as far as UKBA are concerned he has, I hope they apply the same standards to every claim to remain, there'll be hundreds of thousands of people being kicked out, including half of the premiership footballers!

I am not saying it is right, or proportionate, but it is legal, the law should not be "bent" to suit an individual, it needs changing and clarifying, but the "he's ex forces so let him stay" is the weakest of reasons.

Fighting and dying so people like you dont have to is the weakest of reasons? Nice to see you appreciate the role forces personnel undertake on behalf of the country.

The debate is not around bending the rules for individuals, it is to highlight a clear lack of fair consideration for the contribution certain groups make to society and amending the precious rules to provide a system that treat people fairly. Slavishly adhering to rules for the sake of it leads to some pretty unpleasant behaviours, not something we want from government departments.

The "interpretation" of military discipilnary action as criminal behaviour in a decision making process is an action that would be considered illegal by employers, military discipline isn't required to be disclosed for Home Office security vetting or Civil Nuclear Security so why is it necessary or acceptable by the UKBA. This smacks of the UKBA going after easy targets.

Yet you appear to be entirely comfortable with a Government Agency (UKBA) interpreting legislation to suit its own agenda and basically making up their own rules as they go along?

That's where you lose me a tad.

I have the greatest sympathy for members of the armed forces, who have, for many years been used as political pawns by successive politicians and then spewed out and left to rot (nothing new here, incidentally). And you can see the brief comments I've made elsewhere on this thread, re this particular case.

But the spate of military adventures we've been on in recent years have sod all to do with "Fighting and dying so people like you dont have to", just as they had/have sod all to do with stopping us all being slaughtered in our beds.

There were no WMD.

Its you who's got this wrong, there is no argument to lose by stating an unpleasant truth. I am debating the merits of an individual who has voluteered to serve in this countries armed forces and endure the hardships and risk associated with it.

If there were not enough people volunteering for the forces, there would be conscription or national service. Then it would be "people like you" or indeed "us" who would be fighting and dying in whatever political/financial/territorial dispute the powers that be thought fit.

The military is nothing other than a political stick to wave at other nations, it always has been, its just that its no longer required for defense of the mainland anymore.

I personnally think if Comonwealth citizens serve 12 years or more in the forces residency/nationality should be guarenteed.

I can't imagine any government, of any hue, being very 'popular' on trying to introduce that.

An argument can well be made that there is already, in effect, economic conscription. It is no coincidence, for instance, that none of Tony Blair or David Cameron's children are ever likely to join up. We were holidaying on Anglesey some years ago and the friend we were staying with, drove us around the island quite a bit. There were vast adverts for the military – because it was a massive recruitment ground for the military because it was an area that offered young people very little else.



On this we agree.

I completely agree with both these statements. But I have to say that as unpopular as conscription or national service may appear to us, necessity and the fear created by the media with "what if" scenarios would facilitate its introduction.

Its a sad fact that the forces has for many centuries consisted of the very poor being led by the very rich . It was also an alternative to prison for many years for troubled working class youths. It seems to be a fact in many countries the world over that recruitment has been focussed in areas of significant economic hardship (Michael Moores Fahrenheit 911 piece on Flint, Michigan is another example)

I also think Commonwealth citizens should be awarded the same residency rights as those of European Union states regardless of whether they have served in the forces.

Unfortunatley a change in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Acts has meant that charges and punishments under "Military Justice" [sizecan[/size be equated to a criminal conviction. Whilst I'm no legal buff, I am an ex-serviceman who has had sight of files of horendous crimes committed by military personnel, which where never recorded as criminal convictions. It's right that certain "criminal actions" taken by military personnel for which they have been punished should be put on a criminal record but my own view is that it should only be those that have been tried at a Courts Martial, the nearest vehicle the military judical system has with it's civil counterparts and not those which have been dealt at "Commanding Officer" level such as "Bales". As Mr Bumble said "The laws an ass". And I hope that the legislation is changed sooner rather than later.



Yes it does. Commonwealth ex-service personnel are an easy target for an under fire government agency who are hell bent on achiving their targets so their suits can collect their bonuses and their ministers will be off their backs.

Bale does not have a criminal record. Under changes to The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act he has on record a military misdemenour that [sizeCAN[/size and that the Home Office and the UKBA has chosen to equate as a criminal conviction.

So have you or will you sign the petition to help change the law and an injustice???

No, I wont, because I don't see it as an injustice.