This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Glad this is getting changed. Always thought there was something very sinister about a counrty that will allow children to make life changing descions regarding future limb prospects before it lets them drink or vote.
Shaun, (child soldier)
Shaun, (child soldier)
In reply to Trangia:
Lots of children make lots of life changing decisions when they are 16, failing at school, getting into drugs, getting themselves a criminal record.
In a society with less less and less social molibity the Army is one of the few organisations that will take people with no quals and possibly not the best start in life and give them the chance of a worthwhile career (with I fully accept certain risks).
If Britain did offer more opportunities for social mobilty then a case can be made for stopping recruiting at 16, but do you really want to remove this genuine opportunity for those, often from disadvantaged backgrounds to get on?
Lots of children make lots of life changing decisions when they are 16, failing at school, getting into drugs, getting themselves a criminal record.
In a society with less less and less social molibity the Army is one of the few organisations that will take people with no quals and possibly not the best start in life and give them the chance of a worthwhile career (with I fully accept certain risks).
If Britain did offer more opportunities for social mobilty then a case can be made for stopping recruiting at 16, but do you really want to remove this genuine opportunity for those, often from disadvantaged backgrounds to get on?
In reply to Removed User: I think your right. At the age of 16 there are very few opportunities for kids who have had enough of school. The Armed forces (Not just Army) offer an outlet, and a career which gives these kids some hope for the future.
This country really needs a massive emphasis on apprenticeships IMO. Far too long have we sent kids to Uni for pointless degrees who have nothing to show for it other than masses of debt.
In the meantime, the skilled workforce in this country is dwindling.
This country really needs a massive emphasis on apprenticeships IMO. Far too long have we sent kids to Uni for pointless degrees who have nothing to show for it other than masses of debt.
In the meantime, the skilled workforce in this country is dwindling.
In reply to Removed User:
Also worth pointing out that those under the age of 18 won't deploy on operations either. This has happened in the past by mistake, but things have significantly tightened up to ensure this doesn't happen.
Also worth pointing out that those under the age of 18 won't deploy on operations either. This has happened in the past by mistake, but things have significantly tightened up to ensure this doesn't happen.
In reply to Removed User: I just think it should be postphoned for two years. Maybe Cadets could be employed on a YTS type scheme, 30 hours a week or so. Then make the choice at eighteen as to whether to join up. They can't deploy until they're eighteen anyway so surely in would be cheaper for the army.
In reply to James Jackson: They make the somewhat life altering choice of whether to go to war or not at fifteen or soxteen years old. Then are subjected to two years of training / brainwashing (depending on your perspective) before they go.
In reply to shaun l: The brainwashing is done at the careers office when the w@nkers get you to join up as what they need you to, rather than what you want to.
In reply to shaun l:
The services are busy shedding men and women in the cuts yet at the same time recruiting. I appreciate that new blood is always required, but wouldn't it make more sense both from an economic point of view, and experience point of view, to retain experienced and trained personnel by extending their contracts at the same time as recruiting 18 plus year olds?
The services are busy shedding men and women in the cuts yet at the same time recruiting. I appreciate that new blood is always required, but wouldn't it make more sense both from an economic point of view, and experience point of view, to retain experienced and trained personnel by extending their contracts at the same time as recruiting 18 plus year olds?
In reply to drunken monkey:
It isn't difficult to get where you want to be in the army if you have a little gumption. If you haven't then you have to expect the army to decide for you.
Raising the recruiting age is a crap idea, some kids are a bloody nuisance in a school environment but take to army life like a duck to water. The money comes out of the same tax pot so why have them disrupting other learners in schools when they could be learning something useful in the army.
It isn't difficult to get where you want to be in the army if you have a little gumption. If you haven't then you have to expect the army to decide for you.
Raising the recruiting age is a crap idea, some kids are a bloody nuisance in a school environment but take to army life like a duck to water. The money comes out of the same tax pot so why have them disrupting other learners in schools when they could be learning something useful in the army.
In reply to Clarence: They have targets to meet. As a young lad/lass it is very easy to be "persuaded".
In reply to shaun l:
Or maybe let them sign up at 16 with the option to leave for free at 18.
> (In reply to Gary in Germany) I just think it should be postphoned for two years. Maybe Cadets could be employed on a YTS type scheme, 30 hours a week or so. Then make the choice at eighteen as to whether to join up. They can't deploy until they're eighteen anyway so surely in would be cheaper for the army.
Or maybe let them sign up at 16 with the option to leave for free at 18.
In reply to Trangia: I think so, yes. I know loads of soliders who dreaded the thought of leaving the army at 42. To me that's the best time in a soldiers career to decide if they want to stay in or not.
Our army should consist of a small number of SAS and SBS ninjas - supported by a larger force of warrior paratroopers, marines and Gurkah's. The rest should be grumpy old codgers complaining about all this 'new technology' whilst flying terror drones into pylons near Brize Norton.
Our army should consist of a small number of SAS and SBS ninjas - supported by a larger force of warrior paratroopers, marines and Gurkah's. The rest should be grumpy old codgers complaining about all this 'new technology' whilst flying terror drones into pylons near Brize Norton.
In reply to drunken monkey:
So you go through basic training in the Womens Auxiliary Balloon Corps and then work towards being where you want to be. I was originally headed for the Artillery but I studied and applied for transfer to the Engineers (just got there when I lost my eyesight!). One of the guys in the Engineers was only there for a year before he put himself forward for P Company, he made it through a bit of self-motivation. If kids are not motivated then you can't put them into the good jobs just like in civvy street.
So you go through basic training in the Womens Auxiliary Balloon Corps and then work towards being where you want to be. I was originally headed for the Artillery but I studied and applied for transfer to the Engineers (just got there when I lost my eyesight!). One of the guys in the Engineers was only there for a year before he put himself forward for P Company, he made it through a bit of self-motivation. If kids are not motivated then you can't put them into the good jobs just like in civvy street.
In reply to teflonpete: But then your putting them in an army environment and influencing their decision. With what I suggested they'd at least hear voices outside the army bubble. I was a pacifist by the time I got to Iraq at twenty.
In reply to Clarence: Yes I agree. The opportunity to advance is there. What I'm getting at this that good, switched on cookies are railroaded by recruiters into jobs that they need to fill.
In reply to teflonpete:
They cost much more to train apparently, the answer of course is a uniformed services college course with support through an EMA, but the EMA has been scrapped. School leaving age is being raised isn't it?
> (In reply to shaun l)
> [...]
>
> Or maybe let them sign up at 16 with the option to leave for free at 18.
> [...]
>
> Or maybe let them sign up at 16 with the option to leave for free at 18.
They cost much more to train apparently, the answer of course is a uniformed services college course with support through an EMA, but the EMA has been scrapped. School leaving age is being raised isn't it?
In reply to Trangia:
They do. Some either get commissioned or extended.
> (In reply to shaun l)
>
> The services are busy shedding men and women in the cuts yet at the same time recruiting. I appreciate that new blood is always required, but wouldn't it make more sense both from an economic point of view, and experience point of view, to retain experienced and trained personnel by extending their contracts at the same time as recruiting 18 plus year olds?
>
> The services are busy shedding men and women in the cuts yet at the same time recruiting. I appreciate that new blood is always required, but wouldn't it make more sense both from an economic point of view, and experience point of view, to retain experienced and trained personnel by extending their contracts at the same time as recruiting 18 plus year olds?
They do. Some either get commissioned or extended.
In reply to drunken monkey:
Roger that.
> (In reply to shaun l) The brainwashing is done at the careers office when the w@nkers get you to join up as what they need you to, rather than what you want to.
Roger that.
In reply to shaun l:
Did you tell your boss that?
> (In reply to teflonpete) But then your putting them in an army environment and influencing their decision. With what I suggested they'd at least hear voices outside the army bubble. I was a pacifist by the time I got to Iraq at twenty.
Did you tell your boss that?
In reply to drunken monkey:
"This country really needs a massive emphasis on apprenticeships IMO."
Absolutely. The Army might in itself be well placed to provide some.
Neil
"This country really needs a massive emphasis on apprenticeships IMO."
Absolutely. The Army might in itself be well placed to provide some.
Neil
In reply to The New NickB:
No. The age for being in mandatory education/training is raised. AIUI, an apprenticeship satisfies this requirement just as traditional academic sixth form does.
Neil
No. The age for being in mandatory education/training is raised. AIUI, an apprenticeship satisfies this requirement just as traditional academic sixth form does.
Neil
In reply to Jonny2vests:
The primary reponsibility of the careers Offices is to man the Army, so not everyone can be an Apache Pilot. There are quotas to fill and if someones first choice is not avaliable they thre will obviously be an attmept to sell them another option.
Also often people simply do not score well enough on the tests to get their first choice.
The Army does offer good trainig, decent pay, chance of a good career, excitment (somtimes a bit too much) and respect.
Read the worst/most boring jobs thread thats running. There are lots of worst ways to spend your life, particualry if you didn't exactly star at school!!
The primary reponsibility of the careers Offices is to man the Army, so not everyone can be an Apache Pilot. There are quotas to fill and if someones first choice is not avaliable they thre will obviously be an attmept to sell them another option.
Also often people simply do not score well enough on the tests to get their first choice.
The Army does offer good trainig, decent pay, chance of a good career, excitment (somtimes a bit too much) and respect.
Read the worst/most boring jobs thread thats running. There are lots of worst ways to spend your life, particualry if you didn't exactly star at school!!
In reply to Neil Williams:
Same way I understand it, apprenticeship or sixth form until end of academic year in which you're 18. Looks to be aimed at taking 16 to 18 year olds off the unemployment figures. That said, there are financial incentives from government for companies to take on apprentices and I think the apprenticeship has to contain college modules. Looks like it has the potential to be a good thing.
> (In reply to The New NickB)
>
> No. The age for being in mandatory education/training is raised. AIUI, an apprenticeship satisfies this requirement just as traditional academic sixth form does.
>
> No. The age for being in mandatory education/training is raised. AIUI, an apprenticeship satisfies this requirement just as traditional academic sixth form does.
Same way I understand it, apprenticeship or sixth form until end of academic year in which you're 18. Looks to be aimed at taking 16 to 18 year olds off the unemployment figures. That said, there are financial incentives from government for companies to take on apprentices and I think the apprenticeship has to contain college modules. Looks like it has the potential to be a good thing.
In reply to shaun l:
Is it getting changed? The MoD seems a bit ambivalent about it.
This is just a letter from a campaign group, backed by various churchly do-gooders.
It doesn't seem like a very honest approach from them either.
If they're own figures (disputed by MoD) are to be believed then the issue is relatively minor and declining in importance year on year (numbers continuing in service after 18), to just a few hundred now.
Given the move to more territorials in frontline duties, up to 30% in a few years, it's only going to get less too.
And comparing it to WW1 when people were deployed within weeks is just misleading, it bears no relation to what happens now.
A bigger issue is the training and opportunities offered, which can be vastly improved but there is no evidence how this will compare with severe under performers held in community colleges up to 18/19.
In many ways this looks like people desperate to get their oar in before it's too late and the issue disappears completely.
> Glad this is getting changed.
Is it getting changed? The MoD seems a bit ambivalent about it.
This is just a letter from a campaign group, backed by various churchly do-gooders.
It doesn't seem like a very honest approach from them either.
If they're own figures (disputed by MoD) are to be believed then the issue is relatively minor and declining in importance year on year (numbers continuing in service after 18), to just a few hundred now.
Given the move to more territorials in frontline duties, up to 30% in a few years, it's only going to get less too.
And comparing it to WW1 when people were deployed within weeks is just misleading, it bears no relation to what happens now.
A bigger issue is the training and opportunities offered, which can be vastly improved but there is no evidence how this will compare with severe under performers held in community colleges up to 18/19.
In many ways this looks like people desperate to get their oar in before it's too late and the issue disappears completely.
In reply to Removed User:
Jonny2 knows all this, having been there and done that........
Just sayin'
Steve
Jonny2 knows all this, having been there and done that........
Just sayin'
Steve
In reply to winhill:
Oh and by the way, the Army traiing establishments are not some sort of workhouses turning out little killing machines.
They are all OFSTED inspected and almost universally get excellent reports.
Note this OFSTED regime is applied to all Army traiing establishments unitl the Solider is fully trained, so even if you join as a 30 year old you get OFSTRED stlye duty of care oversight until you are fully trained.
Oh and by the way, the Army traiing establishments are not some sort of workhouses turning out little killing machines.
They are all OFSTED inspected and almost universally get excellent reports.
Note this OFSTED regime is applied to all Army traiing establishments unitl the Solider is fully trained, so even if you join as a 30 year old you get OFSTRED stlye duty of care oversight until you are fully trained.
In reply to Removed User:
It doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement, especially if you have under 18s leaving when they reach 18.
This isn't just a problem for the forces though, as the jobs and training thing on the immigration thread shows. The statutory school leaving age is too new to tell anything from that, although the effectiveness of community colleges is widely open to criticism.
A similar thing occurs with football clubs, living in a city with 2 football clubs I've met hundreds of people that have been through their 16+ academies and they are far worse. They take on a lot of kids in the hope they'll make the grade and then release them into the community at 18, with little hope of alternative employment and they end up going back to proper education, like late starters.
> (In reply to Removed Userwinhill)
>
> Oh and by the way, the Army traiing establishments are not some sort of workhouses turning out little killing machines.
>
> They are all OFSTED inspected and almost universally get excellent reports.
>
> Oh and by the way, the Army traiing establishments are not some sort of workhouses turning out little killing machines.
>
> They are all OFSTED inspected and almost universally get excellent reports.
It doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement, especially if you have under 18s leaving when they reach 18.
This isn't just a problem for the forces though, as the jobs and training thing on the immigration thread shows. The statutory school leaving age is too new to tell anything from that, although the effectiveness of community colleges is widely open to criticism.
A similar thing occurs with football clubs, living in a city with 2 football clubs I've met hundreds of people that have been through their 16+ academies and they are far worse. They take on a lot of kids in the hope they'll make the grade and then release them into the community at 18, with little hope of alternative employment and they end up going back to proper education, like late starters.
In reply to Removed User:
Gary - to slightly re-frame the debate - do you think a modern specialised Armed Forces facing extensive funding cuts has the need / capacity to recruit children? Would resources be better spent elsewhere?
I'm split on the issue, but I wonder if the debate is clouded somewhat by nostalgic ideas of an Army from different era?
Gary - to slightly re-frame the debate - do you think a modern specialised Armed Forces facing extensive funding cuts has the need / capacity to recruit children? Would resources be better spent elsewhere?
I'm split on the issue, but I wonder if the debate is clouded somewhat by nostalgic ideas of an Army from different era?
In reply to JMGLondon:
Well I would probably say yes for 2 reasons:
Army recuiting is not going great now, as we come out of resession, its unlikely to improve. So the abilty to recuit at 16 is an advantage.
I think its a good programme for society in general. It does offer high qulity and constructive training, leading to a good career. We need a lot more of this, acrodss the ecomomy, not less.
Well I would probably say yes for 2 reasons:
Army recuiting is not going great now, as we come out of resession, its unlikely to improve. So the abilty to recuit at 16 is an advantage.
I think its a good programme for society in general. It does offer high qulity and constructive training, leading to a good career. We need a lot more of this, acrodss the ecomomy, not less.
In reply to Jonny2vests: LOL! Whoops...
They never would have let me go if I told them I wasn't planning on killing anyone. And I really wanted to go!
They never would have let me go if I told them I wasn't planning on killing anyone. And I really wanted to go!
In reply to winhill: I just caught a snatch of it on the news this morning. Take that as 'I really hope they change this'. Thanks for clarifying.
In reply to shaun l:
Nice to have something in common with Iran, N Korea, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Colombia, India, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Mali, Pakistan, Thailand, Sudan, Syria & Yemen
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=567573&v=1#x7547574
Nice to have something in common with Iran, N Korea, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Colombia, India, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Mali, Pakistan, Thailand, Sudan, Syria & Yemen
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=567573&v=1#x7547574
In reply to shaun l:
http://www.medicaldaily.com/adulthood-extended-age-25-child-psychologists-u...
this is something that should be considered, not that I think recruitment should start at 25 but surely waiting a couple of years will help young people to make a better informed decision about how to spend some of their formative years.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/adulthood-extended-age-25-child-psychologists-u...
this is something that should be considered, not that I think recruitment should start at 25 but surely waiting a couple of years will help young people to make a better informed decision about how to spend some of their formative years.
In reply to TMM:
A slightly superficial comparison.
I ma not sure that Syria is, at the moment, providing a fully structured apprenticeship which is monitired and assessed by OFSTED at the moment.
Although I stand by to be proved wrong.
A slightly superficial comparison.
I ma not sure that Syria is, at the moment, providing a fully structured apprenticeship which is monitired and assessed by OFSTED at the moment.
Although I stand by to be proved wrong.
In reply to roperat:
Please note that 16 year olds can bang out any time they like.
Many do.
In fact so many do that the cost effectiveness of this type of training ids being brought into question.
Which is a pity for the many who find this programme a great sucess.
There are plenty of kids for whom school is just not working out, and never will. This gives them another constructive option. And there arn't many of those out there.
Please note that 16 year olds can bang out any time they like.
Many do.
In fact so many do that the cost effectiveness of this type of training ids being brought into question.
Which is a pity for the many who find this programme a great sucess.
There are plenty of kids for whom school is just not working out, and never will. This gives them another constructive option. And there arn't many of those out there.
In reply to Removed Usershaun l:
I can't say it was high on my list either mate But then neither was running an illegal bar!
I really wasn't fussed about going, and I'm so shit at middle management, I'm just a geek at heart. I think that's where we both hatched our escape plans. And leaving was the best thing that ever happened to my climbing career.
> (In reply to Removed UserJonny2vests) LOL! Whoops...
>
> They never would have let me go if I told them I wasn't planning on killing anyone. And I really wanted to go!
>
> They never would have let me go if I told them I wasn't planning on killing anyone. And I really wanted to go!
I can't say it was high on my list either mate But then neither was running an illegal bar!
I really wasn't fussed about going, and I'm so shit at middle management, I'm just a geek at heart. I think that's where we both hatched our escape plans. And leaving was the best thing that ever happened to my climbing career.
In reply to Jonny2vests: Shit at middle management? Come off it, just cause you didn't enjoy it doesn't mean you were shit.
In reply to Removed User: Hi Gary, my mate joined at sixteen and dropped out. I think if he'd worked at the cake factory for two years before he went in instead of when he got out he would have had a much more rewarding career. He was just to immature at the time to handle that environment, I think it works both ways.
In reply to Jonny2vests: Did you not join the AMA while in? Plenty opportunity to skive!
In reply to drunken monkey:
For sure, they sent me far and wide, I wasn't disputing its value for a quality jolly. It was on one such jolly I hatched the plan to move here.
Its pretty tricky to get good at anything though, what with being sent hither and dither, especially in the mapping business. The Army have had some pretty handy mountaineers over the years, but they suck at rock climbing to any standard. Apart from me & Steve S Blake, its punters all the way down
(I hope Si Witcher doesn't see this)
(Or his missus for that matter)
> (In reply to Jonny2vests) Did you not join the AMA while in? Plenty opportunity to skive!
For sure, they sent me far and wide, I wasn't disputing its value for a quality jolly. It was on one such jolly I hatched the plan to move here.
Its pretty tricky to get good at anything though, what with being sent hither and dither, especially in the mapping business. The Army have had some pretty handy mountaineers over the years, but they suck at rock climbing to any standard. Apart from me & Steve S Blake, its punters all the way down
(I hope Si Witcher doesn't see this)
(Or his missus for that matter)
In reply to Trangia:
It's a question of getting the shape of the services right. No point in having 27 generals and only one trooper...
That's why the redundancies can seem fairly lopsided at times, but the fact is that the services are very hierarchical organisations and the combined effect of recruiting and redundancies must reflect that.
> (In reply to shaun l)
>
> The services are busy shedding men and women in the cuts yet at the same time recruiting. I appreciate that new blood is always required, but wouldn't it make more sense both from an economic point of view, and experience point of view, to retain experienced and trained personnel by extending their contracts at the same time as recruiting 18 plus year olds?
>
> The services are busy shedding men and women in the cuts yet at the same time recruiting. I appreciate that new blood is always required, but wouldn't it make more sense both from an economic point of view, and experience point of view, to retain experienced and trained personnel by extending their contracts at the same time as recruiting 18 plus year olds?
It's a question of getting the shape of the services right. No point in having 27 generals and only one trooper...
That's why the redundancies can seem fairly lopsided at times, but the fact is that the services are very hierarchical organisations and the combined effect of recruiting and redundancies must reflect that.
In reply to shaun l: I've no problem with 16 year olds signing up on the current basis and with flexible terms whereby they can leave if they choose to. I have known lots of kids through work who were mature enough and have done really well going in at that age..
In reply to abr1966:
I think, (and I'm going to be perfectly frank here) it is despicable for the army to recruit children, take them from they're home and indoctrinate them into a mindset where free thought is serverly prohibited. Yeah a sixteen year old can leave whenever they want to - so can any solider, all you have to do is smoke a spliff.
I don't understand why a 16 year old who is mature enough to join the army can't wait until they're 18, if for nothing else just for the sake of the 16 year olds that aren't. There's loads of cool shit kids could do in those two years, like I said I have no objection to some kind of paid army cadets.
My dad left school at fifteen, and the first half of his working life was shit. As a society it is time to recognise that with increasing age and less demands on our time we can educate our kids longer, and let them finish their childhood.
Won't somebody think of the children?!
> (In reply to shaun l) I've no problem with 16 year olds signing up on the current basis and with flexible terms whereby they can leave if they choose to. I have known lots of kids through work who were mature enough and have done really well going in at that age..
I think, (and I'm going to be perfectly frank here) it is despicable for the army to recruit children, take them from they're home and indoctrinate them into a mindset where free thought is serverly prohibited. Yeah a sixteen year old can leave whenever they want to - so can any solider, all you have to do is smoke a spliff.
I don't understand why a 16 year old who is mature enough to join the army can't wait until they're 18, if for nothing else just for the sake of the 16 year olds that aren't. There's loads of cool shit kids could do in those two years, like I said I have no objection to some kind of paid army cadets.
My dad left school at fifteen, and the first half of his working life was shit. As a society it is time to recognise that with increasing age and less demands on our time we can educate our kids longer, and let them finish their childhood.
Won't somebody think of the children?!
In reply to shaun l: I agree that overall 18 and older is a better time to sign up than 16 and my guess would be that its better for the army also if the recruits are interested in combat units etc
However, some 16 year olds really are mature enough to weigh up the pros and cons! I wasn't in the army but was in the forces and never met a 'brainwashed' person. We all thought for ourselves but you take orders amd thats the job.
However, some 16 year olds really are mature enough to weigh up the pros and cons! I wasn't in the army but was in the forces and never met a 'brainwashed' person. We all thought for ourselves but you take orders amd thats the job.
In reply to shaun l:
When does childhood finish then? What makes the boundary between a child and an adult? What is the difference between a child and a teenager, and why are 16 year olds on this thread being called children, yet would never use this word to describe themselves in other situations?
> let them finish their childhood.
When does childhood finish then? What makes the boundary between a child and an adult? What is the difference between a child and a teenager, and why are 16 year olds on this thread being called children, yet would never use this word to describe themselves in other situations?
In reply to tlm: Boys should have lost their virginity before they're allowed to join the military.
In reply to tlm: Imo childhood finishes at eighteen because once you reach that age you have all the legal rights and responsibilities of an adult.
In reply to shaun l:
But you can get married and have kids before then?
> (In reply to tlm) Imo childhood finishes at eighteen because once you reach that age you have all the legal rights and responsibilities of an adult.
But you can get married and have kids before then?
In reply to various:
I wanted to join at 17, but I knew I was still a bit of a f*ckwitt, so I made myself wait till I was 20. Best decision ever, I'd seen a bit of the world on my own terms, worked, had something to compare with. I definitely went from boy to man in those three years.
Young soldiers don't handle having money well. It's often their first job and first regular cash, so they go off and buy a flash car on credit, and wrap it round a tree on the way home, all on third party of course. That is a very common story. The bank love them, because they just write to the CO and have it taken from the wages trickle feed at high interest for the next ten years.
To StG: Young soldiers are normally the type that lose their virginity well before 16.
I wanted to join at 17, but I knew I was still a bit of a f*ckwitt, so I made myself wait till I was 20. Best decision ever, I'd seen a bit of the world on my own terms, worked, had something to compare with. I definitely went from boy to man in those three years.
Young soldiers don't handle having money well. It's often their first job and first regular cash, so they go off and buy a flash car on credit, and wrap it round a tree on the way home, all on third party of course. That is a very common story. The bank love them, because they just write to the CO and have it taken from the wages trickle feed at high interest for the next ten years.
To StG: Young soldiers are normally the type that lose their virginity well before 16.
In reply to tlm:
What's your point? Why are you comparing these events? The argument about the age we get married should be considered in its own terms, comparing it to other stuff were allowed to do isn't useful.
> (In reply to shaun l)
> [...]
>
> But you can get married and have kids before then?
> [...]
>
> But you can get married and have kids before then?
What's your point? Why are you comparing these events? The argument about the age we get married should be considered in its own terms, comparing it to other stuff were allowed to do isn't useful.
In reply to Jonny2vests:
I don't know. Comparing things is a good way of sorting all sorts of stuff out.
I just think that active war is pretty traumatic for most people, no matter what their age. Do you think it is easier for older people?
And I guess I was just struck by the use of 'children' to describe 16 year olds in this thread when I never see those terms used anywhere else. Becoming an adult isn't a sudden thing that happens overnight. I would class a 16 year old not as a child, but as a young adult, quite capable of all sorts of adult behaviour in many areas, even though they are still developing, learning and growing (as we all could be).
> What's your point?
I don't know. Comparing things is a good way of sorting all sorts of stuff out.
I just think that active war is pretty traumatic for most people, no matter what their age. Do you think it is easier for older people?
And I guess I was just struck by the use of 'children' to describe 16 year olds in this thread when I never see those terms used anywhere else. Becoming an adult isn't a sudden thing that happens overnight. I would class a 16 year old not as a child, but as a young adult, quite capable of all sorts of adult behaviour in many areas, even though they are still developing, learning and growing (as we all could be).
In reply to shaun l:
It keeps getting later and later doesn't it?
In my day childhood finished at 16 when I left school and started work.
For my father it was 15 and my Grandfather was working from 13 years of age.
Ironically although you could leave school and get married at 16/15 when I was young you couldn't vote until you were 21.
It keeps getting later and later doesn't it?
In my day childhood finished at 16 when I left school and started work.
For my father it was 15 and my Grandfather was working from 13 years of age.
Ironically although you could leave school and get married at 16/15 when I was young you couldn't vote until you were 21.
In reply to Jonny2vests:
fairly obvious I would have thought.
> (In reply to tlm)
> [...]
>
> What's your point? Why are you comparing these events? The argument about the age we get married should be considered in its own terms, comparing it to other stuff were allowed to do isn't useful.
> [...]
>
> What's your point? Why are you comparing these events? The argument about the age we get married should be considered in its own terms, comparing it to other stuff were allowed to do isn't useful.
fairly obvious I would have thought.
In reply to shaun l:
interestingly the conscription age in January 1916 was 19. This dropped to 18 in May 1916. Incidentally the Act of conscription made it harder for younger people to falsify their age and get in at 16/17 as had been the case previously.
From "The Long Trail" the British Army in the Great War
interestingly the conscription age in January 1916 was 19. This dropped to 18 in May 1916. Incidentally the Act of conscription made it harder for younger people to falsify their age and get in at 16/17 as had been the case previously.
From "The Long Trail" the British Army in the Great War
In reply to Removed User:
I'd hazard that they're life changing 'mistakes', which is a little bit different.
> (In reply to Removed UserTrangia)
>
> Lots of children make lots of life changing decisions when they are 16, failing at school, getting into drugs, getting themselves a criminal record.
>
> Lots of children make lots of life changing decisions when they are 16, failing at school, getting into drugs, getting themselves a criminal record.
I'd hazard that they're life changing 'mistakes', which is a little bit different.
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
No. You might as well compare apples and space hoppers.
> (In reply to Jonny2vests)
> [...]
>
> fairly obvious I would have thought.
> [...]
>
> fairly obvious I would have thought.
No. You might as well compare apples and space hoppers.
In reply to tlm:
Irrelevant comparison is an excellent way to cloud issues.
Older people can make more informed choices about what they do with their lives. Its not just about going to war, that is a relatively rare event for most service people.
> (In reply to Jonny2vests)
>
> [...]
>
> I don't know. Comparing things is a good way of sorting all sorts of stuff out.
>
> [...]
>
> I don't know. Comparing things is a good way of sorting all sorts of stuff out.
Irrelevant comparison is an excellent way to cloud issues.
> I just think that active war is pretty traumatic for most people, no matter what their age. Do you think it is easier for older people?
Older people can make more informed choices about what they do with their lives. Its not just about going to war, that is a relatively rare event for most service people.
In reply to Jonny2vests:
I thought it was relevant, if we were talking about what age people are capable of making life changing decisions? Does joining the army change your life more, or having a baby?
Yes, I do agree that most of the time, the older someone is the more informed their choice will be. Why is being in the army so traumatic if you don't end up having to go to war? Are you thinking of the institutionalism of it all? and the difficulty of later on making the move to a civilian life?
> Irrelevant comparison is an excellent way to cloud issues.
I thought it was relevant, if we were talking about what age people are capable of making life changing decisions? Does joining the army change your life more, or having a baby?
> Older people can make more informed choices about what they do with their lives. Its not just about going to war, that is a relatively rare event for most service people.
Yes, I do agree that most of the time, the older someone is the more informed their choice will be. Why is being in the army so traumatic if you don't end up having to go to war? Are you thinking of the institutionalism of it all? and the difficulty of later on making the move to a civilian life?
In reply to tlm:
Yes but how does the ability to have a baby or get pissed or drive inform us about joining the army?
Because joining the army isn't like working at Woolworths. It can change your whole outlook on life and make you a very different person to the one you might have been. I'm not saying that its a negative change, I just think a bit of age helps to grasp the magnitude of the decision. It helped me.
> (In reply to Jonny2vests)
>
> [...]
>
> I thought it was relevant, if we were talking about what age people are capable of making life changing decisions? Does joining the army change your life more, or having a baby?
>
> [...]
>
> I thought it was relevant, if we were talking about what age people are capable of making life changing decisions? Does joining the army change your life more, or having a baby?
Yes but how does the ability to have a baby or get pissed or drive inform us about joining the army?
>
> Why is being in the army so traumatic if you don't end up having to go to war?
> Why is being in the army so traumatic if you don't end up having to go to war?
Because joining the army isn't like working at Woolworths. It can change your whole outlook on life and make you a very different person to the one you might have been. I'm not saying that its a negative change, I just think a bit of age helps to grasp the magnitude of the decision. It helped me.
In reply to Jonny2vests:
It is that if you can get married then surely that is an indication that you are an adult in this country. A young adult certainly and may be not an adult mature enough to deal with war (though some of the unfortunate young lads in the Congo might say different) but an adult nontheless. Unless you are suggesting that children get married?
It is that if you can get married then surely that is an indication that you are an adult in this country. A young adult certainly and may be not an adult mature enough to deal with war (though some of the unfortunate young lads in the Congo might say different) but an adult nontheless. Unless you are suggesting that children get married?
In reply to Jonny2vests:
It is not about the ability to do those things it is that society allows you to make a life changing decision like getting married, which if you have children has a massive effect on your life.
It revolves around the question as to whether at 16 you are a child or a young adult. I agree that 16 is too young to enter a war zone if that can be avoided
The main thing with the armed forces is leaving home and becoming self reliant. Secondly it is the facing of potentially deadly situations that you might not otherwise encounter unless you live in Bradford. My dad was conscripted into the Air force at 18 saw no action thoroughly enjoyed it, my Great grandfather spent the Great War out in Egypt as a cook in the ASC, others fared less well. My point is that joining the Army will change you but so will many other activities that involve leaving home and taking charge of your life.
> (In reply to tlm)
> [...]
>
> Yes but how does the ability to have a baby or get pissed or drive inform us about joining the army?
> [...]
>
> Yes but how does the ability to have a baby or get pissed or drive inform us about joining the army?
It is not about the ability to do those things it is that society allows you to make a life changing decision like getting married, which if you have children has a massive effect on your life.
It revolves around the question as to whether at 16 you are a child or a young adult. I agree that 16 is too young to enter a war zone if that can be avoided
>
> [...]
>
> Because joining the army isn't like working at Woolworths. It can change your whole outlook on life and make you a very different person to the one you might have been. I'm not saying that its a negative change, I just think a bit of age helps to grasp the magnitude of the decision. It helped me.
> [...]
>
> Because joining the army isn't like working at Woolworths. It can change your whole outlook on life and make you a very different person to the one you might have been. I'm not saying that its a negative change, I just think a bit of age helps to grasp the magnitude of the decision. It helped me.
The main thing with the armed forces is leaving home and becoming self reliant. Secondly it is the facing of potentially deadly situations that you might not otherwise encounter unless you live in Bradford. My dad was conscripted into the Air force at 18 saw no action thoroughly enjoyed it, my Great grandfather spent the Great War out in Egypt as a cook in the ASC, others fared less well. My point is that joining the Army will change you but so will many other activities that involve leaving home and taking charge of your life.
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
For the avoidance of doubt, the Armed Forces agree - nobody under the age of 18 deploys on operations.
> I agree that 16 is too young to enter a war zone if that can be avoided
For the avoidance of doubt, the Armed Forces agree - nobody under the age of 18 deploys on operations.
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
It's a trend I'd like to see continue. I think this is a good thing for society and the indiviual. I think 18 is the right age to vote, and make life changing decisions. Surely with such high levels of youth unemployment globally the best thing we can be doing is educating young people as best and for as long as we can. Because of automation and the exportation of labour young people need to be much more innovative and technologically savvy than they did a generation ago.
> (In reply to shaun l)
> It keeps getting later and later doesn't it?
> In my day childhood finished at 16 when I left school and started work.
> For my father it was 15 and my Grandfather was working from 13 years of age.
> Ironically although you could leave school and get married at 16/15 when I was young you couldn't vote until you were 21.
> It keeps getting later and later doesn't it?
> In my day childhood finished at 16 when I left school and started work.
> For my father it was 15 and my Grandfather was working from 13 years of age.
> Ironically although you could leave school and get married at 16/15 when I was young you couldn't vote until you were 21.
It's a trend I'd like to see continue. I think this is a good thing for society and the indiviual. I think 18 is the right age to vote, and make life changing decisions. Surely with such high levels of youth unemployment globally the best thing we can be doing is educating young people as best and for as long as we can. Because of automation and the exportation of labour young people need to be much more innovative and technologically savvy than they did a generation ago.
In reply to tlm:
Imo this is a similar issue to drugs, prositution and pornography. Banning these things does not make them go away, a better solution is regulation.
Should people have children at sixteen? I'd say no... Is it better to prohibit it or educate and support very young parents? For me the latter.
> (In reply to shaun l)
> [...]
>
> But you can get married and have kids before then?
> [...]
>
> But you can get married and have kids before then?
Imo this is a similar issue to drugs, prositution and pornography. Banning these things does not make them go away, a better solution is regulation.
Should people have children at sixteen? I'd say no... Is it better to prohibit it or educate and support very young parents? For me the latter.
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
Getting married has no bearing on whether you are an 'adult', and even less bearing on whether you should join the army.
> (In reply to Jonny2vests)
> It is that if you can get married then surely that is an indication that you are an adult in this country. A young adult certainly and may be not an adult mature enough to deal with war (though some of the unfortunate young lads in the Congo might say different) but an adult nontheless. Unless you are suggesting that children get married?
> It is that if you can get married then surely that is an indication that you are an adult in this country. A young adult certainly and may be not an adult mature enough to deal with war (though some of the unfortunate young lads in the Congo might say different) but an adult nontheless. Unless you are suggesting that children get married?
Getting married has no bearing on whether you are an 'adult', and even less bearing on whether you should join the army.
In reply to Jonny2vests:
So you think that child marriages are fine?! Goodness me.
> Getting married has no bearing on whether you are an 'adult', and even less bearing on whether you should join the army.
So you think that child marriages are fine?! Goodness me.
In reply to tlm: Where did he write that?
I think he means 16 isn't the age at which people can be at their most mature, or mature enough to decide to join the army at least?
Don't ask me what I think though, I haven't a clue. ()
I think he means 16 isn't the age at which people can be at their most mature, or mature enough to decide to join the army at least?
Don't ask me what I think though, I haven't a clue. ()
In reply to Jonny2vests:
really? It seems to me that one must be an adult to get married
really? It seems to me that one must be an adult to get married
In reply to shaun l:
I think it is good to educate people longer and I think that 18 is the right age to vote. The only thing I have a quibble with is the idea that anyone under the age of 17 is a child and therefore deemed too immature to be responsible. I would prefer the term young adult and for this to be a period from say 16 - 18 when they encouraged to become more responsible in the lead up to becoming a full adult.
I think it is good to educate people longer and I think that 18 is the right age to vote. The only thing I have a quibble with is the idea that anyone under the age of 17 is a child and therefore deemed too immature to be responsible. I would prefer the term young adult and for this to be a period from say 16 - 18 when they encouraged to become more responsible in the lead up to becoming a full adult.
In reply to Jonny2vests:
I think also there is a big difference in joining the Army and fighting in the Army.
I think also there is a big difference in joining the Army and fighting in the Army.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...