Tyson banned from UK

by hogey Tue 10 Dec 2013, 3:55 pm

New immigration laws mean he cant come over here now for promotional work for his book and looks like his one man shows in march are likely to be cancelled as well, that would be a right shame for those who have a ticket. New rules state that no one is allowed in anymore if they have been sentenced to more than 4 years in prison, i wonder if that new regulation might also effect some of the foreign fighters coming over to defend and fight for titles on these shores in future.

by mobilemaster8 Tue 10 Dec 2013, 3:58 pm

But yet the UK are happy to let thousands of illegal immigrants flock over without a seconds thought..........amazing yet sad world we live in.....and when I say "world", I actually just mean here in the UK.

by hogey Tue 10 Dec 2013, 4:00 pm

Could not agree more mate

by TopHat24/7 Tue 10 Dec 2013, 4:04 pm

mobilemaster8 wrote:But yet the UK are happy to let thousands of illegal immigrants flock over without a seconds thought..........amazing yet sad world we live in.....and when I say "world", I actually just mean here in the UK.

Ironically, Rowley is to blame for that phenomenon, and if memory serves me correct is now going to be stung by this as I think he had tickets to the show........

by mobilemaster8 Tue 10 Dec 2013, 5:06 pm

He does indeed have tickets.....or he did have so to speak!

Hopefully he gets a refund......

by TopHat24/7 Tue 10 Dec 2013, 5:10 pm

mobilemaster8 wrote:He does indeed have tickets.....or he did have so to speak!

Hopefully he gets a refund......

hopefully not, serves him right.....

by Rowley Tue 10 Dec 2013, 5:19 pm

I do indeed have tickets, however long time between now and March, these things have a habit of getting resolved if there is enough money involved.

by Lance Tue 10 Dec 2013, 5:23 pm

mobilemaster8 wrote:But yet the UK are happy to let thousands of illegal immigrants flock over without a seconds thought..........amazing yet sad world we live in.....and when I say "world", I actually just mean here in the UK.

if they are illegal then surely they are not welcomed and have been given a seconds thought???

save your dumb nonsense for another board

by **ShahenshahG** Tue 10 Dec 2013, 5:28 pm

Lance wrote:
mobilemaster8 wrote:But yet the UK are happy to let thousands of illegal immigrants flock over without a seconds thought..........amazing yet sad world we live in.....and when I say "world", I actually just mean here in the UK.

if they are illegal then surely they are not welcomed and have been given a seconds thought???

save your dumb nonsense for another board

by TopHat24/7 Tue 10 Dec 2013, 5:31 pm

They may be illegal immigrants but with valid/TBD asylum claims, in which case they may fall into the 'welcomed' category.

Even if not, their generous treatment (due process, bail rather than incarceration etc) may also be considered 'welcoming' compared to how one might be treated illegally entering other, or their, countries.

by Rowley Tue 10 Dec 2013, 5:32 pm

We're not doing this on here, if you want to discuss it go to the off topic section.

by kingraf Tue 10 Dec 2013, 5:36 pm

So the OT section becomes the N & CA...

by Champagne_Socialist Tue 10 Dec 2013, 5:42 pm

kingraf wrote:So the OT section becomes the N & CA...

Well AZ is no longer here to turn every thread into chaos.

by TopHat24/7 Tue 10 Dec 2013, 5:43 pm

Rowley wrote:We're not doing this on here, if you want to discuss it go to the off topic section.

Haha sorry Rowls, couldn't resist devil

by TopHat24/7 Tue 10 Dec 2013, 5:43 pm

kingraf wrote:So the OT section becomes the N & CA...

Ssshhhhh

we were trying to be more subtle than that.....

by mobilemaster8 Tue 10 Dec 2013, 6:19 pm

Thanks toppy saved me coming back on and responding to that thick as pig Poopie Lance.

Appreciated muchly.

by Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn Tue 10 Dec 2013, 6:31 pm

He's a dirty rattin rap ist....shouldn't even be allowed out in the street where women might be!!!

Once a sexual predator always a sexual predator.

I heard he leaves the bit out where he did vile things to a woman against her will.

by ONETWOFOREVER Tue 10 Dec 2013, 7:01 pm

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:He's a dirty rattin rap ist....shouldn't even be allowed out in the street where women might be!!!

Once a sexual predator always a sexual predator.

I heard he leaves the bit out where he did vile things to a woman against her will.

All consent was agreed upon by adults.

Is Tyson really that bad?

Did'nt we give Pinochet refuge?

by Lance Tue 10 Dec 2013, 7:46 pm

mobilemaster8 wrote:Thanks toppy saved me coming back on and responding to that thick as pig Poopie Lance.

Appreciated muchly.

very ironic. I bet you even believe it

by rapidringsroad Tue 10 Dec 2013, 8:16 pm

Quite right,he shouldn't be allowed in the country,a convicted r**ist,a self confessed drug user and a penchant for violence. You've got enough peoople like that without letting more in.Do you think the USA would let you have a Visa if you had any kind of criminal record? A friend of mine was refused one because he was sentenced to 18 months for cannabis possession, he served 9 months.

by Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn Tue 10 Dec 2013, 8:41 pm

All consented onetwo?? He was found guilty....innocent until he was found guilty.

And as mentioned above he's a violent coke head. Why should he get special treatment over all the others refused entry over crimes abroad?

by Duty281 Tue 10 Dec 2013, 8:47 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:
kingraf wrote:So the OT section becomes the N & CA...

Ssshhhhh we were trying to be more subtle than that.....

Things were a lot better when you were a moderator TopHat. thumbsup

by Lumbering_Jack Tue 10 Dec 2013, 8:48 pm

Echo what others have said. He's a disgusting woman abuser who should not be allowed anywhere this country, let alone to make a big stack of cash.

by Duty281 Tue 10 Dec 2013, 8:50 pm

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Echo what others have said. He's a disgusting woman abuser who should not be allowed anywhere this country, let alone to make a big stack of cash.

Hear hear.

by Mind the windows Tino. Wed 11 Dec 2013, 8:16 am

Rowley wrote:I do indeed have tickets, however long time between now and March, these things have a habit of getting resolved if there is enough money involved.

Jeff, I am genuinely interested in your motivation for going to see this 'show'.

Is it so you can tell your mates in the pub that you met Mike Tyson? Is it so you can tell yourself you met Mike Tyson?

You've admitted yourself that you're a Guardian reading liberal. Certainly socially, if not fiscally, I would call myself a liberal but I struggle to see how you reconcile this with paying to see Tyson. He is a convicted r*pist, a pathological bully and has a history of violence outside the sport. He committed one of the most savage acts of assault ever seen inside a boxing ring, yet he seems to get a broad apology from big swathes of the boxing community and far as I can tell, it is simply for being Mike Tyson who just happened to be an exciting boxer once. If it was some average Joe world champion who bit someones ear off in a fight, no-one would be paying to go and listen to them talk.

I am not even sure you're going to hear anything new anyway. This is one of the last creative chances to milk the Tyson cash cow for any money and I fear you're mistaken if you think he is going to freestyle and tell the audience some great hidden revelations about his career. His team of lawyers will have scripted as much of it as possible and even his responses for the Q&A will be within a strict framework laid out by his 'team'. They are not going to allow him to ruin it all by throwing about a bunch of libelous anecdotes.

He was a great boxer, and one I have openly admitted on here that I have changed my opinion about due to other posters championing him, but as a human being, he is pretty vile. I am all for giving people a chance, even a second and third chance in the right circumstances, but this guy has had enough, without milking fans anymore. You already know everything you are ever going to know about him, without paying good money to see a freak show.

by Rowley Wed 11 Dec 2013, 9:00 am

It is a fair question Tina and one I have considered, however as a whiny Guardian reading liberal and former Sociology student I also believe in rehabilitation and giving people a chance to turn their life around, can see the argument Mike has had countless opportunities but he does genuinely seem to be at some sort of peace with himself currently and whilst maybe it is the same reason folk slow down for a car crash but there is something constantly fascinating about his story.

Whilst I would not personally choose to hide behind such an argument as well there is also the fairly reasonable case to be made that did you choose not to line the pockets of people who had done unpalatable things outside the ring being a boxing fan would be pretty tricky. Could never attend a show Chisora was fighting on, certainly would not buy a ticket for any show Warren was promoting or purchase a card promoted by either Don King or featuring Mayweather and so on and so on.

As for the show, am not expecting any great revelations but from the reviews I have read it is pretty candid and Mike makes for an engaging and surprisingly lucid host apparently.

by Mind the windows Tino. Wed 11 Dec 2013, 9:13 am

Fair enough, Jeff. I think there is a clear and distinct enough difference between sharing a relatively intimate room with someone and watching a boxing show live or on TV but I appreciate it is splitting hairs and I can see the argument.

It is not for me to tell you how to spend your money, I was just interested in how it lined up with your general principles of life. It's a tough one. I have paid PPV for Tyson, I have read books on him, watched DVD's etc etc but I don't think, personally, I would be able to justify going to sit in his company and listen to him, just as I wouldn't want to sit and talk with Chisora, Wilder or A.N Other who has questionable attitudes towards women or can't control their fists outside the ring.

I guess it depends where your line is drawn. I am not arrogant enough to suggest I am any more principled than you, and it has to be a deeply personal decision, but it is certainly one I wouldn't be comfortable with.

Great boxer, but benefits from far too much leeway from boxing apologists, for me.

by Izzi Wed 11 Dec 2013, 9:14 am

And to think Rowley now they're doing it in Paris you can take the missus for a lovely trip away. Or if you're on the other side of the fence your fella.

by Diamond in the rough Wed 11 Dec 2013, 9:18 am

It's every who has been given a sentence to more than 4 years! I personally think Tyson got screwed over on the case he actually lost to r***! Would've been interesting if Nelson Mandela was well enough to visit during the last year if he would've been denied aswell

by Mind the windows Tino. Wed 11 Dec 2013, 9:26 am

Diamond in the rough wrote:Would've been interesting if Nelson Mandela was well enough to visit during the last year if he would've been denied aswell

It is interesting, but I would assume there is massive scope in the law to judge individual cases differently.

Whether that is fair or not is a whole other argument, but it would have taken a brave judge to ban Mandela!

by Rowley Wed 11 Dec 2013, 9:31 am

In all immigration decisions the secretary of state has held a residual ability to make subjective decisions or exercise their discretion. However the four year sentence thing is an attempt to remove such subjectivity. There has always been a ban for people who have sentences against them on the grounds they are not conducive to the public good. However this was always largely a subjective decision with a lot of grey area about what constitutes being non conducive which led to inconsistencies around decisions and uproar when Tyson was allowed in previously but with people who were less high profile being refused.

Hard to know what they will do this time around as any softening of this stance over Tyson will inevitably put a load of people previously refused back in play and give them fairly solid grounds to launch appeals and challenges to their decisions.

by Diamond in the rough Wed 11 Dec 2013, 9:38 am

Rowley wrote:In all immigration decisions the secretary of state has held a residual ability to make subjective decisions or exercise their discretion. However the four year sentence thing is an attempt to remove such subjectivity. There has always been a ban for people who have sentences against them on the grounds they are not conducive to the public good. However this was always largely a subjective decision with a lot of grey area about what constitutes being non conducive which led to inconsistencies around decisions and uproar when Tyson was allowed in previously but with people who were less high profile being refused.

Hard to know what they will do this time around as any softening of this stance over Tyson will inevitably put a load of people previously refused back in play and give them fairly solid grounds to launch appeals and challenges to their decisions.

Surely if you have thousands of uk citizens wanting to see you and paying money to see you it shouldn't matter the amount of people in the uk that have false passports and names will be ridiculous

by Rowley Wed 11 Dec 2013, 9:52 am

The issue is Diamond that if you have previously been refused on the grounds of having a sentence of more than four years and you see Mike get permitted to enter you are inevitably going to ask why you are refused yet Mike is allowed, smacks of inconsistency, which obviously makes for a fairly good ground to appeal your own decision.

by TopHat24/7 Wed 11 Dec 2013, 11:29 am

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
Rowley wrote:I do indeed have tickets, however long time between now and March, these things have a habit of getting resolved if there is enough money involved.

You've admitted yourself that you're a Guardian reading liberal. Certainly socially, if not fiscally, I would call myself a liberal

Haha love this phrase, in other words you like to take the pompous-liberal stance socially to look good but want to do so whilst still earning a fat wedge and minimising your tax exposure.

Are you C_S??

by Mind the windows Tino. Wed 11 Dec 2013, 11:36 am

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
Rowley wrote:I do indeed have tickets, however long time between now and March, these things have a habit of getting resolved if there is enough money involved.

You've admitted yourself that you're a Guardian reading liberal. Certainly socially, if not fiscally, I would call myself a liberal

Haha love this phrase, in other words you like to take the pompous-liberal stance socially to look good but want to do so whilst still earning a fat wedge and minimising your tax exposure.

Yeah pretty much.

I just find it is better than the pompous, know it all, have an opinion on everything, sneer at the poor from my privileged background sort of shtick that you enjoy.

Each to their own.

by Steffan Wed 11 Dec 2013, 11:37 am

Nationalists who pretend not to be nationalists are one of my pet hates

by Duty281 Wed 11 Dec 2013, 11:41 am

Steffan wrote:Nationalists who pretend not to be nationalists are one of my pet hates

Well at least that doesn't apply to me. rose

by Rowley Wed 11 Dec 2013, 11:43 am

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
Rowley wrote:I do indeed have tickets, however long time between now and March, these things have a habit of getting resolved if there is enough money involved.

You've admitted yourself that you're a Guardian reading liberal. Certainly socially, if not fiscally, I would call myself a liberal

Haha love this phrase, in other words you like to take the pompous-liberal stance socially to look good but want to do so whilst still earning a fat wedge and minimising your tax exposure.

Are you C_S??

Is it not possible to earn decent money but still give a flying one about those who are less fortunate?

by Steffan Wed 11 Dec 2013, 11:44 am

Duty281 wrote:
Steffan wrote:Nationalists who pretend not to be nationalists are one of my pet hates

Well at least that doesn't apply to me.

It certainly doesnt Duty Very Happy

https://www.606v2.com/t33536-the-official-england-s-journey-to-brazil-2014-thread

"There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England."
Sir Winston Churchill

"Ask any man what nationality he would prefer to be, and ninety nine out of a hundred will tell you that they would prefer to be Englishmen."
Cecil John Rhodes

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first place in the lottery of life."
Cecil John Rhodes

"Follow your spirit; and upon this charge,
Cry "God for Harry! England and Saint George"."
William Shakespeare

“The English are so filled with their own greatness and have won so many big victories that they have come to believe they cannot lose. In battle they are the most confident nation in the world."
Unknown

by Rowley Wed 11 Dec 2013, 11:47 am

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

Albert Einstein

by Steffan Wed 11 Dec 2013, 11:47 am

Worst thing is Duty...as someone whos historical archaeological speciality is in Anglo-Saxons and Celts of the early Middle Ages in England and Wales I have probably forgotten more about the origins of English race that you will ever know hence my frustrations with you warning

by Duty281 Wed 11 Dec 2013, 11:52 am

Rowley wrote:Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

Albert Einstein

He would say that, he was German. Laugh

by Duty281 Wed 11 Dec 2013, 11:53 am

Steffan wrote:Worst thing is Duty...as someone whos historical archaeological speciality is in Anglo-Saxons and Celts of the early Middle Ages in England and Wales I have probably forgotten more about the origins of English race that you will ever know hence my frustrations with you

I love you too. kiss

by Rowley Wed 11 Dec 2013, 11:54 am

Duty281 wrote:
Rowley wrote:Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

Albert Einstein

He would say that, he was German.

Or just bright enough to know putting so much stock into something as arbitrary as what lump of turf you happen to fall out of a womans bits is a little silly.

by Steffan Wed 11 Dec 2013, 11:56 am

Most Anglo-Saxons came from Germany Very Happy

Bit like the royal family I guess...

by Duty281 Wed 11 Dec 2013, 12:01 pm

Rowley wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Rowley wrote:Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

Albert Einstein

He would say that, he was German.

Or just bright enough to know putting so much stock into something as arbitrary as what lump of turf you happen to fall out of a womans bits is a little silly.

Ah but being English, or British for that matter is so much more than that. It's the way of life, your upbringing, who you are as a person etc.

by Duty281 Wed 11 Dec 2013, 12:02 pm

Steffan wrote:Most Anglo-Saxons came from Germany

Bit like the royal family I guess...

Hip-hip hooray! Moved from the continent to an island fortress. The safest place in the world from foreign invaders.

by TopHat24/7 Wed 11 Dec 2013, 12:06 pm

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
Rowley wrote:I do indeed have tickets, however long time between now and March, these things have a habit of getting resolved if there is enough money involved.

You've admitted yourself that you're a Guardian reading liberal. Certainly socially, if not fiscally, I would call myself a liberal

Haha love this phrase, in other words you like to take the pompous-liberal stance socially to look good but want to do so whilst still earning a fat wedge and minimising your tax exposure.

Yeah pretty much.

I just find it is better than the pompous, know it all, have an opinion on everything, sneer at the poor from my privileged background sort of shtick that you enjoy.

Each to their own.

by Mind the windows Tino. Wed 11 Dec 2013, 12:07 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
Rowley wrote:I do indeed have tickets, however long time between now and March, these things have a habit of getting resolved if there is enough money involved.

You've admitted yourself that you're a Guardian reading liberal. Certainly socially, if not fiscally, I would call myself a liberal

Haha love this phrase, in other words you like to take the pompous-liberal stance socially to look good but want to do so whilst still earning a fat wedge and minimising your tax exposure.

Yeah pretty much.

I just find it is better than the pompous, know it all, have an opinion on everything, sneer at the poor from my privileged background sort of shtick that you enjoy.

Each to their own.

by Scottrf Wed 11 Dec 2013, 12:19 pm

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:He's a dirty rattin rap ist....shouldn't even be allowed out in the street where women might be!!!

Once a sexual predator always a sexual predator.

I heard he leaves the bit out where he did vile things to a woman against her will.

Course he did. She just went to his room to play Scrabble.

by Sponsored content