this country is going to the dogs.

bring it back. Teach kids respect, disipline, responsibility and manners.

get the little chubby blighters fit.

ou produce a society of kids who are disciplined enough to work and will graft.

fitter kids who may appreciate how lucky they are.

I've said this since I was about 16, myself!

Any kid (male or female) wanting to leave school with no qualifications & no job to go to should be obliged to spend 5 years in one of the services, at least learning a trade.

The alternative; get your exam passes, get a job or get to Uni.

I agree totally with the re-introduction of National service.
One thing does bother me about it though!

The youngsters that are leaving school without any form of qualification are as thick as 2 planks and would be a liability to others that have more than 2 brain cells to rub together.The introduction of military type schools would be a better option.

This however, would only be a dream as the do gooders and bleeding heart society would oppose such discipline being forced on the poor little darlings.

Bring back the birch. That would give em a "Happy Slap"

I disagree that the reintroduction of National Service would be beneficial for all. For example, teaching me respect and discipline was the job of my parents and it was a job they did well.

For me, running around in the forest erecting tents, shooting at targets and carrying a pack would have taught me nothing and been a complete waste of time.

I don't think that the solution to instilling respect and discipline within British society lies within National Service. Instead, the root of the problem (ie. inadequate parenting) should be addressed.

I'm with you on this Robbie, our society needs a good swift kick up the backside to attempt to instill some level of balance into certain social groups.

If national service was introduced then instead of rutting like dogs in heat, stealing, and clocking up as many asbos as possible the nations youth would be learning a trade, self discipline and respect for authority.

Bring it back, the more of them that are in national service now means there's less of them to go on Trisha in 3 years time :D

School is full of enough open doors for bullying as it is. Sending the asthmatic short guy with the thick rimmed glass to a camp where he has to run alongside mr athletic with a bag the same size as he is on his back is hell for that poor kid.

National Service based on behavior would be a better solution. Give the teachers the right to send the little $%!t$ off.

That's all very well for the minority of yobs who receive no parental control and are a menace to society. But what about the decent kids who are never in trouble with the law and come from good homes?

It's not fair that they should be brutalised and probably traumatised by army life because some of their peers don't know how to behave.

What we need is more realistic punishment handed out by the courts to the convicted yobs, rather than punish all young people because of the sins of a minority.

This is general reply, BTW, and not a response to Lickable's post above with which I totally agree

Originally posted by JonJParr
I disagree that the reintroduction of National Service would be beneficial for all. For example, teaching me respect and discipline was the job of my parents and it was a job they did well.

For me, running around in the forest erecting tents, shooting at targets and carrying a pack would have taught me nothing and been a complete waste of time.

I don't think that the solution to instilling respect and discipline within British society lies within National Service. Instead, the root of the problem (ie. inadequate parenting) should be addressed.

this is where you are wrong JonJParr ive seen the thickest of people and people like your self who think it would have done them no good turn from civilians in to first class infantry soldiers.....

also the country cannot control the parenting so there is always going to un ruley kids so yes these should be sent away on National Service.......

About calling kids 'yobs'. From Young People Now Magazine

'It is clear that there is going to be a continuing debate about youth crime and antisocial behaviour. But if the words "respect", "feral" and "yob" are going to figure in it, we should contemplate what they really signify.

Respect is a property of a relationship. It involves one person honouring another. Respect, as opposed to submission, has to be earned. It results from acknowledgement that the "other" has intrinsic value, moral worth.

Feral has not previously been applied to humans. It concerns cultivated plants or domesticated animals that have gone wild. To call children feral is to deny their humanity. It signifies mutual disrespect, as does "yob". What are we to make of this? There is nothing new about the young showing some disrespect for their elders. But labelling children "feral yobs" suggests a new low for serious policy analysis. It implies that the subjects are no longer part of a human relationship. Or that the analysts have no responsibility for whatever relationship has gone awry.

It's not a sensible starting point from which to find solutions to the real problem of youth crime. So, where do we start? We have allowed some neighbourhoods to become zones of hopelessness. We have failed to engage many children in our schools and have neglected their health. We have permitted the exploitation of children through the media. We have allowed our young people on reaching adolescence to fall prey to the high street drinks industry. We have criminalised and locked up increasing numbers of them. Finally, instead of talking and listening to them we have employed others to watch them through the largest concentration of CCTV cameras in the world.

This was not the best way to cultivate respect. The Youth Justice Board believes that we have to rebuild relationships with troubled and troublesome young people from the bottom up. That means all the mainstream services - education, health, housing and so on - taking crime prevention seriously. It means identifying children at risk and working with them and their parents. It means breathing new life into run-down neighbourhoods. It means resuscitating youth services. It means making a reality of neighbourhood policing. It means ending our obsession with locking young people up and instead using our stretched budgets for early prevention work and more intensive supervision of serious young offenders. Effort invested in this way may earn mutual respect. '

National Service would be a good idea for those who either dont know what they want to do, or those who deliberately wont work. It may help the youths who get coerced into bad ways, but the real trouble makers may not benefit - we may just be handing them guns instead of them stealing them!

There are some well behaved young people out there - my own sons included - who do not need to be taught discipline, as we did that. Parents are the main influence on childrens behaviour, and it is quite possible to raise decent human beings instead of thugs. It is not as easy as letting them do as they please, but it is also not that diffucult.

If powers were given back to the police and teachers, I think this would help. It is a nonsense that a teacher cannot separate 2 children fighting without being suspended or sacked. I know that there are some children at risk of violence, but those adults that commit those sort of awful crimes will not be stopped by laws. A bit of old-fashioned common sense is what is needed!

I agree. We need aome kind of middle ground here between far too lenient and being far too harsh. Common sense, a bit a mutual respect and better communication with kids.


(good grief - what a boring comment... I will try harder...) :)

Originally posted by bigjay
this is where you are wrong JonJParr ive seen the thickest of people and people like your self who think it would have done them no good turn from civilians in to first class infantry soldiers.....

also the country cannot control the parenting so there is always going to un ruley kids so yes these should be sent away on National Service.......

Bigjay,
But I have no real desire to be a first rate infantry solider (a first rate trained killer). It would serve no purpose for me and teach me nothing of great consequence. I'm a businessman - I help the country by using my brains not my brawn.

As for not being able to control parenting that's nonsense! The state can contribute to how children are raised through the education system (ie. citizenship lessons, personal social education).

Originally posted by JonJParr
Bigjay,
But I have no real desire to be a first rate infantry solider (a first rate trained killer). It would serve no purpose for me and teach me nothing of great consequence. I'm a businessman - I help the country by using my brains not my brawn.

As for not being able to control parenting that's nonsense! The state can contribute to how children are raised through the education system (ie. citizenship lessons, personal social education).

British Forces especially the Royal Marine Commandos are one of the most elite forces in the world and are not just brawn......!!!!

as for how children are rasied through the education system........ what happens if they dont go....? these are the ones National service would be aimed at - the ones society,government or parents cant control.....

What a great idea (hear the irony drip)

It reminds me of the great idea that the BNP put forward in the last election.

They wanted to arm all ex-service personnel, especially the tramps, I think I got that bit right.

You want to put all the underachievers, time-wasters, no-hopers and yobs (to paraphrase you) into the army and give them all a gun too.

Personally I would shudder to think that our national services, our military defenders were full of such people, armed and dangerous.

Friendly fire would escalate to a rate like it is in USA for a start, bound to.

Not a good idea at any level.

What would be the penalty for none-cooperation with National Service? (and I reckon you'd find a lot of non-cooperation from the very kids you want to engage). Put the kids in prison? Believe me there ain't enough places as it is...

I think on this topic we should look to our Kraut-cousins the Germans for inspiration...

If I've understood this right from a German pal, then all teens aged 18-20 have to give two years of service to their nation before going to uni or getting a job.

But this service is flexible, and can be in the form of national service with the armed forces or community service, which is in some ways similar to our community punishment orders.

For example, my friend enjoyed football, so spent his time teaching in a soccer school for disabled kids.

In this was society benefits and the teens benefit, but at the same time they arn't being forced into the forces. Being in the Army or Navy should be a choice.

Originally posted by bigjay
British Forces especially the Royal Marine Commandos are one of the most elite forces in the world and are not just brawn......!!!!

That may be true Jay. However, I doubt that they are recruited for their business acumen. You have only to look at their TV adverts to realise that they are trying to attract those who are athletic and strong not a great mind.

Originally posted by JonJParr
That may be true Jay. However, I doubt that they are recruited for their business acumen. You have only to look at their TV adverts to realise that they are trying to attract those who are athletic and strong not a great mind.

im leaving this thread now before you wind me up - bye

Isn't it the case in (some parts of) America that kids have to some kind of 'community work' in order to gain their highschool diploma? Thant kind of idea might work better than 'National Service'. (Although, again, might not reach the kids most in need of engaging...)

and I don't mean just to combat unruly kids.

example.

When I finished uni and started a proper full time job I was in no way near prepared with any work ethic or disipline to be able to perform my tasks well. I had a tendancy to be late and off "ill" quite a bit. I know by the time I left that company they had a policy NOT to employ students for the same reasons.

I would love to have done National service. It would have made me get fit, taught me discipline, got me used to getting up in the morning etc etc.

Originally posted by robbie
and I don't mean just to combat unruly kids.

example.

When I finished uni and started a proper full time job I was in no way near prepared with any work ethic or disipline to be able to perform my tasks well. I had a tendancy to be late and off "ill" quite a bit. I know by the time I left that company they had a policy NOT to employ students for the same reasons.

I would love to have done National service. It would have made me get fit, taught me discipline, got me used to getting up in the morning etc etc.

I've never witnessed a recruitment process that endorsed a policy of this nature - it's discriminatory after all. I think that a tendency to be late for work or frequently sick raises concerns about your motivation for the job itself.

I know many graduates that are in the office extremely early (7am) and are happy to work late. In the end it comes down to your commitment to the job - not any sort of youthful tendencies. With this in mind, it's not necessary to implement a policy of National Service. It's the minority that are demotivated, disrespectful and undisciplined.

it was the unofficial recruitment policy.

I'm a graduate and I now turn up at the office at 7 most days.

It's recent graduates that were the problem.

Originally posted by robbie
When I finished uni and started a proper full time job I was in no way near prepared with any work ethic or disipline to be able to perform my tasks well. I had a tendancy to be late and off "ill" quite a bit. I know by the time I left that company they had a policy NOT to employ students for the same reasons.

I would love to have done National service. It would have made me get fit, taught me discipline, got me used to getting up in the morning etc etc.

Thats just you, millions of other people (me included) manage to get up every morning and don't throw "sickies" without having being in the army. You just sound like a stereotypical student, university let you get away with being late and not turning up because you were "sick" but out in the "real" world that kind of thing isn't tollerated. Just because you couldn't get your s**t together doesn't mean the rest of us can't.

I did get my s**t together . However, half of the new student starters couldn't.

University does not prepare you for a working life at all.

from leaving school where you are in a routine you get out of that routine.

Having listened to many a tale from ex-National Servicemen, including my late father, I am not entirely convinced that it would 'bring the best' out of the present young generation or indeed any generation. Some emerged from their brief experience as soldiers of the Queen, more mature in outlook and judgement, having learned new skills, of which 'team working ability' might be the most highly valued by today's employers in a market characterised by flexible specialisation and 'multi-tasking'. Some emerged every inch the 'solid citizen', with the will to please which may not be in abundance in today's young generation.

In sharp contrast, some deeply resented their enforced soldiery. Two examples [Sheffield men] that spring to mind are those of a former colleague who spent most of his time painting radar in Bicester, and another who could barely look at a potato after the unutterable banality of longterm cookhouse duties. Some emerged bitter and traumatised too, and I can think of an example of the father of a friend who witnessed horrific atrocities in Palestine.

Put simply, the Services are not for everyone. The chances are, the psychopaths and bullyboys would hone their skills to perfection for later use on the rest of us, and those obviously unsuited would find it a bewildering experience. The shortage in recruitment has to be filled, and as Jon Parr says, it need not be targetted at those with a string of academic credentials. Fit, reasonably bright, people with the will to please [and obey] are what is needed. Not everyone is in that category, or ever will be.

i agree, my fiance is in the army and his brother has just left school with no qualifications, he says they should bring it back, he says it will sort all these kids out!!!

Originally posted by mojoworking
That's all very well for the minority of yobs who receive no parental control and are a menace to society. But what about the decent kids who are never in trouble with the law and come from good homes?

It's not fair that they should be brutalised and probably traumatised by army life because some of their peers don't know how to behave.

What we need is more realistic punishment handed out by the courts to the convicted yobs, rather than punish all young people because of the sins of a minority.

This is general reply, BTW, and not a response to Lickable's post above with which I totally agree

Totally agree - juvenile boot camps - teach them discipline and self control

Yeah send them all to Deepcut

So they can all murder each other

Great idea (not)

Have a poll to find out how many ex National Servicemen learnt a trade, I think the answer would be very close to zero.The armed forces are now a very skilled and hi-tech outfit,they do not want yobs and such.If you are talking about a 2yr period of community type work maybe.
Matsalleh 15 yrs RAF.

Originally posted by nick2
You just sound like a stereotypical student, university let you get away with being late and not turning up because you were "sick" but out in the "real" world that kind of thing isn't tollerated.
I can't speak for the policy of other institutions, but when people behaved like that at my uni they failed their assignments, then their modules, then their semseter and then their year...then they were off the course and out in the real world.

University taught me that no one comes along to do things for you if all you want to do is sit on your arse and smoke pot all day. There were times when I worked 15+ hours a day and all for the promise of my degree at the end of it.

On the other hand, since I've been out in the real world I've seen people get away with blatant incompetence, sexism, rascism, discrimination and fraud in the "real world"...but they do come down pretty hard on serious behavior like pulling a sickie!

I'm not trying to excuse lazy students, it just a stereotype that bugs me.

The 'lazy student' stereotype is insulting to the majority, but it nevertheless has some basis in fact, especially with regard to First Year students. I have taught in five Universities, and have certainly encountered my share of bone-idle, slack-jawed oafs and oafesses loafing around the campus and doing 'the bare minimum'. In some Universities, students get a 'licence to loaf' by virtue of the fact that their First Year work does not count towards their Degree classification. Knowing full well that they can get through to Second Year with a mark of 40%, they may well spend their first academic year largely between the sheets or propping up the bar. They represent a minority, but a fairly sizeable minority.

I must emphasise, however, that the majority of students do indeed work hard these days, more often than not juggling studies with poorly paid work.

I'm not saying all students fit the stereotype but Robbie obviously did.

"Oafesses" is a great word.

Originally posted by nick2
I'm not saying all students fit the stereotype.
I wasn't saying that you'd said that!:)

I just have to defend the insitution that I think taught me so many valuable life lessons even before I was out in the real world.

Originally posted by nick2
I'm not saying all students fit the stereotype but Robbie obviously did.

"Oafesses" is a great word.

did I say lazy anywhere? More the fact that the student lifestyle is often not anywhere like the 9-5 woring lifestyle so it takes a while to adjust.