the return of national service!

[mat hudson]

Hey guys, don't come on here very often, but i'm not really a part of any other forums and I am interested to hear peoples views on the proposal of the return of compulsory national service. Also I just wanted to let you know it is happening! hopefully it won't get through but you never know.
the bill is now going for its second reading in the house of commons. most likely this will affect men ages 18-50 and women 20-30. I am dead against it, wondering what your opinions are!

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/nationalservice.html

this is the actual bill^^^

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH2Xf9KaoSk

some Scottish guy kind of explaining it^^

[Luke Rainbird]

On the one hand there's a real need for military personnel at the moment with some real deficiencies in certain areas so I can see the need for sure, however a huge amount of the general public are only going to be suitable as a meatshield on the front line.

Still, if they start with people currently on the dole we could at least get a little return on investment

[BradJohnson]

I think its a good idea tbf.

[1a2bcio8]

I would only join a war on its merits that I judge to be worthy and not because my government - which is essentially constituted by criminals - says so.

[Luke Rainbird]

Yeah, that's not quite how National Service works

[Tom Booth]

I can't see it happening, there taking jobs from folks that actually want to serve, so where's the sense in national service??

[Ash-Kennard]

Its a good idea, it is necessary to a degree, but the real troopers are the ones who want to be there and are there already, the rest would just be virtual clueless lambs to the slaughter.

[*gentlydoesit]

There's too much human rights red tape to cut before that would ever happen. Big up the hague.

[Tom_C]

Might set a few people straight, particularly the morons on my Facebook going back into "COD" lifestyle throughout the non summer months thinking they are some kind of war hero for shooting flashing images. On the negative side it's not much fun if you're a reserved kind of person or have a sport such as Trials you wish to do on a daily/weekly basis!

[Ali C]

I think it's good as long as I don't have to do it (A)

[Revolver]

I think that something like this, that instills a decent sense of discipline and that would encourage a good level of fitness in people, is good.

I'm not as sure about actually having to go to Iraq and kill people and get blown up.

It does kind of make sense that all the men in the country have a role in protecting it, seeing as it's kind of all of ours, although this idea doesn't fit well with the current theme of going to war to make money. I wouldn't be interested in doing that.

[Rejoinder]

We can barely "protect" our own country from an elected government (e.g. privatisation of public institutions such as the NHS that get pushed through, the way that banks were dealt with after the 2008 crash, etc.). Most places that British troops have been sent to also don't really serve to "protect" our country in any meaningful way. If you're hugely patriotic I suppose you could argue that needless invasions and intrusions in other countries are beneficial for "the country", but judging from the disdain most people have for the UK and how it's being run I doubt you'll realistically find that many people who feel that way.

Something to consider is that it's just a Private Bill and it doesn't mean it has much support. The MP who proposed it also voted "very strongly against equal gay rights", "very strongly to increase university tuition fees", "very strongly for increasing the rate of VAT", to restrict the period allowed for abortions, for a ban on people wearing burqas (to quote him, wearing one is like "going round wearing a paper bag over your head") and a bunch of other typically right-wing bullshit that just seems to portray someone who likes to try and meddle with peoples private lives for no reason (such as forcing them to sign up). He seems fairly out there, so I don't think his views necessarily represent enough of the government's to realistically make this bill likely to pass.

Just read this on Wikipedia too, which suggests it has very little support (and that he's a dick):

In 2013 Hollobone was one of 4 MPs who camped outside Parliament in a move to facilitate parliamentary debate on what they called an “Alternative Queen’s Speech” -an attempt to show what a future Conservative government might deliver.^[21] Some 42 policies were listed including reintroduction of the death penalty and conscription, privatizing the BBC, banning the burka in public places and preparation to leave the European Union.^[21] The Daily Telegraph believes the whips sent Edward Leigh to try and persuade the group not to table the amendments.^[21]

Edited August 20, 2013 by Rejoinder

[RobinJI]

They can stick this up their own arses so hard their official cause of death's nuclear fusion.

I've no problem with the discipline side of it, and I think a bit of basic training would do most people good, probably myself included, but it WILL lead to an increase in the number of people on the front line who are deliberately missing and degrading our services ability. I'd definitely be one of them, it'd take a lot more than a suited twat deciding it's a good idea to get me to shoot someone. I'm confused by the "need" for military personnel, technology's already capable of hugely cutting down the number of troops needed if we so wish, it just needs investment in the right areas, and there's been no real threat of invasion for nearly 70 years.

Edited August 20, 2013 by RobinJI

[isitafox]

If they want to implement National Service then start with the doleys who refuse to work or offer it up as an alternative to community service, might instill some common sense into some people!

[1a2bcio8]

Yeah, that's not quite how National Service works

I watched the video and it seemed to be talking about conscription rather than national service so I just assumed the OP had gotten the terms wrong?

Edit: The same still stands for national service. Not interested.

Edit again: Maybe it doesn't. My bad.

Edit one more time: I mean maybe the video doesn't talk of conscription... Tired

Edited August 20, 2013 by Ben Rowlands

[mat hudson]

We can barely "protect" our own country from an elected government (e.g. privatisation of public institutions such as the NHS that get pushed through, the way that banks were dealt with after the 2008 crash, etc.). Most places that British troops have been sent to also don't really serve to "protect" our country in any meaningful way. If you're hugely patriotic I suppose you could argue that needless invasions and intrusions in other countries are beneficial for "the country", but judging from the disdain most people have for the UK and how it's being run I doubt you'll realistically find that many people who feel that way.

Something to consider is that it's just a Private Bill and it doesn't mean it has much support. The MP who proposed it also voted "very strongly against equal gay rights", "very strongly to increase university tuition fees", "very strongly for increasing the rate of VAT", to restrict the period allowed for abortions, for a ban on people wearing burqas (to quote him, wearing one is like "going round wearing a paper bag over your head") and a bunch of other typically right-wing bullshit that just seems to portray someone who likes to try and meddle with peoples private lives for no reason (such as forcing them to sign up). He seems fairly out there, so I don't think his views necessarily represent enough of the government's to realistically make this bill likely to pass.

Just read this on Wikipedia too, which suggests it has very little support (and that he's a dick):

In 2013 Hollobone was one of 4 MPs who camped outside Parliament in a move to facilitate parliamentary debate on what they called an “Alternative Queen’s Speech” -an attempt to show what a future Conservative government might deliver.^[21] Some 42 policies were listed including reintroduction of the death penalty and conscription, privatizing the BBC, banning the burka in public places and preparation to leave the European Union.^[21] The Daily Telegraph believes the whips sent Edward Leigh to try and persuade the group not to table the amendments.^[21]

yes mate, this is pretty much my view on the entire affair, even though it's a private bill, it's a scary thought(especially after recent events) that it's even being proposed. I have no interest in fighting in a war that I don't support. got this mp's email address if anyone fancies voicing their opinion to him directly philip.hollobone.mp@parliament.uk

[bing]

So male between the ages of 18-50. Bet it doesn't include mp's. set of wankers

So an email along the lines,

Dear mr hollobone

You sir, are a narrow minded cock

Regards

Bing

Edited August 20, 2013 by bing

[*gentlydoesit]

We can barely "protect" our own country from an elected government (e.g. privatisation of public institutions such as the NHS that get pushed through, the way that banks were dealt with after the 2008 crash, etc.). Most places that British troops have been sent to also don't really serve to "protect" our country in any meaningful way. If you're hugely patriotic I suppose you could argue that needless invasions and intrusions in other countries are beneficial for "the country", but judging from the disdain most people have for the UK and how it's being run I doubt you'll realistically find that many people who feel that way.

Something to consider is that it's just a Private Bill and it doesn't mean it has much support. The MP who proposed it also voted "very strongly against equal gay rights", "very strongly to increase university tuition fees", "very strongly for increasing the rate of VAT", to restrict the period allowed for abortions, for a ban on people wearing burqas (to quote him, wearing one is like "going round wearing a paper bag over your head") and a bunch of other typically right-wing bullshit that just seems to portray someone who likes to try and meddle with peoples private lives for no reason (such as forcing them to sign up). He seems fairly out there, so I don't think his views necessarily represent enough of the government's to realistically make this bill likely to pass.

Just read this on Wikipedia too, which suggests it has very little support (and that he's a dick):

In 2013 Hollobone was one of 4 MPs who camped outside Parliament in a move to facilitate parliamentary debate on what they called an Alternative Queens Speech -an attempt to show what a future Conservative government might deliver.^[21] Some 42 policies were listed including reintroduction of the death penalty and conscription, privatizing the BBC, banning the burka in public places and preparation to leave the European Union.^[21] The Daily Telegraph believes the whips sent Edward Leigh to try and persuade the group not to table the amendments.^[21]

Man that was long! I concur.

[Muel]

The guy sounds like a complete douche. I'll not lose sleep over it.

I'd love to see them try to enforce it these days though, there aren't enough coppers to control a simple student protest/riot, how are they going to manage when every lad who's fit for service marches on London?

[Sam Nichols]

I think it's a fantastic idea, have fun guys

[Luke Dunstan]

If on the dole for over a year. Stick them on the frontline.

[The_Zulu]

I personally don't understand conscription, why force someone to do something they don't want to?

I had the same views of making people stay in sixth form without a choice. The people that wanted to stay on are now getting mixed with the people that didn't, the ones who don't want to be there. If you don't want to be there, you won't push yourself. Whereas if you want to stay on you're going to strive to do your best, as its your decision. Personally, from my year group (the last year that could leave education at sixteen) the people that wanted to stay on did very well, and the people that were advised to stay on because they had no other aspects (somewhat like conscription) failed miserably.

I see conscription in the same way.

If someone wants to fight for their country, let them. Give them the best training and equipment possible. So that one person who wants to be there is the best they can be.

Get all the other f**kers on the dole to clean the barracks, ablution blocks, to cook the meals for the soldiers who do want to be there.

I mean, why force someone to join a war if its not part of their nature? They're not going to be the best, and more likely to end up deaded.

Look at countries such as Turkey, they have national service between the ages of 18-21 for ALL males. Albeit they don't always fight, a family friend of ours laid roads for the military for three years but they still trained him to shoot and kill..

I don't see why they couldn't of got some lazy arse dole seeker to pave the roads and my family friend keep his life running as normal without having to leave his family and job for three years.

I'm sure he's not the only person it's happened to, he's just an example that springs to mind.

And also if they're short of personnel applying they should go back through all the denied applications and reconsider.

I got rejected and I wouldn't mind having a second chance at joining ^^

[Rejoinder]

The thing to consider though is that even amongst trained soldiers who want to be in the army, sketchy things still go on in Afghanistan and Iraq that pop up in the news from time to time (there was one earlier this year about UK soldiers torturing, killing and mutilating civilians). To the people suggesting joining the army as being an alternative to community service - or even just the "if they've been on the dole make them join" crew - it doesn't really seem like putting people in a position of power who shouldn't really be there is a great idea, especially when they're far away from home and relatively unaccountable for their actions. I find it hard enough having to deal with power-crazed PCSOs let alone people our government would be training and equipping to kill. It seems the army are relatively strict about who they do/don't let join, so essentially forcing them to allow more people in just seems like a bad idea.

[Luke Rainbird]

Just because someone is in the military doesn't mean they're handed a weapon or put on the front line. Sure, most will undergo some small amount of training in case they are ever needed, but there are hundreds of other roles required to keep the forces/country running without ever taking control of a weapon.

[Rejoinder]

Fair point. That was more the extreme end I suppose, but I still don't really like the concept of it in general.