Police control of classified information

[Roland Perry]

In article <49F095C6.27557.1C7E6C1@davidh.spidacom.co.uk>, David Hansen
<davidh@spidacom.co.uk> writes
>On 23 Apr 2009 at 15:27, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> The evidence that I'm suggesting might be needed is "whatever would
>> qualify them for a student visa under the new rules".
>
>Entirely unnecessary.
>
>They presumably qualified as students under the old rules.

Given the benefit of the doubt, yes (but the rules have changed).

>As long as they do nothing to disqualify themselves they should be able
>to remain as long as permission was granted for.

That's not the way visas necessarily work. I used to have a USA
"Business" visa, but they withdrew it (along with other holders) on the
basis that the Visa Waiver programme made it redundant. Nevertheless,
the VWP has several drawbacks compared to having a visa, and yet the
change was made.

>If the UK government asserts that they have done something to
>disqualify themselves under the old rules then it needs to provide
>evidence so that its assertions may be judged.

It hasn't been ruled out that such a process will take place; indeed,
despite my and Ian's view that the burden of proof is the other way
round, the authorities will no doubt contest specific assertions in any
new visa applications if they feel the need.

-- 
Roland Perry