Conscription -should UK initiate?

The introduction of conscription in the UK is a complex issue that requires careful discussion. Some believe it could be useful in training and educating young people, especially those facing unemployment. Others fear possible negative consequences, such as loss of personal freedom and an increase in military conflicts.

I do not understand why some posters assume that this research was "poorly conducted". Perhaps if I tell you that it was initiated by an American couple Rebecca and Russell Dobash, renowned professors, recognised world wide as THE top sociologists in the field of murder and violence against women within relationships. Google or search for Dobash and Dobash or search for their published books "When men murder women" and "Violence against Wives" - both required texts for those studying these aspects of sociology.

I'm not in competition over deaths in WW2. You asked, I answered.

I do know many deaths happened, everyone does.

I know submarines are boats. Thank you for another fact.

Callistemon21 Not what I consider a controversial statement.

I reflected on a statement on the report.

Whilst I always assumed the violence was in one bit of the forces because of difference between pounding the ground hand to hand with others -- or flying/ riding the water, I've never read it explained so well.

It's not a competition, Norah.

Yes, I do know how many RN ships.
Boats are submarines btw.

Goodness!

I'm astonished.

Callistemon21

Norah

Callistemon21

Don't believe everything you read, Norah.

I don't believe everything I read. Thank you for that assumption.

I well remember Mum & Dad explaining that perhaps RAF were safer in WW2, not ground pounding, flying above, but flack took my uncles' planes down regardless. Makes sense to me, ground forces engage physically.

Well, my FIL certainly wasn't safer.

Do you know how many RN ships were sunk in WW2?

The post was about domestic violence and that a poorly conducted research survey concluded certain jobs/professions promoted violence.

Quite a controversial statement, I would say.

You ask, do I know the precise number of boats sunk? No.

Do you know the precise number of planes shot out the sky? Dad came home after his pilot officer job, my uncles didn't.

Do you know the precise number of people killed on the ground? I do not - I do know the number is higher number. And physical fighting was a nightmare.

I'll await proof the violence survey was poorly conducted.

Norah

Callistemon21

Don't believe everything you read, Norah.

I don't believe everything I read. Thank you for that assumption.

I well remember Mum & Dad explaining that perhaps RAF were safer in WW2, not ground pounding, flying above, but flack took my uncles' planes down regardless. Makes sense to me, ground forces engage physically.

Well, my FIL certainly wasn't safer.

Do you know how many RN ships were sunk in WW2?

The post was about domestic violence and that a poorly conducted research survey concluded certain jobs/professions promoted violence.

Quite a controversial statement, I would say.

Callistemon21

Don't believe everything you read, Norah.

I don't believe everything I read. Thank you for that assumption.

I well remember Mum & Dad explaining that perhaps RAF were safer in WW2, not ground pounding, flying above, but flack took my uncles' planes down regardless. Makes sense to me, ground forces engage physically.

MissInterpreted

Jackiest

Prison Officer, police and Army are all professions where you dominate over Prisoners or the public you tell them what to do and expect it to be done. So no it does not surprise me that these professions tend to dominate over their wives and use force if that fails.

Wow, that's one hell of a sweeping generalisation!

I am not saying all do I am just not surprised that they come out as a significant preponderance.

Jackiest

Prison Officer, police and Army are all professions where you dominate over Prisoners or the public you tell them what to do and expect it to be done. So no it does not surprise me that these professions tend to dominate over their wives and use force if that fails.

Wow, that's one hell of a sweeping generalisation!

Prison Officer, police and Army are all professions where you dominate over Prisoners or the public you tell them what to do and expect it to be done. So no it does not surprise me that these professions tend to dominate over their wives and use force if that fails.

Norah
My father was one of those riding the water only it was in the Russian Convoys. 19 years old, life expectancy 4 days.
A very violent man.

Grandmabatty

I would imagine that a disproportionate number of the services you mentioned, have experienced trauma at work. I do not excuse anyone who uses violence, but it perhaps goes some way to explain the statistics.
I don't agree with conscription nowadays. It seems to be a sticking plaster over a deep seated issue. And that isn't young people but society.

I agree that, if the statistics were to show a higher rate of domestic violence based on a proper survey there could be a correlation between rates of PTSD and violence.

However, it is never a good idea to present assumptions as fact, especially when the researchers appeared to know little about life in the Forces.

I would imagine that a disproportionate number of the services you mentioned, have experienced trauma at work. I do not excuse anyone who uses violence, but it perhaps goes some way to explain the statistics.
I don't agree with conscription nowadays. It seems to be a sticking plaster over a deep seated issue. And that isn't young people but society.

Norah

Granny23

Many years ago when I worked for Women's Aid, we were asked to notate and supply the occupations of the abusive partners or former abusive partners of the women we worked with. This was for a major research project (being undertaken at the local University) into the characteristics of abusive men. Obviously there were small numbers from every possible occupation (even a couple of Ministers of religion) but there was a significant preponderance of three types - namely Current or past Prison Officers, police and Army (but not navy or airforce).

The researchers explained to us that this was not surprising as these were all occupations where the men were taught and expected to react with violence to anyone who did not follow their orders. This was so ingrained in them that they were more inclined to react physically to any perceived disrespect from their female partners or children.We wondered why there was a huge difference between Army and Air Force or Naval personnel - the Researchers explained that in these 2 Services there was no emphasis on face to face hand to hand violence, whether in attack or defense. They were taught to attack/kill enemies at long range via bombs, missiles and big guns. This explains the discrepancy between the learned behaviour of service men in the different services.

Interesting.

Whilst I always assumed the violence was in one bit of the forces because of difference between pounding the ground hand to hand with others -- or flying/ riding the water, I've never read it explained so well.

Don't believe everything you read, Norah.

Granny23

Many years ago when I worked for Women's Aid, we were asked to notate and supply the occupations of the abusive partners or former abusive partners of the women we worked with. This was for a major research project (being undertaken at the local University) into the characteristics of abusive men. Obviously there were small numbers from every possible occupation (even a couple of Ministers of religion) but there was a significant preponderance of three types - namely Current or past Prison Officers, police and Army (but not navy or airforce).

The researchers explained to us that this was not surprising as these were all occupations where the men were taught and expected to react with violence to anyone who did not follow their orders. This was so ingrained in them that they were more inclined to react physically to any perceived disrespect from their female partners or children.We wondered why there was a huge difference between Army and Air Force or Naval personnel - the Researchers explained that in these 2 Services there was no emphasis on face to face hand to hand violence, whether in attack or defense. They were taught to attack/kill enemies at long range via bombs, missiles and big guns. This explains the discrepancy between the learned behaviour of service men in the different services.

Interesting.

Whilst I always assumed the violence was in one bit of the forces because of difference between pounding the ground hand to hand with others -- or flying/ riding the water, I've never read it explained so well.

The researchers explained to us that this was not surprising as these were all occupations where the men were taught and expected to react with violence to anyone who did not follow their orders.
That is absolute rubbish.

Any Army officer or sergeant reacting with violence against a lower rank who did not obey an order would be up before a senior ranking officer.
Discipline is essential of course, but they are not taught and expected to react with violence.

Many years ago when I worked for Women's Aid, we were asked to notate and supply the occupations of the abusive partners or former abusive partners of the women we worked with. This was for a major research project (being undertaken at the local University) into the characteristics of abusive men. Obviously there were small numbers from every possible occupation (even a couple of Ministers of religion) but there was a significant preponderance of three types - namely Current or past Prison Officers, police and Army (but not navy or airforce).

The researchers explained to us that this was not surprising as these were all occupations where the men were taught and expected to react with violence to anyone who did not follow their orders. This was so ingrained in them that they were more inclined to react physically to any perceived disrespect from their female partners or children.We wondered why there was a huge difference between Army and Air Force or Naval personnel - the Researchers explained that in these 2 Services there was no emphasis on face to face hand to hand violence, whether in attack or defense. They were taught to attack/kill enemies at long range via bombs, missiles and big guns. This explains the discrepancy between the learned behaviour of service men in the different services.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

The thought of my autistic, anxiety ridden DGS being conscripted into the armed forces fills me with horror.

Any ex officer can be called up in perpetuity
Well, I'm not sure about that.
Grandad's Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force?

I have read that 77,000 reservists could be called up, ex military reserve lasts for six years. Any ex officer can be called up in perpetuity

To be honest, I question how serious Iran was. Iran had made threats that there would be retaliation for the US attacks in Baghdad and on the Iranian consulate in Damascus. However, it used slow-moving drones travelling in a straight line, which gave Israel and its allies nine hours' notice. Most of the drones were intercepted by Israel's Iron Dome, which could have been foreseen. If Iran had been entirely serious, I would have expected something more sophisticated, possibly involving attacks by Hezbollah and Houtis.

Has launched..this is terrifying