10% of prisoners are military vetarans.

[Al R]

BBC - Today - 10% of prisoners 'are veterans' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8274000/8274190.stm)

Food for thought.

[Jackonicko]

The report said that there were "20,000 ex servicemen 'in the criminal justice system' - on parole, in prison (8,500), etc....."

Apparently this number is largely down to alcohol problems and domestic violence.

There seems to be a similarly disproportionate number of ex-servicemen who are homeless, or who have drug or drink problems.

And though you might dismiss the statistics (after all young men leave the services, young men naturally form the bulk of those in the criminal justice system) surely these young men should be LESS likely to offend than their civilian counterparts (even after service) - not more?

Don't the services take the higher calibre youngsters? Don't they 'grow them up' while they are in? Don't they inculcate the very values of discipline and self control that should make criminal behaviour less likely? Is it therefore naive to assume that the ex-servicemen should be less likely to offend?

I realise that PTSD, war service, etc. can all be extremely traumatic, but did returning servicemen in 1945 create the same 'bow wave' of petty crime?

[Whenurhappy]

Whilst the statistics may be correct (10% of offenders, 25% of homeless in London etc), drilling down will demonstrate that a significant percentage of these people were discharged from the Services (primarily the Army) after a relatively short time - often not completing Recruit training, or were dismissed for gross disciplinary reasons. Again, whilst not ignoring a Duty of Care requirement, quite of few of the people falling into this category were clearly not suitable for a military career; indeed a number of homeless who claim to be 'ex-services' are, in fact, ex Reserve forces, typically the TA, who left/discharged without operational experience.

[Final 3 Greens]

Regardless of who is/isn't proper serviceman, Kipling captured the paradox of society and the soldier in 1890.

Tommy

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, 'We serve no erd-coats 'ere.'
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed and giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again, an' to myself sez I:
Oh, it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Tommy, go away':
But it's 'Thank you, Mister Atkins,' when the band begins to play -
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
Oh, it's 'Thank you, Mister Atkins,' when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Tommy, wait outside';
But it's 'Special train for Atkins' when the trooper's on the tide -
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
Oh, it's 'Special train for Atkins' when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?'
But it's 'Thin red line of 'eroes' when the drums begin to roll -
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
Oh, it's 'Thin red line of 'eroes when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that , an' 'Tommy, fall be'ind,'
But it's 'Please to walk in front, sir,' when there's trouble in the wind -
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
Oh, it's 'Please to walk in front, sir,' when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Chuck him out, the brute!'
But it's 'Saviour of 'is country' when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees

Rudyard Kipling
1890


PS: I am a civilian and am appalled at the way UK servicemen are currently treated

[RETDPI]

Jackonicko.
"I realise that PTSD, war service, etc. can all be extremely traumatic, but did returning servicemen in 1945 create the same 'bow wave' of petty crime?"

The short answer to your question is "Yes".

Without having the figures to hand, there was a rise in not so petty crime including violent crime in U.K. in the immediate post WW2 period in U.K.
This was put down in some quarters to the aggresive close combat training that had been given to young "hostilities only" soldiers who were then alledgedly not able to adjust back to the constraints of civilian life. This was as taught in the late 60's ( pre-the hyperbolic Vietnam self flagellation exercise) when PTSD was not yet a term in use ( yet LMF still was!)

[Wader2]

to the aggresive close combat training that had been given to young "hostilities only" soldiers who were then alledgedly not able to adjust back to the constraints of civilian life. This was as taught in the late 60's

RETDPI, as I am a little older than you, it was not at 'taught in the late 60's' but as talked about in the press in the early 50s. As a child of tender years I go not recall the details but I seem to remember that the threat was greater than the actuallity.

The problem was more in the big cities and an active black market and gang warfare. Much military equipment was available either legitimately or not. Knuckledusters rather than knives were the prefered instrument of threat.

Recently I was shown some examples by an ex-commando who had failed to hand them in. He used them in his talks. He is a pleasant old boy in his 80s. One was the Fairburn dagger, a two-sided stilleto. Another was a spring loaded cosh, similar to the modern police truncheon. One knuckleduster was a simple palm and knuckle. The other had a knife attached too.

[Rigger1]

Whilst the statistics may be correct, drilling down will demonstrate that a significant percentage of these people were discharged from the Services (primarily the Army) after a relatively short time - often not completing Recruit training, or were dismissed for gross disciplinary reasons.



What absolute CRAP. The reason is that when you leave the forces you leave a family, a family that supports you in every way and in some ways too much. Does the forces really teach young men to grow up?

The majority of people are your mates who look out for each other, there is the older brother, the CPL who knows how to get things done, the elders, the fatherly SNCO or WO who gives advice, as well as discipline, people willing to help you in admin, stores, the mess etc, the Officers who oversee all but are willing to give advice when needed. When young men (and some not so young leave) all this is suddenly removed. The UK forces abandon the majority who served into a cruel hostile civilian world without support, where people don’t help and very quickly you can find yourself struggling without anyone to turn to for advice, and with the discipline removed for a large number it is easy to turn to crime.

The way we treat our ex servicemen in this country is a disgrace, that’s the problem.

[skua]

Jacko

Two (related) points to bear in mind when comparing now with post 1945:

1. any leaving the Services after WW2 was far from alone. It was almost as if a whole generation was transferring from the forces to Civvy Street - so there would have been a lot more peer support.

2. British society was more understanding of military life - having servicemen in a family was obviously commonplace.

Those factors mean that any leaver now finds himself in a less hospitable world.

Skua

[GPMG]

To continue Skua's post, there is also the fact that the whole nation was also still in a state of shock and also experienced in helping each other and also still willing to do so.



Also the forces of the 40's had Vera Lynn to cheer them up.

[StbdD]

While I wouldn't go so far as to call most forces a "family" these days, it is quite accurate to describe them as a fairly complete support system for a young person.

They enter the service generally straight out of their family homes which had provided them with the basic Maslow needs of food, shelter, etc. The service then picks up the task with most of those same, at least the major of them, needs.

When they walk away, no matter how many 'de-mob' lectures and such they sit through, the bottom line is that many aren't quick enough to switch on and realize they are responsible for filling those needs themselves now.

The fact that society today seems to teach a nanny state approach in which the govt is supposed to supply all our needs isn't helping much when they hit the cold hard reality of life out of uniform. They are often in over their heads the day the walk out the gate. Some adjust to that better than others.

However, I personally do not believe that their military training makes them any more likely to commit a violent crime. Especially compared to your average footy hooligan of that same general age grouping (20-30). And I suspect that the stats would look a bit different if all of the hooligan crimes actually made it to the report stage.

It might however make them better at it if they were so inclined.

And a final cold hard truth is that their backgrounds before enlistment and the communities they returned to are extremely influential in their behavior. Some, if not many, enlisted to escape less than stellar situations. If you came from a ****e life and went back to it after the forces, it's still ****e.

[Mr C Hinecap]

Don't the services take the higher calibre youngsters? Don't they 'grow them up' while they are in? Don't they inculcate the very values of discipline and self control that should make criminal behaviour less likely? Is it therefore naive to assume that the ex-servicemen should be less likely to offend?


Look at the average reading age of Army recruits - you'll draw your own conclusions. They grow them up and teach them how to do the bad things we need them to do in order to 'project policy'. They give them an instant family, with structure, with food, shelter, beer, tell them what to wear, where to be, when to be there.

That is then removed when they leave. No structure, increased exposure to very bad things on ops prior etc etc. If you take a 17 year old and give him a structure until age 40 (or RAF age 55) there is a good chance they may become institutionalized. I've seen it time and time again with very capable chaps worried about leaving at the end. I can only imagine how that pans out across the Army and earlier generations.

[RETDPI]

RETDPI, as I am a little older than you, it was not at 'taught in the late 60's'

Actually I was taught it during my first year as a student at Chelsea College, University of London, 1969-70 .:ok:

[glhcarl]

One thing that was not pointed out is "what percentage of the population is ex-military"?

If 10% of the population is ex-military then you would expect that same percentage to be incarcerated.

Sounds like typical liberal anti-military news reporting.

[Whenurhappy]

Rigger1

The fact is that a significant number of these lads were'nt cut out for military life; echoing Mr C Hinecap's points, the recruiting base sadly predisposes many towards a potential life of crime. Conversly, the forces - and the Army in particular - are an agent for social mobility, moreso that a Social Welfare system that encourages the status quo ante.

Evidence from COmbat Stress is interesting. On average, those being referred to CS for assistance had served for 12 years, and waited 14 years before seeking help. There is a huge bow wave of mental (and criminal) issues pareceeding us, because of TELIC and HERRICK.

[Rigger1]

so you are saying that out of the 20,000 people this report talks about as being ex military, that the majority of them didn’t complete recruit training or were disciplined out ...... that means virtually everyone who leaves recruit training early or gets the boot over 10 years+ would have to turn to crime. Sorry I just can't see that happening.

[Mr C Hinecap]

A lack of formal education does not set someone up for a life of crime. I was reflecting on what Jackonicko said and certainly was not implying anything relating to criminal behavior. I mean - I'm a Geordie and I've not got a record!

[pr00ne]

glhcarl,

"Sounds like typical liberal anti-military news reporting."

What? It's a report from the Prison Officers Union and the spokesman was from the National Association Of Prison Officers.

Hardly what you'd call liberal anti-military, eh?

Jeezz....................................................... .......

[Rigga]

I dont see this as an 'issue' at all!

How many prisoners are ex-civil service, ex-police, ex-bin men?

The fact is there are an awful lot of ex's out there because a great amout of servicemen have been leaving the services for a great amount of time.

How about this for a Headline -

"10% of the UK population are ex-armed services personnel (and some are in prison)"

[CirrusF]

"10% of the UK population are ex-armed services personnel (and some are in prison)"


A very good point. Anybody got a link to stats of what percentage of the UK population have served in one form or another in the services?

[Al R]

Rigga said:
I dont see this as an 'issue' at all!

How many prisoners are ex-civil service, ex-police, ex-bin men?

The fact is there are an awful lot of ex's out there because a great amout of servicemen have been leaving the services for a great amount of time.

How about this for a Headline -

"10% of the UK population are ex-armed services personnel (and some are in prison)"


Rigga,

I think the point is, pro rata, there are far more retired service personnel inside than there are retired bin men, school teachers, postmen or accountants. There would be a huge advantage to the welfare, economic and penal system, if it could be understood what made such a large, condensed sector of the population end up doing bird. Especially as it is such a captive (sorry) audience beforehand.

[glhcarl]

Sounds like typical liberal anti-military news reporting."

What? It's a report from the Prison Officers Union and the spokesman was from the National Association Of Prison Officers.

Hardly what you'd call liberal anti-military, eh?



The Prison Office Union put out the report, it was the BBC that reported it. I didn't read about the report in the Telegraph? The BBC has a liberal anti military agenda and looks for any story that discredits the military?

[minigundiplomat]

The BBC has become a dumbed down corporation, muzzled by the government following the Hutton Inquiry, but I wouldn't say it is anti-military.

If it has a fault, it is that if anything is particularly controversial, it is not reported. I quite often watch the BBC news only to turn over to Sky news and discover a whole raft of current affairs which the BBC has chosen either not to report on, or mention casually in passing.

Dumbed down Yes, anti-military No.