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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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).

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

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

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.

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

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

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?

Smokey, your opinion has no basis in fact.

TBF non of the opinions on here do.

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).

Pish off then

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

anyway

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

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,

Not enough to outweigh the general rules in my experience



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.



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

)



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

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.