Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

AIBU?

to think deporting Trenton Oldfield is just mean

210 replies

sashh · 08/12/2013 06:29

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.

OP posts:

Report

SilverApples · 08/12/2013 12:07

' 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, I'd deport them too, to the country they were a citizen of. If you are living in a country not your own they you should strive even harder to keep the laws of that country, and lose your right to remain if you break them.

TiredDog · 08/12/2013 12:08

I think that website shows he has a public image to portray himself as a man of the people fighting 'the good fight' when really he just wishes to be treated as special. Suffer the consequence of being so special

SilverApples · 08/12/2013 12:09

www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/23/british-rapist-leslie-cunliffe-deported-australia

CheckpointCharlie · 08/12/2013 12:13

The cox in the oxford boat is a friend of mine. She worked for years and years to get her place in that boat.

I don't think it's mean, he could have caused huge injury and not just to himself. I gave no sympathy for him whatsoever.

GodRestTEEMerryGenTEEmen · 08/12/2013 12:14

Hec, it's the £800 more than anything else that stops me.

But the test does make me go a lot.

Nancy66 · 08/12/2013 12:32

I agree. He was an absolute twat for what he did but he paid for it. His family life here is another matter.

daisychain01 · 08/12/2013 12:36

I pity his child, what an idiot thing to do.

SilverApples · 08/12/2013 12:40

So the family move to Australia, he can be an arse in his own place.

MILLYMOLLYMANDYMAX · 08/12/2013 12:40

I think you cannot compare swimming between 2 boats where he could have caused death or serious injury to himself or others. (imagine if it had been your oar that had killed him. That person would have carried that around with them for ever) To invading a football match where players would have stopped to have him escorted from the pitch, (no one remotely being injured or dying).
Also the man supposedly is an academic, instead of studying whatever at the LSE maybe he should have spent 5 mins studying his visa t&cs then he would have realised that doing what he did might get him flung out of the country.
Surely marrying and having a baby when you know you are going to be flung out of the country was stupid to the extreme.

TiredDog · 08/12/2013 12:46

Or calculated Milly?

DontmindifIdo · 08/12/2013 13:01

Agreed TiredDog, I personally think the family you had at the point you broke your visa conditions are what should count, as in, he wasn't married and didn't have any DCs at that point. I really hope he didn't have a DC to improve his chances. That his wife and child might not be able to join him in Australia because of what he's done in the UK isn't relivant, she married him and had a DC knowing full well he had broken his visa conditions and could well be deported and knowing the Australian rules (or at least should have had the basic good sense to check them).

MILLYMOLLYMANDYMAX · 08/12/2013 13:01

What a suggestion!!

muffinino82 · 08/12/2013 13:03

It's not about the severity of his crime, it's about whether having any sort of a criminal record breaches the conditions of his application. Simple as. The person deciding his initial application will have applied the rules to his case and refused on the basis of the criminal record. As to whether he should have one or not? Well, clearly there was a basis in law upon which he was jailed so he was. If you put others at risk in such a stupid way, then I have no problem with you being punished for it. I bet Australia would be deporting him if he was British and did something similar over there.

TheAwfulDaughter · 08/12/2013 13:05

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

HECTheHeraldAngelsSing · 08/12/2013 13:15

"could have"

Yes. Could have.

Do we give prison sentences based on what someone could have done or what they did do?

Nobody did died. Nobody was injured. All that actually happened was a boat race was disrupted. Could have doesn't apply.

So it can be compared to a football match. Based on what actually happened. He disrupted a boat race v he disrupted a football match.

Unless the law imprisons people based on things that had the potential to happen but didn't?

If that is the case, that's fairly worrying. Almost anything could happen. Do we put people in prison who didn't actually do anything but might have if things had gone differently?

Anyway, that's by the by. As I went on to say very clearly, daft as it may be, whatever agenda there may or may not have been, the rules are there and they are clear.

It is possible to both believe that he is being treated more harshly because of the sport he chose to disrupt and feel that he knew the possible consequences and can't moan now.

friday16 · 08/12/2013 13:31

Do we give prison sentences based on what someone could have done or what they did do?

Try driving down the M6 after drinking half a bottle of scotch and see if "but I didn't hit anyone" get you your license back. Try driving down the M6 at 150mph and see if you avoid an instant jail sentence, irrespective of how well you did it.

Do we put people in prison who didn't actually do anything but might have if things had gone differently?

Again, tell me your views on drink driving. Are you saying that provided you don't hit anyone, it should be legal? Speeding? Driving uninsured in a car with bald tyres whilst texting? Most of the time you'll get away with it.

friday16 · 08/12/2013 13:32

So the family move to Australia, he can be an arse in his own place.

Actually, the don't. With a criminal record, he can return to Australia, but he probably can't get a spousal visa for his wife or a visa for his child.

All that education at the completely unprivileged LSE, but he was too thick to think of that.

SilverApples · 08/12/2013 13:34

Can the wife not apply for a visa on her own? Move to Oz as an adult with child?

MILLYMOLLYMANDYMAX · 08/12/2013 14:15

My thoughts exactly Friday.

HECTheHeraldAngelsSing · 08/12/2013 14:39

Really? You're comparing disrupting a boat race with drink driving and choosing to suggest that my comparing attitudes and likely consequences of disrupting a boat race v disrupting a football match means it is likely that I condone drink driving? That is so funny. I like you. You're hilarious.

ok. since ordered to disclose them as part of my defence, my views on drink driving is that it is illegal and if you do it, you will be dealt with by the law.

If you are caught drink driving and you haven't injured anyone, the punishment will be different to the one you get if you are drink driving and you kill someone.

I doubt you would get 10 years in prison if caught drink driving on the grounds that although you didn't hurt anyone, you might have, if you'd been going down that road 10 minutes earlier and if someone had been walking across the road. No. You'd get sentenced based on what actually happened. I mean, I could be wrong. If people have received a sentence for causing death by drunken/dangerous driving or whatever the official term is on the grounds that it didnt happen but it could have happened, then I will be more than happy to change my pov. I'm willing to say I'm wrong if that actually does happen. I'm not part of the justice system, maybe they do give people a prison sentence for what they might have done if things happened differently than they actually did.

If I rob a bank and wave a gun about will I get 25 years for murder on the grounds that I might have fired the gun and killed someone? No, I'll get whatever sentence comes my way based on what I actually did.

I will say it again and then I'm done and will go off in search of cake and wine and all things fun. I believe that the sport that he chose to disrupt disproportionately affected his punishment, based on the reality of what actually happened but that regardless of that, when you choose to do something, you cannot bemoan the consequences of your choice. So it's tough titty for him.

This is not to be taken to mean that I condone drink driving, murder, or wearing white after labour day.

Bowlersarm · 08/12/2013 14:42

YABU.

No sympathy from me. Selfish idiot.

EllaFitzgerald · 08/12/2013 14:43

Judging by the interview in the link provided, he's not being deported, but administratively removed, which is not the same thing at all (although, admittedly, it still boils down to him being put on a plane).

If he has an appeal pending, the Judge will decide whether it will be a disproportionate interference with his Article 8 rights to remove him. If so, then I suspect the same thing will happen as in the case that NoTimeToTidy referred to and he'll be allowed to remain. It's by no means the end of the road for him just yet.

scottishmummy · 08/12/2013 14:46

he comes across as entitled.despite his advantages and education he's unable to work out actions and consequence
he's petulant criminal,and now he'll be deported

MILLYMOLLYMANDYMAX · 08/12/2013 15:11

Taken from a law website.

The punishments handed out by the courts will usually include a minimum 12-month ban from driving alongside a hefty fine, which can be up to £5000.

In addition, an individual can be sentenced to six months in prison if they are a first-time offender, and severely longer for subsequent offences.

So yes you can get a prison sentence even if you haven't actually killed someone.

Surely if Trenton Oldfield was protesting against Elitism then surely by asking that the law does not apply to him he is putting himself into the elitist category of people he was protesting against.

SoupDragon · 08/12/2013 15:14

If I rob a bank and wave a gun about will I get 25 years for murder on the grounds that I might have fired the gun and killed someone? No, I'll get whatever sentence comes my way based on what I actually did.

Isn't that what he got?

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.