The Nasty Labour Party - what they really stand for.

Then where can they go ? The streets ?

Their parents, neighbours, police, social services, teachers.

Do you mean their parents Luckygirl?

I don't know annie - I only know what I saw with individuals when I was a SW - I felt very concerned about them. These individuals were not able to make proper judgements; and some of those who were encouraging them down this route just wanted them out of the way.

How many sixteen year olds signed up last year ?

I am in the process of organising a major event with a huge choir and actors reading to commemorate those who found themselves involved in the First World War. I think it is an important event and that remembering these people is important: the Red Cross nurses, the munitions workers (Canary Girls) and the soldiers.

But one thing that shines through the research that I have been doing is the sheer sense of these young men being dispensable - the reckless decisions of the generals beggar belief. The conduct of that war was one cock-up after another and many lives were lost unnecessarily. I have a strong desire to protect others from the same fate, as I feel no reason to suppose that anything has changed much.

OK - I agree that some have expressed themselves in unfortunate ways. But I guess it is an expression of how passionately they feel about the issue of these young people.

Whilst I would not of course denigrate or disrespect those in the armed services, I retain major concerns about the recruitment of vulnerable children, especially given the controversy surrounding many of the conflicts to which they are eventually sent.

Some police officers are trained to use firearms

The fact is many of those who send our young people to war will think of the "troops" as cannon fodder ..and as dispensible..part of the cost of war. Service personnel will be trained to kill..that is a key part of their role. These are facts. It does not take away from being able to feel respect for individuals placed in, often impossible situations, who risk life and limb in the line of duty & service. Like any group of people in a job there will be good and bad amongst them. Not all soldiers are heroes, not all soldiers are hard hearted thugs! Just people.

oldbatty Sat 29-Sep-18 19:16:11
GG13.....fine n dandy, but he is a trained killer? yes?

Respectful?

Luckygirl, cannon fodder, trained killiers ? These are respectful?

I disagree Luckygirl. I think a great deal of disrespect to our armed forces personnel has been shown on here; by a minority of posters.

I do not think Chewbacca that anyone here is suggesting any disrespect. My main concern is that recruits should be in a position to make an informed choice. Sadly it has been my experience that this is not always the case.

And my more general concern is a lack of faith in the judgement of those who take our forces into war and put young lives at risk for dubious political reasons.

There are three more verses in this poem on similar lines

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap.
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, 'ow's yer soul? "
But it's " Thin red line of 'eroes " when the drums begin to roll
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes, " when the drums begin to roll.

I am the daughter, grand daughter, niece and grand niece of serving soldiers, conscripts and those who joined to get out from poverty and find a better life.

Five members of my family died in WW1, including one who got the gallantry medal just below the VC. Another was mentioned in dispatches in WW2. My grandfather survived the WW1 and died in January 1919, of Spanish flu, o his way home from Salonika.

None but the psychopathic choose to fight and kill people - and the armed forces do their best to exclude anyone like that. A successful army is one that never fires a shot in anger. Many of the actions the army gets involved in are peace keeping and protection like it's success in Sierra Leone and the tragedy that was Bosnia.

Anyone prepared to put their lives on the line in active service deserves a level of ongoing respect from the society they come from.

^
This

Yet he was voted for in 2010 and 2017 , the reason for no confidence was - not loyal to Corbyn

To return to Chris Leslie et al:

The Party chooses its representatives who will become its candidates and of course as policies change the members may want to have a different representative.

Chris Leslie voted for the Iraq war and against investigations into that war. He also voted in favour of recommissioning Trident. He has voted in favour of many liberalising policies but voted against measures to reduce tax avoidance (no idea why!). He also sometimes voted for university tuition fees (and sometimes against).

If I were in his local party I would be voting no confidence in him, not because of any support (or not) for Jeremy Corbyn but because I believe his voting record to be against the interests of the country (and othe rcountries).

Bravo PECS

PECS ???

Chewbacca I think oldbatty is simply pointing out the difference in the make up of the services now and in the past! . In both WWs it was mostly conscripts who had no choice at all and came from all walks of life. Nowadays services are all people who have signed up out of choice and maybe that makes a difference. I know three youngsters who signed up because it offered security form otherwise tricky family situations and have struggled to settle once they left the army. Not necessarily anything wrong with that if there is really a choice to make. But that is only a tiny example. My DHs brothers are both retired senior officers so have also known the other end of the continuum. Anyone prepared to put their lives on the line in active service deserves a level of ongoing respect from the society they come from.

Thank goodness for that.

At the outbreak of war, on 3 September 1939, the Military Training Act was overtaken by the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, and the first intake was absorbed into the army. This act imposed a liability to conscription of all men 18 to 41 years old. Men could be rejected for medical reasons, and those engaged in vital industries or occupations were "reserved" at a particular age beyond which no one in that job would be enlisted

Can't be bothered anymore. If you can't see the difference between this and 2018 I give up.

My maternal granny’ s first husband enlisted for WW1

Somebody who fought in WW1 or 2 is not the same as somebody who fought in the Gulf

No? Why not?

pre National Service people had no choice. Post National service they did.

Somebody who fought in WW1 or 2 is not the same as somebody who fought in the Gulf.

Its not the same scenario at all.

GG said she was proud of her son, I said I was proud of mine. Its not a competition. I didn't offer up anything.

What do you think soldiers are trained to do with their weapons?