i agree that part is stupid, but thats a failling with the UKBA in the fact they,

what im arguing is allowing him to vist doesnt make a mockery of the decision not to allow him to move here

The point that you are missing is that in terms of his failure to obtain leave to enter, his circumstances won't have changed until after his trial.

You also seem to be confusing leave to enter with leave to remain.

except for the fact that he isn't "visiting"

and that is precisly where i am saying you are going wrong, the rejection and acceptance of visas/entry into the country clearly have an element of subjectivity to them even though they are guided by the same criteria,

an immigration official may, quite sensibly, feel that whilst birds charges would be a barrier to entrance to the country on an on-going basis, it may not be for a one off instance to play RL and only be in the country for a few days,

that isnt a mockery, its a fairly sensible outlook if you think about it

The point is (and we are all assuming) that he has been refused entry clearance due to the alleged offences. These offences, until dealt with, will cause him the same problems if he tries to enter without entry clearance. The same criteria have to be considered every time someone seeks entry to the UK, in addition to the specific rules.

Bird was after entry clearance to come to work here, now he'd be seeking entry under a different part of the rules, but the general rules still apply to both of these attempts to come here (and any in the future).

really? moving to france, testimonies from his french employers, being part of a european competition, only being in the country for a few days, isnt a change in circumstance?

and im not confusing anything, im just making the fairly obvious assumption that when assessing a person eligability to enter the country we are going to look at what they will do when they are here, and you can then see it is also obvious that the purposes of his visit with les catalans is completely different to joining bradford

i understand the same criteria will be used, but bird and his application (for want of a better word) to enter the country will be different

At last we agree!

What I'm trying to point out that refusing under the general rules should be applied consistently and it looks ridiculous for Bird to be denied entry clearance to play rugby, but then admitted to...er,.... play rugby. Mockery may be a strong word but effectively excluding a person (which is what the entry clearnace refusal did) then allowing the same person in when the same circumstances continue to be relevant is inconsistent to the extreme. If I was Bradford, I'd be miffed.

If that Dutch guy who was excluded the other week turned up on the ferry at Hull and got let in, would also constitute, in my view, a mockery.

Yes but the same general rules apply, regardless of the difference in purpose of visit (for want of a better word)

And being told in Oz that you can't come to the UK is a bit easier to deal with than being detained in a "cell", served with legal documents and escorted to a plane by immigration officers