Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 07:35:52 on Sat, 24
May 2008, Martin Edwards 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.

Tourist. Thanks, that's answered it.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

Goalie of the Century wrote:
In message , Roland Perry
writes
In message , at 07:35:52 on Sat, 24
May 2008, Martin Edwards 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 being a citizen of one of

Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium Brunei, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg,
Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino,
Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom

BUT not

holding a passport indicating that the bearer is a British Subject,
British Dependent Territories Citizen, British Overseas Citizen, British
National (Overseas) Citizen, or British Protected Person

AND

travelling on a valid, machine readable or e-passport with an electronic
chip

PLUS

if entering the United States by air or sea, holding a return or onward
ticket and entering the United States aboard an air or sea carrier that
has agreed to participate in the visa waiver program

OR

if entering the United States by land from Canada or Mexico, in
possession of a completed form I-94W, issued by the immigration
authorities at the port of entry, and a $6.00 fee, payable only in U.S.
dollars

AND NOT

being a person who has been arrested, even if the arrest did not result
in a criminal conviction, with criminal records, (the Rehabilitation of
Offenders Act does not apply to U.S. visa law), has certain serious
communicable illnesses, who has been refused admission into, or has been
deported from the United States, or has previously overstayed on the
visa waiver programme

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

Civis Britannicus sum. Thanks.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

Recliner wrote:
"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.


I had to get one back in 1977, but it was unlimited. I actually went
across the border at Laredo and back again.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

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.

Neil

I imagine you have to be of high net worth to use City Airport. Also it
is debatable whether Luton or Stanstead are actually in the London area.
The names are a product of London's self-obsession and the
international obsession with it.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

In message , at 07:46:19 on Sun, 25
May 2008, Martin Edwards remarked:
Also it is debatable whether Luton or Stanstead are actually in the
London area. The names are a product of London's self-obsession and
the international obsession with it.

Luton qualifies under your description (even though it's as well
connected to London as Gatwick and arguably better than Stansted) but
Stansted is the official "third London Airport".
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 25 May 2008 07:46:19 +0100, Martin Edwards
wrote:

I imagine you have to be of high net worth to use City Airport.

You'd be surprised. Both European fares and those via AMS to wider
destinations, while not comparable with low-costs, are often similar
to or even lower than those from LHR direct.

Also it
is debatable whether Luton or Stanstead are actually in the London area.
The names are a product of London's self-obsession and the
international obsession with it.

This is true, though both are accessible to London and the lack of
hassle compared with using LHR make it worth going to them.

Neil

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

On May 25, 7:53*am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 07:46:19 on Sun, 25
May 2008, Martin Edwards remarked:

Also it is debatable whether Luton or Stanstead are actually in the
London area. *The names are a product of London's self-obsession and
the international obsession with it.

Luton qualifies under your description (even though it's as well
connected to London as Gatwick and arguably better than Stansted) but
Stansted is the official "third London Airport".

Which is the second?

There I was thinking it was Biggin Hill. At least that's in
London ...

I am sure I remember a colleague having to fly from there at some
point. I think it's mainly corporate, chartered, air-taxi and other
one-off things.

On Sun, 25 May 2008 03:19:14 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

Which is the second?

Airwick Gatport, one would presume. (There is LCY, but while it is
*the* civilised way to fly from London, and not all that expensive
either, it doesn't carry high volumes of passengers, nor would it be
any good if it did).

There I was thinking it was Biggin Hill. At least that's in
London ...



Neil

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

"Martin Edwards" wrote in message

Recliner wrote:

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.


I had to get one back in 1977, but it was unlimited. I actually went
across the border at Laredo and back again.

I also had 'unlimited' visas in the old days, but it turns out they
weren't. My 10-year UK passport was extended (because of a strike in
the UK passport office), but when I next went to the US, the immigration
officer cancelled my visa as it was over ten years old. Apparently
'unlimited' visas actually lasted ten years. I don't know if they still
do that.

On May 25, 11:49 am, "Recliner" wrote:
"Martin Edwards" wrote in message



Recliner wrote:
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.

I had to get one back in 1977, but it was unlimited. I actually went
across the border at Laredo and back again.

I also had 'unlimited' visas in the old days, but it turns out they
weren't. My 10-year UK passport was extended (because of a strike in
the UK passport office), but when I next went to the US, the immigration
officer cancelled my visa as it was over ten years old. Apparently
'unlimited' visas actually lasted ten years. I don't know if they still
do that.

That's interesting - I thought the deal used to be that if you had a
new passport you could also bring the old one with the unlimited visa
and it'd be accepted.
Tim