Yes I did, he has a criminal conviction and, as such, is not eligible to stay, harsh, but it's the law.

On the basis of what the linked-to petition says, it's a ridiculous decision.

Does he? It says he has a disciplinary record which the UKBA have now started to equate to a criminal conviction. It does seem a bit silly.

On a related note, if this guy is getting deported for what sounds like a minor incident, then Rangi Chase is screwed.

He has? Which court found him guilty and under what statute?

My reading of the linked-to petition – which is only one side of the story – is that he did not start the fight and it resulted in no police involvement, no charges, no trial etc.

Yet if the UKBA get away with this, he will have been punished far more than the man who started the fight.

That cannot be in anyone's comprehension of justice.

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.