Should we bring it back?
Missed it originally myself but was still brought up to respect people.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that those who support it won't be near any kind of age to do it.

So old people who never did a days national service are now voting for young people to serve in the military?

Yeah, good way to unite the country!

Will they be able to wear sandals?

This poll came up because Macron is reintroducing it in France. Keeps the dole figures down I suppose.

Lancasterclaret wrote:So old people who never did a days national service are now voting for young people to serve in the military?

Yeah, good way to unite the country!

It's a reasonable assumption Lancs, however I can't see the breakdown of the voting demographic. Perhaps save your faux outrage until you've got the facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You can't call yourself a free country while forcing people to serve the country. **** national service.

Caballo wrote:It's a reasonable assumption Lancs, however I can't see the breakdown of the voting demographic. Perhaps save your faux outrage until you've got the facts.

It's hardly outrage is it? It's a good guess, and I'm going to think the same.

It'll be your fat 55 year old retirees who bought their houses for 4 grand and sold them for 120,000 and then say that kids don't do anything these days and when they were young they had a job and a house and two cars and blah blah blah.

Lancasterclaret wrote:So old people who never did a days national service are now voting for young people to serve in the military?

Yeah, good way to unite the country!

I don't understand this. Surely it is the old people who are likely to have done National Service. Mr. spades is 79. Do you regard him as an old person? He did National Service.

Like the OP, I too was brought up to respect people, but I really struggle with the kind of half-witted mongs and trogs who talk through their ring pieces about bringing back National Service, the birch, hanging... blah blah..

ClaretAndJew wrote:It's hardly outrage is it? It's a good guess, and I'm going to think the same.

It'll be your fat 55 year old retirees who bought their houses for 4 grand and sold them for 120,000 and then say that kids don't do anything these days and when they were young they had a job and a house and two cars and blah blah blah.

The hatred you have is quite apparent.

fatboy47 wrote:Like the OP, I too was brought up to respect people, but I really struggle with the kind of half-witted mongs and trogs who talk through their ring pieces about bringing back National Service, the birch, hanging... blah blah..

These people don't love their country now. They love their country as it used to be because they think things were better back in the day. You know, the same "back in the day" they point to any time one of us try to talk about renationalising something.

It's a reasonable assumption Lancs, however I can't see the breakdown of the voting demographic. Perhaps save your faux outrage until you've got the facts.

I can wait if you want, but I don't think I'm wrong!

Do you?

Bin Ont Turf wrote:The hatred you have is quite apparent.

Not really. It's just words on a forum.

Training folk against their will how to reliably kill other folk while denying them their personal freedom then letting them loose into the public with the knowledge of how to reliably kill folk seems like a terrible idea to me, I dunno. It's even more pointless when you consider the dynamics of a modern battlefield, let alone modern warfare. This is nostalgia for the trenches from idiots who never even knew a sodding latrine pit.

Imploding Turtle wrote:These people don't love their country now. They love their country as it used to be because they think things were better back in the day. You know, the same "back in the day" they point to any time one of us try to talk about renationalising something.

The good old days.

Many countries have National Service still. It's got it's good points and it's bad.
Personally I wouldn't want to interrupt anyone's career path, but for the unemployed why not. It would teach them some self discipline that so many lack today.
As someone who's lived and worked around an Army Garrison for 60 years, it's a good life for those who chose it, and could be the making of people drifting aimlessly.
Everybody needs a purpose in life.

Bin Ont Turf wrote:The hatred you have is quite apparent.

Resentment for people who were able to raise a family, buy a house, a car, send their kids to uni without paying tuition etc with one full-time wage between them, taking a **** on people who nowadays can't even feed a family of four on a full-time wage without government help is not the same thing as hatred.

Spades, if he's 79 he'd have been amongst the last to do national service.

Full respect to him and any who did it, and even more respect to the ever diminishing ones who fought in the war for us but the demographic who want military service tend to be the ones who have the handy advantage of never doing it and never having to do it.

It's time for national service now so "Get Some In" ..

Colburn_Claret wrote:Everybody needs a purpose in life.

Well that is just demonstrably bull$hit. Everyone needs water, protection from the elements and nutrients, but beyond that 'purpose in life' is a philosophical debate. Unbelievable arrogance from some to determine the life's purpose of another human being.

As a soldier, I don't want somebody next to me who doesn't want to be there oh hang on !!!!

ClaretAndJew wrote:It's hardly outrage is it? It's a good guess, and I'm going to think the same.

It'll be your fat 55 year old retirees who bought their houses for 4 grand and sold them for 120,000 and then say that kids don't do anything these days and when they were young they had a job and a house and two cars and blah blah blah.

Don't be a bellsmash C & J.

watsonsclarets wrote:As a soldier, I don't want somebody next to me who doesn't want to be there oh hang on !!!!

This is so true. This isn't a castigation of those who oppose national service, it's a legitimate military concern.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Resentment for people who were able to raise a family, buy a house, a car, send their kids to uni without paying tuition etc with one full-time wage between them, taking a **** on people who nowadays can't even feed a family of four on a full-time wage without government help is not the same thing as hatred.

Ha!

You actually think that older folk haven't had the same struggles (probably much worse) than folk today?

It's sandal wearing Brexit born hatred.

Would National service be open to all religions and atheists..

Why would the Armed Forces want a load of recruits who don't want to be there, don't have the intelligence to operate on today's modern forces (they don't need lots of infantry gun fodder) and would waste time and money.

Perhaps those advocating it would be just as satisfied with a "we will lock every unemployed youth up for 2 years and beat some discipline and pride into them" brigade. They could spend their summers patrolling the moors putting fires out.

BOTs got a book coming out soon about his experiences in his youth.

He's going to call it "My Struggle"

Who would supply the drugs and booze ?

Worth reminding than unemployment is an economic status, not a moral failing, and it can happen to anyone. Sickening that so many are so quick to pounce on and arrogantly presume agency of a perceived underclass.

Spiral wrote:Training folk against their will how to reliably kill other folk while denying them their personal freedom then letting them loose into the public with the knowledge of how to reliably kill folk seems like a terrible idea to me, I dunno. It's even more pointless when you consider the dynamics of a modern battlefield, let alone modern warfare. This is nostalgia for the trenches from idiots who never even knew a sodding latrine pit.

Being in the armed forces doesn't automatically mean you need to know how to kill someone you know.

.

After 26 years in the RAF I’d say absolutely not! We have been cut massively in recent years so why pay idiots that have no interest in being there. Society has changed a lot since those days. We should concentrate on getting our youngsters into apprenticeships and lower tuition fees for Degree‘s that are worth something. Teaching, nurses, doctors etc.

Lancasterclaret wrote:BOTs got a book coming out soon about his experiences in his youth.

He's going to call it "My Struggle"

A pretty poor show again Lancaster.

You've changed.

piston broke wrote:This poll came up because Macron is reintroducing it in France. Keeps the dole figures down I suppose.

It would have no or v little impact on dole figures so far as I have read.
It's really not National Service in the sense that we would understand it here in the UK based on our history. It would be more akin to "community service" for 16 year olds.
The proposal is for mandatory one-month placement with a focus on civic culture, which the government says will "enable young people to create new relationships and develop their role in society".
Placements such as voluntary teaching and working with charities are among the options being looked at, alongside traditional military preparation with the police, fire service or army, but only mandatory for 1 month.

The second proposed phase is a voluntary placement of at least three months and up to a year, in which young people would be encouraged to serve "in an area linked to defence and security" - but again, they could opt to carry out volunteer work linked to heritage, the environment or social care.
As someone who has spent most of my life working with 16, 17 and 18 year olds, I can actually see some merit in it.

I thought it was a pretty good effort to be honest.

You need the absolute **** ripping out of you a bit more if you ask me, you take all this crap far too seriously these days.

deanothedino wrote:Being in the armed forces doesn't automatically mean you need to know how to kill someone you know.

I've so much respect or people who join the forces, don't get me wrong. You can disagree with interventionism, for example, while still maintaining massive respect for those individuals in the forces, but the first thing anyone entering the forces is taught is how to be a soldier. This, at some point, involves a rifle. It seems like a terrible idea, to me at least, to combat-train while further engender recalcitrance in some nihilistic reprobate of a conscript. Stanley Kubrick made an awesome film that touched on it in 1987. You've probably seen it.

Damo wrote:Should we bring it back?
Missed it originally myself but was still brought up to respect people.

IMG_20180628_213121.jpg

National Service? Before a job offer people usually like to know what the wages and conditions are, so what are they then?

Spiral wrote:Training folk against their will how to reliably kill other folk while denying them their personal freedom then letting them loose into the public with the knowledge of how to reliably kill folk seems like a terrible idea to me, I dunno. It's even more pointless when you consider the dynamics of a modern battlefield, let alone modern warfare. This is nostalgia for the trenches from idiots who never even knew a sodding latrine pit.

Any different to allowing our Muslim friends to return from Syria or wherever to wander round our towns and cities with a head full of murderous knowledge? Not even close.

The British forces don’t train 16/17 year olds to be killing machines you know! Why would you assume that? What are the dynamics of a modern battlefield? And what exactly do you think would be learned by 16 year old national service entrants in a month? And let’s say it’s six months... do you REALLY think all they will be taught is how to kill someone?

When reality finally bites, make sure your arse is sticking out.

Lancasterclaret wrote:I thought it was a pretty good effort to be honest.

You need the absolute **** ripping out of you a bit more if you ask me, you take all this crap far too seriously these days.

Aye good effort.

I hope the book translates well in to German.

bobinho wrote:Any different to allowing our Muslim friends to return from Syria or wherever to wander round our towns and cities with a head full of murderous knowledge? Not even close.

The British forces don’t train 16/17 year olds to be killing machines you know! Why would you assume that? What are the dynamics of a modern battlefield? And what exactly do you think would be learned by 16 year old national service entrants in a month? And let’s say it’s six months... do you REALLY think all they will be taught is how to kill someone?

When reality finally bites, make sure your arse is sticking out.

Ah, okay. Logistics. So we're taking a boohoo warehouse job, switching jumpers for kevlar, and calling it conscription. Nice. (I've just had a mental image of Gareth Keenan from The Office).

You know, paying people to do nothing-jobs, they do that in China and call it communism.

Spiral wrote:I've so much respect or people who join the forces, don't get me wrong. You can disagree with interventionism, for example, while still maintaining massive respect for those individuals in the forces, but the first thing anyone entering the forces is taught is how to be a soldier. This, at some point, involves a rifle. It seems like a terrible idea, to me at least, to combat-train while further engender recalcitrance in some nihilistic reprobate of a conscript. Stanley Kubrick made an awesome film that touched on it in 1987. You've probably seen it.

No, it isn't. There's many jobs available in the forces beyond being a soldier.

So we have a chronic shortage of sparkies, plumbers, and box lifter-uppers in the forces that requires conscription, do we?

South West Claret. wrote:National Service? Before a job offer people usually like to know what the wages and conditions are, so what are they then?

Come on someone must have the answer on here.

fatboy47 wrote:Like the OP, I too was brought up to respect people, but I really struggle with the kind of half-witted mongs and trogs who talk through their ring pieces about bringing back National Service, the birch, hanging... blah blah..

I think respecting people doesn't include some of your descriptions.
I would think that you are being very disrespectful.
National service is a non starter though.

Blow you then I’m off to bed.

If it be your will wrote:There is one powerful argument in favour of a substantial (e.g. 2 years), universal, mandatory national service: it prevents the country getting into reckless, aggressive, foreign adventures. I am of the opinion if it was in place in 2003, for instance, Tony Blair would not have invaded Iraq. There'd be no talk of going to Syria, and the Libya debacle would never have happened.

When the electorate's own flesh and blood is on the line, rather than someone else's, they do not want their country getting involved in ill-conceived wars.

(The suggestion the unemployed should be forced to join the military is so utterly abhorrent it's almost funny, by the way: "You'll damn well do as you're told, because if I sack you, you're off to Syria, mate...")

I just missed out on Nation Service by five or so years, those that didn't had to serve in Cyprus and Aden whilst there were nasty insurgencies going on.
That didn't stop us sending our troops into Northern Ireland.

This thread was obviously a joke, though it's sad to see some of the responses that express hatred towards the elderly(c&j) and disabled(fatboy post 11) etc.

South West Claret. wrote:Blow you then I’m off to bed.

Not tonight mate, I’m tired. Just go to bed and I’ll see you in the morning.