: Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:14 pm  

Jake the Peg wrote:

No

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:16 pm  

crocker applied again on the 9th feb and it's ment to take within 25 days to get a decision which is 6th march.

Re: Crocker - Facts required, not rumour or opinion : Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:18 pm  

Smiggs wrote:

The news of the re-application was announced on the 9th I believe and spoke of a decision with 25 days (working or elapsed, I don't know)

By Friday the 13th, then, if 25 working days?

Re: Crocker - Facts required, not rumour or opinion : Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:20 pm  

Mrs Barista wrote:

By Friday the 13th, then, if 25 working days?

OH sh*t!

Re: Crocker - Facts required, not rumour or opinion : Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:23 pm  

Mild mannered Janitor wrote:

Sorry if you don't like this mods, but 2 threads and over 1200 posts!!! I can't be ar$ed to go through it.

Anyone know when his visa re-application actually went in or when are we supposed will the decision be made?

Have a feeling there may be news on Monday

Re: Crocker - Facts required, not rumour or opinion : Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:34 pm  

Hutchie wrote:

Have a feeling there may be news on Monday

Good or bad?

Re: Crocker - Facts required, not rumour or opinion : Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:11 pm  

Hutchie wrote:

Have a feeling there may be news on Monday

Which Monday This Monday next Monday or the week after

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:32 pm  

Not sure this really helps but got a letter back from my MP about the Crocker situation.
Basically it skirted my main question which was in the context of this is fair enough if it applies to all - i.e. footballers, entertainers etc. from any other country.

On the work visa front it confirmed the following -

The refusal was "discretionary" rather than "mandatory" (which maybe gives a little hope). I doubt it was mandatory as that would be personally directed by the secretary of state (I doubt!) or if info was not disclosed (possible I guess).

However under "discretionary" the visa "should normally be refused" if the offence "committed outside the UK, would be so punishable if the conduct constituting the offence had occurred in the UK" - However a little hope here if the "crime" had happened in the UK it would have to be one that came with a jail term of 12 months or greater. So if what Crocker did in Oz wouldn’t have got him 12 months if it had been committed here it may help.

On the amount of time spent and the fact he has done community work and perhaps become a “better person” it doesn’t look great. A person may become "rehabilitated" however this comes with the "AND conviction spent".

Like I say maybe nothing more than anyone has posted already but straight from House of Commons printed paper!

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:47 pm  

Pookie wrote:

Not sure this really helps but got a letter back from my MP about the Crocker situation.
Basically it skirted my main question which was in the context of this is fair enough if it applies to all - i.e. footballers, entertainers etc. from any other country.

On the work visa front it confirmed the following -

The refusal was "discretionary" rather than "mandatory" (which maybe gives a little hope). I doubt it was mandatory as that would be personally directed by the secretary of state (I doubt!) or if info was not disclosed (possible I guess).

However under "discretionary" the visa "should normally be refused" if the offence "committed outside the UK, would be so punishable if the conduct constituting the offence had occurred in the UK" - However a little hope here if the "crime" had happened in the UK it would have to be one that came with a jail term of 12 months or greater. So if what Crocker did in Oz wouldn’t have got him 12 months if it had been committed here it may help.

On the amount of time spent and the fact he has done community work and perhaps become a “better person” it doesn’t look great. A person may become "rehabilitated" however this comes with the "AND conviction spent".

Like I say maybe nothing more than anyone has posted already but straight from House of Commons printed paper!

Is that a direct quote of the reason for refusal? It seems to confirm what I thought if so.

The maximum sentence for affray is 3 years, which is why Crocker was caught by it and the refusal IS discretionary. If it was a mandatory refusal, there would be no point reapplying until the conviction is spent - after 5 years.

: Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:04 am  

Chris28 wrote:

Is that a direct quote of the reason for refusal? It seems to confirm what I thought if so.

The maximum sentence for affray is 3 years, which is why Crocker was caught by it and the refusal IS discretionary. If it was a mandatory refusal, there would be no point reapplying until the conviction is spent - after 5 years.

What about Eastwood (I think) who had driving offences.

Besides Crocker would not have gotten a jail sentence, cos there aint enough room