Vlad, I completely agree.
65 year-old men are not suitable to send to war.  It's a physical thing, though in many cases mental too.

From what I read, many of our young men can't be bothered to work for a living, and would prefer to receive handouts, in may cases, for protesting with Palestine flags and worse, damaging works of art, etc.

Every one of them should be called up and sent to army camps for training.  The old traditional methods to persuade them to comply would work just as well today as they did in the old days.
That would not only be more suitable than those physically unable to fight, but would also ensure that they are of use to the country rather than behaving in an infantile manner and living on handouts.

The old military training definitely worked; it will work again.

Mentioned elsewhere. I'll just copy in my post from that thread...

At 65 many could fill positions in the rear but front line duty is for the young. They are the ones with bodies and reactions that can take the strain and stupid enough to believe "it won't happen to me". I imagine most were immortal at 18.

Quote from: Scrumpy on Today at 10:45:36 AMI'm stuck..

That's because you try to guess words rather than eliminate letters first. My usual start words revealed all 5 letters and the solution is the only way that those letters would fit together to make something that looked like a viable word. Without it being a common word and only having some of the letters with others ruled out it would be completely impossible to actually solve by any normal means.

In outlook, though thankfully not yet In methodology, I see little difference between Trump and Putin

Couldn't have put it better

Not my words, but taken from another veterans post and thought it was worth a share.
To the UK Government.

This latest idea — recalling veterans up to 65 — isn't policy. It's panic. It's what happens when a government realises too late that nobody believes in it, and instead of asking why, it reaches for the nearest generation that still remembers duty.

Let's strip away the spin.

If young people won't fight for you, that isn't a failure of youth — it's a damning indictment of leadership. You've spent years telling them Britain is broken, shameful, historically suspect, and morally inferior. You've taught them that patriotism is cringe, borders are optional, and the country itself is something to be managed, not loved.

And now you're surprised they won't bleed for it?

So your answer is to turn around and say to the old hands:
"Go on then, one more time."

Men and women who already served.
Who already paid the price.
Who already carried the weight — physically and mentally — long after the uniforms came off.

Here's the bit you fundamentally don't understand, Kìer,
they didn't fight for politicians.
They didn't fight for slogans, diversity statements, or focus-grouped values.
They fought for their mates, their families, their homes — for a country that meant something.

That country has been chipped away, mocked, diluted, apologised for, and managed into mediocrity by people like you. And now, when the cupboard is bare, you think you can knock on the door of the very people you helped discard, and demand loyalty on command.

You can't conscript belief.
You can't recall pride.
And you sure as hell can't outsource courage to men with replaced knees and broken backs because your government inspires none.

This isn't strength.
It's institutional cowardice — hiding behind past generations because you've failed the present one.

So let's be crystal clear:

If the young won't fight for you —
the old won't either.

They already gave enough.
And they won't be guilt-tripped into propping up a government that has no idea what Britain is, what it stands for, or why anyone should defend it.

You don't have a recruitment problem.
You have a legitimacy problem.

And no amount grey hair, or nostalgic press releases will fix that

Well said, Raven.

Nothing this incompetent government expects to do surprises me.  They are the most inept and stupid group of people I have ever heard of.  If they really hope to send men of that age (or do they also intend to include women?) they have lost all sense of reason.

Why not all young men who 'can't manage to find work'?  I believe that there are far more unemployed young men than has ever happened in the past.

Wordle 1,674 2/6

🟩⬜🟨🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Never heard of it.

I'm stuck..

At 65 many could fill positions in the rear but front line duty is for the young. They are the ones with bodies and reactions that can take the strain and stupid enough to believe "it won't happen to me". I imagine most were immortal at 18.