Fox and Briscoe both deserve to represent their country (and hopefully will shortly), whilst young players like Kris Welham has the potential to in the near future.





P.S. We actually [iearned[/i our SL place, you'd be fueding with the Skolars every year and the Cougars would be in SL instead if I had my way!

Deserve.....as in your opinion they deserve a place.......









2 players YOU believe are fit to represent their country.....
127 YEARS OF RL HERITAGE my @rse






Keep up the good work.....

Cooke and Murrell too.



Kings v Quins:

9000 - 4000 (home fans)
1000 (away fans) v 20 (away fans)

+ we enjoy much greater merchandise sales etc, as well as fill a 25,000 ground with our neighbours.

In 30 years your support has increased very little, but keep up the good work!

Btw, unfortunately I've still not been able to change my principles re The Stoop yet!

FORMER NRL star Greg Bird was "the victim" when he allegedly assaulted a young woman in a Cronulla nightclub, Sutherland Local Court heard yesterday. The 25-year-old, who on Thursday flew in from France where he is playing for the Catalans rugby league team, had his one common assault charge upgraded to five charges but believes the evidence of three security guards and security video will clear him. "Three security officers are able not only to give evidence, but to give evidence to the effect that he was the victim in this matter," his solicitor Patrick Conaghan told the court. www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/s ... 21,00.html

FORMER NRL star Greg Bird was "the victim" when he allegedly assaulted a young woman in a Cronulla nightclub, Sutherland Local Court heard yesterday. The 25-year-old, who on Thursday flew in from France where he is playing for the Catalans rugby league team, had his one common assault charge upgraded to five charges but believes the evidence of three security guards and security video will clear him. "Three security officers are able not only to give evidence, but to give evidence to the effect that he was the victim in this matter," his solicitor Patrick Conaghan told the court. www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/s ... 21,00.html

The basis of our judicial system - and that in all the free world (i.e. not China) is that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (not in the press).
That said, I still don't want him at my club, he's just an expensive foreigner taking the place deserved by one of our academy players.

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.

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.

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 [uall[/u 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. [url=http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/policyandlaw/immigrationlaw/immigrationrules/part9/See here[/url

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.

is this corruption

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

Yes and I'm a tad surprised!

so you admit you are wrong

Nope. How am I wrong?

Are we dehyrdated?

Maybe. Or maybe I should check my metaphors

As a sports visitor who plans to leave at the end of his visit, is he not exempt from leave to enter requirements?

No

So if he was an Australian-born salesman, working for a French company, he'd have to get a visa to come over here and meet potential UK buyers?

Doesn't the fact that he's not actually working for a UK company mean he becomes a non-visa national who can enter the UK as a visitor under the rules for sportspeople?

No visa needed but would still have to satisfy the immigration officer that he qualifies for entry when he arrives, using exactly the same rules.

If he's got a criminal conviction he might or might not get in. Visitors still have to satisfy the general rules, which is why I'm surprised Bird got in. The refusal of the visa will be marked in his passport and should have been spotted when he handed his passport over. He probably qualified in other areas and was given the benfit of the doubt, but seems odd to me.

the french have there ways

"Their".