NI Number talk

Originally Posted by startrek.steve

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]

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.

Originally Posted by timwilky

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.

Originally Posted by timwilky

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.

Originally Posted by Baph

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.

Originally Posted by neio79

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.

Originally Posted by Baph

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.

Originally Posted by MiniMatt

Ok, Ed, I'm going to pick a fight with you now 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]

Originally Posted by Ed

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