Really dissappointed, hope he does appeal.

with the side benefits of him coming with a clean sheet and saving his wages for a few months.

tbh I'd rather it happened this way. If he's cleared then he comes in mid season (allowing same time his visa decision took this time he'd be here for late may.) when we may have injuries and need a boost and with no negative publicity. If he goes down then we avoid the bad publicity of him having played for us upto his trial and have a nice chunk of salary cap should someone else become available maybe on a longer term deal. He was a very late signing so its not like we've spent the pre-season planning around him so he doesnt leave a big gap in the squad to be filled which is situation hull and hudds are in.

The NRL were never going to do anything till he'd been to court. For the simple reason if found not guilty Bird could and more likely would have done is take the NRL to court.

The trouble is it's not even the same. Crocker and Carney were refused because of convictions. Bird has been refused because he might be convicted.

2 days are set aside for the trial the 27th and 28th of April.

It's a 2 day trial that's whats been set aside.

my mate is emigrating to oz and people are NOT allowed in there if they have a court case pending.if they are cleared then fine.
why should we treat them any differently?

nothing against bird or the bulls but i feel that is the correct way to go

Nice jugs !!!

Emigrating and coming over to play sport for 1 or 2 years is a totally different thing IMO.

The Law states that you are innocent 'til proved guilty but that is not always the case because for some offences, passports and other documents have to be surrendered, turning the law on it's head guilty 'til proved innocent. If a legal ruling in either UK or Australia says he can't exit his current residence then that is final until his court appearance and every thing else is irrelevant.

NO
NO
AND THRICE NO.


the refusals are not based solely on convictions or charges but on the catch all of not been conducive to the common good.

If the do not want someone coming in because of their past behaviour it is all the same if they are convicted, just charged , acquitted or whatever.


Therefore it is exactly the same.

Ridiculous decision.

It is to be hoped that Birds criminal lawyer takes advice from an immigration lawyer as to which charges are fatal for a visa application. What may seem from a criminal point of view as being minor can be devastating to an immigration application. Lying to the Police (Moral Turpitude in the States) is the worse of the charges, immigration wise.

Even if he is acquitted he does not automatically get a right of entry. He can be refused because it is deemed that it is not in the common good.

If Britain did not want Ghandi or Nelson Mandela to come here they can stop them regardless of convictions.

Britain could not take him because he has been sacked/ suspended by his club. That would be reason enough