Bring back National Service !

katex · 22-01-2008, 20:18

Comment by Retlaw (and others) that we should bring back National Service, sorry to start with a google, however, :-

BBC - History - The Peacetime Conscripts: National Service in the Post-war Years

Sure did not do any good to the minority of our young lads in the 50's 60's as per this report.

Can you imagine what the problems would be today ?

Young people being taken away from their ongoing education. We need more qualified technicians, engineers, plumbers, academics, scientists to forward our economy now.

Would, in this equal rights community, women be forced into this.

Can you imagine your young son, if he were not physically minded, being forced into this 2 year discipline.

How would this sit with our immigrants (legal or illegal) .. and religious beliefs, would they be exempt ?

Could list many, many more.

On the plus side, yes, would do some lads good, only those that have the apptitude for a hard physical 2 years and the yobs of our country that have fallen by the way side.

I vote against my motion, but would be interested to hear lots of other opinions, especially Retlaws.

derekgas · 22-01-2008, 20:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by katex

Comment by Retlaw (and others) that we should bring back National Service, sorry to start with a google, however, :-

BBC - History - The Peacetime Conscripts: National Service in the Post-war Years

Sure did not do any good to the minority of our young lads in the 50's 60's as per this report.

Can you imagine what the problems would be today ?

Young people being taken away from their ongoing education. We need more qualified technicians, engineers, plumbers, academics, scientists to forward our economy now.

Would, in this equal rights community, women be forced into this.

Can you imagine your young son, if he were not physically minded, being forced into this 2 year discipline.

How would this sit with our immigrants (legal or illegal) .. and religious beliefs, would they be exempt ?

Could list many, many more.

On the plus side, yes, would do some lads good, only those that have the apptitude for a hard physical 2 years and the yobs of our country that have fallen by the way side.

I vote against my motion, but would be interested to hear lots of other opinions, especially Retlaws.

Oops, can of worms time. All of the trades you speak of are taught in the army, physical training is carried out by those that are fit enough and healthy enough to do it, like minded shouldnt come into it, it is a training of the mind and attitude, also, respect for themselves and others and manners are drummed in, as for our immigrants, you would see a massive decline in the uncontrolled immigration, and likely many returning home, they should not be exempt if they want to live here, religous beliefs could be catered for much as they are here, but without being allowed to take over as they do now. List away, I love this subject, much as I love the hanging, birching and corporal punishment argument!

blazey · 22-01-2008, 20:50

The Army actually fund education of their troops, there are a few doing law at Lancaster who are having their education paid, there was a special criteria but I cannot remember what it was because I wasn't particularly interested at the time.

However, I dont think it's a good idea, as it should be a persons choice to fight for the country. Some people dont believe in it and I think you should have a passion for it if you are going to join, as it truly is a dedication. Why force people into something like that? Its almost like punishing them for no reason. I know I will get a big rant from people who are/have been in the forces, but there is no pleasure in being FORCED to do anything is there?

Many people get enjoyment out of joining the forces and fighting for the country, a friend of mine is doing medicine with the intention of being a doctor for the forces, but he hasn't seeked funding from the army, and I suppose that is a good idea just in case he changes his mind, then at least he isn't under any contractual obligation, and if you enjoy it then fair play, do it. But lets not start forcing people into it when its not even necessary, and that goes for everyone whether they have no job, no ambition or anything. We aren't born with the obligation to grow up and work til we're on our death beds, and if people want to be jobless then thats upto them, but lets not essentially punish them by forcing them into something like fighting for the country, i think its immoral when its not actually a necessity right now.

derekgas · 22-01-2008, 20:57

"We aren't born with the obligation to grow up and work til we're on our death beds, and if people want to be jobless then thats upto them, but lets not essentially punish them by forcing them into something like fighting for the country, i think its immoral when its not actually a necessity right now."

I think we were born with an obligation to work and look after ourselves and ours, and we shouldn't be keeping the jobless because they don't see fit to work (the ones that think that, not the unintentionally unemployed), if they don't want to work, fine, but don't pay them for it! Nobody is suggesting forcing anybody to fight for the country, that should still be voluntary, and somebody thinks fighting for the country is necessary, or we wouldn't be doing it.

West Ender · 22-01-2008, 20:57

My eldest brother did NS in the army - Pay Corps (he was a trainee cotton manager when he went it). My 2nd brother, big and strapping 6' tall, failed the medical because he'd had osteomylitis in his leg. He was very, very disappointed. I knew many lads who were called up for NS. They didn't want to go, their jobs, education etc. were disrupted (though deferment was possible), but they all came out with a sort of pride in what they'd done and many of them still feel proud. We needed just as many academics/tradesmen in the 40s and 50s, it just took a more roundabout route.

The article says NS went on until 1963 but that doesn't equate with the fact that my husband, born in 1941, was too young for the last intake. He joined the RAF in 1958, for 6 years, but he wouldn't have been called up.

I think NS has 1 advantage over all and that's discipline. It's sadly lacking in Society now and if it took NS to turn the tide and reintroduce discipline and self-respect, not to say respect for the rest of humanity, bring it on. The only losers would be the mothers who worried over their precious boys instead of thinking of how fit they were becoming.

cashman · 22-01-2008, 20:59

i agree with blazey up to a point, i think any young hooligan who breaks the law should be sentenced to armed service,---and if people want to be jobless then thats upto them, i even agree with that statement, but at the same time if thats their choice, fine the state should REFUSE to pay em owt.

blazey · 22-01-2008, 21:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by West Ender

My eldest brother did NS in the army - Pay Corps (he was a trainee cotton manager when he went it). My 2nd brother, big and strapping 6' tall, failed the medical because he'd had osteomylitis in his leg. He was very, very disappointed. I knew many lads who were called up for NS. They didn't want to go, their jobs, education etc. were disrupted (though deferment was possible), but they all came out with a sort of pride in what they'd done and many of them still feel proud. We needed just as many academics/tradesmen in the 40s and 50s, it just took a more roundabout route.

The article says NS went on until 1963 but that doesn't equate with the fact that my husband, born in 1941, was too young for the last intake. He joined the RAF in 1958, for 6 years, but he wouldn't have been called up.

I think NS has 1 advantage over all and that's discipline. It's sadly lacking in Society now and if it took NS to turn the tide and reintroduce discipline and self-respect, not to say respect for the rest of humanity, bring it on. The only losers would be the mothers who worried over their precious boys instead of thinking of how fit they were becoming.

It is a parents job to teach discipline and self respect. If they are so worried they should try harder then maybe there wouldnt be this suggesting of bringing back NS for the sake of discipline.

Fitness doesn't protect you from bullets either, so on that note they still have reason to think of the worst rather than the best.

blazey · 22-01-2008, 21:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by derekgas

"We aren't born with the obligation to grow up and work til we're on our death beds, and if people want to be jobless then thats upto them, but lets not essentially punish them by forcing them into something like fighting for the country, i think its immoral when its not actually a necessity right now."

I think we were born with an obligation to work and look after ourselves and ours, and we shouldn't be keeping the jobless because they don't see fit to work (the ones that think that, not the unintentionally unemployed), if they don't want to work, fine, but don't pay them for it! Nobody is suggesting forcing anybody to fight for the country, that should still be voluntary, and somebody thinks fighting for the country is necessary, or we wouldn't be doing it.

We are obviously obliged to care for our families, but paid work is not necessarily an obligation at birth, because not all societies do have paid work.

I'd like to live in a tribe and not have to think about paid work. Although the recent programmes showing the lives of tribes show a hard working society, its nice to see how they function off only natural things and live very fulfilling lives. I really like that idea. There dont seem to be many massive tribal wars either.

derekgas · 22-01-2008, 21:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by blazey

It is a parents job to teach discipline and self respect. If they are so worried they should try harder then maybe there wouldnt be this suggesting of bringing back NS for the sake of discipline.

Fitness doesn't protect you from bullets either, so on that note they still have reason to think of the worst rather than the best.

Blazey, the biggest reason I can think of for parents not instilling discipline and self respect (along with respect for others) is that the PARENTS didn't do national service or the like, and have not been held responsible for thier inaction either, your second comment defeats me, I have no idea where you are going with it.

davo69 · 22-01-2008, 21:19

just look at what as happened since they got rid of corporal punishment.give national service instead asbos to the little runts out there.yes people have a right to be jobless but if it is of choice then dont pay them a penny

cashman · 22-01-2008, 21:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by davo69

just look at what as happened since they got rid of corporal punishment.give national service instead asbos to the little runts out there.yes people have a right to be jobless but if it is of choice then dont pay them a penny

agreed 100% said it meself, what ya think of that blazey?

derekgas · 22-01-2008, 21:35

I'd like to live in a tribe and not have to think about paid work. Although the recent programmes showing the lives of tribes show a hard working society, its nice to see how they function off only natural things and live very fulfilling lives. I really like that idea. There dont seem to be many massive tribal wars either.[/quote]

Fancy a trip Blazey?

MovedtoBolton · 22-01-2008, 21:42

Corporal punisment - YES! couldn't agree more, even capital punishment where proof is irrefutable. National Service IMHO no, Why? Because conscripts don't make good soldiers - of course there will be those who can cite exceptions and in Korea, Suez, Aden and similar conflicts good national service men fought and died and I for one am proud of them all.
However, looking at more recent evidence, the majority of Argentinian troops occupying the Falklands in '82 were conscripts as were the majority of Iraqi forces in both Gulf conflicts. In both these confilcts the serious resistance can from what the press called "elite" units not from the conscripted regiments. A soldier who has no interest in being in the fray is no soldier at all. I honestly believe that the modern british military, strectched that it is would not be a better force if we armed our hooligans and chavs and sent them overseas to fight. Even worse, try to win hearts and minds of the local populace.

derekgas · 22-01-2008, 21:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by MovedtoBolton

Corporal punisment - YES! couldn't agree more, even capital punishment where proof is irrefutable. National Service IMHO no, Why? Because conscripts don't make good soldiers - of course there will be those who can cite exceptions and in Korea, Suez, Aden and similar conflicts good national service men fought and died and I for one am proud of them all.
However, looking at more recent evidence, the majority of Argentinian troops occupying the Falklands in '82 were conscripts as were the majority of Iraqi forces in both Gulf conflicts. In both these confilcts the serious resistance can from what the press called "elite" units not from the conscripted regiments. A soldier who has no interest in being in the fray is no soldier at all. I honestly believe that the modern british military, strectched that it is would not be a better force if we armed our hooligans and chavs and sent them overseas to fight. Even worse, try to win hearts and minds of the local populace.

I stated earlier that I think front line should still be voluntary (as in joining up), and our hooligans and chavs would cease to exist if they were conscripted, some of them would relish being able to change without ridicule from their peers.

Speedy · 22-01-2008, 22:18

Honestly...NO. Why punish our soldiers by sending all the asbo holders over there. And if they were sent over there they should not be payed army wages as this would most likely skint our army meaning less openings for those who actually want to be in the army (me being one of those people).