In message , at 09:26:06 on Sat, 24 May
2008, Goalie of the Century remarked:

Funnily enough, a chap I know went to Boston a couple of months ago,
for a six-month fellowship at Harvard. Couldn't get a visa appointment
in London within any reasonable time-scale so had to fly to Belfast
and stay overnight.

The last time I went to the States, only about a year and a half ago,
you didn't need a visa. Has this changed?

Were you going as a tourist or to a business meeting, and for no more
than three months?

Those are the usual qualifications for not needing a Visa.

AND

[snip lots of unusual things for someone living in UK]

So there are many reasons why someone might need a visa.

The most usual being that they want to study, to work, or to live there.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 09:13:26 on Sat,
24 May 2008, Neil Williams remarked:
Flying into London is, by any reasonable definition, hell.

No. Flying into *Heathrow* is, by any reasonable definition, hell.
There are, however, many other airports in the London area, and all of
them are orders of magnitude better.

I'm not sure Gatwick's much better, especially if your flight is using
the "joke" north terminal extension (which they seem to be so ashamed of
I have tried half a dozen sites and none of them even show it) or you
are going through the South terminal security.

--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 09:26:06 on Sat, 24 May
2008, Goalie of the Century remarked:

Funnily enough, a chap I know went to Boston a couple of months
ago, for a six-month fellowship at Harvard. Couldn't get a visa
appointment in London within any reasonable time-scale so had to
fly to Belfast and stay overnight.

The last time I went to the States, only about a year and a half
ago, you didn't need a visa. Has this changed?

Were you going as a tourist or to a business meeting, and for no
more than three months?

Those are the usual qualifications for not needing a Visa.

AND

[snip lots of unusual things for someone living in UK]

So there are many reasons why someone might need a visa.

The most usual being that they want to study, to work, or to live
there.

I think journos need visas, unlike most other people going to the US on
business.

In message , at 11:20:22 on
Sat, 24 May 2008, Recliner remarked:
The most usual being that they want to study, to work, or to live
there.

I think journos need visas, unlike most other people going to the US on
business.

One reason for that is journalists are *working* when they are in the
USA. That's why I was quite precise when I talked about "business
meetings" (also "attending Conferences" is OK). I've seen reports of
people being prevented from entering the USA to give a training course,
for example, which is also too close to "working".
--
Roland Perry

In message
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2008 02:25:49 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Flying into London is, by any reasonable definition, hell.

No. Flying into *Heathrow* is, by any reasonable definition, hell.
There are, however, many other airports in the London area, and all of
them are orders of magnitude better.


No they're not, Gatwick is about as bad as Heathrow for a start.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

On Sat, 24 May 2008 13:00:07 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

No they're not, Gatwick is about as bad as Heathrow for a start.

Fair point. City (best), Luton and Stansted (despite being a BAA
airport) are rather good, though, in comparison. There's a serious
case to be made if KLM or NWA serve your long-haul destination from
AMS for flying KLM Cityhopper from LCY to AMS and connecting instead
of flying direct from LHR.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 11:20:22 on
Sat, 24 May 2008, Recliner remarked:
The most usual being that they want to study, to work, or to live
there.

I think journos need visas, unlike most other people going to the US
on business.

One reason for that is journalists are *working* when they are in the
USA. That's why I was quite precise when I talked about "business
meetings" (also "attending Conferences" is OK). I've seen reports of
people being prevented from entering the USA to give a training
course, for example, which is also too close to "working".

It's a bit ambiguous, isn't it? Is attending a conference or business
meeting not "working"? How about attending a conference where you may
also be speaking?

Also, in the olden days (when I first visited the US, back in the
1970s), getting a US visa was fairly painless (and mandatory). Now it's
optional (unless you're 'working,' whatever that might mean), but very
tedious to obtain. The odd thing is that, in my 30 years of visiting
the US (between once and seven times a year, always on business), the
immigration staff actually got friendlier after the introduction of
fingerprints and photos. These days, I actually spend less time with the
US immigration officer than 15-20 years ago.

In message , at 20:13:51 on
Sat, 24 May 2008, Recliner remarked:
The most usual being that they want to study, to work, or to live
there.

I think journos need visas, unlike most other people going to the US
on business.

One reason for that is journalists are *working* when they are in the
USA. That's why I was quite precise when I talked about "business
meetings" (also "attending Conferences" is OK). I've seen reports of
people being prevented from entering the USA to give a training
course, for example, which is also too close to "working".

It's a bit ambiguous, isn't it? Is attending a conference or business
meeting not "working"? How about attending a conference where you may
also be speaking?

Immigration rules are a bit like that. Underlying them is the concept of
protecting jobs, so a sales presentation for a foreign company is more
likely to be acceptable than going over to give a sales presentation for
a local company.

Also, in the olden days (when I first visited the US, back in the
1970s), getting a US visa was fairly painless (and mandatory).

Yes I have (had) one of those.

Now it's
optional (unless you're 'working,' whatever that might mean), but very
tedious to obtain. The odd thing is that, in my 30 years of visiting
the US (between once and seven times a year, always on business), the
immigration staff actually got friendlier after the introduction of
fingerprints and photos. These days, I actually spend less time with the
US immigration officer than 15-20 years ago.

Maybe that's because they believe they already have enough information
about you, whereas previously people arriving were virtually a clean
slate.
--
Roland Perry

Recliner wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 11:20:22 on
Sat, 24 May 2008, Recliner remarked:

I think journos need visas, unlike most other people going to the US
on business.
One reason for that is journalists are *working* when they are in the
USA. That's why I was quite precise when I talked about "business
meetings" (also "attending Conferences" is OK). I've seen reports of
people being prevented from entering the USA to give a training
course, for example, which is also too close to "working".

It's a bit ambiguous, isn't it? Is attending a conference or business
meeting not "working"? How about attending a conference where you may
also be speaking?

As long as you are not getting paid specifically in the US for attending
the conference or delivering said speech, I believe you do not need a
visa. Those are pretty much reciprocal arrangements between US and the
Visa Waiver countries, and the same rules apply in the reverse
direction, except oddly for going to Belgium, where technically if a US
citizen goes for a business meeting and stays more that 7 days they are
supposed to get a visa. But AFAIK that rule is mostly ignored. and has
probably been rescinded by Belgium since when I became aware of it a
year or two ago.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 20:13:51 on


Now it's
optional (unless you're 'working,' whatever that might mean), but
very tedious to obtain. The odd thing is that, in my 30 years of
visiting the US (between once and seven times a year, always on
business), the immigration staff actually got friendlier after the
introduction of fingerprints and photos. These days, I actually
spend less time with the US immigration officer than 15-20 years ago.

Maybe that's because they believe they already have enough information
about you, whereas previously people arriving were virtually a clean
slate.

Yes, I'm sure that must be the explanation. Once the real-time finger
print scan has cleared, they stop bothering to ask me any more
questions. Presumably the computer tells them that I'm a fairly regular
(but not too frequent) visitor who doesn't overstay or commit any
crimes, so they just smile and welcome me. Before finger print system, I
had to answer at least a couple of questions.

Of course, South Africa is now even more relaxed -- no visa required, no
forms to fill in, no questions asked, no finger prints or pics. As a
British citizen, it's now quicker to clear arrivals in Jo'burg than in
London.