Compulsory Army Service

VestasBoro said:
It was mentioned above somewhere regarding people on benefits, why can't these fit for work unemployed people be tasked with something similiar volunteer work, litter picking, painting fences type 'work' which entitles them to their weekly benefit? Case by case basis obviously. I was out of work when i was younger for about 6 months, and if i had to do something like this to qualify i would have - i bet the numbers of people claiming would significantly drop if they actually had to do something for their claim.
Click to expand...

What you're describing there is a job.
 
Unravel_Morrison said:
It was stopped, because it used up too much time and expense of having actual soldiers in charge of them, rather than carrying out their normal duties. It also took huge numbers of people from the general workforce.

If it was brought back in it's previous form there would be a huge outcry.
Click to expand...
The dark money oligarchs will already have their narrative written for this: and copies in the hands of The Sun and GBeebies editors:
There is an army of unemployed benefit scroungers and so-called sick and disabled people mockig hard-working people and stealing their money. Let's put them to work defending the country and make men and omen out of them!

It's just more culture war drivel. The gammons will be on the radio phone-ins talking about 'patriots', an American word that has no currency in the UK but that will soon be on the front pages of all the tory rags.
 
They said all this bollox when the Falklands war started and the Newspapers and the Daily Heil said it will be coming back. Always seems to do the rounds.

Forget all this the regulars minding them bollox and workforce shortages, it makes the Army hierarchy sound like they had something about them.

There no longer a need for a large army, and still don't, the reason it was kicked into touch was it was too expensive and we didnt have the funds.
 
Last edited:
VestasBoro said:
Alot of political views coming over here. I questioned why it ended and appears it stopped due to time/money.
I am 35, no military experience nor wish to have any. If WW3 started tomorrow and there was a voluntary service i wouldn't be first to the queue I'm just wondering if it COULD return in some form as mentioned above perhaps as a way to just ground 16-18year olds to get them out in the world they're about to begin their life/career in. Not necessarily military related but something whereby you must commit and complete 6 months of something such as voluntary work, community service etc unless you have college/uni/employment opportunities.

It was mentioned above somewhere regarding people on benefits, why can't these fit for work unemployed people be tasked with something similiar volunteer work, litter picking, painting fences type 'work' which entitles them to their weekly benefit? Case by case basis obviously. I was out of work when i was younger for about 6 months, and if i had to do something like this to qualify i would have - i bet the numbers of people claiming would significantly drop if they actually had to do something for their claim.
Click to expand...
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but Lee Hurst parroted this nonsense yesterday.
 
VestasBoro said:
i bet the numbers of people claiming would significantly drop if they actually had to do something for their claim.
Click to expand...

Is that a desirable outcome? What are you suggesting they'd do instead? Starve and die?

MoggasDog said:
I am massively in favour of compulsory national service but in a general sense and certain not in the military.

National service should be paid but would include civil duties like keeping the place clean and tidy; nursing; police; maintenance workers, coast guards.
Click to expand...

But these are all jobs we need people to do? It just sounds like a way to shortchange workers out of their proper wages.
 
VestasBoro said:
Why was National Service stopped?
Some countries do you have it, and in a new guise it might not be a bad thing if before you hit 21 you've had to do 6 months of it, or 6 months of some form of a national service. Would certainly help ground quite a few little upstarts.
Click to expand...
We should have International Service instead, gender balanced, older at least 40+, educated, married with children, goes into countries like Ukraine (after the war) and help them rebuild their country, institutions and restart their lives.
 
Hear this tired old request many times from the boomers.
So.
It has to be for everyone ...no exception yes? So you're talking about potentially thousands of these say 16-21 year olds

1. Where are these thousands to be billeted?
2. Who's doing the basic training? Remove personnel from already hard pushed battalions, ships and squadrons to take up training billets?
3. After their roughly say, 10-12 weeks basic and maybe 6 months or so trade training, where are these literally thousands of national servicemen going to go post training? We're constantly having defence cuts so we don't have the size of a defence force to utilise them.
The folk that come out with this still go on like Britain has an Empire to defend. This is not the 1950s or 60s, and we're not in Cyprus and Malaya supressing rebels anymore, so where do they go and what do they do? Sit around polishing boots and weeding parade grounds?

Crucially, how much do these folk imagine it would cost to billet, feed, train, and pay said thousands of national servicemen? They'd burst the blood vessels in their already purple cheeks when they realise.
It's an utterly nonsensical idea.
 
VestasBoro said:
Why was National Service stopped?
Some countries do you have it, and in a new guise it might not be a bad thing if before you hit 21 you've had to do 6 months of it, or 6 months of some form of a national service. Would certainly help ground quite a few little upstarts.
Click to expand...

Either that or they'll be trained in really effective violent techniques, what could possibly go wrong?
 
ThePrisoner said:
Well it might be beneficial to both Sunak and Biden if there was a cheeky land invasion in Yemen...
Click to expand...
after efforts in the afghan conflict there is not a chance they need any boots on the ground in yemen

i think the comments are more political posturing by the army to increase funding for them
 
Low_Key said:
after efforts in the afghan conflict there is not a chance they need any boots on the ground in yemen

i think the comments are more political posturing by the army to increase funding for them
Click to expand...
Of course any UK involvement in such a venture would be militarily irrelevant as in Afghanistan and Iraq. But it would give Sunak a massive diversion and put Starmer in a very awkward position.
From the US pov it would allow them to extend their empire into one of the few Middle East countries they do not yet control, put more pressure on Iran, keep the Israel lobby on-side and get the flag shaggers in the US rallying around Biden if he is in danger of losing to the orange one in November.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top