Bringing back National Service for ALL 16yr olds

[Futuo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14527402

bring on the pain

[IMF]

If the government only gave benefits for one kid instead of per kid, we'd be in such a better world right now.

Sorry crossed wires, understand what you saying now. Id say 2 kids though, but the country cant go on keeping ppl who seem to think they are only on the planet to breed, one of the kids in my daughters class has 9 siblings....yep parents on benefits, that is just taking the piss, another lives across the road from me, brand new car on disability for her deaf son & lazy husband who has a bad back, but yet he can still do all the things that a so called able bodied man does! why isnt he made to do a desk job? just about to have her 5th child, pops another one out as soon as the youngest starts full time school!
Its people like this & those doing benefit frayd who are being a huge drain on the system, not exactly giving their own kids a good role model, its like saying get pregnant gov gives you money & a free house, sad sad times.

Agree - 2 kids is fine. It's where people have had like you said 5-9 kids where the issues are. How can you ever raise that many kids in a good way especially when all you do is live off the government??

I don't agree with national service for ALL 16 year old kids who don't go into higher education or don't work...

But I agree it should be for all who don't find a job within a set period and aren't in higher education. Do the service for 6 months or risk losing your benefits forever.

And by national service I want them to be sweeping roads. I wouldn't trust them with a gun.

[SE13]

I'm all for National service. I would have signed up myself, but they wouldn't have me for various reasons.

Obviously there has to be some exceptions, but for the majority, it would drill discipline in at a young age.

Referendum on it? Gets my vote.

[TRA Dial Square]

So just a question... You stop the 'benefits' for those on it who looted/rioted.

What's the punishment for those who aren't on it? I dunno say for example:

The Army recruit.

The Social Worker.

The Lawyer.

The Olympic athlete/ambassador.

The Teaching Assistant.

The University Lecturer.

The Millionaire's daughter.

Et al?

Not all these rioters/looters were kids. Not all of them were from 'hard up' families on benefits - But those are the ones who're getting the "riot" act read to them [excuse the pun].

[Futuo]

They are very much in the minority regardless of what the media will have you believe, they are the exceptions that are worth concentrating on.

But what is wrong with custodial sentences?

[TRA Dial Square]

They are very much in the minority regardless of what the media will have you believe, they are the exceptions that are worth concentrating on.

But what is wrong with custodial sentences?

Worth concentrating on or not worth concentrating on? If the latter, you're joking right?

Minority or not, these are not 10-16yr old kids these are grown adults, most of them in actual positions of authority and people kids are supposed to look up to...

I know you added about custodial sentences though - And if anything they should get the highest penal order possible to make a bloody example of them and the kids should get similar punishments.

[Futuo]

I don't know the exact figures but say it is 3000 court cases across England, concentrating on 20 is rather misleading. Much better to tackle this by looking at the majority. Scrotes who won't work, feel they are owed a cushy existence at the expense of the taxpayer. They need a wake up call; removing their free money and free homes may be just the ticket.

Yes chuck the book at those who should know better but not at the expense of going soft on the overwhelming majority.

[TRA Dial Square]

I don't know the exact figures but say it is 3000 court cases across England, concentrating on 20 is rather misleading. Much better to tackle this by looking at the majority. Scrotes who won't work, feel they are owed a cushy existence at the expense of the taxpayer. They need a wake up call; removing their free money and free homes may be just the ticket.

Yes chuck the book at those who should know better but not at the expense of going soft on the overwhelming majority.

It was a hell of a lot more than 20 out of 3000 (Authoritarian Adults > Kids that is) - To even consider the 'overwhelming majority' are "Scrotes that don't work and feel they are owed a cushy existence" is ignorant at best.

A False Flag which is clearly working.

[Futuo]

So do you think the vast majority of the rioters/looters had jobs then?

Now that really would be being ignorant / naive in the extreme.

Feral Kids & Unemployed Scrotes >> Employed

[TRA Dial Square]

So do you think the vast majority of the rioters/looters had jobs then?

Now that really would be being ignorant / naive in the extreme.

Feral Kids & Unemployed Scrotes >> Employed

I didn't say majority BUT how would it be naive or ignorant to assume the majority is the exact opposite of what the Media would have people believe?

Think about it.

[Futuo]

So do you think the vast majority of the rioters/looters had jobs then?

Now that really would be being ignorant / naive in the extreme.

Feral Kids & Unemployed Scrotes >> Employed

I didn't say majority BUT how would it be naive or ignorant to assume the majority is the exact opposite of what the Media would have people believe?

Think about it.

To think that the vast majority of the looters / rioters had jobs let alone respectable jobs would be

a) silly
b) daft
c) naive
d) just plain wrong

take your pick

[TRA Dial Square]

So do you think the vast majority of the rioters/looters had jobs then?

Now that really would be being ignorant / naive in the extreme.

Feral Kids & Unemployed Scrotes >> Employed

I didn't say majority BUT how would it be naive or ignorant to assume the majority is the exact opposite of what the Media would have people believe?

Think about it.

To think that the vast majority of the looters / rioters had jobs let alone respectable jobs would be

a) silly
b) daft
c) naive
d) just plain wrong

take your pick

That's your opinion & you're entitled to it.

But back it up? It's EASY to blame the Jobless, the 'scrotes' those on Benefits, the single chav mums etc... - It's easy to say "Oh respectable job holders were barely involved".

It's not always the truth, however.

[Futuo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14489984

Certainly shows that the vast majority of those picked up and charged were young. But not what job they held down if any.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -girl.html

But a photo never lies, just looking at what they are wearing makes me think - unemployed layabouts not pillars of society.

The Guardian seems to want to say they mostly had jobs QED if the Guardian tries to argue a point fairly certain it's a load of cobblers and the truth offends the average lentil munching do-gooder (as usual). The Guardian has removed all reference to race, which it wouldn't if they were all middle class whites.

[TRA Dial Square]

I can see your beliefs clearly lie in the realm of "If it's in majority of the Media it has to be true"

I can't debate this any longer without pointing out certain things, which at best, will make me sound like a "shrill" or "weirdo" to those who cling to what the Media tells them.

No offence to you or anyone else - It would just do me no favours in doing so.

[Futuo]

I can see your beliefs clearly lie in the realm of "If it's in majority of the Media it has to be true"

I can't debate this any longer without pointing out certain things, which at best, will make me sound like a "shrill" or "weirdo" to those who cling to what the Media tells them.

No offence to you or anyone else - It would just do me no favours in doing so.

Tend to believe what sounds plausible. And ignore what the Daily Wail / Guardian say as they just push their own agendas - all blacks are crims vs. all blacks are lovely peaceful hard done to.