Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Drakey, Jan 14, 2011.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Saw this on another site and thought it might provoke some interesting responses.
I'm inclined to agree - U18 is probably too young to join the military (as a general rule) despite the fact that there are probably a great many on this Forum and the other forces forums/fora who will have joined up before their 18th birthday and made a good career out of the military with no adverse effects.
Good thought provoking post Drakey.
Interesting stuff indeed. I wonder where the cadets would feature in all this?
Personally I joined at 16 and it was the best thing I ever did, I think the RN's way of training everyone together, regardless of age, helped me and the other youngsters grow up very quickly. By comparison the pongos send their sprogs to a separate training establishment and there is a marked difference in your average 16/17 year old pongo and a matelot of the same age, with the RN lads being significantly more mature. **** knows or cares how the RAF run things.
I don't really see the early years in the mob as that much different from college or any other further education, it's not as if you can be sent to war at that age. As for the perceived danger of being in the Armed Forces, is being a trainee under strict supervision really any more dangerous than doing a tree surgery or scaffolding course at college?
I suppose if the Forces made it clearer that the first 1 - 2 years of any serviceman's career are made up mostly of training and development, then we wouldn't have this current display of epic fuckwittery as featured in the article.
Out of interest how many girls were under 18? If I pass my test it will be after I'm 18 but I'm just interested out of curiosity.
Although I joined when I was 16 and it never did me any harm (so to speak) it would relieve the system of the duty of care responsibilities needed for under 18's. When I was doing my DO stint at Raleigh it was a nightmare at times when you had U18's to look after.
Out of an entry of 120ish, about 10 were birds, I think two of them were under 18.
I got nowhere with any of them.
I'd be really interested to learn which operational Army units a person aged 15 years & 9 months could expect to join before reaching the age of 18. Likewise there ain't many RN trades you could expect to join under the age of 18 due to the long waiting periods.
Army under 18's generally go to Harrogate and Winchester which are effectively military colleges. Likewise Royal Marines under 18 cannot be operationally deployed & very soon students won't be able to leave education until 18. This is the reason why we award Public Service NVQs etc. to enable people to join the military, gain qualifications in a safe environment & get paid a full time military wage instead of getting £30 per week EMA (or not) at a college with no job guarantee at the end of it.
The statement was made by the Quakers, not an organisation known for its love soldiers of any age
What an interesting article, maybe it's logical to discus lowering the age at which you're allowed to purchase fireworks?
And vote perhaps.
Drink, smoke, drive, national minimum wage etc.
It does strike me as quite strange that we consider U18s to be capable of joining the forces, paying tax and explaining their actions in court, yet we deny them certain freedoms which are enjoyed by the rest of society. Although as NS pointed out, we're also banning them from leaving education and becoming self sufficient so there might not be any inconsistency for much longer.
At least the Pusser removed their juvenile 'Junior' (previously 'Boy') tag from them. Sadly 'OD' went somewhere along the line, too.
As the other U18 restrictions remain I guess it was all just lip service - Mind you, they did tend to give quite a bit of lip themselves at times, no doubt some still do.
I think it goes with the territory (ie being a teenager!) - My kids got lippy and started their teenage "I hate the world and everything in it" stage when they were about 9!!!! They are now in their mid-to-late 20's and at least one of them still hasn't got out of it yet!
I blame their mother!
I think under 18 can be the wrong decision. I joined the RNR when I was 16. Slightly different, but when I turned 18-19(20 now), I decided instead of joining the royal navy full time I'd rather join the royal marines, so if the careers advisor didn't suggest the reserves I might be in a job I didn't want to do? Maybe that's fate? Who knows I think at 16 I was rushing into joining full time!
Plus the article is wrong.
You can leave at any point up to the age of 18, as an Unhappy Junior.
You can even leave at 18 years and 3 months as long as you expressed unhappiness at the RN before 18 years.
Plus like everyone said, there's no danger, so there shouldn't be a problem.
I think the Quakers should stick to what they do best - making porridge oats! :mrgreen:
PS I joined up a fortnight after my 17th birthday and LOVED it all for the next 23 years.
Well, maybe not duty weekends...........
I thought at first glance, that the Quakers' argument had merit.
Ninja though, makes the point about U18s effectively serving an apprenticeship, while receiving a full military wage, unlike their civilian counterparts.
I consider that receiving the adult wage, earlier than their counterparts would, negates the contractual argument and that the Armed Forces can rightly expect a return of service.
Maybe their return of service should start from completion of training, like over-18s.
All I know for sure, is that my son was content to accept the terms of service at 16, and I was content to accept them, when I signed his consent form.
I also accepted the terms of service, when I joined at 15.
I haven't heard of any sort of outcry from U18s presently serving, so why is there any sort of outcry on their behalf.
Possibly because Quakers are pacifists.They would rather turn the other cheek than fight the good fight.
Topstop SNR. Was a Birthright Quaker called up 1942 and ended up in the RAMC(was a training as a nurse before) attached to the Paras(to kick the pacifism out of him?) till 1947. The Quakers "Resigned" him although he didnt know till many years latter. He eventualy became an Elder. He believed that some things where worth fighting for if there were no alternative.
He didnt stop or try to dissuade me joining at 17.
The trouble with setting an arbitory age for anything - whether that be for voting or joining the armed forces - is that it takes no account of the individual as I'm sure that we've all come across 16 year old who behave more responsibly than some 23 year old.
In my experience if someone that young, decides to join any of the armed forces at such an early age they will be conducting themselves in such a way that society always says that it wants its young adults to behave. Can't treat as kids and expect to them to act as adults.
I might be in the minority but I know I had no qualms in signing Junior's forms.
Separate names with a comma.