Corbyns Momentum

Read your own posts,

How am I insulting families?

Stop twisting things Jen, I am saying shame on you for insulting families across the country, couldn't care less if you disagree with me, come to think of it I would be concerned if you didn't .

I really do not like you , sad to say this.

You are fond of saying shame on anyone who doesn't agree with you, aren't you, Annie?

I didn't write the article, Annie.
What do you think about decent families who are hard up being targeted by army bosses?
Shame on them, I say.
My family is a decent family, thank you. My brother was targeted when he was at school to join up and kill people.
His son was targeted, too. He went to a private school, paid for by the tax payer/army and joined the cadet force.
He went to university on an army bursary. Fortunately, in his first year, he realised that he didn't want to do what his dad had done, and gave the army its money back.
You could even call it blood money.
I am very proud of him.

All that concerns me is that decent families have been insulted , shame on you all

This article originally appeared in The Guardian.

A charity that campaigns against the recruitment of child soldiers has expressed alarm at the number of 16- and 17-year-olds who applied to join the British army after the launch of a controversial advertising campaign.

More than 19,000 under-18s applied to join the army between January, when the glossy This Is Belonging campaign began, and October. Of these just over 500 have begun training.

The campaign attracted criticism when the Guardian revealed it was designed to attract young people from working-class backgrounds, despite defence chiefs insisting that they do not specifically target deprived areas.

New figures obtained by the charity Child Soldiers International reveal that more than 19,041 16- and 17-year-olds applied to join the army after the launch of the advert – an average of about 9,500 per year group.

In comparison, almost 49,000 18- to 24-year-olds applied, an average of about 7,000 for each year group. No comparison figures for previous years were immediately available.

The charity said it was concerned that the campaign had appealed to some of the youngest possible recruits.

Rachel Taylor, the charity’s director of programmes, said the army wanted young people to sign up because they were “more psychologically malleable”.

“They are more likely to submit unquestioningly to what they are told to do. They are in the process of forming their adult identity. Some veterans say the army wants people in that age group because they can be psychologically and emotionally manipulated into unquestioning loyalty. This is an age group that shouldn’t be targeted because of those psychological vulnerabilities,” she said.

“When they leave the armed forces they have no civilian identity to go back to, which makes reintegration very difficult. People who are older when they join up have a much greater sense of self. They can go through that very intense armed forces experience but when it’s time to leave they have something else to go home to.”

A total of 92,000 people across all age groups applied to the army between January and October. Taylor said this showed that in fact there was no need to recruit the youngest applicants at all. “You could take out the under-18s and still have 70,000 applicants.”

The campaign includes beautifully produced 30-second films showing fictional scenes of young soldiers in various training and combat situations helping and supporting each other, facing difficult challenges with camaraderie and good humour. The films were disseminated via social media, television and cinema.

A briefing campaign document seen by the Guardian in the summer spelled out that the key audience was 16- to 24-year-old “C2DEs” – marketing speak for the lowest three social and economic groups.

The document also made it clear that while the campaign was UK-wide, there were “up-weights” to cities in northern England including Manchester and Sheffield, and to Birmingham, Belfast and Cardiff.

No it isn't, Annie.
If the choice is a life on benefits or joining the army, that's not much of a choice, is it?

Anyway, the reason I mentioned the volcano programmes is because the DRC are trying to stop the youth from joining the army. There are men who were taken as boy soldiers who are trying to get the boy soldiers out of the army, and train them to do something better.
Isn't that something to be encouraged?
As should not encouraging our boys to join the army before they are old enough to know what they are doing.

You really ought to read the occasional link, and then you might be able to see the wider picture.

NO children should be draughted into the army because it's the better of two evils, no matter where in the world they live. Neither British nor DRC children should be taught to use guns to kill people.

If it is their choice of career trisher, but far too hystercial to compare army recruits in this country with children in the Congo . I do not think I know the recruits better than their parents you seem to. It is their choice, perhaps they choose a career in the forces to a life on benefits. No matter, their choice just as racing around the country wearing Jeremy tee shirts is the choice of the young who have joined Momentum.

Comparing young men and their parents with the poor people of the Congo is so insulting

So you are happy to see children recruited as soldiers as long as their parentts agree? Perhaps the parents in the Congo don't mind either.

Do parents no longer have to give their permission for a sixteen year old to enlist?

In this town there are no army cadets in the high schools, there is in the private school

Annie The UK is the only country in Europe, and one of only a handful in the world, that allows the recruitment of minors. The enlistment process into the armed forces can begin at 15 years and seven months, although training does not start until the child has reached 16 and these recruits cannot be deployed into active service until they reach 18 years.

So Yes 15 year olds are being recruited.. We are one of the few countries in the world to allow this. In the war torn Congo it is at least understandable if abominable, in the 'civilised' UK it is abominable and criminal.

So young people from the so called working class with difficult backgrounds are not to be compared with the young people who joined Momentum in their droves ? I don't think this is what you mean Iam but it does seem the class devide is as strong as it has always been, n

So all this Momentum young are just young people really means university types?

Research confirms that young recruits to the Army are usually from what's called the working classes. The issue of ptsd is obviously significant. Many of the young and old men who join the army come from backgrounds that can only be described as difficult. Many of them have had less than optimum childhoods, grown up in families where alcohol, domestic abuse and minimum levels of stimulation or emotional care have been prevalent. They're often already drinking or using substances long before they join the services.
In contrast, there are many families were public service, including joining one of the military services are part of family life.
It isn't as simple as some would wish it to be,
There is no comparison between the cadets, for example and the child soldiers in war torn African nations.

And how come eighteen year olds in the army are indoctrinated but Momentum is strengthened by all these young people who care about the country, can it be they too are indoctrinated ?

So how can eighteen year old British soldiers be compared with those poor children in the Congo,? they cannot , such dramatics

www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/6e2x94/jeremy_corbyns_full_tory_plot_falklands_quote/

Fifteen year olds join up?

Of course they're not Annie they are recruited at 15, systematically trained to kill and then, suitably indoctrinated, sent out to do so. (After they have celebrated their 18th birthday of course)

I am extremely loath to feed your obsession annie but I am curious about the unemployed. Can you proved me with a link please?

Corbyn said those fighting in the Falklands were unemployed , big difference. I agree the army does target areas, but young people who join are not immediately shipped off to battle areas.

The British Army has always and still is targetting the unemployed and the young.
www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/08/07/army-a07.html
For those who don't do links this might help
ForcesWatch, a non-profit organisation that scrutinises military recruitment practices, also criticised the army for targeting young people and for “appealing to the adolescent child’s need to belong.” The organisation argued that the army “have latched onto a very popular recruitment tool, powerful in particular among those who feel isolated or marginalised, or who have a sense of non-belonging and potentially low self-esteem.
The UK is the only country in Europe, and one of only a handful in the world, that allows the recruitment of minors. The enlistment process into the armed forces can begin at 15 years and seven months, although training does not start until the child has reached 16 and these recruits cannot be deployed into active service until they reach 18 years.
According to a report by Medact, a non-profit organisation of health professionals, there are serious long-term consequences of child recruitment by the army. The study showed that these young recruits are more likely to suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, alcohol abuse and self-harm after leaving the army. Male under-20 recruits have a 64 percent higher risk of suicide than their adult civilian peers and have a higher chance of being wounded or killed during their career in the armed forces

Perhaps a few apologies especially to dj are needed. Oh and these are unemployed young people. So Corbyn is probably right- the army have alway recruited from unemployment blackspots

OTT and melodramatic jura....I rest my case.
If you can ever squeeze in a comment about how rubbish things are in the UK then you never fail to do so.
That must be why so may people want to live here I expect!

Did not 16 year olds need parents signatures to enlist at that time? National Service ended in 1960 and the age then was 17 to ?

edit- and saw his friend killed (apologies dj).