National service??

Bump

I think it would be difficult to enforce also,but if it did go ahead I hope that those engaged in it have the opportunity to opt out with no problems if they where offered employment elsewhere on a permanent basis.

I am against it and agree very difficult to enforce. Plus it most certaintly would be socially devisive

And what would the 'punishent' be for those who failed to comply? The can hardly send them all to prison! I expect it would be the threat of 'withdrawal of benefits' again...

As one who did National Serevice, 2 years with the colours and 3 years with the TA it might be of some good if it is in a military type organisation, where you don't answer back or have the decision whether you carry out the assigned task. That does not mean you can't show initive; quite the reverse. It would only have any effect if it is applied to all; with only the medically unfit excused. Many of those who join up today often find their home and family in the armed forces. They lead a structured life, knowing who their friends are, and with Leadership they can rely on. These same people get lost again when they are demobbed back into a world where the boundaries are blurred. Many opinions are expressed on this subject, but unfortunately often by those who have never worn the Queens uniform and that does make a difference to your understanding of the subject.

It's a way of massaging the youth unemployment figures. I bet they'll be counted as working. Will they get paid? What happens if they get a job half way through the year? Why would the armed forces want kids for a year? What would they do with them?

To be honest, I would like to strangle the MP who came up with this idea.

Get yer hands off my grandsons, mate!!! No effing way!

Every so often this idea raises its hoary old head and every so often it is shoved back in its box!

I don't think it should be compulsory, but if it was voluntary it might provide opportunities for young people to gain experience before looking for a job.
My nephew didn't get on well at school, drifted between jobs and eventually was accepted for the Army. He loves the life.
But making that compulsory will create more problems than it solves.

I think such a scheme is very good in principle but would not work in practise. Our armed services are now much smaller and when we had national service we were fighting WWII, the Korean War, and various insurgencies and national servicemen were just being given a rifle and shipped out to war zones to serve as cannon fodder, that, or they were sitting around twiddling their thumbs in remote locations like the Orkneys bored stiff learning nothing but how to skive.

The military actions we have been in in recent years require highly trained, highly skilled operatives, which all but a very few conscripts could ever be. My father, 2 of his brothers and my grandfather were professional soldiers and my four other uncles all served in the army during and after the last war. a childhood of being surrounded by and living within a military environment taught me a lot

Anyway the armed forces are not a branch of Social Services and conscripts could well out number the professionals. This is the proble., Even if some young people worked overseas it would be very difficult t find satisfactory community service assignments that kept young people fully occupied and properly supervised without putting those they were serving at risk.

The bill is having its second reading in February! You can download it here

when a gal my office was slam opposite an army barracks and I witnessed the training of the young men plus the C/O was a family friend so I spent quite of lot of time within the walls! I thought it degrading sorry, the batman 'doing ' for the officer and at times the officers wife, I watched as young soldiers painted coal white, counted the panes of glass in the keep etc.

It stank of a class divide, and what does it do a young man to not think for himself? And it would be unkind to speak too much of the young officers who were in charge /control of young men far more intelligent . The bullying was horrific and the suicides never spoken of

I did see great friendships formed and accept some loved their two years, many hated it.

The youth of today will never accept this life

Well Anniebach all I can say is that my nephew has accepted it, and the Army has taught him self-discipiline, self respect and to think for himself.

Some do accept it janeainsworth but I was speaking of national service days, not today when one chooses an army life . Jack spoke of his experiences then and so I spoke of what I saw and heard then, national service was not a career choice and I did say the young of today would not accept what the young then had to accept, they had no choice .

I still feel cross when I think back to a bat man ironing womens clothes and hearing ' officers and their ladies, other ranks and their wives' . The Adjutant could walk into married quarters and inspect the cutlery, it was degrading

When Theseus was serving in the Regular army, one of our RSMs was vociferous in his condemnation of any suggestion of reintroducing National Service - "We don't want those who don't want to be here!" The Services are not, as Flickety says, a branch of Social Services. They provide a professional, trained fighting force.

Times have changed, people have changed. What was acceptable in the early 20th Century would not be acceptable now; it is foolish to try to recreate the past. That was then, this is now. It is right that people question, and do not submissively leap to attention and do what they are told immediately.

Having said that, a sense of community, and of belonging, is valuable. One of the interviewees this morning said he had found structure and point when he was in prison!

There need to be other ways of providing structure to the lives of young people, without forcing them to join up or go to prison!

Anniebach being 'marched' in or out of a quarter applied to all ranks from private to general - and I remember them well, although I was never aware of the QSM just marching into quarters and inspecting the cutlery.

I can remember the total unmatching curtains, carpets and upholstery and one posting where there was one plain carpet in a neutral colour that was moved from quarter to quarter as people were reposted so everybody had a chance towards the end of posting of having a living room that did not assault the senses with its clashing décor.

FlicketyB,I don't recall the officers married quarters ever furnished in like manner to the houses the other side of the camps, I can only speak of one army barracks and four army camps, you would have seen far more than I, but do you realy think the officers and other ranks were treated the same? I ask because as someone who was not in the army but an observer saw things so differently to many I have spoken to who were in the army. I realy am interested in your memories of that time

Oh yes, Flickety! And our last few houses were great barns of places, with pub carpets - swirls of red and orange.

Marching out was just (!) a matter of checking off the initial inventory, and the condition of the house, so that it was ready for the next occupant, who could be arriving from thousands of miles away. So you could be fairly certain that the house into which you moved was ready for you too.

Well, my father was an officer and we certainly got marched in and out of quarters and inventories checked - and also charged very highly for anything missing. I can remember the meticulous cleaning of the house, cookers and appliances that preceded being marched out.

How non-commissioned staff had their quarters furnished I do not know but the officers got nothing special. Brigadiers and upwards may have had chandeliers, I do not know that either but for most officers we got very run of the mill furnishings and nothing ever really matched.

I can remember a relatively small but very heavy box being delivered to the door and my mother's bemusement at opening it to find 6 pottery handleless mugs made from the mottled beige clay and chestnut coloured glaze usually used to make the large containers that used to stand on larder floors and were used for bulk storage and salting beans. The pottery was about half an inch thick. It turned out these were tooth mugs. It was near the end of the financial year and the QSM still had some money left and any money left one year was cut from the next year's budget. Hence the decision to buy and issue these tooth mugs. I think they were still in the box when we were marched out

I don't see any point in forcing young people into the armed forces. What good would it do them or the organisations? Also what about parents who do not wish their child to be conscripted. My DH is ex-army who served and suffered for his country. The second time as a called up reservist who had built a new life and had no wish to go back but, hell, they needed cannon fodder in Kuwait where he did and saw things that most people couldn't imagine in their worst nightmares. He has always been adamant that no child of his would ever sign up.

Let's not get too steamed up about what is, after all, only a Private Member's Bill. They rarely reach the stage of being passed into law.

Thank you FlicketyB

This is strange, do you think the differences were caused because of different regiments ? I visited houses lived in by Officers and they had their own furniture, must have been their own , dark oak and mahogany were the usual, and I am speaking of ranks from Captains to Col's, only one Brigadier though, he lived outside the camp. I was always impressed by the dining rooms, I cannot recall the carpets though.

The other married quarters all had identical furniture, a very light colour, possibly veneered , even the window curtains were the same , yet the officers homes were very chintzy

Some people did choose to have their own furniture. My parents owned a house for a while, which obviously had their own furniture, and when they moved from that to a quarter on another posting in the UK they took their furniture with them but then they were posted abroad so they sold all the furniture and never bothered to buy any more. It was easier to take what came with the job.

I am not sure when your experience dates to. I am talking roughly post WWII to mid 60s when we had a lot of colonies and there was a lot of moving around and postings overseas. I have friends and their children, in the forces over the last 40 years and as they seem to move round much less they have usually owned their own homes and if they went into quarters taken their own furniture with them.

Officer issue was very chintzy, chintzy curtains, chintzy chair covers chintzy carpet, none of them matching in pattern or colour. When I was about 13 the great rite of passage for many girls reaching that age was having their bedroom redecorated in a manner suitable for a young woman rather than a child, hopefully with the much coveted kidney shaped dressing table. How I envied them as we went from quarter to quarter, never knowing what my bedroom would look like, whether I would have my own room or would share with my sister/s. All my belongings packed into a quite small cardboard box.

I wouldn't want military service forced on young people, but open to those who wanted to do it. I know a number of (often vulnerable) young people who have enjoyed and benefitted from actives with the Prince's Trust. Is there a problem with offering young people say 6 months basic financial support to do some form of national service. It'd take proper research and funding, so would be expensive - it wouldn't be for everyone, but could it work?