: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:52 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

and they arent guided by the same requirements as to live and work here he had to apply for a visa in advance, whereas to visit here he doesnt,

yes they are. The same entry requirements are assessed whether he pre-requests a visa for permanent residency or whether he turns up with a french visa asking to be let in. (effectively both involve getting permission before he can stand on British soil) The same criteria used should mean that he gets put back on the plane back to France.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:53 pm  

Kosh wrote:

Not for purposes of entering the UK they aren't.

except they are because he had to apply for a visa from australia when he wanted to come and live and work here,

he doesnt for visiting here

also his visa application was judged in canberra whereas his entrance will be judged most probably at Leeds/bradford airport

so whilst they may be similar, and they may be judged on a similar set of criteria,

they are obviously not the same, purely on the basis that well, things are different (which is kind of the definition of not the same)

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:56 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

except they are because he had to apply for a visa from australia when he wanted to come and live and work here,

he doesnt for visiting here

also his visa application was judged in canberra whereas his entrance will be judged most probably at Leeds/bradford airport

so whilst they may be similar, and they may be judged on a similar set of criteria,

they are obviously not the same, purely on the basis that well, things are different (which is kind of the definition of not the same)

But youre talking application method not entry criteria!

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:56 pm  

Big Dave T wrote:

yes they are. The same entry requirements are assessed whether he pre-requests a visa for permanent residency or whether he turns up with a french visa asking to be let in. (effectively both involve getting permission before he can stand on British soil) The same criteria used should mean that he gets put back on the plane back to France.

except the UKBA have told us this isnt the case, they may be guided by the same criteria, but that doesnt mean they need to come to the same decision considering they are two different circumstances

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:56 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

thats lovely, and well done for knowing that and being kind enough to share that with everyone numerous times,

even in times such as this when it is a fairly useless piece of information.

ill try to simplify it a bit for you

coming to Britain to live and work is fairly obviously a different thing to coming to britain to play one game of RL, regardless of the rules and regulations the UKBA,

how on earth you needed someone to explain that to you i have no idea



if you cant see that emigrating somewhere and visiting somewhere are two different things then im not sure how you manage to dress yourself,




and it would not only be useless, but make a mockery of the competition and most of the public who heard about it would probably think it was bureaucratic dickheadery of a very special kind, which acheives precisely nothing of use



why does that matter?

why is it important that because he cant live and work in this country, he isnt allowed to live and work in another country yet still visit this one for short periods?


for three days to participate in sport, why on earth not? or are you now saying that not only should the UKBA judge on proven actions, they should judge on accusations, and generally whether the border guard thinks the person is a nice guy or not?





ex'foooking'actly, the same would go for bird



Luol Deng is a basketball player who now plays in the NBA, he sought asylum in the UK after leaving sudan for egypt and is now a naturalised citizen

Al Bangura sought asylum from sierra leone, was refused and threatend with deportation but due to public outcry he was given leave to stay, he played for watford, and entered this country illegally

I'm not going to resort to insults, but it's pretty plain to me that you know little about immigration law and processes, or you're hiding it for the sake of an argument.

Have you read the immigration rules and understood the concept of leave to enter?

And as for the bit in bold, I've linked to the general rules relating to entry clearance and leave to enter on this very site about 5 times now. And that is precisely what they can do if you read it.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:57 pm  

Big Dave T wrote:

But youre talking application method not entry criteria!

im talking his differing application circumstances, and how that may or may not affect the decision made under the same criteria

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:57 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

except the UKBA have told us this isnt the case, they may be guided by the same criteria, but that doesnt mean they need to come to the same decision considering they are two different circumstances

Indeed, it depends on the interpretation of the person at the airport where he arrives, if you read a few pages back you will see me having a huge issue with this.

[Kosh]

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:59 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

i havent said anything different, i have simply said that going somewhere to live and work and going somewhere to visit are two differing things,

and they arent guided by the same requirements as to live and work here he had to apply for a visa in advance, whereas to visit here he doesnt,

That's the effect of the time period. If you want to stay in the UK for any period of time, or be employed here, you need to be pre-cleared. Short trips don't require clearance in advance, but you are still subject to the same entry requirements.

SmokeyTA wrote:

but that isnt the point, the point is refusing to allow someone to live and work here isnt the same as refusing to allow them to visit, if it were then we would already know Bird couldnt enter the country because his visa application was refused

The point that some of us are making is that this is precisely the case provided the rules are applied to the letter as they were when his visa was rejected.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:00 pm  

Sorry but wouldn't him playing a match in the UK and getting paid by the club constitute working in the UK.

Something he is not allowed to do.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:01 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

I'm not going to resort to insults, but it's pretty plain to me that you know little about immigration law and processes, or you're hiding it for the sake of an argument.

Have you read the immigration rules and understood the concept of leave to enter?

And as for the bit in bold, I've linked to the general rules relating to entry clearance and leave to enter on this very site about 5 times now. And that is precisely what they can do if you read it.

i havent mentioned what they can or cant do, specifically i havent said the UKBA can or cant do anything

i have specifically argued on what they 'should' do, which is why i have used the word should instead of can

i did this because 'mockery' is a subjective term, it is what you have applied because of your belief in what they 'should' do, not what they can or cant do, which is why it is important you understand there is a difference between emigrating to this country and visiting it

even you would need to admit that the UKBA under their rules and regulations can let Bird in, they can also not, it is up to them, which is why i havent argued whether they can or cant, or even what the right decision is according to my interpretation of the rules, simply what would be the best thing for them to do