NationStates Jolt Archive

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7995652.stm
PM plans to compel community work
Gordon Brown
Mr Brown first proposed the idea of a National Youth Service last year

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has pledged to ensure every young person has done 50 hours of voluntary work by the time they are 19 years old.

Mr Brown said a promise to bring in compulsory community service would be a part of his next election manifesto.

Under the scheme, the work may include helping charities and is likely to become part of the school curriculum.

The scheme would be woven into plans to make everyone stay in education or training until the age of 18 by 2011.

Mr Brown told the News of the World newspaper: "It is my ambition to create a Britain in which there is a clear expectation that all young people will undertake some service to their community, and where community service will become a normal part of growing up in Britain.

'Clear accreditation'

"And, by doing so, the contributions of each of us will build a better society for all of us."

The prime minister added: "That would mean young people being expected to contribute at least 50 hours of community service by the time they have reached the age of 19.

"This will build on the platform provided by citizenship classes as they develop in our schools. But because the greater part of what I envisage as community service takes place outside the school day, it will require the close involvement of local community organisations and charities."

Mr Brown said the work would also be linked to a "clear system of accreditation" so that young people would be able mark their achievements gained through volunteering.

He added: "By building from compulsory citizenship studies in the 14-16 curriculum, we can create an expectation of national youth community service."

Gordon Brown first proposed the idea of a National Youth Service to channel teenagers into voluntary work last year.

It is due to be formally launched in September, and would become compulsory if Labour were re-elected.

Hey, wait, how is it voluntary if it's forced?

It's called "voluntarily-compulsory". The idea is that you formally volunteer, but the volunteering comes as mandatory with something way more valuable, say, getting a school education.

Hey, wait, how is it voluntary if it's forced?

Well, forced volunteerism works by-

http://crookedtimber.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/exploding-head.gif

Hey, wait, how is it voluntary if it's forced?
I think it means it won't be paid work.

But don't worry, it's only going to be compulsory "if Labour were re-elected", i.e., it's not going to happen.

Again, Brown goes about this the wrong way. The UK lacks a coherent sense of culture (what with it being highly multicultural), so Brown proposes a government-mandated vision of 'Britishness'. The tabloids scream about da yoof, so Brown proposes mandatory community work.

Nothing like forced labour to get kids interested in their community!

It's called "voluntarily-compulsory". The idea is that you formally volunteer, but the volunteering comes as mandatory with something way more valuable, say, getting a school education.

Which is also mandatory.

I know of this dude that proposed and enacted something similar. I believe his name rhymed with Shitler. ;)

You'd swear this guy were blind.

Which is also mandatory.
Yeah, it'd be interesting to see if Labour has any plans to deal with those who'd refuse to do the community service.


I know of this dude that proposed and enacted something similar. I believe his name rhymed with Shitler. ;)
Working within your local community isn't bad in and of itself, but I'd be very surprised indeed if Brown would have proposed this policy without the past few years of foam-mouthed hyperbolic ranting about 'youths' and 'hoodies'.

We have to do something similar in Ontario to, or we don't get to graduate from High School

oops, forgot to mention in my OP:

I think this is a stupid idea, forcing people to do Voulantry work? wtf? im also guessing they wont give the students any say in what work they do, so an Art student could end up picking litter, wont that benefit them, not

"Voluntary" is used just the way Newspeak would like

We have to do something similar in Ontario to, or we don't get to graduate from High School

Well, that's fine. Part of education, specifically Civics.

The problem is though, that the youths who most egregiously lack any community spirit are probably fucking up in school if they're going at all. The last thing that's going to fix that is forcing them to work for no money. It's not going to be much good for the charities they're forced to "work" for either.

Fucking daft Mr Brown. Let's talk fifty hours of paid employment!

Maybe they should wear uniforms? I'm sure there's still a load of old blue uniforms (http://www.chronikderwende.de/_/english/term_jsp/key=e_fdj.html) sitting in shelves all over East Germany gathering dust. ;)

geez so the volunteer police will have to check everyone to make sure they did their 50 stinking hours of authorized volunteer work? sounds very much not worth the expense.

im also guessing they wont give the students any say in what work they do, so an Art student could end up picking litter, wont that benefit them, not
And who should end up picking litter? A Chemistry student?

At least the art student may learn something from looking at litter. Make, I dunno, an art about litter or something. Either way, picking up some litter may very well turn out to be the most useful thing he'll ever do in his life.

And who should end up picking litter? A Chemistry student?

At least the art student may learn something from looking at litter. Make, I dunno, an art about litter or something. Either way, picking up some litter may very well turn out to be the most useful thing he'll ever do in his life.

my point is that none of the students should have to do it if they dont want to, its not fair for one, and it also very unlikely to benefit many of them.

geez so the volunteer police will have to check everyone to make sure they did their 50 stinking hours of authorized volunteer work? sounds very much not worth the expense.

More likely it's the volunteer organizations themselves that will have to record the hours each "volunteer" puts in.

In the worst cases, that is certainly not going to be worthwhile for them. (Yes, the volunteer turned up for two hours this week, but had to be constantly watched so they didn't steal stuff or set the storeroom on fire.)

Obviously, real charities have to have the option to refuse to take "volunteers" who are more trouble than they are worth. Those end up in a purpose-made government program, which would be essentially a penal labour camp.

It's as unfair for any student as for anyone else. Forced labor... "Well at least it's cheap."

It's as unfair for any student as for anyone else. Forced labor... "Well at least it's cheap."

Why can we not just call this "volunteer" work what it really is? Slavery.

More likely it's the volunteer organizations themselves that will have to record the hours each "volunteer" puts in.

In the worst cases, that is certainly not going to be worthwhile for them. (Yes, the volunteer turned up for two hours this week, but had to be constantly watched so they didn't steal stuff or set the storeroom on fire.)

Obviously, real charities have to have the option to refuse to take "volunteers" who are more trouble than they are worth. Those end up in a purpose-made government program, which would be essentially a penal labour camp.
50 hours is too little time to get good at whatever useful thing you might do. add the paperwork required to keep track of who does what and you have a very useless program.

whats the point of forcing what amounts to one weeks worth of volunteer work out of everybody?

It's as unfair for any student as for anyone else. Forced labor... "Well at least it's cheap."

It can be free to the "employer" and still have negative value.

In paid employment the usual approach is to dock the employees wages for damage they cause through incompetence. You can't do that if they're not being paid wages.

If high school students in Britain are anything like they are in my area, then this is fucking stupid. Yeah, charities get a lot of help... from people who are being forced to do it, don't like being forced to do it, and will do the shittiest job they can get away with. Yeah, you get these kids off the street for a bit, but at what may be a far bigger cost.

50 hours is too little time to get good at whatever useful thing you might do. add the paperwork required to keep track of who does what and you have a very useless program.

whats the point of forcing what amounts to one weeks worth of volunteer work out of everybody?

Whereas, even one week of paid employment is an actual job. It's not a "job for life" paid by the government, but it is a practical demonstration that if you do something of value to another person you get paid.

A person's first job is a pretty big step, and I see some value to all youths being presented with the same standard of workplace safety, of effort for reward, and of the necessity to fulfill job requirements. Not the same work for all, obviously, but the same standard.

It's not just chavs that would learn a useful lesson from that. The rich kid whose first "job" is managing a branch of daddy's business would get some idea of what it's like to follow orders not just give them.

The rich spoiled kid who never expected to have to work at all, might even find that they get satisfaction from actually earning some money on the same terms as those who don't have a choice.

whats the point of forcing what amounts to one weeks worth of volunteer work out of everybody?

When old people complain about the youth of today being foul mouthed, disrepectful layabouts (apparently forgetting all the foul mouthed, disrespectful layabouts that existed when they were young) and demand that the government sort them out, the government can pretend that this amounts to worthwhile action. Conveniently forgetting that the kids that are currently going around stabbing each other and causing other assorted violence probably don't actually do what they are told, particularly if that involves community service.

If high school students in Britain are anything like they are in my area, then this is fucking stupid. Yeah, charities get a lot of help... from people who are being forced to do it, don't like being forced to do it, and will do the shittiest job they can get away with. Yeah, you get these kids off the street for a bit, but at what may be a far bigger cost.

And it happens already, when Community Service is used as a legal punishment. Some charities will take those "forced volunteers" -- they see rehabilitation as part of their charitable mission I guess -- but many won't because the criminal is pretty much the opposite of a charity worker and sometimes enjoys being disruptive or destructive.

Hell, a lot of businesses won't take work-experience trainees. The time to train them isn't worth the harm they might do through simple incompetence, for such a limited time.

Whereas, even one week of paid employment is an actual job. It's not a "job for life" paid by the government, but it is a practical demonstration that if you do something of value to another person you get paid.

A person's first job is a pretty big step, and I see some value to all youths being presented with the same standard of workplace safety, of effort for reward, and of the necessity to fulfill job requirements. Not the same work for all, obviously, but the same standard.

It's not just chavs that would learn a useful lesson from that. The rich kid whose first "job" is managing a branch of daddy's business would get some idea of what it's like to follow orders not just give them.

The rich spoiled kid who never expected to have to work at all, might even find that they get satisfaction from actually earning some money on the same terms as those who don't have a choice.
i dont think its long enough to have that kind of effect.

When old people complain about the youth of today being foul mouthed, disrepectful layabouts (apparently forgetting all the foul mouthed, disrespectful layabouts that existed when they were young) and demand that the government sort them out, the government can pretend that this amounts to worthwhile action. Conveniently forgetting that the kids that are currently going around stabbing each other and causing other assorted violence probably don't actually do what they are told, particularly if that involves community service.


Young People here are not criminals (i am one ffs), i resent any implication that we are, the criminals, are in the Minority, the Majouirty of young people are not criminals, only idiots who read the daily fail think otherwise, maybe if people trusted and respected children here, the minority would get even smaller?

Pft. In Canada you have to finish 40 hours of community by the end of High School, starting from High School, or you don't get your diploma.

The point of the Community Service is to build a resume. If you have shit on your resume, then there's not much you can do to get a job compared to someone who does. It's exactly the same as the mandatory 40 hours in Canada.

i dont think its long enough to have that kind of effect.

Is that your only objection? If it was a hundred hours, or five hundred hours ... would it become a better idea, or a worse one?

Pft. In Canada you have to finish 40 hours of community by the end of High School, starting from High School, or you don't get your diploma.

The point of the Community Service is to build a resume. If you have shit on your resume, then there's not much you can do to get a job compared to someone who does. It's exactly the same as the mandatory 40 hours in Canada.

In my experience, community service doesn't mean jack on a resume.

"Okay, yeah, you did community service. So you know how to walk about and pick up garbage with a pointy stick. What practical, appliable experience do you have that would be a reason to hire you?"

Pft. In Canada you have to finish 40 hours of community by the end of High School, starting from High School, or you don't get your diploma.

Experience in a workplace (even a volunteer one) has educational benefits. It's quite legitimate to have some as a requirement for a diploma.

This isn't that.

The point of the Community Service is to build a resume.

Now that's wrong. I don't mean that you are wrong, I mean that a system which gives a reward (getting a job based on the resume) for supposed service to the community has nothing to do with serving the community. It's a selfish incentive to do what is supposedly altruistic.

The U.S. has a similar program. (http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/03/23/hr-1388-give-act-forces-mandatory-service-requirement-on-all-young-americans/)

Well, forced volunteerism works by-

http://crookedtimber.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/exploding-head.gif

How can volunteerism be mandatory? The Future explains:

Section 6104 of The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act requires that a commission be established to investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”

The term for forced, unpaid work is "corvée". Slightly less precise is "slavery".

50 hours is too little time [...]
whats the point of forcing what amounts to one weeks worth of volunteer work out of everybody?
Have you ever engaged in anal sex?

Of course, with the micropenises many buttcocks fans have, it's no problem. But if you have an actual penis, you can't just thrust it into a virgin butt. The effect will be the same as if you were hitting it against a wall. Rather, the new butt monkey needs to be stretched first. Start with a thick pen, then a small cucumber, then a larger one. If you pause to let it heal when it bleeds, can take days or even weeks. Basically, you need to sexually assault them before you can rape them.

The governments knows that too.

I wonder what will happen to people who fail to complete their mandatory fifty hours worth of voluntary service? Will they be penalised by being given a community service sentence? Locked up? Fined? Whipped?

I'm so glad I'm not under 19 anymore. Their lives are just getting so much worse now that the government has realised they still exist.

isnt doing this Illegal? im sure the EU must have laws against slavery?

isnt doing this Illegal? im sure the EU must have laws against slavery?

Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects against slavery and servitude, except as required by the government. Civic duty, punishments, national emergencies, etc.

Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects against slavery and servitude, except as required by the government. Civic duty, punishments, national emergencies, etc.

dang, so its ok, but only because the government says so?

I find it ironic that only the youths need to actually do volunteer work and community service, whereas all the old fuckers can get away by not contributing in the slightest and still feel morally superior.

When was the last time, if ever, that Gordon Brown did volunteer work?

I say, Gordie, make it a required thing for every Briton or GTFO with your misguided ageism.

I find it ironic that only the youths need to actually do volunteer work and community service, whereas all the old fuckers can get away by not contributing in the slightest and still feel morally superior.

When was the last time, if ever, that Gordon Brown did volunteer work?

I say, Gordie, make it a required thing for every Briton or GTFO with your misguided ageism.

lol, probably never, its all part of the Right Wing, anti-Young people attitude that people in this country seem to have

dang, so its ok, but only because the government says so?

Pretty much yeah. 'Normal civic obligations' is a pretty broad brush after all.

I find it ironic that only the youths need to actually do volunteer work and community service, whereas all the old fuckers can get away by not contributing in the slightest and still feel morally superior.

When was the last time, if ever, that Gordon Brown did volunteer work?

I say, Gordie, make it a required thing for every Briton or GTFO with your misguided ageism.

You forget how it worked for people in power in the old days. For them, charity wasn't go out and spend 50 hours in a food pantry. Not at all; it was go out and spend 50 hours telling the lower classes that you're better than them.

The U.S. has a similar program. (http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/03/23/hr-1388-give-act-forces-mandatory-service-requirement-on-all-young-americans/)

And hey look, they're proposing to pay the volunteers. Sort of. They get a tax credit.

It's not "promoting volunteerism" any more than withholding a diploma for not doing community service is. It's simply the government paying for what they perceive as a social good. Because the Community Service exists in the community anyway, you have a bottom-up allocation of government money to what the community itself already recognizes a need for, and that's good.

If they take out the concept "tax credit" and insert "pay packet" AND MAKE IT VOLUNTARY I'm for it.

Only then it wouldn't be the same thing at all.

It really will be a terrible thing if kids help charities out.

Talk of slavery :D. We forced them kids to work already, it's called school.

Okay, it's a dumb idea aimed at the readers of tabloids but a tragedy it ain't.

Making education compulsory until 18 is actually a damaging idea though. And it's actually happening and community service isn't.

lol, probably never, its all part of the Right Wing, anti-Young people attitude that people in this country seem to have

This last comment coming from a young man who's done several hours of volunteer work in the last 7 years.

It's just that the hypocrisy is appalling. Young people have to do forced unpaid work when the previous generations doesn't? Fuck that noise. I'm 26 and from what I've seen, people of my generation are already incredibly more likely to do volunteer work and get involved in something than our parent's generations. Now politicians of the boomer era want to enforce that on every last one of us, when their age category almost never reach out past their own little personal gain? Sorry, no, doesn't fly by me.

You want your kids and youth to do volunteer work? Preach by example and fucking go do it yourself first. Then maybe you can start thinking about making them do it.

Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects against slavery and servitude, except as required by the government.
In other words, it doesn't protect against slavery and servitude or intend to protect, but just expresses nonexistent concern.

In other words, it doesn't protect against slavery and servitude or intend to protect, but just expresses nonexistent concern.

Never forget who really works for who in this wonderously two-faced world of ours!

We have to do something similar in Ontario to, or we don't get to graduate from High School

My school district (Hannibal CSD, in New York) has a policy, stemming from a state mandate, that we have to complete 8 hours of community service (which I wasn't told about until halfway through my last semester in high school) or have one of our class grades (Participation in Government 12) reduced by two letters (so an A+ would turn into a C+).

I know that in the US many if not all high schools have a requirement of some community service -- 20 hrs, I think.

I'm of two minds. On the one hand, young people exposed to helping others may choose to do it more often. On the other, it rankles that they have no choice in the matter... and there is the ageism aspect of it. If everyone had to do 20 hrs of community service (barring having a job like social worker, teacher, et al) in their lifetime, it might not seems quite as unfair to me.

If everyone had to do 20 hrs of community service (barring having a job like social worker, teacher, et al) in their lifetime, it might not seems quite as unfair to me.

The problem with an undefined time limit is enforcing it... by the time you realise that a person isn't going to bother to fulful their voluntary requirements, they've already kicked the bucket and it's too late to do anything about it. I suppose you could refuse them padding in their coffins or something, but I doubt it'd bother them particularly.

Treat it like jury duty I suppose. Random call in citizens for a week and force them to feel compassion for their fellow man and to volunteer for their mandatory service requirements. What better way to foster community spirit than forced labour?

Or we could just leave everybody alone...

I know that in the US many if not all high schools have a requirement of some community service -- 20 hrs, I think.

I'm of two minds. On the one hand, young people exposed to helping others may choose to do it more often. On the other, it rankles that they have no choice in the matter... and there is the ageism aspect of it. If everyone had to do 20 hrs of community service (barring having a job like social worker, teacher, et al) in their lifetime, it might not seems quite as unfair to me.

My local district actually had that requirement for half of my senior year before being forced to wave it by the combined might of the local charities. The students from the district were doing such bad work that all of the local charities outright refused to accept anyone under the age of 21 for awhile who wasn't already part of the charity. The local news media didn't even cover it.

So I got away without being required to do any community service work (despite having already done 200 hours of it before even getting into high school) when the idea was put into place.

My favorite part? These comments (I kept a recording of them).

"Community service? Shit... More like my own service! You'll see community service alright."

"Huh. I always wondered if cans of green beans are flammable... Now I'll get entire cases to try out."

"Cool! I no longer will have to shoplift from Hot Topic!"

"I hope they allow marijuana..."

The principle ended up with about half of my class lined up outside his office. Why? Because these comments were said loud enough the entire room could hear them.

The problem with an undefined time limit is enforcing it... by the time you realise that a person isn't going to bother to fulful their voluntary requirements, they've already kicked the bucket and it's too late to do anything about it. I suppose you could refuse them padding in their coffins or something, but I doubt it'd bother them particularly.

Treat it like jury duty I suppose. Random call in citizens for a week and force them to feel compassion for their fellow man and to volunteer for their mandatory service requirements. What better way to foster community spirit than forced labour?

Or we could just leave everybody alone...
Oh, I wouldn't make it undefined.

IF I were to believe that enforced "volunteerism" were a good thing, I would set up teh school systems to make sure that the kids did it over their school career.

I would also make sure that anyone who did not would get called up at 30, 40 or 50 (depending on how old they were when the law went into effect) to give their service or provide proof they have had alternate service.

Oh, I wouldn't make it undefined.

IF I were to believe that enforced "volunteerism" were a good thing, I would set up teh school systems to make sure that the kids did it over their school career.

I would also make sure that anyone who did not would get called up at 30, 40 or 50 (depending on how old they were when the law went into effect) to give their service or provide proof they have had alternate service.

But that's just treading on dangerous territory, mainly because if the government reads posts like that and agrees with them, you and me will end up having to do voluntary compulsory community service too! They're just picking on the young 'uns right now, let's not tempt fate!

Since the Representation of the People Act 1969, there have been ten general elections, an average of one every four years or so.

Only persons who have attained 18 years of age can vote, so at that rate you have a one-in-four chance of being able to vote for or against this proposal before it no longer applies to you.

If the voting age was lowered to 16, those odds would improve dramatically to three in four. So perhaps you young Brits should be putting your energy into that instead of fulminating about the Daily Fail. After all, this is only one of the many laws which affect young people, and on which they never get to vote.

But that's just treading on dangerous territory, mainly because if the government reads posts like that and agrees with them, you and me will end up having to do voluntary compulsory community service too! They're just picking on the young 'uns right now, let's not tempt fate!
LOL, I teach. There's my community service.

But seriously, if it's worth it be done, it's worth requiring EVERYONE do it.

LOL, I teach. There's my community service.

But seriously, if it's worth it be done, it's worth requiring EVERYONE do it.

True. I mean about the necessity for equality, not the prospect of forcing ANYONE to do it.

But BunnySaurus Bugsii raises an interesting point - such a policy, as presently described, will not alienate any of Labour's established voting public as the only people being affected, with the exception of the lucky few who hit the age of 18 in time to deliberately avoid the polling booths (instead of simply not being allowed in as before), aren't old enough to do anything about it. As with so many other "INITIATIVES" of recent years, which fly against established evidence yet look oh-so-good on the cover of the Daily Mail and The Sun, this is the government attempting to look like they care whilst doing the minimal amount of work with the least amount of risk to their cushy jobs.

Mums rampaging around in their 4x4s and MPVs on the school run will appreciate this idea, old fogeys sitting in their crusty arm chairs complaining about the youth of today will cry out in victory, and not a thing will be accomplished - except for further alienating a sector of British society whom didn't think it could be possible to feel any more isolated than they already do.

Since the Representation of the People Act 1969, there have been ten general elections, an average of one every four years or so.

Only persons who have attained 18 years of age can vote, so at that rate you have a one-in-four chance of being able to vote for or against this proposal before it no longer applies to you.

If the voting age was lowered to 16, those odds would improve dramatically to three in four. So perhaps you young Brits should be putting your energy into that instead of fulminating about the Daily Fail. After all, this is only one of the many laws which affect young people, and on which they never get to vote.

im very much in favour of lowering the voting age to 16, maybe even 14

LOL, I teach. There's my community service.

You teach kids for zero compensation? Masochist. :p

Perhaps I wasn't clear.
A way to get out of community service requirement would be to demonstrate one already serves the community.

So students who volunteer at a soup kitchen, or tutor younger students, would get the credit for the service and not have to do another "official" one. And old farts like me can say, "I teach your kids --doesn't that count as serving the community?

And old farts like me can say, "I teach your kids --doesn't that count as serving the community?

"My kid failed all of his college tests. No, it doesn't. You owe 800 hours of community service. *stamps paper*"

Perhaps I wasn't clear.
A way to get out of community service requirement would be to demonstrate one already serves the community.
I totally serve the community. I'm helping to develop and run the machines that smite the undemocratic regimes and kill their undemocratic citizens with the touch of a button. Seeing as the community elects and reelects warmongering presidents one after another, it wants that. Thus, I'm serving the community.

I saw a principal try this mandatory volunteer stuff on TV. As I recall, he was eaten by a snake.

However, my objections would vanish if the government cut out the "voluntary" crap. I had to do 100 hours of community service to graduate from high school.

How is anything you are legally compelled to "volunteer" to do substantively different from slavery? The legal terminology may twist it any way you like, but when you are forced under penalty of fines or imprisonment to perform some positive action against your will, you are a slave.

How is anything you are legally compelled to "volunteer" to do substantively different from slavery? The legal terminology may twist it any way you like, but when you are forced under penalty of fines or imprisonment to perform some positive action against your will, you are a slave.

It's significantly different. When the government calls it slavery, there is outrage. When the government calls it voluntary, there is rejoicing. The nature of the thing doesn't change, but the terminology makes all the difference to the voting public.

I saw a principal try this mandatory volunteer stuff on TV. As I recall, he was eaten by a snake.
But the snake was killed by the students doing non-mandatory volunteer stuff.


However, my objections would vanish if the government cut out the "voluntary" crap. I had to do 100 hours of community service to graduate from high school.
I personally don't particularly object to having community work in school either. Not that I like it, but I think it's okay. What pisses me off is calling it "voluntary" or whatever. It isn't. Call it what it is, labor required as a part of the package.

But the snake was killed by the students doing non-mandatory volunteer stuff.

Those kids got to use maces and flamethrowers as part of their volunteer service. Lucky them (well, except for Larry).

It's significantly different. When the government calls it slavery, there is outrage. When the government calls it voluntary, there is rejoicing. The nature of the thing doesn't change, but the terminology makes all the difference to the voting public.

My apologies. I need to stop looking beyond the superficial. *slaps self for doubleplusungoodthink*

What separates a man from a slave? Money? Power? No, a man chooses, a slave obeys.

OBEY!

Something else to think about: Tying academic performance in high school to community service.

If you hated high school and had to do community service to get your diploma, are you motivated to ever voluntarily do community service again?

All Under 19's in UK to do Community Service

No I'm not. :mad:

People are forced to do "voluntary work". :rolleyes:

Why is there so much hatred in Britain towards teenagers?

People are forced to do "voluntary work". :rolleyes:

Why is there so much hatred in Britain towards teenagers?

'cos old people are fucking stupid.

You'd swear this guy were blind.

He does have a glass eye :p

Brown also has plans for all five to ten year olds to do at least 50 hours of 'voluntary' chimney cleaning. Good old Victorian values.

Slavery? Holy exaggeration Batman!

Slavery? Holy exaggeration Batman!

It's not an exaggeration if it's the truth.

It's not an exaggeration if it's the truth.

Which, in this case, it's not.

This is a wharrgarbl thread if ever I saw one.

Which, in this case, it's not.

This is a wharrgarbl thread if ever I saw one.

If it's compulsory, how is it not slavery?

If it's compulsory, how is it not slavery?

I ain't doing it unless that fat bastard pays me.

Hey, wait, how is it voluntary if it's forced?
Only a politician could make a claim like that...

Government... Isn't it great?

'Let's instill community values by forcing the teenagers to work for the community! This certainly won't make them resent their community because of the forced intrusion on their time. Nope. Not at all.'

It's just that the hypocrisy is appalling. Young people have to do forced unpaid work when the previous generations doesn't? Fuck that noise. I'm 26 and from what I've seen, people of my generation are already incredibly more likely to do volunteer work and get involved in something than our parent's generations. Now politicians of the boomer era want to enforce that on every last one of us, when their age category almost never reach out past their own little personal gain? Sorry, no, doesn't fly by me.

You want your kids and youth to do volunteer work? Preach by example and fucking go do it yourself first. Then maybe you can start thinking about making them do it.


I am only 2 years older than you and my Dad did national service, I don't think that should have ever stopped. I have done my share of unpaid service to the elderly or picking up litter. I'll be happy to do it again if it proves a point, although I am not PM ofc.

I think in principal this is a good idea. I am definitely not a right winger and I don't even live in the country at the moment to read the tabloids or worse the mail. This is bringing the UK into line with a lot of other countries think Finnish conscript. I don't think its right to say slavery I think that's kinda insulting to the people in the world who are slaves to think that somewhere you go do a job for a total of 50 hours in what is likely to be by comparison a comfortable environment where you get your packed lunch mummy made you whether or not you work your fingers to the bone. Go visit a real sweat shop or worse and explain to them how hard done by you are.

I think that the work should accrue credits for Uni or further education to void top up fees and encourage people to obtain a permanent qualification either vocationally or professionally.

In the US pupils partake in a host of extra curricular activities in the hope of boosting their CV, though real voluntary service is more impressive on a CV than "forced". The point isn't the work its getting people to engage in their communities rather than just sitting at home on the computer or going down the pub. It's a little socially divisive imo though but taking people out of their comfort zones is good occasionally.

To be honest IF (and I admit it is a big if) it is well thought through and people are placed intelligently so as to do some general help and some work useful to a chosen personal career, what are you so afraid of?

If it's compulsory, how is it not slavery?
Sorry duck, that's not the way it works.

Once again GB is punishing the masses to save face against the minority of people who abuse the system.

Many schools in England offer an extra-curricular activity called the Duke of Edinburgh award. As part of this award you have to complete 3months of community service/volunteer work which effectively works out at around 15hours (for the first section of the award, it goes up as you go higher). This, in my opinion, is a much better way of encouraging (better than forcing) young people to volunteer as you are working towards something that isnt the end of your school career. Plus many young people (myself included) continue volunteering after they've finished the award.

Also, GB says he's going to introduce "compulsory citizenship studies in the 14-16 curriculum" - which we already have, either that or my school chooses to torture us for 5 weeks a school year.

I agree with what has already been said about people being forced to do a job, doing a shit job (to put it bluntly) coz they dont want to be there so im not going to repeat it again (oops ;))

Heres an idea: scrap EMA and give the money the government saves to people who work on a volunteer basis for experience coz they cant get a job. that way people who actually do a service get rewarded, the vlunteer section will get a huge boost in numbers and kids will have more money to put into the failing economy. Genious :)

Better than the idea of forced National Service of a military nature, as community projects could actually perform some useful social function.

There is one slight problem, though.

ITS STILL AN ABSURD IDEA. Are kids going to resent being forced to do unpaid work? Probably. Is it going to make them more averse to doing community work in the future? Probably. Is forced labour a ridiculous and authoritarian idea that will do no good and a plan designed purely to appeal to readers of the Daily Heil? Definitely.

As much as I despise David Cameron with a passion, Labour need to be thrown out of office ASAP; moreover, their policy advisers need to be taken through the streets and whipped, then beaten up by a horde of angry midgets with hammers.

I am only 2 years older than you and my Dad did national service, I don't think that should have ever stopped. I have done my share of unpaid service to the elderly or picking up litter. I'll be happy to do it again if it proves a point, although I am not PM ofc.
So you'd only do it to prove a point? Not to help people?
I think in principal this is a good idea. I am definitely not a right winger and

I don't even live in the country at the moment to read the tabloids or worse the mail. This is bringing the UK into line with a lot of other countries think Finnish conscript. I don't think its right to say slavery I think that's kinda insulting to the people in the world who are slaves to think that somewhere you go do a job for a total of 50 hours in what is likely to be by comparison a comfortable environment where you get your packed lunch mummy made you whether or not you work your fingers to the bone. Go visit a real sweat shop or worse and explain to them how hard done by you are.
That's not the point.
I think that the work should accrue credits for Uni or further education to void top up fees and encourage people to obtain a permanent qualification either vocationally or professionally.

In the US pupils partake in a host of extra curricular activities in the hope of boosting their CV, though real voluntary service is more impressive on a CV than "forced".
It's a fucked up system they've got over there.
To be honest IF (and I admit it is a big if) it is well thought through and people are placed intelligently so as to do some general help and some work useful to a chosen personal career, what are you so afraid of?

Being unpaid, being forced to help the comunity when none of you were. Take your pick. This is only gonna make things worse.

Once again GB is punishing the masses to save face against the minority of people who abuse the system.

Also, GB says he's going to introduce "compulsory citizenship studies in the 14-16 curriculum" - which we already have, either that or my school chooses to torture us for 5 weeks a school year.


GB? You mean Great Britain?

a) it's not a country
b) it can't do or say anything

I am saying I've done the work before and I would do it again it was worthwhile and beneficial to me as well as others. I think thats an experience everyone should have.

GB? You mean Great Britain?

a) it's not a country
b) it can't do or say anything


i actually meant Gordon Brown

sorry for the confusion

I am only 2 years older than you and my Dad did national service, I don't think that should have ever stopped.

Sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you there. One of the few things left to be truly proud of in Britain is (was) an absence of any form of compulsory military or civic servitude - which, whatever you want to call it, is still a massive invasion of liberties when it is not optional. At no point during your life, from birth until death, are you required to perform labour for the government, unless as part of a lawful punishment for a crime committed.

No nationalist nonsense, just freedom. Walk out of school and get straight to work on whatever career you're interested in, whether that means going right into employment or spending time in university. All without worrying about impediment from the state.

Mr. Brown attempting to introduce a mere 50 hours is a concerning enough step down a treacherous, icy slope. The day national service returns is a sad day indeed.

i actually meant Gordon Brown

sorry for the confusion

Oh, my bad. You meant the fat guy.

i actually meant Gordon Brown

sorry for the confusion

Masburel, Isengard doesn't know who you're on about unless you refer to him as 'the fat bastard'.

Sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you there. One of the few things left to be truly proud of in Britain is (was) an absence of any form of compulsory military or civic servitude - which, whatever you want to call it, is still a massive invasion of liberties when it is not optional. At no point during your life, from birth until death, are you required to perform labour for the government, unless as part of a lawful punishment for a crime committed.

No nationalist nonsense, just freedom. Walk out of school and get straight to work on whatever career you're interested in, whether that means going right into employment or spending time in university. All without worrying about impediment from the state.

Mr. Brown attempting to introduce a mere 50 hours is a concerning enough step down a treacherous, icy slope. The day national service returns is a sad day indeed.
This.

National service may of been a good idea at the due to the "threat of inevitable war", but there's no place for it today. It's out dated. We deserve freedom.

Masburel, Isengard doesn't know who you're on about unless you refer to him as 'the fat bastard'.

Presisely.

Masburel, Isengard doesn't know who you're on about unless you refer to him as 'the fat bastard'.


i bear that in mind thanks :wink:

I am saying I've done the work before and I would do it again it was worthwhile and beneficial to me as well as others. I think thats an experience everyone should have.Just because it was good for you does not mean it will be good for everyone else.

Some people who went through national service thought that it helped them, others though it a waste of time that could have been spent at university (and quite a few others ended up dead).

I do not see any reason why a significant proportion of those who are forced to 'volunteer' will not hate it.

I think that blackmail would be closer to the mark than slavery.

Fifty hours over nineteen years doesn't sound too bad, I guess. Some people probably manage to do that by accident. Regardless, blackmail.

at school I did two weeks community service at an old folks home and that was 2005 :confused: (also lulz @ all the stories I've heard of pervy blind men from this one place)


and er though I gladly support any effort to make students work (especially as I'm 20 in Nov and have done some form of military service since age 15 and 9 months) its just an admin clusterfuck and very much was when the school did it in 2005 with all the places being taken up and 50+ students getting a free holiday because of it

I think that blackmail would be closer to the mark than slavery.

ah so I'm not the only one thinking we should just cut off ema if they refuse to work for it

Once again it's this government trying to get good headlines and achieve what are at the end quite admirable aims using far too much stick and not enough carrot, thus backfiring and exacerbating the very problem they are trying to combat.

Are teenagers getting overly isolated from the community - probably yes and the hostility of the Daily Fascist and the government isn't helping. This will just probably make it worse. Instead they should be trying to encourage develop and push more community/youth centers for teenagers - places where they can both enjoy themselves and hang out but which will also help organise volunteerism/community projects etc, not as a condition of attending, just as an opportunity which may lead towards things like the DoE. You'd be surprised how many people will take part in these things if their mates they hang out with are doing it. You can't force people into being part of the community but if you offer the right opportunities you usually won't have to. By human nature we like belonging to a group - teenagers don't want to be isolated any more than anyone else, but nor do they want to be forced into joining the governments ideal of 'community'.

"My kid failed all of his college tests. No, it doesn't. You owe 800 hours of community service. *stamps paper*"
Can I help it if he says, "You can't make me I don't wanna do it" -- just like people on this thread are saying?

Can I help it if he says, "You can't make me I don't wanna do it" -- just like people on this thread are saying?

They can't.

I wonder where they find these hours what with all the other politically motivated junk they stuff in the curiculum nowadays.

I wonder where they find these hours what with all the other politically motivated junk they stuff in the curiculum nowadays.
It's 50 hours over a period of years.

Hardly a massive amount of time.

It's 50 hours over a period of years.

Hardly a massive amount of time.

Its an hour a week over 2 years. PSHE gets less time than that.

Its an hour a week over 2 years.
Exactly.

And it wouldn't be during school hours, or even after the kid has left school.

When a government says, "You MUST do this, or face penalties!" It amounts to a claim of ownership of your time, labor, and physical being. Even when there is financial compensation, the threat of violence and the mandatory nature of the service remain unchanged. A free society must be based on truly voluntary interaction, where compulsion is only allowed as a means of enforcing a voluntary bilateral contract.

Here in the USA, Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel have voiced a desire to create what sounds like a mandatory civil service program as well. Any ppositive action you are compelled to perform against your will is slavery, and all involuntary servitude is supposedly forbidden by the US Constitution, but I suspect that legal weasels will attempt to justify it anyhow with their weasel words. It's shooting time if foreign precedent such as a similar law in the UK is used as an excuse to enforce it.

I'm reading this with a somewhat older and far more cynical eye

Do 50 hrs community service....

Now the kids that are'nt any trouble will have no problem doing this, hell some will want to do even more.
These kids are NOT the headline makers, nor are they the ones getting into to trouble and needing a program like this

Its a very small minority of kids who create the material for the daily wail to type up as "hoodie chavs bite the head off an elephant"
Now these kids dont goto school 'cos its boring so they are not going to do the community service either

Therefore the government , prodded on by the daily fail, implements a new idea:
100 hrs of community service
Then 200 hrs
Then 1000 hrs
None of which address the core problem
However by locking up a very very very very small minority of downright evil kids(we all know the ones we are talking about) we reduce crime, cut down of assaults

And to those people who are just about to bleat about 'human rights' what about the human rights of the vast majority of the population, both young and old, that these gits violate on a daily basis?

And to those people who are just about to bleat about 'human rights' what about the human rights of the vast majority of the population, both young and old, that these gits violate on a daily basis?

If you're suggesting locking up kids just because they look or talk a bit iffy, then yeah, people will bleat and rightly so. If you're suggesting locking up kids who do go out and commit crimes, however, then I don't think you'll get any arguments from most people, myself among them. Do the crime, do the time, as they say.

Sorry duck, that's not the way it works.

Is it or is it not compulsory? Or, if it is "voluntary," are there any plans to (eventually) make it compulsory?

As if I didn't have enough to do. 2011 in two years right? GRRRR I'll be 16. frammetty fram fram. This is feeling strikingly similar to italy's forced milatary service.

Sounds like a rather pointless waste of time. Still, at least Labour won't be reelected until hell freezes over.

Ok, yeah, good idea in theory, but like many others have said, the real problem kids will refuse to go, and the kids who haven't done anything will come to resent this. What about the kids who have to take care of a relative, or even their own kid? Daycare is expensive, atleast here in the US, and who could you get to take care of, say, your Grandma with Alzhiemers while you're off doing community service? If I were forced into this particular kind of program, I'd have to leave my 97 year old grandmother by herself for longer then I should. And, hell, what if the kid had a job right after school? They'd end up having to quit or be fired due to being late too often.

I'm guessing the Labour Party is looking for a way to legitimately keep its name, and this seemed easier than representing the working class laborers.


Nothing like forced labour to get kids interested in their community!
What's wrong with the Two Minutes of Hate? That always gets me feeling uber-communal.

Not fucking likely, the Tories are going to win in a landslide.

Not fucking likely, the Tories are going to win in a landslide.
I'm not quite ashamed to admit that I'm not up to speed on the political terminology of a country I don't live in. Could you elaborate?

Also, is York, England anything like New York, New York? Does it have a giant copper Statue of Servatude or Statue of Royal Kiss Ass?

As if I didn't have enough to do. 2011 in two years right? GRRRR I'll be 16. frammetty fram fram. This is feeling strikingly similar to italy's forced milatary service.

Millatary service is not quite the same.

I'll be nearly (17 nearly 18), so I'll still have to do it wont I? Or is it only people at school?

Not fucking likely, the Tories are going to win in a landslide.

It's quite bad when a friend of mine, who's both working class background and old enough to remember Thatcher (thus likely to be queueing up to dance on her grave) is actually considering voting Tory.



Also, is York, England anything like New York, New York? Does it have a giant copper Statue of Servatude or Statue of Royal Kiss Ass?

Well they do have one thing in common that they both hate cars and are full of tourists, but York is mostly stuck in the middle ages, with city walls, old churches and a pub for every day of the year. Oh, and ghosts, lots and lots of ghosts.

oops, forgot to mention in my OP:

I think this is a stupid idea, forcing people to do Voulantry work? wtf? im also guessing they wont give the students any say in what work they do, so an Art student could end up picking litter, wont that benefit them, not

I assume that they would be able to pick what they do, the bill does not make it clear. If they can than I for one am all for something like that.

why dont they just bring back National service and be done with it all

why dont they just bring back National service and be done with it all

Because that's a fucking stupid idea and will be ridiculously expensive?

why dont they just bring back National service and be done with it all

Is that Lord Kitchener in your avatar?

why dont they just bring back National service and be done with it all

Because the biggest opposition is the military, they don't want conscripts and will oppose any move towards national service if it includes military service.

Is that Lord Kitchener in your avatar?

Yes it is

Because that's a fucking stupid idea and will be ridiculously expensive?
but isnt what they proposing a form of national serivce though and i wouldnt really wish National Servicve on anyone , just seemed to me that it looked like it was National Service through the backdoor

Yes it is

Thought so. He's not exactly one of my favorite people, but no one can deny that the man had a fucking fantastic moustache.

*snip*

However by locking up a very very very very small minority of downright evil kids(we all know the ones we are talking about) we reduce crime, cut down of assaults

And to those people who are just about to bleat about 'human rights' what about the human rights of the vast majority of the population, both young and old, that these gits violate on a daily basis?

So what you're saying is that a compulsory service program would "test" the young people for criminal inclination? Rather than wait for them to destroy someone's property or mug someone, (and get caught, which is always problematic) make a demand of them and if they don't comply then punish them?

That's entrapment. Entrapment can detect and punish the intention to commit crime before it can do harm to innocents, but it always leads to the punishment of people who without the entrapment wouldn't actually commit a crime.

[/bleat]

I'm not quite ashamed to admit that I'm not up to speed on the political terminology of a country I don't live in. Could you elaborate?

You don't need to live here to understand what's happening. The Labour Party has been in power for, oh, roughly twelve years now. As time goes by and outrages continue to fluff up the headlines with increasing regularity, the general population - once loyal Labour partisans - will become disgruntled, blaming the Labour Party for everything that is wrong in their lives. When this sentiment reaches its zenith, the Conservative Party will gain power in a landslide election, and the cycle will begin again. With the current economic crisis going on, and with most Daily Fail / Daily Excess readers levelling the blame for the entire planet's problems squarely on ol' Gordon Brown's (aka Fat Bastard) shoulders, it's even more likely than ever. Tony Blair was much like Barrack Obama, in that he was able to spin his electorate up into a virtual frenzy with buzzwords and the like, and without him I don't fancy Labour's chances at the next general election anyway, recession or no - Brown just isn't as personable.

So anyway, theoretically the Labour Party represents the left (representing the workers, funded by unions and the rest of the stuff they like us to believe) and the Conservative Party (aka Tories, representing the bourgeoisie aristocrats and stamping all over the common man) represent the right, in a manner somewhat analogous to the way the Democrats and the Republicans are portrayed in America. In reality, with the exception of a few points here and there, these two parties are virtually indistinguishable in overall ideology. There is no real 'right wing' in British politics anymore, only a few fringe groups with no chance of ever gaining any power. As with any political parties, their supporters will continue to demonise their opposition with frightful zeal, never realising that it doesn't really matter either way, and all the while the two parties will continue to swap places through the decades.

Seeing as Labour continue to enact stupid, headline-grabbing 'initiatives' like this 'compulsory community service' lark, I can't say I'll be sorry to see them go, but I won't be voting for the Conservatives either.

Also, is York, England anything like New York, New York? Does it have a giant copper Statue of Servatude or Statue of Royal Kiss Ass?

New York is a modern metropolis, home to millions of people, a thriving hub of economical and cultural development with astonishing levels of urban infrastructure. Old York is an old Roman fort with some houses built in it, home to a little over a hundred thousand.

I agree with all that Mobius III has said.

Is it completely out of the question that the next general election will leave neither the Tories nor Labour with enough members to govern alone? I mean, either party needs a ten percent margin in seats to not have to deal with the Liberal Democrats ... that sounds like a lot to me.

It's quite bad when a friend of mine, who's both working class background and old enough to remember Thatcher (thus likely to be queueing up to dance on her grave) is actually considering voting Tory.I have a working-class background. I am old enough to remember Mrs Thatcher's government... and I'm also old enough to remember the Labour government that preceded her time in office, and how badly they fouled things up, and therefore to be grateful that she was elected.
She did win those three elections honestly you know, there were very good reasons why so many people chose to vote Conservative in those days...

Is it completely out of the question that the next general election will leave neither the Tories nor Labour with enough members to govern alone?
It's a possibility, but not a hugely likely one. Both parties would have to lose a number of seats to small parties, and as I think the majority of constituencies in the UK are safe seats. this probably won't happen.

That being said, if enough folks are disgruntled with Labour but won't switch to the Tories, and thus vote for a third party, we could have some wacky coalition or a hung parliament. We haven't seen that in the UK for years.

Is it completely out of the question that the next general election will leave neither the Tories nor Labour with enough members to govern alone? I mean, either party needs a ten percent margin in seats to not have to deal with the Liberal Democrats ... that sounds like a lot to me.

I personally don't see that happening unless something drastic occurs between now and the general election (like, the Liberals not only saving the global economy, but creating a post-scarcity economy where everybody will live in peace, harmony and prosperity for the rest of time), but I'm not a political analyst so you don't have to listen to anything I say. In fact, you wouldn't have to listen to anything I said even if I were a political analyst, as they have a tendency to talk bollocks sometimes as well.

It's a possibility, but not a hugely likely one. Both parties would have to lose a number of seats to small parties, and as I think the majority of constituencies in the UK are safe seats. this probably won't happen.

That being said, if enough folks are disgruntled with Labour but won't switch to the Tories, and thus vote for a third party, we could have some wacky coalition or a hung parliament. We haven't seen that in the UK for years.

It would be more fun. I'd welcome a third party in our own Parliament ... though perhaps not if it meant having 600+ MP's.

The two major parties agree on too many things, and I think you have the same problem ...

I personally don't see that happening unless something drastic occurs between now and the general election (like, the Liberals not only saving the global economy, but creating a post-scarcity economy where everybody will live in peace, harmony and prosperity for the rest of time), but I'm not a political analyst so you don't have to listen to anything I say. In fact, you wouldn't have to listen to anything I said even if I were a political analyst, as they have a tendency to talk bollocks sometimes as well.

There seems to be a general acceptance that Labour is doomed ("12 years is a long time" etc) but a strong upturn in the world economy would help. Labour could claim credit, however little control they actually do have.

On the other hand, all Western governments are running up a big bill just now. Being the next government might be a poisoned chalice ...

New York is a modern metropolis, home to millions of people, a thriving hub of economical and cultural development with astonishing levels of urban infrastructure. Old York is an old Roman fort with some houses built in it, home to a little over a hundred thousand.

Better to say that York is a Medieval political and commercial centre (almost became the English capital at various points) which stayed in stasis when the Industrial Revolution happened. It was founded by the romans though as a fort :p

It would be more fun. I'd welcome a third party in our own Parliament ... though perhaps not if it meant having 600+ MP's.

The two major parties agree on too many things, and I think you have the same problem ...
Aye, though we already have more than two parties in Parliament, we just only ever have one of two parties in government.

I'm 18 years old, plough on with my education, am a good citizen and am the very opposite of the yobs which crowd the streets of my once glourious nation. But if Brown thinks he's getting ME to do community service because of those unaceiving illiterate yobs he's got another thing coming.

It's this kind of idiotic thinking of the Labour party that made me go from Labour to Conservative in the first place and I used to be a communist dammit all!!!

But if Brown thinks he's getting ME to do community service because of those unaceiving illiterate yobs he's got another thing coming.
Have you a problem with working in the community per se, disregarding this poor way of ensuring it as proposed by Brown?

(I'm a Utopian Soviet Union, just my other profile)

I don't have a problem working with the community per se.

What I do have a problem with is the principel behind it all, the sweeping generalisation that all teenagers are yobs (i agree with it, mostly) and don't see why on earth I'd have to make up for others idiotic behaviour.

On the other hand, whilst I don't have a problem working with the community, I am unfortunate enough to live in an area of high social and economic poverty, it's one of those once rural areas where those from the slums get sent to on newly built council estates. As such, my "community" is made up of "generally" useless lazy yobs of all ages.

Hence, in this particular example, I wouldn't want to help MY community because I don't want to have anything to do with them, i'm hoping that either the Romney Marsh will flood and wipe them out of Dungeness Powerstation B will go BOOM.

I have a working-class background. I am old enough to remember Mrs Thatcher's government... and I'm also old enough to remember the Labour government that preceded her time in office, and how badly they fouled things up, and therefore to be grateful that she was elected.
She did win those three elections honestly you know, there were very good reasons why so many people chose to vote Conservative in those days...

I too am old enough to remember all the above. But I disagree. Thatcher done more harm than good, and even now we are reaping the 'benifits' of her reign.

I'm 18 years old, plough on with my education, am a good citizen and am the very opposite of the yobs which crowd the streets of my once glourious nation. But if Brown thinks he's getting ME to do community service because of those unaceiving illiterate yobs he's got another thing coming.

It's this kind of idiotic thinking of the Labour party that made me go from Labour to Conservative in the first place and I used to be a communist dammit all!!!

Then you need to reclaim your roots my freind. It does no good voti8ng for the opposition just because the party of your choice appear to have fucked things up.

Politics as I'm sure has already been mentioned, if not this thread then another, seems to run in cycles. People will gradualy get pissed off with the goverment and voice their disaproval by voteing for the opposition the next time around.

Big mistake in my books, how can a socialist in all good conciousness ever vote Tory?

I seem to be one of the few people here who isn't entirely opposed to this sort of thing, so I'll state my experiences.

I had to do 100 hours of community service in high school. It was a requirement to graduate. However, I had extensive leeway in choosing my form of community service - all I needed was to have accumulated 100 hours by the end of my senior year, as demonstrated by signed notes from whoever was in charge of whatever I was doing. I filled my hours in four ways:

1. Volunteering at the local library. My work there consisted of sharpening pencils, shelving books, and sorting through the return bins. I joked that it wasn't entirely selfless - my mom estimated that for every hour I worked (for free) they saved enough money by not having to pay someone to do the work I was doing to buy a new book.

2. A few hours spent volunteering at a Salvation Army Christmas event, where poor people came in to get presents. My job there was to show a person to where the items they wanted were located, and making sure that they only took their allotted presents. Noteworthy because I was wearing a yarmulke the entire time, and because my entire family did it.

3. Helping at the annual school fundraising dinner twice (both junior and senior year). I was planning to help anyway, but my mom was in charge of the whole thing, so I didn't actually have a choice. I did get to leave school early that day, hung out with my friends at the actual dinner, and picked up a nice glass centerpiece as a wedding present for my cousin.

4. Student Council. I was definitely short on hours coming into my senior year, but weekly meetings, filling the snack machine every few weeks, and running the student store for 10 minutes every day helped a lot. Then I realized that since I helped at the kick-off retreat, I could count the entire time I was there as volunteer hours. That pushed my total well above 100.

I think that it is important to give back to the community, and I found the work rewarding. So long as the policy is implemented properly (in particular, giving the students tons of latitude to choose their particular form of community service), and they drop the "volunteer" bullshit, I support this policy.

I seem to be one of the few people here who isn't entirely opposed to this sort of thing, so I'll state my experiences.

I had to do 100 hours of community service in high school. It was a requirement to graduate. However, I had extensive leeway in choosing my form of community service - all I needed was to have accumulated 100 hours by the end of my senior year, as demonstrated by signed notes from whoever was in charge of whatever I was doing. I filled my hours in four ways:

1. Volunteering at the local library. My work there consisted of sharpening pencils, shelving books, and sorting through the return bins. I joked that it wasn't entirely selfless - my mom estimated that for every hour I worked (for free) they saved enough money by not having to pay someone to do the work I was doing to buy a new book.

2. A few hours spent volunteering at a Salvation Army Christmas event, where poor people came in to get presents. My job there was to show a person to where the items they wanted were located, and making sure that they only took their allotted presents. Noteworthy because I was wearing a yarmulke the entire time, and because my entire family did it.

3. Helping at the annual school fundraising dinner twice (both junior and senior year). I was planning to help anyway, but my mom was in charge of the whole thing, so I didn't actually have a choice. I did get to leave school early that day, hung out with my friends at the actual dinner, and picked up a nice glass centerpiece as a wedding present for my cousin.

4. Student Council. I was definitely short on hours coming into my senior year, but weekly meetings, filling the snack machine every few weeks, and running the student store for 10 minutes every day helped a lot. Then I realized that since I helped at the kick-off retreat, I could count the entire time I was there as volunteer hours. That pushed my total well above 100.

I think that it is important to give back to the community, and I found the work rewarding. So long as the policy is implemented properly (in particular, giving the students tons of latitude to choose their particular form of community service), and they drop the "volunteer" bullshit, I support this policy.

All that you say is true, and indeed in my own youth I also done voluntary work for everal groups. However it should be voluntary should it not?

I think that it is important to give back to the community, and I found the work rewarding. So long as the policy is implemented properly (in particular, giving the students tons of latitude to choose their particular form of community service), and they drop the "volunteer" bullshit, I support this policy.
I fully agree that working within the community is a rewarding activity that should be encouraged (and on a side note, I think a few folks might be wrongly equating 'community service' with the image of convicts in orange jumpsuits picking up litter by motorways).

What I object to is the motivations for and (proposed) implementation of this scheme.

Fostering a genuine sense of community through projects that benefit all members, including teenagers, is a desirable thing. But proposing to force teenagers to help out because you want to win some right-wing votes is despicable.

Is it or is it not compulsory? Or, if it is "voluntary," are there any plans to (eventually) make it compulsory?
That's not the point. If you want me, or anyone else, to believe your exaggerated nonsense about this being slavery, you have to prove, or at least present some form of argument, that it is indeed slavery. Asking for proof that it isn't slavery doesn't cut it.

(I'm a Utopian Soviet Union, just my other profile)

I don't have a problem working with the community per se.

What I do have a problem with is the principel behind it all, the sweeping generalisation that all teenagers are yobs (i agree with it, mostly) and don't see why on earth I'd have to make up for others idiotic behaviour.

On the other hand, whilst I don't have a problem working with the community, I am unfortunate enough to live in an area of high social and economic poverty, it's one of those once rural areas where those from the slums get sent to on newly built council estates. As such, my "community" is made up of "generally" useless lazy yobs of all ages.

Hence, in this particular example, I wouldn't want to help MY community because I don't want to have anything to do with them, i'm hoping that either the Romney Marsh will flood and wipe them out of Dungeness Powerstation B will go BOOM.

I laughed.

Even though you seem to hold yourself above the yobs you've got that Teenage Angst. "Fucking world fucking sucks, I hope it all blows up." Ah, I remember it well (had some last week actually, bit of a flashback ...)

I think the Community might be better off if you just stayed in your room and weren't obliged to spread your Attitude around the Community any more than necessary :D

ah, so much bitching at the concept of doing work :p

I really don't see it as that big a deal tbh I mean sure we can get to page 6 but why didn't I hear a peep when the compulsory education level was put to 18?

ah, so much bitching at the concept of doing work :p

I really don't see it as that big a deal tbh I mean sure we can get to page 6 but why didn't I hear a peep when the compulsory education level was put to 18?

peep then.

As someone who has worked in a school (or for that matter, just from my own experience of school) I say its a bloody awful idea. It's pretty much impossible to educate a teenager against their will, and forcing them to stay in school when they want to be Anywhere But ruins the learning environment for the others who are actually committed to their education.

Don't raise it -- bloody well lower it I say. Harsh and utilitarian perhaps, but unless there is going to be a LOT of money to reduce class sizes and provide other educational options (apprenticeships and such) the damage to the educations of the vast majority of students isn't worth the minimal benefit the refuseniks will get.

Gotta suspect it's more about "keeping them off the street." School ... as jail. Ageing them out, at the expense of the other inmates.

Gotta suspect it's more about "keeping them off the street." School ... as jail. Ageing them out, at the expense of the other inmates.Nah, it's about keeping them out of the unemployment figures...

I laughed.

Even though you seem to hold yourself above the yobs you've got that Teenage Angst. "Fucking world fucking sucks, I hope it all blows up." Ah, I remember it well (had some last week actually, bit of a flashback ...)

I think the Community might be better off if you just stayed in your room and weren't obliged to spread your Attitude around the Community any more than necessary :D

On the contrary i'm a very optimistic and cheerful individual boosted by my admittedly eccentric and somewhat hyperactive nature :p It is merely a fact that the local populace truly is a collection of social failings; no violence and very low crime, so quite a nice (i use the word rather tentativly) place to live if you have low aspirations in life.... All the people are just slightly thick. I do not exaggerate when I say that the areas filled with people who moved down from parts of London r relocated by their Council; also it's population is about forty percent retired... five percent retarded... (i'm being honest, lots of care homes...) and the rest are just.. eh....

And for the record, I shoul know, my family is one of those that moved from London :D

Big mistake in my books, how can a socialist in all good conciousness ever vote Tory?

I used to be a communist, then a socialist, now i'm a realist with lots of commonsense who thinks that Objectivisms probably the best kind of "utopia" we can acheive.

Honestly, anyone who holds onto ideaology through thick and thin and in the face of the obvious is a fool if it's clear they're making no sense. So I can vote Tory because I think that our nanny state is breeding a generation of low motivated idiots. Who knows, maybe a great depression folowed by hundreds of strikes, a few revolutionary battles and food and power shortages will kill enough of the lower class incompetant enough to "adapt" for us to start again.

And my families from the "Lower" class, so anyone who says that if you stuck in that slum like environment is talking rubbish because my families certainly demonstrated you can better yourselves or at least form fully structured sentences.

some female republican shoe thrower says Obama's idea to do something similar is a form of "brainwashing".

i think it's a fine idea.

we have much public work left undone; our national monuments are rotting, streets and parks are filthy (watch out for those needles!) and streams and lakes are full of beer bottles and those plastic thingies with holes that keep six packs of beer together.

these kids will just hang around street corners looking disreputable until they find a burger flipping job somewhere, so why not make good use of them?

you don't have to pay them minimum wage

they won't (at least most of them) get killed, as they would with simple military conscription (although i would never rule that out)

and your street corners instantly look more reputable!

besides, what's wrong with a little brainwashing?

Hmm... I didn't need any community service to graduate from high school but it's one of the requirements for one of the scholarships around here that everyone goes for (75 hours), and I think I ended up doing something like 150 hours by the end of high school. Most of that was tutoring elementary school students, which I did for 3 hours a week, and then I also helped with road clean ups on the stretch of road near my school, which my school's chapter of National Honor Society had adopted, and helped with other events related to that group. I think making something like that mandatory would have taken a lot out of it for me.

On the contrary i'm a very optimistic and cheerful individual boosted by my admittedly eccentric and somewhat hyperactive nature :p It is merely a fact that the local populace truly is a collection of social failings; no violence and very low crime, so quite a nice (i use the word rather tentativly) place to live if you have low aspirations in life.... All the people are just slightly thick. I do not exaggerate when I say that the areas filled with people who moved down from parts of London r relocated by their Council; also it's population is about forty percent retired... five percent retarded... (i'm being honest, lots of care homes...) and the rest are just.. eh....

And for the record, I shoul know, my family is one of those that moved from London :D

I don't know what the Ingsocs are up to over there. "If everyone was ten percent dumber, they would all live together much more happily, OK let's test that hypothesis by moving all the dumb people to one place ..."

A cunning plan, except that it leaves a dangerous concentration of smart people somewhere else. There'll be trouble.

I used to be a communist, then a socialist, now i'm a realist with lots of commonsense who thinks that Objectivisms probably the best kind of "utopia" we can acheive.

Sounds to me like you have some degenerative brain disease.

some female republican shoe thrower says Obama's idea to do something similar is a form of "brainwashing".

i think it's a fine idea.

we have much public work left undone; our national monuments are rotting, streets and parks are filthy (watch out for those needles!) and streams and lakes are full of beer bottles and those plastic thingies with holes that keep six packs of beer together.

My irony nostril twitches.

these kids will just hang around street corners looking disreputable until they find a burger flipping job somewhere, so why not make good use of them?

Damn right. It's like a couple centuries ago, full grown adults still standing around with nothing to do, couldn't even be bothered to put on clothes. Ask 'em if they wanted a job, and they'd just stare at you like you were talking Chinese. We did 'em a favour, even if a few did die on the ship coming over.


you don't have to pay them minimum wage

What socialist Right-to-Leech State do you live in? Paying ANYONE minimum wage is pussy.

they won't (at least most of them) get killed, as they would with simple military conscription (although i would never rule that out)

Yes. Teach 'em to follow orders ... not so much with the weapons training tho. If they need it, they'll pick it up.

and your street corners instantly look more reputable!

Shame about the national monuments though. I liked the statue of Custer on his horse we had in the square, and haven't really warmed to the plastic molten thing made of beer ties and used condoms.

Small price to pay I guess. Young folk have to express themselves somehow.

besides, what's wrong with a little brainwashing?

"Cleanliness is next to Godliness" as we used to say.

my point is that none of the students should have to do it if they dont want to, its not fair for one, and it also very unlikely to benefit many of them.

Why does it have to be all about what the students want? What about having a clean community?

I realise that schools in my district already require community service, but I find programmes such as these to be rather dubious.

Sure, children get more involved in community service, but they definitely don't do so out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it solely to meet requirements, like completing a homework assignment.

Colour me skeptical.

Why would people be opposed to it? I mean, we, as a society, are not bothered about forcing teenagers to do things against their will, such as school, or work experience, so what's wrong with community service, which would also have added benefits for the community?

Why would people be opposed to it? I mean, we, as a society, are not bothered about forcing teenagers to do things against their will, such as school, or work experience, so what's wrong with community service,

Because the reason for forcing teenagers to do things against their will is that government, parents, schools, make that decision for them in their own interest, believing that they are not competent to determine their own interest.

Of course, they may well be competent to do that. But one rule for all.

which would also have added benefits for the community?

There is your answer. It has benefits for someone else (the community, an employer, the armed forces, it matters not.)

You have a beneficiary, who may or may not be the same party as makes these "decisions" on the teenager's behalf. The beneficiary is not the sub-adult* but some other party with full adult or corporate rights.

The only justification for the limited rights of sub-adults is that decisions are taken in their interests. As soon as those decisions are taken in some other party's interests, what you are looking at is an abuse of power.

*Sub-adult: I think I just coined this. It means a child, a teenager, or indeed an adult, who is not granted full adult rights. Suitably menial-sounding, I fancy.

I don't know what the Ingsocs are up to over there. "If everyone was ten percent dumber, they would all live together much more happily, OK let's test that hypothesis by moving all the dumb people to one place ..."

A cunning plan, except that it leaves a dangerous concentration of smart people somewhere else. There'll be trouble.

It's already been tested, move to the Romney Marsh, everyones incredibly unmotivated but happy in a detached way, although 70% of the local population is depressed according to my doctor. Interesting how the idiots have life so easy, after all, I suppose if your incredibly thick you never worry about anything, or put much thougt into anything.

Explains why the stupid people breed like rabbits, as long as it moves and has two legs they'll go for it! Whilst the smart people tend to get muddled in small things like.... pesonalities... looks... oh yes and protection.

Sounds to me like you have some degenerative brain disease.

Compared to everyone else yes I do.

On the other hand Galieo was considered mad back in his day, look at his standing now.

I will say I have so far only read the first 2 pages of this thread so I may be repeating a few things that people have already said.

In order for me to get my Year 12 HSC, I was required to do 50 hours of community service, it was apart of the curriculum and failure to complete it would mean failure to compete Year 12, though we were doing this in Year 11 so as not to take up much time as others.

This was simply brought in by a few bright sparks in the education office and approved by the minister it was never used as an election platform but simply was. I think this is a pretty foolish idea after all what is it meant to do? Some say it will bring about a greater sense of community spirit and will help increase the amount of volunteer work in the future as the kids start doing more. Somehow I think forcing people to do something they don't want to isn't going to make them more likely to do so when they don't have t, only people who already had this sense of helping the community will continue to do so and more than likely will be doing it while at school.

One of the major failings of this will be the inability to monitor the millions of school kids not doing their 50 hours, I myself according to the rules of the community service only did 20, I did more than 50 but that will be for later. Many of my fellow classmates did absolutely no community service and simply made what they did up, which more than likely will be what happens when this is brought in the UK.

The fact that Brown is using this as an election issue seems a desperate attempt to bring out any sort of plan that will try and win votes rather than looking at and trying to fix the real issues.

Explains why the stupid people breed like rabbits, as long as it moves and has two legs they'll go for it! Whilst the smart people tend to get muddled in small things like.... pesonalities... looks... oh yes and protection.

Does this explain the dumbing down of the worldwide population?

That's not the point. If you want me, or anyone else, to believe your exaggerated nonsense about this being slavery, you have to prove, or at least present some form of argument, that it is indeed slavery. Asking for proof that it isn't slavery doesn't cut it.

If it's compulsory, it's slavery. Period.

If it's compulsory, it's slavery. Period.

Obeying the law is compulsory. Obeying the law, let's say of a libertarian variety, is slavery?

Obeying the law is compulsory. Obeying the law, let's say of a libertarian variety, is slavery?

Compulsory labor is slavery.

Compulsory labor is slavery.

Why? One formally still owns themselves.

Why? One formally still owns themselves.

But they're still being forced, against their will, to perform work they do not wish to do.

But they're still being forced, against their will, to perform work they do not wish to do.

And yet they own themselves. Slavery is when one doesn't own themselves.

And yet they own themselves. Slavery is when one doesn't own themselves.

Servitude, then?

Servitude, then?

Possibly, though one definition of servitude is slavery.

Does this explain the dumbing down of the worldwide population?

Probably, survival of the fittest doesn't involve intelligence, jut a races ability to reproduce itself... which irrisponsible idiots can do with frightening ease.

Ah yes, the Obamanization of Londinistan - big surprise here. More to the point, trying to get the most self-indulgent and boorish youth in western Europe to work should be good for a laugh

Ah yes, the Obamanization of Londinistan - big surprise here. More to the point, trying to get the most self-indulgent and boorish youth in western Europe to work should be good for a laugh

Why do people constantly make links to Obama even if he has nothing to do with it?

Ah yes, the Obamanization of Londinistan...
Oh grief, a Melanie Philips fan...

If it's compulsory, it's slavery. Period.
No, it isn't. Slavery is a condition of ownership of one person by another. I understand that it is presumptuous, given that the actual legislation has not yet been released, to assume this proposal, like the ones in other countries, will not require one to become a slave to a charity or public programme. However, it's a fair assumption, no?

Oh grief, a Melanie Philips fan...
*Shudders*

Probably, survival of the fittest doesn't involve intelligence, jut a races ability to reproduce itself... which irrisponsible idiots can do with frightening ease.

Yeah probably.

As for the rest of you, why is it only my short posts that contribute little to the issue at hand are quoted and talked about whereas those where I have put a little more thought into are always ignored?

And yet they own themselves. Slavery is when one doesn't own themselves.

If you can be forced to labor against your will under threat of punishment, do you really own yourself?

If you can be forced to labor against your will under threat of punishment, do you really own yourself?

If one has to obey the so called property rights of others that one hasn't consented to against one's will under the threat of punishment does one really own one's self?

Just because it was good for you does not mean it will be good for everyone else.

I do not see any reason why a significant proportion of those who are forced to 'volunteer' will not hate it.

Sure I accept that. What I don't accept is why people feel everything should be fun, yeah its hard work yeah you won't get paid but its for everyones benefit so get down and do it.

In my opinion there should be a choice of University, Vocational training, Military Service (basically earning a commission), or Community Service (Forrestry Commission, NHS, Council Service). It should pay or the further education should be free, the length's of service would have to change dependant on which option you take. If you drop out of Uni you have to take one of the other options. But thats my idea of National service not Gordon Brown's.

If one has to obey the so called property rights of others that one hasn't consented to against one's will under the threat of punishment does one really own one's self?

If you have a right to the property you earned through labor or trade, you are free. If you have no right to the property you earned by labor or trade, you are not free. Property is the physical manifestation of labor. If you do not respect the ownership of private property, you do not respect the ownership of labor. If you do not respect someone's ownership of his own labor, you enslave him. To seize property is to seize the labor of another.

As for the rest of you, why is it only my short posts that contribute little to the issue at hand are quoted and talked about whereas those where I have put a little more thought into are always ignored?

I think you guessed right, at the start of your longer post.

I will say I have so far only read the first 2 pages of this thread so I may be repeating a few things that people have already said.

In order for me to get my Year 12 HSC, I was required to do 50 hours of community service, it was apart of the curriculum and failure to complete it would mean failure to compete Year 12, though we were doing this in Year 11 so as not to take up much time as others.

Lots of posters described similar requirements. Some of them with a distinctly old-codgerish "it was good enough for me when I was young" tone.

I was in school long before that requirement. I don't think we were even required to do any Work Experience ... or if we were, I wriggled out of it somehow.

This was simply brought in by a few bright sparks in the education office and approved by the minister it was never used as an election platform but simply was. I think this is a pretty foolish idea after all what is it meant to do? Some say it will bring about a greater sense of community spirit and will help increase the amount of volunteer work in the future as the kids start doing more. Somehow I think forcing people to do something they don't want to isn't going to make them more likely to do so when they don't have t, only people who already had this sense of helping the community will continue to do so and more than likely will be doing it while at school.

Absolutely.

I and others also claimed that under-19's who really didn't want to do anything for anyone would have negative work-value to any charity or community organization (nicking stuff, assaulting clients or staff, generally being assholes.)

Would community organizations have any experience with (hell, would they have the legal powers to) discipline such under-19's as schools do, detention etc? Some under-19's wouldn't even be attending school any more, so passing the buck back there won't work.

One of the major failings of this will be the inability to monitor the millions of school kids not doing their 50 hours, I myself according to the rules of the community service only did 20, I did more than 50 but that will be for later. Many of my fellow classmates did absolutely no community service and simply made what they did up, which more than likely will be what happens when this is brought in the UK.

Yep. The costs of administering the program have been mentioned.

That the Australian version was subject to such lax administration that "making stuff up" was an option is useful information. I was assuming there would be a list of accredited charities the participants would have to choose from. And that someone would check with them.

The fact that Brown is using this as an election issue seems a desperate attempt to bring out any sort of plan that will try and win votes rather than looking at and trying to fix the real issues.

That it's populist trash and will never happen has been mentioned, yes ...

Happy?

I think you guessed right, at the start of your longer post.

Yeah good point, but I crave attention and acknowledgement. :p
Lots of posters described similar requirements. Some of them with a distinctly old-codgerish "it was good enough for me when I was young" tone.

I was in school long before that requirement. I don't think we were even required to do any Work Experience ... or if we were, I wriggled out of it somehow.

Indeed, not that I am saying they should do it because we did

Absolutely.

I and others also claimed that under-19's who really didn't want to do anything for anyone would have negative work-value to any charity or community organization (nicking stuff, assaulting clients or staff, generally being assholes.)

Would community organizations have any experience with (hell, would they have the legal powers to) discipline such under-19's as schools do, detention etc? Some under-19's wouldn't even be attending school any more, so passing the buck back there won't work.

I am sure that they could do what they do with other volunteers that work for them in the same way. Of course the theory would work out if they are denied charity work for this reason then they wont get their HSC but in reality that wouldn't happen.

Yep. The costs of administering the program have been mentioned.

That the Australian version was subject to such lax administration that "making stuff up" was an option is useful information. I was assuming there would be a list of accredited charities the participants would have to choose from. And that someone would check with them.

Well supposedly these people were going to be checked up on, not that it ever happened. If they really want to ensure that people are doing what they say they are doing then yes a list may be in order

That it's populist trash and will never happen has been mentioned, yes ...

Mhmm
Happy?

Yes, thank you very much. :fluffle:

If you have a right to the property you earned through labor or trade, you are free. If you have no right to the property you earned by labor or trade, you are not free. Property is the physical manifestation of labor.

But not necessarily the labour of the one who "owns" the property.

One example: an inheritance. If my grandmother dies and leaves me money, and the government taxes that money as it is transferred to me -- is the government taxing my labor, or my grandmother's?

Give this some thought. I think it would be equally absurd to claim that the government is enslaving a dead person, or that the government is enslaving a person (me) to do no work, for no hours.

If you do not respect the ownership of private property, you do not respect the ownership of labor.

This and what follows assumes the truth of "who owns the property owns the labor."

If one person does labor, and another person (after the "physical manifestation" -- a process which involves a great many factors roughly described as "the world economy") owns even a fraction of that property, then you are describing slavery. With or without government.

If you have a right to the property you earned through labor or trade, you are free.

A "thief" "steals" some property from someone and sells it to someone else. Does he have right to that cash that he earned through labor and trade?


If you have no right to the property you earned by labor or trade, you are not free.

So if said thief has no right to the cash is he is not free since he earned it through his labor and through trade?



Property is the physical manifestation of labor.

Proof?


If you do not respect the ownership of private property, you do not respect the ownership of labor.

Proof?

If you do not respect someone's ownership of his own labor, you enslave him. To seize property is to seize the labor of another.

Proof?

All the above only true for legitimate property rights. If one mixes their labor with someone else's legimately owned property one has no legitimate right to the fruits of one's labor, that is unless usufruct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usufruct) is legitimate. People disagree on which property rights are legitimate and how exactly one turns unowned property into unowned property, Nozick comes up with some problems with the concept of mixing labor entails.

Because the reason for forcing teenagers to do things against their will is that government, parents, schools, make that decision for them in their own interest, believing that they are not competent to determine their own interest.

Of course, they may well be competent to do that. But one rule for all.


The reason is irrelevant, it happens, teenagers do not have the same rights as adults in our society, so at the very least people could not treating it as a 'rights' issue.


The only justification for the limited rights of sub-adults is that decisions are taken in their interests. As soon as those decisions are taken in some other party's interests, what you are looking at is an abuse of power.


Since when is that the only justification? And do you have proof that community service doesn't benefit the teenager, even though one whole week of work experience does?

Sure I accept that. What I don't accept is why people feel everything should be fun, yeah its hard work yeah you won't get paid but its for everyones benefit so get down and do it.So not fun, not get paid and quite possibly no future benefit from it, no wonder people are calling it slavery.

Besides, why should they do it if they're not getting any benefit out of it?

In my opinion there should be a choice of University, Vocational training, Military Service (basically earning a commission), or Community Service (Forrestry Commission, NHS, Council Service).Did you ever consider that maybe you're not the person who should be providing the limited list of options to school-leavers?

Most people would end up picking something like that of their own free will (and the ones that wouldn't you probably wouldn't want to waste money on trying to train).

BTW: Creating an all officer army might not be the best use of defence spending.

It should pay or the further education should be free, the length's of service would have to change dependant on which option you take. If you drop out of Uni you have to take one of the other options. But thats my idea of National service not Gordon Brown's.If it pays a decent wage then you shouldn't need to make any of it compulsory.

Since when is that the only justification? And do you have proof that community service doesn't benefit the teenager, even though one whole week of work experience does?It is up to you to prove that community service benefits the teenager (ever wonder whether they might be doing it on their own if it did, just as a lot of kids have jobs?).

Volunteering for charity is something that most people aren't going to be doing in a big way throughout their life while working is something most people will be spending a lot of life doing.