to think deporting Trenton Oldfield is just mean(211 Posts)
Trenton Oldfield is the man who disrupted the boat race a couple of years ago.
He is an Australian married to a Briton with a baby daughter. He has lived in the UK for 12 years.
He has applied for a spousal visa and it has been rejected.
He did a stupid thing, for which he has paid with a prison sentence and a criminal record, why punish him more?
Exactly what good will it do to deport him?
Exactly how much harm will it do?
I have not put a link, there are loads of newspaper articles, web pages etc outlining the case.
As in moving to another country, WhataSook? We have no plans to do that, so I'm not worried.
Also, I have no money for citizenship. We went into debt to pay for my ILTR and previous visas.
Finally, I refuse to be a citizen of a country that insists on my taking a test current citizens can't pass in order to become a citizen!
YANU. It was a peaceful protest against elitism, (though I think he could have chosen a better target). A prison sentence and deportation for interrupting one of the ruling classes favourite days out is such a vindictive overreaction, it proves Oldfield's original point.
But it could have been a very un-peaceful protest against elitism, Daisy.
He or one of the rowers could have been seriously injured or killed.
A peaceful protest is not jumping into the water and blocking heavy objects with your body. Just ask Emily Davison.
He's breached terms of his visa getting criminal record hence reason for deportation
Tee, you could probably say the same thing about the US citizenship test...
Hopefully he'll take his family with him
No, actually MrsS.
My husband took the online version of the US test and passed it the first time. The questions are logical and have to do with things US citizens are taught about their own country, such as the form of the government.
I did just look at Life in the UK test again, and it looks like they've taken out some of the more obscure stuff. But it still isn't something I could pass without a lot of studying.
As I said, it's a moot point anyway, as I don't have the money to apply.
@Godrest Yes, I take your point, though realistically any danger would have been to himself. My point is was that his punishment was massively disproportionate and political. He was originally recommended a non-custodial sentence, but he messed with the Establishment and so the Establishment is taking it's revenge. It's political and anyone concerned about free speech and protest should be worried.
I do think that if you commit a crime in a country you are not a citizen of, then they have the right to deport you.
Perhaps not for points on your license...but drunk driving? Violence? Yup.
He could have been killed or injured. He tried to spoil something that many love, not just the rich and posh, and he could have traumatised the crew responsible for his harm.
So he lives with his choices. In Australia.
while he is hardly an axe-murderer, he has proved that he thinks the rules don't apply to him. He wrecked a sporting day out. As he clearly disapproves of things about the UK, best he leaves.
put him on the plane. Also best he doesn't pass on his attitude to his kid.
entirely agree that this is a twat we can throw out. Pity we can't do it to the home-grown ones.
YABU It's not about being mean, it's about whether his criminal record has led to him failing one of the conditions of his application. At the point of initial application, it is as black and white as that. The reason we have immigration tribunals is to ensure that refused applications can be appealed and, should the judge deem that other factors such as his wife and child outweigh his criminal record, then dandy. Some good may come of all this as maybe this refusal wil make him and other applicants think before they commit a crime.
Daisy So is it ok to put others in harm's way to exercise your right to free speech and protest? He could have died, the boat crews could have been injured or traumatised should Oldfield have been injured or died. The application refusal is not political, it is about the visa application rules being applied to his case.
Well, I believe that if he'd disrupted a football match (the top league end of season thingie, important one to those who worship football), he wouldn't have been put in prison and subsequently marked for deportation. I know what I make of that! It seems massively unfair.
However, rules are and were at the time he chose to do it - go to prison - get the boot. That was a possible consequence of the decision he made to make that protest and you can't make a choice to do something that can be treated as a crime, know that a possible consequence of committing a crime is prison and a possible consequence of prison is deportation and then expect or demand that you are exempted from the end consequence of your choice.
Was he ignorant of the law or did he believe that it would not be applied to him? No idea. He might yet win the right to stay though. Who knows?
Re : the british test - it is ridiculous, isn't it, Tee? My husband took it a few months ago (after finally getting indefinite leave to remain a few years ago. long story!) . We bought that revision book and I read through it - there is no way I would pass! I hardly knew any of the stuff. It's mostly history and propaganda
We paid, he took the test, it's multiple choice he said, he passed at then we had to pay a further over £800 for his citizenship! And he's got to attend some ceremony where he has to pledge allegiance to the queen and all that. I sad it's a good job they can't deport me because no flipping way would I do that!
Well, he can have fun protesting the massive abuses of Aboriginal rights by the powerful in his own country.
I cannot find a link... in the news recently, a chap who moved from UK to USA at age of 7 or 8. Never naturalised; was crossing from Mexico back into USA with his family (wife American by birth). He unthinkingly said he was an American citizen when he wasn't. Found guilty of some border crime, banned from reentry to USA, dumped on a plane to Manchester, separate from his wife & kids who can't easily come live in UK.
So I don't know if I can agree with the principle of "deport all the criminals". It means UK would have to absorb back bad people & put up with stupidities of other people's legal systems, too.
I'm in favour of deporting all those who commit crimes - pity we can't do it to citizens too - but it seems he is a priority because he upset important people so that grates on me.
I for one will sleep soundly in my bed tonight knowing that such a dangerous criminal is no longer walking British streets.
'"I need you to know that I'm no angel," said Philip, admitting to short spells in county jail after being found guilty of drug and drink related misdemeanours. "But I'm not a bad guy. All I want is to be back with my family."'
So why would they want him back in the States?
Hopefully he'll take his family with him
The article from the Indy is hilarious. The main group campaigning for him are people from Cambridge University. I presume he'll tell them to fuck off, given his disapproval of the place. Although quite why Cambridge is more privileged than the LSE, where he did his degree, God alone knows. And why the students at Cambridge who went to expensive boarding schools are any more privileged than him, who went to an expensive boarding school, again, God alone knows. It would take a man with a heart of stone not to laugh.
His wife appears to be as much of a loon, too ("She continues to explore a set of questions that have resulted from her interest in post-colonial theory, the intersection of cultural movements and legal systems, critical art practice and alternative pedagogies. In 2007, together with Trenton Oldfield, Deepa Naik formally established This Is Not A Gateway, a not-for-profit organisation that creates platforms for critical investigations into cities"). Neither of them have strong links to this country, and this country will not be in the slightest bit inconvenienced by their departure.
I'm in favour of deporting those who commit crimes.
However, when there are numerous cases (reported on by the Daily Fail, but still nonetheless true) of migrants commuting rape, burglary, GBH and other violent crimes who are NOT getting deported- I can't find myself supporting the deportation of someone who disrupted a bloody boat race.
There was no need for him to get a prison sentence- none at all. It was a massive retaliation from the establishment due to him disrupting a quaint British pastime.
I feel a bit ill about his sentencing and his potential deportation when serious criminals will be getting released back into the community in about 7 years. But you know, the areas they terrorised weren't Oxbridge days out but deprived areas with vulnerable people.
Yes Tee, I plan to go home at some stage but want to be able to keep my options open.
Agree also with a pp who said if this had have been a footy game the outcome would probably have been different.
That's the Guy, SilverApples.
Although I'm more worried about very nasty criminals sent back to UK, too.
However, when there are numerous cases (reported on by the Daily Fail, but still nonetheless true) of migrants commuting rape, burglary, GBH and other violent crimes who are NOT getting deported
In many cases, they are either asylum seekers or EU migrants. In the former case it is at least arguable that the reasons their asylum case was considered still apply, and in the latter you can't meaningfully deport them anyway. Article 8 rights are only part of the argument. Oldfield's neither of those, and deportations are much simpler when there is no debate about their safety in the destination country.
His sole basis for remaining is therefore his, and his family's, Article 8 rights. Given neither he nor his wife appear to like this country very much, it's hard to see why they're quite so keen to stay here, but I guess that applies to a lot of people. And that someone with a criminal record would be unable to be a sponsor for an Australian spousal visa might be a tricky concept for someone who's a bit dim, but you'd have thought that people with master's degrees from the LSE would be able to read.
But for a couple with a self-regarding website like this to complain about privilege is pretty rich. I mean, it's not as though they're actually doing anything productive, and yet money appears to grow on trees. I don't think it's illegal to be stupid arses, and overall I suspect that the tribunal will decide to give them a final warning rather than deport him. But for a man in his thirties to be so juvenile does seem sad.
Why does he think he is above the laws of the country? He's a pretentious buffoon
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.