Shameful - please give your support
I repeat the point I made above - there was nothing unlawful about the summary justice awarded to Bale by his CO. Such justice is enabled by Act of Parliament (AFA 2006). If, however, he has grounds to appeal, why hasn't he? (failure to follow procedure, new evidence coming to light etc).
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I repeat the point I made above - there was nothing unlawful about the summary justice awarded to Bale by his CO. Such justice is enabled by Act of Parliament (AFA 2006). If, however, he has grounds to appeal, why hasn't he? (failure to follow procedure, new evidence coming to light etc).
Shack37 sums it up perfectly. In my opinion it is not a level playing field at the moment, it is in fact biased against service personnel. It is far easier for them to be convicted than their civilian counterparts, in the process acquiring a criminal record. This applies to all members of Her Majesty's Forces regardless of what passport they hold.
If whenurhappy thinks that this is a reasonable and equitable state of affairs then so be it, but I believe that he will be in a minority.
If whenurhappy thinks that this is a reasonable and equitable state of affairs then so be it, but I believe that he will be in a minority.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: london
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... In addition to the injustice military personnel are at danger of in
acquiring a Criminal Record to follow and ruin them for life for the heinous crime of defending oneself in a 60 seconds bout instigated by the other person - That this ex L/Cpl during any active service was at risk of being repatriated minus limbs - disfigured for life or returned in a wooden overcoat appears to count for nothing by this ungrateful Government !
...
acquiring a Criminal Record to follow and ruin them for life for the heinous crime of defending oneself in a 60 seconds bout instigated by the other person - That this ex L/Cpl during any active service was at risk of being repatriated minus limbs - disfigured for life or returned in a wooden overcoat appears to count for nothing by this ungrateful Government !
...
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Retired-ville
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A spineless and disgraceful lack of loyalty shown by those in power who are only to quick to send them into combat.
They should be ashamed of their treatment of this young lad.
Duly signed
Up to 19,500.
They should be ashamed of their treatment of this young lad.
Duly signed
Up to 19,500.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hampshire
Age: 78
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frankly I despair!!I am now 19496.The complete cockup with the EASA Rules on trying to retain an UK ATPL or JAR Licence,having spent more than 7 years flying abroad adds to my disgust at the outrageous treatment of this Ex Seviceman.What is going on in this Extraordinary Quasi Police State for a Country,that is meant to be democratic and not a Republic??Illegals and Terrorists are allowed in if they have family or children,as it is their Human Rights,but what about this man and his English Wife???.We need a NEW ENGLISH BILL OF RIGHTS.I state English not British as it appears possible that Scotland and then maybe Wales will leave the Union.I have ceased to Vote since Cameron and his bunch of fools,insist on dealing with 3rd World issues instead of sorting out this Pleasant and green Land of ours-England!!!!and Milliballs and his band of idiots would be even worse,so what else is out there ??
Last edited by FAStoat; 26th Jul 2012 at 13:15.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 59°09N 002°38W (IATA: SOY, ICAO: EGER)
Age: 80
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A judge has ordered that his original conviction can now be re-heard in a proper court of law with witnesses called.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Done.
"Under the changes made to ROA in 2010 Bale is now defined as a criminal by the Home Office and of not good character to become a British citizen or apply for indefinite leave to remain. "
So he is not good enough to stay in the UK but he's good enough to serve in the British Army, fight it's wars and protect it from Terrorism - both overseas and on home soil if need be ?
If he was still serving, he would be suitable to provide security at the Olympics but because he's out .......... you know where this is going.
The mind boggles at the stupidity.
"Under the changes made to ROA in 2010 Bale is now defined as a criminal by the Home Office and of not good character to become a British citizen or apply for indefinite leave to remain. "
So he is not good enough to stay in the UK but he's good enough to serve in the British Army, fight it's wars and protect it from Terrorism - both overseas and on home soil if need be ?
If he was still serving, he would be suitable to provide security at the Olympics but because he's out .......... you know where this is going.
The mind boggles at the stupidity.
Well hopefully the JAG solution will work to enable the naturalisation to go ahead. It is however a right royal fudge, as summary hearings before a CO are not the equivalent of a civilian conviction. That is the province of a CM. The offences that can be dealt with summarily often do not give the accused that option anyway. Their purpose is to maintain military discipline and so are quick and decisive, not designed to be dug up years later by civil servants for unrelated purposes.
This case highlights the total disconnection that many civilians now have vis a vis the UK Military. They don't know anyone in it, don't know anything about it, but what they do know, or think they know, is that they don't really like it. Only that way of thinking can justify the UKBA stance that service in the UK Military has NO bearing on deciding if such applications be successful!
This case is eerily reminiscent of that of Mr Pun VC. It may be recalled that when he was trying to obtain right of abode, he was asked by the Immigration Minister, "So, VC, what does that stand for then?"
Time to stop messing around and turn Joanna Lumley loose again!
This case highlights the total disconnection that many civilians now have vis a vis the UK Military. They don't know anyone in it, don't know anything about it, but what they do know, or think they know, is that they don't really like it. Only that way of thinking can justify the UKBA stance that service in the UK Military has NO bearing on deciding if such applications be successful!
This case is eerily reminiscent of that of Mr Pun VC. It may be recalled that when he was trying to obtain right of abode, he was asked by the Immigration Minister, "So, VC, what does that stand for then?"
Time to stop messing around and turn Joanna Lumley loose again!
Last edited by Chugalug2; 26th Jul 2012 at 20:31.
1255 signatures in the last 24 hours! Rate of signing is dropping off, please publicise the petition as widely as possible.
Good to read that Bale will be able to appear in front of a proper court rather than some kangaroo court orderly room nonsense. Hopefully details of the date/location will be forthcoming and the press informed?
Good to read that Bale will be able to appear in front of a proper court rather than some kangaroo court orderly room nonsense. Hopefully details of the date/location will be forthcoming and the press informed?
Beagle - let's hope the JAG leave to appeal doesn't come up with the same decision as the Summary proceedings - which, unless RP were breached - is a properly constituted body. There has been a lot of heresay about the original findings - such as 'there were six colleagues ready to give evidence to his defence' (why didn't they?); ' he didn't break the jaw', 'it was a kangaroo court' &c.
Although the guidance to UKBA has changed - slightly - what I cannot determine (and bearing in mind I went through the same process a few years ago which required me to reveal any military convictions, including summary punishments) is why didn't he apply for citizenship whilst serving and why his marriage to a UK national (with his children being dependent UK nationals) doesn't give him automatic right to abode, as it seems to do for everyone else in similar situations?
Oh, and a minor point to the poor reporting by the Telegraph, Fiji ain't in the Commonwealth at the moment; its membership is suspended.
Although the guidance to UKBA has changed - slightly - what I cannot determine (and bearing in mind I went through the same process a few years ago which required me to reveal any military convictions, including summary punishments) is why didn't he apply for citizenship whilst serving and why his marriage to a UK national (with his children being dependent UK nationals) doesn't give him automatic right to abode, as it seems to do for everyone else in similar situations?
Oh, and a minor point to the poor reporting by the Telegraph, Fiji ain't in the Commonwealth at the moment; its membership is suspended.
CDS should be working balls out on this one with Ministers and the Attorney General, because it exposes one the great contradictions Commanding Officers face when disciplining combat troops. To paraphrase a report to Secy of State for Defence in 2001;
Whether he consciously thought of this or not, when fining both soldiers the CO was upholding the concept of the peer group, leadership, morale and esprit de corps that are important factors in encouraging participation in battle. From that viewpoint, he can justify fining both when the evidence suggests one was defending himself.
Conversely, discipline and “good drill” are not good indicators of who will actually participate in battle. There are many examples of men who, in training, are lazy, unruly and disorderly, but are magnificent fighters on the battlefield.
This has got to be sorted out, and internal disciplinary measures (that, in my own opinion, result in the soldier being allowed to remain serving) should be omitted from the record, in the same way the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act doesn’t require you to declare a minor conviction once “time served”. If it isn’t sorted out, the effect will be far reaching.
Whether he consciously thought of this or not, when fining both soldiers the CO was upholding the concept of the peer group, leadership, morale and esprit de corps that are important factors in encouraging participation in battle. From that viewpoint, he can justify fining both when the evidence suggests one was defending himself.
Conversely, discipline and “good drill” are not good indicators of who will actually participate in battle. There are many examples of men who, in training, are lazy, unruly and disorderly, but are magnificent fighters on the battlefield.
This has got to be sorted out, and internal disciplinary measures (that, in my own opinion, result in the soldier being allowed to remain serving) should be omitted from the record, in the same way the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act doesn’t require you to declare a minor conviction once “time served”. If it isn’t sorted out, the effect will be far reaching.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I hope it is sorted out and Bale gets either 'leave to remain' or commences the long (and quite pricey) road to citizenship. However, it's not the MOD's battle, as the Department doesn't make the rules. Yes, they can make representations, but ultimately the ball resides with UKBA and Home Office. It would be akin to the MOD pressing the CPS to drop charges against an ex-SP or worse, having another Government Department insisting that TTPs on the battlefield are changed to suit their (ex) personnel.
However, because of the inevitiable bad PR that will cascade down on the MOD (through, arguably no fault of their own), the Defence Ministerial team should be pressing the UKBA - at ministerial level - to change the guidance to case officers and seek to incorporate the right to abode within the Military Covenant.
However, because of the inevitiable bad PR that will cascade down on the MOD (through, arguably no fault of their own), the Defence Ministerial team should be pressing the UKBA - at ministerial level - to change the guidance to case officers and seek to incorporate the right to abode within the Military Covenant.
whenurhappy
Unless I am missing something this document appears to state that only on discharge, after 4 years service, can an application be made for Indefinite Leave to Remain.
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/si...df?view=Binary
Applications can be made up to 10 weeks before the discharge date, but cannot be settled until after the discharge date.
I suspect that Bale has fallen foul of rule changes designed to keep real criminals out of the country, hence the exemption of the UKBA from the ROA and their ability to take into account spent convictions.
What is required, as I have said before, is a reworking of the ROA so that only CM convictions are included, and summary justice is excluded. For the sake of all service personnel.
Unless I am missing something this document appears to state that only on discharge, after 4 years service, can an application be made for Indefinite Leave to Remain.
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/si...df?view=Binary
Applications can be made up to 10 weeks before the discharge date, but cannot be settled until after the discharge date.
I suspect that Bale has fallen foul of rule changes designed to keep real criminals out of the country, hence the exemption of the UKBA from the ROA and their ability to take into account spent convictions.
What is required, as I have said before, is a reworking of the ROA so that only CM convictions are included, and summary justice is excluded. For the sake of all service personnel.