I have now had a reply, forwarded by my MP from Jonathan Sedgwick, Deputy Chief Executive of the UK Border Agency. I extract the pertinent section on which the whole flimsy case for exclusion appears to rely:-
" . . The Home Secretary needs to form a view of the evidence relating to that individual, so as to act consistently, proportionately and reasonably in applying the appropriate powers. In her consideration of Mr Wilders' case, the Home Secretary took particular note of the decision of the Amsterdam Appeals Court that Mr Wilders should face trial for incitement to hatred and discrimination, charges that are similar to inciting racial and religious hatred under English law."
It goes on to say that the Home Sec. also has "regard to any representations made by groups and individuals" (that will include Lord Ahmed presumably), and that the principle of free movement for EEA citizens should not apply to "criminals or for extremists intent on inciting hatred or discrimination, regardless of their religion or background".
So the Home Secretary acted as judge and jury before Mr Wilders' case had even been heard and, partly relying on the representations of Lord Ahmed, came to the verdict that Mr Wilders was intent on inciting hatred and discrimination. Whereas, as those of us who have seen his film 'Fitna" will know, he was, in fact, intent on highlighting the passages of hatred & discrimination contained in the Koran.
A nice footnote to this is that the Dutch High Court has recently cleared a Dutchman facing very similar charges to GW and Lord Ahmed is currently in jail for dangerous driving.