Jame Hulme of the New Local Government Network (who?) has this hateful nonsense in the Telegraph.
It’s about this idea for compulsory Civic Service for the yoof.
Let’s fisk it…
Whilst Hampstead liberals and professional harridans will no doubt balk at the idea, citing an abhorrent infringement of our young people’s liberty, the scheme could spark a revival in civic pride and help to tackle unemployment, crime and anti-social behaviour.
So your argument starts with a crude insult, James? “Civic pride” eh? Don’t people take pride in things they do voluntarily? I don’t suppose too many Soviet zeks were too Gulag-proud…
…but more importantly such a scheme could be a way to teach young people self-confidence, self-worth and the virtue of work.
Heck, if they don’t work then just enslave ‘em. Problem solved! Yeah, toting those bales of cotton in Alabammy 200 years ago really did taught the “virtue of work” for it’s own sake.
You don’t have to be a paid-up member of the hug-a-hoodie brigade to recognise that the root of why many young people get into trouble is not necessary just because of poverty, but because of low aspiration, no role models and no moral guidance.
What moral guidance does putting them into the chain gang give anyone…
Take, for instance, a teenager who has grown up in a household where nobody has ever worked. Then say he leaves school without any qualifications. What chance does he have of making something of himself? What is the likelihood that he will become involved in crime and gangs? By insisting that he undertakes a volunteering scheme, he will have a chance to learn new vocational and academic skills, meet new people and achieve things that might just turn his life around.
OK, so the kid has left compulsory education with no “vocational and academic skills” so you, James, suggest that six more months of conscription will do the trick and “turn his life around”? Yeah, right. And the least I say about the Orwellian oxymoron of “…insisting he undertakes a volunteering scheme…” soonest mended. How do you propose to implement this anyway?
On a practical basis, critics will argue that the scheme would be vastly expensive and bureaucratic. It will no doubt be decried as illiberal, often by the sort of middle-class families whose children already have the opportunity to undertake voluntary work, albeit in faraway countries. A national scheme would indeed be costly, but the benefits would outweigh this. Indeed, how much might the scheme reduce crime, drug dependency and anti-social behaviour? How much might it save by preventing a young person from embarking on a life of worklessness?
Lots of question there James. Lots. Not a single answer. Oh and it is illiberal. Oh, and you’re back to slagging off the middle-classes again and yet again completely failing to understand the meaning of the word “volunteer”.
The old form of military service is not on the agenda but that is not to say we shouldn’t seriously look at a compulsory form of civic service. It is not an authoritarian idea; certainly no more than insisting that young people attend school. It would not solve Britain’s problems overnight but would give young people are real stake and sense of belonging in our society.
It is an authoritarian idea. It is slavery which is generally regarded as being a lickle bit on the authoritarian side. It would not give anyone “a sense of belonging” other than a sense of “belonging to” as in being owned. But that’s your point, you fascist cunt, isn’t it?
I have a better idea. If this “socially useful labour” needs doing why can’t we force the Think Tankers and Quangoists and all the rest to do it? Eh, go on James. Round up all your pals and labour to built the Glorious Socialist Future! Because I have seen elderly scrotes cough-up more valuable things onto pavements outside of bookmakers than the shite you wrote in this article.