You seem to be missing my point somewhere?

I'm well aware that parents wouldn't be sent for national service and yes parents/grandparents should be taking responsibilty of their children/grandchildern, but the whole point of my discussion is that many single mothers/fathers/parents are not! Therefore someone else has to, hence the idea of national service!

I know the parents/grandparents can't go into national service, but if their children/grandchildren did it would begin to end the never ending circle of living off benefits and their belief that tax payers are there to pay for their living/lifestyle!

I'm not missing your point I just don't understand why everyone seems to think it's acceptable to tar all youngsters with the same brush. I also think national service which was traditionally undertaken at 18 would interupt either the chosen career path or further education for many young people. If it's only for the feckless and shiftless well I don't think that should be the responsibility of the armed forces, also wasn't conscription only for men, so would women get off scott free?

I was trying to find what the rationale was for the original national service....found an interesting bbc site, The following link is to the page on the effects of conscription but the rest of the site is pretty interesting. Thought some of you might like a look.

The Peacetime Conscripts: National Service in the Post-war Years
By David Prest
Page 3 of 5

1. Peacetime conscripts
2. Call-up and training
3. The impact?
4. Audio archive: The peacetime conscripts
5. Find out more
Print entire article
The impact?

Auberon Waugh pictured as a young national serviceman After basic training, the raw recruits would be turned into soldiers , sailors and airmen, and they would be posted to join regiments at home or abroad. Nearly 400 national servicemen would die for their country in war zones like Korea and Malaya. Others took part in atomic tests on Christmas Island, or were even used as human guinea pigs for germ warfare tests.

There are tragic stories too, of young men who simply couldn't cope with military life, or the pain of separation from their families and for whom suicide was the only way out.

'Nearly 400 national servicemen would die for their country in war zones like Korea and Malaya.'
But what of the longer term impact on these men? Among the more independent young soldiers, they learnt a contempt for the army, which damaged morale and affected the image of the army to the outside world. As news of the absurdities of army life spread, this may have had its impact on the recruiting of regulars, which fell sharply during the 1950s.

In addition, as early as 1949, it had become apparent to political and military leaders that the principal of universal liability to national service was a double-edged sword: not only was it supplying more men than the services could absorb, but it was draining resources to train them, and taking fit and able young men out of the economy.

It may have started with honourable intentions of keeping Britain's post-war army viable, but nobody expected that it would last until the 1960s and have a profound effect on an entire generation.

But I'm not talking about traditional national service and never have throughout this thread?

I've been talking about a training programme similar to national service (for men and women) for those how see fit to contribute nothing to society and sit on their backsides claiming benefits that us hard working tax payers pay for!

Is that too much to ask?

To be fair though, National Service in this day and age would be nowhere near as bad as it was in the 1940s! The PC brigade would have none of it!

It should maybe rename it national training. Still a fixed lengh and people would have to do it but It would involve a mixture of things from armed forces training along with other things.

When national service was in force in the UK anyone who was serving an apprenticeship or being trained in a profession was allowed to finish their training, then they were called up.

Rips the highlighted parts do not exist. There is no cheaper anything for those on benefits. Basic services are exactly the same for every household regardless of earnings, as that does not come into it.

Also the renovations only happen to Council properties when those Councils want to update their own stock so as to keep it's value and stop it from being devalued, which is usually every 10 years and only usually covers a new front/back door and kitchen cupboards ! Gardens, are not applicable in any way and are untouched by Councils as is anything else, once tennants are in the houses.

Just thought I would clear those things up, in case people reading this thought it would be a good idea to get a Council house and be on benefits for the above reasons


That sounds sensible !

That's funny because a once very good friend of mine (whom lived on benefits and had 3 kids by two different Fathers) had all of the above done?! Her whole garden was renovated, her driveway was repaved so she could park her car on it, the kitchen was ripped out and replaced with a new one, her gas and electric bills were reduced and I'm pretty sure her council tak was at reduced rate?

So how is that possible? This all happened whilst I was still friends with her - it is fact, I was there, she did not pay a penny!

Just thought I'd clear that up!