Bandido chief stranded in Thailand after Australian govt refuses to renew visa

[RigPig]

He's been living there for 24 years and has children.

He has been convicted of nothing.

If they want rid then do so by convicting him of something.

He's not a tourist nor is he a recent arrival.

He's grown up in the country and therefore should be at least entitled to a trial or hearing, with representation.

If he's guilty of something then <deleted> him, expel him.

But to do it like this, that's wrong.

Stop making us all laugh Bluey, try just posting something derogatory about you know who or you know what and see what kind of a trial you get before you are shown the door here (if you are lucky that is and not immediately banged-up).

It comes down to this "better that one hundred inocent Bandido's are denied entry to Oz (or booted out) than One guilty one is allowed in (or allowed to remain)" without any evidence other than that they are proven Bandido's (or ets).

Don't like it, let them stop them selling drugs/guns/Thai women/etc and live like angels. No problems. No need to winge.

Don't see why they can't just ditch the monica and live like normal oz crims (the guilty one's that is). No bad images. No problems. No need to winge.

But if you continue to insist on fair trials for all, why don't you swap to the Yingluck forum?

I forgot to add that they could try the North Korean option for undesirables, "anti-aircraft guns at dawn".

So how would you feel if I said ¨It comes down to this "better that one hundred inocent Muslims are denied entry to Oz (or booted out) than One guilty one is allowed in (or allowed to remain)" without any evidence other than that they are proven Muslims (or ets).¨

It seems to fit in the current climate.

I guess if you are Anti- Muslim you would be p!ssed the government isn´t using these laws to get them all deported.

If you are pro- Muslim I guess you will be p!ssed if the government did it.

It could be argued that the terrorist threat (the same reason they have used to encroach on many of your rights, which have been removed) and affiliation with these people warrant their complete expulsion, especially using your argument above.

Or is it that the ¨gang¨ in question is too big for the government to handle and even they fear the repercussions...

And I am not trying to turn this thread into a religious debate, I only used Muslims as an example of why these laws / rules are wrong. It is in effect Article 44 of the imigration act IMO

agreed

https://www.facebook.com/SkyNewsAustralia/videos/vb.57886636727/10152878170571728/?type=2&theater

The thing is, I am not worried about the ones that leave the country to go fight somewhere, it´s the ones that don´t that are the worry. Judging how these terrorist cells seem to operate, using Mosques as part of their under cover operations. We should exel all of them, just to be sure....

¨Beter to deny 10,000 innocent Muslims........¨ according to some people.

Once again I iterate, this is only to DEMONSTRATE why this is wrong, stop thinking about the tattooed biker and think about the implications laws like this can have.............

[sambum]

Bluespunk, if you were renting out a room in your house; would this guy have a chance at being your tenant?

This in essence is what the authorities are faced with on a national level. Who do you let under your roof?

Exactly! If you (i.e. the Aussie Government) owned a house,(Australia) and invited some friends round for a party. However, somebody tried to gatecrash the party (Roach) and you refused to let him into your home. This was because he had been to one of your parties before, and although he didn't light up a joint or do anything illegal, his whole demeanour, attitude and the way that he spoke about drugs, crime etc suggested that he was the kind of person that you would not want in your home.

You are of course, legally entitled to refuse him entry. The same applies in pubs in the UK (I don't know about any other countries) where the landlord has the right to refuse to serve anyone with alcohol if he feels so inclined - he does not even have to give a reason.

So if you are a "guest" in somebody else's house (or country) behave yourself, act in a civilised manner, and they might invite you back next time. If you behave like a "w@#$%r", you shouldn't be surprised if you don't get a repeat invitation!

Edited May 20, 2015 by sambum

[billphillips]

I REALLY wish the mods would make " bluespunk " & " giddyup" take their lovers tiff private ...................my inbox cant keep up with their non stop posts.

Bluespunk......................your belief that the law being applied in this case is wrong ....is exactly that YOUR opinion. If Mr Roach had of simply taken the time ( and effort) to become an Australian citizen some time in the last 24yrs............then this situation would NOT have arisen. IF Mr Roach were an Aust citizen, then the Aust govt would have had to do exactly what you wish ................charge him ( with something), find him guilty , revoke his residency rights and deport him .

Mr Roach couldnt be bothered to obtain Aust citizenship. I would imagine also that Mr Roach didnt look into the new laws BEFORE he left for his holiday in Thailand.

Please also consider ...........that the wife and child are still able to remain in Aust if they so desire. The choice is theirs.

I wonder .......Bluespunk where you currently live. I am an Aussie living in Thailand...................I very much doubt that Thai immigration feels any need to arrest me , charge me , convict me before refusing me re-entry to Thailand should I leave for any reason and they do not wish me to return. They will simply ( like australia has done) refuse to issue me an entry visa at the border.

To me the FACT that Mr Roach has a Bandido connection is simply clouding the issue.....................he is a non citizen, he participates in ( legally determined) un-desirable association with an (legally defined) un-desirable group which means that he has failed a primary consideration for the granting of a visa( residency) to enter Australia.

END OF STORY

You can write in capitals all you want. It's not the end because you say so.

If he has committed crimes worthy of being refused a visa then fine do it. Prove it.

However a law that says we think you are doing wrong and after living here for 24 years we have decided to refuse a visa renewal is a problem for me.

It's not a problem for me and one or two others here.

He probably did not successfully apply for Australian citizenship because he was unable to meet the required criteria.

Good and well done to Aussie immigration for not only saving the taxpayers a considerable sum of money, but for dispatching an alien undesirable with the minimum of fuss and effort. Quite funny actually, that he paid for the outbound flight from his own funds. 555

[skippybangkok]

One less pom can't be too bad !

[Artisi]

I REALLY wish the mods would make " bluespunk " & " giddyup" take their lovers tiff private ...................my inbox cant keep up with their non stop posts.

Bluespunk......................your belief that the law being applied in this case is wrong ....is exactly that YOUR opinion. If Mr Roach had of simply taken the time ( and effort) to become an Australian citizen some time in the last 24yrs............then this situation would NOT have arisen. IF Mr Roach were an Aust citizen, then the Aust govt would have had to do exactly what you wish ................charge him ( with something), find him guilty , revoke his residency rights and deport him .

Mr Roach couldnt be bothered to obtain Aust citizenship. I would imagine also that Mr Roach didnt look into the new laws BEFORE he left for his holiday in Thailand.

Please also consider ...........that the wife and child are still able to remain in Aust if they so desire. The choice is theirs.

I wonder .......Bluespunk where you currently live. I am an Aussie living in Thailand...................I very much doubt that Thai immigration feels any need to arrest me , charge me , convict me before refusing me re-entry to Thailand should I leave for any reason and they do not wish me to return. They will simply ( like australia has done) refuse to issue me an entry visa at the border.

To me the FACT that Mr Roach has a Bandido connection is simply clouding the issue.....................he is a non citizen, he participates in ( legally determined) un-desirable association with an (legally defined) un-desirable group which means that he has failed a primary consideration for the granting of a visa( residency) to enter Australia.

END OF STORY

You can write in capitals all you want. It's not the end because you say so.

If he has committed crimes worthy of being refused a visa then fine do it. Prove it.

However a law that says we think you are doing wrong and after living here for 24 years we have decided to refuse a visa renewal is a problem for me.

It's not a problem for me and one or two others here.

He probably did not successfully apply for Australian citizenship because he was unable to meet the required criteria.

Good and well done to Aussie immigration for not only saving the taxpayers a considerable sum of money, but for dispatching an alien undesirable with the minimum of fuss and effort. Quite funny actually, that he paid for the outbound flight from his own funds. 555

Of course where the funds came from would be an interesting debatable question.

[sambum]

One less pom can't be too bad !

Don't forget your roots, cobber! Besides, it sounds like you could do with getting rid of a few of his Aussie chums as well, old chap!

Edited May 20, 2015 by sambum

[Artisi]

Bluespunk, you and I are often on the same page, but I really don't understand you on this one. Australian society regards the Bandidos as a criminal organisation - few seem to disagree, therefore the majority back sanctions against the group. That includes surveillance and questions of legal domesticity of non-Aust members. The Bandidos are more than just a threat - they have already been proven to be a menace to society, but are much smarter about being caught these days. Roach openly acknowledges his membership of this criminal group, therefore should be aware he is vulnerable and likely at any time to be removed from Aust society under that society's rules of acceptable standards for non-Aust residents.

There are many reasons to deny entry. Sometimes those reasons are not even explained, as many Thai women well know. In this case there is a man with proven connections to a subversive group that has evil intentions for society. That is potent enough, not whether he has been convicted of a crime. The only question in my mind in respect of his civil rights is why it took so long, and why didn't they handle it in the form of a properly organised expulsion rather than wait for him to go overseas (somewhat cowardly, in my opinion).

He's been living there for 24 years and has children.

He has been convicted of nothing.

If they want rid then do so by convicting him of something.

He's not a tourist nor is he a recent arrival.

He's grown up in the country and therefore should be at least entitled to a trial or hearing, with representation.

If he's guilty of something then <deleted> him, expel him.

But to do it like this, that's wrong.

Stop making us all laugh Bluey, try just posting something derogatory about you know who or you know what and see what kind of a trial you get before you are shown the door here (if you are lucky that is and not immediately banged-up).

It comes down to this "better that one hundred inocent Bandido's are denied entry to Oz (or booted out) than One guilty one is allowed in (or allowed to remain)" without any evidence other than that they are proven Bandido's (or ets).

Don't like it, let them stop them selling drugs/guns/Thai women/etc and live like angels. No problems. No need to winge.

Don't see why they can't just ditch the monica and live like normal oz crims (the guilty one's that is). No bad images. No problems. No need to winge.

But if you continue to insist on fair trials for all, why don't you swap to the Yingluck forum?

I forgot to add that they could try the North Korean option for undesirables, "anti-aircraft guns at dawn".

So how would you feel if I said ¨It comes down to this "better that one hundred inocent Muslims are denied entry to Oz (or booted out) than One guilty one is allowed in (or allowed to remain)" without any evidence other than that they are proven Muslims (or ets).¨

It seems to fit in the current climate.

I guess if you are Anti- Muslim you would be p!ssed the government isn´t using these laws to get them all deported.

If you are pro- Muslim I guess you will be p!ssed if the government did it.

It could be argued that the terrorist threat (the same reason they have used to encroach on many of your rights, which have been removed) and affiliation with these people warrant their complete expulsion, especially using your argument above.

Or is it that the ¨gang¨ in question is too big for the government to handle and even they fear the repercussions...

And I am not trying to turn this thread into a religious debate, I only used Muslims as an example of why these laws / rules are wrong. It is in effect Article 44 of the imigration act IMO

Stupid argument, if a Muslim person aligned with a terrorist group applied for an entry visa or similar, the government would have no hesitation in saying NO, and there is absolutely no reason to refuse every muslim who applies. Roach is a known member of a criminal organisation and the government have every right and the responsibility to refuse his application - just like anyone else aligned to any criminal organisation. Edited May 20, 2015 by Artisi

[hawker9000]

Typical low IQ response, you may well idolise the black spiders, or whatever these people call themselves, was that you in the clint eastwood movie that was whacked in the face by clyde the orungatan diamond king.

Your avoiding the question namatijra let me ask again

Would you like me to take you to the Bandido's Clubhouse in Chiang Mai where you can tell them in person what you think of them since you chose to post it

Simple Yes or No answer

It does occur (doesn't it?) that your testosterone-soaked response just helps him make his case...

[RigPig]

Stop making us all laugh Bluey, try just posting something derogatory about you know who or you know what and see what kind of a trial you get before you are shown the door here (if you are lucky that is and not immediately banged-up).

It comes down to this "better that one hundred inocent Bandido's are denied entry to Oz (or booted out) than One guilty one is allowed in (or allowed to remain)" without any evidence other than that they are proven Bandido's (or ets).

Don't like it, let them stop them selling drugs/guns/Thai women/etc and live like angels. No problems. No need to winge.

Don't see why they can't just ditch the monica and live like normal oz crims (the guilty one's that is). No bad images. No problems. No need to winge.

But if you continue to insist on fair trials for all, why don't you swap to the Yingluck forum?

I forgot to add that they could try the North Korean option for undesirables, "anti-aircraft guns at dawn".

So how would you feel if I said ¨It comes down to this "better that one hundred inocent Muslims are denied entry to Oz (or booted out) than One guilty one is allowed in (or allowed to remain)" without any evidence other than that they are proven Muslims (or ets).¨

It seems to fit in the current climate.

I guess if you are Anti- Muslim you would be p!ssed the government isn´t using these laws to get them all deported.

If you are pro- Muslim I guess you will be p!ssed if the government did it.

It could be argued that the terrorist threat (the same reason they have used to encroach on many of your rights, which have been removed) and affiliation with these people warrant their complete expulsion, especially using your argument above.

Or is it that the ¨gang¨ in question is too big for the government to handle and even they fear the repercussions...

And I am not trying to turn this thread into a religious debate, I only used Muslims as an example of why these laws / rules are wrong. It is in effect Article 44 of the imigration act IMO

Stupid argument, if a Muslim person aligned with a terrorist group applied for an entry visa or similar, the government would have no hesitation in saying NO, and there is absolutely no reason to refuse every muslim who applies. Roach is a known member of a criminal organisation and the government have every right and the responsibility to refuse his application - just like anyone else aligned to any criminal organisation.

I could equaly argue:

Stupid argument, if a Bandido person aligned with a terrorist group applied for an entry visa or similar, the government would have no hesitation in saying NO, and there is absolutely no reason to refuse every Bandido who applies. Ahmed is a known member of a criminal organisation (Islam) and the government have every right and the responsibility to refuse his application - just like anyone else aligned to any criminal organisation.

And don´t try to tell me there are not people who think like that about Muslims because there are, there are plenty of comments to this effect on the Rohingya thread!!!

Me I am only saying laws have no discrimination, supposedly, and if it´s good for the goose.... And by the same token if it´s not good for the goose...

But the REAL issue is who makes the decision, I don´t think 1 person should decide this, it is only democratic / just to allow both sides to be heard. And before you start going on about they were refusing entry, in reality they were denying continuance of stay with a family involved. I understand he has engaged solicitors (lawyers), so the costs to both sides will probably be about the same. All it has really done is kep a family seperated and hasn even given them the decency of tidying up their affairs (maybe the Muaay Thai prctice was for a buisness transaction he needed to complete haha).

I don´t know it just doesn´t seem right and at what point do 2 wrongs make a right?

[tifino]

the old fart has enough criminal backing, that he could disappear and travel anywhere around the world if he so wished. And never re-appear...

He is a one & a halfer farter after all, and Laws are never high on these dudes list of deferences.

Still - we told him, huh!

At least the country got it"s prioritys right this time; by officially stopping this dude; whilst allowing the Dalai Lama entry, even though the DL is 'declared' by sooky China to be a real criminal .

We got up their noses too!!

[Old Croc]

One less pom can't be too bad !

Don't forget your roots, cobber! Besides, it sounds like you could do with getting rid of a few of his Aussie chums as well, old chap!

Quite a few of the less intelligent may still believe that Australia is largely British, but that all started to change in the 60s when large scale migration was sought from elsewhere.

Australia now is one of the most ethnically diverse countries on the planet.

An Australian's roots could very easily have been germinated anywhere on Earth.

Now, less than 10% were born in the Old Blighted. Many Brits cling to their roots and refuse to take up Australian Citizenship, which is one of the reasons a high proportion of deported crims come from there.

It's good to be able to send a few back, wish we could start with Londoner, Tony Abbott!

Chum.

[Netease]

Australia is in persecution mode now with new laws whereby you can be criminalised just for being in a 'motorbike gang' regardless of whether you actually did anything wrong. People are getting harassed by police just for having a motorbike. One guy recently went to put fuel in his Harley at a local petrol station and 21 police cars showed up to harrass him, he wasn't in a gang and didn't do anything. He said this happens almost daily now.

Where did you get this information from

[masuk]

Stranard? He has a British passport, he can allways go to his real home.

Anyway British have are far more living condition then Aussies....(except illegal activities)

huh?

[Netease]

What a horrible thing to do to Thailand. I guess this is part of the pay-back for staging a coup. Australia killing two birds with one stone.

It was a horrible thing to do to Thailand unloading this SCUM on such a beautiful country I bet Thailand tighten their processing more from now with all this publicity

[Netease]

That's what the minister said and that's what he did.

However has this man actually been convicted of anything?

He may be guilty of many things in which case <deleted> him.

However the fact this can be decided and done without any actual judicial process is something that I do not agree with.

He can use the law to fight his refused entry if he thinks he has a case.

True.

Still the govts initial action is not something I agree with, especially as he has family in Australia.

How long as he lived there?

Tooooo Long

[Netease]

I would be interested to know what his profession is and how he earns his money

[novo58]

@ netease............................

Google .................." bandido's"

Google .................."sergeant at arms"

Read any story on the activities of the Bandido MCC.

Then you will learn where "his" money comes from.

[Jay Sata]

Sadly these gangs have mushroomed in Thailand in recent years.

[Si Thea01]

Australia is in persecution mode now with new laws whereby you can be criminalised just for being in a 'motorbike gang' regardless of whether you actually did anything wrong. People are getting harassed by police just for having a motorbike. One guy recently went to put fuel in his Harley at a local petrol station and 21 police cars showed up to harrass him, he wasn't in a gang and didn't do anything. He said this happens almost daily now.

Police are targeting "Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs", owing to many being involved in organised crime. Some of their members are involved in standover tactics, extortion, drug manufacture and distribution, prostitution, murder, do I need to go on as to why these "Gangs" are being targeted? Police have had to update the old law of "Consorting" to that of "Criminal Association In their attempts to break up these gangs because of their nefarious activities, so I wouldn't say persecution, more like prosecution of these criminals.

Unfortunately criminals do not wear signs proclaiming they're crooks, likewise, members not convicted of any offences do not wear a sign proclaiming they're clean skins so unfortunately, run with the wolves, get hunted like one. So you're saying that regardless of who you are, if you're a bike rider you will be harassed by police. I think Police know the difference between bikers (Ulysses as an example) to Outlaw Motor Cycle Gangs such as the Hells Angels, Bandidos, Comancheros, Rebels, the list goes on, with the latter being the one's stopped and targeted.

I rode bikes for 45 years without being harassed, have been on a number of large bike runs, again no harassment, the same with my mates, so we must be an exception to the rule. The one biker and 21 police cars, now harassed daily? Either this is an urban myth, a total exaggeration. or if you actually spoke to a real person, then he sounds like someone who is liberal with the truth.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Si Thea01

[thaiguzzi]

Are the guys wife and kids Aussy citizens....?

If the guy ain't a citizen and is KNOWN to be involved in stuff, is on Aussy RADAR then they have every right to deny entry back to Auss, one less to spend tax payers money on.

I don't know HIS story, was he employed, paid taxes etc..Any one know...?

He was a Bandido, yes, he had a job flipping burgers at Burger King. Part-time he bashed people and helped manufacture and distribute speed.

Proof? Re the bashing people and drugs bit. I mean real proof he personally did those things. Thought so. You, and all the rest, inc the Federal Australian Government have no proof he personally is a criminal. Just an "undesirable" in today's Nanny Conformist state.

[MiKT]

Bluespunk, you and I are often on the same page, but I really don't understand you on this one. Australian society regards the Bandidos as a criminal organisation - few seem to disagree, therefore the majority back sanctions against the group. That includes surveillance and questions of legal domesticity of non-Aust members. The Bandidos are more than just a threat - they have already been proven to be a menace to society, but are much smarter about being caught these days. Roach openly acknowledges his membership of this criminal group, therefore should be aware he is vulnerable and likely at any time to be removed from Aust society under that society's rules of acceptable standards for non-Aust residents.

There are many reasons to deny entry. Sometimes those reasons are not even explained, as many Thai women well know. In this case there is a man with proven connections to a subversive group that has evil intentions for society. That is potent enough, not whether he has been convicted of a crime. The only question in my mind in respect of his civil rights is why it took so long, and why didn't they handle it in the form of a properly organised expulsion rather than wait for him to go overseas (somewhat cowardly, in my opinion).

He's been living there for 24 years and has children.

He has been convicted of nothing.

If they want rid then do so by convicting him of something.

He's not a tourist nor is he a recent arrival.

He's grown up in the country and therefore should be at least entitled to a trial or hearing, with representation.

If he's guilty of something then <deleted> him, expel him.

But to do it like this, that's wrong.

Stop making us all laugh Bluey, try just posting something derogatory about you know who or you know what and see what kind of a trial you get before you are shown the door here (if you are lucky that is and not immediately banged-up).

It comes down to this "better that one hundred inocent Bandido's are denied entry to Oz (or booted out) than One guilty one is allowed in (or allowed to remain)" without any evidence other than that they are proven Bandido's (or ets).

Don't like it, let them stop them selling drugs/guns/Thai women/etc and live like angels. No problems. No need to winge.

Don't see why they can't just ditch the monica and live like normal oz crims (the guilty one's that is). No bad images. No problems. No need to winge.

But if you continue to insist on fair trials for all, why don't you swap to the Yingluck forum?

I forgot to add that they could try the North Korean option for undesirables, "anti-aircraft guns at dawn".

So how would you feel if I said ¨It comes down to this "better that one hundred inocent Muslims are denied entry to Oz (or booted out) than One guilty one is allowed in (or allowed to remain)" without any evidence other than that they are proven Muslims (or ets).¨

It seems to fit in the current climate.

I guess if you are Anti- Muslim you would be p!ssed the government isn´t using these laws to get them all deported.

If you are pro- Muslim I guess you will be p!ssed if the government did it.

It could be argued that the terrorist threat (the same reason they have used to encroach on many of your rights, which have been removed) and affiliation with these people warrant their complete expulsion, especially using your argument above.

Or is it that the ¨gang¨ in question is too big for the government to handle and even they fear the repercussions...

And I am not trying to turn this thread into a religious debate, I only used Muslims as an example of why these laws / rules are wrong. It is in effect Article 44 of the imigration act IMO

Immaterial,

you could not fined 100 inocent Muslims

..............................................

.....................joke

[giddyup]

Are the guys wife and kids Aussy citizens....?

If the guy ain't a citizen and is KNOWN to be involved in stuff, is on Aussy RADAR then they have every right to deny entry back to Auss, one less to spend tax payers money on.

I don't know HIS story, was he employed, paid taxes etc..Any one know...?

He was a Bandido, yes, he had a job flipping burgers at Burger King. Part-time he bashed people and helped manufacture and distribute speed.

Proof? Re the bashing people and drugs bit. I mean real proof he personally did those things. Thought so. You, and all the rest, inc the Federal Australian Government have no proof he personally is a criminal. Just an "undesirable" in today's Nanny Conformist state.

Keep your head in the sand if you want. His role was "Master at Arms", ie an enforcer. Do you think he asked his victims "pretty please"? The Bandidos are also a major manufacturer and distributor of amphetamines, even if he didn't sell personally, he is guilty by association. I don't need any more proof than that. The Aussie government calls him an undesirable, I call him a low-life scumbag.

Edited May 21, 2015 by giddyup

[nev]

Sadly these gangs have mushroomed in Thailand in recent years.

My mate came over from Australia, he is just a bus driver, but he has the look ofva bikey about 6ft4 handle bar mustache tats just say he looks nasty, but he is a softy really, well we was sat in a bar in Pattaya having a quiet beer when these bikeys turn up wanting to know what gang he is and why he is in Thailand, took some convincing to prove he is just a bus driver, when they was satisfied they all took off, did not take note if what gang.

[giddyup]

Sadly these gangs have mushroomed in Thailand in recent years.

My mate came over from Australia, he is just a bus driver, but he has the look ofva bikey about 6ft4 handle bar mustache tats just say he looks nasty, but he is a softy really, well we was sat in a bar in Pattaya having a quiet beer when these bikeys turn up wanting to know what gang he is and why he is in Thailand, took some convincing to prove he is just a bus driver, when they was satisfied they all took off, did not take note if what gang.

Why would anyone cultivate the bikie look if they don't want to be taken for a bikie?

[impulse]

Typical low IQ response, you may well idolise the black spiders, or whatever these people call themselves, was that you in the clint eastwood movie that was whacked in the face by clyde the orungatan diamond king.

Your avoiding the question namatijra let me ask again

Would you like me to take you to the Bandido's Clubhouse in Chiang Mai where you can tell them in person what you think of them since you chose to post it

Simple Yes or No answer

It does occur (doesn't it?) that your testosterone-soaked response just helps him make his case...

I was going to take him up on his offer, right after he posts a selfie from ISIS headquarters telling them exactly how he feels about Sharia Law.

But I'm certainly not going with him to take the ISIS photo, so I guess that makes me a PAMF, too.

Edit: But that's okay. My life got a whole lot easier and better when I finally figured out it's okay to be a PAMF.

Edited May 21, 2015 by impulse

[nev]

Sadly these gangs have mushroomed in Thailand in recent years.

My mate came over from Australia, he is just a bus driver, but he has the look ofva bikey about 6ft4 handle bar mustache tats just say he looks nasty, but he is a softy really, well we was sat in a bar in Pattaya having a quiet beer when these bikeys turn up wanting to know what gang he is and why he is in Thailand, took some convincing to prove he is just a bus driver, when they was satisfied they all took off, did not take note if what gang.

Why would anyone cultivate the bikie look if they don't want to be taken for a bikie?

He's from the bush in Australia it is more like a ocker Ossie look.

[ozzydom]

Australia has cancelled the visas of 450 foreigners convicted of serious crimes in Australia since July 2014.

A further 100 people had their visa applications refused for failing the character test in migration laws, Immigration Minister Peter Dutton revealed today.

And 71 people have been deported following criminal convictions in Australia including nine pedophiles, six rapists and one murderer.

Earlier this week, Mr Dutton cancelled the visa of British-born Bandidos member Daniel Roach on character grounds.

© AAP 2015

Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/05/21/11/34/71-foreign-criminals-kicked-out-of-aus#THpyzgLGUgy5CBrx.99

[thaiguzzi]

Are the guys wife and kids Aussy citizens....?

If the guy ain't a citizen and is KNOWN to be involved in stuff, is on Aussy RADAR then they have every right to deny entry back to Auss, one less to spend tax payers money on.

I don't know HIS story, was he employed, paid taxes etc..Any one know...?

He was a Bandido, yes, he had a job flipping burgers at Burger King. Part-time he bashed people and helped manufacture and distribute speed.

Proof? Re the bashing people and drugs bit. I mean real proof he personally did those things. Thought so. You, and all the rest, inc the Federal Australian Government have no proof he personally is a criminal. Just an "undesirable" in today's Nanny Conformist state.

Keep your head in the sand if you want. His role was "Master at Arms", ie an enforcer. Do you think he asked his victims "pretty please"? The Bandidos are also a major manufacturer and distributor of amphetamines, even if he didn't sell personally, he is guilty by association. I don't need any more proof than that. The Aussie government calls him an undesirable, I call him a low-life scumbag.

Righty-o then. By the way what's Master at Arms? I don't keep my head in the sand, quite the opposite, i don't believe sensationalist press with bad journalism. Not very headline grabbing is it when a motorcycle club member comes home from a proper day's work to help change his child's nappies. Much better is rape, pillage, bite heads off chickens and drug deal/manufacture.I don't believe all that governments tell us. War in Vietnam because of those so bad commies and the "domino effect", all of SEA will fall. Well it did'nt but it cost the lives of 50k Americans and millions of Vietnamese. We are not or at war in Laos. How many million tons of ordnance? There are WMD in Iraq, Saddam has them, honest. Yeah right, and now look at the mess. Believe all that the press and governments spew out and want you to believe, because i don't and never have.

As for guilty by association, do not even get me started. How far have we fallen in freedom in the West? I had very very good friends in Germany in the early 80's do 5 years time, with no parole for exactly that. No crime, just guilty of association. Pathetic and disgusting.

[Oziex1]

Australia has cancelled the visas of 450 foreigners convicted of serious crimes in Australia since July 2014.

A further 100 people had their visa applications refused for failing the character test in migration laws, Immigration Minister Peter Dutton revealed today.

And 71 people have been deported following criminal convictions in Australia including nine pedophiles, six rapists and one murderer.

Earlier this week, Mr Dutton cancelled the visa of British-born Bandidos member Daniel Roach on character grounds.

© AAP 2015

Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/05/21/11/34/71-foreign-criminals-kicked-out-of-aus#THpyzgLGUgy5CBrx.99

Good, that's what we pay our politicians to do.

[MiKT]

Stop making us all laugh Bluey, try just posting something derogatory about you know who or you know what and see what kind of a trial you get before you are shown the door here (if you are lucky that is and not immediately banged-up).

It comes down to this "better that one hundred inocent Bandido's are denied entry to Oz (or booted out) than One guilty one is allowed in (or allowed to remain)" without any evidence other than that they are proven Bandido's (or ets).

Don't like it, let them stop them selling drugs/guns/Thai women/etc and live like angels. No problems. No need to winge.

Don't see why they can't just ditch the monica and live like normal oz crims (the guilty one's that is). No bad images. No problems. No need to winge.

But if you continue to insist on fair trials for all, why don't you swap to the Yingluck forum?

I forgot to add that they could try the North Korean option for undesirables, "anti-aircraft guns at dawn".

So how would you feel if I said ¨It comes down to this "better that one hundred inocent Muslims are denied entry to Oz (or booted out) than One guilty one is allowed in (or allowed to remain)" without any evidence other than that they are proven Muslims (or ets).¨

It seems to fit in the current climate.

I guess if you are Anti- Muslim you would be p!ssed the government isn´t using these laws to get them all deported.

If you are pro- Muslim I guess you will be p!ssed if the government did it.

It could be argued that the terrorist threat (the same reason they have used to encroach on many of your rights, which have been removed) and affiliation with these people warrant their complete expulsion, especially using your argument above.

Or is it that the ¨gang¨ in question is too big for the government to handle and even they fear the repercussions...

And I am not trying to turn this thread into a religious debate, I only used Muslims as an example of why these laws / rules are wrong. It is in effect Article 44 of the imigration act IMO

Stupid argument, if a Muslim person aligned with a terrorist group applied for an entry visa or similar, the government would have no hesitation in saying NO, and there is absolutely no reason to refuse every muslim who applies. Roach is a known member of a criminal organisation and the government have every right and the responsibility to refuse his application - just like anyone else aligned to any criminal organisation.

I could equaly argue:

Stupid argument, if a Bandido person aligned with a terrorist group applied for an entry visa or similar, the government would have no hesitation in saying NO, and there is absolutely no reason to refuse every Bandido who applies. Ahmed is a known member of a criminal organisation (Islam) and the government have every right and the responsibility to refuse his application - just like anyone else aligned to any criminal organisation.

And don´t try to tell me there are not people who think like that about Muslims because there are, there are plenty of comments to this effect on the Rohingya thread!!!

Me I am only saying laws have no discrimination, supposedly, and if it´s good for the goose.... And by the same token if it´s not good for the goose...

But the REAL issue is who makes the decision, I don´t think 1 person should decide this, it is only democratic / just to allow both sides to be heard. And before you start going on about they were refusing entry, in reality they were denying continuance of stay with a family involved. I understand he has engaged solicitors (lawyers), so the costs to both sides will probably be about the same. All it has really done is kep a family seperated and hasn even given them the decency of tidying up their affairs (maybe the Muaay Thai prctice was for a buisness transaction he needed to complete haha).

I don´t know it just doesn´t seem right and at what point do 2 wrongs make a right?

This is the crux of the matter, you don't (and neither does anyone else on this forum unless they actually worked for the Oz immigration department when the case in point came up for review) know how many people made the decision to ban him and on what grounds - other than being a Bandido (good enough for me).

It’s just unfettered, knee jerk, bleeding heartability to complain about the decision to ban him when you don't have a clue what really happened.

Hate Blacks, Jews and Gypsies - join the Nazi party, wear jackboots and swastika’s.

Want to cut-off people’s heads – join ISIS, wear sandals and rags on your head.

Want to help old ladies across the road – join the Bandido’s, wear a tough guy leather jacket (or better still a “wife beater”) and put studs in your chest.

oh, oh, poor, poor Bandido, didums got banned from Oz for being all heart and never ,ever not going to church on Sundays.

Crap, but please don’t let him back into the UK.

And its because we can ban people like this that we still do have freedom in the west.

Edited May 21, 2015 by MiKT