bangkockney

I would suggest you do the opposite.

Pay for design and take care of the domain reg etc yourself.

Paying someone to form fill or perform simple upload tasks is a waste of money IMO.

British coroner.................Is this another typical never mind --note that- it should satisfy, these people should be qualified to conclude -a behond doubt verdict, are Thai police in general qualified enough to get a said report done honestly. It will be interesting to know the followup by the F.C.O. and it's report.

Widespread lawlessness in Thailand!

It's not Somalia you know?

Let's hope they can get the permenant 1/2 caps right this time. They cocked up the interim cap massively.

Permanent 1/2 caps? What are those? Are we referecing settlement visas which most of this forum applies for or the Tier visas?

It's a reply to your comment making reference to Tier 1 and 2 caps!

They were suspended for trademark issues if anyone is interested. Twitter objected to "twitter" appearing in the names of the applications.

Some are back today. UberTwitter is back, re-named UberSocial.

Don't you have any concern about having your child read material off a computer screen continually?

Computers are great tools but should never replace books imo.

You can get a visa on arrival at the airport, and at most land crossings. An on-arrival business visa costs $25 for one month, and can be extended indefinitely (a 3 month extension costs approximately $80).

You need:

1. Passport with at least one page empty for the visa, and 6 months validity
2. Application form, provided at the airport / border
3. $25 application fee
4. One (1) passport sized photo

The process for obtaining an on-arrival visa is simple enough. In fact, it is exactly the same as applying for an on-arrival tourist visa. But this time you check the business visa box on the the application form and indicate that you're planning to stay for more than 30 days.

Have your in-country support team help you with your extension after you've arrived. Good idea to speak with STA's pre-departure help desk to make sure they can help. If not, there are plenty of visa agents who can take care of it for you.

Easy.

Don't worry about no British Embassy: routine matters are dealt with by the Australian Embassy. The Australian Embassy in Vientiane can be contacted at: KM4, Thadeua Road, Watnak Village, Sisattanak District, Vientiane; (Tel: + 856 21 353 800; Fax: 856-21 353-801). Email: [email protected].

EDIT: Just seen you are only going for a month so no need to worry about an extension at all.

Am I missing something?

Since when did the UK become uncivilised?

Good luck with what exactly and with what am I wasting ny time?

Let's hope they can get the permenant 1/2 caps right this time. They cocked up the interim cap massively.

There was a consultation on charging for tribunals, by the way no refund if the appelent wins or UKBA withdraw, which has raised eyebrows.

Kind of fits in with the recent report on the UKBA which found they are more focused on revenue generation than correct decision making.

There's even doubt on whether charging for access to the tribunal system is even legal. E.g

- breaches Articles 16 and 29 of the Refugee Convention

- will not means test everyone, breaching common law rights and ECHR rights

- case law has already questioned fixed fees. See Baiai

- inconsistent with statutory equality obligations

- breaches Articles 47, 20 and 18 of EC law (essentially the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal

- potentially breaches the Convention on the Rights of the Child

Set against the massive reduction in availability of legal aid planned it is worrying indeed.

The measures appear ideologically driven IMO.

Can't book a plane ticket without a passport so best start there.

Good to hear personchester but my wife has had an application returned because of applying at the wrong embassy from within the UK Not a problem but she was annoyed with the stamp in her passport saying application made but no visa issued. And the inconvenienc of applying again.

Better to follow the letter of the law to avoid inconvenience.

Apply at embassy of main destination if applicable else of first entry.

I feel so sorry for those teachers , once again those bus drivers really need to receive proper training for road safety and how to use a bus. You cannot wake up in the morning and pretend to be a bus driver like this .

RIP for those who died .

[snip]... Ending with some pleasant news,if you like a good laugh,go to the driverlicence centrum

near Regent School,Whatch them do practicle exam ! Some of them never saw a car in their life

and try to do the exam.....and they pass !! lol

Thai wife, a degreed professional, states that Thais often don't take any exam at all to receive a drivers license - just pay some tea money to skip the inconvenience. Same for the minibus or even private tour bus drivers! NO FORMAL TRAINING OR TESTING IS REQUIRED. Corruption costs lives, and is no joking matter.

For anyone making excuses for the driver in a single vehicle accident, there IS no excuse - unless he's been hit by a meteor, its his JOB to scan for, analyze & always have an out for any & all road risks including road conditions & others' stupid behavior. BTW, for motorcyclists, this is mandatory for one's longevity.

There really is no difference between the two. The driving "test" is a few exercises in a car park. Obtaining a licence legitimately does not mean you will be a better driver because of it!

This is what you get when a country's bus drivers come from the most reckless segment of drivers, unlike in developed countries where they usually come from the most careful segment of drivers, and are carefully chosen for the job by their employers.

Clearly you haven't been on a bus in a Western country for some time! London's bendy buses have killed numerous people.

The difference is proper training, nothing to do with what segment of society potential drivers come from.

the number of tourists has increased by 3% in the first quarter of this year (October- December 2010)

Come again?

They won't get away with a direct cap on the family route but could well raise the bar.

Do you have any further detail on charging for appeals? Does this include Administrative Reviews? Where did you get this information?

I wouldn't be surprised to see the UK Coalition push as close to a cap as possible; successive UK governments have a history of testing the breaking point of HR legislation.

Yes, but in addition:

If you intend to visit several countries but do not have a main destination, you should apply for a visa at the Embassy or Consulate of the country of your first point of entry.

You must get the Schengen visa from the Embassy of the first country you will enter in the Schengen area. You are then free to travel around the Schengen area for the duration of the visa.

Don't forget you will need a separate visa for the UK.

Best of luck.

EEA family permit based on marriage is probably the most cost-effective way for you to proceed, though not the only option available to you.

There is another option, which I forgot.

You could enrol your 5 year old in an independent school and have your wife apply for a visit visa as the parent of a child in school. She would get the 12 months you need.

Clearly dependant on what access to finance you have and assuming your wife is the mother of the child. Wasn't sure from your post. How old is the other child?

As I see it, your wife has 4 options.

2) Find a suitable course and apply for a Tier 4 student visa.

She would need to find an approved educational establishment to sponsor her and show that she has the money up front to pay the course fees and support herself while in the UK.

She would be able to work a maximum of 20 hours per week during term time, more in the holidays; but she could not use any potential income from working to satisfy the financial requirements of the visa.

See Tier 4 of the Points Based System – Policy Guidance.

If she were to study a course of length longer than 1 year, she would only be required to demonstrate available funds for tuition and maintenance for the first year only.

If she was studying a course at degree-level or above, including foundation degrees, then she would be able to work the full 20 hours. Anything below, including English language courses, and work is limited to 10 hours per week term time, unless a WorkSkills course, which is essentially 6 months study and 6 months paid, full time work.

She would also have to demonstrate English at CEFR B1 minimum, either through a Secure English Language Test or placement test and Skype interview with her sponsor. The English language requirement would be waived if she came as a student visitor, and with the new extended student visitor category could come to the UK for 11 months.

A letter from a regulated financial institution confirming the approval and arrangement of a loan would be sufficient for the maintenance requirement if the required cash was not held.

I would add to your 4 options a fifth, in that she could apply under Tier 1 (General), with no need for an employer sponsor. The criteria are however tough, based on English proficiency, age, qualifications, earnings and previous UK based study. Minimum £2,800 cash to meet the maintenance requirement.

If your wife doesn't need the money from work, she could do voluntary work in the UK. She would need to be sponsored by a charity but could come for 12 months. An unusual scenario, but may be of interest none the less.

I'd also point out that you may be asked by an ECO about your 5 year old and your plans for their schooling if applying for visitor visas.

Very interesting to see if any can make a successful appeal on race discrimination grounds.

As long as the end decision is made in accordance with the immigration rules, and an applicant is never refused because of their nationality alone, then I doubt such a challenge would be successful.

Risk profiling in this way is already done in a limited way by Australia. It is also a known fact that applications from the Sub-Continent suffer from higher than average levels of fraud. A approach like this therefore seems logical. Being legal however is something different entirely.

The British Nationality Act 1981 was an Act of Parliament passed by the British Parliament concerning British nationality. It has been the basis of British nationality law since 1 January 1983.

The Act also modified the application of Jus soli in British nationality. Prior to the Act coming into force, any person born in Britain (with limited exceptions such as children of diplomats and enemy aliens) was entitled to British Citizenship. After the Act came into force, it was necessary for at least one parent of a United Kingdom-born child to be a British citizen or "settled" in the United Kingdom (a permanent resident).

So in simple language, if Abhisit was born before 1981 he is entitled to British citizenship, born after that and he is not.. But note the word "entitled", an entitlement is something one normally requests. I would suggest he did not exercise this right otherwise he would not have paid the International fees at university.

So it depends on whether he is "entitled" to British citizenship, and therefore has to take it up (which I assume he didn't), or he automatically gets British citizenship and therefore needs to renounce it (which is claimed that he did - or at least didn't need to based on the first point).

Wrong.

If you were born in the United Kingdom before 1 January 1983, you are almost certainly a British citizen. Abhisit was born 1964, Newcastle, UK.

There is no need to apply for British citizenship by birth, it is automatic. There is no registration, you are simply a citizen. Yes, he needs a birth certificate to prove he is a citizen, but that is just to prove his status.

Bangkok Pundit did a piece on this a week ago. As Abhisit was born in the UK and his parents werent diplomats then he is a British citizen, whether he likes it or not. No proof anywhere that he has ever revoked his citizenship. He has never denied it

Does Bangkok Pundit have access to Google?

Abhisit denied this later, saying he was not a UK citizen.

http://www.nationmul...s-30147636.html

If Abhisit is British, a claim he denies, attorneys hired by his wealthiest political opponent claim he can be tried for “crimes against humanity” in International Criminal Courts.

http://www.globalpos...ish-citizenship

He has never come out and flat denied being a British citizen. The 2 articles you link to have no direct quotes in Thai from Abhisit.

He has remained deliberately vague over the whole issue.He states is a Thai citizen (ขอยืนยันถือสัญชาติไทย) and does no hold British citizenship as Robert Amsterdam states (ไม่ได้ถือสัญชาติอังกฤษตามที่นายโรเบิร์ต อัมสเตอร์ดัม). He also states that he when he was studying in the UK, he paid student fees the same as foreigners or when he goes to the UK, he needs a visa to enter (ระหว่างที่ศึกษาเล่าเรียนอยู่ที่ประเทศอังกฤษก็ต้องจ่ายค่าเล่าเรียนเหมือน คนต่างชาติทั่วไป หรือการเดินทางไปประเทศอังกฤษก็ต้องยื่นเรื่องขอวีซ่า).

None of the above is Abhisit denying he is a British citizen. He has never come out and said" I completed the forms and paid the necessary fee to renounce my British citizenship in 19xx".

It is exactly the notion that there is no minimum figure implied in the rules that was rejected by the IAT.

From the judgement in question: 

We do not accept that submission. Although it may be said that there is an element of imprecision in the relevant Immigration Rules, the requirement that the maintenance be "adequate" cannot properly be ignored. To our mind the use of that word imposes an objective standard. It is not sufficient that maintenance and accommodation be available at a standard which the parties and their family are prepared to tolerate: the maintenance and accommodation must be at a level which can properly be called adequate.

It perhaps does not necessarily follow that in order to be adequately maintained one has to have resources at least equivalent to those which would be available to a family on income support. But there are very good reasons for taking that view. A family of British (or EU) citizens resident in this country will not have less than that level. It is extremely undesirable that the Rules should be interpreted in such a way as to envisage immigrant families existing (and hence being required to exist, because social security benefits are not available to them) on resources less than those which would be available through the social security system to citizen families. To do so is to encourage the view that immigrant families need less, or can be expected to live on less, and in certain areas of the country would be prone to create whole communities living at a lower standard than even the poorest of British citizens. It is for this reason that a number of Tribunal cases, includingIslam (13183), Momotaz Begum (18699), Uvovo (00 TH 01450) (which alone was the subject of reference by the Immigration Judge in this case) and RB [2004] UKIAT 00142have held that the basic task for Appellants attempting to show that there maintenance will be "adequate" is to show that they will have as much as they would have if they were able to claim income support. Similar considerations apply to the different benefit structure when there is a disabled person in the family, as Munibun Nisa v ECO Islamabad [2002] UKIAT 01369 shows. There have been one or two cases which have indicated that a frugal life style can be taken into account in deciding whether maintenance would be "adequate", but in our view those cases should not be followed. In particular, we doubt whether it would ever be right to say that children could be maintained "adequately" at less than the level which would be available to the family on income support, merely because one of their parents asserts that the family will live frugally. The purpose of the requirement of adequacy is to ensure that a proper standard, appropriate to a family living in a not inexpensive western society, is available to those who seek to live here.

If you can't match income support - with or without 3rd party support, the maintenance requirement will be failed.

Similarly if one's overdraft grows month on month, this demonstrates your income does not cover your expenditure. Without 3rd party support this will also see an applicant fail the maintenance requirement.

Family Visitor; the visa applicants (sister and son) are visiting the UK to see their family (your fiancee).