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

[impulse]

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).

My understanding is that this is his first trip out of the country since a new law took effect making it easier to deny entry.

As for waiting for him to go overseas, I'd have to ask what the cost, timing and logistics difference is between a denial of entry and a deportation proceeding. I salute the immigration if they could accelerate the process by months (if not years), save hundreds of hours of legal fees, thousands or millions of tax dollars, and free up their official's time for other cases- all by catching him out of the country.

And I lose a little sympathy for the guy knowing he had ample warning (visa revoked on a trip in 2007, got it back on appeal), has a wife and family at risk, and still didn't quit the club.

Nobody here has even mentioned he could have prevented all these problems years ago by simply quitting the organization. Seems like a reasonable thing to do to keep a family together.

Instead of blaming the government for the turmoil he, himself, has brought on his family.

[mikebike]

Bluebspunk, I do get that you are only stating your opinion, but you seem to have staked-out an indefensible position. You are trying to apply criminal law precepts to an immigration law case. Two very different jurisdictions with entirely different goals/aims and entirely different criteria. I believe you would have a difficult time convincing anyone that immigration law should be coincidental to criminal law.

[Blackfox]

Just have to get the Chav out of Thailand now.

[giddyup]

Bluebspunk, I do get that you are only stating your opinion, but you seem to have staked-out an indefensible position. You are trying to apply criminal law precepts to an immigration law case. Two very different jurisdictions with entirely different goals/aims and entirely different criteria. I believe you would have a difficult time convincing anyone that immigration law should be coincidental to criminal law.

The differences have been laid out time and again, but he just falls back on his "it's just not right" mantra.

Edited May 20, 2015 by giddyup

[giddyup]

Just have to get the Chav out of Thailand now.

I imagine he's only here on a tourist visa, so his time would be limited.

[Will27]

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.

You keep harping on about a trial in a court and that he hasn't been convicted of anything.

If a Thai for example, get's their visa cancelled at an Australian airport because the Immigration

officer suspects they're working, there is no trial. They're refused entry, visa cancelled and returned

back to Thailand.

Under these new powers, you can fail the character test if the Minister reasonably suspects you of being involved in criminal conduct,

whether or not you have been convicted of such an offence. And or your past and present criminal or general conduct shows that you

are not of good character.

One would suggest that being the enforcer of an outlaw motorcycle gang would lead him to that decision.

Do you really think the Minister wouldn't have a file from the AFP, and Intelligence services on this fellow?

Bottlom line is that the Minister thinks he is of bad character- end off.

[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.

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.

I did say they weren't the same thing. It was a ridiculous analogy so I gave an answer that matched it.

[Bluespunk]

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.

You keep harping on about a trial in a court and that he hasn't been convicted of anything.

If a Thai for example, get's their visa cancelled at an Australian airport because the Immigration

officer suspects they're working, there is no trial. They're refused entry, visa cancelled and returned

back to Thailand.

Under these new powers, you can fail the character test if the Minister reasonably suspects you of being involved in criminal conduct,

whether or not you have been convicted of such an offence. And or your past and present criminal or general conduct shows that you

are not of good character.

One would suggest that being the enforcer of an outlaw motorcycle gang would lead him to that decision.

Do you really think the Minister wouldn't have a file from the AFP, and Intelligence services on this fellow?

Bottlom line is that the Minister thinks he is of bad character- end off.

This guy has been living in Australia for 24 years and has a family there. Your analogy doesn't fly.

[Bluespunk]

Bluebspunk, I do get that you are only stating your opinion, but you seem to have staked-out an indefensible position. You are trying to apply criminal law precepts to an immigration law case. Two very different jurisdictions with entirely different goals/aims and entirely different criteria. I believe you would have a difficult time convincing anyone that immigration law should be coincidental to criminal law.

The differences have been laid out time and again, but he just falls back on his "it's just not right" mantra.

Just as you do with your mantra.....

[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.

I did say they weren't the same thing. It was a ridiculous analogy so I gave an answer that matched it.

It's not ridiculous at all. You'd either rent him the room or not, fully being aware that he belongs to a drug-dealing criminal association.

[giddyup]

Bluebspunk, I do get that you are only stating your opinion, but you seem to have staked-out an indefensible position. You are trying to apply criminal law precepts to an immigration law case. Two very different jurisdictions with entirely different goals/aims and entirely different criteria. I believe you would have a difficult time convincing anyone that immigration law should be coincidental to criminal law.

The differences have been laid out time and again, but he just falls back on his "it's just not right" mantra.

Just as you do with your mantra.....

Give up while you're behind.

[Bluespunk]

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.

[Bluespunk]

Bluebspunk, I do get that you are only stating your opinion, but you seem to have staked-out an indefensible position. You are trying to apply criminal law precepts to an immigration law case. Two very different jurisdictions with entirely different goals/aims and entirely different criteria. I believe you would have a difficult time convincing anyone that immigration law should be coincidental to criminal law.

The differences have been laid out time and again, but he just falls back on his "it's just not right" mantra.

Just as you do with your mantra.....

Give up while you're behind.

If I fall behind I'll do so, right now, no need.

[Bluespunk]

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.

I believe that I have said that I think that law is wrong all along. In fact you yourself have pointed out that is my point/mantra/whatever on several occasions.

[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.

Then I would says that you lack any discernment whatsoever?

Might want to switch on your sarcasm monitor.

[giddyup]

I believe that I have said that I think that law is wrong all along. In fact you yourself have pointed out that is my point/mantra/whatever on several occasions.

It's the law of the land, and a very fair land it is too, you have to accept it. I don't agree necessarily, or like, some of the laws in Thailand, but I'm a guest in their country and I have to abide by their laws. I don't agree with the death penalty, but if Indonesia decides to execute drug runners, it's their country, their laws.

[WitawatWatawit]

One report says that in the 9 months to March, 371 people have been denied visas by Australian immigration authorities. So this is not an isolated case.

[giddyup]

One report says that in the 9 months to March, 371 people have been denied visas by Australian immigration authorities. So this is not an isolated case.

I had a friend denied entry into Thailand because the AFP (Australian Federal Police) had emailed them ahead that he was coming. It was quite a minor offence, he never served any jail time, but he was sent back on the next plane. It's up to each country's discretion who they let in and who they don't.

[Bluespunk]

I believe that I have said that I think that law is wrong all along. In fact you yourself have pointed out that is my point/mantra/whatever on several occasions.

It's the law of the land, and a very fair land it is too, you have to accept it. I don't agree necessarily, or like, some of the laws in Thailand, but I'm a guest in their country and I have to abide by their laws. I don't agree with the death penalty, but if Indonesia decides to execute drug runners, it's their country, their laws.

Maybe it is law but if I see it the law as being wrong I will say so.

[giddyup]

I believe that I have said that I think that law is wrong all along. In fact you yourself have pointed out that is my point/mantra/whatever on several occasions.

It's the law of the land, and a very fair land it is too, you have to accept it. I don't agree necessarily, or like, some of the laws in Thailand, but I'm a guest in their country and I have to abide by their laws. I don't agree with the death penalty, but if Indonesia decides to execute drug runners, it's their country, their laws.

Maybe it is law but if I see it the law as being wrong I will say so.

If you really want to start disputing unfair laws I suggest you start with Saudi Arabia or Yemen. Perhaps from inside the country as you can't do much from here. Get a "Give women equality" T Shirt. Let us know how you get on.

[Bluespunk]

I believe that I have said that I think that law is wrong all along. In fact you yourself have pointed out that is my point/mantra/whatever on several occasions.

It's the law of the land, and a very fair land it is too, you have to accept it. I don't agree necessarily, or like, some of the laws in Thailand, but I'm a guest in their country and I have to abide by their laws. I don't agree with the death penalty, but if Indonesia decides to execute drug runners, it's their country, their laws.

Maybe it is law but if I see it the law as being wrong I will say so.

If you really want to start disputing unfair laws I suggest you start with Saudi Arabia or Yemen. Perhaps from inside the country as you can't do much from here. Get a "Give women equality" T Shirt. Let us know how you get on.

If stories come up here on those countries concerning those issues I do comment on them. I lived in Kuwait for 5 years, the people I knew there did listen to my point of view on similar issues, didn't always agree but they listened.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Bluespunk

[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".

Edited May 20, 2015 by MiKT

[Will27]

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. And?

He has been convicted of nothing. Doesn't have to be convicted of anything

If they want rid then do so by convicting him of something. They don't have to.

He's not a tourist nor is he a recent arrival. Doesn't matter, he's not a citizen.

He's grown up in the country and therefore should be at least entitled to a trial or hearing, with representation. He will get a hearing, he won't be there though.

If he's guilty of something then <deleted> him, expel him. You keep on about being guilty or convicted, doesn't have to be.

But to do it like this, that's wrong. Fair enough, entitled to your opinion. But it's a lawful decision.

[Bluespunk]

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?

No, for me the problem is laws that allow people who have been in a country for 24 years and have family there without any sort of hearing or prosecution for criminal activity.

I've repeatedly said if he is proven to have committed crimes that justify his visa being revoked, then fine, &lt;deleted&gt; him.

He probably is a piece of excreta, but that's not my concern. My concern is the law itself.

As for your "yingluck/you know who" {I don't by the way} references, no idea what you are on about.

[Bluespunk]

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. And?

He has been convicted of nothing. Doesn't have to be convicted of anything

If they want rid then do so by convicting him of something. They don't have to.

He's not a tourist nor is he a recent arrival. Doesn't matter, he's not a citizen.

He's grown up in the country and therefore should be at least entitled to a trial or hearing, with representation. He will get a hearing, he won't be there though.

If he's guilty of something then <deleted> him, expel him. You keep on about being guilty or convicted, doesn't have to be.

But to do it like this, that's wrong. Fair enough, entitled to your opinion. But it's a lawful decision.

It's a lawful decision, yep, I know that.

That's my problem.

[novo58]

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

[Walter Travolta]

It is nice to see how many criminal sympathizers we have on board, not surprising considering the expat community here has an above average content of societal underclass. Also the lib's are just being true to their worldview that no one should ever be judged.

I am confident that if you put the matter of this man's visa to a vote in Australia you would see an overwhelming majority vote to refuse it. So in this case the government is representing its constituents well, and should be commended.

I must admit I was surprised at the number of sympathisers, all crying "wot about his hooman rights", with no thought to the hundreds of lives he's helped destroy by peddling poisons to Australia's youth, or the people he's bashed in his role as the club enforcer. "But he ain't been found guilty of nuttin" I hear them cry. He doesn't have to be, guilty of being a member of a criminal enterprise, that's good enough for me.

Just like the 2 executed in Indo giddyup. I rest my case - you are a hypocrite. What about all the lives they destroyed by peddling their poisons, yet YOU talk about them being reformed characters

I knew you were a joke and now you have just proved it. Maybe you are just anti-english because you bite at any convict joke, you are hell bent on trying to convince everyone this bloke is the father of the devil, yet you back the Indo 2 to be spared. You are so transparent

[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?

No, for me the problem is laws that allow people who have been in a country for 24 years and have family there without any sort of hearing or prosecution for criminal activity.

I've repeatedly said if he is proven to have committed crimes that justify his visa being revoked, then fine, <deleted> him.

He probably is a piece of excreta, but that's not my concern. My concern is the law itself.

As for your "yingluck/you know who" {I don't by the way} references, no idea what you are on about.

Well your just going to have to wallow in your ignorance - what the hell are are you doing posting on this Thai forum if you don't understand those references and why they are couched like that?

[Bluespunk]

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.

[Will27]

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. And?

He has been convicted of nothing. Doesn't have to be convicted of anything

If they want rid then do so by convicting him of something. They don't have to.

He's not a tourist nor is he a recent arrival. Doesn't matter, he's not a citizen.

He's grown up in the country and therefore should be at least entitled to a trial or hearing, with representation. He will get a hearing, he won't be there though.

If he's guilty of something then <deleted> him, expel him. You keep on about being guilty or convicted, doesn't have to be.

But to do it like this, that's wrong. Fair enough, entitled to your opinion. But it's a lawful decision.

It's a lawful decision, yep, I know that.

That's my problem.

So your gripe is that people should have to have been convicted of crimes rather than having the potential

to commit them or generally being of not of good character?

Just because someone hasn't been convicted of criminal activites, it doesn't necessarily meant that they

are of good character.

Surely you understand that being the enforcer of an outlaw motorcycle gang, brings one's character into question?