'08
Lucky bastards. The British have gotten to do what most Americans wish we could do: tell Martha Stewart to stay the hell away. The country rebuffed the domestic diva’s request for a visa – because of her criminal conviction five years ago. That’s right, the British consider Martha Stewart to be a potential threat to their citizens. And frankly, who can blame them? Though by that logic, I feel we should get to kick her out of our country too.
Martha Stewart has been banned from England — at least temporarily. The famous homemaker was denied a visa into Great Britain because of her stock fraud conviction four years ago. Martha, who served five months in prison in 2004, had plans to travel across the pond for a scheduled speech at the Royal Academy and various meetings when the U.K. Border Agency informed her it won’t be issuing her a visa.
The Agency itself refused to comment on individual cases, but stated the organization is conscious of those the country’s visitors with criminal pasts.
“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 offences abroad,” the Agency said in a statement.
[From OK! Magazine]
The government actually said they thought the visa decision was stupid – though they didn’t use that exact word. But you can tell they’re thinking it. Really, really hard. A spokesman noted: “It is a bit silly given some of the other people allowed into the country.” Which makes me wonder what kind of hardened criminals they’re letting in. Martha’s rep was all sunshine and roses, stating that she loves the U.K. and is hoping to resolve the issue soon. I say if they take her they have to keep her.
Written by JayBird
Posted in Legal Issues, Martha Stewart, Travel
18 Responses to “The British ban Martha Stewart”
-
A KNOWN criminal conviction is what impacts on a person’s application for a visa. That’s the way it works. Bit nuts tho’ here, considering her crime - I would have thought the nature of the crime would allow for some flexibility? She’s hardly a national threat.
On the whole, terrorists don’t admit to terrorism as their occupation on their visa applications. If you add human rights considerations, asylum seeking on humanitarian grounds (where little or no evidence is available on an individual’s background), and the sheer number of people coming into the UK and Europe over the last 10 years in particular, it’s hardly surprising that serious mistakes can, have and will continue to be made. Far from a perfect system and the price is being paid for that over and over again.
-
Well, it usually geronimo. I don’t have a problem with the restriction of visas for those with criminal convictions abroad.
So long as it’s consistent. Could someone PLEASE explain to me how Mike Tyson could be considered less of a threat to the general public than Ms. Embezzler above? The man is an utterly loathsome, deplorable waste of skin and should never been given the visa for a boxing match those years ago.
It’s beyond a joke.
-
I agree in principle re the restrictions too. But you’ve provided an excellent example of someone who shouldn’t ever have been let outside his own house, let alone into the UK.
-
well in that case why did bush get to come over last weekend or so.? nobody took his “war criminal” status into consideration. on that note the hypocrites handbook seem to have wadded its way onto the best seller list via the homeoffice dept. decision makers guidlines … it must be compulsory reading in whitehall.
-
But Bush hasn’t been formally charged with any such thing, much less been convicted. Both Stewart and that scumbag Tyson have been convicted and served a prison sentence.
-
Although doesn’t Bush have a DUI/narcotics possession conviction dating from the 70s? Not that it would have an impact anyway as he, as an elected politican, is exempt from UK visa requirements.
But it does raise huge questions as to the criteria used to determine who can and can’t come in. The more I think about Martha S being given the thumbs down, the more puzzling it is in light of who they DO let in. Unless it’s something to do with that coat she’s wearing. A style criterion? Whatja reckon, Mairead?
-
I am rolling my eyeballs here.
Martha Stewart is not a threat to anyone.
The British can ban her - its their loss.
-
Most countries have restrictions like this, but it’s more like a cash grab than it is a ban. Martha had to spend an extra $500 to judge pumpkins in Canada a few years back; Amy Winehouse had to fill out some extra papers and spend some extra bucks to come to the States. Keith Richards has quite the time travelling, but it’s not insurmountable, and for someone like him, not even really too expensive.
-
I have no problem with Stewart. She did the crime, served her time, which is more than I can say for a lot of celebrities who have committed crimes. She created an empire on her own, made many women take an interest in the art of homemaking again. So she was a bitch, when you run a business, you have to rule with an iron hand. She didn’t do anything that men in the corporate world haven’t done, the only thing is she is a woman.
-
*Golfer’s clap for Great Britain*
Stewart didn’t exactly do hard time in San Quentin folks, she got sent to a cushy minimum security kiddie camp prison for white collar criminals. The kind where the worst punishment they can dish out is forcing the inmates to drink non-imported white wine with dinner. I think she must have ticked someone off in Britain and this is the return snubbing.
-
I understand that the blog is called Celebitchy, and maybe it’s just me getting soft in my old age, but the posts recently seem to have bypassed bitchy and gone straight to venomous and hateful.
Like I said, maybe it’s me.
-
And in only 2.5 decades of this allegedly more civilized, sensitive PC speak, people have had the guts kicked right out of them.
Well done establishment well done; you’re well on your way to a completely unquestioning, totally yielding populace who won’t dare raise their head in objection to your abuses.
If people steadfastly refuse to criticize total strangers whose only purpose is entertainment(even jokingly), how much longer before they do the same for their government officials with far greater powers?
-
This made me laugh a bit. I wonder if she can still get a visitor’s visa though? Surely she was trying to get a working visa so she could get paid for her speech?
-
I’m in the UK, and I’m saying she is a threat to our national security. She’s planning to brainwash us with her weapons of mass co-ordination i.e festive table-settings and fancy bread baskets, in order to get us folding our guest towels in a particular way.
Stay away, Martha. Particularly from our share trading.
-
Oh I agree Carrie - otherwise before you know it she’ll be on the Honours List for services to chintz
-
That was a bit harsh, I hope they reconsider. I quite like Mrs Embezzler here.
-
this baffles me, we let every other illegal scrounging, trafficking scumbag into our beautiful country.. but we stop a ‘homemaker’ entering, and that’s why we’re in the state we’re in!
Frenchie:
geronimo:
Mairead:
123:
badrockandroll:
devilgirl:
vdantev:
Jen (the other one):
Danielle:
Carrie:
Clare:
british babe:
Leave a Reply
Comment Policy: Please be courteous as if you are having a conversation in person. No all-caps posts. If you make comments using different nicknames, repeatedly harass others, or spam, you will be banned. If you make an exceptionally rude comment that people complain about, it will be deleted. Do not dominate the threads by making the same point over and over again or you will be banned. We understand and respect that threads can get heated. Threads will occasionally be closed if the conversation gets very nasty. Repeatedly baiting other commenters or giving rude and attacking responses is not allowed. It's a shame we have to mention that because most of you are kind and respectful of other's opinions.
Comments occasionally become moderated due to spammer's keywords and abuse complaints against specific users, but are otherwise not moderated. We are not responsible for comments in any way and while we work hard to moderate hate words and clean them up we do not have the time or inclination to ensure that they're all acceptable to everyone. In other words - do not blame us for stupid or offensive comments. You will find them on almost every open comment site online. Use the "report spam or abuse" link to get us to delete something if it's offensive.
Get an icon next to your name by signing up for a free Gravatar
CC, I loved your post - I...
England has to deal with Naomie, Pete, Kate, Amy and Blake, so I guess they cannot be distracted by another person. To answer Jaybird, England is known to have let in islamic extremists, I guess that’s what they talk about.
Report this comment as spam or abuse