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

[giddyup]

Why is it Bluespunk that you cannot get your head around the fact there is zero need for any convictions to have a visa application denied.

He was denied purely on the basis he is deemed a person of unsavory character, this is reason enough under Australian immigration law.

If you are like me you must be getting sick of repeating yourself. People like Bluespunk just refuse to accept that the Australian immigration has acted entirely within their rights to refuse Roach re-entry. They don't seem to give a sh*t about the misery and damage that the guy would have done acting in his senior role in a criminal enterprise. Oh no, the poor baby has not been given a fair shake. His luck has run out Bluespunk, just accept it and stop whining about his "rights".

[giddyup]

Why is it Bluespunk that you cannot get your head around the fact there is zero need for any convictions to have a visa application denied.

He was denied purely on the basis he is deemed a person of unsavory character, this is reason enough under Australian immigration law.

Why is it that you cannot get your head around the fact that I know that but I think it was the wrong thing to do in this case.?

Especially as he has a wife two children still living in the country.

And has lived there for the past 24 years.

What has either of those two things got to do with anything? The dummy never got Australian citizenship, his visa was refused on the fact he belongs to a major criminal enterprise. His wife and children are free to join him anywhere he's accepted. Australia has just thrown out some trash. End of.

Edited May 20, 2015 by giddyup

[Bluespunk]

Why is it Bluespunk that you cannot get your head around the fact there is zero need for any convictions to have a visa application denied.

He was denied purely on the basis he is deemed a person of unsavory character, this is reason enough under Australian immigration law.

If you are like me you must be getting sick of repeating yourself. People like Bluespunk just refuse to accept that the Australian immigration has acted entirely within their rights to refuse Roach re-entry. They don't seem to give a sh*t about the misery and damage that the guy would have done acting in his senior role in a criminal enterprise. Oh no, the poor baby has not been given a fair shake. His luck has run out Bluespunk, just accept it and stop whining about his "rights".

Wow, such an intelligent post. just sublime, almost Oscar Wilde like in its scathing wit.

I've explained why I think the way I do , I think what was done was wrong.

I think any law that allows people to be judged without trial is wrong.

Always has been, always will be.

[Don Mega]

The dummy never got Australian citizenship, his visa was refused on the fact he belongs to a major criminal enterprise. His wife and children are free to join him anywhere he's accepted. Australia has just thrown out some trash. End of.

Much the same as Alex Vella.

http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/52170/rebels_bikies_boss_alex_vella_loses_court_bid_to_challenge_visa_ban#.VVv7zFLUe_w

[impulse]

Interesting that in 2009, he was ticketed for riding in a funeral procession on a borrowed motorcycle (with expired papers) with no motorcycle driver's license.

No scooter. No scooter license. Hmmmm.

Does it say anywhere what he actually does for a living?

[Bluespunk]

Why is it Bluespunk that you cannot get your head around the fact there is zero need for any convictions to have a visa application denied.

He was denied purely on the basis he is deemed a person of unsavory character, this is reason enough under Australian immigration law.

Why is it that you cannot get your head around the fact that I know that but I think it was the wrong thing to do in this case.?

Especially as he has a wife two children still living in the country.

And has lived there for the past 24 years.

What has any of those two things got to do with anything? The dummy never got Australian citizenship, his visa was refused on the fact he belongs to a major criminal enterprise. His wife and children are free to join him anywhere he's accepted. Australia has just thrown out some trash. End of.

Why should his family have their whole life disrupted because of a presumption.

He has not been convicted of anything.

To treat someone like this who has been resident for 24 years is wrong.

If he has done something then prosecute, convict, then expel.

As for trash

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/826233-surrogate-babys-aussie-father-accused-of-charity-cash-grab/

Edited May 20, 2015 by Bluespunk

[marko kok prong]

If he had lived there for 24 years,on a permanent residence,he could have got citizenship ,i did ,you can still keep your uk passport,you in fact become a dual citizen,you cannot then be deported,it is very difficult to have citizenship revoked,so he had ample time to do this,once you have been there two years you can apply,due to his lazyiness he never bothered,hence finds himself in this position,no sympathy,as well as being a criminal,he is not very bright.

[giddyup]

Why is it Bluespunk that you cannot get your head around the fact there is zero need for any convictions to have a visa application denied.

He was denied purely on the basis he is deemed a person of unsavory character, this is reason enough under Australian immigration law.

If you are like me you must be getting sick of repeating yourself. People like Bluespunk just refuse to accept that the Australian immigration has acted entirely within their rights to refuse Roach re-entry. They don't seem to give a sh*t about the misery and damage that the guy would have done acting in his senior role in a criminal enterprise. Oh no, the poor baby has not been given a fair shake. His luck has run out Bluespunk, just accept it and stop whining about his "rights".

Wow, such an intelligent post. just sublime, almost Oscar Wilde like in its scathing wit.

I've explained why I think the way I do , I think what was done was wrong.

I think any law that allows people to be judged without trial is wrong.

Always has been, always will be.

At least I have some facts to back me up, you just keep repeating your endless mantra of "it's wrong". You're starting to sound demented. I wasn't trying to be witty, I was telling it like it is.

[giddyup]

Why is it Bluespunk that you cannot get your head around the fact there is zero need for any convictions to have a visa application denied.

He was denied purely on the basis he is deemed a person of unsavory character, this is reason enough under Australian immigration law.

Why is it that you cannot get your head around the fact that I know that but I think it was the wrong thing to do in this case.?

Especially as he has a wife two children still living in the country.

And has lived there for the past 24 years.

What has any of those two things got to do with anything? The dummy never got Australian citizenship, his visa was refused on the fact he belongs to a major criminal enterprise. His wife and children are free to join him anywhere he's accepted. Australia has just thrown out some trash. End of.

Why should his family have their whole life disrupted because of a presumption.

He has not been convicted of anything.

To treat someone like this who has been resident for 24 years is wrong.

If he has done something then prosecute, convict, then expel.

As for trash

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/826233-surrogate-babys-aussie-father-accused-of-charity-cash-grab/

Goodness me, what do you do, just copy and paste? All your responses are almost identical, word for word.

Edited May 20, 2015 by giddyup

[Bluespunk]

Why is it Bluespunk that you cannot get your head around the fact there is zero need for any convictions to have a visa application denied.

He was denied purely on the basis he is deemed a person of unsavory character, this is reason enough under Australian immigration law.

If you are like me you must be getting sick of repeating yourself. People like Bluespunk just refuse to accept that the Australian immigration has acted entirely within their rights to refuse Roach re-entry. They don't seem to give a sh*t about the misery and damage that the guy would have done acting in his senior role in a criminal enterprise. Oh no, the poor baby has not been given a fair shake. His luck has run out Bluespunk, just accept it and stop whining about his "rights".

Wow, such an intelligent post. just sublime, almost Oscar Wilde like in its scathing wit.

I've explained why I think the way I do , I think what was done was wrong.

I think any law that allows people to be judged without trial is wrong.

Always has been, always will be.

At least I have some facts to back me up, you just keep repeating your endless mantra of "it's wrong". You're starting to sound demented. I wasn't trying to be witty, I was telling it like it is.

Facts? What facts? Riding without a license 7 years ago.

Has he been convicted of any crimes that would warrant this treatment? Or has it been based on presumption?

[Bluespunk]

Why is it that you cannot get your head around the fact that I know that but I think it was the wrong thing to do in this case.?

Especially as he has a wife two children still living in the country.

And has lived there for the past 24 years.

What has any of those two things got to do with anything? The dummy never got Australian citizenship, his visa was refused on the fact he belongs to a major criminal enterprise. His wife and children are free to join him anywhere he's accepted. Australia has just thrown out some trash. End of.

Why should his family have their whole life disrupted because of a presumption.

He has not been convicted of anything.

To treat someone like this who has been resident for 24 years is wrong.

If he has done something then prosecute, convict, then expel.

As for trash

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/826233-surrogate-babys-aussie-father-accused-of-charity-cash-grab/

Goodness me, what do you do, just copy and paste?

What?

You do know posts can be edited and added to don't you?

Good grief.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Bluespunk

[impulse]

I've explained why I think the way I do , I think what was done was wrong.

I think any law that allows people to be judged without trial is wrong.

Always has been, always will be.

The news is full of stories of people locked up, have their assets frozen, their vehicles impounded, and their families thrown into turmoil on suspicions alone.

Then they have the trial. Kind of sucks, but that's the way it works for millions.

This guy will get his day in court. As he should.

In the meantime, he's a free man with all his assets intact and his family is free to travel.

[giddyup]

What?

You do know posts can be edited and added to don't you?

Good grief.

I was talking about your repetitious responses.

[dageurreotype]

Roach... good name for him. Amazing Thailand allows Banditos and other confirmed criminals in.

And out again. With they right amount of money.

[giddyup]

Facts? What facts? Riding without a license 7 years ago.

Has he been convicted of any crimes that would warrant this treatment? Or has it been based on presumption?

How many times do you have to be told. He doesn't have to be convicted of anything He's a senior member of a criminal organisation, therefore a person of bad character, an undesirable who legally has been refused re-entry into Australia. You really just refuse to accept the facts, don't you?

Edited May 20, 2015 by giddyup

[Bluespunk]

I've explained why I think the way I do , I think what was done was wrong.

I think any law that allows people to be judged without trial is wrong.

Always has been, always will be.

The news is full of stories of people locked up, have their assets frozen, their vehicles impounded, and their families thrown into turmoil on suspicions alone.

Then they have the trial. Kind of sucks, but that's the way it works for millions.

This guy will get his day in court. As he should.

In the meantime, he's a free man with all his assets intact and his family is free to travel.

Yes, it's not the end of the world, but trial should come before having his visa revoked as far as I'm concerned.

[Bluespunk]

Facts? What facts? Riding without a license 7 years ago.

Has he been convicted of any crimes that would warrant this treatment? Or has it been based on presumption?

How many times do you have to be told. He doesn't have to be convicted of anything He's a senior member of a criminal organisation, therefore a person of bad character, an undesirable who legally has been refused re-entry into Australia. You really just refuse to accept the facts, don't you?

And how many times do you have to be told I am not questioning the facts, just the rightness of them?

I accept the facts and the facts tell me what has happened is wrong.

Presumption should not equate guilt.

[Bluespunk]

What?

You do know posts can be edited and added to don't you?

Good grief.

I was talking about your repetitious responses.

Right back at you.

[billphillips]

Iv never been but from the maps Iv looked at, Australia seems to be a big place.

It can't be easy for the authorities to keep track of everyone living there. I would imagine that consistently doing bad or antisocial stuff would get some attention eventually. Perhaps a neighbour, friend, wife, family or victim of wrongdoing could alert the authorities quite easily.

By refusing this guy a visa renewal or cancelling his existing one, in his absence, the Australian authorities have saved the taxpayers a considerable amount of time and money. Someone must have been looking really well into his movements.

I say well done Aussie immigration, they are protecting Australian citizens from unwelcome visitors. After all ... Who would want this guy and his reputation living in the home next to them?

[giddyup]

Facts? What facts? Riding without a license 7 years ago.

Has he been convicted of any crimes that would warrant this treatment? Or has it been based on presumption?

How many times do you have to be told. He doesn't have to be convicted of anything He's a senior member of a criminal organisation, therefore a person of bad character, an undesirable who legally has been refused re-entry into Australia. You really just refuse to accept the facts, don't you?

And how many times do you have to be told I am not questioning the facts, just the rightness of them?

I accept the facts and the facts tell me what has happened is wrong.

Presumption should not equate guilt.

I wonder if you would be as sympathetic to his plight if you had a child that this garbage had sold speed to, and please don't tell me there's no evidence of that's what he did. He is guilty by association. The Bandidos are a major manufacturer and distributor of amphetamines, as well as involvement in other criminal enterprises. He's a scumbag and he no longer resides in my country, that's good enough for me. I'll leave it to people like you to ponder whether a low-life criminal hasn't been given a fair deal.

[canuckamuck]

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?

Edited May 20, 2015 by canuckamuck

[giddyup]

I've explained why I think the way I do , I think what was done was wrong.

I think any law that allows people to be judged without trial is wrong.

Always has been, always will be.

The news is full of stories of people locked up, have their assets frozen, their vehicles impounded, and their families thrown into turmoil on suspicions alone.

Then they have the trial. Kind of sucks, but that's the way it works for millions.

This guy will get his day in court. As he should.

In the meantime, he's a free man with all his assets intact and his family is free to travel.

Yes, it's not the end of the world, but trial should come before having his visa revoked as far as I'm concerned.

Thank goodness we have people in Australian immigration who act in Australia's best interest, and not in the interest of low-life drug pushers or standover men.

[Bluespunk]

Facts? What facts? Riding without a license 7 years ago.

Has he been convicted of any crimes that would warrant this treatment? Or has it been based on presumption?

How many times do you have to be told. He doesn't have to be convicted of anything He's a senior member of a criminal organisation, therefore a person of bad character, an undesirable who legally has been refused re-entry into Australia. You really just refuse to accept the facts, don't you?

And how many times do you have to be told I am not questioning the facts, just the rightness of them?

I accept the facts and the facts tell me what has happened is wrong.

Presumption should not equate guilt.

I wonder if you would be as sympathetic to his plight if you had a child that this garbage had sold speed to, and please don't tell me there's no evidence of that's what he did. He is guilty by association. The Bandidos are a major manufacturer and distributor of amphetamines, as well as involvement in other criminal enterprises. He's a scumbag and he no longer resides in my country, that's good enough for me. I'll leave it to people like you to ponder whether a low-life criminal hasn't been given a fair deal.

I don't have any sympathy for him

I just feel the rule of law and the presumption of innocence should be applied to all until proven guilty. In a court. Based on evidence.

[Bluespunk]

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?

It's not the same thing, but I would always rent to a family until evidence proved I should not.

[giddyup]

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?

It's not the same thing, but I would always rent to a family until evidence proved I should not.

What a crock! Are you telling me if that guy turned up at your door looking like he does, you'd happily rent him a room? Sorry, but I don't believe it. You'd tell him the room had already been rented.

[WitawatWatawit]

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).

[Don Mega]

Yes, it's not the end of the world, but trial should come before having his visa revoked as far as I'm concerned.

When was his visa revoked ?

[giddyup]

Facts? What facts? Riding without a license 7 years ago.

Has he been convicted of any crimes that would warrant this treatment? Or has it been based on presumption?

How many times do you have to be told. He doesn't have to be convicted of anything He's a senior member of a criminal organisation, therefore a person of bad character, an undesirable who legally has been refused re-entry into Australia. You really just refuse to accept the facts, don't you?

And how many times do you have to be told I am not questioning the facts, just the rightness of them?

I accept the facts and the facts tell me what has happened is wrong.

Presumption should not equate guilt.

I wonder if you would be as sympathetic to his plight if you had a child that this garbage had sold speed to, and please don't tell me there's no evidence of that's what he did. He is guilty by association. The Bandidos are a major manufacturer and distributor of amphetamines, as well as involvement in other criminal enterprises. He's a scumbag and he no longer resides in my country, that's good enough for me. I'll leave it to people like you to ponder whether a low-life criminal hasn't been given a fair deal.

I don't have any sympathy for him

I just feel the rule of law and the presumption of innocence should be applied to all until proven guilty. In a court. Based on evidence.

The law has been applied, he's been refused re-entry on grounds of bad character and being a member of the Bandidos. It's just not the law that you want.

[giddyup]

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).

To save the Aussie taxpayer a long, drawn out and expensive trial, as he would have accessed legal aid no doubt. Nothing cowardly about it.

Edited May 20, 2015 by giddyup

[canuckamuck]

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?

It's not the same thing, but I would always rent to a family until evidence proved I should not.

Then I would says that you lack any discernment whatsoever?