: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:00 pm  

east hull FC fan wrote:

Just a quick question - Apart from his impending court case has bird been convicted of anything else? just that if he hasn't, surely they can't of refused him a visa on the grounds that he may of committed a crime.

I agree not guilty until proven guilty etc...however sometimes there are bail conditions.. strange stiuation

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:08 pm  

berrigans bitch wrote:

I agree not guilty until proven guilty etc...however sometimes there are bail conditions.. strange stiuation

he must have unconditional bail terms or else leaving oz wouldn't of been an option to him. I'm speculating on the fact that nobody knows the reason for anyones rejection or refusal of a visa.

[Kosh]

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:16 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

yes they are general rules that take in to account how, where and why (among other things) a person wishes to enter the uk,

the how, where and why of Birds wishes to enter the country are different for his application for Bradford and Les Catalans

Bird's wishes are essentially the same - to earn a living playing RL.

SmokeyTA wrote:

for some reason you have decided that because there are 'general rules' that apply to all applications and that you need to be given permission to enter the country whether that is through a visa or at the border that this means you only need go focus on the reasons he failed changing and as those havent, his application will be identical to all intents and purposes as before, which isnt correct

it is my contention that even though the reasons he failed havent changed it doesnt follow that he has to fail again, there are other circumstances which have changed, and though they are irrelevant to the reasons he failed, it isnt irrelevant to the reasons he may succeed

So, let me get this straight...

You think that some trivial changes to his circumstances that are, by your own admission, completely unrelated to the reason he was originally rejected will somehow make the UKBA change their minds?

Yeah - I can see how that would work...

The only significant difference between his original application and any future attempt that takes place before his trial is resolved is continuity of time spent in the UK. If the reason for his rejection is actually as has been suspected, that shouldn't make any difference.

I still think that, on the balance of probabilities, he is likely to be turned away at the port of entry.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:50 pm  

To be honest I have no knowledge of immigration law and don't particularly want any but can someone explain to me what he difference is in this case to numerous actors and sportsmen with various convictions coming over here to ply their trade, someone mentioned Britanny Spears and there are any number of others. Didn't Mike Tyson come over for some reason not so long back.
I appreciate things have been tightened up recently and if this is the reason behind the arguement that Bird shouldn't be let in fair enough but other than the "its not fair" factor I don't see the difference.
This is a genuine query seeking a laymans answer please don't start a tirade of vitriol or a 2000 word essay on imigration law - thanks

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:54 pm  

How come Greg Birds visa application was accepted so quickly for his new club, Catalan? Michael Crocker had submitted his 2nd application before Greg Bird was even denied for Bradford, yet Crocker is still waiting his outcome. I can only assume the French are more efficient, or more lax, they're certainly more accepting!

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 8:45 pm  

Standee wrote:

anyone else think Smokey has become a bore of Vince proportions?

I actually think he has made some very valid points every bit a valid as those of kosh and chris28.

Its also worth noting that using kosh's logic Crocker has no chance of getting a visa.

[Kosh]

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 8:56 pm  

Gordon Gekko wrote:

Its also worth noting that using kosh's logic Crocker has no chance of getting a visa.

Not really. Different cases, different (although similar) reasons for rejection, different methods for re-application.

And I haven't said that Bird has no chance of getting in.

Plus there is the underlying assumption, in both cases, of what the reason for rejection was. If that assumption is wrong then all bets are off.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 8:57 pm  

Beanman wrote:

To be honest I have no knowledge of immigration law and don't particularly want any but can someone explain to me what he difference is in this case to numerous actors and sportsmen with various convictions coming over here to ply their trade, someone mentioned Britanny Spears and there are any number of others. Didn't Mike Tyson come over for some reason not so long back.
I appreciate things have been tightened up recently and if this is the reason behind the arguement that Bird shouldn't be let in fair enough but other than the "its not fair" factor I don't see the difference.
This is a genuine query seeking a laymans answer please don't start a tirade of vitriol or a 2000 word essay on imigration law - thanks

On the basis of the tightening up, and appied fairly, Tyson and Spears would not get in now.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:04 pm  

On the basis of the tightening up, and appied fairly, Tyson and Spears would not get in now.

Fair enough as you say as long as its applied fairly

Presumably that means we have seen the last of Jonathon Ross etc. interviewing "hell raising US actor ...." but somehow I just can't see it happening that way

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:05 pm  

east hull FC fan wrote: Just a quick question - Apart from his impending court case has bird been convicted of anything else? just that if he hasn't, surely they can't of refused him a visa on the grounds that he may of committed a crime. Do you know, I think I'm going to link to the general rules again. Ah, that's better Now, based on my experience of immigration law and practice, I think Crocker was refused under paragraph 320 (18). This should be applied every time he tries to enter until the conviction is spent. I think Bird could have been refused under 320 (19) or (7A0, (7B) (11) or (15). Again each of these (except (19) if he is acquitted) could be applied if he tries to enter the UK in future. These rules require a refusal of entry clearance or entry if they are not met, regardless of the reason for seeking entry.

east hull FC fan wrote: Just a quick question - Apart from his impending court case has bird been convicted of anything else? just that if he hasn't, surely they can't of refused him a visa on the grounds that he may of committed a crime. Do you know, I think I'm going to link to the general rules again. Ah, that's better Now, based on my experience of immigration law and practice, I think Crocker was refused under paragraph 320 (18). This should be applied every time he tries to enter until the conviction is spent. I think Bird could have been refused under 320 (19) or (7A0, (7B) (11) or (15). Again each of these (except (19) if he is acquitted) could be applied if he tries to enter the UK in future. These rules require a refusal of entry clearance or entry if they are not met, regardless of the reason for seeking entry.