: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:02 pm  

Big Dave T wrote:

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.

i agree that part is stupid, but thats a failling with the UKBA in the fact they,

what im arguing is allowing him to vist doesnt make a mockery of the decision not to allow him to move here

[Kosh]

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:03 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

The point that you are missing is that in terms of his failure to obtain leave to enter, his circumstances won't have changed until after his trial.

You also seem to be confusing leave to enter with leave to remain.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:03 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

what im arguing is allowing him to vist doesnt make a mockery of the decision not to allow him to move here

except for the fact that he isn't "visiting"

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:05 pm  

Kosh wrote:

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.


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.

and that is precisly where i am saying you are going wrong, the rejection and acceptance of visas/entry into the country clearly have an element of subjectivity to them even though they are guided by the same criteria,

an immigration official may, quite sensibly, feel that whilst birds charges would be a barrier to entrance to the country on an on-going basis, it may not be for a one off instance to play RL and only be in the country for a few days,

that isnt a mockery, its a fairly sensible outlook if you think about it

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:05 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

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

The point is (and we are all assuming) that he has been refused entry clearance due to the alleged offences. These offences, until dealt with, will cause him the same problems if he tries to enter without entry clearance. The same criteria have to be considered every time someone seeks entry to the UK, in addition to the specific rules.

Bird was after entry clearance to come to work here, now he'd be seeking entry under a different part of the rules, but the general rules still apply to both of these attempts to come here (and any in the future).

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:08 pm  

Kosh wrote:

The point that you are missing is that in terms of his failure to obtain leave to enter, his circumstances won't have changed until after his trial.

You also seem to be confusing leave to enter with leave to remain.

really? moving to france, testimonies from his french employers, being part of a european competition, only being in the country for a few days, isnt a change in circumstance?

and im not confusing anything, im just making the fairly obvious assumption that when assessing a person eligability to enter the country we are going to look at what they will do when they are here, and you can then see it is also obvious that the purposes of his visit with les catalans is completely different to joining bradford

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:09 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

The point is (and we are all assuming) that he has been refused entry clearance due to the alleged offences. These offences, until dealt with, will cause him the same problems if he tries to enter without entry clearance. The same criteria have to be considered every time someone seeks entry to the UK, in addition to the specific rules.

Bird was after entry clearance to come to work here, now he'd be seeking entry under a different part of the rules, but the general rules still apply to both of these attempts to come here (and any in the future).

i understand the same criteria will be used, but bird and his application (for want of a better word) to enter the country will be different

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:13 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

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

At last we agree!

What I'm trying to point out that refusing under the general rules should be applied consistently and it looks ridiculous for Bird to be denied entry clearance to play rugby, but then admitted to...er,.... play rugby. Mockery may be a strong word but effectively excluding a person (which is what the entry clearnace refusal did) then allowing the same person in when the same circumstances continue to be relevant is inconsistent to the extreme. If I was Bradford, I'd be miffed.

If that Dutch guy who was excluded the other week turned up on the ferry at Hull and got let in, would also constitute, in my view, a mockery.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:14 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

i understand the same criteria will be used, but bird and his application (for want of a better word) to enter the country will be different

Yes but the same general rules apply, regardless of the difference in purpose of visit (for want of a better word)

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:16 pm  

And being told in Oz that you can't come to the UK is a bit easier to deal with than being detained in a "cell", served with legal documents and escorted to a plane by immigration officers