How do you think Winston Churchill would have tackled the yob culture of today.?

Question

He was a great leader to have in a war situation, but how would he cope in the modern world.

Answer 1

Yes, a great leader.

He would have been ashamed to see our country now. To see what many courageous countrymen thought for is being over-run by ill-disciplined yobs who wouldnt last one second on a battlefield. They should be taught the history of this country so they know how privileged they are to be here speaking English instead of German. He would surely bring back national service. definitly

Answer 2

I agree with everything Frankie has just said. Churchill was the first UK (and possibly the first European) politician to talk about a European Union, He was also set up the first national minimum wage in 1908, he set up the first labour exchanges (job centres) in 1909, he help draft the unemployment pension legislation under the national insurance act of 1911. In 1910 he passed a budget that taxed the wealthy in order to set up a new social welfare programme, which was unfortunately vetoed by the house of lords. He only opposed the forming of the NHS in 1948 because he didn't think the country could afford it at the time (he was almost proved right in 1951 when the financial toll lead to the introduction of charges for prescriptions to offset the cost). Churchill would be considered a liberal by today's standards and would much more likely be a member of the liberal party than the tories in fact he crossed the floor from conservatives to liberals in 1904, before rejoining the conservatives in 1925. Whilst remembered mainly for his achievements as the war time conservative prime minister, he should equally be celebrated for much of the improvements he made to the working class people of this country in the early part of the 20th century.

Answer 3

Supprised that no one has mentioned the Sidney Street siege.

Churchill was the Liberal party Home Secretary when four policemen where shot dead by a gang.

On a tip off the Police laid siege to house holding two of the gang at 100 Sidney St. Unfortunately the gang where better armed than the police, and a stand off ensued. When Churchill was told of the situation he jumped out of his morning bath and went to Sidney Street to take personal control.

Finding the police outgunned, he ordered the Scots guards into the action, and also ordered a cannon to be brought up.

When the police and army stormed the house again, and it caught fire, a fire engine turned up and its crew were adamant that they where going to fight the fire. Churchill as home secretary ordered the firemen to stand down, and all the forces trained their guns on the front door of the building.

It was only after the building collapsed that the fire fighters where allowed in, and they later discovered two charred bodies.

I think this goes some way to showing how Churchill would have reacted, but remember he was a Liberal Home Secretary at the time of the siege.

Answer 4

I doubt that he would've sent them on national service as some suggest. Although presiding over the country during mass volunteerism and conscription, he would've realised that this was only a necessity due to the grave threat posed the other side of the Channel.

The British Army is the best in the world because it is a volunteer force: everyone of them wants to be there, fighting for the lads next to them! Ask any soldier and he'll tell you the last thing he wants is some grubby little scrote watching his back.

Although some harsh discipline wouldn't go amiss on those grubby little scrotes!!! The idea of managing them through some form of boot camp and then enforced community service (sewage construction, road maintenance etc) wouldn't be a bad idea: like bad lads army except without the cameras there. Then the "corporals" could dish out punishment suitable to the crime for the cocky little turds and bring them into line!

Answer 5

There's no way to know. Winston Churchill was born in 1874. If he were alive today he would be 133 years old. Assuming he lived to that age and was still able to function physically, I think he would be much the same as he was. in 1941, when he was only 67 years old. He was very progressive for his time, and would have kept that attitude into today's world.

On the other hand, if he were born later and was just turning 67 in todays world, the things that created him in his youth would have been completely different, and he would have developed into a different human being. I doubt that he would be the same as he was and might not have won the office of Prime Minister. He might even have moved to America and become a rock and roll star and done so much drugs that he couldn't deal with lunch. (He was a prolific drinker in his lifetime). If he did become prime minister, he would probably have a similar progressive attitude as he did in the 40's and would be able to adapt to the times.

Those are only a couple of possibilities. There's really no way to know.

Answer 6

He would have resurrected National Service. I know that makes me sound like a pensioner (Im 30) but I truly mean it.

When I was a teenager I went slightly off the rails (though not as bad as todays kids) and when I was sixteen I joined the Army. The structure, self discipline, and pride in oneself it inspires sorted me out and I believe the same could be said for todays kids.

Churchill was a life long soldier until he went in to politics and even then he worked within the Admiralty and as Minister for War so I believe his knowledge of the benefits of military life would bring him to the same conclusion as me.

On the other hand he may just turn in his grave!

Answer 7

never a great fan of his but a reluctant admirer never the less. He would have dealt with it in a typical heavy handed manner... military style boot camps to beat some sense of respect or fear into the little shits but no military service.. that would show them how to hurt people even more. I have some personal experience of yob culture, I have suffered from it and come out on top both times. fear and pain is the only answer... the liberal view has not worked we have to change to stop innocent dads from being kicked to death and old ladies from being beaten. strong words i know but we have given the soft approach a chance for too long. Winnie would never have let it get this far, he would have acted and to hell with the low life scum's human rights. They cross over that line once they hurt people.

Answer 8

He didn't cope with the modern world, he hated it and was on record as saying that the young of his day did not have the spirit of their fathers.

Some points about National Service.
The Krays did it. the Army could not cope with them and threw them out. At one time they were held in the tower of London guard room.
Successive governments in peace and wartime maintained prisons for failed national service men, one at Shepton Mallet. They were full of the yobs of yesteryear young men who could not or would not except discipline.
many national service men served up to three years because they went absent so often after which they were court Martial given jail sentences in prisons like Shepton Mallet.

Answer 9

- Lit up a cigar.

- Signed a paper which meant that any yob caught committing a crime would automatically be drafted into the armed forces.

Okay I know that people say that NS does not work and that the army want WILLING people. However, it is a threat - FOLLOW THE LAW OTHERWISE THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES.

Answer 10

national service would still be on the go under Sir Winston Churchill aswould the death sentence,and life meaning life as
in imprisonment