My elderly nieghbour serverd in the RAF ( National Service ).
He says this was proberbly one of the best things that happend to him
and regrets not staying in after his service had finished.

He also says it would solve a lot of the yob culture if N/S was brought back .I tend to agree with him ,although i never had to do it .

This old chestnut again.
The armed forces of today are highly skilled and technical,they do not have the time or resources to toughen up young yobs.Why should they be lumbered with the dregs of society?

My dad did it too, and then stayed in as he loved the RAF so much. But he says that the idiots tended to remain idiots, it was just that they became idiots who knew how to use guns. He has some right tales to tell of thugs who would get their comeuppance from other lads though. The officers used to leave them to it a lot of the time. He reckons though that the RAF offered him a superb education that he would not have otherwise received, and a house, and that's partly why it was such a good time.

These days National Service would have to include girls too of course. And what about the 50% who go to University? When would they do their service? What about if they have to go into vocational training or have a long course to finish? How would we deal with those who were married or who had kids?

I agree a bit of hard work and the little matter of respect would do the youth culture in a world gone mad with political correctness , and softly softly approches to everything the world of good. everything is given to kids on a plate these days, even though im not old mid 30s ( but dont tell anyone ) i have 3 teenage kids who i think my husband and i have brought up well still do and say things that i wouldnt even say to my parents even now..

While driving today i saw 2 blokes from street force picking up litter along the sides of the road , why cant people on ASBOs and those on tag be made to do something for the city :rant:

While driving today i saw 2 blokes from street force picking up litter along the sides of the road , why cant people on ASBOs and those on tag be made to do something for the city :rant:

Now that's a really good idea.

It's a much better idea than making yobs join a professional army. Gets my vote. :thumbsup:

These days National Service would have to include girls too of course. And what about the 50% who go to University? When would they do their service? What about if they have to go into vocational training or have a long course to finish? How would we deal with those who were married or who had kids?
National Service was then all male yes,but many were called up at the age of 21
after they had finished apprenticeships (remember them?). There were many highly trained men whose skills were wasted by the armed forces at that time.
The OP's neighbour is looking back through rose tinted glasses,at the time the RAF especially were doing all they could to get people to stay in.
With respect the majority of RAF recruits had a pretty easy time of it towards the end of NS days.I was one of them and ended up doing 15 yrs.

My parents were never in the N/S, obviously cos HK was just a UK Commonwealth country then. I still turned out okay despite lack of discipline from my parents. Cos I was brought up by my grandparents. What I do remember of discipline from my parents when I came to the UK is that, if we do get naughty, they would use a cane to threaten us with. My dad never used it on me. But my brothers did get hit if they were naughty. (We use to hide the canes. Or break it. That is... until the next batch arrives from HK by relatives. >.< !)

I know that there used to be a caning system too in the UK in schools. Can this also contributed to the disciplined society that people talk of these days ? I know it's banned now and everything, but should discipline be done by the parents, or the school, or the society (in the form of N/S) ?

I blame the parents.

I've long been an advocate of some form of National Service.

When we were in Egypt our guide was telling us that they have National Service and it works really well. The kids that have no or very little education or skills serve three years, those who have an average education or posses some skills serve two years and those who are more highly educated/skilled serve one year. Of those who serve the three years they receive an all-round education during the time on NS.

I cerainly think young offenders should be given the option of undertaking a form of National Service rather than a prison sentence. If they successfully complete the NS they walk free at the end of it. If they fail to complete the NS then they undertake the remainder of their time in the prison/Young Offenders Institution as they would have done if they'd not done the NS.

I don't necessarily see the 'work' of running the scheme being done by serving forces personnel - there are plenty of ex-forces personnel young enough and fit enough to undertake the role. The discipline, respect for others and self-respect as well as teamwork instilled in such an environment would benefit a lot of people, not just young offenders - NS doesn't necessarily have to include use of fire-arms either.

I dont really agree with it but would have to see the finer detail. I can see it going Mathom's way the idiots will still be idiots and the sensible ones who may want to learn will just have the crap kicked out of them.

Personally more needs to be done in school, parents involved more at all levels and then if it goes wrong then i'd follow pinkace's idea

This old chestnut again.
The armed forces of today are highly skilled and technical,they do not have the time or resources to toughen up young yobs.Why should they be lumbered with the dregs of society?
I completely agree with matsalleh and I'll bet a lot of servicemen would too.
They aren't there to baby sit idiots that are only there because they HAVE to be. The forces is about team-work where you sometime have to rely on another team player in a certain situation. Better to have to rely on someone that understands the state of play and is there because they WANT to be.
joanl

It isn't really the case that the Army is full of highly technically skilled people. The reality is that the vast majority are of average or below average education and intelligence. Anyone with any technical training only has to know how to replace units which are then sent back to the manufacturer for repair. Of course the soldiers are well trained but this type of training could be given to anyone including "thugs". In fact the Army has a fairly high percentage of thugs who join but who benefit form the training and discipline. Anyone who thinks that the Army is full of intelligent people who join to fight for King and Country and become highly skilled technicians is deluded.

I'm completely opposed to National Service. Wouldn't catch me going off to fight for the Government of the day, because lets face it, that is who you would be fighting for, not Queen or Country, but the Govt.

One of the better reasons for proposing National Service is that you would then get a much broader spectrum of people in the army. But in reality I'd have thought the army top brass wouldn't want lefties, intellectuals, hippies, anachists, pacifists, etc being sent to join up.

They prefer people who when told to jump ask "How High Sir?" rather than ask questions such as "Why? What for? Why don't you jump first? and Are you having a laugh?"

Yes, National Service! Sign me up please.

I wud like to learn how 2 shoot guns and beat people up better.

Great idea!

I blame the parents.
i blame everybody exept myself of course:hihi:

I have often thought that a 'National Service' based on serving the needs of local communities might be a good idea (if it could be financed). Give people some responsibility, a bit of structure in their lives, and the opportunity to improve their local area and build a little community spirit.

And no need for guns (well..not for most areas! :P )

The British Army by and large, has an excellent reputation, I don't think it's appropriate that we foist off the motivationally challenged criminals of our society onto a group of highly skilled, highly trained professionals. Let the professionals do the job they were trained to do and for which we respect them for.

I'm with you on this one Edd. Give the guys a sense of responsibility, a focus, some structure, a purpose.....and encourage a sense of ownership for their community. Improve self-esteem and motivational levels. Nurture a sense of pride.

This old chestnut again.
The armed forces of today are highly skilled and technical,they do not have the time or resources to toughen up young yobs.Why should they be lumbered with the dregs of society?the military could soon make room for them if need be, they could start up a new training battalion, after twelve months the ones that look like they may be capable of joining a professional unit should be passed out,the rest kept back for menial duties

It isn't really the case that the Army is full of highly technically skilled people. The reality is that the vast majority are of average or below average education and intelligence. Anyone with any technical training only has to know how to replace units which are then sent back to the manufacturer for repair. Of course the soldiers are well trained but this type of training could be given to anyone including "thugs". In fact the Army has a fairly high percentage of thugs who join but who benefit form the training and discipline. Anyone who thinks that the Army is full of intelligent people who join to fight for King and Country and become highly skilled technicians is deluded.

KenH, I have to ask what the basis is for your understanding of military recruitment criteria technical training is? Your statement that the vast majority are of average or below average intelligence is categorically incorrect, and the “only has to know how to replace units which are then sent back to the manufacturer” applies only to systems that are designed for rapid front line component replacement. The list of applications that require a very high degree of skill and training far outweigh the ‘change the box’ examples.

There are indeed thugs in the army – it recruits from the full section of society and some of the young men who join can be a problem, but they learn self-discipline, self-respect and respect for others. I would not disagree that some of the infantry formations have a higher proportion of problem children, and set lower entrance criteria than other branches of the Army, but many of the larger Army formations like the RLC, REME, Royal Signals, REs, among others, are indeed “full of intelligent people who join to fight for King and Country and become highly skilled technicians”.

I must therefore with regret inform you that the delusion is yours.

Why am I so sure? My career has involved a lot of front line operations, across the world, as well as support functions; among these have been technical and initial training roles. I am very familiar with the exact entry requirements for the various trades and branches of the Armed Forces in terms of qualifications and intellectual ability, the training that is given and the quality of the individuals.

Yes it should 100% IMHO.

Lets unite people in this country and give some of its troubled youth a new focus in life.

:)

Just out of curiosity,was it anything like (Badd Ladds Amy shown on TV ).

And I'm sorry if this an old chestnut ,but as i am new to SF like many others i have no idea what topics have been done in the past .

YES

for men and women

No we shouldn't. And thats me final word(s)!

Yes it should 100% IMHO.

Lets unite people in this country and give some of its troubled youth a new focus in life.

:)

How would it unite people?

The people may be united in a time of National Emergency with the threat of invasion but why should we be united by joining an army who go to war, not because they are protecting Britain, but because their political masters tell them to.

Do you trust Tony Blair and his Government, that was elected by less than a third of the electorate, that much?

KenH, I have to ask what the basis is for your understanding of military recruitment criteria technical training is? .....

I am very familiar with the exact entry requirements for the various trades and branches of the Armed Forces in terms of qualifications .


Bartfarst,

My post may have given the impression that it was a critisism of the Army, this was not meant to be the case. I have the highest regard for people who choose to serve their country and just don't take that as far as pretending that they are better or somehow cleverer than they really are.

I am also posting on a thread about National Service which seems like a good idea to me, provided my children don't have to take part and given the fact that it almost certainly impossible to organise. My view on National Service is that it should be linked to educational grants so that you can choose to take a student loan or can have a good grant and then go where the governement send you after University to work in public service not the private sector.

On the subject of the current Army, my experience of the level of skill comes from two sources; my own Army service and my attempted recuitment of many ex-servicemen into various technical roles. Most or all of the ex-servicemen who I have interviewed have had very poor knowledge of anything outside of very basic replacement tasks and their own particular equipment.

My point about the level of intelligence required in the Army was related to the majority and you can always find the odd example of highly intelligent people, but they are few and far between.

In 2004, 53.4% of 16 year olds received 5 or more GCSE's grade A* to C.

The Army do not require any specific qualifications for entry but some specific jobs within the Army may have a requirement. Here are a couple of standard examples taken from the arms you specifically mentions. See how they compare with 53% of the population having 5+ GCSE's at A to C.

Signals Technician : GCSE grade D or better in Mathematics.
Aircraft Technician : GCSE grade C or better in Maths, Physics/Science and English Language
Electronics Technician: GCSE grade C or better in Maths, English Language and science

Of course these are specialist jobs that make up a tiny proportion of the Army compared to infantry, artillery, tankies and such like, but even these roles still require less qualifications than the vast majority of school leavers can achieve. Even within corps such as REME there are many roles that not require any qualifications.

Ken, yes the minimum requirements are low but that doesn’t mean that the Armed Forces recruit only people with the minimum requirements, and those that do have minimum qualifications show themselves to have potential to do better.
The entry requirements for RAF technical trades are typically similar to those you quote for the Army, but by the time those people have finished their trade training they’ve completed a very demanding course which includes academics that lead to a BTec which is awarded after their coursework and exams pass a civilian standard. Very few members of the RAF or navy are less qualified than this level, and the technician training in the Army is moving along similar lines – RAF Cosford now trains all of the aircraft technical tradesmen from across all three services. I worked there a few years ago and, though I can’t remember the specifics, my department’s trainees had an impressive spread of qualifications. Very few had the basic requirement, and the number of junior ranks (not officers) that come in with HNCs, HNDs and degrees is more than you would guess and growing significantly each year. Also, I was surprised at the number who take on additional studies distance learning in their own time – many are enrolled on OU or local college courses.

I have friends who’ve employed ex-service (REME) mechanics into the motor trade and been stunned at the quality of their work, their reliability, timekeeping, conscientious work ethic and ability to manage other workers.

I’m not sure that national Service, in the format it used to be, could be reintroduced at all, but I am sure that it would improve the individuals put through it and would definitely teach wayward youths a lot about responsibility and respect.

How would it unite people?

The people may be united in a time of National Emergency with the threat of invasion but why should we be united by joining an army who go to war, not because they are protecting Britain, but because their political masters tell them to.

Do you trust Tony Blair and his Government, that was elected by less than a third of the electorate, that much?

This is exactly the way that I feel too.

If you join the armed forces, you're working on the assumption that if you're sent to fight, it will be for a legitimate reason. Basically, you're assuming that your political leaders can be trusted.

With the current arrangement, people make this choice for themselves. If compulsory national service were introduced, people could be forced into risking their lives in conflicts they didn't even believe in. I've always been against the Iraq war and I was proud to be in central London on Feb 15th 2003 when over a million people protested about going to war. If I'd been conscripted and sent to fight in a war which I believe is solely to make Dick Cheney and his Halliburton mates even richer, I'd have been livid.

For this reason, joining the armed forces should always be left as optional.

I can't disagree with Daley's last post at all, even though I have recently served in the Middle East theatre and will almost certainly be posted back there over the coming years.

National Service ended when there was no longer a need to maintain a large Army to defend the UK, and despite the very positive advantages of personal development that it thrust upon those who served, it would be a very, very expensive way to mentor young people and put them on the right tracks in terms of personal standards and social responsibility. The cost of infrastructure and training staff to conduct basic recruit training on a national scale would be massive.

YES

for men and women

Definitely NOT.

StarSparkle

Bringing back national service would not get rid of yobs. It would merely teach them how to smash wind-pipes with their bare hands, train them in the use of fire-arms, and generally make them harder than they are already.

It's flawed logic to say that because crime was low at the time when there was national service, that national service was the cause of the low crime.

Donkey, if that's what you think military training is about I suspect you would benefit from some time in uniform.

People in the Armed Forces do not (apart from a tiny proportion) learn to smash windpipes with their bare hands, though that may be a comic-book instilled view that you have. They learn a trade, learn self-discipline, respect for others, the ability to be managed and hopefully to manage others.

Training people formally in the use of firearms gives them respect and understanding for weapons - to avoid their illegal use and understand the grave nature of their misuse.

I don't disagree with your last sentence, but National Service was part of a culture of greater respect and responsibility, which we are rapidly losing now.

If national service would get rid of chavs, It would be a small price to pay :)

If national service would get rid of chavs, It would be a small price to pay :)

Mmmm - chavs with military training and practical knowledge of how to hurt people roaming the streets? That sounds nice and safe.... :suspect:

StarSparkle

Mmmm - chavs with military training and practical knowledge of how to hurt people roaming the streets? That sounds nice and safe.... :suspect:

StarSparkle
Yes just imagine , a burbarry clad numpty in a four ton tank. What a thought :hihi: :hihi:

Mmmm - chavs with military training and practical knowledge of how to hurt people roaming the streets? That sounds nice and safe.... :suspect:

StarSparkle

Lol, yes, but it would teach them some respect too I would hope.

Lol, yes, but it would teach them some respect too I would hope.
It'd probably teach them how to humiliate and torture in new and interesting ways.

Am I right in thinking there was no crime in England when we had National Service ? No murders, no burglary, no muggings etc. etc. If so then I think we should bring it back ASAP.

Am I right in thinking there was no crime in England when we had National Service ? No murders, no burglary, no muggings etc. etc. If so then I think we should bring it back ASAP.
That's right. England was completely and utterly crime-free. What a simple solution to society's ills. It's a wonder it hasn't be reinstated already.

Mmmm - chavs with military training and practical knowledge of how to hurt people roaming the streets? That sounds nice and safe.... :suspect:

StarSparkle

It'd probably teach them how to humiliate and torture in new and interesting ways.

Ladies, it doesn't work like that. Youngsters join the Armed Forces and learn respect, for themselves and those around them. They become more responsible, take pride in doing the right thing, and become better people.

I've spoken to the families of trainees who have come to see them on their graduation parades, and have expressed how much they've grown up and become more polite at home after just a few weeks of training.

Parents of children who attend Army or Air Cadets also see significant benefits in maturity, deportment and plain old manners in the kids that attend - much as Scouts and Cubs do for the even younger kids.

I don't think that National service could be introduced, but I can assure you that military training wouldn’t just make nasty chavs harder nasty chavs, it would improve them. Ethos, culture and social responsibility are big factors in military training, and it really does have a lasting effect.

People in the Armed Forces do not (apart from a tiny proportion) learn to smash windpipes with their bare hands, though that may be a comic-book instilled view that you have. They learn a trade, learn self-discipline, respect for others, the ability to be managed and hopefully to manage others.

Training people formally in the use of firearms gives them respect and understanding for weapons - to avoid their illegal use and understand the grave nature of their misuse.


I may not have your direct experience of the forces, but it's common knowledge that the reason they exist is to wage warfare, which isn't always an activity aimed at spreading decent values and basic human respect.

It's not something military personel are given a choice in either. Absolute obedience to your superiors without questioning the rights and wrongs of what you are doing, is not neccessarily such a sound moral grounding.

Blimey this is difficult.

Yes, they exist as a Government tool. Waging warfare is their main output, others include military aid to the civil authorities at times of crisis (fire strikes, major disasters etc), international relief operations, UN aid support, I could go on.

How do you think a military organisation can work? If you have unruly, undisciplined young scrotes you cannot run an efficient military organisation, and you certainly must have total respect for authority and orders if people are to do their job in a stressful, high-risk environment. That frame of mind is achieved by instilling into military personnel a code of ethics which include, among many other things, respect for authority, manners, diligence, pride in themselves and their Service, honesty and integrity.

Sheffield does not have any major military bases, other than a few TA units. If you lived in a city where there are military presence, you would see that a lot of the local charity drives are led by individuals from the Armed Forces, both as military-led charity drives, and events that personnel support in their own time. Teachers comment that the children of military families are far better behaved than those of other families.

I received laudatory comments just this week at work from civilian lecturers (who teach some subjects to my cadets) that they couldn’t believe how attentive the military students were, how reliably they submitted their assignments, or how well they prepared for classes.

That’s all because we instil codes of ethical living into our trainees, not turn them into mindless killers. We also make them capable of doing their job, but always when considering the ethics and legality of what they do.

I may not have your direct experience of the forces, but it's common knowledge that the reason they exist is to wage warfare, which isn't always an activity aimed at spreading decent values and basic human respect.

It's not something military personel are given a choice in either. Absolute obedience to your superiors without questioning the rights and wrongs of what you are doing, is not neccessarily such a sound moral grounding.

Get your drift there donkey. The Forces also exist for defence of the nation's citizens, humanitarian aid, disaster relief and to back-up and assist the civil police in times of unrest.

I too have first hand experience of serving in the forces. Army, 1967-69 as a Junior soldier, then 1969-1978 as a regular. At no time was cruelty or disregard for anyone elses rights instilled into me. Yes, I was trained how to effectively kill, but it was emphasised that we were not murdering machines. Self control and discipline were the key.

As far as blind obedience was concerned, how effective would any army be if the blokes stopped to ask for a reason or justification every time an order was given? Sure, ask for reasons AFTERWARDS, but if in doubt, do it then report you concerns to the correct authorities afterwards.

The British soldier has never been a robot. It is a recognised fact that among the worlds armies the British (unlike the rest) are trained to work as a team whilst still maintaining individual thought, so that even without the commander, the rest of the team can adapt and carry on - to a man.

As far as 'spreading decent values and basic human respect' is concerned, the lads who I served for 12 months in Belfast with showed great restraint under very trying conditions, and acquited them selves well as caring, well-balanced human beings. As innocent civilian deaths credited to army action figures will verify.

I do not agree that National Service should be brought in, but the British Forces are not how you think they are.

SORRY BARTFARST, I WAS TYPING THIS AS YOU POSTED THE ABOVE.

.

SORRY BARTFARST, I WAS TYPING THIS AS YOU POSTED THE ABOVE.

Please don't apologise, I think it would be fair to say that we agree - I don't think National Service could work in this century, but IF we did have it back, it would sort many if not most of the scrotes.

Our uncles and fathers who did national service tend to be upstanding people who know right from wrong. That's partly becasue they were raised when society rspected morality more, and partly because they had a period of self-learning while they were in uniform, but the people I serve with now almost to a man uphold the same codes of honour and responsibility that the older generation lived by, and what these people have in common is their military training and experience.

Im just sat here watching a programme called "Passing of a Generation" it being Armistice Day today 11/11/09. I am wondering and thinking that National Service should be bought back. I think it would solve a lot of problems with young people today. It would give them a sense of pride and responsiblity and make them into people who will give something to society. All those people who died in the First World War and the Second World War and conflicts since and those who came back having to live with the effects of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome otherwise, known as shell shock had to come back and try to live a normal life but couldnt, and here the young people of today are stealing and taking drugs and making life for some people a misery. I think that if National Service was bought back it would solve a lot of the problems of young people today.