Madam,

Once again Liz Saville Roberts castigates the armed forces for their recruiting strategies, including “slick adverts championing army life specifically aimed at 16 to 24-year-old C2DEs”. But calling them “children” seems a little wide of the mark, doesn’t it?

Sixteen-year-olds may have sex legally, leave home, rent their own accommodation, get married, claim benefits, get a National Insurance number, earn the minimum wage, hold a passport - and a load of other things. And she calls them “children”?

If we are going to treat 16-year-olds as adults by offering them such freedom, surely they must be adult enough to make decisions about joining the armed forces - or not.

The so-called research by Child Soldiers International - which organisation is primarily concerned with the enforced recruitment of 10 and 12-year-old children in war-torn African areas - doesn’t say whether the soldiers killed in Afghanistan were still under 18, as possibly implied, just that they were recruited under 18. As usual, statistics can give a totally false picture.

The “medical research which shows military training can have serious, long-term adverse mental health consequences on recruits” does not mention that this constitutes just a small percentage of cases and that the vast majority of servicemen and women actually benefit. I should know: I was a conscript to National Service.

And my personal experience shows that a private soldier infantryman’s performance peaks at around 22 years of age, after earlier recruitment; indeed, lads who have had service in the cadets frequently do best - and they joined at 14!

Yours etc, Hugh M Jones, Criccieth.

Have your say on the local issues affecting you - email [email protected] or join in the conversation on our Facebook page