|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x+x+x+xI visited Thailand while on the SOR and having duly notified my PPO. They obviously didn't put a notice out on me as I got in no problem. Trips of under 30 days to Thailand are visa-free for UK citizens, and when I was there several years ago there was no question about convictions on the immigration form that you filled in on the plane (though who knows, this could have changed). I was attending a wedding in a rural area in the north of Thailand, far from Bangkok or any of the places in the south with seedy reputations, so maybe that was a factor, or maybe not, I have no idea. Hi Bens As I have mentioned I travelled whilst on bail with no issues and no questions. Reading some material on Thailand does suggest most of SE Asia is stopping any offenders entering. I notified the local plod about foreign travel this week and was given a sheet of paper stating that they (the police) were aware that some countries have "recently" stopped RSO from entering. Recently was not defined. They said that these countries were not located in any particular part of the world and they mentioned 3 by name: Morocco, Tunisia and Thailand. They also advised contacting the embassy before going. Sounds like something Unlock could be doing? Contacting all the embassies and publishing a list on the website saying which have a policy of not allowing RSO. Well, I'm not sure Unlock would have the resources to do that on top of the other stuff they do. In any case, if they asked the question, I'm sure many countries would write back and thank them for an excellent suggestion that they will see implemented as soon as possible.... When you look at how often this subject comes up on the forums, I would have thought it merited some priority. The biggest problem would be staying on top of any list to make sure it was up to date. I'm sure many of these countries are fully aware of the existence of RSO already and will have considered a total ban. The political capital to be gained from that would have to balanced against the potential loss of revenue. An RSO's money is as good as anybody elses. Hi Understand your point but on pure economics there would have to be a lot of RSO's visiting to offset international, social both internal and external accusations, emotions and loss of votes to make it worthwhile. Our money may be as good as anyone else's but as with the UK, image/reputation is of greater value.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
Popeye
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3,
Visits: 106
|
Thanks for all your replys on this matter.Like you say no one wants to help people on the sor.Well I have decided not to travel to Thailand and wait 6 yrs(off the register).I don't want a black list against me on my passport just to add to all the other problems!!!!.
Thankyou ALL on here
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 714,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xI visited Thailand while on the SOR and having duly notified my PPO. They obviously didn't put a notice out on me as I got in no problem. Trips of under 30 days to Thailand are visa-free for UK citizens, and when I was there several years ago there was no question about convictions on the immigration form that you filled in on the plane (though who knows, this could have changed). I was attending a wedding in a rural area in the north of Thailand, far from Bangkok or any of the places in the south with seedy reputations, so maybe that was a factor, or maybe not, I have no idea. Hi Bens As I have mentioned I travelled whilst on bail with no issues and no questions. Reading some material on Thailand does suggest most of SE Asia is stopping any offenders entering. I notified the local plod about foreign travel this week and was given a sheet of paper stating that they (the police) were aware that some countries have "recently" stopped RSO from entering. Recently was not defined. They said that these countries were not located in any particular part of the world and they mentioned 3 by name: Morocco, Tunisia and Thailand. They also advised contacting the embassy before going. Sounds like something Unlock could be doing? Contacting all the embassies and publishing a list on the website saying which have a policy of not allowing RSO. Well, I'm not sure Unlock would have the resources to do that on top of the other stuff they do. In any case, if they asked the question, I'm sure many countries would write back and thank them for an excellent suggestion that they will see implemented as soon as possible.... When you look at how often this subject comes up on the forums, I would have thought it merited some priority. The biggest problem would be staying on top of any list to make sure it was up to date. I'm sure many of these countries are fully aware of the existence of RSO already and will have considered a total ban. The political capital to be gained from that would have to balanced against the potential loss of revenue. An RSO's money is as good as anybody elses. Hi Understand your point but on pure economics there would have to be a lot of RSO's visiting to offset international, social both internal and external accusations, emotions and loss of votes to make it worthwhile. Our money may be as good as anyone else's but as with the UK, image/reputation is of greater value. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Traveling_with_a_criminal_historyOn the whole, I would expect that richer countries can afford to discriminate but poorer ones are less fussy. A country like the USA knows it will get plenty of tourists who want to go there, who don't have a record, so they can be more fussy, plus they have the resources to check every entrant rigorously. I've no doubt there are exceptions to this rule. No country is ever going advertise the fact that they let in criminals, but surprisingly few countries have total bans. If reputation were the most important thing, I would expect to see lots more bans.
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI visited Thailand while on the SOR and having duly notified my PPO. They obviously didn't put a notice out on me as I got in no problem. Trips of under 30 days to Thailand are visa-free for UK citizens, and when I was there several years ago there was no question about convictions on the immigration form that you filled in on the plane (though who knows, this could have changed). I was attending a wedding in a rural area in the north of Thailand, far from Bangkok or any of the places in the south with seedy reputations, so maybe that was a factor, or maybe not, I have no idea. Hi Bens As I have mentioned I travelled whilst on bail with no issues and no questions. Reading some material on Thailand does suggest most of SE Asia is stopping any offenders entering. I notified the local plod about foreign travel this week and was given a sheet of paper stating that they (the police) were aware that some countries have "recently" stopped RSO from entering. Recently was not defined. They said that these countries were not located in any particular part of the world and they mentioned 3 by name: Morocco, Tunisia and Thailand. They also advised contacting the embassy before going. Sounds like something Unlock could be doing? Contacting all the embassies and publishing a list on the website saying which have a policy of not allowing RSO. Well, I'm not sure Unlock would have the resources to do that on top of the other stuff they do. In any case, if they asked the question, I'm sure many countries would write back and thank them for an excellent suggestion that they will see implemented as soon as possible.... When you look at how often this subject comes up on the forums, I would have thought it merited some priority. The biggest problem would be staying on top of any list to make sure it was up to date. I'm sure many of these countries are fully aware of the existence of RSO already and will have considered a total ban. The political capital to be gained from that would have to balanced against the potential loss of revenue. An RSO's money is as good as anybody elses. Hi Understand your point but on pure economics there would have to be a lot of RSO's visiting to offset international, social both internal and external accusations, emotions and loss of votes to make it worthwhile. Our money may be as good as anyone else's but as with the UK, image/reputation is of greater value. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Traveling_with_a_criminal_historyOn the whole, I would expect that richer countries can afford to discriminate but poorer ones are less fussy. A country like the USA knows it will get plenty of tourists who want to go there, who don't have a record, so they can be more fussy, plus they have the resources to check every entrant rigorously. I've no doubt there are exceptions to this rule. No country is ever going advertise the fact that they let in criminals, but surprisingly few countries have total bans. If reputation were the most important thing, I would expect to see lots more bans. There are many countries who use an ESTA-style travel authorisation system. As they don't have access to our criminal record system, they have to rely on what you tell them. If you don't have to notify travel arrangements to the police, then there probably won't be any repercussions if you forget to disclose. In some cases, depending on the person and the destination country, the police still might not be worried.
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI visited Thailand while on the SOR and having duly notified my PPO. They obviously didn't put a notice out on me as I got in no problem. Trips of under 30 days to Thailand are visa-free for UK citizens, and when I was there several years ago there was no question about convictions on the immigration form that you filled in on the plane (though who knows, this could have changed). I was attending a wedding in a rural area in the north of Thailand, far from Bangkok or any of the places in the south with seedy reputations, so maybe that was a factor, or maybe not, I have no idea. Hi Bens As I have mentioned I travelled whilst on bail with no issues and no questions. Reading some material on Thailand does suggest most of SE Asia is stopping any offenders entering. I notified the local plod about foreign travel this week and was given a sheet of paper stating that they (the police) were aware that some countries have "recently" stopped RSO from entering. Recently was not defined. They said that these countries were not located in any particular part of the world and they mentioned 3 by name: Morocco, Tunisia and Thailand. They also advised contacting the embassy before going. Sounds like something Unlock could be doing? Contacting all the embassies and publishing a list on the website saying which have a policy of not allowing RSO. Well, I'm not sure Unlock would have the resources to do that on top of the other stuff they do. In any case, if they asked the question, I'm sure many countries would write back and thank them for an excellent suggestion that they will see implemented as soon as possible.... When you look at how often this subject comes up on the forums, I would have thought it merited some priority. The biggest problem would be staying on top of any list to make sure it was up to date. I'm sure many of these countries are fully aware of the existence of RSO already and will have considered a total ban. The political capital to be gained from that would have to balanced against the potential loss of revenue. An RSO's money is as good as anybody elses. Hi Understand your point but on pure economics there would have to be a lot of RSO's visiting to offset international, social both internal and external accusations, emotions and loss of votes to make it worthwhile. Our money may be as good as anyone else's but as with the UK, image/reputation is of greater value. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Traveling_with_a_criminal_historyOn the whole, I would expect that richer countries can afford to discriminate but poorer ones are less fussy. A country like the USA knows it will get plenty of tourists who want to go there, who don't have a record, so they can be more fussy, plus they have the resources to check every entrant rigorously. I've no doubt there are exceptions to this rule. No country is ever going advertise the fact that they let in criminals, but surprisingly few countries have total bans. If reputation were the most important thing, I would expect to see lots more bans. Hi I can agree some advertise who is not welcome, some will rely on the border guards, but one thing is for sure, if for any reason the authorities questioned you - after boarder checks -, every country has the means to contact the UK who would be only too willing to provide details and punish you on your return in some way. Forget shared data agreements the UK's reputation would be at stake.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI visited Thailand while on the SOR and having duly notified my PPO. They obviously didn't put a notice out on me as I got in no problem. Trips of under 30 days to Thailand are visa-free for UK citizens, and when I was there several years ago there was no question about convictions on the immigration form that you filled in on the plane (though who knows, this could have changed). I was attending a wedding in a rural area in the north of Thailand, far from Bangkok or any of the places in the south with seedy reputations, so maybe that was a factor, or maybe not, I have no idea. Hi Bens As I have mentioned I travelled whilst on bail with no issues and no questions. Reading some material on Thailand does suggest most of SE Asia is stopping any offenders entering. I notified the local plod about foreign travel this week and was given a sheet of paper stating that they (the police) were aware that some countries have "recently" stopped RSO from entering. Recently was not defined. They said that these countries were not located in any particular part of the world and they mentioned 3 by name: Morocco, Tunisia and Thailand. They also advised contacting the embassy before going. Sounds like something Unlock could be doing? Contacting all the embassies and publishing a list on the website saying which have a policy of not allowing RSO. Well, I'm not sure Unlock would have the resources to do that on top of the other stuff they do. In any case, if they asked the question, I'm sure many countries would write back and thank them for an excellent suggestion that they will see implemented as soon as possible.... When you look at how often this subject comes up on the forums, I would have thought it merited some priority. The biggest problem would be staying on top of any list to make sure it was up to date. I'm sure many of these countries are fully aware of the existence of RSO already and will have considered a total ban. The political capital to be gained from that would have to balanced against the potential loss of revenue. An RSO's money is as good as anybody elses. Hi Understand your point but on pure economics there would have to be a lot of RSO's visiting to offset international, social both internal and external accusations, emotions and loss of votes to make it worthwhile. Our money may be as good as anyone else's but as with the UK, image/reputation is of greater value. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Traveling_with_a_criminal_historyOn the whole, I would expect that richer countries can afford to discriminate but poorer ones are less fussy. A country like the USA knows it will get plenty of tourists who want to go there, who don't have a record, so they can be more fussy, plus they have the resources to check every entrant rigorously. I've no doubt there are exceptions to this rule. No country is ever going advertise the fact that they let in criminals, but surprisingly few countries have total bans. If reputation were the most important thing, I would expect to see lots more bans. Hi I can agree some advertise who is not welcome, some will rely on the border guards, but one thing is for sure, if for any reason the authorities questioned you - after boarder checks -, every country has the means to contact the UK who would be only too willing to provide details and punish you on your return in some way. Forget shared data agreements the UK's reputation would be at stake. They may have the means to contact the UK, but there is no way ACRO are going to let other countries take up their time with answering queries that they don't have the legal right to answer. Unless you are arrested in the destination country, it just isn't going to happen.
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI visited Thailand while on the SOR and having duly notified my PPO. They obviously didn't put a notice out on me as I got in no problem. Trips of under 30 days to Thailand are visa-free for UK citizens, and when I was there several years ago there was no question about convictions on the immigration form that you filled in on the plane (though who knows, this could have changed). I was attending a wedding in a rural area in the north of Thailand, far from Bangkok or any of the places in the south with seedy reputations, so maybe that was a factor, or maybe not, I have no idea. Hi Bens As I have mentioned I travelled whilst on bail with no issues and no questions. Reading some material on Thailand does suggest most of SE Asia is stopping any offenders entering. I notified the local plod about foreign travel this week and was given a sheet of paper stating that they (the police) were aware that some countries have "recently" stopped RSO from entering. Recently was not defined. They said that these countries were not located in any particular part of the world and they mentioned 3 by name: Morocco, Tunisia and Thailand. They also advised contacting the embassy before going. Sounds like something Unlock could be doing? Contacting all the embassies and publishing a list on the website saying which have a policy of not allowing RSO. Well, I'm not sure Unlock would have the resources to do that on top of the other stuff they do. In any case, if they asked the question, I'm sure many countries would write back and thank them for an excellent suggestion that they will see implemented as soon as possible.... When you look at how often this subject comes up on the forums, I would have thought it merited some priority. The biggest problem would be staying on top of any list to make sure it was up to date. I'm sure many of these countries are fully aware of the existence of RSO already and will have considered a total ban. The political capital to be gained from that would have to balanced against the potential loss of revenue. An RSO's money is as good as anybody elses. Hi Understand your point but on pure economics there would have to be a lot of RSO's visiting to offset international, social both internal and external accusations, emotions and loss of votes to make it worthwhile. Our money may be as good as anyone else's but as with the UK, image/reputation is of greater value. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Traveling_with_a_criminal_historyOn the whole, I would expect that richer countries can afford to discriminate but poorer ones are less fussy. A country like the USA knows it will get plenty of tourists who want to go there, who don't have a record, so they can be more fussy, plus they have the resources to check every entrant rigorously. I've no doubt there are exceptions to this rule. No country is ever going advertise the fact that they let in criminals, but surprisingly few countries have total bans. If reputation were the most important thing, I would expect to see lots more bans. Hi I can agree some advertise who is not welcome, some will rely on the border guards, but one thing is for sure, if for any reason the authorities questioned you - after boarder checks -, every country has the means to contact the UK who would be only too willing to provide details and punish you on your return in some way. Forget shared data agreements the UK's reputation would be at stake. They may have the means to contact the UK, but there is no way ACRO are going to let other countries take up their time with answering queries that they don't have the legal right to answer. Unless you are arrested in the destination country, it just isn't going to happen. Hi I am by default suggesting a request would be made because of something other than a passing interest. I think we both can agree that if a country contacted the Foreign Office or ???, though normal details may not be provided they would not risk the requesting country letting it be known they would not assist. Being cynical in my thoughts is something the process I have been through has taught me due to the reality of what does happen by the authorities.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI visited Thailand while on the SOR and having duly notified my PPO. They obviously didn't put a notice out on me as I got in no problem. Trips of under 30 days to Thailand are visa-free for UK citizens, and when I was there several years ago there was no question about convictions on the immigration form that you filled in on the plane (though who knows, this could have changed). I was attending a wedding in a rural area in the north of Thailand, far from Bangkok or any of the places in the south with seedy reputations, so maybe that was a factor, or maybe not, I have no idea. Hi Bens As I have mentioned I travelled whilst on bail with no issues and no questions. Reading some material on Thailand does suggest most of SE Asia is stopping any offenders entering. I notified the local plod about foreign travel this week and was given a sheet of paper stating that they (the police) were aware that some countries have "recently" stopped RSO from entering. Recently was not defined. They said that these countries were not located in any particular part of the world and they mentioned 3 by name: Morocco, Tunisia and Thailand. They also advised contacting the embassy before going. Sounds like something Unlock could be doing? Contacting all the embassies and publishing a list on the website saying which have a policy of not allowing RSO. Well, I'm not sure Unlock would have the resources to do that on top of the other stuff they do. In any case, if they asked the question, I'm sure many countries would write back and thank them for an excellent suggestion that they will see implemented as soon as possible.... When you look at how often this subject comes up on the forums, I would have thought it merited some priority. The biggest problem would be staying on top of any list to make sure it was up to date. I'm sure many of these countries are fully aware of the existence of RSO already and will have considered a total ban. The political capital to be gained from that would have to balanced against the potential loss of revenue. An RSO's money is as good as anybody elses. Hi Understand your point but on pure economics there would have to be a lot of RSO's visiting to offset international, social both internal and external accusations, emotions and loss of votes to make it worthwhile. Our money may be as good as anyone else's but as with the UK, image/reputation is of greater value. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Traveling_with_a_criminal_historyOn the whole, I would expect that richer countries can afford to discriminate but poorer ones are less fussy. A country like the USA knows it will get plenty of tourists who want to go there, who don't have a record, so they can be more fussy, plus they have the resources to check every entrant rigorously. I've no doubt there are exceptions to this rule. No country is ever going advertise the fact that they let in criminals, but surprisingly few countries have total bans. If reputation were the most important thing, I would expect to see lots more bans. Hi I can agree some advertise who is not welcome, some will rely on the border guards, but one thing is for sure, if for any reason the authorities questioned you - after boarder checks -, every country has the means to contact the UK who would be only too willing to provide details and punish you on your return in some way. Forget shared data agreements the UK's reputation would be at stake. They may have the means to contact the UK, but there is no way ACRO are going to let other countries take up their time with answering queries that they don't have the legal right to answer. Unless you are arrested in the destination country, it just isn't going to happen. Hi I am by default suggesting a request would be made because of something other than a passing interest. I think we both can agree that if a country contacted the Foreign Office or ???, though normal details may not be provided they would not risk the requesting country letting it be known they would not assist. Being cynical in my thoughts is something the process I have been through has taught me due to the reality of what does happen by the authorities. Just like foreign countries, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not have access to the criminal records system.
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI visited Thailand while on the SOR and having duly notified my PPO. They obviously didn't put a notice out on me as I got in no problem. Trips of under 30 days to Thailand are visa-free for UK citizens, and when I was there several years ago there was no question about convictions on the immigration form that you filled in on the plane (though who knows, this could have changed). I was attending a wedding in a rural area in the north of Thailand, far from Bangkok or any of the places in the south with seedy reputations, so maybe that was a factor, or maybe not, I have no idea. Hi Bens As I have mentioned I travelled whilst on bail with no issues and no questions. Reading some material on Thailand does suggest most of SE Asia is stopping any offenders entering. I notified the local plod about foreign travel this week and was given a sheet of paper stating that they (the police) were aware that some countries have "recently" stopped RSO from entering. Recently was not defined. They said that these countries were not located in any particular part of the world and they mentioned 3 by name: Morocco, Tunisia and Thailand. They also advised contacting the embassy before going. Sounds like something Unlock could be doing? Contacting all the embassies and publishing a list on the website saying which have a policy of not allowing RSO. Well, I'm not sure Unlock would have the resources to do that on top of the other stuff they do. In any case, if they asked the question, I'm sure many countries would write back and thank them for an excellent suggestion that they will see implemented as soon as possible.... When you look at how often this subject comes up on the forums, I would have thought it merited some priority. The biggest problem would be staying on top of any list to make sure it was up to date. I'm sure many of these countries are fully aware of the existence of RSO already and will have considered a total ban. The political capital to be gained from that would have to balanced against the potential loss of revenue. An RSO's money is as good as anybody elses. Hi Understand your point but on pure economics there would have to be a lot of RSO's visiting to offset international, social both internal and external accusations, emotions and loss of votes to make it worthwhile. Our money may be as good as anyone else's but as with the UK, image/reputation is of greater value. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Traveling_with_a_criminal_historyOn the whole, I would expect that richer countries can afford to discriminate but poorer ones are less fussy. A country like the USA knows it will get plenty of tourists who want to go there, who don't have a record, so they can be more fussy, plus they have the resources to check every entrant rigorously. I've no doubt there are exceptions to this rule. No country is ever going advertise the fact that they let in criminals, but surprisingly few countries have total bans. If reputation were the most important thing, I would expect to see lots more bans. Hi I can agree some advertise who is not welcome, some will rely on the border guards, but one thing is for sure, if for any reason the authorities questioned you - after boarder checks -, every country has the means to contact the UK who would be only too willing to provide details and punish you on your return in some way. Forget shared data agreements the UK's reputation would be at stake. They may have the means to contact the UK, but there is no way ACRO are going to let other countries take up their time with answering queries that they don't have the legal right to answer. Unless you are arrested in the destination country, it just isn't going to happen. Hi I am by default suggesting a request would be made because of something other than a passing interest. I think we both can agree that if a country contacted the Foreign Office or ???, though normal details may not be provided they would not risk the requesting country letting it be known they would not assist. Being cynical in my thoughts is something the process I have been through has taught me due to the reality of what does happen by the authorities. Just like foreign countries, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not have access to the criminal records system. Hi Hence my use of the ??? to be open about the area contacted. I am being open minded to the reality that departments can / do discuss. Neither of us can prove my thoughts correct.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI visited Thailand while on the SOR and having duly notified my PPO. They obviously didn't put a notice out on me as I got in no problem. Trips of under 30 days to Thailand are visa-free for UK citizens, and when I was there several years ago there was no question about convictions on the immigration form that you filled in on the plane (though who knows, this could have changed). I was attending a wedding in a rural area in the north of Thailand, far from Bangkok or any of the places in the south with seedy reputations, so maybe that was a factor, or maybe not, I have no idea. Hi Bens As I have mentioned I travelled whilst on bail with no issues and no questions. Reading some material on Thailand does suggest most of SE Asia is stopping any offenders entering. I notified the local plod about foreign travel this week and was given a sheet of paper stating that they (the police) were aware that some countries have "recently" stopped RSO from entering. Recently was not defined. They said that these countries were not located in any particular part of the world and they mentioned 3 by name: Morocco, Tunisia and Thailand. They also advised contacting the embassy before going. Sounds like something Unlock could be doing? Contacting all the embassies and publishing a list on the website saying which have a policy of not allowing RSO. Well, I'm not sure Unlock would have the resources to do that on top of the other stuff they do. In any case, if they asked the question, I'm sure many countries would write back and thank them for an excellent suggestion that they will see implemented as soon as possible.... When you look at how often this subject comes up on the forums, I would have thought it merited some priority. The biggest problem would be staying on top of any list to make sure it was up to date. I'm sure many of these countries are fully aware of the existence of RSO already and will have considered a total ban. The political capital to be gained from that would have to balanced against the potential loss of revenue. An RSO's money is as good as anybody elses. Hi Understand your point but on pure economics there would have to be a lot of RSO's visiting to offset international, social both internal and external accusations, emotions and loss of votes to make it worthwhile. Our money may be as good as anyone else's but as with the UK, image/reputation is of greater value. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Traveling_with_a_criminal_historyOn the whole, I would expect that richer countries can afford to discriminate but poorer ones are less fussy. A country like the USA knows it will get plenty of tourists who want to go there, who don't have a record, so they can be more fussy, plus they have the resources to check every entrant rigorously. I've no doubt there are exceptions to this rule. No country is ever going advertise the fact that they let in criminals, but surprisingly few countries have total bans. If reputation were the most important thing, I would expect to see lots more bans. Hi I can agree some advertise who is not welcome, some will rely on the border guards, but one thing is for sure, if for any reason the authorities questioned you - after boarder checks -, every country has the means to contact the UK who would be only too willing to provide details and punish you on your return in some way. Forget shared data agreements the UK's reputation would be at stake. They may have the means to contact the UK, but there is no way ACRO are going to let other countries take up their time with answering queries that they don't have the legal right to answer. Unless you are arrested in the destination country, it just isn't going to happen. Hi I am by default suggesting a request would be made because of something other than a passing interest. I think we both can agree that if a country contacted the Foreign Office or ???, though normal details may not be provided they would not risk the requesting country letting it be known they would not assist. Being cynical in my thoughts is something the process I have been through has taught me due to the reality of what does happen by the authorities. Just like foreign countries, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not have access to the criminal records system. Hi Hence my use of the ??? to be open about the area contacted. I am being open minded to the reality that departments can / do discuss. Neither of us can prove my thoughts correct. Yes, I'm sure they can and do discuss information to which they have access. Of course, that means if they don't have the information, they can't discuss it....
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|