theblether

Another right of way issue. Motorcyclists should not be hogging the main carriageway. They are obliged to keep to the left. You'll see Thais crack up with foreigners who think they are entitled to dominate the carriageway on their Honda Click.

I like your "boat" analogy. One thing that used to drive me nuts was why it took Thais so long to turn left. So I did a bizarre thing - I asked a Thai............. "Why do you take so long to turn left?" And I received and answer so logical that I was embarrassed I hadn't thought of it myself. "Every Thai person knows that a stupid motorcyclist will try to undertake you when you slow to turn left, because at some time in the past we have been that stupid motorcyclist. So we are cautious as we expect a collision on the passenger side." Logical, and it is a common sight on Thai roads.

There are rules of right of way. Too many foreigners don't know what they are and crack up when they infringe the rules, even though they are in the wrong.

"assuming right of way" What are the rules of right of way in Thailand? The vast majority of farangs don't know what they are.

Be careful with mothballs, the smell can permeate the house.

Good thinking re the 59 days. I always book for at least one day less than my coverage. The simple reason being it allows for flight delays. Another issue is I always leave one day before my visa expires. I was caught out years ago with a flight delay ( CNX - HAT YAI ) and when I did the border run I was given a one day overstay fine. Irritating as it was out of my control.

I'll add. Those of you that have insurance via your bank account or credit card benefits, be aware that they are particularly sensitive to this issue. I told a friend of this issue and he notified AMEX of his intention to travel for 12 days longer than standard coverage. He was informed that he had zero coverage for any part of his trip.

Correct. The gist of my OP is to.ensure people realise that insurance companies won't accept you taking the risk for a few days. You are either covered for the entire trip or you are not covered at all.

Correct. However the period of travel is a different issue, as explained.

This applies to UK policies, other countries - check out this issue with your insurer. To be brief. When traveling to Thailand ( ànd other destinations ) your insurance policy starts when you leave your home country. If you have 30 day insurance cover and your flight manifest shows you are out of the country for 31 days, no part of your vacation is covered. The insurance company attitude is that you don't get to decide when the policy activates. I think we all see the sense in that. The misperception is that you have cover for part of your vacation and you take the risk for the last day ( or longer ). Wrong. Your claim will be denied as you did not declare the risk period. You have to declare the entire period you are out of your country including the day you return.

It got that bad at one notorious corner in my village that the authorities built a four hundred metre barrier to prevent this wilful nonsense, truly sick of picking up corpses.

The HoL can't kill this policy. It's already proved to be legal.

To clarify, at one time - not at that time, as by 2017 the £18,600 limit was in place

The Dutch issue was moot, the concept of a minimum income requirement was accepted unanimously. If there was no minimum income then ( at that time ) sixteen year old school kids could have married a foreign spouse and brought them to the country without any method to financially provide for them. That was absurd, and no sane person reading this thread believes that there should not be a minimum income. Neither do the courts.

You are wrong with your continual assertion that you believe it was ILLEGAL and against EHCR. The Supreme Court found the minimum income policy legal by a unanimous decision in 2017. So you can give that argument a rest.

Here's a question, which applied to a lady I used to date. Should it be legal for a sixteen year old British Muslim girl to marry a non-EU national with zero income? As we have people so certain of their legal opinions on this forum, be aware that this was decided at the UK Supreme Court. Over to you.

Once again, you are wrong. The minimum income policy has been in place for years and has not been overturned by any court.

I am up to date with UK politics. I'm also sticking to the topic, not ancient history

The NHS is exempt.

Incorrect. The minimum income requirement has been in place for years. The ECHR has not struck down the policy. Countries maintain the right to filter visa applications from non-EU nationals. Therefore your contention that "laws are put in place for a reason seems to go above their heads as they continue trying to dismantle democracy and remove laws that prevent them from implementing their policies." is flat out wrong. There is no EU law that prevents countries from conducting immigration law for non-EU nationals. And there never will be as many European countries WILL NEVER AGREE to handing over the rights

So it's 22 hours and not 20? My bad.

Yes, the family visa income level has been raised to £38,700. In effect, it will shut down spousal immigration. Very few pensioners will qualify at that income level, including those with private pensions. As for younger people, good luck.trying to get a job at that income level if you have an overseas gap on your CV. I.think its a bit high. I don't have a problem.with the NHS fee increasing. It is truly ridiculous trying to get GP appointments these days.

There's an attack being launched on foreign student spousal visas. These visas allowed the student and spouse to legally work 20 hours per week. They are rife with abuse. I noted arrests the other month due to people working well above the limit. There was an article last week discussing the drop off in overseas marriage in the Pakistani diaspora. Several reasons were put forward but people I know in that community have told me that thee is no realistic way for low-earning daughters ( in particular ) to bring in a foreign spouse. You mention the lump sum route. I don't know if that will be raised. That route is fraught with difficulty for many due to ICE tracking the source of the money. Rich uncles don't need the aggravation of a HMRC investigation by lending lump sums. As for the expat community. The £18,600 clause put an end to British state pensioners importing Little Lek and coterie of ragamuffin kids ( father unknown ). A rise to the average wage of around £30,000 would knock out the vast majority of people with private pensions too. In short, any Brits contemplating relocating better get on their toes as the door for many will be slammed shut if the minimum income is raised substantially.

The headline of the article refers to foreigners working in the UK. Reading the article, and relevant to UK citizens, the government are looking at raising the minimum income to qualify for a spousal visa up from £18,600. While the Thai expat community thinks its aimed at them, its actually aimed at Brits bringing in spouses from Bangladesh, Pakistan, Africa etc. The introduction of the limit under Theresa May when Home Secretary severely impacted the ability of low-paid Brits to bring in spouses. Some tried to beat the system by declaring higher income levels, and that backfired when HMRC started investigating using the ICE system in conjunction with border control. The ICE system uses 22 data points to track income and spending. If you ever get caught up in that type of investigation you are beat. Many Brits were entrapped and word went out that it wasn't worth the bother. Link here: https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/rishi-sunak-immigrant-salary-threshold-raised/

Insurance prices have gone crazy the last few years. Single trip insurance is now over for £200 in my case, pre-pandemic I'd expect to pay £120. The cost of not having insurance is too high, though. I have three policies, one for up to thirty day trips worldwide, another one I use for Thailand for trips up to sixty days ( £200 plus ) and I always take out the annual Bangkok Bank insurance at 6,000 baht for accident cover. I've claimed on that once and the whole process was a breeze. For those of you that live in Thailand uninsured, have a look at the multi-claim Bangkok Bank accident policy which costs just over 8,000 baht. From memory, 150,000 baht max payout per accident claim. I don't think it's amazing value but if your home country insurers refuse to cover you, it's better than nothing.