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.

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?

No real surprise TBH as it was always a likely outcome.

However, I do remember some time ago when his name was first linked with ourselves that a number of posters were less than happy to be linked with him as they did not want "people like him" at our club. One assumes that they will be happy now?

However, the fact now remains that it looks like we have wasted a bit of time chasing a non-starter and we now approach the new season with still a very average looking backline which would have been bolstered by the top class signing of Bird. We also now know that there is money to spend.

Whether we spend it or wait until Bird clears his name (IF he indeed does so) is a decision for the powers that be at the club.

Well said.

We should have special dispensations for Canadians, Aussies and New Zealanders in the same way as for displaced Zimbabwean/Rhodesian farm owners over all the other lesser countries.

As for the EU - we have no common history or values with the Europeans. Our legal system, moral code, broad economic policy, approach to land ownership and human rights are definitely not common to other European countries.

There isn't currently any players of the right quality available so I expect the club will keep the space on the cap. If the trial goes ahead in April then it will still leaves plenty of time for Bird to join up if the result goes the way he is expecting.

But for now we should forget about Bird. I know I cannot wait to see Menzies at Odsal tomorrow, even if it is likely to be another mud bath!

No? I thought we had a whole history of empire building and colonial oppression in common with them? Still at least we've learning something about economic policy - neoliberal deregulation and privatisation is a disaster, land ownership - agri-business and the wealthy would keep us off the land and poison us if we allowed them, and human rights - torture is instrumentally ineffective, barbaric and contrary to any 'moral code', perhaps even yours? Although as you're a crude reactionary wind-up merchant perhaps moral dubiousness is the ground you're most at home on?

Not really i think we made ourselves look bad pursuing someone who was very unlikely to be available. I don't think he is as good as some people have made out and as far as I can see neither he or his partner have denied he attacked her. Rather, in hindsight they would have preferred to have dealt with it themselves, but having got the police involved it's out of their hands and the police think it sufficiently serious to go to court.

Interestingly some people seem to think guilt or innocence is only determined in courts, plenty of people are technically not guilty of a crime, but have done something others would find reprehensible, whilst others are technically guilty of a crime, but might be acting in an entirely moral way (historical examples being Suffragettes, MLK, Mandela etc).

So am I happy, no, being happy about the club acting in a way which tarnishes its reputation for nothing makes me quite sad. Am i pleased he's not coming, yes, do i want him here in the future - no. Hope that's consistent enough for you.

Er and you do?




It seems to me that the law that is practiced is determined at the whim of public servants and it would be interesting to see what would happen if Bird challenged that ruling in a court of law.

Fair point, well made.

Shame there are not too many more like you though.

[url=http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/nrl/story/0,27074,25055831-5016549,00.html"Despite yesterday's thwarted attempt, Bird is expected to lodge a formal application to play with Newtown in the NSWRL competition."[/url