation ever been drawn into a global war again conscription would come in anyway if the need arose.

I do think if there is a way of getting those from 16-22 into some kind of formulated regime (if only for a three-six month period) we may be better off longer term. That said, national (military) service exists in many nations across Europe and beyond, so maybe there is still a degree of merit in there somewhere and we're just not doing it right
		
Click to expand...

National Service IS a government training scheme, which makes the assumption that shouting at youths and making them march through the night will make them more responsible citizens later. There is no evidence this would have this effect. And you would train them to fight and use weapons? Whoops. That'll be good for those later fights outside Yates Wine Lodge. And there would be exemptions for certain jobs and students, so there would be a flood into useless university courses. And nice upper middle class kids would get exempted out, so the whole thing would focus on the feckless youth from working class estates.

The Army is allegedly a professional army, and professional armies don't want conscripts, who are by definition reluctant joiners, and usually counting the days to get out. 

Yes (possibly Prime) Minister covered the issue in an episode 30 years ago and most of what was said then remains true now.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 4, 2014)

Ethan said:



			National Service IS a government training scheme, which makes the assumption that shouting at youths and making them march through the night will make them more responsible citizens later. There is no evidence this would have this effect. And you would train them to fight and use weapons? Whoops. That'll be good for those later fights outside Yates Wine Lodge. And there would be exemptions for certain jobs and students, so there would be a flood into useless university courses. And nice upper middle class kids would get exempted out, so the whole thing would focus on the feckless youth from working class estates.

The Army is allegedly a professional army, and professional armies don't want conscripts, who are by definition reluctant joiners, and usually counting the days to get out. 

Yes (possibly Prime) Minister covered the issue in an episode 30 years ago and most of what was said then remains true now.
		
Click to expand...

Can I take it you are not for it then?


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 4, 2014)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Valid points but it has worked elsewhere. These type of issues would be huge stumbling blocks and not sure how you'd overcome them
		
Click to expand...

Name them


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 4, 2014)

Ethan said:



			National Service IS a government training scheme, which makes the assumption that shouting at youths and making them march through the night will make them more responsible citizens later.
		
Click to expand...

Actually, it makes the assumption, based on experience, that it will make them better Professional Soldiers - nothing to do with becoming more responsible citizens! That may or may not happen, but is by no means the goal of the shouting and marching!



Ethan said:



			And you would train them to fight and use weapons? Whoops. That'll be good for those later fights outside Yates Wine Lodge.
		
Click to expand...

Yep, better organised/disciplined and more capable gangs too!



Ethan said:



			Yes (possibly Prime) Minister covered the issue in an episode 30 years ago and most of what was said then remains true now.
		
Click to expand...

Wow! That takes me back!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 4, 2014)

MadAdey said:






I wouldn't say that many of my comrades are very keen on the idea of national service as there is enough people already in an over stretched budget. There is no way the defence budget could handle having to take another 50,000 people into the armed forces, that is why we have had the defence reviews that cut the budget, making the MOD drop the number of service personnel actively serving. If you took in 10,000 people into national service and paid them a basic soldier starting pay it would cost Â£120m just to pay them. Now take into account the subsidised accommodation and food, the kit that would need to be issued, the old camps that would need re opening and making fit for people to live in. These camps would need a full chain of command installing and the support personnel. National Service would cost the country probably Â£200m + a year to start. Who's paying for that, we struggle to give enough beds to hospitals and keep classroom sizes under 30.

I think what would better in this modern age would be to not do National Service in the old way, but make these people join the TA or the Royal auxiliary Air Force. Make them carry out 5 years of service in one of them and they might just enjoy it and carry it on for life. This is how I see the pros and cone of giving people 3 years national service or reserve service that might just keep doing.

National Service:


Young unemployed people are given a sense of purpose and self respect.
large reserve made up of personnel that are trained to a basic level.
Going to cost a small fortune and the defence budget does not have the money.

can't think of any others....

5 years reserve service.

Young unemployed people are given a sense of purpose and self respect
 large reserve made up of personnel that are trained to a basic level.
We will have a large reserve pool of people that decide to stay with it for life that will be keep up to date with all the latest kit and training, giving us a highly skilled reserve force should the day arrive that we need it.
not going to cost the tax payer a small fortune to foot the bill as they are not getting paid full time and would not need to re open old camps to accommodate them.



Click to expand...




Yep them helping out the reservists would certainly be a better idea 

But making it compulsory would negate the effect 

They always say you get 90% from a person pressed into it but 100% from a volunteer. 

Giving the youth of today more discipline is never a better thing nor is treating them respect but it can't be forced these days - there is too much human rights floating around 

Perfect example - when I was going through basic I saw people getting knocked out cold by a rock,when he was hit with the butt of a rifle for not pointing it down the range - we were forced at one point to keep the slr about our heads until we could no longer physically hold it there - plus many many other punishments and 

When I was an instructor and did a room inspection someone hadn't ironed their shirts so out the window they went - I was told I couldn't do that because it would be counter productive apparently

When we used to get charged and get jankers - we used to be sent to wash pots and other rubbish jobs - can't even do that anymore 

That's why you can't have people that don't want to be there - they will be a hinderance


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 4, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Yep them helping out the reservists would certainly be a better idea 

But making it compulsory would negate the effect 

They always say you get 90% from a person pressed into it but 100% from a volunteer. 

Giving the youth of today more discipline is never a better thing nor is treating them respect but it can't be forced these days - there is too much human rights floating around 

Perfect example - when I was going through basic I saw people getting knocked out cold by a rock,when he was hit with the butt of a rifle for not pointing it down the range - we were forced at one point to keep the slr about our heads until we could no longer physically hold it there - plus many many other punishments and 

When I was an instructor and did a room inspection someone hadn't ironed their shirts so out the window they went - I was told I couldn't do that because it would be counter productive apparently

When we used to get charged and get jankers - we used to be sent to wash pots and other rubbish jobs - can't even do that anymore 

That's why you can't have people that don't want to be there - they will be a hinderance
		
Click to expand...

The PC issues can be changed if the people will it.   I would surmise that the way the world and country is moving they will have to at some point.   The way it has become is unsustainable.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 4, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			The PC issues can be changed if the people will it.   I would surmise that the way the world and country is moving they will have to at some point.   The way it has become is unsustainable.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but the PC issues may have gone too far in certain areas but people have rights now - unless you believe they should have their rights taken away ?


----------



## williamalex1 (Sep 4, 2014)

My thoughts are extend school leaving age by at least a year for pupils that can't find job by the start of the next school term , and put them in a subsidised work placement along the lines of the old work experience , but hopefully much more refined .


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 4, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry but the PC issues may have gone too far in certain areas but people have rights now - unless you believe they should have their rights taken away ?
		
Click to expand...

If the rights are a detriment to the way society operates then yes.   As I suggested; in my opinion the world is moving in a direction where all these things will have to be reviewed and probably changed.    I am in no doubt that the rules and laws relating to Human Rights have gone too far in favour of the criminal and reprobate, to the detriment of decent living people and will have to be changed to bring a level of common sense into play.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Sep 4, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			If the rights are a detriment to the way society operates then yes.   As I suggested; in my opinion the world is moving in a direction where all these things will have to be reviewed and probably changed.    I am in no doubt that the rules and laws relation to Human Rights have gone too far in favour of the criminal and reprobate to the detriment of decent living people and will have to be changed to bring a level of common sense into play.
		
Click to expand...

Which rules and laws in relation to criminals have gone too far?


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 4, 2014)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Which rules and laws in relation to criminals have gone too far?
		
Click to expand...

I dont want to write a very long reply on each aspect and example of it.   The ability to deport foreign criminals that have raped and murdered for a start.   How we deal with Jihadist terrorists and people that preach terror is another.   The way undesirables can hide behind the right to a family life.   Kid gloves with unruly school kids anti social behaviour.  Ya de da de da!!


----------

