In the news

Football as harmless fun? It's big business my friend. I knew kids who bet their whole life on it, and when it didn't work out they had nothing to fall back on.

That's a failure of parenting.

Maybe being keen to join the army is failure of parenting too?

Actually, I'm confused - what's the point?

In any case, those guys' parents may very well have been pushing them to get their qualifications in case it went tits up, and they just didn't listen... maybe.

I'm not sure where that stat has come from but I'm pretty sure that troops under 18 are not deployed on the frontline so it seems a bit unlikely.

Personally I know a fair few people from school (all boys comp in a fairly disadvantaged industrial town) who went into the army and came out having developed as a person much more than if they'd stayed in the same town doing some crap (or more likely no) jobs.

I don't agree with recruiting at 16 but you do need the parent's permission as well. Also another two years of forced education isn't necessarily going to benefit everyone (although I'd suggest apprenticeships would be more beneficial).

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/human-rights/Briefing_from_Forces_Watch_age_of_recruitment.pdf

members of the armed forces cannot legally be deployed on the frontline until they turn (18).

Not everybody who joins the military gets shot at or ends up falling apart from PTSD and living on the streets. Sure, some people are failed by the military when the time comes to leave but the majority aren't. It's a very complex situation. Change is needed but I don't think it translates into the military being a predatory organisation that takes you in, puts you in danger then spits you out.

Current legislation prohibits anyone under the age of 18 to engage in a hostile situation as expected in a war zone. 16 and 17 year olds can join the Army but cannot be sent to a war zone. This is not that relevant though because only about 20% of deaths in service happen as a result of combat. The biggest killer of armed forces is still cancer, followed by traffic accidents.

To out that into figures, death rates last year were 39 in 100,000.

That's about 7 per 100,00 as a result of incidents in a hostile area.

Edit: in fact, last year you were more likely to die as a civilian than as a member of the armed forces. By some way.

Go on, I'll bite - What sampling is being used for these stats?

I'm not being funny, but did you read the article?

Yep. In fact I skim read focusing on the bit you quoted, was a bit confused how it was relevant and then read the whole thing properly.

There is a difference between an extra curricular cadet force doing fun outdoorsy stuff and marching and targeted marking and school visits to deprived schools offering a way out.

For eg how brilliant from a marketing POV is the Royal Navy born in Carlisle /made in the Royal Navy ad?

I accept there is some crossover and a sort of link, but didn't see anything in the article which directly relates to CCF.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/511812/20160331_UK_AF_Deaths_National_Statistic_2016-O.pdf

it's not all shit sandwiches, fishfingers and drizzle - THERE'S ONLY A RUDDY BROS REUNION IN THE OFF!

they're 48 now.

If you can't see the difference between recruiting young people into sport

I'd echo the point about football not being harmless. But equally I don't think they're quite the same.

@Fox and if you follow what is happening in rugby union in the professional era you'll see professional sport is casting the one who made it adrift in there late 20 /early 30s.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2016/may/17/championship-wild-west-professional-rugby-union-dangers

You're all missing the point - our current paralympians are going to be too old to keep winning medals, so they need a fresh generation of adrenaline-charged young people to go into warzones and have limbs blown off ready for 2020 and 2024.

find good athletes; remove limb(s); WIN

fine with me

It's a bit too light on methodology for standardised mortality rates to see how they compare the two.

I wonder what the statistics are for ex-forces personnel.

Is the issue not that a country having an army is wrong, but more that the British Army has demonstrably been a force for evil in the world, certainly in recent decades. It's hard not to question the moral compass of anyone who chooses to join such an institution knowing they are likely to be called on to unquestioningly kill on the whim of whichever business interests are currently pushing the buttons.

quick Google suggests only 7 out of 264 GB athletes at Rio paralympics were ex-military. I thought it would be more than that.

both of them?

wut?

It's true that for some people in deprived areas the army can give them opportunities they otherwise don't get.

But isn't the issue then that there are no opportunities?
Why does the UK gov keep pushing the army as heroic, yet injured veterans have to fight for help sometimes? [see also the USA btw]

That just doesn't sit well with me.

This. I was surprised to see a low suicide rate for serving personnel. I wonder how post military stats compare to civilian life?

Farrage has done a Jay Z.

he's like a turd that won't flush away.

The overall spirit of the last 20 or so comments is a bit one sided. Your argument seems to be that exposing more youngsters to army training will fill society with more aggressive psychopaths. Could it not be the other way? That in expanding the recruitment base one would succeed in including more normal people, as opposed to just the weirdos, which could make for a 'softer' more level headed army.

My own observations in 2003, when the US and the UK were drumming up support for the invasion of Iraq, was that countries with national service were more reluctant to join.

Your argument seems to be that exposing more youngsters to army training will produce more aggressive psychopaths overall

Is it? I must be reading a different thread.