: Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:55 pm  

He has been refused permission to enter the UK (as far as we know) through the visa refusal. The reason for the intended stay in the UK seems to me to be irrelevant. If the refusal is due to his "character" then he will fall to be refused for the same reason every time he tries to enter until his court case is dealt with. It's nothing to do with him working here or earning money. The UKBA appear to be saying to him, Crocker etc. "we don't want your sort here", which they are perfectly at liberty to do under these rules

He has been refused permission to enter the UK (as far as we know) through the visa refusal. The reason for the intended stay in the UK seems to me to be irrelevant. If the refusal is due to his "character" then he will fall to be refused for the same reason every time he tries to enter until his court case is dealt with. It's nothing to do with him working here or earning money. The UKBA appear to be saying to him, Crocker etc. "we don't want your sort here", which they are perfectly at liberty to do under these rules

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:01 am  

Chris28 wrote: He has been refused permission to enter the UK (as far as we know) through the visa refusal. The reason for the intended stay in the UK seems to me to be irrelevant. If the refusal is due to his "character" then he will fall to be refused for the same reason every time he tries to enter until his court case is dealt with. It's nothing to do with him working here or earning money. The UKBA appear to be saying to him, Crocker etc. "we don't want your sort here", which they are perfectly at liberty to do under these rules Exactly

Chris28 wrote: He has been refused permission to enter the UK (as far as we know) through the visa refusal. The reason for the intended stay in the UK seems to me to be irrelevant. If the refusal is due to his "character" then he will fall to be refused for the same reason every time he tries to enter until his court case is dealt with. It's nothing to do with him working here or earning money. The UKBA appear to be saying to him, Crocker etc. "we don't want your sort here", which they are perfectly at liberty to do under these rules Exactly

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:10 am  

Chris28 wrote: He has been refused permission to enter the UK (as far as we know) through the visa refusal. The reason for the intended stay in the UK seems to me to be irrelevant. If the refusal is due to his "character" then he will fall to be refused for the same reason every time he tries to enter until his court case is dealt with. It's nothing to do with him working here or earning money. The UKBA appear to be saying to him, Crocker etc. "we don't want your sort here", which they are perfectly at liberty to do under these rules I'm not convinced that is true. Eastwood couldn't come and work here due to a couple of traffic offences. I don't believe he would be prevented from coming here on holiday.

Chris28 wrote: He has been refused permission to enter the UK (as far as we know) through the visa refusal. The reason for the intended stay in the UK seems to me to be irrelevant. If the refusal is due to his "character" then he will fall to be refused for the same reason every time he tries to enter until his court case is dealt with. It's nothing to do with him working here or earning money. The UKBA appear to be saying to him, Crocker etc. "we don't want your sort here", which they are perfectly at liberty to do under these rules I'm not convinced that is true. Eastwood couldn't come and work here due to a couple of traffic offences. I don't believe he would be prevented from coming here on holiday.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:16 am  

Dave T wrote:

I'm not convinced that is true.

Eastwood couldn't come and work here due to a couple of traffic offences. I don't believe he would be prevented from coming here on holiday.

It is, honest!

He could quite easily be prevented from coming here for a holiday. The rules I linked to have to be considered every time and any refusal must be declared. The new visa manager in Canberra seems to be making problems by imposing the general rules firmly, so in theory, Eastwood could definitely be refused entry.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:34 am  

Chris28 wrote:

It is, honest!

He could quite easily be prevented from coming here for a holiday. The rules I linked to have to be considered every time and any refusal must be declared. The new visa manager in Canberra seems to be making problems by imposing the general rules firmly, so in theory, Eastwood could definitely be refused entry.

Ok, I don't know enough about it to debate too much, but Australians do not need a Visa to enter the UK. They were denied a working Visa, meaning that they couldn't fulfill their contract with their club. I haven't seen anything which states that any of these players have been banned from entering the country.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:41 am  

Dave T wrote:

Ok, I don't know enough about it to debate too much, but Australians do not need a Visa to enter the UK. They were denied a working Visa, meaning that they couldn't fulfill their contract with their club. I haven't seen anything which states that any of these players have been banned from entering the country.

We're all speculating mate, but my impression (and I work in this area) is that in effect they actually have been banned from entering the country (albeit temporarily).

Australians don't need visas , but anyone who is not British or EU needs leave to enter the UK. The visa refusal is refusing that leave to enter before they get here (a visa is only a "pre travel" check to see if you qualify for entry). Because of (and we're guessing) the reasons for refusal for all these players, they will apply for some time. For example Crocker's conviction won't be spent until 2010 and so could be used against him EVERY time he tries to come here, unless the UKBA change their minds on the current application. If they refuse again, he will not qualify for entry in any capacity until 2010.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:28 am  

I was talking about the Manly players as someone questioned how they got into the country. But as for Bird, he was denied a working visa. Doesn't mean he would be denied entry as a visitor. If you don't need a visa to visit and you've got a valid reason for your visit, can satisfy the official on landing that you are only there for that reason and that you'll be leaving when you say you are leaving there's no reason not to let you in. They don't even ask you if you've got a record or anything. They generally ask stuff like why are you here, how long are you staying, do you have a return ticket, do you have a job back home, what is it, will you be returning to that job? etc. It's all just to judge whether they think you're there for the right reasons, that you're not going to work and that you'll go home when you're supposed to. The only thing that might stuff Bird up is if his passport is in some way flagged due to his working visa being denied. But had he never applied for that visa and signed for Catalans from the get go he would be just as entitled to walk into the country as any other average Aussie. He still might be.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:58 am  

ECT wrote:

I was talking about the Manly players as someone questioned how they got into the country. But as for Bird, he was denied a working visa. Doesn't mean he would be denied entry as a visitor. If you don't need a visa to visit and you've got a valid reason for your visit, can satisfy the official on landing that you are only there for that reason and that you'll be leaving when you say you are leaving there's no reason not to let you in. They don't even ask you if you've got a record or anything. They generally ask stuff like why are you here, how long are you staying, do you have a return ticket, do you have a job back home, what is it, will you be returning to that job? etc. It's all just to judge whether they think you're there for the right reasons, that you're not going to work and that you'll go home when you're supposed to. The only thing that might stuff Bird up is if his passport is in some way flagged due to his working visa being denied. But had he never applied for that visa and signed for Catalans from the get go he would be just as entitled to walk into the country as any other average Aussie. He still might be.

And there you have it! It will have been.

The visa refusal does affect him and the purpose of his previous application is irrelevant if he's been refused under the general rules. If he's denied a "working visa" under the general rules he should be denied any other form of entry for the same reason, unless and until his circumstances change.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:03 am  

according to the papers today, his entry to the UK will depend on the indiviudal person who is working at Border Control when he tries to enter the UK - so no actual solid rules are in place either way.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:08 am  

saints35 bulls0 wrote:

according to the papers today, his entry to the UK will depend on the indiviudal person who is working at Border Control when he tries to enter the UK - so no actual solid rules are in place either way.

That's a farce. Not saying what the decision should be but that's just a fudge.