Who would expect that the business magnate, lifestyle guru, author of several books and one of the most powerful women according to a magazine is banned from travelling to UK?
True, Martha Stewart is denied of the visa because of her conviction four ears ago in the IMCLONE case.
Stewart was scheduled to meet at the Royal Academy with several figures in the fashion and leisure industry, the Telegraph reported.
The newspaper attributed the rejection of her visa to a blanket policy banning people with criminal convictions.
A representative of the British Borders Agency would not comment on Stewart, saying only that "we continue to oppose the entry to the UK of individuals where we believe their presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good or where they have been found guilty of serious criminal offenses abroad."
2 comments:
ood for her, she should have thought about the implications of her actions when she was obstructing justice. I hope the UK upholds their laws and make no exceptions for her. Doing so would send the wrong message that it is ok to break the law when one is a celebrity and that criminal records don't mean much when one has money and fame. She should deal with it and stay out of the UK.
I am very passionate about this process due to having a recent visa application denied--not for criminal reasons. They feel as that I want to remain in their country because I didn't provide proof that I had obligations in my current country to return. I agree that having certain policies in place to determine validity in whether someone would be a "good fit" for the UK. If you have never been through the process of applying for a UK visa, please allow me to explain. The UK border agency's website gives very general information needed to apply for a visa. After my first application was denied due to documents not being received. I only sent in documents that were actually listed on their own website. The 2nd and 3rd applications were rejected, due to not all documents submitted. It was as if I was at the mercy of a consulate-an individual that apparently does not have the skill to determine a "good fit" for the UK. I submitted the house deed, car notes, employment letters, paycheck stubs, purchased airline tickets. How else can you prove that you will return to your country? Get this--I only applied for the visa to travel from one London airport to another to transit to another country. I would be in the country for a total of 2 hours coming and going. After speaking with a consulate, they stated that documents were not the determining factor. It depended on their satisfaction of the application. I will continue to tell my story so that people would not spend their money on multiple applications for no reason. If you are transiting to another country and need a visa for the UK---don't do it. Find another airline that goes to another country!!! Applying for a UK visa is very difficult--for what reason--I have yet to find out. It should be a crime for an agency to not provide information up front to someone on the information that is needed to obtain a visa. It's a continuous cycle-because they know you need the visa to travel. Now, I've lost the money for non-refundable airline tickets, courier fees--a total of over 6k, because of a $137
rejected visa application by incompentent investigators that appparently has no effective training in determining a "good fit" for the UK.
Post a Comment