View Full Version : NI Number talk
plowsie
02-07-08, 11:14 AM
After hearing something that I thought may be something that comes out of a bull's rear end, I decided I would look into NI Numbers a bit more. A friend of mine seemed to think that National Insurance numbers, more importantly the letter at the end, deemed as at what point you would be forced into War at, for instance A was first B next, so on, so on.
So I was searching about on google and came across this (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_last_letter_mean_on_the_British_Nati onal_Insurance_number_card) page, look at the last point. Is this just a Chinese whisper that has got out of hand or is there some reality in it?
Other than deeming our NI contributions, does the NI number have any other uses or meanings?
And yes, mine does end in B :smt066
Mine is A.
No idea what that means.
plowsie
02-07-08, 11:22 AM
This is what I thought, whether it actually has a meaning now, as in that article it says that it bears no meaning now...
Biker Biggles
02-07-08, 11:28 AM
Does it change as you get older and thus no longer eligable as cannon fodder?
Plowsie plowsie plowsie...
You quote wiki & ask if it's accurate? :rolleyes:
For the geeks, the regex for NINO's is:
"^[A-CEGHJ-PR-TW-Z][A-CEGHJ-NPR-TW-Z] ?\d{2} ?\d{2} ?\d{2} ?[ABCDFM]"
Basically, that means that there are only certain combinations for the first 2 letters, the numbers are sequential dependant on various personal details, and the last letter can be any of A,B,C,D,F,M.
Originally, the last letter actually denoted when end of year tax assessments were done, being:
A= March
B= June
C= September
D= December
The F or M were added later, and usually weren't issued like that by HMRC, but were wrongly put by people on formal documents, so had to be accepted ad-hoc. Generally because of this "end user error" the suffix is completely ignored by HMRC, as the rest happily identifies you individually.
I've done more than the odd software contract for HMRC. :)
If there was a war to the extent of WWI and WWII that didnt involve nuke that irradicated earth then I would be shocked.
If there was a war to that extent that didnt involve nuke but good old warfare and troop number were running low, I would be first in line.
timwilky
02-07-08, 12:00 PM
If there was a war to the extent of WWI and WWII that didnt involve nuke that irradicated earth then I would be shocked.
If there was a war to that extent that didnt involve nuke but good old warfare and troop number were running low, I would be first in line.
And I would have be dragged to the end of the line. I am prepared to risk my life and even kill. but for my own agenda and certainly not until those who have committed to the mass killing of a nation, have sacrificed theirs first.
Never again will we be in a position to say "Over the top chaps" and expect blinding obedience. Let generals lead from the front. If the plan is that good they should be prepared to share the risk
Jayneflakes
02-07-08, 12:11 PM
If there was a war to the extent of WWI and WWII that didnt involve nuke that irradicated earth then I would be shocked.
If there was a war to that extent that didnt involve nuke but good old warfare and troop number were running low, I would be first in line.
No matter what urban myths may be about on the subject of our NINOs, there is one thing I don't have to worry about.
They don't send people like me to war. :smt066
I became a pacifist aged eleven... We just get bunged in jail or made to plough fields with our finger nails! :laughat:
Luckypants
02-07-08, 12:29 PM
I became a pacifist aged eleven... We just get bunged in jail or made to plough fields with our finger nails! :laughat:
Or you get sent to be a field medic, recovering casualties under fire. This is what 'conscientious objectors' did in both World Wars.
Jayneflakes
02-07-08, 12:37 PM
Or you get sent to be a field medic, recovering casualties under fire. This is what 'conscientious objectors' did in both World Wars.
Ooh Noes... :sick:
I can't stand the sight of blood, gore, bullet wounds and carnage. It reminds me of living in Plymouth! :smt077
See, you talk geek and everyone goes off topic... :rolleyes: :D
yorkie_chris
02-07-08, 01:06 PM
Or you get sent to be a field medic, recovering casualties under fire. This is what 'conscientious objectors' did in both World Wars.
And there's the diffference between a conscientious objector and a coward.
Jayneflakes
02-07-08, 01:23 PM
And there's the diffference between a conscientious objector and a coward.
Hmm...
Mind you, is there really that much difference between cowardice and not wanting to be blown up, shot in half, sprayed with mustard gas, Blinded by shrapnel, caught in barbed wire, evaporated by nuclear inferno or made to spray the contents of the bad guy opposite, across the locality?
I find war absolutely revolting, the process of a bullet entering someone, rupturing organs, ripping holes in flesh and spraying blood into lungs to me is so horrifying I had little choice but declare myself to be a pacifist while I was still a child. My Dad was serving in BAOR at the time, he was so disappointed in me I think! :smt066
The thing I remember most from his army days is the big packet he carried with him. "What is that Dad?" I asked in all innocence. "Oh that, it is my bullet wound bandage for when some big scary Russian guy tries to blow great big holes in Daddy, with an AK47." :smt077
Laugh, I nearly cried! :p
I'd sign up and fight:smt066
yorkie_chris
02-07-08, 03:37 PM
I like the quote:
"those who would give up liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
If there's nothing in the world worth risking your life for then whats worth living for?
Pacifism, the avoidance of warfare at any cost makes you pretty much a sheep... what would you do if confronted by a violent situation? Sure don't look for a fight, but that's different to not doing what's right when the need presents itself.
tinpants
03-07-08, 05:42 PM
I like the quote:
"those who would give up liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
If there's nothing in the world worth risking your life for then whats worth living for?
Pacifism, the avoidance of warfare at any cost makes you pretty much a sheep... what would you do if confronted by a violent situation? Sure don't look for a fight, but that's different to not doing what's right when the need presents itself.
That is one of the best posts I've read on here for a very long time.
Chris, search me out at the AR. I'll buy you a beer.
MiniMatt
04-07-08, 12:14 AM
Never again will we be in a position to say "Over the top chaps" and expect blinding obedience. Let generals lead from the front. If the plan is that good they should be prepared to share the risk
If only they would eh? In my rarely humble opinion it should be written into law that the children of any leader who declares war are to lead the charge on each and every offensive, first in and last out. It's become all too easy to throw away other people's children of late. How many cabinet ministers (even Junior ministers) had children serving in the forces when they declared war on Iraq? None. Not one. How many serving MPs died fighting in WWI? Twenty two. How many children of serving MPs died in WW1? Eighty five. That's a difference not in society but in a strength of conviction - fighting because the cause is just or because it's the only remaining choice. Not thowing away other peoples children as mere numbers on a spread sheet.
"If any question why we died, tell them, 'because our fathers lied'" - to quote Kipling
MiniMatt
04-07-08, 01:17 AM
Hmm...
Mind you, is there really that much difference between cowardice and not wanting to be blown up, shot in half, sprayed with mustard gas, Blinded by shrapnel, caught in barbed wire, evaporated by nuclear inferno or made to spray the contents of the bad guy opposite, across the locality?
I find war absolutely revolting, the process of a bullet entering someone, rupturing organs, ripping holes in flesh and spraying blood into lungs to me is so horrifying I had little choice but declare myself to be a pacifist while I was still a child. My Dad was serving in BAOR at the time, he was so disappointed in me I think! :smt066
The thing I remember most from his army days is the big packet he carried with him. "What is that Dad?" I asked in all innocence. "Oh that, it is my bullet wound bandage for when some big scary Russian guy tries to blow great big holes in Daddy, with an AK47." :smt077
Laugh, I nearly cried! :p
Yay, thank you :D Perfect description of war. It's not hollywood, it's not "fighting and dying for your country with honour", it's lying in a desert, bleeding to death in screaming agony with half your intestines hanging out. If you don't die immediately of shock and if it doesn't take your brain or heart out then it tends to take quite a while to die. Oh sure, you're dead alright, but you're going to take a while doing it and it sure as hell is going to hurt. My paternal grandfather fought in WW2, he never talked about it. Ever. Not even to his own son apparently, the one thing he said to his three grandsons (he didn't figure it was even possible for his granddaughter to do anything other than crochet & flower arranging, old people eh?) was "never sign up". My maternal grandfather did Korea and several tours round the middle east and said the same thing. He also said something about "the only good arab is a dead arab" but old people eh? We kinda ignored grandad's rantings at that point.
MiniMatt
04-07-08, 02:01 AM
I like the quote:
"those who would give up liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
If there's nothing in the world worth risking your life for then whats worth living for?
Pacifism, the avoidance of warfare at any cost makes you pretty much a sheep... what would you do if confronted by a violent situation? Sure don't look for a fight, but that's different to not doing what's right when the need presents itself.
I love the Franklin quote and have probably used it myself in many threads :D Although I tend to use it in anti-Daily Express rants :D
In defence of pacifism as an ideal I'd say that you're looking at a short term viewpoint. Look at Indian independence and South African democracy - both are fights that were ideologically pacifist. Note that I'm not claiming that the "winning" sides were entirely non-violent by any means but their ideology was peaceful protest. Hell, even WW2 can be significantly blamed upon the military defeat of the German/Austro-Hungarian empires in WW1 - Germany was arguably made a victim of "victor's justice" in WW1 such that it gave the opportunity for Hitler to play upon this sense of injustice and rise to power and subsequently initiate WW2. A pacifist approach may have been a negotiated settlement of WW1 rather than miltary domination and (perceived in Germany) humiliation, thus potentially saving millions of lives in WW2.
I'll confess, I'm not wholy aligned to a pacifist ideology, although for the purposes of this forum I'll happily call myself a "tree hugging hippy" :D
MiniMatt
04-07-08, 02:15 AM
I'd sign up and fight:smt066
First off, I'll confess; it's late, I'm resorting to Stella as a sleep aid and it's not working :D
Ok, Ed, I'm going to pick a fight with you now :D First off, you're too old to fight. Sorry mate. But you are. As such, machismo is hollow :( Replace "I'd sign up and fight with a Rambo smiley" with "I'll spoon feed my 20 year old kid for the rest of his life, wipe his **** and clean the dribble from his chin" for a real picture of war. It ain't so Rambo now is it?
I'm sorry if that was too harsh, I've been around long enough to get a feel for your opinions and respect your intelligence but I feel I have to argue against anything that I perceive continues the blind unquestioning devotion to war (that is, blind, unquestioning devotion to war when it's not you that's fighting but some meaningless school kid statistic - who gives a damn when he dies lonely in the desert, just so long as it's not me I'll happily spout patriotic bull poo).
yorkie_chris
06-07-08, 08:28 PM
stuff
I would mostly agree, the pre-WW2 germany stuff you're right aye, but hindsight is always 20-20 :-P
I would disagree with "honour of your country" type fighting, what's the point...
Fight for survival, or possibly for a fee, but do that in someone else's war :-P
Biker Biggles
06-07-08, 08:35 PM
When I was a kid I was close to my Grandad who had signed up at the start of WW1 with all his mates in the fit of patriotic fervour at the time.He fought in all the major battles and watched all his mates die.Somehow he survived it.I kind of agree with Mini Matt.
yorkie_chris
15-07-08, 01:09 AM
Chris, search me out at the AR. I'll buy you a beer.
Ah f###. I've seen this thread in minimatts sig and I find I've missed out on a beer.
I love the Franklin quote and have probably used it myself in many threads :D Although I tend to use it in anti-Daily Express rants :D
In defence of pacifism as an ideal I'd say that you're looking at a short term viewpoint. Look at Indian independence and South African democracy - both are fights that were ideologically pacifist. Note that I'm not claiming that the "winning" sides were entirely non-violent by any means but their ideology was peaceful protest.
South African democracy now there's a good laugh...
No matter what urban myths may be about on the subject of our NINOs, there is one thing I don't have to worry about.
They don't send people like me to war. :smt066
No they dont send you to the front line as you are as you are Female. However there are plenty of jobs you will be forced to do if the country needed you.
Or you get sent to be a field medic, recovering casualties under fire. This is what 'conscientious objectors' did in both World Wars.
:smt045
Ok, Ed, I'm going to pick a fight with you now :D First off, you're too old to fight. Sorry mate. But you are. As such, machismo is hollow :( Replace "I'd sign up and fight with a Rambo smiley" with "I'll spoon feed my 20 year old kid for the rest of his life, wipe his **** and clean the dribble from his chin" for a real picture of war. It ain't so Rambo now is it?
.
And you have been there havent you, seen it all first hand.:rolleyes:
startrek.steve
15-07-08, 08:12 AM
No matter what urban myths may be about on the subject of our NINOs, there is one thing I don't have to worry about.
They don't send people like me to war. :smt066
I became a pacifist aged eleven... We just get bunged in jail or made to plough fields with our finger nails! :laughat:
dont be too sure Janey....
Theres a lot of minefields out there, and only a limited number of sheep!!
Steve
And there's the diffference between a conscientious objector and a coward.
No there isnt any whatsoever.
I think this thread is getting at if there was a war where the nation was in danger of being ruled by an occupying force type senario, not lets go and decide which oil field to take next.
I would hope that most Men elligble for service in the UK would either join up if needed or if cnscription took place go along with no objections.
I have no time for Cowards (sorry conscientious objector) at all. I find it disgusting that people would even concider no defending their own country if needed to do it. :smt013
Dont get me wrong being shot at and having mortors come in at you if f**king scary as hell , but you just have to get on with it and do the job or task you have been asked to do, all the time using your training to help you stay alive.
startrek.steve
15-07-08, 08:19 AM
I'm an A, but I pretty sure I'm too old to get called up...
I'm an A, but I pretty sure I'm too old to get called up...
I think the upper limit is still 40 for call up.
I'm an A, but I pretty sure I'm too old to get called up...
NI Numbers no longer have any reference to conscription.
HTH.
EDIT: In fact, to my knowledge, NI numbers were never intended for use with conscription. The MOD merely used it as something that not only identifies the population, but also quite neatly groups them. Well, it did a long time ago, it doesn't really now.
timwilky
15-07-08, 08:38 AM
Oh good, no conscription for me then. Off to dads army.
I still think if there was a general call up, the nations yoof would do a bunk and say sod you Gordon.
I still think if there was a general call up, the nations yoof would do a bunk and say sod you Gordon.
I think, to a certain extent, you have a point Tim.
The reality is, for me at least, that I want to emmigrate when the possibility arises. Mainly because I don't really like the way this country is going, or in fact how it is currently.
Neio, what you say is very noble, but for those of us that want to leave the country anyway, what incentive is there for us to lay our lives on the line to protect it as-is?
That said, if there was a genuine need for conscription, I'd be right at the front of the queue. Mainly because I have people that I care about in this country. I wouldn't be fighting for the country, but for the lives and freedoms of those I care about.
As Tim eluded to, the "nations yoof" generally only care about 1 thing, themselves. So they would probably object to conscription.
plowsie
15-07-08, 08:54 AM
I still think if there was a general call up, the nations yoof would do a bunk and say sod you Gordon.
I don't think it would just be the nations youth would it.
EDIT: Just seeen Baph's comment, I personally wouldn't consider things that Big Gord has done if there was a general call-up. There is life after Gordon Brown.
I
As Tim eluded to, the "nations yoof" generally only care about 1 thing, themselves. So they would probably object to conscription.
the can object as much as they want, thats the beauty of conscription, you have no choice.
the can object as much as they want, thats the beauty of conscription, you have no choice.
Military Service Act 1916 grants conciencious objection rights. Furthermore, the term "conciencious objector" is not legally defined, and can be claimed by anyone, for any reason.
Years ago (first World War era) this was over come as local authorities had the ability to decide if someone qualified for Conciencious Objection, however, in the modern world, if someone wanted to fight for the right, they would take it all the way to the High Court/European Court of Human Rights.
Maybe it's also worth pointing out the conditions given to Conciencious Objectors, either:
A) No exceptions whatsoever,
B) Must obtain, and maintain civilian work,
C) Non combative military work (NCC was created for this very purpose).
As the law currently stands, if conscription were brought in, anyone could claim to be a Conciencious Objector for any reason whatsoever. A tribunal would be appointed by the Minister of Labour, and that tribunals decision would be final - although they would only be able to choose A-C, they wouldn't have the right to enforce combative military action. Failure to comply with the tribunals decision results in prison.
I stayed away from this element of the thread as I didn't really want to mount the soap box, but Neio, you gave me no choice by stating something that's clearly wrong. ;)
They should round up all the long term unemployed first and put them forward. After all they will have been looking for jobs for so long, Im sure they'd be more than welcome to accept a job offer.
Ive read many a tale on the horror of war and it is crazy to think that little over 60yrs ago that so many people seemed to relish the opportunity to fight the other side, however I would stand side to side with the next man to fight for this country as my Grandfather did all those years ago. I dont think that conscription is an issue any more as it seems less of a test of manpower over firepower.
Military Service Act 1916 grants conciencious objection rights. Furthermore, the term "conciencious objector" is not legally defined, and can be claimed by anyone, for any reason.
Years ago (first World War era) this was over come as local authorities had the ability to decide if someone qualified for Conciencious Objection, however, in the modern world, if someone wanted to fight for the right, they would take it all the way to the High Court/European Court of Human Rights.
Maybe it's also worth pointing out the conditions given to Conciencious Objectors, either:
A) No exceptions whatsoever,
B) Must obtain, and maintain civilian work,
C) Non combative military work (NCC was created for this very purpose).
As the law currently stands, if conscription were brought in, anyone could claim to be a Conciencious Objector for any reason whatsoever. A tribunal would be appointed by the Minister of Labour, and that tribunals decision would be final - although they would only be able to choose A-C, they wouldn't have the right to enforce combative military action. Failure to comply with the tribunals decision results in prison.
I stayed away from this element of the thread as I didn't really want to mount the soap box, but Neio, you gave me no choice by stating something that's clearly wrong. ;)
Do you think if the country got to the state of needing conscription the government would give a f**k if people started going ohh its against my human rights and ill take you to court, chances are Europe wouldent exist anymore ;).
oh and point A should just read reason- Spineless Coward. The second point i cant understand much as all protected trades like police fire medical services are immune anyhow.
Ok, Ed, I'm going to pick a fight with you now :D First off, you're too old to fight. Sorry mate. But you are. As such, machismo is hollow :( Replace "I'd sign up and fight with a Rambo smiley" with "I'll spoon feed my 20 year old kid for the rest of his life, wipe his **** and clean the dribble from his chin" for a real picture of war. It ain't so Rambo now is it?
I'm sorry if that was too harsh, I've been around long enough to get a feel for your opinions and respect your intelligence but I feel I have to argue against anything that I perceive continues the blind unquestioning devotion to war (that is, blind, unquestioning devotion to war when it's not you that's fighting but some meaningless school kid statistic - who gives a damn when he dies lonely in the desert, just so long as it's not me I'll happily spout patriotic bull poo).
Oh I missed this last week. Yes at age 47 I would be considered too old to fight, even though I'm a lot fitter than many 16 - 30 year olds. The possibility of the United Kingdom being invaded is remote. But if it were Matt, I'd do my bit. In an age of ICBMs I don't know what that bit would be.
I don't like war and I'm not an apologist for violence. When British soldiers are KSI in places far away, I don't simply turn the page of the paper - I always think 'another family torn apart'. Because you're right Matt, it could be my son. I don't have a son, but the point is the same. I think our forces are doing a fantastic job.
Hypothetical quezzie maybe, but I want to know whether the objectors here would simply let the Russians or whoever walk on in and not resist.
yorkie_chris
15-07-08, 10:09 AM
Hypothetical quezzie maybe, but I want to know whether the objectors here would simply let the Russians or whoever walk on in and not resist.
Half of these goddamn pinko hippies are commies anyway, they'd probably love the idea of some tinpot dictator :-P
Filipe M.
15-07-08, 10:10 AM
Hypothetical quezzie maybe, but I want to know whether the objectors here would simply let the EU or whoever walk on in and not resist.
Corrected for you, Ed.
. In an age of ICBMs I don't know what that bit would be.
I.
Simple carry out the IA (immediate action )drill of either vapourise on the spot or throw yourself up in the air in hudereds of bits and scatter yourself across a 100m radius!!
Do you think if the country got to the state of needing conscription the government would give a f**k if people started going ohh its against my human rights and ill take you to court, chances are Europe wouldent exist anymore ;).
oh and point A should just read reason- Spineless Coward. The second point i cant understand much as all protected trades like police fire medical services are immune anyhow.
I think the government would find it quite hard to imprison people for failing to comply with a Conscription Order - if they hadn't given due process to their own legal system.
Also, point A is intended for those that cannot hold any civilian work. Conscription applies to all British subjects (regardless of gender) aged between 18 and 51 (not 40 as you previously stated), with the following exceptions:
- British subjects that have previously been granted asylum for any reason, so long as this wasn't more than 2 years previous to the Conscription Order.
- People employed by the government of the British Empire, except the UK.
- Clergy.
- Mental patients, or indeed, anyone with any mental disability.
- Blind people.
- Married women.
- Women with children under 14 years old.
Maybe worth pointing out that pregnant women can also be conscripted (legally), but in practice never were.
To take an example of a member of the forum that I reckon would be granted category A Concencious Objection (if they claimed it) would be mister_c. He could, if he chose, fulfil some form of military role (and I don't doubt that he would try), but equally, if he chose to object, he cannot medically hold civilian work (despite the fact I know he's itching to get back to work!).
There are other industries that would be vital to the operation of the country, yet are not protected by the laws surrounding Conscription. For example, power generation for the national grid.
Point B is designed more as a "We recognise your right to object, however, you must hold civilian work otherwise you may as well be in the military." Basically, if you're category B, and you're fired or laid off, then expect to have a gun in your hand quite quickly. Naturally that's subject to an intermediary term, which IIRC, was 7 days.
EDIT: Given that I know where you're coming from Neio, before you mention the option of lining up Conciencious Objectors & using a Firing Squad, I'll throw in "War Crime."
There are other industries that would be vital to the operation of the country, yet are not protected by the laws surrounding Conscription. For example, power generation for the national grid.
."
not really, similaer to the WW2, the people who couldent go ( women with kids etc) and under 18's and over 40's would do those jobs.
Simple carry out the IA (immediate action )drill of either vapourise on the spot or throw yourself up in the air in hudereds of bits and scatter yourself across a 100m radius!!
Think I'll spend the weekend tying bits of wool to a security fence at a US airbase. That'll stop the nuclear stuff.
EDIT: Given that I know where you're coming from Neio, before you mention the option of lining up Conciencious Objectors & using a Firing Squad, I'll throw in "War Crime."
Nah that is a waste of people who in war would be capable of cleaning up after the rest of us with some ball and doing all the sh*t jobs while the rest of us get on with fighting to defend our homeland.
not really, similaer to the WW2, the people who couldent go ( women with kids etc) and under 18's and over 40's would do those jobs.
Again, the upper age limit for Conscription is 51. This was changed in 1918, in the fourth revision of the Military Service Act.
You have to accept though that those not eligible for Conscription may not fulfill all required roles in civilian employment.
Anyhow, I only waded into this to clarify that actually, yes, people do actually have an option about Conscription. :) Granted that option is limited by the outcome of the tribunal, but the option still remains.
ct.
You have to accept though that those not eligible for Conscription may not fulfill all required roles in civilian employment.
Anyhow, I only waded into this to clarify that actually, yes, people do actually have an option about Conscription. :) Granted that option is limited by the outcome of the tribunal, but the option still remains.
not really, anyone can generally be trained to do anyhting. And as we are talking hypothetically about a WW3 and the Uk's boundry defence only sessential services would really carry on normally most industrys would be wound down for the duration.
yes the trubunal would give them an option. Although it would hopefully consist of mainly military and defence staff to listen to the snivilling cowards plead their case before f*8king them off to the nearest barracks for training and preperation for war.
Filipe M.
15-07-08, 10:40 AM
yes the trubunal would give them an option. Although it would hopefully consist of mainly military and defence staff to listen to the snivilling cowards plead their case before f*8king them off to the nearest barracks for training and preperation for war.
*said in a Hugh Laurie kind of voice*
C'mon guys, differential diagnosis for this one. I'll start with hormonal inbalance, too much testosterone! :p
yorkie_chris
15-07-08, 10:43 AM
*said in a Hugh Laurie kind of voice*
C'mon guys, differential diagnosis for this one. I'll start with hormonal inbalance, too much testosterone! :p
A couple of blackadder quotes come to mind :-P
not really, anyone can generally be trained to do anyhting.
You really want to continue arguing don't you? :rolleyes:
You've obviously been reading my sig & acting accordingly on it Neio. ;) You have your opinion, and I'm guessing that in part, that comes from your service.
However, I'd like to believe that only a manageable percentage of the population would apply for Conciencious Objection status (imagine if millions of people wanted tribunals - and then appealed the decision?). So I don't see the need for draconian measures.
yorkie_chris
15-07-08, 10:46 AM
This country has the other small problem that we've got less guns than people. So unless going forth in a south park styled "operation get behind the unemployed" it'd be fairly pointless forcing anyone into service :-P
This country has the other small problem that we've got less guns than people. So unless going forth in a south park styled "operation get behind the unemployed" it'd be fairly pointless forcing anyone into service :-P
given the UK is one of the main arms suppliers to the world i think we could russtle up a few guns for everyone to have.
yorkie_chris
15-07-08, 10:58 AM
with our efficient government we'd be fending off MBT's with pick handles. :-P
startrek.steve
15-07-08, 11:07 AM
I think the upper limit is still 40 for call up.
like I said mate.... 50.... too old..
51 next week!!! argh!! (and me still with the brain of a teenager!)
Steve
like I said mate.... 50.... too old..
51 next week!!! argh!! (and me still with the brain of a teenager!)
Epic fail Steve.
Re-read the thread, you're still eligible for Conscription for another week!
startrek.steve
15-07-08, 11:10 AM
The possibility of the United Kingdom being invaded is remote. But if it were Matt, I'd do my bit. In an age of ICBMs I don't know what that bit would be.
Well if you rode a scooter and wore a Parka with a target on your back, I can think of a bit part for you!!
Steve
Filipe M.
15-07-08, 11:11 AM
Well if you rode a scooter and wore a Parka with a target on your back, I can think of a bit part for you!!
Steve
Friendly fire target practice for the allies? :lol:
startrek.steve
15-07-08, 11:13 AM
Epic fail Steve.
Re-read the thread, you're still eligible for Conscription for another week!
Ok!
Im holding my breath, and Im not going to breathe out until Im 51!!!
just watch!!!
Steve
Flamin_Squirrel
15-07-08, 11:23 AM
I still think if there was a general call up, the nations yoof would do a bunk and say sod you Gordon.
I'd hope you were wrong, but Tony Blair certainly has much to answer for. Before he betrayed the publics trust over Iraq, I think it's safe to say that when the British government decaired war that people generally accepted it was necessary. Now that trust is gone it's going to be much harder for this or any future government to convince the general public that we should be sending our armed forces to get maimed and killed, much less sign up themselves.
That's got less to do with people being cowards though, more to do with wanting to know that if the worst happens, they didn't take a bullet due to the insane whim of a lunatic Texan. A true coward is one who doesn't sign up when they're in danger of attack anyway, and I think the following (snippet of a) quote sums it up nicely
A man who has nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the existing of better men than himself
I'd hope you were wrong, but Tony Blair certainly has much to answer for. Before he betrayed the publics trust over Iraq, I think it's safe to say that when the British government decaired war that people generally accepted it was necessary. Now that trust is gone it's going to be much harder for this or any future government to convince the general public that we should be sending our armed forces to get maimed and killed, much less sign up themselves.
That's got less to do with people being cowards though, more to do with wanting to know that if the worst happens, they didn't take a bullet due to the insane whim of a lunatic Texan. A true coward is one who doesn't sign up when they're in danger of attack anyway, and I think the following (snippet of a) quote sums it up nicely
A man who has nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the existing of better men than himself
Yeah unfortunatly for us though we have no choice but to go where the lieing cretins in power decide to send us. I would much rather be fighting for the UK than just as you say on the whim of a stupid Texan.
However once there if i am taking incomming i will fight for all i am worth to ensure me and my mates make it back alive.
Unfortunatly a flip side is a lot of people will use the 'is it a just cause' if the need arose to hide behind it and not sign up etc.
timwilky
15-07-08, 11:37 AM
The lessons of Vietnam show that war must be for a just purpose before it can be fully supported, we know only too well in this age of Iraq and Afghanistan how prepared people are to fight for a cause they believe in.
Would this country be invaded by an occupying power, I would be prepared to fight that occupier, would I permit my son to be sent to Iraq, Afghanistan poorly equipped to protect himself, land rovers against explosives, insufficient air power etc. No.
If we are to wage war, do it properly, commit to obliterating your enemy, carpet bomb and napalm. Then put any survivors out of their misery. Collateral damage! No such thing with Dresden, Hiroshima etc.
would I permit my son to be sent to Iraq, Afghanistan poorly equipped to protect himself, land rovers against explosives, insufficient air power etc. No.
.
dont belive all you read in the paper.
dont belive all you read in the paper.
Great for moral, and PR if the armed forces are seen to be lying about the current state of affairs.
Maybe lying is not accurate enough, lets say "not correcting reports" instead.
Great for moral, and PR if the armed forces are seen to be lying about the current state of affairs.
Maybe lying is not accurate enough, lets say "not correcting reports" instead.
what i meant is that the papers are quick to point out the fact our armour has in the past been penetrated by RPG's etc but negates to report the vast vast differances between the latest warriors and their armour going out to theater now. they are almost as well armoured as some main battle tanks.
see if you can find a pic of one of the first warriors out say in 04 and a pic of one now with all its armour and EW protection on it.
Hardly anyone has answered the question:confused:
Would you defend the country against foreign invasion? Yes/no?
Filipe M.
15-07-08, 02:00 PM
Hardly anyone has answered the question:confused:
Would you defend the country against foreign invasion? Yes/no?
Ed, I think that question in itself raises a whole lot of other questions, one of them being "what's there to defend anyway?". Just my two euro cents, and I'm not trying to stir the pot in any way.
fizzwheel
15-07-08, 02:01 PM
Would you defend the country against foreign invasion? Yes/no?
Yes if my way of life was under threat or my loved ones or friend were. I dont know if I'd be a good soldier though. I'm not good and being told what to do I also dont know if I could shoot another person. I hope I never have to find out
Would I go to war because America has run out of oil and Geoge Bush told Tony Blair that he wouldnt be his friend anymore if he didnt commit troops to the war on Terror for example. No I wouldnt.
I have massive massive respect for our troops and what they get asked to do, Especially with Liz being in the TA brings another aspect to it.
Would I go to war because America has run out of oil and Geoge Bush told Tony Blair that he wouldnt be his friend anymore if he didnt commit troops to the war on Terror for example. No I wouldnt.
.
Nah we have done that alreeady. I cant wait til December when that Cretin in the Whitehouse goes, then i imagine the whole world will sigh a big sigh of relief!!
Nah we have done that alreeady. I cant wait til December when that Cretin in the Whitehouse goes, then i imagine the whole world will sigh a big sigh of relief!!
I doubt it, they'll simply vote in another. After all the choice is not very attractive and it's more a question of who would make the less worse President, not who would make the better. Shame the Democrats dumped Hillary, while I personally don't like her I think she's do a better job.
Anyway. Messie is first for the bullet;-)
And Filipe - what is there to defend - come on over, I'll show you:D
Filipe M.
15-07-08, 02:12 PM
And Filipe - what is there to defend - come on over, I'll show you:D
I'll gladly take you up on that someday.
I doubt it, they'll simply vote in another. After all the choice is not very attractive and it's more a question of who would make the less worse President, not who would make the better. Shame the Democrats dumped Hillary, while I personally don't like her I think she's do a better job.
Anyway. Messie is first for the bullet;-)
And Filipe - what is there to defend - come on over, I'll show you:D
I suppose but not all the candidates seem to have to prove to their daddy they can invade Iraq as well.
Anyway. Messie is first for the bullet;-)
You'll never find me. Lalalala I've got my fingers in my ears and I'm hiding in the cellar (hugging a tree)
Flamin_Squirrel
15-07-08, 02:18 PM
Yes if my way of life was under threat or my loved ones or friend were. I dont know if I'd be a good soldier though. I'm not good and being told what to do I also dont know if I could shoot another person. I hope I never have to find out
Would I go to war because America has run out of oil and Geoge Bush told Tony Blair that he wouldnt be his friend anymore if he didnt commit troops to the war on Terror for example. No I wouldnt.
Although, being a capitalist society, our way of life is dependant on power and the money which, it brings. Therefore it could be argued that going to war for oil is as much about protecting our way of life as guarding our borders from foreign threats.
Not interesting in sparking (another) thread about whether it was right to go to war with Iraq, but whether a war is in our best interests isn't that clear cut.
Not interesting in sparking (another) thread about whether it was right to go to war with Iraq, but whether a war is in our best interests isn't that clear cut.
Also i think the Government realised there was no where to send us to keep our combat skills up with the drawdown from NI, so a new chalange appeared! ;)
You'll never find me. Lalalala I've got my fingers in my ears and I'm hiding in the cellar (hugging a tree)
We have trees in the cellar now? :shock:
Mind, if they're apple trees I suppose it's easier to make cider...
It's my special cellar in Lala land where there are trees and pixies and butterflies and everything is lovely
Anyone want to join me there?
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.