- 13-05-2012, 22:07 #41Xylitol kills dogs, remember Eddie - http://www.facebook.com/The.Eddy.Project
- 13-05-2012, 22:09 #42
CDS: Yes, Sir.
Politican: Can we do it?
CDS: Yes, Sir. How far do you want to kick him?
Politican: How far can we go?
CDS: A) Cruise missile strike; B) that & HMS Ocean with AH-64s degrading the local army; C) that & 7,000 on the ground for 6m & no longer; D) that & New elections with the AU.It was good while it lasted.
- 13-05-2012, 22:10 #43
- 13-05-2012, 22:11 #44
I am very much for some kind of National Service. Being still in education my peers won't have the same point of view, but I believe it may deal with some issues in society.
While frontline duty should still be something for the volunteers, if all 18 year olds do something similar to phase 1 training, with the odd trip to brecon and whatnot for a year, it might help somewhere.
If they are a conscientious objector, or have real issues with getting a bit muddy, then some minor form of working with other public/ civil services might also do.
- 13-05-2012, 22:15 #45
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
Whether there is work or not afterwards is a bland reason for not seriously consider the option. That will be the case whether they have had training or not and at least those who have been trained will be removed from sitting on their butt and doing nothing, maybe appreciate the welfare payouts that they are given more and be better citizens for the experience. It may also make them less unemployable because it will change their attitude to life.
Last edited by Feenix; 13-05-2012 at 22:17.When your up to your arse in alligators its difficult to remember that your first objective was to drain the swamp.
- 13-05-2012, 22:44 #46
I only base it on my experience of trying to exercise an office of authority as a peeler.
Ironically, with some of the young soldiers I have had to interview for civil criminal offences it is a reverese-shift.
I keep telling them they have rights! And that they must understand that they are not in a service enviroment, if they have the misfortune to end up in a civil police custody suite.
Contrast that with some of the 1% of the population I deal with 99% of the time who live in the twilight world of care and benefits. Some I feel sorry for; failed by parents, failed by an overburndened care services, and also failed by themeselves. They cannot abrogate all responsibility, however.
Something to help them put some framework of stability in their lives is a great idea. I just don't think it would be the British Army as a National Service concept, for the reasons that Markintime points out (accurately, in my opinion).
The generations of young men in the 40s, 50s and 60s were much more used to discipline than today's generation and they still created admin headaches
- 13-05-2012, 22:46 #47
I usually like Mr Self.
I know, he's been a junkie and all that but I like his dry laconic style with the Mr Sowerberry type appearance, good writer, good wit, good bloke by all accounts and hugely intelligent.
The last time this was seriously punted was in the 1980's by Thatcher.
I was told (rumour of course) that the CDS of that era told Maggie - in no uncertain terms - that as we had been a full time professional regular army since 1963 he could see no good coming out of becoming social workers for life's shite yet again.
The word was that Maggie STFU for once in her life.
Good drills to Self for the sentiment though.
Edited to add ; Training todays youth in weapons drills and maintenance, what a cracking idea.You're all puffs.
Tour Dodging No-Mark Gongless Cold War Warrior, Cheers Easy ©1975-1987.
- 13-05-2012, 22:48 #48
- 13-05-2012, 23:27 #49
and assuming replication across other RN/Army/RAF units at the time then I doubt as a percentage there was much difference in "admin headaches" than in the military at present. Certainly I cannot remember any drug use and even inebriation wasn't a big problem due in part to NS pay being so poor. [Perhaps my spec lens have become rose coloured with time but service life would have been a lot duller without them]
Last edited by exile1; 13-05-2012 at 23:28. Reason: typo
- 14-05-2012, 08:32 #50
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
We've had a National Service for many years, and they have indeed come up with the goods. WW1, WW2 and Korea could also be added to your list. Let's not forget those called up for service in the Merchant Marine, battleing to Russia through the snowy seas or indeed the Bovin Boys who dug coal and the the Land Girls...
Now then. Let's assume we have a conscript army. One, chances are in todays political climes and Ops we'll end up like France... large standing army, of which he vast majority was undeployable. Dead and maimed conscripts really wouldn't look good in the papers you see.
Now let's look at the last time (that I know of) a largely conscript army clashed with a professional force... Argentina (away) v Britain (home), what was the result again? Bit like a team from the Vauxhall Conference getting in to the World cup wasn't it?
Simple fact is, warfare and the men who deal in it, have changed. We can't pay in order to train up lads in 2 years, especially if they don't want to be there in the first place, up to the standards we need, just to let them go again. Where do we get our 'back bone' of senior toms if we are fully manned all the time and turning over blokes every two years?
By the time they are of any use, they are gone. Ask the lads in the 7th Cav (airmobile) who had trained together for months and then lost their senior 'draft' due to time expiry. It is referenced in both the book and film 'we were soldiers once... and young'.
Even the Argies suffered from that problem. Their senior draft left, leaving only the junior draft. The class of '82 started training in Feb 1982, and were in war by May the same year against a professional, seasoned and motivated opponent.
So, to conclude, bravo to the conscripted soldiers of the past (of all sides) they did well in a time that warfare was less technological and less complex in general. But in the modern setting we shouldn't even consider this route.
We can't afford to have thousands of sub-standard, politically unusable and possibly unsuitable soldiers. And we should be trying to get our Army in to the 21st Century, rather than debating number 2 hair cuts and combat jackets in or out.
However, cleaning hospitals, picking up litter, digging out canals, conservation work and scrubbing underpasses is all good stuff.
You may now resume your faux outrage, to ensure all this site realise how 'right on' and 'down with the squadies' you really are.
Last edited by chocolate_frog; 14-05-2012 at 08:48.