Forces under 18 - C4 News

And whats the thoughts on the American Military Academy's like the VMI where you can enrole at 16
Ah, but the yankees don't care about European blx, nor the UN really

Sent from my iPhone using ARRSE so apologies for any random spelling

Brotherton Lad

Kit Reviewer
Can anyone tell me about the rates of pay for under 18s,in man service now? I joined when 17.5 years,and received boys rates until 18,but that was back in the day.
I understand it's £260 per week before deductions.
I think there is a chance that the 'campaigners' are coming at this from a slightly mis-guided angle. I am equally sure that they are well-intentioned, but we know what paves the way to hell.

The false premise is that the army is a bad place to be when a soldier is not on operations, which they won't be (barring the odd rare f-up) if they are under 18. This is not true in general, and especially not true during training. Whilst it may not always be a barrel of laughs, I am incredibly glad I signed up on my 17th birthday.

After 30 years of a really good and moderately successful career, I find myself as a well qualified engineer, in a well paid job having got a lot more from life than those I grew up or attended school with. (Including my brothers and sisters)

The argument against u18s in the military would be valid if the premise of the follow-on assumption was correct. However, it isn't!

The 'campaigners' should apply some intelligence to their cause, or it will founder on its flaws.


Book Reviewer
You got to laugh, Michael Gove according to the Panorama program wants to put a Military connection into the class room but, these do gooding Fwits seem to think it will turn the children into psychopathic gum chewing one man waves of destruction. shite I'm confused


War Hero
Here they are:

News [Coalition to stop the use of Child Soldiers]

and here is the Australian military policy which 'complies with both the spirit and the letter of the Optional Protocol'.

The campaigners are arguing that the MOD has retained a couple of options to contravene the Protocol if operational circumstances demand. That is the nub of the argument. Even if, in practice, U18s are not deployed on operations (except by admin cock-up) and even if they can leave under the age of 18 with a parental letter (either DAOR or as an 'unhappy soldier'). It's not so much fluffy liberal PC bollox as complying with UN agreements that the UK Govt has signed up to with 'a bit of wriggle room'.

PS. Even Australia has some wriggle as well if circumstances demand on page 8, eg on a ship suddenly deployed into hostilities. cf HMS Cumberland could perhaps have had a 17 year old aboard when diverted to Benghazi..
Thanks for the info Brotherton. These concerned adults do appear to be the usual suspects to me, and are up to their tricks as usual!

Look, I support the rights of the child, but it must be done on well informed research with I might add a good dose of common sense. I am well aware through my work that some youth aged under 18 do not have the cognitave ability to make a well informed decision, however I know that any number can and do make informed decisions. Maturity, by and large is something that can only be measured by action, the same applies to immaturity. Where I take issue with these people is that they fail to account for those under 18 who have arrived at a decision to join based on a rational thought process, and thereby actively discriminate against them. I think it has escaped the mind set of the people who are proposing this legislation that people young and old learn primarily through experential experience, learning through doing. They give experential learning no gravitas at all, which is really disturbing to me.

As you point, out no recruit under 18 will be placed on active service, and you also outline the means by which a person under 18 can withdraw from the military, so the safeguards are there. If you ask me these people should be more concerned with child traffiking, under age sex exploitation, dysfunctional families and the fact that freightening numbers of 'children' under 18 who are sexually active (something that supported by legislation) have STD' there's a story, plus teen pregnancies, I wonder whose rights they will support in this case...the child or the child?

I hope the bill does not make it through. Thanks again for the links :)


It seems to me that mcdevitt wont be back. I suppose he got "enough" and left.

Latest Threads