bangkockney

They're probably set to read only.

Right click the file --> properties.

If numerous files give you this error it might be worth checking user permissions, under Security for the drive in question.

I also worked at Haslar, John, as you know. In fact I was instrumental in setting it up as a Detention Centre. I make no judgment, but I do recall one detainee asking not to be removed from detention, back to her own country, on the grounds that she had not yet finished her English language course.

Interesting that you chose to recall this and nothing from the highly critical 2002 inspection.

Buy some books for children. The ones that let you trace the shapes of the letters.

Also get the children's books that have proverbs, nursery rhymes etc. I found them invaluable as a beginner.

If you need some title names let me know and I'll post when I'm back home.

@7by7

(I've retained the original ordering, it's not that I can't count!)

1) True, but I think a somewhat simplistic analysis. After all, mainland Europe knows that the illegal immigrants are headed for UK. It is therefore not in their interest to do anything about it. The political issues here are not insignificant.

3) In light of the unique circumstance I think yes.

4) One only needs to look at the relative growth of Schengen v UK visit visas to understand why the UK's position is harmful.

I doubt the other Schengen members would allow the UK to recognise Schengen visas without full membership. However I do not know the legal mechanics.

5) Exactly. They have no rights and their movement is easily stopped as they have no paperwork.

6) It's already a requirement when travelling by ferry to have passport and/or ID. Plenty of time spent in loading lanes for ID checks. Or even when tickets are purchased.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons for checks on freight that would continue to unearth illegals.

@theoldgit

@Eff1n2ret

@VisasPlus

Let me first say I'm not criticising those who work in the IDC system. My critique is not at the personal level. Like everywhere there are good and bad people. It is however the system itself that deserves debate. Indeed, the views of those working in IDCs are both positive and negative, an important point. 

However, despite the best efforts of those working in detention, detainees of all types report a number of significant concerns and they deserve to be addressed. 

There is a national immigration detention system. Yet, there is no single national service provider. Rather, the institutions are divided between a series of private security companies and HM Prison Service. 

Yet among these various groups there is little shared corporate culture and no cohesive statement of values or approach. The contractors are competitors with one another.

There is considerable variation among the removal centres in terms of their physical environment and how they are managed. 

Further, many centre managers are former prison governors, from both the public and private sectors, as are a number of the civil servants within UKBA. A number of facilities, particularly those run by HM Prison Service are former or parts of current penal institutions. It is not surprising then, that detainees often experience their detention as a form of punishment, claiming that they feel as though they are in prison. 

Also, key policies in the detention centres are based on those from prison. 

In principle detention is permitted only where there is a reasonable prospect of actual removal from the country. In practice, however, matters of deportability are often contested.

However long they are held, detainees rarely know the term of their confinement. That nobody can be sure how long anyone will be detained is a unique characteristic of immigration detention and one of its key policy challenges. The uncertainty is difficult for detainees, who find it hard to bear not knowing what will happen in their case. 

It is also demanding for those working in detention. Without a sense of the duration of their population’s stay, centre managers are unable to develop much of a regime. 

Such difficulties are compounded by the limited nature of the official justification of detention as purely a means to an end: deportation. 

But not everyone who leaves is deported. Each year, according to a recent meeting of the centre managers, around one third of those in detention are released into the UK on bail or temporary admission. A handful of people obtain the right to remain. 

It is difficult to judge the efficacy of immigration detention since beyond the removal of those without the right to remain, its aims are not clear. If we consider only its impact on the exclusion of those it houses, detention is broadly successful since in most cases, detainees are either removed/deported. Yet, not only do rates of removal and deportation vary across the institutions, but other outcomes do as well. 

In Brook House, for instance, 3500 men who passed through the centre, from April 2009 – March 2010, 57% left the country, 21% were released, and 16% were transferred to other IRCs. The remaining 6% were sent to prison or taken into police custody. 

At Campsfield House, the IMB records its statistics slightly differently. According to them, 2827 men left the institution and there were 2822 new arrivals. Less than half (42.7%) were given Removal Directions (though rather confusingly, the same report later states that 18% of removal directions failed, so it is a little unclear how many actually left). Over a third of the population (35.7%) was transferred to other establishments and one in five (21.2%) were granted temporary admission or bail.

In any case, it is not clear that it would be sufficient to judge immigration detention purely as a means to an end. For those running removal centres and designing policy, as well as for those whom they confine, the day-to-day experience of detention must also be taken into account. 

Reports from the voluntary sector, from the IMB and HM Inspector of Prisons raise a common litany of concerns, and first hand accounts are also highly critical. Such sources paint high levels of anxiety and frustration within the detained population, suggesting that more needs to be done.

For many years the prison has provided an important model for immigration removal centres. Before there were enough IRCs to hold them, asylum seekers were detained in prison. Many senior staff of the private contractors and UKBA formerly worked in prisons; the Immigration Centre Rules are based on the Prison Rules; and a number of important daily strategies and practices are also deployed in penal institutions.

The ongoing reliance on the language and policies of the criminal justice system needs to be debated, however, since immigration removal centres are not, after all, prisons. They neither claim nor aspire to rehabilitate, nor, for those already in prison, can they act as much of a deterrent. At most, then, detention centres incapacitate, a goal that the prison service and criminal courts have rejected as sufficient on its own, other than for those deemed particularly dangerous for the public good. It is highly questionable that foreigners in detention are dangerous in this way.

It is important to think about options beyond the prison. There may be more scope for non-secure housing in the community. Families, in particular, can benefit from this arrangement. 

What I hope is obvious is that we need more information about what life in immigration removal is actually like as well as more principled discussions about what these centres are meant to achieve and how effective current practices are.

After all, the costs to the tax payer are huge. 

Search for free wireless access point software paying careful attention to the brand and model of your wifi card and your OS.

Go check your forums jsat plenty of posts from Admin about Vinsat....And indeed your wider site!

In fact, there are 3,280 pages on your site that reference Vinsat.

And more to the point you have satellite lists 2 that refs "Home of our Vietanese [sic] package".

I think your criticism of the guy who called you out on this is a bit much.

Yes you can thank me later for doing your job for you.

They have some interesting properties. The audio versions seem to work phonetically. By merging right answers, some words that grade as pass don't even have to have vowels!

There were 3 guys from the US who broke reCaptcha with 99% accuracy. Google it, well worth watching their presentation.

Google has patched now but the fight goes on.

Accessible for me OP. TOT Bangkok.

"DON'T" click on the link, they want to sell you something.plus they how have your ip address,spam on the way

LOL, tin-foil hat treating you well?

The school's admin team should be able I produce the letter. Why is her teacher not being there important?

Explain this and your time frame to the school.

Good luck OP. Props for making what must have been a difficult decision.

I also feel for you re the advice given to get your family over to the UK to join you: from 9th July you'll need an annual income of £22,400 net to settle your wife and one child in the UK.

Can we just correct that to ........... and one non-British child in the UK.

I would have thought it obvious that a British citizen doesn't need a visa, does not therefore need to be sponsored and doesn't increase the maintenace requirement.

My post is directed at the OP who has a stepdaughter and therefore in the context of this thread my post is pretty clear.

working in thailand is defined as:

work means exerting energy regardless you receive a financial of it or not.

so you are here , you breathe.......... the rest is up to the discretion of law enforcement .

So for someone lifting weights in a gym would technically need a work permit?

If the Thai offical concerned decides you are working by lifting weights in a gym.....then yes...

Not really, it would still have to go before a Judge and for the most part, the Thai judiciary is sensible.

So in this hypothetical situation, it doesn't matter if a labour official / police officer tries to shake you down: the automatic response is, put me in front of a judge then. Watch how they quickly shrink away.

Why not just get unlimited data bundled? It's cheap as chips. That way it's the best of both worlds.

And most of the big bill horror stories involve roaming. Thai providers disable this by default.

Worth noting that if the UK were to join the Schengen area, as wished for by some in a recent topic, there would be no border control between France and the UK and so even more illegals would be able to get across the channel. They wouldn't even need to hide, all they'd need is the ferry fare!

Expected a bit better from you 7by7. This is just untrue.

1. Free movement applies to European Citizens

2. Members are allowed to have border checks in place where circumstances require it. Clearly the clandestine camps around Calais would qualify and this could be negotiated should the UK join.

3. You've already cited the UKBA's presence in Calais - would they suddenly go blind and not notice people leaving the camps for port?

4. The UK has already negotiated the right to pick and choose which parts of the Acquis it wishes to implement. Recognising a Schengen visa could be a good place to start.

5. There is already protection for Members in EU law against another Member state issuing huge numbers of residence permits to migrants (e.g the Italy / Tunisia issue) - borders and checks can be tightened under these circumstances.

5. Most importantly: The Agreement does not stop carriers from carrying out ID checks. If a flight has originated outside the Area but contains an in-Area leg, all passengers will be ID checked, regardless of their nationality. Just as the US places it's own requirements on airlines wishing to land on US soil, the UK could do the same for land-based carriers.

With the UKBA currently checking a minimum of 60% of people it can't stop from entering the UK, couldn't the money be used for better enforcement and removal operations? Or indeed just elsewhere.

This is what caused the major rift between Mrs May and the UKBA you might remember.

The best bit:

"...found Robert Dominique Bernard working at an electronics parts factory in Lamphun province..."

At least people have liked my posts on this topic.

The UKBA needs to have more authority and be able to kick those out who do not have the right visas and do it immediately, and comments about kids being in detention centres is such a pity, if their parents had the correct paperwork they would not be there, so blame the parents not the people who stick them there.

If a British citizen under the age of 10 commits murder in England or Wales they escape being found guilty of a criminal offence and won't be detained.

If a foreign national child who through no fault of their own is in the UK without status, you want them detained.

Shame on you.

With regards to your boast of people liking your comment:

1. The blind leading the blind.

2. Good for you: you seek validation from pseudo-anonymous identities to feel good about yourself.

White after a heavy weekend might not be a good choice?

Cider drinkers will no doubt know what I mean...

Not unique to Thailand unfortunately. There are scum everywhere.

Reminds of the happy slap phase the UK experienced.

Thanks for this theoldgit.

Indeed, we could both refer to the pitfalls of generalising, but that would be circular and pointless. I tend to just assume it as given.

I don't doubt that you've seen some positive experiences. But there has been an impact. The fact that there has only been one study to date tells us much. It's simply been an ignored issue. Detained children have been awarded compensation for damage caused and unlawful detention.

I don't accept that Yarl's Wood would be conducive to the experiences you described. Criticism has come from several places and the Home Secretary now (finally!) has a duty of care over detained children.

Also, families are those with the least risk of absconding and therefore what is the argument for their detention as a family unit? There is also no legal limit of the time a child can be detained, something which I think is incorrect.

A developed, rich country is judged on how it treats the most vulnerable and needy. In this regard the UK falls short.

They probably still pick up the cheque from the Social as well.

Get a grip, you're boring.

Can't be boring if you commented, and read it.

How drole and predictable. That's all you have to say?

You should have used the time to learn something rather than continue in ignorance.

It is very difficult to remove people from the UK as there are so many people interfering with the process, and pulling the rug from under the Immigration Officers who are doing a difficult and thankless task whilst being the subject of a pay freeze, an assault on their pensions and the prospect of job cuts.

It's already been pointed out the difficulties that Enforcement Officers face, many of them now have to pick off the easy targets to meet their increasingly unrealistic targets, whilst having their hours and shifts cut so, quite often they can only work during the core day.

The police often arrest suspected Immigration Offenders, but more often than not they are simply bailed because there are no Immigration Officers available to deal with them, these people disappear into the woodwork.

There are a number of Immigration Removal Centres spread throughout England and Scotland, and you don't want to know how much they cost the taxpayer annually. David Blunkett actually changed the name from Detention Centres to give a clear message that people detained are actually going to be removed, unfortunately this message hasn't sunk in.

Immigration Officers put a lot of work into arranging for an offender to be removed only to have their efforts scuppered at the last minute by the Judiciary, MP's, lawyers with their own agenda and misguided NGO's, to name but a few.

I agree with most of this but feel it is far too general and doesn't scrutinise the work of the UKBA / enforcement teams enough.

There are people dying during forced removals, people being removed who shouldn't be under law, and children being kept in detention centres indefinitely and without assesment, again in breach of law.

The work of NGOs is vital in this respect.

Transam, I find your attitude incomprehensible.

On the one hand you criticise the UKBA and government for doing nothing about illegal workers; yet on the other you say you know where it is going on and, despite being told where to anonymously report it, say you wont do anything!

If you know of a crime and fail to report it, then you are part of the problem!

And don't come back and say that you fear the consequences to yourself; as said, you can report it anonymously.

Drug crime is a different matter, and far bigger problem, than illegal working. The rewards are far greater than those for employing illegal workers and it is usually only those at the bottom of the pile that take the risk and get caught. But even so, if you have information which will help the fight against this vile trade then you are, in my opinion, duty bound to pass that information on.

You can do this anonymously, too.

You can think what you like but l am not a grass.

There is a reducing number of immigration staff to save cash yet the UK is sending more cash out the country and keeping non natives, as well as finding cash to fight other peoples wars.

Today l read in yahoo news that 60,000 migrant uni students are bogus, and are likely working illegally doing natives out of work. WHO IS LETTING THEM IN ?

So you want us ''all'' to put on our Sherlock Holmes gear and weed them out eh.

What you should do is read the Migration Watch report, note all the inconsistencies, errors of fact and use of language, and seperate the wheat from the chaff.

MW is so right-wing and IMO dangerous. They're perfectly good at destroying their own credibility yet they have a strong lobbying voice. It's mind boggling.

If you are a big spender in Thailand, you can get significantly more than what you would get for the same amount of money in farangland.

Thus, if you're living on a passive income from property income etc, and thus don't need to be in your home country in order to earn.

Then you can either:

a/ Maintain your lifestyle, while increasing your level of monthly savings.

b/ Increase your lifestyle, while maintaining the same level of monthly savings.

c/ Increase your lifestyle substantially, while decreasing your savings.

So maybe the big spenders, are quite well off people, who want to live a little better (, or maybe they are normal people, who want to live the dream soto speak (. In Thailand, people have the choice on what they want to do, compared to farangland, where their cost of living is soo much higher.

Also of course, if people are working in farangland, and working here, then it balances out, since their salary is relative to their cost of living. Although a lot of expats working for foreign companies in Thailand, do keep a western wage, which would allow them to substantially increase their lifestyle, while also increasing their savings. Which would be the other reason for a lot of high spenders.

Although, I think that the reason the real highso people send their children to other countries, and indeed want to live in other countries themselves. Is because regardless of how much money you have, you can't buy low crime, low corruption and freedom of exp<b></b>ression. When you are really rich, money isn't a problem. You don't need to really worry about the cost of things, because you have enough money for them, and more. Instead you want those things which money can't buy.

I couldn't have said it better myself - as someone who is planning to sell up and make the move to Thailand, the reason for my move is to have the things that money can't buy, which are;

1. Less stress

2. Time with my young family

Being in business, no matter how much you delegate to your management staff, is still time absorbing, extremely stressful, and unhealthy.

And once you have made enough money to live comfortably without the need to work, it's only selfishness (in my opinion), which keeps you involved in business. You are literally just amassing more coins in your bank account to count, or spend on non fulfilling things.

I've got nearly every possession I thought I'd ever want - and at the start, I thought these possessions, status and respect in the business community would count for something ... it doesn't. It fades away, and it doesn't change the way that life revolves around you; the only thing it changes, for me, is by absorbing time I'd rather spend with those I love.

To push the cliche button - money doesn't buy you happiness.

This is why people with high net wealth sell up and retire early.

Whilst I respect your opinion I think you're wrong in the majority of cases, especially the last sentence.

The serious heavyweights in business are old and experienced and filthy rich. They're still in the game for the thrill of the chase.

I believe that if the OP had some insight, he would discover that there are many, many farang in Thailand that have net income much higher than 200K baht per month. Case in point, Marc Faber, who is a Swiss investor, author and a regular contributor to many international financial TV shows and also has a net worth of over $100,000,000 usd, lives in Chiang Mai.

At no point in my op was I berating anyone for living here, I was just asking why live here with a large income. The Internet forum is used for sharing views and I am asking for alternative viewpoints. If YOU had some insight you would see that these boards have many topics pointing out Thailands flaws, therefore if someone can live in a country with less flaws, why don't they. All innocent, but if you wish to add your twist to my op to put me down in some way, carry on, it has more of a reflection on you than it does me.

Flaws of the UK are worse than Thailand IMO.

America has never floated my boat. Nice to visit couldn't see myself living there.

Europe? Nope.

Does your OP mean that you are too poor to live in the West? That's why you are here, because unlike those "big spenders" you don't have the choice? That's what your post implies.

I read the story, the 275000 are migrants, not immigrants that have been told to leave cos their job or studies are completed but seems they don't want to leave and the UK hasn't the man power to find them and help them on their way. They don't get charged the 500 bht a day so why go.

Hardly a working deterrent in Thailand now is it?