Not happy my 13 year 's class old had recruitment presentation from armed forces today

The RAF officer selection is very tough too. After the first rounds there are 3 days at Cranwell (if you get that far),and those who make it to the end of the 3 days don't necessarily get offered a place. Some are then weeded out in the training. I'm not sure what it was like at 16, because my DS withdrew early on, but it was starting with written exams (with no allowance for dyslexia except to print them on blue paper).
It really isn't the case that they go into schools to dazzle 13 yr olds and take all they can get! DS2 friend who wanted to join the army from a young age, and was a keen member of the army cadets, hasn't managed to get in.

Thanks for answering my questions. Very interesting and informative. Its embarrassing when you don't really understand properly when everyone else seems to, but I find it difficult to make sense of it all- hope you don't think I'm thick, I'm just curious, open minded and happy to admit I don't know enough!

Very sorry for hijacking the OP a bit.

Ilovemydog.....thus is not the US however, and the UK Armed Forces do not recruit 13 year olds.

The competition for the bursaries is very intense, and they are much less generous than the salary my dh went to uni on in the late 70s/early 80s. His parents would have had no problem in sending him; they had shelled out for several years of boarding school; but he wanted to do Engineering, and the RN were prepared to fund his degree.

It is hard to get in; several rounds of selection processes, culminating in an Admiralty Interview Board for the officer candidates, and that is a very tough board indeed. You have to want to do it, and they will weed out very quickly those who don't make the grade or have the necessary commitment to the training.

I think that the Forces would weed out anyone who was glamourising war and killing during the selection process.

The Swiss have a nuclear shelter place for the whole population here
Perhaps I would be happier without defence if I thought we were more prepared!

Seeker,

I personally think some war videogames glamourise combat/killing much more than an army presentation. And besides, 13 yrs old are not stupid - I am sure they know that is it young people who are dying in Afghanistan...

Frankly, if they decide that is a career option for them, all you can do is sit down with them and weigh pros and cons, as you would do with most career choices - and in the long term I am sure that parental support will have the hell of a lot more impact on them than a one-off presentation at school.

PS: I know it is off topic but Monaco, Liechtestein and Andorra? They are never going to be invaded by psychos because these countries are where the psychos, dictators, terrorist and in general the unsavoury characters keep their money hidden. Hardly examples of outstanding moral fibre, I say. Iceland is part of NATO - so if it was ever attacked, it relies on USA defence (which would step in almost immediately given that Iceland is rather close to them).

Even neutral countries like Switzerland have huge armies, so the "I do not need an army if I am good to everyone" argument is great in practice, but unfortunately it takes one psycho somewhere in the world to ruin it.

The Forces have always had privileged access to private schools with the cadet forces. My DH belonged when he was a teenager and got lots of opportunities through it, such as gliding. He didn't join the Forces. My 14yr old nephew had a week at an army camp in the summer with the cadet force at his school. He has no intention of joining the army (or the Navy or RAF for that matter) but he had a fantastic week climbing, abseiling etc. As a glorified 'youth club' it is pretty good. They are not putting pressure to join.
Since I know how difficult it is to get in, it gives me a wry smile to think that they want to get their hands on 13yr olds. When the 13 yr old gets to 18 yrs they will probably find that the Navy doesn't want them!

Well, this is what happened in the US. The military are allowed to recruit on high school campuses, so some of the the students would be 13 years old.

Not sure that there is glamorizing the military itself, but rather the promise to pay college tuition, and solves the problem for a lot of students who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford college.

I don't think the RN have the money to do glam...and having seen the DVDs the RN send to those serving, there is more exciting stuff on the TV.

If they decide to join at 18, so what? My dh did, and had Uni paid for, and has had an exciting and satisfying 30 year career. He has never got bored as he changes jobs every 2-2.5 years, and learns a new set of skills from stripping down torpedoes to dealing with the French at the EU and NATO. Along the way he has picked up academic, professional and sporting qualifications; earned a decent salary, and will get a good pension when he retires. He has seen most of the world for free. He has loads of transferable skills from working in the international arena to straight engineering and the paperwork to back it up. What is not to like?

we had a presentation from them when I was at school. I went along with two other boys and sniggered and took the piss.

Didn't stop them sending out several letters implying I'd signed up to something, and saying I should come to some sort of recruitment weekend.

Absolutely. But 13 year olds soon become 18 year olds - and a glamourous presentation to 13 year olds will stay with them.

Why? Part of the remit of the RN presentation team is to raise the profile of the RN, and to explain what they do to the community.

They don't want 13 yo boys honest. Dh has trouble enough with ds as it is...let alone loads of them. There's not a need for powder monkeys or cabin boys any more; and the Midshipmen are 18 when they join. 13yo boys need not apply.

My objection would not be to career talks in general. I would object to the Services having privileged access to a school - whatever age the students were. And I would object very strongly to any glamorized description of the Services as a sort of glorified youth club with excellent training facilities.

Did we get an answer re was this part of a series of talks on career options or was it the school letting the navy in because they had asked?

That would make all teh difference to me

I think Hf's point was that the answer to your question about how this turned into a debate about the military would be answered if you read the thread.

Absolutely Pisces.

hf -- isn't it acceptable to respond to the OP, or am I supposed to read the whole thread?

I think that OP thinks her DS is too young to make any career choice-it just happened to be the navy -but she probably wouldn't have liked the local bank either.
I think that schools fall down badly on career advice, the choice these days is so vast that DCs don't know that some jobs exist-they only see the obvious ones like, teacher, doctor, fireman etc.
I think that schools should get lots of people in, to give talks-from all walks of life. They are never too young-reception children can have talks from 'people who help us'.

God I wish people would read a thread properly!

Of course they are not recruiting 13 year olds fgs; what would they do with them?

It will have been a presentation about what the RN does and the variety of trades/specialisations available therein. Much the same as the Police and the Fire service would do.

How did this turn into a debate about the military

If the armed forces are recruiting 13 year olds, this is not a good thing. If was more of a chat about what they do on a day to day basis, then think this is absolutely fine, along the same lines that students should have wide exposure to a range of professions.

It is far too simplistic to suggest that we give asylum to any woman who lives in a country that practices sharia law. It would also be completely unworkable.

For one, how many women are there in all the sharia law-practicing countries across the world? Even if we wanted to, britain simply does not have the capasity to accommodate all of them - or even a signifficant number of them.

Secondly, there is no blanket policy of giving asylum to anyone at the moment - every case is judged on its merrits, so to offer a blanket asylum policy purely to the women of certain countries would open the whole system up to abuse. After all, not all women living in muslim countries are oppressed, or even consider themselves to be oppressed But with a blanket asylum policy any woman wanting to come and live here could simply state that she was being oppressed under sharia law and she would be granted asylum here.

Thirdly, on the whole it is not up to us to decide how other countries should be run, unless the running of that country impacts on us directly. If we do not approve of the way a country is run we may choose to try to pressure that country into changing, but it is not ultimately down to us to decide which country's policies are right and wrong. For instance, when apartheid was still lawful in South Africa many countries imposed sanctions in order to try to get them to change their laws. But to invade the country and overthrow the government would simply not have been an option. But in the case of Afghanistan, they A believe that sharia law should be imposed across the world, and B, are responsible for the recruitment and training of many of the terrorists responsible for perpitrating acts of terrorism across the west, and it is therefore appropriate that we go in and attempt to bring about a change, as the regime currently in power is a direct threat to our own country.

HB although the terrorists obviously must realize that they cannot kill all the non believers, they continue to try because they see themselves as tools for the cause. And because these terrorists are suicide bombers, they die for the cause they believe in and thus (so they believe) secure their own place in paradise, because they have rid the world of some non-believers. That sounds a bit simplistic but that's how I've heard it said before..

'If we can go in with bombs and guns, why can't we go in with money and education (or whatever tools they need) to help the oppressed people stand up for themselves? Is that very simplistic?'

Very simplistic. Yes, send teachers like me to Afghanistan and see how long we last. The Taliban would not accept female teachers for a start. They would not accept what we would want to teach, (a modern curriculum) and they would not accept the education of girls full stop. Those who wanted to be taught would be dissuaded, subtly or not, from attending. We will be there years militarily. We would need a century to educate them.

The terrorists hold life cheap and the suicide bombers see themselves as martyrs, assured of their place in paradise. They do not wish to make their demands explicit, as they have none; just a desire to wipe out the unbelievers. How do we, in the 21st Century engage in debate with those stuck in a 14th century mindset? We can't.

Given the rise of the sharia courts in the UK, and the fact that their judgments can be enforced by the County Courts and Crown Courts in the UK, I think it's out of the frying pan and into the fire, especially with the increase of honour killings in the UK, for women who would flee sharia. Personally, I would like Sharia courts if they have to be here, to be like the Jewish Beth Din and deal only with food laws and religious divorces. All criminal and civil matters should be left to the British justice system.

"So because they can't convert people to their way of thinking they want to kill them all instead. But they must know that's never going to happen because they're not powerful enough, so what are they actually trying to achieve with terrorist attacks? Do they think that slowly but surely they can kill everyone with this method? Or does it have some other aim, like to terrify us into submission? But they must know that this doesn't work- the more we try and terrify them the more they, understandably, stand up against us."

I honestly don't know - I think they see the acts of terrorism as punishment for our decadent ways and they see us as a threat to their plans for domintaion - even if those plans have little likelihood of succeeding. You're right that the more the act against us, the more we are likely to stand up to them - as they do to us. I'm not sure there is an easy answer.

"Why don't we know? Is it covered up? Or do they not say what they want? If we don't know what they want then how do we know it is definitely unreasonable? If it is so unreasonable then why is it not presented conclusively to us? Or is it, and do I just not understand?"

I think it's a mix of things. Firstly, their aims are wholly unreasonable. When a terrorist is on a video saying that we will pay for what we have done and that as infidels we must die until Allah is supreme etc etc etc, it's hard to find a coherent policy in that statement! Equally, there are other factors at play - other governments involved indirectly with these terrorist groups so there are considerations that those in government might be privy to that we simply don't know about. I'm not sure I understand the terrorist reasoning either - the idea that eveyone should live the way I do, simply because I say it should be so seems incredibly irrational to me.

"This might be a simplistic way of looking at it, but lets say we granted asylum to all the oppressed women that wanted it. Their own country wouldn't last very long with no women in it and nobody to oppress, so surely that would be a more effective way of changing things than using military power which alienates the people we are supposed to be helping? So although they are separate, would the use of asylum not in some way negate the need for military action in this case?"

I think that is a bit simplistic, yes, even if it seems sensible to you and I. I suppose it wouldn't work because not every woman would claim asylum, because we, as a country, simply can't afford that level of financial committment to help people settle in here and become valued citizens. Granting a sylum is a good thing but is it useful to woman who can't leave her home without her husband's permission, far less leave the country? It's a good idea, but a reductive one.

"If we can go in with bombs and guns, why can't we go in with money and education (or whatever tools they need) to help the oppressed people stand up for themselves? Is that very simplistic?"

That isn't a simplistic argument at all and it's one that goes hand in hand with the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Alongside the actual battles, there are soldiers who are building schools and hospitals, providing medical care, protecting power supplies and generally trying to make the day to day life of civilians better. They're training the Afghan army, so that, ultimately, the Afghan people will be responsible for policing their own country. Working alongside them are a number of aid agencies, charities and governments. So far, so good.

Unfortunately, the Taliban in Afghanistan bow up the schools and disrupt and attack the aid convoys and have tried to blow up dams and power stations - they don't want the ordinary people to be grateful to troops from other countries. Basically, for the money and education to work, we need the guns and bombs alongside them. Sometimes it is possible to give aid to a country without it being tied up to military power, but it's not always possible and it isn't posssible in the case of Afghanistan.

As for your point about inevitability - I don't know. I think we have to accept that the existence and maintainance of a standing Army, Navy and Air Force is an inevitable part of our country's foreign, defence and internal policy. However, I don't think that the use of those Forces is always inevitable - we as a country have a choice in whom we vote for and what their foreign policy aims are. I think it's disgraceful that the government can go to war (as it did in Iraq) without a vote in Parliament and I think that ought to change. I think that war as an abstract concept is an inevitable part of our lives but I think that some wars are avoidable and some are not.

I must apologise to the OP for the turn this thread has taken - far from your original question, I'm sure!

I don't think that it is unreasonable to be worried about the possibility of your child joining up, but I think that a presentation from the Armed Forces in a school is still a valuable thing. After all, look how far this debate has ranged and wouldn't it be wonderful if all our children were exposed to such debate?

I am supportive of the Forces as a career and I make no apolgy for that - it has been an excellent career for my husband and has provided a great life for us. I am very supportive of that Armed Forces role in public life.

However, I would never stifle debate or take refuge behind blind patriotism - democracy is all about the informed and responsible use of power by both the elected and the voter and debate is an important part of that process.

Great post -scaryteacher.

Totally agree with jscot here. My dh has had a rewarding and exciting career in the RN; he has gained Chartered Engineer status; got his MA; played with some very big and expensive pieces of kit, and has a host of skills that will be readily transferable when he leaves the Navy in 4 years. I should point out that he is leaving as that is the age his rank dictates he retires, not because he wants to.

My Dad joined at 15 as a junior rating back in the 50s and rose to the rank of Lt -Cdr; impressive for someone with 4 O -levels and no social skills. My dh's godfather joined as a boy sailor at 12, and left as an Admiral with massive responsibilities. My fil was in too, and my db is also in. All have enjoyed/ are thoroughly enjoying their careers and receive unsurpassed training and opportunities.

Nobody joins the Forces because they want to kill people for God's sake, although they understand they may have to; or indeed die themselves. They join because the Forces provides them with camaraderie; an esprit de corps; working in tight cohesive units as close knit teams. Expeds and sports are all on tap, as is a full social life. The Forces work hard and play hard. In dh's case he got to work with and design important and technologically advanced kit for his specialisation.

As for the RN doing a presentation in schools to year 8s - so what? We also had prison officers in from HMP Dartmoor to describe a day in the life of a prisoner. Far more frightening I thought than a careers talk. You may also like to consider that Forces families have their own kids, mine is a 13yo boy. He has no intention of joining the RN, and will make his career choice based on the presentations and advice given at school, without undue influence, pressure or knee jerk reactions from me on what would have been an entirely professional and age appropriate presentation.

I have seen as many have said on here, the difference that being in the Forces can make to disaffected young men; many of whom I have taught. I have seen their sense of achievement, pride and purpose and I think it's great.

Yes, some of the RN are out in Afghanistan doing logisitics, medical jobs, intelligence roles, engineering etc, and obviously, those who go and fight on the front line are the Marines (who are RN). However, the RN also do great work in disaster relief, hydrography, inderdicting drug runners, patrols of the West Indies, Antarctic surveys, anti piracy ops off Somalia, patrolling the Persian Gulf, patrols on HM Submarines, search and rescue, they work in NATO and the EU, as do the Army and RAF.

There are all sorts of trades and qualifications - weapon and marine engineering; logistics; pilots (planes and helicopters); navigation; warfare officers; catering; intelligence...the list is wide.

As to the point about child soldiers - they do not fight until they are 18. Compare the UK with the child soldiers in Somalia and Sierra Leone for example - drugged 12 yos armed with machetes, and not much caring who gets in their way, and then criticise.

Last point: the world strikes me as more unstable now than it was during the Cold War. Russia is flexing her muscles again, and if Putin doesn't end up President for life within the next five years, I shall be very surprised. Russia is engaging in a shipbuilding programme (incl submarines) and rearmament. The writing is on the wall there for those who care to look. Russia has already annexed South Ossetia earlier this year, and I know from contacts that the Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians are afraid the same thing will happen to them. These countries are NATO and EU members; if one is attacked we are all attacked, and will have to respond in kind. That is why we need strong, professional and prepared Armed Forces.

The UK Armed Forces have the reputation of being not the biggest, but the best. That is why so many other nations send their officer cadre to our training establishments like BRNC Dartmouth and RMAC Sandhurst; to RNEC Manadon (before it became a housing estate), and to the Defence Academy at Shrivenham to learn from us. If we do not project that we can defend ourselves then we are in for trouble. If we let our guard down we are screwed. To enable the UK to be protected we need the Armed Forces. Simples.

Ah, ok. So because they can't convert people to their way of thinking they want to kill them all instead. But they must know that's never going to happen because they're not powerful enough, so what are they actually trying to achieve with terrorist attacks? Do they think that slowly but surely they can kill everyone with this method? Or does it have some other aim, like to terrify us into submission? But they must know that this doesn't work- the more we try and terrify them the more they, understandably, stand up against us.

"I'm not certain that we (as only partially-informed citizens) can ever be 100% sure of what the terrorists want."

Why don't we know? Is it covered up? Or do they not say what they want? If we don't know what they want then how do we know it is definitely unreasonable? If it is so unreasonable then why is it not presented conclusively to us? Or is it, and do I just not understand?

"I was trying to say that politics decides why we interfere with one country and not another"
Yes, I understand now. But is granting asylum interfering?

"Asylum and the granting of it is a distinctly separate issue to the foreign policy of deciding where we project our military and diplomatic power."
This might be a simplistic way of looking at it, but lets say we granted asylum to all the oppressed women that wanted it. Their own country wouldn't last very long with no women in it and nobody to oppress, so surely that would be a more effective way of changing things than using military power which alienates the people we are supposed to be helping? So although they are separate, would the use of asylum not in some way negate the need for military action in this case?

If we can go in with bombs and guns, why can't we go in with money and education (or whatever tools they need) to help the oppressed people stand up for themselves? Is that very simplistic?

I do think that if we accept that war is inevitable, then it will be. And if we accept that it is inevitable, then what is the point of trying to stop something that is inevitable?