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

[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, <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?

If you have something to say then say it.

[Bluespunk]

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?

Yes I do understand that but even scum have the right to a proper hearing/trial/whatever with legal representation after being resident for 24 years.

If he has had this and then found to be worthy of denial then fine, kick him out.

However to just say you're guilty because we say you are is wrong.

There has to be due process.

Edit: Yes I know legally there doesn't have to be. That's just my opinion.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Bluespunk

[novo58]

Ok Bluespunk .........................you want the authorities to prove he is guilty of a crime .................is that it .

Well , he is guilty of not being an Australian citizen, that one point alone is enough for the Australian authorities to refuse him re-entry to the country.

At the end of the day it makes absolutely no difference whether he is or is not a member of the Badidos or any other group for that matter. Hell, he could be a member of the Collingwood cheer squad for all I care...................that FACT is that he is not a citizen and therefore immigration do not HAVE TO allow him to enter. it makes no difference how long he has "lived ' in the country

He could have prevented this by taking just a little time , somewhere in the last 24 years , to take out citizenship.

The plus side to his current situation is that he is a free man in Thailand and not in a immigration detention centre ( like Manus island).

[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).

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.

Maybe cowardly is too strong a word, but I stand by the general tenor of it - the minister clearly had intelligence that provided the grounds to deny Roach a re-entry visa. That should indicate he could have taken Roach to court and forced him to fight a repeal of his visa while he was IN THE COUNTRY. To hell with the cost - it would have been the right thing to do. If the case became protracted, so be it. While I don't support Bluespunk's stand, at least the minister should have given Roach his day in court while he resided in the country. The minister should not have waited until he left - there is a question of intestinal fortitude there somewhere..

[White Christmas13]

So if you are a member of the mafia and the head of them

you should also be allowed back to OZ?

Get real the law is the law whether you like it or not it does

not matter one bit if he is convicted of anything or not

maybe you should try to watch a show on channel 7 in OZ

which is called Border Security

[Bluespunk]

Ok Bluespunk .........................you want the authorities to prove he is guilty of a crime .................is that it .

Well , he is guilty of not being an Australian citizen, that one point alone is enough for the Australian authorities to refuse him re-entry to the country.

At the end of the day it makes absolutely no difference whether he is or is not a member of the Badidos or any other group for that matter. Hell, he could be a member of the Collingwood cheer squad for all I care...................that FACT is that he is not a citizen and therefore immigration do not HAVE TO allow him to enter. it makes no difference how long he has "lived ' in the country

He could have prevented this by taking just a little time , somewhere in the last 24 years , to take out citizenship.

The plus side to his current situation is that he is a free man in Thailand and not in a immigration detention centre ( like Manus island).

Yes everytrhing you say is technically true.

Doesn't make it right though. If someone has lived in a country legally for 24 years and is refused renewal because they think he might do something wrong, that is wrong.

It happens in many countries, it's still not right.

Legal yes, right no.

All I have been saying is that he should have had his hearing with representation where his alleged guilt of criminal activity or visa violations could have been argued in the manner of a civilised society that does not presume guilt. Which Australia is.

[Will27]



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?

Yes I do understand that but even scum have the right to a proper hearing/trial/whatever with legal representation after being resident for 24 years.

If he has had this and then found to be worthy of denial then fine, kick him out.

However to just say you're guilty because we say you are is wrong.

There has to be due process.

Edit: Yes I know legally there doesn't have to be. That's just my opinion.

He can/will have a hearing with legal representation. He has already hired a lawyer.

But, by letting his permanent residency visa cease, he opened himself up to not being

allowed back into the country.

Don't you think Immigration would look a little silly if they issued him with another visa,

therefore saying he passed the character test, and then tried to cancel it for not being of

good character?

There is due process. I think he has 28 days to try and get the decision overturned.

[williet98248]

Immigration doesn't need a reason or excuse to exclude him. Doesn't have to be tried and convicted of a crime. They can simply say 'no entry' and that is that. And...he is not stranded in Thailand; he can go back to the UK on his British passport.

[Bluespunk]



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?

Yes I do understand that but even scum have the right to a proper hearing/trial/whatever with legal representation after being resident for 24 years.

If he has had this and then found to be worthy of denial then fine, kick him out.

However to just say you're guilty because we say you are is wrong.

There has to be due process.

Edit: Yes I know legally there doesn't have to be. That's just my opinion.

He can/will have a hearing with legal representation. He has already hired a lawyer.

But, by letting his permanent residency visa cease, he opened himself up to not being

allowed back into the country.

Don't you think Immigration would look a little silly if they issued him with another visa,

therefore saying he passed the character test, and then tried to cancel it for not being of

good character?

There is due process. I think he has 28 days to try and get the decision overturned.

Yeah maybe, however I still think what happened to this man was wrong.

I have no sympathy for him if he is what he is alleged to be.

It's the way things have been done that I have issues with.

Let's see what his hearing decides if it happens.

[Bluespunk]

So if you are a member of the mafia and the head of them

you should also be allowed back to OZ?

Get real the law is the law whether you like it or not it does

not matter one bit if he is convicted of anything or not

maybe you should try to watch a show on channel 7 in OZ

which is called Border Security

See post 459

[Will27]

Although this case is slightly different, (visa was cancelled), his chances of getting the decision

overturned don't look good (hopefully).

Australian government wins bid to ban Maltese rebel bike gang leader from Australia

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20150423/local/australian-government-wins-bid-to-ban-maltese-rebel-bike-gang-leader.565257

[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?

If you have something to say then say it.

Seems like a waste of space to say anything to an self-opinionated ignoramus like you. You have your own idea of what Australian law should be, so go there and get it changed if you can. Until then respect their law which says they can exclude undesirables without any trial.

Actually this kind of immigration law applies to most countries. Maybe he can appeal - but it seems like he did that before, so it can't all be bad in Oz law.

PS please do try to catch-up on what is happening in Thailand and what you can and can't post on TVF.

[Bluespunk]

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?

If you have something to say then say it.

Seems like a waste of space to say anything to an self-opinionated ignoramus like you. You have your own idea of what Australian law should be, so go there and get it changed if you can. Until then respect their law which says they can exclude undesirables without any trial.

Actually this kind of immigration law applies to most countries. Maybe he can appeal - but it seems like he did that before, so it can't all be bad in Oz law.

PS please do try to catch-up on what is happening in Thailand and what you can and can't post on TVF.

You don't like my views.

Good.

If you liked them I'd have to change them.

[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).

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.

Maybe cowardly is too strong a word, but I stand by the general tenor of it - the minister clearly had intelligence that provided the grounds to deny Roach a re-entry visa. That should indicate he could have taken Roach to court and forced him to fight a repeal of his visa while he was IN THE COUNTRY. To hell with the cost - it would have been the right thing to do. If the case became protracted, so be it. While I don't support Bluespunk's stand, at least the minister should have given Roach his day in court while he resided in the country. The minister should not have waited until he left - there is a question of intestinal fortitude there somewhere..

Yes, but this guy either let his visa expire while he was in the country or overseas. I believe he had some

similiar issues in 2007.

You're saying the Minister shouldn't have waited. Well the guy shouldn't have left the country and let his visa cease.

And, it's a lot easier to refuse to grant a visa on character grounds than it is to have it cancelled.

IMO, the correct decision was made. I don't see why the taxpayer should pay for a long and drawn out court battle.

[Artisi]

All the bleeding hearts will be out in force pleading for this upstanding arse - hole to be allowed back into Oz.

Good move - should be applied more often.

I feel overwhelmed, you're such a people person.

Overwhelmed - hope it hasn't traumatised you too greatly and trust you survive the ordeal.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Artisi

[giddyup]

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

I didn't say that they should be released, I just said I was against the death penalty. However, as I pointed out, it's their country, they can do as they wish. I can disagree with the law, but I don't expect them to change it. Is Mr Roach going to be executed, spend the rest of his life in prison? No. So, I'm being a hypocrite because I agree with him being refused entry into Australia? Sorry, fail.

Edited May 20, 2015 by giddyup

[BookMan]

he could be a member of the Collingwood cheer squad for all I care..................

I'd suggest any membership of Collingwood football club could be signs of not being of good character

[Will27]





Yes I do understand that but even scum have the right to a proper hearing/trial/whatever with legal representation after being resident for 24 years.

If he has had this and then found to be worthy of denial then fine, kick him out.

However to just say you're guilty because we say you are is wrong.

There has to be due process.

Edit: Yes I know legally there doesn't have to be. That's just my opinion.

He can/will have a hearing with legal representation. He has already hired a lawyer.

But, by letting his permanent residency visa cease, he opened himself up to not being

allowed back into the country.

Don't you think Immigration would look a little silly if they issued him with another visa,

therefore saying he passed the character test, and then tried to cancel it for not being of

good character?

There is due process. I think he has 28 days to try and get the decision overturned.

Yeah maybe, however I still think what happened to this man was wrong.

I have no sympathy for him if he is what he is alleged to be.

It's the way things have been done that I have issues with.

Let's see what his hearing decides if it happens.

Ok mate, time will tell I guess.

[Blackfox]

Jeez Bluespunk, you're a broken record.

Give it a rest &lt;deleted&gt;.

He's not an Aussie.

He has a checkered past and questionable character.

He's therefore no longer welcome.

Now, as I previously posted, the Chav must soon leave Thailand.

It'd be a sound move if the Thais followed my country's lead and refused him back here after he leaves.

[Bluespunk]

Jeez Bluespunk, you're a broken record.

Give it a rest <deleted>.

He's not an Aussie.

He has a checkered past and questionable character.

He's therefore no longer welcome.

Now, as I previously posted, the Chav must soon leave Thailand.

It'd be a sound move if the Thais followed my country's lead and refused him back here after he leaves.

No I won't.

Don't like what I'm saying then report me.

[Will27]

he could be a member of the Collingwood cheer squad for all I care..................

I'd suggest any membership of Collingwood football club could be signs of not being of good character

I think the Collingwood cheer squad members would be safe

from visa cancellation BookMan.

Do you really think any of them could afford to go overseas for a holiday

[peptidebomber]

Bluespunk, are you an Australian citizen?

I am, I completely agree with these laws and the way they are applied.

If your not a Australian then nobody really cares about your opinion, if you are then vote in the next election. Not that it would make much difference as the majority of Australians would support this law and the way it is applied.

[giddyup]

Jeez Bluespunk, you're a broken record.

Give it a rest <deleted>.

He's not an Aussie.

He has a checkered past and questionable character.

He's therefore no longer welcome.

Now, as I previously posted, the Chav must soon leave Thailand.

It'd be a sound move if the Thais followed my country's lead and refused him back here after he leaves.

No I won't.

Don't like what I'm saying then report me.

You've painted yourself into a corner and you keep repeating the same losing argument.

[Blackfox]

Jeez Bluespunk, you're a broken record.

Give it a rest <deleted>.

He's not an Aussie.

He has a checkered past and questionable character.

He's therefore no longer welcome.

Now, as I previously posted, the Chav must soon leave Thailand.

It'd be a sound move if the Thais followed my country's lead and refused him back here after he leaves.

No I won't.

Don't like what I'm saying then report me.

Aaawww Bluespunk, no need to start beating your custard out of the bowl.

On another note, I'm a Blues supporter.

Phew! My character is sound.

[BookMan]

he could be a member of the Collingwood cheer squad for all I care..................

I'd suggest any membership of Collingwood football club could be signs of not being of good character

I think the Collingwood cheer squad members would be safe

from visa cancellation BookMan.

Do you really think any of them could afford to go overseas for a holiday

Fly Phuket now, pay later!

[Bluespunk]

Bluespunk, are you an Australian citizen?

I am, I completely agree with these laws and the way they are applied.

If your not a Australian then nobody really cares about your opinion, if you are then vote in the next election. Not that it would make much difference as the majority of Australians would support this law and the way it is applied.

Doesn't change the fact that I think it's wrong.

[Bluespunk]

Jeez Bluespunk, you're a broken record.

Give it a rest <deleted>.

He's not an Aussie.

He has a checkered past and questionable character.

He's therefore no longer welcome.

Now, as I previously posted, the Chav must soon leave Thailand.

It'd be a sound move if the Thais followed my country's lead and refused him back here after he leaves.

No I won't.

Don't like what I'm saying then report me.

You've painted yourself into a corner and you keep repeating the same losing argument.

And will continue to do so.

[peptidebomber]

Bluespunk, are you an Australian citizen?

I am, I completely agree with these laws and the way they are applied.

If your not a Australian then nobody really cares about your opinion, if you are then vote in the next election. Not that it would make much difference as the majority of Australians would support this law and the way it is applied.

Doesn't change the fact that I think it's wrong.

Yep, and I think it's wrong that I can't buy a beer from a 7/11 at 4.30pm in Thailand. But my opinion don't mean sh!t. So I don't bother complaining cause I would look like a fool!

[Time Traveller]

Come too OZ break laws, GET OUT AND DON'T COME BACK!!!

Should be a lot more of this for all visa holders,

Only one problem, it could be appealed and rescinded as to proof of character or crimes committed in OZ to be confirmed.

Seems a rather cowardly move by the Aussies to wait until he went on holiday. Why didn't they confront him face to face and deport him back to the UK?

Cowardly? Who cares, it was brilliant! Saved the tax payers a lot of money. And law enforcement got rid of another cochroach from the country with no effort.

Absolutely brilliant ! At least they have some intelligent policing in Australia. And laughable that this foreign undesirable found home in Thailand amongst his gangster buddies.

Seriously Arkady, what did you want to see,like a shootout at high noon with cops or something?

Edited May 20, 2015 by Time Traveller

[PHP87]

"Bikie"?

Call an American Biker a "bikie" & you may not live to tell about it.