But the process of toughening up young recruits - many aged just 16 or17 - can leave them particularly vulnerable. They are cut off from theirusual support networks, in a highly stressful environment, and withevery aspect of their lives controlled by officers and instructors.
And while the armed forces would argue that care is taken to preventabuses, there have been enough cases to demonstrate that trainingestablishments can be attractive environments for bullies and sadists.The report by Nicholas Blake QC into the deaths of recruits at Deepcutbarracks is simply the latest confirmation of what he described as "aculture of intimidation" (See Analysis, p11).
There is no reason why those responsible for the supervision and welfareof young recruits should not be subject to the same vetting and externalinspections as everybody else who works with young people. The powerimbalance that operates in military training establishments is so greatthat extra care should be taken, not less as currently appears to be thecase.
Similar issues apply to immigration holding centres, which have beenrepeatedly criticised by the chief inspector of prisons as unsuitableand unsafe for children.
This has prompted immigration minister Tony McNulty to admit at lastthat there "may be a need" for independent monitoring of such facilities(see News, p8). He should go further and admit that there is a need. Andthen he should have a word with his colleague, the armed forces ministerAdam Ingram, and advise him to put in place similar protections foryoung people in the army.
Experience with settings such as prisons and children's homes has shownthat it is only through independent monitoring, inspections and arobust, independent complaints system that abuses can be prevented oridentified early on. And a failure to put such systems in place in thearmed forces and immigration facilities will continue to make a mockeryof the claim that every child matters.
