http://www.channel4. com/news/should-f-c- soldiers-whove-been- disciplined-be-depor ted

He is married to a British woman and has two children , so I am surprised that he cannot claim residence. Many minor offences which are punishable in the services would not amount to crimes in civilian life and the soldier does not have the right to a jury, so it seems to me that they are being treated very unfairly.

I haven't read the article but I did hear the news item and I think it seems to be one rule for this man and another for 'proper' criminals. Can't he claim his right to a family life, like so many criminals have done? What about that woman who had fertility treatment in her home country and came here to give birth to I think it was 8 babies and now we can't send her back?

Why is it we can't deport so many people but we can this man?

So far we are ony aware of able-boded men being threatened with deportation. What will happen wih injured soldiers who find themselves in such a situation?

Well, that's a good point, but I don't know the whole story, so I'm not sure what to think yet. I do rather suspect the DM is taking the "disgraceful way to treat Our Boys!" line just for the hell of it, which they're entitled to do, of course.

I am not disputing that soldiers sometimes need to be disciplined - only that non-criminal charges should not be used to deport men who have served Britain in dangerous places for many years.

Shiny boots also may seem unimportant for ordinary life, but armies only function on extreme discipline. That's what it's about. If soldiers openly flout what seem to us trivial disciplinary rules, I'm thinking military establishments soon brand them as troublemakers who could upset the balance of the military machine. So I agree that in ordinary life these things are trivial and not worth bothering about, but we aren't talking about ordinary life, we're talking about an army. Someone who can't keep the easy rules perhaps cannot be trusted with more important things either. And someone who can't be trusted is a potential danger to his or her fellow soldiers in extreme situations. That's why military training is so vigorous and unrelenting. That is how I see it anyway. I don't think you can look at these things objectively with a civilian's outlook; it has to be with a military outlook which is very different because of how military units function. Discipline is paramount. That's just how it is.

I heard this being discussed on Radio 4 News yesterday. A soldier who had been in the army for 13 years is facing deportation now he has left the army after being dsciplined. His wife and family have no choice if he has to leave. They will lose their home and all have to leave, too. I wonder whether there are any army personnel working on Olympic security who will also face this situation when their redundancy is activated? Seems grossly punitve.

And 'failure to have his boots shined'?

Had a look at the article. Its factual content is not high but I did note that one of the 'minor' offences mentioned is "failing to salute". That's not a minor offence in the army, however trivial a thing it might seem to civilians.