Where would people stand on national service being a sentencing option?
People between say, 16 to 21, could be sent to do a year in the army if they have a histry of antisocial behaviour and reoffending.

Qualified doctor, at 18? In the first couple of years, it will mean those older, up to 26 will be targeted. But I would expect them to make exceptions for those who are going about a trade or studying full time. After such a scheme had come into effect, teenagers would be drafted at 18, so they know that it is coming. Over here, most people did 6th form college until they were 18, then their 9 month national service, then they were out in time to start university or an apprenticeship the next year.

I've got no objection to people who would otherwise sit around in gaol doing something useful, but the counter-argument to 'a year of national service will do them the world of good' is that it may but it also may just make them fitter, more organised criminals with a greater propensity for violence. I'd like to see some evidence of the actual average affect it has, rather than just assuming.

Also the army have consistently said they don't want to deal with a bunch of unmotivated, reluctant malcontents. Our army is currently a relatively small, highly trained, highly motivated set of people who strive to do their best in pretty much any situation thrust upon them, from the dustbowls of Afghanistan to the security gates of the Olympic Park. Asking them to integrate a bunch of surly teenagers who have absolutely no incentive to put any effort in at all isn't going to help the esprit de corps. Conscripts, as a rule. make rubbish soldiers.

As I say, I think there's some merit on making them an army, doing tasks for the benefit of society. I just don't really want them to be the army.

You could be doing a doctors residency before 26. Though training for an architecture degree was seven years so that would take you almost up to the limit.

I did 1 day in France, down from the 18th months my dad had to do in the 80s. He was already working as a teacher when he was sent away.

He seemed to think it was a good thing, if anything they helped the guys who had never had a decent education to learn to read and write. The educated persons to on more responsibilities (Radio etc).

In those cases there should be free adult literacy programs, but how did they slip through schools unable to read? Schools are so target orientated that they dump students likely to fail and drag down their league table results. Great for schools, lousy for kids.

Not really great for schools either. If the job of a school is to produce a person who can function in the work place, or can function in higher education, then they aren't doing too good a job. If the function of a school is to get exam passes, then they are doing fine.

The problem is, if you tell the school their funding depends on the amount of exam passes their students get, they are going to concentrate on exam passes.

That is the flaw of targets.

What is the level of illiteracy in the UK at the moment? Before I left, it was a big theme, with lots of adverts on television about how many people were illiterate and how different organisations could help.

Here in Germany they are running similar adverts. Something like 7.5 million people here can't read or write. Given the high number of immigrants, both legal and illegal, I suppose it isn't that surprising.

It would not surprise me that the numbers here are comparable allowing for population.

if any MP thinks that I'm going to allow a government of any colour to force me or my children into national service they've got another thing coming.

+1