 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
They've been banging on in the press about how former armed services personnel are twice as likely to be convicted of aggravated or sexual assault than non-military members of the general public.
Cue lots of head-scratching and naval gazing by the liberal left about how these poor creatures are being so damaged by their experiences in the theatre of conflict that we are effectively turning them into violent thugs and rapists.
Has anybody stopped to think that it might be down to the fact that those with a propensity to commit violence are far more likely to join the armed forces?
Personally, I'm a lover, not a fighter. I could never bring myself to inflict any injury or death on another human being, so a career in the armed forces never crossed my mind. It's also a pretty safe bet that I'd never be convicted of a violent or sexual assault - it's just not in my make up.
However, I have known people who are capable of causing injury - indeed some seem to revel in it - and a few of these people are now in the military. These are the sort of people that think nothing of getting involved in drunken fights and end up locked up for affray or assault.
Isn't it time people stopped looking for blame in every situation? Some people are just bad eggs and their actions are far more likely to simply be a manifestation of their characters rather than some sort of reaction to experiences whilst on a tour of duty.
Discuss...