http://www.quaker.org.uk/peace/qpsdocs/army.pdf
Worth discussion or a load of bollo*cks?
Share This Page:
Not wishing to put anyone off joining the forces......
-
Contractor
- Member
- Posts: 1036
- Joined: Fri 30 May, 2003 12:45 pm
- Location: Cotswolds
-
always go commando
- Member
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Thu 05 Jun, 2003 7:32 pm
- Location: middlesbrough
it was clearly wrote by a bunch of propaganda preaching hippies.
i've never met a 16 year old childThis brochure has been produced by the UK Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, using information and statistics from
the Ministry of Defence, Amnesty International and others.
For further information: International Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, PO Box 22696, London N4 3ZJ
info@child-soldiers.org www.child-soldiers.org
stuck in a rut, unsure about the future, unsure about the military lifestyle, for a while anyway
-
voodoo sprout
- Member
- Posts: 1224
- Joined: Sun 01 Dec, 2002 5:13 pm
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
I think it is very biased, but given the amount of positive bias released by the forces I'm not about to complain; besides the information does seem to look realistic. My only thought is that if they're that worried about "child" soldiers in the UK, they probably haven't looked at the rest of the world very hard 
.
.
Last edited by voodoo sprout on Wed 18 Jun, 2003 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fluffy bunnies - Grrrrr!
-
Contractor
- Member
- Posts: 1036
- Joined: Fri 30 May, 2003 12:45 pm
- Location: Cotswolds
Put together very cleverly though as these things are, you have to read it over to pick out the parts which are also valid i.e. a soldier under 18 can leave at any time between 2 and 6 months of joining.
I think if a parent with no military background or connections read it he/she would be reluctant to support young Jack/Jackie going off to the forces under the age of 18.
I think if a parent with no military background or connections read it he/she would be reluctant to support young Jack/Jackie going off to the forces under the age of 18.
-
harry hackedoff
- Member
- Posts: 14415
- Joined: Tue 19 Feb, 2002 12:00 am
Worthy of discussion I say. All of the points are valid; they are putting forward an alternative view to the recruitment posters, based on their own pacifist standpoint. The Quaker religion has a lot in its favour, no ministers, democratic organization, diet of porridge, etc.
It’s a good thing for a youngster to be able to have both sides of an argument, the judgement they make will be more balanced and they will be more aware of any pit-falls. What was Sam’s opinion?
Aye,
It’s a good thing for a youngster to be able to have both sides of an argument, the judgement they make will be more balanced and they will be more aware of any pit-falls. What was Sam’s opinion?
Aye,
[url=http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/groupcp.php?g=397][img]http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/images/usergroups/listener.gif[/img][/url]
-
Contractor
- Member
- Posts: 1036
- Joined: Fri 30 May, 2003 12:45 pm
- Location: Cotswolds
Isn't the earliest age for joining something like 16 years and 6 months?
after your training you would be 17 at least. And in Canada at least you can't serve overseas until you are at least 18 meaning if your under 18 your just getting paid to learn. As they quite often put you through basic schooling to bring up your education if it was quite low. Is it the same in England, I was under the impression that you couldn't do tours in N. Ireland until you were at least 18, as 17 year olds being shot looks bad in the papers.
Editted to add this.
We support a "straight-18" policy to prevent any participation in armed conflict by children under 18.
What difference does it make if you 18 or 17 years 11 months?
after your training you would be 17 at least. And in Canada at least you can't serve overseas until you are at least 18 meaning if your under 18 your just getting paid to learn. As they quite often put you through basic schooling to bring up your education if it was quite low. Is it the same in England, I was under the impression that you couldn't do tours in N. Ireland until you were at least 18, as 17 year olds being shot looks bad in the papers.
Editted to add this.
We support a "straight-18" policy to prevent any participation in armed conflict by children under 18.
What difference does it make if you 18 or 17 years 11 months?
If a man has nothing he is willing to die for then he isn't fit to live.
-
Andy O'Pray
- Member
- Posts: 3189
- Joined: Thu 06 Dec, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: www
It was known as Brat Service in the RAF but was the same thing. Any time under 18 didn't serve towards your full service but I seem to remember that you could leave at any time up to your 18th birthday. I may be wrong on that and there may have been a minimum training requirement like 6 months after which you were in for term. Not sure.
I don't have a problem with the brochure as such because I am aware that The Society of Friends (Quakers) is a pacifist organisation and I wouldn't expect anything else from them.
As as already been mentioned you read through it and pick out relevant bits. the quote about 30% of people sleeping rough have been in the forces also equates to the fact that 70% of them haven't!!!
It's just a bit of propaganda by the quakers trying to do their bit for world peace..........Yeah a load of b*ll*cks!
I don't have a problem with the brochure as such because I am aware that The Society of Friends (Quakers) is a pacifist organisation and I wouldn't expect anything else from them.
As as already been mentioned you read through it and pick out relevant bits. the quote about 30% of people sleeping rough have been in the forces also equates to the fact that 70% of them haven't!!!
It's just a bit of propaganda by the quakers trying to do their bit for world peace..........Yeah a load of b*ll*cks!
If I wanted to listen to an *rsehole, I'd fart!
That quakers brochure made me laugh. It's written in such a biased way thats its actually made me more enthusiastic about joining up. That comment by that brigadier about dying for your country...is that meant to scare us or something? I thought they would put that on the armed forces recruiting brochure not the anti armed forced brochure.
always go commando
The brochure is actually produced by the UK Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers which was formed in 1998 by eight of the leading non-governmental organisations in a bid to bring an end to the recruitment and participation in armed conflict of all children under 18 years of age. The coalition is made up of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Defence for Children International, Radda Barnen for the International Save the Children Alliance, World Vision International, Quakers United Nations Office, Jesuit Refugee Service, Terre des Hommes and a number of other regional NGOs from Africa, Asia and Latin America.
The brochure offers factual information and does not suggest that that a possible recruit should not join the forces. Indeed the last line states:
So now you have some extra information to help you make a choice
As HH says in his post
Maria
It may be clear to you but it is not clear to me. Perhaps you could be so kind as to point out the propaganda?it was clearly wrote by a bunch of propaganda preaching hippies.
The brochure is actually produced by the UK Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers which was formed in 1998 by eight of the leading non-governmental organisations in a bid to bring an end to the recruitment and participation in armed conflict of all children under 18 years of age. The coalition is made up of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Defence for Children International, Radda Barnen for the International Save the Children Alliance, World Vision International, Quakers United Nations Office, Jesuit Refugee Service, Terre des Hommes and a number of other regional NGOs from Africa, Asia and Latin America.
The brochure offers factual information and does not suggest that that a possible recruit should not join the forces. Indeed the last line states:
So now you have some extra information to help you make a choice
As HH says in his post
always go commandoIt’s a good thing for a youngster to be able to have both sides of an argument, the judgement they make will be more balanced and they will be more aware of any pit-falls.
Could it possibly be that you are too close to being a child or perhaps you are in fact childlike yourself – this would indeed make it difficult for you to recognise such characteristics in others.i've never met a 16 year old child
Maria
-
Contractor
- Member
- Posts: 1036
- Joined: Fri 30 May, 2003 12:45 pm
- Location: Cotswolds
-
harry hackedoff
- Member
- Posts: 14415
- Joined: Tue 19 Feb, 2002 12:00 am
Maria,
I think you will find that the use of children to staff armies is something that all participents on this forum would agree is abhorent. However the pamphlet in question doesn't in my mind come any where near to addressing this situation - instead it centers on attacking the ethos of the UK armed forces. Below are a few of the points I in particular take issue with:
"Many people decide to join the Army because they think they don’t have any other opportunities better around if you don’t have the GCSEs."
Are we to assume then that the majority of the armed forces are there simply becuase they don't have any other opportunities? I find that a very offensive and somewhat simplistic view of servicemen/women.
"The Army does offer attractive training opportunities, but not everyone always gets to do what they want to do, and you may end up disappointed."
Like people don't end up disappointed in life anyway? Grow up. The forces are there to do a particular job under the most testing circumstances imaginable, there isn't room to provide everyone with their ideal job - and if such a policy was implemented it would probably cost lives anyway.
"If you join up when you are under 18, you must remain in the Army until you are 22 years old."
As far as I am aware 16 year olds can leave at any point up until their 18th birthday. This rule may be true for certain trades/professions but I certainly don't see it as an 'across the board' rule.
"Another thing to note is that if you undergo an educational or training course of more than two weeks, you may have to give up your right to leave on your 22nd birthday and serve an extra period of up to six years."
Again this is totally dependent on the type of course, the use of the 2 week course example is totally inappropiate to this example and frankly borders on deception.
"Between 1982 and 1999 21 people under the age of 18 died during battle
or training."
How many died through traffic accidents in the same period?
"The UK is currently the only European country to send people under 18 into action."
Again as far as I am aware people under 18, although eligable for active service, are generally only sent if there is no other option. The fact the UK is alone in the EU in this policy is really nothing to shout about given the lack of capability of most of the EU state armies.
"When you join up, you lose your civilian rights. Amongst other things, this means that you are no longer subject to the normal laws such as employment law: so, for example, Health and Safety regulations may not always apply."
Again although true in principle this is far too vast a subject to be covered in one paragraph. I also think you'll find that the vast majority of health and safety regulations are now actually applied by the services wherever possible.
"As a new recruit, you might be subject to harsh initiation rites. This treatment could continue even after you’re not so new – the Army has had to deal with several cases involving bullying, ritual humiliation, and sexual harassment."
Absolute crap. So these types of actions never occur in civilian life then? A massive generalisation.
"The homelessness charity ‘Crisis’ estimates that 30% of people sleeping on the streets have been in the armed forces at some point."
Again another generalisation indicating that the majority of service personel are unable to adapt to civilian life. Perhaps if this country gave a bit more understanding to what servicemen/women actually have experienced there wouldn't be so many ex-forces people feeling like lepers to society. Also this country hasn't really experienced a 'service industry' recession yet - should this occur I would like to see how some of the university bred managers/consultants would cope with their world changing beyond all recognition.
As I said in my introduction Maria, I am all for stopping child soldiers but I really don't see how the 'UK Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers' thinks it appropiate to bring the UK into this discussion. As far as I am aware no one is forced to join the British forces and only volunteers that meet acceptance criteria are accepted.
As far as I am concerned the production of this type of pamphlet does nothing but damage for what is a very good cause, by bringing the UK into this agrument you have actually weakened your position as a crediable organisation.
I think you will find that the use of children to staff armies is something that all participents on this forum would agree is abhorent. However the pamphlet in question doesn't in my mind come any where near to addressing this situation - instead it centers on attacking the ethos of the UK armed forces. Below are a few of the points I in particular take issue with:
"Many people decide to join the Army because they think they don’t have any other opportunities better around if you don’t have the GCSEs."
Are we to assume then that the majority of the armed forces are there simply becuase they don't have any other opportunities? I find that a very offensive and somewhat simplistic view of servicemen/women.
"The Army does offer attractive training opportunities, but not everyone always gets to do what they want to do, and you may end up disappointed."
Like people don't end up disappointed in life anyway? Grow up. The forces are there to do a particular job under the most testing circumstances imaginable, there isn't room to provide everyone with their ideal job - and if such a policy was implemented it would probably cost lives anyway.
"If you join up when you are under 18, you must remain in the Army until you are 22 years old."
As far as I am aware 16 year olds can leave at any point up until their 18th birthday. This rule may be true for certain trades/professions but I certainly don't see it as an 'across the board' rule.
"Another thing to note is that if you undergo an educational or training course of more than two weeks, you may have to give up your right to leave on your 22nd birthday and serve an extra period of up to six years."
Again this is totally dependent on the type of course, the use of the 2 week course example is totally inappropiate to this example and frankly borders on deception.
"Between 1982 and 1999 21 people under the age of 18 died during battle
or training."
How many died through traffic accidents in the same period?
"The UK is currently the only European country to send people under 18 into action."
Again as far as I am aware people under 18, although eligable for active service, are generally only sent if there is no other option. The fact the UK is alone in the EU in this policy is really nothing to shout about given the lack of capability of most of the EU state armies.
"When you join up, you lose your civilian rights. Amongst other things, this means that you are no longer subject to the normal laws such as employment law: so, for example, Health and Safety regulations may not always apply."
Again although true in principle this is far too vast a subject to be covered in one paragraph. I also think you'll find that the vast majority of health and safety regulations are now actually applied by the services wherever possible.
"As a new recruit, you might be subject to harsh initiation rites. This treatment could continue even after you’re not so new – the Army has had to deal with several cases involving bullying, ritual humiliation, and sexual harassment."
Absolute crap. So these types of actions never occur in civilian life then? A massive generalisation.
"The homelessness charity ‘Crisis’ estimates that 30% of people sleeping on the streets have been in the armed forces at some point."
Again another generalisation indicating that the majority of service personel are unable to adapt to civilian life. Perhaps if this country gave a bit more understanding to what servicemen/women actually have experienced there wouldn't be so many ex-forces people feeling like lepers to society. Also this country hasn't really experienced a 'service industry' recession yet - should this occur I would like to see how some of the university bred managers/consultants would cope with their world changing beyond all recognition.
As I said in my introduction Maria, I am all for stopping child soldiers but I really don't see how the 'UK Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers' thinks it appropiate to bring the UK into this discussion. As far as I am aware no one is forced to join the British forces and only volunteers that meet acceptance criteria are accepted.
As far as I am concerned the production of this type of pamphlet does nothing but damage for what is a very good cause, by bringing the UK into this agrument you have actually weakened your position as a crediable organisation.
Nuisance
