'Ridiculous' visa rulings set out

So they don't want tourists coming to "see the sights".

The findings here are just more ill-concieved bureaucratic nonsense in my opinion:

from News BBC.co.uk:
Linda Costelloe Baker's report said that despite such flaws there had been "significant improvement in quality."

But she said entry clearance officers could use "some ridiculous reasons when refusing visa for tourist visits".

She said a common reason for refusal was "you wish to go to the UK for a holiday. You have never previously undertaken any foreign travel before and I can see little reason for this trip".

In her report she says "this is a common reason for refusal but there was a first time for everyone who has gone abroad on a holiday and not having done it before is an acceptable reason for travel".

Another reason to reject a tourist visa was "you plan a holiday for no particular purpose other than sightseeing".

What a joke, are they serious?

An applicant in St Petersburg wrote: "I just want a holiday, my friends live near the seaside" to which the officer wrote "you have not named any places you will see".

Mrs Costelloe Baker said this was not the case - the applicant had named the "seaside".

I'm glad there are people trying to sort this out and bring some clarity to some very badly thought out regulations. It must be annoying to be told you can't visit because of some of these DAFT reasons!

They're giving Americans a hard time, its

plain to see.

Ooooopps....forgot the main article:

Full News BBC Article Here

Sorry about that folks! My bad.

They're giving Americans a hard time

I think tey're actually giving everybody a hard time.