Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by brazenhussy, Sep 6, 2007.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
A good idea in theory - but would it work?
Won't work mate, "elf'n' safety" and "yuman rites" won't allow any confidence building or strenuos activities.............. :rambo:
Others will get the chance to work with old folk, charities and even travel overseas helping Third World countries.
Until the "Third World" option was thrown in it sounded good. Why cant they do something for this country, in this country?
Teenagers will NOT be forced by law to take part in the NCS.
Whats the point then?
I say EVERYONE should do some form of National Service. Not necessarily with the forces, there are local areas that could do with help too.
I agree HB. I know some of the points below are the report rather than the possible substance of the report but...
Students will qualify for a cash award on completing their course.
Only they won't because it goes to the "organisation with which they worked" ie if they work with a hospital the hospital gets the money, if they work with the Phil the Greek award scheme that gets the money, if they conduct military training with the RN the Treasury gets the money!!
During this they must pledge allegiance to Britain Strange that when I have seen this suggestion in relation to other HMG controlled activities (ie immigration/asylum/refugees) it has been variously dismissed as oppressive, unneccessary or even racist. Completely meaningless to the majority of those that would do it.
Bookish swots will be shown there is more to life than just exams. AKA those that have knuckled down to schoolwork because they know it can be the route to a secure future.
But he insists it will SAVE the nation money by slashing the numbers of kids turning into yobs. Crime will fall and many of the nationâ€™s costly social problems will be reduced, he says.Because they will have been law abiding, responsible citizens up until this point and this will avert them from the yob culture, not. Will those already on the path to jail attend if it's not mandatory? If it was mandatory how would the disruptive or non-attending yob be dealt with?
All in all the seed of a good idea, wrapped up in hype and political point scoring, served on a bed of sound bites.
I have long thought that a scheme for youingsters to serve the nation would be a good thing. I deliberately avoid the term national service because to many people that means military service and I do not think that compulsory military service is a good thing. Equally I see little point in it being voluntary as the very people who need the experience most will not volunteer. Properly established such a scheme could both improve the attitudes and lives of the youth, and at the same time improve the nation. Equally I see a benefit fr the UK in this service taking place in part overseas, as by enhancing our standing as a nation in the world it will equally improve our overseas trade.
Besides the fact that the scheme is not costed, in both financial (instructors, logistic support, 24 hour a day supervision, costs of vaccinations, visa, passports,medical care) and ecological terms is jetting hundreds or even thousands of kids around the world going to improve youth culture or would the cost of the overseas part be better spent here? In reality will it be a group of well behaved and already relatively privileged kids that get to go rather than the borderline inner city thicky that has very little to look forward to in life bar min wage and the council waiting list. The cynic in me says the former group get first crack.
I can see Maxies point though, a group of Toxteths finest would do wonders to enhance the UK's standing abroad :dwarf: :dwarf:
Like ID cards, the scheme is useless unless it in compulsary for all, don't waste the money sending them abroad, use them to enhance this Country
Sorting out the mees this country is in will not be cheap any way, trying to do it on the cheap for the last 20 years has got us into the mess we are already in. If it is voluntary it will not impact on the twats who cause all the trouble because they are not goinf to volunteer. Africa is the only undeveloped market left in the world, because they are poor. Help them break out of the cycle of poverty and famine and they will want to buy stuff. In basic terms it is that simple. I agree that how you get there is a bit more complex. As for ensuring the over priviledged don't get all the plum jobs in the scheme, just put drafty in charge and every one will be screwed.
I've expressed my views on National Service on this site before and fully support it to try and help some of the youngsters who lack respect for themselves or others and reduce the negative impact on communities.
I am strongly opposed to sending more help abroad - it's a nice concept but our country is in need of a good tidy up, regeneration and more people in the armed services wouldn't hurt,.
Whilst the cost of such a project would be massive it would in turn reduce the amount of finances required by police, probation, courts, prisons, NHS etc.
There are a small group of people in this county who comit a large amount of crime and disorder - target them first.
National Service failed and ended because the population at large saw the need for large armed foces to be false. I do not think that has changed, so the purpose must be different, and equally there needs to be a purpose in the work they do, so that at least some can see the benefit for the nation.
Targeted selection would equally be divisive and in reality degrade the high moral imperative for such a scheme. Equally as I found at Outward Bound school there is great value in working in groups of very mixed social background in adversity
Yes there is plenty of need at home and we should work to satisfy that need, but overseas aid need not be food for the feckless and should be enlightened self interest. That will actually benefit us as well as those who recieve the aid.
This will not work, my husband teaches at the local college on the "Public Services" course. this is designed to give some foundation skills to those wishing to go into either the armed forces or police etc at 18. They do leadership, fitness, politics etc etc. Last term he nearly rsigned because the college wouldn't support him with the discipline procedures for some of the students and already this term he is pulling his hair out.
course starts on Monday and for the first day they are going to do AT - canoeing - good start to first day on new course?! already he has had a couple of students whingeing they do not want to go - why join the course then or is it bex=cause you can't get accepted for anything else? If these kids won't do this for something they have voluntarily signed up for how are we going to get them to comply with Nattional Service? i know I shouldn't tar them all with the same brush but it is a sad reflection on society!
Why does anyone need to do a two year course on how to find the careers office, earning Â£30 per week EMA when they can earn Â£190 per week (net) actually doing the job from the age of 16?
A public services NVQ makes you no more academically qualified to join the Armed Forces.
Edited TWICE to add that maybe it would've helped me with my keyboard skill, however!
What sort of discipline measures is he trying to implement?
As for participation, if the student's don't join in, why should they stay on the course?
It does however put bums on seats in the local college which keeps the salaries of the senior staff up. I agree, the uniform services teach their recruits all they need them to know, and any one worth having into one of those services ought to be able to find their way to the appropriate recruiting office. A non course if ever I heard of one.
It would never work, would you really want any of these morons alongside you in a tight corner? As it is we have quality due to the fact that they are all volunteers.
I think the stated intent is simply for 6 weeks "voluntary service". They are not intending to use them in the military, simply to teach them a bit of military style training, unless I read it incorrectly.
As reported, demonstrates that 'Dave', he of the glossy populist quick-fix flash-in-the-pan idea, absolutely does not understand the purpose, role, or motivation of today's all-voluntary PROFESSIONAL Armed Forces and will be ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD on any question touching on their resourcing, equipping or deployment.
National Service worked a treat for the country until we divested ourselves of sufficient in the way of dependent territory to slim down to a voluntary and PROFESSIONAL system, and until the technology of war put it out of the reach of the generality of two-year men. For the NS bodies themselves, some were vastly improved, some bored stupid, and many merely had productive careers put on hold for two years. That SOME had a jolly time in Hong Kong or with the Arab Legion etc masks that many just pootled around in Germany or the UK (using individual cases known to me personally). Not forgetting those who didn't come home at all, from Korea, Malaya and other places.
Read all about it - Leslie Thomas in the Virgin Soldiers and less well-known but equally hilarious, Orange Wednesday.
I am opposed to any form of compulsory national service in peacetime, be it of a military or civil nature. Compulsion is not the best way to encourage people to develop a public service ethos, rather it's more likely to foster resentment and cynicism. I do think we should encourage it though, and would have no objection to incentives, but only for civil projects, not for any return to military service. The best servicemen are those who want to be there.
It's all bollocks, of course. Hear me out and I will explain.
By the time the target demographic for whom this is intended get round to going on these noble missions, the damage has already been done. They've already been exposed to market forces, peer-group influences and anything else socially corrosive and 'hip'n'cool'. If Cameron or any of his cronies are watching, get a huge handful of what we call 'grip' and address the problems that cause 'yobbishness'. Firstly, parents (and it has been said before, I know) need to be LEGALLY responsible for their children, their whereabouts and their behavior up to the age of seventeen. That means they face consequential punishment for their children's misdemeanours. If they prove to be incapable, then the state should remove the children to fostering or residential secure units, and the parents punished. Secondly, the target demographic for this reprogramming process should be radically reviewed. Young people learn their behavioural patterns from a crucially early age these days, and if that means countering it by militarising schools with firm but fair discipline then so be it. Children do like routine (although they'd deny it). It won't eradicate the symptoms overnight, but a school day built around competitive sports, academic betterment and (most essentially) effective mentoring and life management will leave precious little time to transgress and more opportunity for youngsters to adopt responsibility and respect from an earlier age. If Cameron thinks that simply asking the truculent seam of school leavers to pole up and clear leaves in an old people's home is going to be a vote winner then I suggest he thinks again. There will be some seriously empty seats on the happy-clappy minibus.
Separate names with a comma.