I have heard the argument that the army doesn`t want criminals and to be fair they have a very good argument. I do wonder why our society is so different from that of the French and Italians whom I believe still have forms of national service ?
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]I have heard the argument that the army doesn`t want criminals and to be fair they have a very good argument. I do wonder why our society is so different from that of the French and Italians whom I believe still have forms of national service ?
Good point but they take all males not just criminals.
OK, question for you. How many of you would be willing to do 2 years national service NOW regardless of your age. Everyone else would do it also.
Would you be happy to see your children do it?
Two years in Iraq, Afganistan etc. Remember in the 50s National Servicemen fought and died in places like Yeman and Cyprus. If we'd had it in the 70s/80s when many of us (me) would have been called up they could have sent me to Belfast or London/Derry.
Two years in Iraq, Afganistan etc. Remember in the 50s National Servicemen fought and died in places like Yeman and Cyprus. If we'd had it in the 70s/80s when many of us (me) would have been called up they could have sent me to Belfast or London/Derry
Not sure that the national service that the vast majority of males would do would involve front lne action Henry. I think its more like a community service without being a con.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]the answer to this is very simple
national service unless you stay in education from 16 or earlier, this can include learning trades etc and the army or foreign aid etc
Petty criminals go into low cost army regiments, or community labour.
Serious crims into Prison which is very harsh hard labour and solitary only - no perks.[/quote]
The army doesn't want criminals. This isn't Wellingtons "scum of the earth".
Learning trades. foreign aid, community work all good but shouldn't be punishments, they should be things young people want to do ie learn a trade. Make all employers pay a levy to pay for apprenticeships which they get back if they take an apprentice on themselves.[/quote]
Those aren't the punishments they are what everyone has to do. The punishments only start if you don't play ball.
Employer apprentices have become a piss take.
National Service doesn't have to mean the army.
Teaching crims to kill efficiently = what do you think cushy prison does, university of crime, and it doesn't take much to learn to shoot a gun or stick someone with a knife etc
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Two years in Iraq, Afganistan etc. Remember in the 50s National Servicemen fought and died in places like Yeman and Cyprus. If we'd had it in the 70s/80s when many of us (me) would have been called up they could have sent me to Belfast or London/Derry
Not sure that the national service that the vast majority of males would do would involve front lne action Henry. I think its more like a community service without being a con.
Well it did in the 50s. As I said NS men fought and died in Yemen and Cyprus. Many would not but many would fight.
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]national service was, and is in continental Europe, a form of conscription. UK soldiers are purely volunteers now I believe.
yes, but you were suggesting making it non-voluntary
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Henry......Like General Melchitt I am going to stay on the touchline with the wheezy boys...and oh I do have a dickie bladder !
I think that is the problem.
People say "bring back National Service" but when the consequences of that ie it's you and your kids going to fight abroad or even spending two years cleaning graffiti off walls in the inner city, are spelt out then it no longer seems such a great idea and it's only fit for criminals.
I wouldn't want to have done it at 18 and I don't want my son to have to do it either. If he chooses to go in the forces then good luck to him but not national service.
I still refer you to the French and Italians ! They do it without any fuss. If it was the norm then yes I would have done it. As a 53 yr old I suspect my days of being wanted for anything much are numbered. You keep saying that national service would mean getting shot at which I very much doubt would be the case these days when professional soldiers deployed in the front line are highly trained and not in and out in 24 months. Cleaning graffitti ? Where do tou get that assumption from.
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]I still refer you to the French and Italians ! They do it without any fuss. If it was the norm then yes I would have done it. As a 53 yr old I suspect my days of being wanted for anything much are numbered. You keep saying that national service would mean getting shot at which I very much doubt would be the case these days when professional soldiers deployed in the front line are highly trained and not in and out in 24 months. Cleaning graffitti ? Where do tou get that assumption from.
Err in Afghanistan and Iraq Britain has lost around 300 servicemen. Before that Northern Ireland was a waste of lives for three decades.
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]I still refer you to the French and Italians ! They do it without any fuss. If it was the norm then yes I would have done it. As a 53 yr old I suspect my days of being wanted for anything much are numbered. You keep saying that national service would mean getting shot at which I very much doubt would be the case these days when professional soldiers deployed in the front line are highly trained and not in and out in 24 months. Cleaning graffitti ? Where do tou get that assumption from.
The cleaning graffitti was from the community service idea. I think France and Italy have some sort of voluntary civic service anyway or so I'm told, : - )
As I said NS troops did see active service in the past and members of the TA (part time soldiers) are doing so right now. I salute them and their bravery.
France and Italy are perhaps not as active in world conflicts as the UK, rightly or wrongly, but they both have their problems with violence and crime (see Italian hooliganism and recent riots in French cities)
back to the stabbing.
i don't know too much about legal representation rights and innocent until proven guilty etc but..
what i just can't get my head round is,
given bishops previous convictions and lack of remorse, how could the person/people representing him in court, look themselves in the mirror?
You are right Henry the French and Italians do have a voluntary civic service which I guess would be a futile and expensive exercise here. My gut instinct though is that the idea that young people do 5 or so hours a week community work which is the Italian model is still a good one. The idea that National Service should include theatres of conflict was recognised as wrong when National Service was scrapped in the late 50`s ? We now have a small and highly professional armed forces and stuffing a lot of unwilling young people into the Army / Navy / Air Force would I agree be stupid.
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Not national servicemen BFR ! The type of service I am talking about would not be in the front line army. More a civic duty.
I think you'll find that our forces in Iraq were heavily supplemented by members of the TA, who are reservists. If they can send them, then they'll send National Servicemen.
As for the point you are making...if you think that making kids serve in the army fora year or two/do civic service instead will be a way to reduce crime then I agree with you. But bewarned it comes at a heavy financial cost.
In Germany on leaving school there are two choices - militardienst (serve in the army for 9 months) or zivildienst (civic service for 11 months). The cost is that Germany spends a fortune training every maleschool leader to handle a gun and be a soldier. When they get proficient in that...they leave. Alternatively the civic service jobs are seriously grotty - hospital portering, working in old folks homes and the like. Essentially the State pays for every abled bodied male to live for a year. The plus side is that it is a valauble part of their maturity into adults, the downside is the financial cost.
Britain ditched National Service not because of the cost but because the army prefered to be a lot more selective about the people it was training and wanted professionals.
Bear in mind that there has always been crime and there always will be. The murderer in this case would likely have committed that crime under any era, regardless of whether he served in a National Army type service or not. Just another bit of the flotsam in society. His 20 years in prison will take the best years of his life away, and give him plenty of time to regret his actions. But there has be an element of mercy in sentencing and if after two decades he shows signs of remorse and regret then I'd prepared to see him begin the process of re-entering society whereupon he can start to pay back the rest of us for paying taxes to keep him inside. If he doesn't show signs of remorse then he can rot. Jail ain't fun and he's got 20 years of dehumanisation and living in a cell along with the odd beating to look forward to.
[cite]Posted By: paulbaconsarnie[/cite]back to the stabbing.
i don't know too much about legal representation rights and innocent until proven guilty etc but..
what i just can't get my head round is,
given bishops previous convictions and lack of remorse, how could the person/people representing him in court, look themselves in the mirror?
I'm sure a good few see this type of case as the legal equivalent of money for old rope - well remunerated work defending someone who is guilty and then trousering the legal aid. But whether he''s guilty or not he deserves to have somene more intelligent, articulate and versed in the law than he is to defend him. Without that the prosecution rate would rise dramatically and there are enough examples were the courts get convictions wrong (Jill Dando, Carl Bridgewater 4/the Guildford 4/Brummie 6 etc). Don'tforget that all were convicted beyond reasonable doubt...
Civic service might help get some of the young fit although they should be fit anyway.
Might give them a more rounded view of the world and having to live away from home would help them grow up.
Why just men? Shouldn't women do it as well. They do in Israel.
But personally I think it is un-British. I think people should be able to do what they like at 18 within the law and not be forced to carry a gun or doing community work if they don't want to.
I also think that after such a gap it would cause so much upset as mums and dads refuse to let kids go and employers refuse to keep jobs open for them.
You hit 16 you either find a job, or stay at school/college and do your a-levels and go to university then enter the workplace (as a qualified muppet) but enter the workplace nonetheless.
Or
You hit 16 having had no aspirations or hopes in life and carry on as normal be it thieving, fighting, vandalising or just wasting your life away.
Now I know of lots and lots of kids (16-22 year olds) who have done the second option and still are now and are in and out of clink and a total verucca on the toe of society. I would much rather it was made clear that at 16 you have a choice to either become a man or continue into nothingness whilst making life miserable for many others. The infantry contrary to belief is not entierly made up of illiterate youths from council estates anymore, in the past it gave a way out to lots of those lads and made them into proud men. Now the choice of possibly going to places like Helmand and Basra does not sit well with these young lads anymore for £16,500 p/a so surprisingly enough they stay robbing and the only threat to them is the prison system which is not a deterrent.
Now the choice of pulling your finger out and making or at least attempting to make something of yourself or letting the armed forces decide what they want you to be good at away from mummy & daddy for 18 months is a good one. It would give the youth a kick up the arse for sure.
And women should 100% be inclusive in what I just said to clear any confusion, time to end the sponging, whineging slag mentality of a lot of todays young lasses.
I see that some guy got shot in the head in a coffee shop by Mottingham station yesterday! What's going on in our part of London, or is it just reflective of increased violence everywhere? When growing up in Bexley / Sidcup I always thought it was such a safe environment. I've had to seek asylum in Surrey now! LOL.
last night on TV Rob Nox`s mum was on , she told them she was helping in the fight against street crime what she said was " we the family have joined in and helping with Charlton Athletic`s campagn against street crime" --------nt sure what to say about the lady just felt humbled by her.
Comments
Good point but they take all males not just criminals.
OK, question for you. How many of you would be willing to do 2 years national service NOW regardless of your age. Everyone else would do it also.
Would you be happy to see your children do it?
Two years in Iraq, Afganistan etc. Remember in the 50s National Servicemen fought and died in places like Yeman and Cyprus. If we'd had it in the 70s/80s when many of us (me) would have been called up they could have sent me to Belfast or London/Derry.
Not sure that the national service that the vast majority of males would do would involve front lne action Henry. I think its more like a community service without being a con.
national service unless you stay in education from 16 or earlier, this can include learning trades etc and the army or foreign aid etc
Petty criminals go into low cost army regiments, or community labour.
Serious crims into Prison which is very harsh hard labour and solitary only - no perks.[/quote]
The army doesn't want criminals. This isn't Wellingtons "scum of the earth".
Learning trades. foreign aid, community work all good but shouldn't be punishments, they should be things young people want to do ie learn a trade. Make all employers pay a levy to pay for apprenticeships which they get back if they take an apprentice on themselves.[/quote]
Those aren't the punishments they are what everyone has to do. The punishments only start if you don't play ball.
Employer apprentices have become a piss take.
National Service doesn't have to mean the army.
Teaching crims to kill efficiently = what do you think cushy prison does, university of crime, and it doesn't take much to learn to shoot a gun or stick someone with a knife etc
Well it did in the 50s. As I said NS men fought and died in Yemen and Cyprus. Many would not but many would fight.
So are you up for it SHG?
yes, but you were suggesting making it non-voluntary
I think that is the problem.
People say "bring back National Service" but when the consequences of that ie it's you and your kids going to fight abroad or even spending two years cleaning graffiti off walls in the inner city, are spelt out then it no longer seems such a great idea and it's only fit for criminals.
I wouldn't want to have done it at 18 and I don't want my son to have to do it either. If he chooses to go in the forces then good luck to him but not national service.
Err in Afghanistan and Iraq Britain has lost around 300 servicemen. Before that Northern Ireland was a waste of lives for three decades.
The cleaning graffitti was from the community service idea. I think France and Italy have some sort of voluntary civic service anyway or so I'm told, : - )
As I said NS troops did see active service in the past and members of the TA (part time soldiers) are doing so right now. I salute them and their bravery.
France and Italy are perhaps not as active in world conflicts as the UK, rightly or wrongly, but they both have their problems with violence and crime (see Italian hooliganism and recent riots in French cities)
i don't know too much about legal representation rights and innocent until proven guilty etc but..
what i just can't get my head round is,
given bishops previous convictions and lack of remorse, how could the person/people representing him in court, look themselves in the mirror?
I think you'll find that our forces in Iraq were heavily supplemented by members of the TA, who are reservists. If they can send them, then they'll send National Servicemen.
As for the point you are making...if you think that making kids serve in the army fora year or two/do civic service instead will be a way to reduce crime then I agree with you. But bewarned it comes at a heavy financial cost.
In Germany on leaving school there are two choices - militardienst (serve in the army for 9 months) or zivildienst (civic service for 11 months). The cost is that Germany spends a fortune training every maleschool leader to handle a gun and be a soldier. When they get proficient in that...they leave. Alternatively the civic service jobs are seriously grotty - hospital portering, working in old folks homes and the like. Essentially the State pays for every abled bodied male to live for a year. The plus side is that it is a valauble part of their maturity into adults, the downside is the financial cost.
Britain ditched National Service not because of the cost but because the army prefered to be a lot more selective about the people it was training and wanted professionals.
Bear in mind that there has always been crime and there always will be. The murderer in this case would likely have committed that crime under any era, regardless of whether he served in a National Army type service or not. Just another bit of the flotsam in society. His 20 years in prison will take the best years of his life away, and give him plenty of time to regret his actions. But there has be an element of mercy in sentencing and if after two decades he shows signs of remorse and regret then I'd prepared to see him begin the process of re-entering society whereupon he can start to pay back the rest of us for paying taxes to keep him inside. If he doesn't show signs of remorse then he can rot. Jail ain't fun and he's got 20 years of dehumanisation and living in a cell along with the odd beating to look forward to.
I'm sure a good few see this type of case as the legal equivalent of money for old rope - well remunerated work defending someone who is guilty and then trousering the legal aid. But whether he''s guilty or not he deserves to have somene more intelligent, articulate and versed in the law than he is to defend him. Without that the prosecution rate would rise dramatically and there are enough examples were the courts get convictions wrong (Jill Dando, Carl Bridgewater 4/the Guildford 4/Brummie 6 etc). Don'tforget that all were convicted beyond reasonable doubt...
Might give them a more rounded view of the world and having to live away from home would help them grow up.
Why just men? Shouldn't women do it as well. They do in Israel.
But personally I think it is un-British. I think people should be able to do what they like at 18 within the law and not be forced to carry a gun or doing community work if they don't want to.
I also think that after such a gap it would cause so much upset as mums and dads refuse to let kids go and employers refuse to keep jobs open for them.
Or
You hit 16 having had no aspirations or hopes in life and carry on as normal be it thieving, fighting, vandalising or just wasting your life away.
Now I know of lots and lots of kids (16-22 year olds) who have done the second option and still are now and are in and out of clink and a total verucca on the toe of society. I would much rather it was made clear that at 16 you have a choice to either become a man or continue into nothingness whilst making life miserable for many others. The infantry contrary to belief is not entierly made up of illiterate youths from council estates anymore, in the past it gave a way out to lots of those lads and made them into proud men. Now the choice of possibly going to places like Helmand and Basra does not sit well with these young lads anymore for £16,500 p/a so surprisingly enough they stay robbing and the only threat to them is the prison system which is not a deterrent.
Now the choice of pulling your finger out and making or at least attempting to make something of yourself or letting the armed forces decide what they want you to be good at away from mummy & daddy for 18 months is a good one. It would give the youth a kick up the arse for sure.
And women should 100% be inclusive in what I just said to clear any confusion, time to end the sponging, whineging slag mentality of a lot of todays young lasses.
Peace