I heard on the radio that she was denied a visa because of her felony conviction.

I thought that US citizens do not need a visa to enter the UK.

Haven't plenty of US felons been to the UK and vice versa?

Whats up with this? Please enlighten me.

If she was going to work in the UK, Tv appearences and the like, and I assume she was, then she would need a visa.

I read in the paper this morning that those who have been convicted of certain crimes do need a visa. She applied and was denied.

What crimes were not mentioned

Martha is a convicted felon as she served a prison sentence for some activities involving stocks, insider trading involvement and I also think lying about it.

No one better not start dissing Marta !

Please, others have done worse crimes and were admitted into the country. Martha had bad advisors.

Will American drug addict #1 Cindy McCain be denied a visa to visit the UK?

She is a drug addict thief prostitute.

Her mascara looks worse than Tammy Faye's.

Thingorjus

I am not dissing Martha just answering regulator's question.

I think an entry stamp is a Visa, just a free, simple one. I'm sure that some convicted felons have visited the UK or the US, but generally, if you are entering a country and admit to having had such a conviction, you can be turned back. Lots of customs/immigration forms ask that questions specifically, and in the case of the US, they even ask if you are a war criminal or were involved with the Nazis during WW2.
I don't recall filling out an immigration form prior to entering the UK, but I'd bet it asks a "conviction" question. In the case of Martha Stewart, her fame and the publicity around her time in jail might have been enough to alert a border guard.
Hetismij is also right to suggest that if she were there on a business trip, she'd endure more scrutiny.

I think the latter issue needs re emphasizing - I believe that the she was refused entry to the UK is that it was a work trip - she was appearing on, and making a television series.

As the convictions were directly related (or so I believe) to her career , the fact that she wishes to work in the UK would have a major impact. I suspect if the purpose of the trip were merely tourism, it would not be an issue.

I believe she was convicted of lying in relation to the case involving insider trading...but not for insider trading itself.

Martha Stewart was found guilty of:

"conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators"

As to whether the conviction was related to her career, I would answer with a qualified no. Her conviction related to her investment in the stock of imClone. She was tipped by the then-CEO about an upcoming negative ruling from the FDA on one of their drugs. This was just a personal investment, not related to her company.

Of course, she saved herself only something like $50k, so it was really a pretty foolish thing to trade on the insider information. And, since she was formerly a stockbroker, she should have known what she did was wrong.

And I suppose Roman Polanski should be forgiven too. I'm sure she was just "asking for it".

Hey if Amy Winehouse was denied permission to leave the UK to come to the USA (Grammy's), why should they allowed Martha in....?

It is just procedures, really.

So Martha's crime is comparable to that of Roman Polanski? I don't think so.

Martha is fabulous. She should be allowed to go anywhere she likes. She was even popular in jail, which isn't easy for a rich white woman.

>>"And, since she was formerly a stockbroker, she should have known what she did was wrong."<<

A stockbroker friend of mine said that was part of her problem. If she had come clean in the beginning she might have escaped prosecution. It's the age-old situation of the cover-up being a worse crime than the original one.