Farmland prices after Brexit

[Danllan]

Awww
I can share my logorrhea specialist's contacts if needed.

I am still training one, anyway if this goes on it will get lucubratory .

I don't personallly advocate women fighting on the "front line". But I do think everyone could be conscripted, taught basic self worth, teamwork and self defence.

I hope the bad apples would also be sorted out in the process but I guess that might be wishful thinking.

Would be very nice to see people get opportunities in engineering, plumbing, electrics, construction etc

Yes to that.

My own experience of women in the army was fine, but there was not then the current 'equality'. What I did experience when, for instance, they were testing the ground for the current situation, was that not a single female was physically capable of what we were doing and they broke down pretty quickly when put under what I regarded as pretty ordinary levels of pressure. On more than one occasion, in fact all, we first had to slow down for them, then we had to carry their kit, and then we ended up carrying them - metaphorically and physically.

It saddens me that PC dogma currently trumps experience and common sense in this matter and I fear it will take a fair number of deaths for it to be changed back to a working system. It is quite shocking that our most senior officers who advise the Government - including one I have known for nearly thirty years - all share the sentiments I have expressed, yet will lie through their teeth about this to protect their own career, they are and should be ashamed of themselves, but they still do it.

The usual come-back from the PC lobby is 'but surely you can't exclude all women, what if one is capable enough'. That's fine if 'one' person is different in an office or on 'demo', but policy, regulation and resupply on op's simply can't be made to revolve about or even take into account an individual. It is all about efficiency, and excess baggage of any sort is binned, if it isn't people get killed every time, we have learnt this the hard way, it isn't speculation, it is cold hard fact. But then again, for some it can't be true because it mustn't be true...

 

[le bon paysan]

Spot on in the reasoning, but I'd be happy to see the age return to 21. Mind you, being a reactionary right winger (honest), I'd like to see national service brought back and then a free university education / paid apprenticeship for those who have done it in anything they choose that our country is short of.

Note that I wrote 'national service' and not military conscription; it could be in the army if the individual was suitable, but it could be as a hospital porter, street sweeper, classroom assistant, carer or any other useful occupation, I'm not bothered as long as the country needs it and they do it.

The maturity and experience gained in early adulthood by doing two or three years of this kind of work would be the making of them, it would also give them a vested interest in the country and the country a reason to be grateful to them.

But, just because I do have a radical liberal tendency now and then, I wouldn't make it compulsory. However, those who didn't do it wouldn't get free education / training beyond the secondary level and they would have to justify the lack of it on their CV.

Edited to add: I'd not be against tying future ability to claim benefits to national service too.

I would like to see free College \ university education for any one serving 5 years or more in the Military with good conduct. I think the USA do this?

 

[arcobob]

You are on a loser with that one. Disenfranchising the young is just insulting. It is more likely that the voting age will be lowered.

I am not insulting anyone, just pointing out that some are elevated to a perch that they do not yet deserve.

 

[Hindsight]

I would like to see free College \ university education for any one serving 5 years or more in the Military with good conduct. I think the USA do this?

Why this focus on the military. I am of a generation where national service no longer applied - thank goodness. One chose to join the military. I had a cousin shoes this route. Me, I did not and as a pacifist want to know why those who choose a militarist approach should benefit. The reality of your suggestion is a number of young would join the military just to ensure a debt free tertiary education. So your military would end up with those within it who did not want to be there.

Hey ho, I appreciate I am in the minority.

 

[Hindsight]

I am not insulting anyone, just pointing out that some are elevated to a perch that they do not yet deserve.

In that case can we have an upper age limit as well, after all as one gets past a certain age, lets say 70 for arguments sake then to be frank you ain't got a lot longer left on this mortal earth and do you deserve a right to say what should happen after you have fallen off the perch?

 

[le bon paysan]

Why this focus on the military. I am of a generation where national service no longer applied - thank goodness. One chose to join the military. I had a cousin shoes this route. Me, I did not and as a pacifist want to know why those who choose a militarist approach should benefit. The reality of your suggestion is a number of young would join the military just to ensure a debt free tertiary education. So your military would end up with those within it who did not want to be there.



Hey ho, I appreciate I am in the minority.

You are serving your country.
You won't last 5 years if you don't want to be there.
I think it's a reasonable proposition.

 

[Danllan]

Why this focus on the military. I am of a generation where national service no longer applied - thank goodness. One chose to join the military. I had a cousin shoes this route. Me, I did not and as a pacifist want to know why those who choose a militarist approach should benefit. The reality of your suggestion is a number of young would join the military just to ensure a debt free tertiary education. So your military would end up with those within it who did not want to be there.

Hey ho, I appreciate I am in the minority.

Check my post at #88, it would not be compulsory and there would not be a military slant for all or, probably, even for some who wanted it. The point is, and for me it is a an important reciprocation, the individual would be putting something into the country before taking something out - I can't see how pacifism or any other philosophy other than anarchism can see that as unreasonable. And, as I wrote, it would give the individuals a vested interest in the country and, perhaps most importantly in some case, it would give the country good reason to be grateful to the individual.

Armies are not per se bad things, fighting and killing is sometimes necessary; I think your choice of the word 'militarist' was a poor one, it has highly negative connotations. Pacifism is a reasonable and, for some, rational thing to adhere to. But those who do so should always bear in mind that a great many people have died for them to be able to still hold and express such beliefs. Bullies have to be stood up to, aggression has to be defended against and somebody, ultimately an individual, has to be amongst those who do it.

 

[Hindsight]

Check my post at #88, it would not be compulsory and there would not be a military slant for all or, probably, even for some who wanted it. The point is, and for me it is a an important reciprocation, the individual would be putting something into the country before taking something out - I can't see how pacifism or any other philosophy other than anarchism can see that as unreasonable. And, as I wrote, it would give the individuals a vested interest in the country and, perhaps most importantly in some case, it would give the country good reason to be grateful to the individual.

Armies are not per se bad things, fighting and killing is sometimes necessary; I think your choice of the word 'militarist' was a poor one, it has highly negative connotations. Pacifism is a reasonable and, for some, rational thing to adhere to. But those who do so should always bear in mind that a great many people have died for them to be able to still hold and express such beliefs. Bullies have to be stood up to, aggression has to be defended against and somebody, ultimately an individual, has to be the amongst those who do it.

You did, and although I have not given the matter much consideration I can concur in general with your view - but my reply was to Le Bon Paysan post 102 who focussed solely on the military. Hence the slant of my reply. I appreciate the view of many that pacifists take an easy route relying on the blood of others to secure their freedoms. My objection was to the compulsory element of young having to join the military. Your approach allowed a range of 'acceptable' roles.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Why this focus on the military. I am of a generation where national service no longer applied - thank goodness. One chose to join the military. I had a cousin shoes this route. Me, I did not and as a pacifist want to know why those who choose a militarist approach should benefit. The reality of your suggestion is a number of young would join the military just to ensure a debt free tertiary education. So your military would end up with those within it who did not want to be there.

Hey ho, I appreciate I am in the minority.

Would none of the training in aspects other than fighting be of interest ?

Never wanted to maintain a tank, frigate or helicopter ? Chef for a large group of people ? Logistics ? Communications ? Civil engineering ?

There are lots of opportunites beyond the military aspects. Okay if you'd be unhappy and see no prospects then fair enough.

 

[Hindsight]

Would none of the training in aspects other than fighting be of interest ?

Never wanted to maintain a tank, frigate or helicopter ? Chef for a large group of people ? Logistics ? Communications ? Civil engineering ?

There are lots of opportunites beyond the military aspects. Okay if you'd be unhappy and see no prospects then fair enough.

Personally no, but I can appreciate your direction. Indeed I note recent TV advertising for army / navy careers focusses on the technical support required to maintain and operate the machinery rather than the actual fighting soldiers / sailors. Whether this sort of training / opportunities has to be in the military and compulsory is debatable.

I see this idea of 'national service' come along every so often - bit like a bus - usually promoted by a certain age group wanting to sort out the young. Hey ho.

 

[caveman]

Personally no, but I can appreciate your direction. Indeed I note recent TV advertising for army / navy careers focusses on the technical support required to maintain and operate the machinery rather than the actual fighting soldiers / sailors. Whether this sort of training / opportunities has to be in the military and compulsory is debatable.

I see this idea of 'national service' come along every so often - bit like a bus - usually promoted by a certain age group wanting to sort out the young. Hey ho.

I blame the parents.
But then.
If they'd been subject to national service..........

 

[rob1]

I blame the parents.
But then.
If they'd been subject to national service..........

more like the grandparents,call up for national service ended in 1960 so they would be 75 now

 

[arcobob]

In that case can we have an upper age limit as well, after all as one gets past a certain age, lets say 70 for arguments sake then to be frank you ain't got a lot longer left on this mortal earth and do you deserve a right to say what should happen after you have fallen off the perch?

One day you may reach a certain age when, like most people, you look back and realise that a lifetime of experience has changed your views. Until that happens you will never know.

 

[caveman]

more like the grandparents,call up for national service ended in 1960 so they would be 75 now

I was referring to bringing up (or not) their kids to be respectfull and usefull members of society.
And that's soon to get harder (in Scotland).

 

[caveman]

In that case can we have an upper age limit as well, after all as one gets past a certain age, lets say 70 for arguments sake then to be frank you ain't got a lot longer left on this mortal earth and do you deserve a right to say what should happen after you have fallen off the perch?

Nothing like letting kids rule your life.
Why should some young know nothing punks tell those on the top perch how to do it?
Jeez. They've not even got the sense to see that what most of us do is done for them.

 

[JMx]

Hi asparagus brain could u please check ur inbox

xxx

 

[Danllan]

Personally no, but I can appreciate your direction. Indeed I note recent TV advertising for army / navy careers focusses on the technical support required to maintain and operate the machinery rather than the actual fighting soldiers / sailors. Whether this sort of training / opportunities has to be in the military and compulsory is debatable.

I see this idea of 'national service' come along every so often - bit like a bus - usually promoted by a certain age group wanting to sort out the young. Hey ho.

Recruiting numbers are down so the military are playing the 'hey, we don't just kill people, in fact we won't even mention that' card. As I wrote, pacifism is for some people a clear choice. We used to live a few miles away from the Bucks border and I went to school with some Quaker boys, and through them I met many older Quakers. Some had refused any military involvement in WWII, others had taken on non-combatant roles such as medical orderlies or ambulance drivers, others had remained in the UK.

I understand not wishing to help with military matters, but I can't see the problem with farm work or helping the elderly. Some did see a problem with that, the inference being that 'anything' would help the war effort and therefore not be compatible with their conscience. They ended up in prison, therefore using resources / manpower up and so helping the Germans... irrational to me, but their conscience was clearly more important to them than somebody else's ability to choose or, indeed, somebody else's life.

Anyway, I have digressed, my point being that self-exemption from military service would be fine by me - no 'pressed' men wanted - but, if you want to benefit from society you must contribute to it. Can't say fairer than that.

 

[Muck Spreader]

Nothing like letting kids rule your life.
Why should some young know nothing punks tell those on the top perch how to do it?
Jeez. They've not even got the sense to see that what most of us do is done for them.

Maybe, but in my eyes it's probably best summed up by Philip Larkin's well known poem.

 

[Hindsight]

Nothing like letting kids rule your life.
Why should some young know nothing punks tell those on the top perch how to do it?
Jeez. They've not even got the sense to see that what most of us do is done for them.

Nothing like letting old codgers rule your life
Why should some old know it all codger tell those on the bottom perch how to do it?
Jeez. They've (old codgers) not even got the sense to see that what most of us do is for them (going to spend the next forty years or more paying taxes etc to (for example) support them as they use the NHS and refuse to die!!)

Usually two sides to a story. Hey ho.

Sorry meant to add - a parody of your post, rather tongue in cheek, but maybe an element of the younger ones thoughts??

 

[rob1]

Maybe, but in my eyes it's probably best summed up by Philip Larkin's well known poem.

And when they have kids they realise just how much their parents did for them