: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:50 pm  

ExiledWool wrote:

I believe he played for Catalans against Wakefield today. So it seems he's being allowed to enter the country after all.

Not that anyone knows why he was refused originally, but as someone who works in this area, I find it very odd that he's been admitted to the UK.

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:17 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

Not that anyone knows why he was refused originally, but as someone who works in this area, I find it very odd that he's been admitted to the UK.

I know we had a debate about this a few weeks back, and you know more about this than me, but from a common sense point of view, it really isn't strange at all.

He was refused a visa to live and work in the UK. It makes absolute sense that it is different to coming over for a night to play one game.

I'm surprised more wasn't made of the fact that he managed to get over here and play though.

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:26 pm  

Dave T wrote:

I know we had a debate about this a few weeks back, and you know more about this than me, but from a common sense point of view, it really isn't strange at all.

He was refused a visa to live and work in the UK. It makes absolute sense that it is different to coming over for a night to play one game.

I'm surprised more wasn't made of the fact that he managed to get over here and play though.

I think we did

But the point I made then was that he had (I guessed) been refused on the basis of his character etc under the general rules that I quoted about 15 times, nothing to do with the specific reasons for him coming here. Those reasons haven't changed so the decision should still have been the same.

I agree that more should have been made of it. Bradford should be spitting feathers.

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:55 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

I think we did

But the point I made then was that he had (I guessed) been refused on the basis of his character etc under the general rules that I quoted about 15 times, nothing to do with the specific reasons for him coming here. Those reasons haven't changed so the decision should still have been the same.

I agree that more should have been made of it. Bradford should be spitting feathers.

But (at the risk of going over it all again!) aren't there two different requirements here? To live and work here for more than 6mnths he needed a visa, whereas to come over and play for less than that he doesn't?

Surely he was refused permission to live here, not enter the country? This is fact, as he has been allowed in, irrespective of any technicalities that you may quote.

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 11:29 pm  

Dave T wrote: But (at the risk of going over it all again!) aren't there two different requirements here? To live and work here for more than 6mnths he needed a visa, whereas to come over and play for less than that he doesn't? Surely he was refused permission to live here, not enter the country? This is fact, as he has been allowed in, irrespective of any technicalities that you may quote. We are going over it again! He was refused permission to enter the UK. Period. (The visa is a pre-arrival clearance of entry only) The general rules apply to all catergories of entry to the UK, so a person who wants to study here is subject to the same rules as a person who wants to work, or to visit or to live with their partner, in addition to the specific rules related to their reason for coming. See here Using Crocker as an example as he has a conviction, he qualified under the working rules but failed under the general rules (I think ) and a person coming to study might also qualify under the student rules but fail under the general rules because he had been refused a visa before and didn't declare it, for example. These rules mean all bets are off in any circumstances, regardless of whether you qualify in the other part of the rules.

Dave T wrote: But (at the risk of going over it all again!) aren't there two different requirements here? To live and work here for more than 6mnths he needed a visa, whereas to come over and play for less than that he doesn't? Surely he was refused permission to live here, not enter the country? This is fact, as he has been allowed in, irrespective of any technicalities that you may quote. We are going over it again! He was refused permission to enter the UK. Period. (The visa is a pre-arrival clearance of entry only) The general rules apply to all catergories of entry to the UK, so a person who wants to study here is subject to the same rules as a person who wants to work, or to visit or to live with their partner, in addition to the specific rules related to their reason for coming. See here Using Crocker as an example as he has a conviction, he qualified under the working rules but failed under the general rules (I think ) and a person coming to study might also qualify under the student rules but fail under the general rules because he had been refused a visa before and didn't declare it, for example. These rules mean all bets are off in any circumstances, regardless of whether you qualify in the other part of the rules.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:00 am  

is this corruption

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:51 pm  

Chris28 wrote: We are going over it again! He was refused permission to enter the UK. Period. (The visa is a pre-arrival clearance of entry only) The general rules apply to all catergories of entry to the UK, so a person who wants to study here is subject to the same rules as a person who wants to work, or to visit or to live with their partner, in addition to the specific rules related to their reason for coming. See here Using Crocker as an example as he has a conviction, he qualified under the working rules but failed under the general rules (I think ) and a person coming to study might also qualify under the student rules but fail under the general rules because he had been refused a visa before and didn't declare it, for example. These rules mean all bets are off in any circumstances, regardless of whether you qualify in the other part of the rules. Well, all I'm gonna say is, he was let in and played!

Chris28 wrote: We are going over it again! He was refused permission to enter the UK. Period. (The visa is a pre-arrival clearance of entry only) The general rules apply to all catergories of entry to the UK, so a person who wants to study here is subject to the same rules as a person who wants to work, or to visit or to live with their partner, in addition to the specific rules related to their reason for coming. See here Using Crocker as an example as he has a conviction, he qualified under the working rules but failed under the general rules (I think ) and a person coming to study might also qualify under the student rules but fail under the general rules because he had been refused a visa before and didn't declare it, for example. These rules mean all bets are off in any circumstances, regardless of whether you qualify in the other part of the rules. Well, all I'm gonna say is, he was let in and played!

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:00 pm  

Dave T wrote:

Well, all I'm gonna say is, he was let in and played!

Yes and I'm a tad surprised!

: Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:25 am  

Chris28 wrote:

Yes and I'm a tad surprised!

so you admit you are wrong

: Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:22 am  

fredie wrote:

so you admit you are wrong

Nope. How am I wrong?