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.

That's all well and good but if Bird is found not guilty his past behavior is irrelevant as he's been judged on it by a jury of his peers and deemed acceptable.

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

You write nothing but tripe. He hasn't been sacked, or suspended. He signed an agreement not to play for another club so that he could be released, hardly a sacking or suspension.

That's wrong anyway. Even if it wasn't and he was found not guilty Cronulla would be having a trip to court.

ATEOTD, whether he has done something or nothing, he aint British (or EU) so we don't have to let him in and long may we be able to keep undesirables out in that way.

...which pretty neatly sums the whole thing up.

National immigration control is, frankly, a bit bigger than rugby league. I absolutely agree that in Australia he may be innocent until proven guilty, and I'd also like to see him at the bulls, but if he was applying for practically any other job then I'm sure that most of us would have concerns about a prospective immigrant who had not yet cleared their name of assault in their home country.

However you title it Sacked, By agreement, gardening leave, etc the point is the club got shot of him as a result of the stain upon his character they may have done it in such a way as to avoid legal complications. The point is that would be enough for immigration to deem him not a good person who could be denied a visa.

the fact that he came here on a one year contract with an option rather than a 3 year contract would also have been deemed to him just coming for a way of getting around his difficulties in OZ rather than him benefitting the game over here vwhich would be another criteria.

We might be part of the EU but we are also a commonwealth country with strong historical and cultural links with Australia far in excess of most other European countries and I feel that the government and its agencies are wrong in refusing Bird a visa. If the refusal is based on his forthcoming court appearance then this decision goes against british values and justice. Furthermore when the government can pay for and supply a doctor escort to a guantanamo bay terror suspect with spurious links to this country in order to transport him safely here and lavish him with benefits coupled with 24 hour surveillence then it is clear that this government and its agencies have clearly lost the plot. Roll on the next General election!

Genius at work, pure revelation....

So basically you don't understand the law as it is practiced, concepts of justice, the benefits system or politics, nor have you bothered to read the thread. Not to worry eh?