National Service

[The Glove]

Should it be brought back?

[CharlieMansonsSquint]

There's no point these days.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Yes, but only for the Epsilons.

[Mattshark]

Fuck that shit. No one should be forced into anything like that ever, comes close to slavery.

[Milan_Milan]

Only for people who either leave school at 16, or choose IT, Media Studies and Sociology as their A levels.. :handshake:

[Rohan]

Should it be brought back?


Yes, all Chav's should be put through National Service :)

R

[Chrono]

Completely outdated. No.

[The Glove]

Completely outdated. No.



Lots of other countries still have it tho.

[Mattshark]

Who are the 4 facists?

[Snigger]

Fuck that shit. No one should be forced into anything like that ever, comes close to slavery.

could be argued that it would teach kids discipline though - stop them thieving, raping, murdering etc...

[Mattshark]

could be argued that it would teach kids discipline though - stop them thieving, raping, murdering etc...
That is what school is for, they should just improve that. There is no excuse to force people into anything, it is outdated and immoral.

[Snigger]

That is what school is for, they should just improve that. There is no excuse to force people into anything, it is outdated and immoral.

so school shouldn't be compulsory?

[Paul.S]

No.

Although I would set up a "Bad Lads Army" punishment for ASBO offenders.

[Mattshark]

so school shouldn't be compulsory?
That is for those who not adult though and are below an age of reason, however adults should not be forced into service, if they wish to serve it should be voluntary and quite frankly, I'd tell this country to go fuck its self.

[Chrono]

Lots of other countries still have it tho.

I guess it depends on your intentions, I think Turkey keep it as they have a huge amount of borders to patrol and other countries do it as a way of affirming their might in the face of technology.

If there were perhaps an anti-social attachment to it where anyone that was a continued youth offender had to go through it wouldn't be such a bad idea and would be taxes better spent than keeping them locked in a building with a playstation.

[Red_hot]

could be argued that it would teach kids discipline though - stop them thieving, raping, murdering etc...

:handshake:

[Rohan]

Lots of other countries still have it tho.

Countries with mandatory national service:

Austria
Belarus
Bermuda
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China (PRC)
Croatia
Cyprus
Denmark
Egypt
Eritrea
Finland
Germany
Greece
Iran
Israel
Korea, South
Lebanon
Malaysia
Mexico
Norway
Poland
Romania
Russia
Serbia and Montenegro
Singapore
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan (ROC)
Turkey
Ukraine
Venezuela

More than I actually thought.

R

[Hollowman]

Norman Mailer has argued that people can't write for shit these days because they haven't seen military service.

Hemmingway, Vonnegut, Faulkner, Fitzgerald, Crews, and Twain all served. Steinbeck was an embedded correspondant in Europe in WWII.

Maybe there's something to it.

[Mattshark]

Norman Mailer has argued that people can't write for shit these days because they haven't seen military service.

Hemmingway, Vonnegut, Faulkner, Fitzgerald, Crews, and Twain all served. Steinbeck was an embedded correspondant in Europe in WWII.

Maybe there's something to it.
The military can go fuck its self, no one should ever be forced to fight.

[Red_hot]

I reckon it'd do some kids thesedays a lot of good!

[Hollowman]

The military can go fuck its self, no one should ever be forced to fight.


Ever? So you think conscription during the second world war wasn't right? Hmm. Down the mines with you I reckon.

[Mattshark]

I reckon it'd do some kids thesedays a lot of good!
Bullshit, it is a abhorent denial of freedom.

[Hollowman]

Yeah, but you've grown up in a privileged position. You might not have felt the same in 1939.

[Mattshark]

Ever? So you think conscription during the second world war wasn't right? Hmm. Down the mines with you I reckon.
If you believed that it is right to fight then that should be your choice, no one should be forced.

[zimbo]

could be argued that it would teach kids discipline though - stop them thieving, raping, murdering etc...

Yep, 'cos you'd never catch anyone in the services getting involved in anything like that.

Would you?

[Hollowman]

Fuck that. If the largest military force assembled in history is massing on the French coast and pointing this way, then every **** with two hands and feet is getting a gun. And I fully expect some one handed motherfuckers to be showing some balls too.

[Mattshark]

Yeah, but you've grown up in a privileged position. You might not have felt the same in 1939.
That is an erroneous statement, it is unanswerable.

[Neil Young]

Norman Mailer has argued that people can't write for shit these days because they haven't seen military service.

Hemmingway, Vonnegut, Faulkner, Fitzgerald, Crews, and Twain all served. Steinbeck was an embedded correspondant in Europe in WWII.

Maybe there's something to it.

Sounds like an old man bemoaning "the youth of today" to me (Mailer, not you, obviously :D). Did he also say, "They don't know they're born these days" and, "Never did me any harm" as well?

Perhaps their good writing was down to (a) talent or (b) the fact that they fought in wars where there was a large measure of moral rectitude. ;)

[Chrono]

If you believed that it is right to fight then that should be your choice, no one should be forced.

Then you can sit in your bed while the country is invaded and your family are tortured and executed. Are you being serious?

[Mattshark]

Fuck that. If the largest military force assembled in history is massing on the French coast and pointing this way, then every **** with two hands and feet is getting a gun. And I fully expect some one handed motherfuckers to be showing some balls too.
So you defend freedoms by removing them?

[danielle]

That is what school is for, they should just improve that. There is no excuse to force people into anything, it is outdated and immoral.

Actually it is the role of parents to be some sort of moral compass for their children. Teachers are there to educate, but it doesn't do much good if little Johnny is allowed to get away with blue murder at home.

I'm not against the concept of National Service. Give the kids a year or two out of secondary school. If they have not gone onto further education or found themselves steady employment then why not?

[Rocket]

yes, unless your a farmer or an accountant

[Mattshark]

Then you can sit in your bed while the country is invaded and your family are tortured and executed. Are you being serious?
I said no one should be forced, I never said in that situation whether I would or would not fight. Your jumping to conclusions.

[Mattshark]

Actually it is the role of parents to be some sort of moral compass for their children. Teachers are there to educate, but it doesn't do much good if little Johnny is allowed to get away with blue murder at home.

I'm not against the concept of National Service. Give the kids a year or two out of secondary school. If they have not gone onto further education or found themselves steady employment then why not?
Because it is removing somebodies freedom against their will, that is wrong.

[Chrono]

I said no one should be forced, I never said in that situation whether I would or would not fight. Your jumping to conclusions.

So those that want to should protect the liberties of those that don't?

[Hollowman]

Sounds like an old man bemoaning "the youth of today" to me (Mailer, not you, obviously :D). Did he also say, "They don't know they're born these days" and, "Never did me any harm" as well?

Perhaps their good writing was down to (a) talent or (b) the fact that they fought in wars where there was a large measure of moral rectitude. ;)


True. But then Faulkner enlisted and never saw action, and he genuinely believed it would have made him a better man and a better writer. Of course, what he might have meant by 'better man' is a discussion that could last pages on its own. And your point about the differing nature of war is a salient one. But a large number of the most prominant English language literary figures saw military activity of some kind. Pynchon too, I forgot from the list. Could be said a man can only write as far as he can see.

[Mattshark]

So those that want to should protect the liberties of those that don't?
If your forced you have no liberty, that is then just hypocrasy. If your liberty is under threat most would IMO fight, but they should not be conscripted.

[Hollowman]

So you defend freedoms by removing them?


Yes. It isn't a philosophy lesson, it's the defence of a nation and everyone in it. Theory is for the pidgeons.

[Mattshark]

But a large number of the most prominant English language literary figures saw military activity of some kind. Pynchon too, I forgot from the list. Could be said a man can only write as far as he can see.
That is because the UK spent the majority of the past 1000 years at war with someone.

[Mattshark]

Yes. It isn't a philosophy lesson, it's the defence of a nation and everyone in it. Theory is for the pidgeons.
Bullshit, what right do you have to tell I should fight.

[Hollowman]

I meant to say twentieth century. Dickens and Shakespeare never saw service. So perhaps it isn't a factor. Perhaps it is for Americans. Who knows?

[Hollowman]

Bullshit, what right do you have to tell I should fight.


If I was a wartime Prime Minister? Every right. But I'd see it your way. I'd give everyone else a rifle and give you a copy of the complete works of Plato. See how far that gets you on the beaches on Normandy.

[Mattshark]

If I was a wartime Prime Minister? Every right. But I'd see it your way. I'd give everyone else a rifle and give you a copy of the complete works of Plato. See how far that gets you on the beaches on Normandy.
Don't condersend me, did I say I would not fight? I said it should not be enforced. WW2 was a complete exception from every other war the UK fought in the 20th century. But I still believe that no one should ever be forced to fight, ever.

[Chrono]

If your forced you have no liberty, that is then just hypocrasy. If your liberty is under threat most would IMO fight, but they should not be conscripted.

It's only hypocrisy if there is a liberty to be had if everyone chose not to. In this scenario that would not be the case and the conscription would be a temporary removal of liberty for the sake of a sustained freedom.

[Mattshark]

It's only hypocrisy if there is a liberty to be had if everyone chose not to.
That I believe answers the original question.

[Neil Young]

It's only hypocrisy if there is a liberty to be had if everyone chose not to. In this scenario that would not be the case and the conscription would be a temporary removal of liberty for the sake of a sustained freedom.

That's what they all say.

[Hollowman]

Don't condersend me, did I say I would not fight? I said it should not be enforced. WW2 was a complete exception from every other war the UK fought in the 20th century. But I still believe that no one should ever be forced to fight, ever.

There was WWI too. It might be said that winning that had its merits. Britain has only had national service during peace time for those years after the second war, and we had Korea to worry about for a while there. If we're talking a war of that magnitude, then absolutely everyone of able fighting condition should be drafted. Absolutely.

[Chrono]

That's what they all say.

:D

Yeah, but this is a case in point rather than the general rule.

[Chrono]

There was WWI too. It might be said that winning that had its merits. Britain has only had national service during peace time for those years after the second war, and we had Korea to worry about for a while there. If we're talking a war of that magnitude, then absolutely everyone of able fighting condition should be drafted. Absolutely.

Pubs still close at 11:30

[Hollowman]

And by drafted, I don't necessarily mean forced to kill. Farming and mining labour is generally required in large wars. Essentially, everyone should have to pitch in to the survival of the nation.

[Mattshark]

There was WWI too. It might be said that winning that had its merits. Britain has only had national service during peace time for those years after the second war, and we had Korea to worry about for a while there. If we're talking a war of that magnitude, then absolutely everyone of able fighting condition should be drafted. Absolutely.
WW1 was a fucking family arguement and an abhorent waste of life. I will under all circumstances arguement against forced anything.

[Hollowman]

WW1 was a fucking family arguement and an abhorent waste of life.


Next week on Simon Scharma's History of Britain...

[Mattshark]

Next week on Simon Scharma's History of Britain...
Well please justify it for me.

[Neil Young]

I must say I find various people's pragmatic approach to things both challenging and refreshing - it's certainly easy to get hung up on principles. Of course, I think the opposite is also true - it's easy to get lost in everyday realities and lose sight of what is important, "what we're fighting for", and so on.

Anyway, we shouldn't forget that people were allowed not to fight in WW2. The British at least allowed conscientious objectors to avoid fighting - they did other work, often things like fighting fires, etc.

I think that's right. There are times, rarely thankfully, when some of our freedoms need to be curtailed for the greater good and the longer term. In fact, this is always true to some extent. We aren't free to murder people yet we don't go on about our right to murder being curtailed.

However, I am extremely suspicious of politicians who put forward those kinds of arguments as a solution, they are far too cavalier with our freedoms in my opinion. In recent years I have become very sensitive to the potential abuse of state and institutional power, perhaps all those argument with Mungo and Cletus have softened my head.

Talking of mendacious, authoritarian politicans, Blair's and Bush's rhetoric is full of WW2 references, they are always aping Churchill - I don't think it's going too far to suggest that their childhoods, growing up in the shadow of the recently ended WW2, probably playing soldiers, etc. might be to blame for their fixation.

[The Wolfman]

i think it should be brought back or rather - should never have stopped.

Its only 12 months and most people like it to be honest.

when living in germany whenever i talked to germans who had done it really enjoyed it in the end and learnt a lot from it.

It also helps to solve the obesity problem too, fat people are thin by the end of it. And everyone has a high fitness level at the end - most people keep themselves fit from thereon after as they are used to having a run every day.

[Hollowman]

War never needs to be justified. The fact that anything comes to war means all rational solutions have been bypassed. But if you're living in Britain in 1914 and Germany are rolling Schlieffen out across Europe and the French are attacking the Ruhr, whilst the Russians and Austor-Hugarians are mobilising across the east, then sitting back and saying "fucking families, huh?" isn't going to get you very far.

[Chrono]

Well said Neil. The view on this is heavily skewed by the abuse of this rational by politicians and as such will always have a heavily negative edge whereas under certain circumstances, conscription will always have its place.

[Reece]

You could argue that without conscription we'd all be speaking German now.

Come to think of it, that is probably what matt wants as his gf is german. :D

[Mattshark]

i think it should be brought back or rather - should never have stopped.

Its only 12 months and most people like it to be honest.

when living in germany whenever i talked to germans who had done it really enjoyed it in the end and learnt a lot from it.

It also helps to solve the obesity problem too, fat people are thin by the end of it. And everyone has a high fitness level at the end - most people keep themselves fit from thereon after as they are used to having a run every day.
Really most Germans I know are opposed to it.

[Hollowman]

I must say I find various people's pragmatic approach to things both challenging and refreshing - it's certainly easy to get hung up on principles. Of course, I think the opposite is also true - it's easy to get lost in everyday realities and lose sight of what is important, "what we're fighting for", and so on.

Anyway, we shouldn't forget that people were allowed not to fight in WW2. The British at least allowed conscientious objectors to avoid fighting - they did other work, often things like fighting fires, etc.

I think that's right. There are times, rarely thankfully, when some of our freedoms need to be curtailed for the greater good and the longer term. In fact, this is always true to some extent. We aren't free to murder people yet we don't go on about our right to murder being curtailed.

However, I am extremely suspicious of politicians who put forward those kinds of arguments as a solution, they are far too cavalier with our freedoms in my opinion. In recent years I have become very sensitive to the potential abuse of state and institutional power, perhaps all those argument with Mungo and Cletus have softened my head.

Talking of mendacious, authoritarian politicans, Blair's and Bush's rhetoric is full of WW2 references, they are always aping Churchill - I don't think it's going too far to suggest that their childhoods, growing up in the shadow of the recently ended WW2, probably playing soldiers, etc. might be to blame for their fixation.


Clearly, National Service for Iraq would be a joke, and there's no fucking way I'd go. Well, I'm too old anyway, but it's not something I'd agree with. Military service for its own sake isn't required in our particular society. That's not to say it isn't without merit depending on environment. And during the two world wars, and immediately after the second, I think it was justified for both national and global security. Fact of the matter is, these days we have jets and missiles and bombs. Conscription isn't required. Unless you need to occupy somewhere for a great length of time.

Uh oh...

[The Wolfman]

to be honest isnt it just a year long fitness training with first aid skills, team building skills, responsibility and gun training thrown in?

For an 18 yr old thats a good thing.

[The Wolfman]

Really most Germans I know are opposed to it.

The germans i spoke to who had done it loved it, but then again some of the people were mates who had made friends with the others by being in the same regument/unit.

[Mattshark]

to be honest isnt it just a year long fitness training with first aid skills, team building skills, responsibility and gun training thrown in?

For an 18 yr old thats a good thing.
Not always it is not. It is still removal of liberty.

[Neil Young]

War never needs to be justified.

That's somewhat sweeping isn't it? Are you sure you aren't slipping into the morass of the pragmatist?

Surely the corollary of that statement is that a war is never unjustified since if it were to be then any other war must need justification.

[Mattshark]

The germans i spoke to who had done it loved it, but then again some of the people were mates who had made friends with the others by being in the same regument/unit.
I know a lot who left the country instead.

[The Wolfman]

Not always it is not. It is still removal of liberty.


thats nonsense, because then so is compulsory education.

[Neil Young]

Clearly, National Service for Iraq would be a joke, and there's no fucking way I'd go. Well, I'm too old anyway, but it's not something I'd agree with. Military service for its own sake isn't required in our particular society. That's not to say it isn't without merit depending on environment. And during the two world wars, and immediately after the second, I think it was justified for both national and global security. Fact of the matter is, these days we have jets and missiles and bombs. Conscription isn't required. Unless you need to occupy somewhere for a great length of time.

Uh oh...

:haha: :(

Yes, I take your point. I think we broadly agree.

[Reece]

There is a lot of big words in this thread. People trying to sounds intelligent. I don't like it. I'm off.

[Neil Young]

There is a lot of big words in this thread. People trying to sounds intelligent. I don't like it. I'm off.

Oh Lordy, that's torn it.

[Mattshark]

thats nonsense, because then so is compulsory education.
I previously spoke about that.

[Red_hot]

There is a lot of big words in this thread. People trying to sounds intelligent. I don't like it. I'm off.

:handshake: It's very interesting but I'm too scared to get involved.

[Reece]

:handshake: It's very interesting but I'm too scared to get involved.

:D

Yeah likewise.

[Red_hot]

:D

Yeah likewise.

Julian surprises me though, he's quite intelligent isn't he? ;)

[Reece]

Julian surprises me though, he's quite intelligent isn't he? ;)

Yeah when he wants to be. He has got a degree afterall.

[The Wolfman]

Julian surprises me though, he's quite intelligent isn't he? ;)

Im just warming up baby.......

[The Wolfman]

Yeah when he wants to be. He has got a degree afterall.

and the rest, dont forget the language skills too......:handshake:

[Red_hot]

Yeah when he wants to be. He has got a degree afterall.

That means nothing, they are handed out ad hoc thesedays you know!




:o

[Chiccada]

Should it be brought back?

Yes, there would be a significant drop in Chavness. It would do the kids some good.

[Mattshark]

Yes, there would be a significant drop in Chavness. It would do the kids some good.
I don't think it would, they'd just be chavs who are trained to fight. That is a cultural issue.

[The Wolfman]

I don't think it would, they'd just be chavs who are trained to fight. That is a cultural issue.

Then what you are saying is that no matter what people in this country will always be arseholes compared to other countries?

If that was the opposite way round it could be racist, anti-semetic etc...

[The Wolfman]

I previously spoke about that.

sorry to take you off topic.

[Mattshark]

Then what you are saying is that no matter what people in this country will always be arseholes compared to other countries?

If that was the opposite way round it could be racist, anti-semetic etc...
II never said it applied to the majority of the country, a majority of the country are not chav's however, it is still a cultural issue.

[The Wolfman]

II never said it applied to the majority of the country, a majority of the country are not chav's however, it is still a cultural issue.


I just think it was a bit of a rubbish statement that's all. I mean most of those "chavs" may be better equipped to be a soldier than you though?

[Snigger]

That is for those who not adult though and are below an age of reason, however adults should not be forced into service, if they wish to serve it should be voluntary and quite frankly, I'd tell this country to go fuck its self.

16 year olds are not adults yet they can leave school.

[Mattshark]

16 year olds are not adults yet they can leave school.
Yes but the are deemed to be of an age of reason, it is also only those who are 16 by a certain time who may leave not just those who are 16.

[Mattshark]

I just think it was a bit of a rubbish statement that's all. I mean most of those "chavs" may be better equipped to be a soldier than you though?
Why a rubbish statement, chav is a cultural issue, not to just the uk but it is still cultural.
They may be, I don't know, but I personally believe it should be a choice.

[Snigger]

If you believed that it is right to fight then that should be your choice, no one should be forced.

you are entitled to your opinion but that is bollocks - If your country is under attack then it is every citizens duty to help defend it, you are fighting for your liberty and freedom not losing it by fighting - without National Service we would all be speaking German and be ruled by the Germans and we have a lot to thank the national service for and those who served in it.

[Mattshark]

you are entitled to your opinion but that is bollocks - If your country is under attack then it is every citizens duty to help defend it, you are fighting for your liberty and freedom not losing it by fighting - without National Service we would all be speaking German and be ruled by the Germans and we have a lot to thank the national service for and those who served in it.
1)An opinion can not be bollocks.
2)That is conjecture, you do not know that.

[The Wolfman]

Why a rubbish statement, chav is a cultural issue, not to just the uk but it is still cultural.
They may be, I don't know, but I personally believe it should be a choice.


Im sorry but what have "cultural issues" got to do with chavs???

Are goths included in that too?

[Snigger]

1)An opinion can not be bollocks.
2)That is conjecture, you do not know that.

it's not conjecture it's fact - you can't win a war without armed forces. Do you think it is wrong that women were made to work in munitions factories? should we have just rolled over and allowed our country to be invaded and taken over?

[Red_hot]

Im sorry but what have "cultural issues" got to do with chavs???

Are goths included in that too?

I used to be a goth! :handshake:

[Reece]

I used to be a goth! :handshake:

FLMAO!! Photo please.

[The Wolfman]

FLMAO!! Photo please.

:haha: seconded.

[Mattshark]

Im sorry but what have "cultural issues" got to do with chavs???

Are goths included in that too?Well clearly, they are subcultures, so of they relate.

[Reece]

Well clearly, they are subcultures, so of they relate.

I don't think Emo's should be forced to fight, they will just depress their fellow soldiers.
On second thoughts, they would make great suicide bombers! :rock:

[Mattshark]

it's not conjecture it's fact - you can't win a war without armed forces. Do you think it is wrong that women were made to work in munitions factories? should we have just rolled over and allowed our country to be invaded and taken over?It is conjecture because you do not know what would have happend with out conscription, what is to say outcomes would be differnent, people would have still signed up to fight of their own free will, your still assuming they would not have.

[Red_hot]

FLMAO!! Photo please.

I'm second from the left! ;)

http://www.hashbro.com/img/argh-nooo-horrible-goths-t.jpg

[Reece]

I'm second from the left! ;)

http://www.hashbro.com/img/argh-nooo-horrible-goths-t.jpg

No you're not.

E-mail it to me or something, or post on your myspace page.

I promise I won't reproduce it on here. :handshake:

[Tom]

Should it be brought back?

A few years ago, I'd have said no definately. Now I'm not so sure. It doesn't have to army, it can be other kinds of work too that benefits the community. They have it in germany - you can choose the army or community based work. Seems to run really well there.

[Hollowman]

That's somewhat sweeping isn't it? Are you sure you aren't slipping into the morass of the pragmatist?

Surely the corollary of that statement is that a war is never unjustified since if it were to be then any other war must need justification.

Sorry, what I meant to say was it isn't justifiable, in the sense that it is folly attempting to morally defend war. I think war is a natural state for man. It is something we have to will ourselves not to do. Much like celibacy.

There would be war even if man did not exist, is what I'm getting at. Not necessarily a popular opinion though.

[Diego]

Bullshit, it is a abhorrent denial of freedom.
why has individual freedom become the highest possible moral form of existence, is it not much more admirable to serve the community and not only yourself.

same can be said about liberty, or at least the so called liberty we live in, why is it the ultimate form of government, is it not like everything els a power that can be manipulated as much or even more than dictatorship as it is done in the name of so called freedom?

[Hollowman]

why has individual freedom become the highest possible moral form of existence


:handshake:

[Mattshark]

why has individual freedom become the highest possible moral form of existence, is it not much more admirable to serve the community and not only yourself.

same can be said about liberty, or at least the so called liberty we live in, why is it the ultimate form of government, is it not like everything els a power that can be manipulated as much or even more than dictatorship as it is done in the name of so called freedom?
Potentially, depends on what you are defending your community from or for.

With your second point that is abuse of liberty sadly.

I can understand why people think that national service might be a good idea, I don't though and I don't think it will solve the issues it is claimed it will.

[Snigger]

It is conjecture because you do not know what would have happend with out conscription, what is to say outcomes would be differnent, people would have still signed up to fight of their own free will, your still assuming they would not have.

Considering we came very close to losing ww2 with conscription I think it is safe to assume we would have been worse off without it. You cannot sustain a fighting force for a long war without conscription - volunteers quickly run out - conscription started out as 18 to 21 year olds and ended being 18 to 41 year olds - if there was a steady flow of volunteers why expand the the age span from 3 to 23 years over the course of the war.

[Mattshark]

Considering we came very close to losing ww2 with conscription I think it is safe to assume we would have been worse off without it. You cannot sustain a fighting force for a long war without conscription - volunteers quickly run out.
However it is still not fact, it is opinion.

[Hollowman]

However it is still not fact, it is opinion.


You can't clearly categorise everything into two camps of fact and opinion just so you can dismiss what you don't agree with or cannot argue against. A judgement made with education and appreciation of what did happen is more than just whistling in the wind.

[Snigger]

I don't think it will solve the issues it is claimed it will.

It won't, not all of them. It will however teach a lot of teenagers to respect authority, something which is very rare these days and can only help.

I don't totally agree with National Service and 10 years ago I would have been against it, however society in this country is going to shit and something needs to be done about it.

[Mattshark]

You can't clearly categorise everything into two camps of fact and opinion just so you can dismiss what you don't agree with or cannot argue against. A judgement made with education and appreciation of what did happen is more than just whistling in the wind.
It is opinion though, it can't be proven either way so it is opinion, he is portraying it as fact.

[Snigger]

However it is still not fact, it is opinion.

So show me the facts that prove we would still have won the war without conscription - life isn't as black and white as facts being right and conjecture and opinion being wrong. Many experts have agreed over the years that conscription was the only way to have defeated the Nazis - could they prove it? no - are they therefore wrong?

There are many things we know but cannot prove.

[Mattshark]

So show me the facts that prove we would still have won the war without conscription - life isn't as black and white as facts being right and conjecture and opinion being wrong. Many experts have agreed over the years that conscription was the only way to have defeated the Nazis - could they prove it? no - are they therefore wrong?

There are many things we know but cannot prove.

I never said you were wrong I said it was conjecture, there is a difference. I said mine was opinion, I could well be wrong, but I'm not saying I'm right.

[Hollowman]

Evolution cannot be proven beyond all shadow of a doubt either, but by looking at paleontology, embyology, immunology and biochemistry you can put together a fairly convincing model. I think much the same can be said of examining troop numbers and deployment in the second war and building a model of what could have happened with less soldiers.

[Diego]

Potentially, depends on what you are defending your community from or for.

With your second point that is abuse of liberty sadly.

I can understand why people think that national service might be a good idea, I don't though and I don't think it will solve the issues it is claimed it will.

my point was not necessarily about national service, it just seems to be the answer to allot of things, individual freedom is being protected in a way that it doesn't deserve. every thing is justified as it is in the name of freedom. many people claim that freedom is the reason for moral collapse in the modern world, that we are infact irrational creatures and can't handle freedom as it is presented to us. moral senses have been abolished and the result is much more conflicts with in the nation itself...

and about liberty, can a perfect liberty exist at all?

it's just some things i have been wondering about, at any given time in history, people claim to be living a better life than those before them, at any given time every body's right until they are proven wrong, i am waitin for us to prove ourself wrong and change our ways, to ways that are actually no more right than those outlawed as wrong before...

[Mattshark]

Evolution cannot be proven beyond all shadow of a doubt either, but by looking at paleontology, embyology, immunology and biochemistry you can put together a fairly convincing model. I think much the same can be said of examining troop numbers and deployment in the second war and building a model of what could have happened with less soldiers.
I know this, I never said you were wrong, I said I disagreed in opinion, doesn't mean I am not wrong. You need to understand that me saying that something is conjecture is not me saying someone is wrong.

[Snigger]

It is opinion though, it can't be proven either way so it is opinion, he is portraying it as fact.

What facts are you disputing? You want facts the you need and armed force to win a war? You want facts that volunteers were not enough which is why parliament instigated National Service in 1939?

Here are some facts for you:

The Emergency Powers (Defence Act) of August 1938 had empowered the British government to take certain measures in defence of the nation and to maintain public order.

The Defence Act contained around 100 measures aimed at calling up military reservists and Air Raid Precautions (ARP) volunteers for mobilisation. It's estimated that about half a million people also volunteered to join the ARP, the Territorial Army (TA) and the RAF Volunteer Reserve. But volunteers were not enough.

The Military Training Act of 27 April 1939 responded to Hitler's threat of aggression in Europe. All British men aged 20 and 21 who were fit and able were required to take six months' military training. Even so, when war broke out the British Army could muster only 897,000 men, compared to France's five million.

Another act of parliament was necessary to increase the numbers. The National Service (Armed Forces) Act made all able men between the ages of 18 and 41 liable for conscription; as part of the legislation it was decided that single men would be called to war before married men.

Men aged 20 to 23 were required to register on 21 October 1939 - the start of a long and drawn-out process of registration by age group, which only saw 40-year-olds registering in June 1941.

By the end of 1939 more than 1.5 million men had been conscripted to join the British armed forces. Of those, just over 1.1 million went to the British Army and the rest were split between the Royal Navy and the RAF.

If 40 year olds were only conscripted from 1941 does that not suggest to you that we did not have volunteers of a younger age?

[Hollowman]

Now we're getting into semantics. If you're going to have an opinion, at least have the conviction to believe in it. There's nothing that disgusts us national-service-wanting-gun-toting-liberal-hating-fascists than a pussy who won't stand up for himself.

[Mattshark]

my point was not necessarily about national service, it just seems to be the answer to allot of things, individual freedom is being protected in a way that it doesn't deserve. every thing is justified as it is in the name of freedom. many people claim that freedom is the reason for moral collapse in the modern world, that we are infact irrational creatures and can't handle freedom as it is presented to us. moral senses have been abolished and the result is much more conflicts with in the nation itself...

and about liberty, can a perfect liberty exist at all?

it's just some things i have been wondering about, at any given time in history, people claim to be living a better life than those before them, at any given time every body's right until they are proven wrong, i am waitin for us to prove ourself wrong and change our ways, to ways that are actually no more right than those outlawed as wrong before...
I'm not an anarchist, I do believe their needs to be controls upon a society, but I firmly believe that national service is unhelpfull and unfair.

[Mattshark]

Now we're getting into semantics. If you're going to have an opinion, at least have the conviction to believe in it. There's nothing that disgusts us national-service-wanting-gun-toting-liberal-hating-fascists than a pussy who won't stand up for himself.
I do believe it however, you and snigger accused me of saying he was wrong I never did. I said he was portraying opinion as fact. If you don't like my view that is your problem, but I'm willing to accept I could be wrong.

[Hollowman]

Pussy. There's no room for second guessing yourself in the trenches. You'd be in the munitions factory with the girlies.

[Neil Young]

Pussy. There's no room for second guessing yourself in the trenches. You'd be in the munitions factory with the girlies.
Oi! You starting again or what?

[Hollowman]

Oi! You starting again or what?


My bad. Allow me to rephrase.

Combatically challenged person. There's no room for second guessing yourself in the trenches. You'd be in the munitions factory with the hardworking and dedicated women of this country.

[Snigger]

I do believe it however, you and snigger accused me of saying he was wrong I never did. I said he was portraying opinion as fact. If you don't like my view that is your problem, but I'm willing to accept I could be wrong.

read my post on facts of conscription - they back up my opinion with facts.

You haven't really provided a convincing arguement as to why you don't believe in National Service - only that it is against your liberties to be made to do something like defend your country and your people. Your analogy that school doesn't count because they are children doesn't wash with me. There are a lot of things in our societry that a compulsory - you need a driving license to drive, you need a passport to travel etc... are you against these because they are compulsory and the state is dictating rules to you?

[Mattshark]

What facts are you disputing? You want facts the you need and armed force to win a war? You want facts that volunteers were not enough which is why parliament instigated National Service in 1939?

Here are some facts for you:

The Emergency Powers (Defence Act) of August 1938 had empowered the British government to take certain measures in defence of the nation and to maintain public order.

The Defence Act contained around 100 measures aimed at calling up military reservists and Air Raid Precautions (ARP) volunteers for mobilisation. It's estimated that about half a million people also volunteered to join the ARP, the Territorial Army (TA) and the RAF Volunteer Reserve. But volunteers were not enough.

The Military Training Act of 27 April 1939 responded to Hitler's threat of aggression in Europe. All British men aged 20 and 21 who were fit and able were required to take six months' military training. Even so, when war broke out the British Army could muster only 897,000 men, compared to France's five million.

Another act of parliament was necessary to increase the numbers. The National Service (Armed Forces) Act made all able men between the ages of 18 and 41 liable for conscription; as part of the legislation it was decided that single men would be called to war before married men.

Men aged 20 to 23 were required to register on 21 October 1939 - the start of a long and drawn-out process of registration by age group, which only saw 40-year-olds registering in June 1941.

By the end of 1939 more than 1.5 million men had been conscripted to join the British armed forces. Of those, just over 1.1 million went to the British Army and the rest were split between the Royal Navy and the RAF.

If 40 year olds were only conscripted from 1941 does that not suggest to you that we did not have volunteers of a younger age?
It sounds like they where a bit slow and inefficent with there speed. This matter is still however unprovable so give it up.

[Neil Young]

My bad. Allow me to rephrase.

Combatically challenged person. There's no room for second guessing yourself in the trenches. You'd be in the munitions factory with the hardworking and dedicated women of this country.

:handshake: ;)

[Mattshark]

read my post on facts of conscription - they back up my opinion with facts.

You haven't really provided a convincing arguement as to why you don't believe in National Service - only that it is against your liberties to be made to do something like defend your country and your people. Your analogy that school doesn't count because they are children doesn't wash with me. There are a lot of things in our societry that a compulsory - you need a driving license to drive, you need a passport to travel etc... are you against these because they are compulsory and the state is dictating rules to you?


That is really currently relevant is it. You have provide no convincing arguement to national service now whatsoever.

That is not fact above either that, it does not prove your original point at all.

[Hollowman]

Actually, he has provided quite a compelling argument that conscription was important during the second war.

[Mattshark]

Actually, he has provided quite a compelling argument that conscription was important during the second war.
But it does not prove his point, and he has made no arguement at all for a return to national service.

[Snigger]

[QUOTE=Mattshark]That is really currently relevant is it. You have provide no convincing arguement to national service now whatsoever.

That is not fact above either that, it does not prove your original point at all.[/QUOTE


you seem to have forgotten that my response re WWII was not to the original question but to your post on conscription being against your civil liberties. Unless we are attacked in the manor of WWII then National Service today will not be the same as it was in either world war and would more likely be in the service to society much as it is many European countries where it works very well.

If cannot see that the fact that the British forces had run out of volunteers for service in 1938 for a war that ended 7 years later as facts for the requirement of conscription to keep renewing our forces then it's pointless continuing with this discussion.

[Mattshark]

[QUOTE=Mattshark]That is really currently relevant is it. You have provide no convincing arguement to national service now whatsoever.

That is not fact above either that, it does not prove your original point at all.[/QUOTE


you seem to have forgotten that my response re WWII was not to the original question but to your post on conscription being against your civil liberties. Unless we are attacked in the manor of WWII then National Service today will not be the same as it was in either world war and would more likely be in the service to society much as it is many European countries where it works very well.

If cannot see that the fact that the British forces had run out of volunteers for service in 1938 for a war that ended 7 years later as facts for the requirement of conscription to keep renewing our forces then it's pointless continuing with this discussion.

Yes no volunterers a year before the war started.
It is being phased out in Italy, it is very unpopular amongst Germans.

[Snigger]

But it does not prove his point, and he has made no arguement at all for a return to national service.

Actually I have made points for National Service today, you appear to have forgotten the begining of this thread.

I'm still waiting for some rational points against it.

[Mattshark]

Actually I have made points for National Service today, you appear to have forgotten the begining of this thread.

I'm still waiting for some rational points against it.
I have given them too.

Your point I have seen, and I disagree whole completely. I don't think it would make any difference.

[Hollowman]

But it does not prove his point, and he has made no arguement at all for a return to national service.


So something that cannot be proved shouldn't be said? Jesus, that sort of thinking would eliminate 99% of the threads in this place. The whole point of this thread was to debate the merits of national service and/or conscription.

[Mattshark]

So something that cannot be proved shouldn't be said? Jesus, that sort of thinking would eliminate 99% of the threads in this place. The whole point of this thread was to debate the merits of national service and/or conscription.
I never said that did I? No I didn't. I never started on this topic diversion either.

[Snigger]

[QUOTE=Snigger]

Yes no volunterers a year before the war started.
It is being phased out in Italy, it is very unpopular amongst Germans.

There is not point in Italy having an armed force - they may as well decalre themselves neutral as fight for all sides at some point in a conflict.

What facts do you have to show National Service is very unpopular in Germany? I have lived in Germany and whilst there are people who disagree with it the majority seem to think it is good for the country and good for young people. Conscientious objectors may chose a civil duty intead - it is after all only for 9 months.

[Hollowman]

This matter is still however unprovable so give it up.


Your words, n'est pas?

[Neil Young]

So something that cannot be proved shouldn't be said? Jesus, that sort of thinking would eliminate 99% of the threads in this place. The whole point of this thread was to debate the merits of national service and/or conscription.

Do you have any data to support that statistic?

[Mattshark]

[QUOTE=Mattshark]

There is not point in Italy having an armed force - they may as well decalre themselves neutral as fight for all sides at some point in a conflict.

What facts do you have to show National Service is very unpopular in Germany? I have lived in Germany and whilst there are people who disagree with it the majority seem to think it is good for the country and good for young people. Conscientious objectors may chose a civil duty intead - it is after all only for 9 months.

I know my gf of 4 years is German, been to Germany many times and most of those I have spoken to do not like it.

[Hollowman]

Do you have any data to support that statistic?


87.3% of all statistics don't allow data to get in the way of their point.

[Snigger]

I have given them too.

Your point I have seen, and I disagree whole completely. I don't think it would make any difference.

So you don't think taking gangs of youths off the streets to teach them to respect authority, to teach them pride and belief in themselves, to teach them various skills that could enhance careers they don't currently have is a good thing? you're probably right, why do that when we could leave them to hang around bus shelters mugging old people and populating jails that have no room for them.

[Mattshark]

So you don't think taking gangs of youths off the streets to teach them to respect authority, to teach them pride and belief in themselves, to teach them various skills that could enhance careers they don't currently have is a good thing? you're probably right, why do that when we could leave them to hang around bus shelters mugging old people and populating jails that have no room for them.
No because most of those would be too young anyway. However ever considered joining the tory party?

[Hollowman]

They're too liberal for Archie.

[Neil Young]

So you don't think taking gangs of youths off the streets to teach them to respect authority, to teach them pride and belief in themselves, to teach them various skills that could enhance careers they don't currently have is a good thing? you're probably right, why do that when we could leave them to hang around bus shelters mugging old people and populating jails that have no room for them.

Oh I see, the solution to anti-social behaviour really is simple after all!

Seriously is there any real evidence that these social problems would be solved by chucking a load of teenagers in the army? First, the army doesn't want them. Second, can they even join it at 16? I thought that had been banned since they would be child soldiers, something we're pretty hot on in places like Sudan and Sierra Leone.

However what really gets to me is the inference that teenagers are a social problem. My lad's 16 - he and all his mates are polite, intelligent, articulate and hard-working. They also like hanging around in groups on the street and some of them wear hoodies.

Stereotyping and easy solutions to complex problems are, if I may say so, pretty lazy.

[Neil Young]

They're too liberal for Archie.

:haha:

[Hollowman]

I'm with Neil on this. I'd put the parents in the Army...

[Snigger]

No because most of those would be too young anyway. However ever considered joining the tory party?

What about 18 to 23 year olds?

What's the Tory party got to do with it? are you suggesting that Labour are happy to let pre teens and teens run riot, raping and pillaging?

[Mattshark]

What about 18 to 23 year olds?

What's the Tory party got to do with it? are you suggesting that Labour are happy to let pre teens and teens run riot, raping and pillaging?
No I'm saying your idea's match theres, or maybe that of a tabloid newspaper.

[zimbo]

What about 18 to 23 year olds?

What's the Tory party got to do with it? are you suggesting that Labour are happy to let pre teens and teens run riot, raping and pillaging?


Far better to give them a gun and teach them to be state-sponsored killers instead.

[Snigger]

Oh I see, the solution to anti-social behaviour really is simple after all!

Seriously is there any real evidence that these social problems would be solved by chucking a load of teenagers in the army? First, the army doesn't want them. Second, can they even join it at 16? I thought that had been banned since they would be child soldiers, something we're pretty hot on in places like Sudan and Sierra Leone.

However what really gets to me is the inference that teenagers are a social problem. My lad's 16 - he and all his mates are polite, intelligent, articulate and hard-working. They also like hanging around in groups on the street and some of them wear hoodies.

Stereotyping and easy solutions to complex problems are, if I may say so, pretty lazy.

I don't doubt your kid is well behaved and PC to boot, however there are many that are not, and I'm not suggesting 16 year olds anyway - 18 and 19 year olds are also teenagers. National Service does not necessarily need to be army or even forces and I'm not suggesting it is an answer to all the problems in society - I do however think it will help some of the people some of the time which is better than doing fuck all and completely ignoring that there is a problem in the first place.

[Reece]

I think youth/yob culture is pretty much at it's worst it's ever been at the moment? And although I agree that the majority of blame falls with the parents, the fact that they let their kids run riot in the first place means they probably don't give a shit anyway.
Therefore, some sort of compulsory service (yes, even at 16) would be a reasonable idea imo. I'm not neccasarily referring to the armed forces, but some kind of boot camp that teaches them respect, decent social skills etc.
Obviously i'm not saying all kids are bad etc.

[Snigger]

No I'm saying your idea's match theres, or maybe that of a tabloid newspaper.

So now I'm a tory for thinking that we have an issue with some teenagers in this country? That's almost as stupid as calling someone a labour supporter for vindicating child rape.

[Mattshark]

I don't doubt your kid is well behaved and PC to boot, however there are many that are not, and I'm not suggesting 16 year olds anyway - 18 and 19 year olds are also teenagers. National Service does not necessarily need to be army or even forces and I'm not suggesting it is an answer to all the problems in society - I do however think it will help some of the people some of the time which is better than doing fuck all and completely ignoring that there is a problem in the first place.
If you enforce them you enforce all, which is not fair and they are in the minority and I do not believe that it would solve the issue, it would just mean they'd be better equipped to mug grannies when they finish.

[Hollowman]

50/50 vote at the moment, and I haven't voted. Hmm.

[Neil Young]

Neither have I.

[Mattshark]

So now I'm a tory for thinking that we have an issue with some teenagers in this country? That's almost as stupid as calling someone a labour supporter for vindicating child rape. It was the over simplification and the idea that enforced service will sort them out, common old tory idea, common right wing tabloid idea.

[Reece]

See, this is why I don't do serious posts.

I try my best, but everyone just ignores it anyway.

C*nts.

[Hollowman]

I think youth/yob culture is pretty much at it's worst it's ever been at the moment? And although I agree that the majority of blame falls with the parents, the fact that they let their kids run riot in the first place means they probably don't give a shit anyway.
Therefore, some sort of compulsory service (yes, even at 16) would be a reasonable idea imo. I'm not neccasarily referring to the armed forces, but some kind of boot camp that teaches them respect, decent social skills etc.
Obviously i'm not saying all kids are bad etc.


I think there is an argument for using the military as punishment for kids who are ebing given ASBOs etc.

[Tom]

I'm with Neil on this. I'd put the parents in the Army...


:handshake: :D

[Snigger]

I agree with you Reece - your previous post obviously. :D

[Reece]

Woohoo!

[Neil Young]

:handshake: :D

Don't think I haven't noticed, Tom.

[Tom]

Oh I see, the solution to anti-social behaviour really is simple after all!



They have it in Germany Neil, it doesn't have to be the army. A friend of mine did his 2 years working in a special needs school. At the time he thought it was a pain in the arse, but now he says in retrospect he really grew-up during that period and learnt a hell of a lot about life.

I see kids coming into university at 18 and frankly they're not mature enought to handle higher study at that age. 2 years emptying bedpans would do them the world of good. :D

I don't think it's such a bad idea - putting aside all the debate about anti-social behaviour etc. which is another issue.

[Neil Young]

They have it in Germany Neil, it doesn't have to be the army. A friend of mine did his 2 years working in a special needs school. At the time he thought it was a pain in the arse, but now he says in retrospect he really grew-up during that period and learnt a hell of a lot about life.

I see kids coming into university at 18 and frankly they're not mature enought to handle higher study at that age. 2 years emptying bedpans would do them the world of good. :D

I don't think it's such a bad idea - putting aside all the issues about anti-social behaviour etc. which is another issue.

Sure, although I think it's fair to say that most of us would say we grew up a lot between 18 and 20 in our first years away from home.

I'm all for young people deferring entry to university for a year or two - I did it myself before the term "gap year" had been coined. I'm not entirely opposed to the idea (like you I'm more open-minded on it than I used to be) but I'm far from convinced. I think the idea of service should be encouraged but I can't help thinking that making it compulsory would be a backward step.

[Mattshark]

Sure, although I think it's fair to say that most of us would say we grew up a lot between 18 and 20 in our first years away from home.

I'm all for young people deferring entry to university for a year or two - I did it myself before the term "gap year" had been coined. I'm not entirely opposed to the idea (like you I'm more open-minded on it than I used to be) but I'm far from convinced. I think the idea of service should be encouraged but I can't help thinking that making it compulsory would be a backward step.
I agree completely with you there

[Tom]

Sure, although I think it's fair to say that most of us would say we grew up a lot between 18 and 20 in our first years away from home.

I'm all for young people deferring entry to university for a year or two - I did it myself before the term "gap year" had been coined. I'm not entirely opposed to the idea (like you I'm more open-minded on it than I used to be) but I'm far from convinced. I think the idea of service should be encouraged but I can't help thinking that making it compulsory would be a backward step.

If the government were really clever they would set-up an opt-in scheme whereby kids could earn credits toward university fees or apprenticship training. So for every year you did nat service you had your fees paid at uni.....something like that. Then you'd benefit from the experience and also from the satisfaction that you'd financed part of your own way through uni. A double whammy of responsibility (without wishing to sound too new labour)...;)

[Snigger]

Sure, although I think it's fair to say that most of us would say we grew up a lot between 18 and 20 in our first years away from home.

I'm all for young people deferring entry to university for a year or two - I did it myself before the term "gap year" had been coined. I'm not entirely opposed to the idea (like you I'm more open-minded on it than I used to be) but I'm far from convinced. I think the idea of service should be encouraged but I can't help thinking that making it compulsory would be a backward step.

If it wasn't compulsory very few would do it, but it's nice to see someone with a constructive view point, rather than just disagreeing with everything actually putting forward other ideas about how to tackle the problems of modern society.

[Mattshark]

If it wasn't compulsory very few would do it, but it's nice to see someone with a constructive view point, rather than just disagreeing with everything actually putting forward other ideas about how to tackle the problems of modern society.
Very subtle.

[Snigger]

Very subtle.

Not really :D but you can't say I didn't ask you for something constructive rather than just blankly disagreeing on principle of liberty. Liberty often has to be earned which means is comes at a price.

[Hollowman]

Also, it shouldn't be overlooked that fucking about with guns is lots of fun. The SA80 is a piece of shit, but it's still good for a laugh out on the range.

[Mattshark]

Not really :D but you can't say I didn't ask you for something constructive rather than just blankly disagreeing on principle of liberty. Liberty often has to be earned which means is comes at a price.
Denying it is not an acceptable price however. Voluntary service is fine, however enforced is not fair and imo will not solve issues, the question also didn't ask for alternatives to any level of civil issues where the root causes need to be solved not the symptoms of the issue.

[Snigger]

Denying it is not an acceptable price however. Voluntary service is fine, however enforced is not fair and imo will not solve issues, the question also didn't ask for alternatives to any level of civil issues where the root causes need to be solved not the symptoms of the issue.

Lots of things are not fair doesn't necessarily make them wrong or mean they are not the best solution. If you chose to live in a capitalist free state life won't be fair across the board - that's life.

Oh and threads evolve - you don't have to post with only the very first post in mind.

[Mattshark]

Lots of things are not fair doesn't necessarily make them wrong or mean they are not the best solution. If you chose to live in a capitalist free state life won't be fair across the board - that's life.

Oh and threads evolve - you don't have to post with only the very first post in mind.
I dispute that :p I believe in intelligent thread design.

I personally don't think enforcement of something like service is just before I consider it a breach of liberty and human rights and I do not believe it would solve anything.

[Snigger]

I dispute that :p I believe in intelligent thread design.

I personally don't think enforcement of something like service is just before I consider it a breach of liberty and human rights and I do not believe it would solve anything.

so I ask again - how would you solve it?

[Mattshark]

so I ask again - how would you solve it?
Serilization

[Snigger]

in other words you have no idea.

[Mattshark]

in other words you have no idea.
No, never said I did (though sterilization may work, they couldn't breed then). But I have serious reservations on national service, I do not think it would prevent chavs being chavs, they would just be trained chavs. Better educational system is required imo, and improved sex education and languages being taught from ealier ages.

[Snigger]

No, never said I did (though sterilization may work, they couldn't breed then). But I have serious reservations on national service, I do not think it would prevent chavs being chavs, they would just be trained chavs. Better educational system is required imo, and improved sex education and languages being taught from ealier ages.

Never saw being able to speak Spanish as a cure for hooliganism?

No one is saying it would prevent Chavs being Chavs - National Service would not change any class structures or where people are from - what it would do is get people off the streets for a while and teach them skills and values that schools are not designed to teach. It would also see an integration of the different classes, cultures and religions with one aim/cause, instead of current divisions people could learn to bridge gaps.

I can't see any negatives in it other than cost.

[Mattshark]

Never saw being able to speak Spanish as a cure for hooliganism?

No one is saying it would prevent Chavs being Chavs - National Service would not change any class structures or where people are from - what it would do is get people off the streets for a while and teach them skills and values that schools are not designed to teach. It would also see an integration of the different classes, cultures and religions with one aim/cause, instead of current divisions people could learn to bridge gaps.

I can't see any negatives in it other than cost.
I do not think it would sorry, but better education would help people with better opportunities in life. I also think enforced service would have negative effects on some individuals. The only time I could justifiable if it was an alternitive to juvie or prison for offeneders after the age of 16.

[Snigger]

I do not think it would sorry, but better education would help people with better opportunities in life. I also think enforced service would have negative effects on some individuals. The only time I could justifiable if it was an alternitive to juvie or prison for offeneders after the age of 16.


Better education only helps those who want to be educated - Formal education is not the answer to all the ills of modern society and won't help people who have already completed their education or people who's parents don't give a shit.

You can't raise a convincing arguement against it other that you don't agree with it, nor can you suggest a better alternative so it's pointless continuing this discussion.

[Mattshark]

Better education only helps those who want to be educated - Formal education is not the answer to all the ills of modern society and won't help people who have already completed their education or people who's parents don't give a shit.

You can't raise a convincing arguement against it other that you don't agree with it, nor can you suggest a better alternative so it's pointless continuing this discussion.
I do not agree with your reasoning for it, it will not teach people respect for others or discipline or better parenting and many would just not turn up. It is still a breach of civil liberties and I suggested it as punishment which imo is perfectly valid and a lot more justifable than all must do it.

[Abdul Alhazred]

The original Lad's Army was an inspiration to me. My two children are out in the garden whitewashing two hundredweight of coal as we speak.

[Abdul Alhazred]

It is still a breach of civil liberties and I suggested it as punishment which imo is perfectly valid and a lot more justifable than all must do it.

Assuming that you're not sent as cannon fodder for an oil-war (i.e. service is not necessarily military), exactly what civil liberties does National Service breach? (Apart from the freedom to sit on your arse)

[Mattshark]

Assuming that you're not sent as cannon fodder for an oil-war (i.e. service is not necessarily military), exactly what civil liberties does National Service breach? (Apart from the freedom to sit on your arse)
It is being forced into doing what you told to do, it is enforced labour. I don't think you should get paid for sitting on your arse, however I do not agree that mandatory national service is a justifiable.

[James]

Also, it shouldn't be overlooked that fucking about with guns is lots of fun. The SA80 is a piece of shit, but it's still good for a laugh out on the range.

:handshake:

The GasPacks are seriosuly shit and it's more of a precision target rifle than one designed to withstand combat.

Was very surprised H&K didn't sort them out but that's like asking Lotus to sort out the Astra - it's just not going to happen :)

Give me a G36 or even an AK anyday.

[fah-q]

It is being forced into doing what you told to do, it is enforced labour. I don't think you should get paid for sitting on your arse, however I do not agree that mandatory national service is a justifiable.

That freedom you love so much, comes with a heavy price. And its everyones duty to defend that freedom.

Too many people take it for granted and would love nothing more to kick back and let others fight for their freedom. But it shouldn't just be during times of peace you give up a small part of your life to your country.

[Abdul Alhazred]

It is being forced into doing what you told to do, it is enforced labour

What about jury service?

[der_Fuchs]

Before reintroducing national service you would have to be very clear about the objectives.

If it is for potential warfighting, then the idea is a non starter. Conscript armies are best suited to medium to long term, attritional warfare on account of their lower levels of training and commitment. The conscripts of 1940 may have been highly motivated to fight the threat of invasion, but there is no credible source of invasion now, so I can't see conscripts being anywhere near as commited as volunteers. In essence the military would see them as a drain on capability because the money spent on them could be spent more cost effectively elsewhere. Incidentally the British army only had enough guns for 2 divisions after Dunkirk: the Hitler threat was staved off mostly by the RN which had been built up long before the war. The conscripts who deserve the credit for putting the wehrmacht out of business were Russians.

If the national service is an attempt to get young people to invest some time and effort in the community, whilst instilling a bit of self discipline and self reliance into them, then Tom's idea of civilian national service has some potential. On the other hand, the job could be better done at an earlier age through good schooling, parenting and attendance at the Blair Jugend. By the time they have developed into fully grown, recalcitrant layabouts, it is difficult to see how you might bribe the conscripts into becoming better citizens - especially as they have no ambition to go to university, either. As was stated above, in this day and age it is difficult to force people to do anything against their will.

Whatever the scheme, it will end up either like the American draft of the 1960s, such that the very rich find ways to avoid it and shift the burden to the poor and uneducated, or alternatively like taxation, such that the very rich and very poor both elude it while those in the middle (i.e. the hardest workers) carry the burden. Being Britain, I would expect the latter.
You can also expect any number of cases of compensation for mentral stress, injuries etc. sustained duing the period.

Conclusion: no thank you.

[Airman]

The military can go fuck its self, no one should ever be forced to fight.

Thanks Matt. Love you too. :handshake:

[Red_Polo]

War never needs to be justified. The fact that anything comes to war means all rational solutions have been bypassed.

That's only ever true for one side if that...

[Red_Polo]

Why a rubbish statement, chav is a cultural issue, not to just the uk but it is still cultural.
They may be, I don't know, but I personally believe it should be a choice.

Chav is less of a social problem and more of just being the latest word used to degrade and humiliate the lower working class

[Airman]

Also, it shouldn't be overlooked that fucking about with guns is lots of fun. The SA80 is a piece of shit, but it's still good for a laugh out on the range.

The current one is actually quite good*. I agree the original really was shit though. :handshake:


*Unless you happen to be left-handed.:o

[Red_Polo]

So you don't need to clean it out with your tongue every five minutes when using it on sandy/dusty terrain any more?

[Hollowman]

That's only ever true for one side if that...


No, you're missing my point. I wasn't talking about the specifics of certain conflicts and their motivations.

[Neil Young]

Chav is less of a social problem and more of just being the latest word used to degrade and humiliate the lower working class

Well said. :handshake:

You, me and Julie Burchill are as one on this.

[Hollowman]

Let's not shit ourselves - some members of the lower working classes deserve to be degraded and humiliated.

[Reece]

And some of them truly are scum. But then all the other classes have their fair share of scum as well no doubt.

[Mattshark]

Thanks Matt. Love you too. :handshake:
Nothing personal, you chose to do what you do, that is fine, it is very different if your forced into it though.

[Hollowman]

Oh indeed. Degredation and abuse shouldn't be limited to the estates.

[Dalglish]

Wouldnt be a bad thing IMO as Snigger, Hollow and others have all far more eloquently said

[Red_hot]

See, this is why I don't do serious posts.

I try my best, but everyone just ignores it anyway.

C*nts.

Oh bless. :hug:

[JRG]

I voted against National Service, as the armed forces and the voluntary services are not correctional facilities.

I agree that people who do some form of National service may gain a degree of self respect, and therefore have more respect for those around them. However you cannot teach people respect, respect has to be earned. Maybe young people wouldn't be as bad if we, the adults that is:
1 Treated young people with respect and actually spoke to them rather than ignore them or sneer at them.
2 weren't frightened of teenagers. Adults weren't frightened or disdainful of young people when I was a teenager in Wavertree in the 1970's;
3 Adults were prepared to take responsibility for young people.

Dumping kids in the forces is not a solution it is a sticking plaster that will hide other ills, most of which stem from the idea that individual freedom and choice is more important than collective freedom that involves ome kind of compromise. Look at the ads on the TV - one ad for a phone company bemoans the fact that there are occassions where we have to make choices rather than be able to have everything. People with this attitude would make very poor soldiers indeed. In fact this personal freedom idea would work against the effective training of troops, as I believe the new disciplinary code is doing. I wnder how many law suits the armed forces would be served with for putting some halfwits' hideous little wimpering bastard through a bit of rigorous training? No society has cahnged and the irrtating need for instant self gratification would not be solved by any form of national service.

Somebody made a flippant point about putting the parents into National service, well it is my generation who fucked up first and allowed thatcher's ideas to take root, so that we have no society, rather a collection of short sited self seeking grabbers. Threfore our gneteio should do the national service so that we can gain the self respect need to take our responsibilities seriously.

National service will not put kids right - we have to do it.

[Reece]

1 Treated young people with respect and actually spoke to them rather than ignore them or sneer at them.
2 weren't frightened of teenagers. Adults weren't frightened or disdainful of young people when I was a teenager in Wavertree in the 1970's;


1. It is the parents job to teach their kids respect. That is how I learnt it. Adults will treat kids with respect IF they deserve it. And there are plenty out there who deserve anything but respect.
2. What do you expect? How many reports do you see in the news of adults standing up to kids and then getting either hurt (stabbed etc), or in trouble with the police for doing so. In the 1970's, you would have probably got away with giving some gobby kid a clip round the ear, but not nowadays. And what about an oap for example who is getting abuse from a load of kids hanging around of parade of shops? Of course they are going to be frightened!

[Anfield Mole]

I have no issue with the idea of National Service. The technicalitys I will leave to someone else.

[JRG]

1. It is the parents job to teach their kids respect. That is how I learnt it. Adults will treat kids with respect IF they deserve it. And there are plenty out there who deserve anything but respect.
2. What do you expect? How many reports do you see in the news of adults standing up to kids and then getting either hurt (stabbed etc), or in trouble with the police for doing so. In the 1970's, you would have probably got away with giving some gobby kid a clip round the ear, but not nowadays. And what about an oap for example who is getting abuse from a load of kids hanging around of parade of shops? Of course they are going to be frightened!

Reece

If you don't show respect you don't get it. Full fucking stop.

Regarding intervention. I have and will continue to intervene as you need to show some backbone. I guess that you are more likely to see kids run away rather than get killed by the kids if tou intervene. Of course this doesn't get reported as Kids run away when man shouts at them hardly makes a headline that panders to our society's need for sensationalism. Very very few kids are bad - the majority are fine. We tend to look at the way they're dressed and classify them as no good. I have done it when lads have knocked for my daughter, I have looked at them and thought oh my god. But, their apperance was negated by a please and a thank you from them - they were good kids despite my initial impression.

You have illustrated perfectly the point I was trying to make, that is society lacks moral fibre as it is a generally self absorbed culture of individual consumption. National service won't put moral fibre into a person if they have been brought up to be self obsessed. Again it's down to us as parents - and yes adults behaved in a way that showed children what respect was and that's how we learned respect - because the adults earned it.

[Hollowman]

All your technicalities are belong to us

[Snigger]

I voted against National Service, as the armed forces and the voluntary services are not correctional facilities.

I agree that people who do some form of National service may gain a degree of self respect, and therefore have more respect for those around them. However you cannot teach people respect, respect has to be earned. Maybe young people wouldn't be as bad if we, the adults that is:
1 Treated young people with respect and actually spoke to them rather than ignore them or sneer at them.
2 weren't frightened of teenagers. Adults weren't frightened or disdainful of young people when I was a teenager in Wavertree in the 1970's;
3 Adults were prepared to take responsibility for young people.

Dumping kids in the forces is not a solution it is a sticking plaster that will hide other ills, most of which stem from the idea that individual freedom and choice is more important than collective freedom that involves ome kind of compromise. Look at the ads on the TV - one ad for a phone company bemoans the fact that there are occassions where we have to make choices rather than be able to have everything. People with this attitude would make very poor soldiers indeed. In fact this personal freedom idea would work against the effective training of troops, as I believe the new disciplinary code is doing. I wnder how many law suits the armed forces would be served with for putting some halfwits' hideous little wimpering bastard through a bit of rigorous training? No society has cahnged and the irrtating need for instant self gratification would not be solved by any form of national service.

Somebody made a flippant point about putting the parents into National service, well it is my generation who fucked up first and allowed thatcher's ideas to take root, so that we have no society, rather a collection of short sited self seeking grabbers. Threfore our gneteio should do the national service so that we can gain the self respect need to take our responsibilities seriously.

National service will not put kids right - we have to do it.

you can teach people to respect others and to respect authority. Some kids simply respect the wrong things and have the wrong role models.

[Hollowman]

I'm prepared to try and beat respect back into kids.

[Reece]

But, they're apperance was negated by a please and a thank you from them

Wonder why that is ;)

society lacks moral fibre as it is generally self absorbed

FLMAO

[Snigger]

I'm prepared to try and beat respect back into kids.

bring back green flash gym shoes.

[Reece]

bring back green flash gym shoes.

Dunlop Green Flash are actually pretty popular at the moment :D

[Red_hot]

I'm prepared to try and beat respect back into kids.


:D Some kids need a good smack thats for sure!

[Reece]

:D Some kids need some good smack thats for sure!

See it's people like you that are the problem :miffed:

[Jaco_Pastorious]

I voted for National Service, it could be incorporated into the school curiculum.

I agree with the poster (Julian I think) that said it would encourage discipline and values. I hear Matts arguement, but our freedom and values are being taken and eroded on a constant basis in this day and age, so 12 months getting trained and having to do things in a disciplined manner could only improve some people imho, and it may also help reduce crime.

[Red_hot]

See it's people like you that are the problem :miffed:

Never did me any harm!











:o

[Red_hot]

I voted for National Service, it could be incorporated into the school curiculum.

I agree with the poster (Julian I think) that said it would encourage discipline and values. I hear Matts arguement, but our freedom and values are being taken and eroded on a constant basis in this day and age, so 12 months getting trained and having to do things in a disciplined manner could only improve some people imho, and it may also help reduce crime.

:handshake:

[Reece]

Never did me any harm!











:o

I think you missed the fact that I edited your post :o :D

As for smacking, it certainly did me good. Made me afraid of doing something naughty. Although it didn't always stop me. And then there was the "wash your mouth out with soap" threat!

[Red_hot]

I actually did have my mouth washed out with soap once whilst on holiday aged 10. I called my brother a fucking shit. He promised not to tell until I wouldn't give him a blackjack and the little get told on me. :(

[Reece]

I actually did have my mouth washed out with soap once whilst on holiday aged 10. I called my brother a fucking shit. He promised not to tell until I wouldn't give him a blackjack and the little get told on me. :(

I had mine done for spitting at my brother from my bedroom window.

[Hollowman]

It was a rapid descent from window spitting to window licking for poor Reece.

[Red_hot]

Lol

[Airman]

Nothing personal, you chose to do what you do, that is fine, it is very different if your forced into it though.

Very true. I missed off the smiley. Sorry Matt! :handshake: :D

[Red_Polo]

Let's not shit ourselves - some members of the lower working classes deserve to be degraded and humiliated.

Maybe so, but it would be naive in the extreme to think that the word is usually pointed at those people alone.

[Red_Polo]

All your technicalities are belong to us

ROFL

http://tecfa.unige.ch/~nova/img/all_your_base.jpg