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.

Ditto.

Bird will play for Les Cats in the UK (my opinion of course

)

Up yours!!!!!!!!!

thats fair enough, but you cant argue its not different, when it is, then say it would make a mockery of the system if an application was made which was accepted when one which is different has been rejected, even if in your experience it isnt enough


surely his next application should be judged on its own merits, not on the decision previously made (even without getting into the differences)

and in SL only, we can see numerous examples of people worse than bird being allowed in, if the news reports are to be believed and it is only the change in interpretation in canberra that has changed, and everywhere else is the same, you would expect him to be allowed in would you not?




im not asking whether he would or wouldnt, im asking whether or not you would think it made a mockery of the system to allow him over here to compete in the 4nations, but not allow him to move over here



im sure the French politions wouldnt mind scoring a few points out of it, it would surely be easier politically just to let him in and have done with it

If Hull FC traded out of, and were registered in france, and crocker lived in france, worked in france and was paid in france,

then yes

but then you would simply have moved hull fc lock stock and barrell to france, even crocker isnt worth that much

Fairy muff

The purpose of his stay is different yes, but the same rules have to be considered and if he doesn't meet them, the purpose of visit doesn't even come into it. In my view inconsistency in relation to one individual in a short space of time (refused in Feb - admitted in March) is a mockery of the system, but I don't think we'll ever agree on the terminology



The next and all future applications will be judged on their own merits, but the same factor will come up as originally, so must be taken into consideration. Once it is no longer a factor it can't obviously, be considered.

I wouldn't put it past the Immigration Serice to let him in but if the original visa was refused for the reasons we think, I would expect a professional organisation with the systems and ethos they have to be on the ball and refuse him entry.

The circumstances will be different for the 4 nations so he may qualify. It's a moot point.

It would be added to your cap as payment, a tent might do it though

Irrelevant.


Irrelevant.


He had testimonials from Bradford, the support of the RFL, and I think some local luminary or other as well. Didn't help.

where, how, and why he is attempting to enter the country is irrellevant to whether he should be allowed to enter the country?

what a strange thing to say



how do you know it didnt help? surely you of all people wouldnt be mixing up correllation with causuality would you?

May as well scrap the salary cap then if they can bring any bugger in who cant get a visa here,makes a mockery of the game and and the RFL have bent over and let the frogs well and truly roger em.

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

Think a few on here have become bores on it tbh.

unfortunately, i havent reached your proportions yet though,

if i put my mind to it and really really try, i just might make it,

i will of course need to be much much grumpier

agreed

Nobody really knows, plenty are pretending different mind.

you'd need an education too

There is a reason why the General Rules are called the General Rules. They apply in all cases. Generally, in fact.


That's pedantry of tb proportions.



All right - it didn't help sufficiently to secure him leave to enter the UK.

Happy now?

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




its not pedantic, it strikes of the heart of why i think you are wrong.

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

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

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.

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


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 [isignificant[/i 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.