Timeline for Is this a 10-year ban from a UK application?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 16, 2018 at 9:11 | vote | accept | Roy | ||
| Dec 21, 2017 at 10:41 | comment | added | Jan | Please take all further discussion on whether guilty is a good or bad choice of words to Travel Chat! Thank you! | |
| Dec 21, 2017 at 9:14 | comment | added | phoog | @DavidSchwartz plagiarism isn't even a legal matter, so whether the word "guilty" is used in that context has little bearing on whether it's appropriate to use that word in civil law. In precise legal terminology, guilt applies only to criminal law; civil law concerns concepts like liability. | |
| Dec 21, 2017 at 4:37 | comment | added | user58558 | @David Schwartz "The term "guilty" is also sometimes applied to persons against whom a judgment has been found in a lawsuit for a civil wrong, such as negligence or some intentional act like assault or fraud, but that is a confusing misuse of the word since it should only apply to a criminal charge." legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/guilty | |
| Dec 20, 2017 at 21:36 | comment | added | David Schwartz | @greatone The first definition is being responsible for the commission of an offense. And if you punch "found guilty of plagiarism" into a search engine, you'll find that's entirely common an unobjectionable despite the fact that plagiarism is not a criminal offense. Your claim that "only a criminal court can find someone guilty" is just not true. | |
| Dec 20, 2017 at 4:42 | comment | added | Don Hatch | Good information, but I don't understand the jump to the extremely strong concluding statement "‘Forgetting’ to mention a revoked visa was either incredibly stupid or deliberate (and doomed to fail)". Is it so obvious that a revoked visa event falls under the category of "material fact" that must be explicitly mentioned? I.e. is one of the questions "list all visa grants and revocations you've received in the last N years"? I imagine the grants are all visible on the passport so listing them isn't necessary, and it didn't occur to the person that the revocation was in a different boat. | |
| Dec 19, 2017 at 21:58 | comment | added | GalacticCowboy | @JanusBahsJacquet My thought as well - the first paragraph suggests that this is not an absolute ban, if they can offer sufficient evidence regarding the previous denials. Also, your username is long enough to count as a valid comment on its own. :| | |
| Dec 19, 2017 at 19:54 | comment | added | Janus Bahs Jacquet | This rejection letter is clearly poorly worded. Both §320/7B and App. V §V3.7 in the Immigration Rules are quite clear that this is a non-negotiable ban, and that any applications made within the next ten years will be automatically refused, whereas the letter says that they will be “considered on their individual merits” and “may also be refused”. That’s basically making a hard ban look like a non-ban. | |
| Dec 19, 2017 at 19:03 | comment | added | user64742 | @greatstone the term guilty is still used. They arent putting you in jail. They are finding you guilty of breaking their laws and therefore subject to their punishment (i.e. rejection/expulsion/ban). For instance, a moderator might find you guilty of violating the be nice policy on this site. You're taking the word guilty far too literally. | |
| Dec 19, 2017 at 17:51 | comment | added | user58558 | @David Schwartz Guilt is generally associated with criminal law and always requires a finding by a court of law. Administrative and civil forums don't find people "guilty." Private entities such as universities may declare a person guilty but those findings are not legally enforceable. "Guilt: b. Law The fact of having been found to have violated a criminal law" thefreedictionary.com/guilt | |
| Dec 19, 2017 at 17:18 | comment | added | David Schwartz | @greatone That's just not true. For example, a university administrative panel can find a student guilty of plagiarism. The phrase "found guilty" just means that there's a decision that you in fact did something prohibited by some rule or law. In criminal courts, the standard of proof for finding someone guilty is usually "beyond a reasonable doubt". But other forums can have different standards for findings of guilt. In particular, in this case, a finding of guilt could be made (and was made) by a mere preponderance. | |
| Dec 19, 2017 at 14:13 | history | edited | Jan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 33 characters in body
|
| Dec 19, 2017 at 14:00 | comment | added | Jan | @greatone True. I’ll rewrite that in a second … | |
| Dec 19, 2017 at 13:25 | comment | added | user58558 | He wasn't found guilty. Only a criminal court can find someone guilty. This is a civil matter with a much lower standard of proof. It's just that the authorities think it's more likely than not that the OP's friend used deception. The applicant signs a document stating the the documents are complete and true to his/her best knowledge. The authorities only have to show it was more likely than not that he/she knew. To have found him/her guilty the court/jury would need to be convinced about intent beyond reasonable doubt. | |
| Dec 19, 2017 at 13:11 | history | answered | Jan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |