: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:16 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

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.

but his circumstances are different, it would be silly not to assess his right to enter again,

and if they assess it again, and fairly, then they have to acknowledge that he may be allowed in,

and i still cant see how it makes a mockery of the border control to allow someone leave to enter the country on a visit, but not leave to enter for the purposes of moving here,

to change it a little would your attitude be the same if he was picked for Australia in the 4 nations at the end of the year? would it be the same if he was to just come here for a holiday?

is it the same for the thousands of athletes and coaches who will come here for the olympics in a few years time?

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:18 pm  

Smokey, your opinion has no basis in fact.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:19 pm  

Standee wrote:

Smokey, your opinion has no basis in fact.

TBF non of the opinions on here do.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:24 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

but his circumstances are different, it would be silly not to assess his right to enter again,

and if they assess it again, and fairly, then they have to acknowledge that he may be allowed in,

and i still cant see how it makes a mockery of the border control to allow someone leave to enter the country on a visit, but not leave to enter for the purposes of moving here,

to change it a little would your attitude be the same if he was picked for Australia in the 4 nations at the end of the year? would it be the same if he was to just come here for a holiday?

is it the same for the thousands of athletes and coaches who will come here for the olympics in a few years time?

In what way are his circumstances different? I know the purpose of the entry to the UK is different, but what else?

If he was picked for Oz later in the year, his court case would be over. If acquitted the assumed reason for the first refusal would have gone. If convicted he could be refused entry for the same reason as Crocker has apprently been, depending on what he was convicted of.

Same thing applies for the Olympics really. Only nationals of countries that always require visas will need the visa, but there could be a lot of people sent packing on arrival if they don't meet the terms of the general rules. (In reality, I can see Gordon having a quiet word with Jacqui and telling her to get the immigration service to chill out and let people in because of the economic etc benefits - of course, one person misbehaves in serious manner, as per his/her character and the media will have a fit about why they were let in in the first place).

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:24 pm  

Gordon Gekko wrote:

TBF non of the opinions on here do.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:25 pm  

Gordon Gekko wrote:

TBF non of the opinions on here do.

Pish off then

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:25 pm  

Gordon Gekko wrote:

TBF non of the opinions on here do.

some peoples are at least based on direct knowledge of the system though.

anyway

wish it was all over, sick to death of it.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:32 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

In what way are his circumstances different? I know the purpose of the entry to the UK is different, but what else?

he has a valid french work permit and a job in france, he is only likely to be over here for a few days which would be devoted to RL, he would be able to supply testamonies from the french club and i have no doubt the mayor of perpignan or similar

one other thing, as the apparent reasoning behind the delays in Crocker and Eastwood and everyone else this winter according to numerous news sources has been the stricter interpretation of the rules when assessed in Canberra, who is to say this same change in interpretation has happened in Leeds?

If he was picked for Oz later in the year, his court case would be over. If acquitted the assumed reason for the first refusal would have gone. If convicted he could be refused entry for the same reason as Crocker has apprently been, depending on what he was convicted of.

and if his court case was still on going?

Same thing applies for the Olympics really. Only nationals of countries that always require visas will need the visa, but there could be a lot of people sent packing on arrival if they don't meet the terms of the general rules. (In reality, I can see Gordon having a quiet word with Jacqui and telling her to get the immigration service to chill out and let people in because of the economic etc benefits - of course, one person misbehaves in serious manner, as per his/her character and the media will have a fit about why they were let in in the first place).

so you can see why it wouldnt really make a mockery, we do have a bit of subjective reasoning allowed,

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:45 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

he has a valid french work permit and a job in france, he is only likely to be over here for a few days which would be devoted to RL, he would be able to supply testamonies from the french club and i have no doubt the mayor of perpignan or similar

Not enough to outweigh the general rules in my experience

one other thing, as the apparent reasoning behind the delays in Crocker and Eastwood and everyone else this winter according to numerous news sources has been the stricter interpretation of the rules when assessed in Canberra, who is to say this same change in interpretation has happened in Leeds?

Good point. I would hope that the UKBA would at least attempt to be consistent, otherwise why refuse the original visa? If I'd gone to the trouble of refusing a "bad lad" in Australia to "protect the UK" I'd be annoyed if some doofus at an airport didn't at least check up on the reasons for the refusal and not just overrule my decision.

and if his court case was still on going?

He would fall to be refused for the same reasons - nothing has affected the reason for the original refusal (if it was for what we think )

so you can see why it wouldnt really make a mockery, we do have a bit of subjective reasoning allowed,

Olympics over RL? I can't really see this being a political issue at the highest level tbh, but I take your point

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:47 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

he has a valid french work permit and a job in france, he is only likely to be over here for a few days which would be devoted to RL, he would be able to supply testamonies from the french club and i have no doubt the mayor of perpignan or similar

one other thing, as the apparent reasoning behind the delays in Crocker and Eastwood and everyone else this winter according to numerous news sources has been the stricter interpretation of the rules when assessed in Canberra, who is to say this same change in interpretation has happened in Leeds?




and if his court case was still on going?



so you can see why it wouldnt really make a mockery, we do have a bit of subjective reasoning allowed,

so, by your argument, FC could set up a business in France, register Crocker to it, and he'd be free to play in every SL game.

Yeah, right.