pacifists/conscienti ous objectors/Jeremy Corbyn

Hi soon it says in your profile you are early 50's? I think there are quite a few of us in our 50's. I can remember covering both wars at school but also learned so much more from talking to my grandparents, my parents.

I am now 54.
My parents and all grandparents didnt go to war, as they were not allowed to, as their occupations were deemed too important to the war effort, and they were forced to stay home. It caused guilt in some of them, but there was nothing they could do about it.

Hi again, my parents were too young as well but I used to ask them about life, growing up during air raids, etc. And I have researched some branches of my family tree and been able to trace all sorts of stories from both wars. I suppose I am posting again to say if you want to, you may not, you can find out so much online.

What's a 'right minded person'? Is it someone who wants to 'bomb the b*st*rds' regardless of the innocent people who will be injured/killed? Or is it someone who wants to find a different solution to the problem?

Over the last few decades we've tried the targeted bombing strategy and/or sent in ground troops (legally and illegally). All we've succeeded in doing is make matters worse. Now we have ISIS to deal with.

Do we continue with actions that have not been successful or do we look for another way? At the moment we seem to have an Homer Simpson mentality in that we try an action and find it doesn't work. So we try it again and again in slightly different ways even though it's become totally apparent that it will never work.

www.bing.com/videos/search?q=homer%20simpson%20channel%204&qs=n&form=QBVR&pq=homer%20simpson%20channel%204&sc=0-20&sp=-1&sk=&ghc=1#view=detail&mid=065E6A9BC671880F26A5065E6A9BC671880F26A5

Some of you may think the Homer Simpson analogy is ridiculous. Well Homer is ridiculous. But then isn't repeating actions that simply don't work when dealing with ISIS or any other terrorist group equally as ridiculous.

Similarly uncles. Two went, but only for the last few months because of age. Because of training, they saw little if anything of any battle[they were in an office I think].

Greatgrandparents etc on both sides would also have been banned from going to wars for the same reason.

Lg I cant find the thread. Can you remind me which one it is please? Thanks.

Banned from going to wars? Why?

There was a list of "reserved Occupations and protected work". I have just looked up the proper term.

Banned? You may have been misinformed.

My father was in the last year of an engineering apprenticeship in 1939. Since engineering was a reserved occupation he was exempt from armed service.

However he volunteered to serve in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers
and saw action at Dunkirk, N Africa and Italy.

Another family friend was conscripted as a Bevan boy so did not join the services.

Being exempt is not the same as being banned.

There is no way that the occupation could have been done in another country! And would have been totally against the point.

And they would have been thought terribly of, if they had gone, which they couldnt go anyway.

Not quite sure if I understand your reply!
My father had to take his engineering skills 'to another country' since that was where the conflict was but that wasn't the point I was making.
I simply wanted to point out that banned and exempt have significantly different meanings.
Surprised that parents, grandparents and greatgrandparents were all exempt!
Did they all follow the same occupation or was that just coincidence?

Or is it Top Secret

My FIL was exempt from service because he worked for the Generating Board. He was a keen member of the Home Guard though!

My FIL was a policeman , so was exempt, or was it called reserved occupation.

My late grandad worked in a reserved occupation. He was a miner. He still volunteered and went to war. I don't think being in a reserved occupation meant you couldn't volunteer.

My FIL was in the Navy , Dad in the coal mines

My father was in a reserved occupation, he too volunteered for the Home Guard.
It still rankles with him (he's 91!) that he couldn't sign up; he lost several close friends who he still mourns.

being in a reserved occupation (there were several deemed to be essential to the running of the country) did not mean that you were not allowed to volunteer. Both of my grandads were miners in the same mine. One volunteered to go to war and the other did not.

My FIL left the police ( they kept his job open until after the war, when he resumed it) and joined the RAF in 1942, he felt it was his duty even though he was in the police and was 39 at the time.

Much against the wishes of my MIL!

DH was the result of their reunion in 1945!

Luckygirl thanks for confirming what I said in my post (which seems to have been ignored), that you think JC was saying he couldn't see him agreeing to illegal military action.

Beats me why some posters berate Tony Blair for illegally going into Iraq and then not only ridicule JC for saying he doesn't think we should participate in illegal action, but appear to support this government to do just that.

Anybody wondering why the 60+countries in the international coalition are not pushing for a UN resolution or a long term NATO for military action against ISIL? Maybe it's because China and Syria are allies and China will block action. The USA can justify the action it is taking because it has got governmental agreement that there is 'clear and present danger'. What do we have?

Did they all follow the same occupation or was that just coincidence?

Not coincedence really exactly. Skills handed down.

No matter what Corbyn says he will be condemned by the right. Hilary Benn put BBC Norman straight on how they will reach decisions, it will not get media attention.