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. 

22 hours ago, kwilco said:

This is true if you drove in France in the 1960s and 70s you would apreciate the situation. In Thailand the base rule is that there is priority from the left. This again like being in a boat is engrained in Thai driving culture.

most Westerners know nothing about rules of the road even in their own country they just learn by rote for their test and that's it - they don't understand that that is the "right" way and everyone else isn't the "wrong" way - they need to understand and adapt to driving in a foreign country. Rather than  a home test colonialism they should show some understanding of what is going on instead of resorting to racist cliches.

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. 

On 12/9/2023 at 3:49 PM, Lacessit said:

AFAIK there are no rules. Give way to vehicles on the right in countries that drive on the left is the norm.

Who knows how they manage in Myanmar, where vehicles travel on the RHS with a mixture of left hand and right hand vehicles.

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. 

On 12/8/2023 at 2:40 AM, Lacessit said:

I drive between Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai regularly. For 12 years, I have seen Thai drivers do the most stupid things. Not isolated instances, these are routine occurrences. Running red lights, overtaking up crests and on blind curves, texting while driving, assuming right of way. IME, most Thai drivers seem to think mirrors are for applying makeup, or squeezing pimples. 80% of the motorists on two wheels are not wearing helmets, and some even remove their rear vision mirrors.

 

When I first started driving in Thailand, I got my Thai scooter license on the strength of an Australian car license, a 200 baht medical certificate, and being able to identify the colors of a traffic light.

 

Subsequently, I got my Australian motorcycle license. The written test was 40 questions, split evenly between road laws, and motorcycle driving skills. The pass mark was 35/40. If one failed, re-apply in one months' time.

The practical test consisted of 15 minutes checking skills such as slow riding, an obstacle course, braking from a specified speed within a specified distance, etc. Put one foot on the ground during the tests, you flunked.

 

It's a serious offense in Australia to drive without a license. 6 month's jail for a second time. Here, 200 baht papers over everything.

 

If you want to talk about racism, consider this: Any accident dispute between a foreigner and a Thai which is taken to the police will almost automatically be resolved in favor of the Thai, irrespective of who is at fault. If I am a racist, why would I be with my Thai GF for nearly ten years?

 

The link between poor driver education/training and high death and injury rates on the roads is indisputable, regardless of which country it is. IMO anyone who thinks otherwise is an imbecile.

 

 

"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. 

On 12/8/2023 at 7:09 AM, VBF said:

I have annual insurance via my bank account in UK. Their standard is to allow 30 days per trip, but you can extend it to 60 on payment of a supplement which I do.

My next trip in February will be for 59 days total absence from UK. Plus, because it's annual cover my already bought ticket is covered immediately.

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. 

5 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

Annual insurance would cover that issue, usually pretty cheap, just get one with enough consecutive days, 30, 45, 60

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. 

5 hours ago, Regyai said:

Some clauses such as cancellations (eg due to the bereavement of close family members) etc  mean the policy starts at the date of purchase.

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

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. 

1 hour ago, MicroB said:

 

The salary requirements do not bear scrutiny when looking at the logic. The previous £18,600 was based on the threshold that most couples would face if applying for any income-related benefit. Completely logical if the applying couple is told that they must be able to support themselves. The threshold seems to have hardly changed.

 

The Home Secretary (using all the powers of his Hospitality degree he earnt from the local tech college) is now using the median salary of a skilled professional as the threshold for being about to support one self. A lot of skilled professionals earn below this. Some have speculated on the savings threshold, which seems to be generating ludicrous sums. And any spouse on such a visa is already forbidden from accessing any benefits.

 

Home Office modeling apparently indicates this will knock a few tens of thousands of family related visa application. It appears this will all be eliminate spousal visa applications, which would be counted as a success, given currently about 30,000 are awarded each year (90% approval rate).

 

Write to your MP, as I will. Mine will basically do my bidding, as I take a very logical and factual approach with him, which has born fruit, such as getting me in contact with ministers, and actually raising questions on my behalf in the House. I'm lucky as he is one of these very Brexity type MPs, but old school tory, rather than a thug in a suit. He's lost my vote though, but its nothing personal, and he'll be ok as he has the family firm to fall back on.

 

I suspect the HoL will kill this. But the government will invoke the Parliament Act, and manufacture some constitutional crisis, and force a confidence vote or a General Election based around a single issue. Based on his previous role, I don't think Cleverly has the appetite to fight this in the courts. He's more worried about keeping his seat.

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

21 minutes ago, theblether said:

 

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. 

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

12 hours ago, MicroB said:

 

The Dutch case your refer to concerned a Serbian national within the Roma community. The Judges reference to the Dutch minimum income (which I think was then about 9000 Euros, now it is 21,000 Euros) referred to the quite modest Dutch requirement.

 

https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4667da4a2.pdf

The response might have been different is the Dutch government had much higher income requirements.

 

The Home Secretary said

 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-12-04/debates/921A08A2-F615-48F2-8C56-423A29556F9F/LegalMigration

 

The £38,700 requirement is based on the median salary for a skilled professional in the UK.

 

ie. An unskilled worker will not be permitted to marry a non-UK citizen outside of the UK.

 

In 2014, there were various court cases disputing the £18,600 threshold. These cases were lost because the government was judged to have acted lawfully. The appellants had argued that the threshold should have been £13,400, the national minimum income.

 

The judges at the time noted " not up to the court to impose its own view on what the minimum income threshold should be, unless it was irrational, unjust or unfair."

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jul/11/appeal-court-18600-foreign-spouse-uk

 

Its been noted that the £18,600 hasn't changed for a decade, so it is timely for it to be adjusted. Adjusted for inflation, according to the BoE, it should be £25,560.

 

The original £18,600 came at the suggestion of the Migration Advisory Committee

 

 

Notably, Theresa May opted for the lower amount, and it was based on a reasonable logic.

 

Looking at benefits thresholds now, this does not appear to have changes; a couple with one working, less than £5000 in savings, own house, no children, are not entitled to benefits if their income is over £19,000.

 

The proposed new threshold appears irrational (they have changed the criteria from being based on access to benefits to something based on qualifications), unjust (the Home Secretary appears to have no idea about inflation given he referenced the lower amount and the year, as if that justified his decision) and unfair (the was the minister who a few weeks ago called Stockton a "sh*t hole", it seems that to him , a salary of £36,800 is unfathomably low, and how can one survive on less than that).

 

Notably, its now emerging that Downing Street had a more moderate package, and its Jenrick and the back benchers (Braverman, Patel) who pushed for this. Home Office models suggest it expects family visa applications to be reduced by "tens of thousands".

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/04/five-point-plan-to-cut-uk-immigration-raises-fears-of-more-nhs-staff-shortages

 

Hom Office data on family visas

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-september-2022/why-do-people-come-to-the-uk-for-family-reasons

 

So ~38,500 partner/dependant visas. It looks like the Home Office is expecting this result in the virtual elimination of spousal visa applications, if "tens of thousands" are knocked off this.

 

Moreover, the government is unclear if the new threshold will extend to renewals. It will likely lead to deportations of people who cannot meet the combined income threshold, because apparently they knew all along they needed to double their income in 2.5 years

 

https://www.ft.com/content/44667d25-13ab-4d20-bc67-b5ac414c1dc2

 

Confused response from a department who can't get their story straight. These aren't numbers carefully worked out, and determined to be equitable and fair. But numbers on the back of the proverbial f*g packet by a SpAD to get a model to fit backbencher demands.

 

This might well end up in court and a government told to properly justify their numbers besides "2012 was a while ago, innit".

 

Some sample salaries of common occupations

Train Guard; £28k

Finance Manager in Harrow; £30k

Plumber: £35k

Events Coordinator: £30k

Water hygiene Tech (Legionella control): £25k

Service Manager, Social Care: £30k

Marketing Executive £30k

HR Manager: £36k

School Admissions Officer: £22,000

Production Engineer, electronics upto £32k

Land and Highway Drainage Inspector: £29k

Project Support Officer, House of Commons: £32k

 

A lot of people in regular jobs might have to pu on hold for a few years any hope of a family in the UK, in case they are deported for choosing to not take a baby to day care.

,

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. 

33 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

I haven't been wrong at all - where have I said the minimum income requirement has been overturned by a court?  Where please?

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. 

11 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

Its not ancient history, its part of an overall trend - If the law prevents our policies, we will change the law.

 

The income requirement is both discriminationary and, I believe, against Human Rights laws.  The UK government has for years, demanded that those bringing a spouse in to the country must earn far more than the minimum benefit levels. Those are supposed to be the minimum amounts people require to live on. What justification is there then, to require someone bringing a spouse to the UK to earn so much?  It also discriminates on age by being far higher that the minimum state pension?  Since when has the government had the right to place an age limit on marrying a non British citizen - which in effect is what they are doing?

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

29 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

It has, but it is now likely to be challenged further.

 

Then you need to keep up with UK politics.  Johnson wanted to change parliamentary law twice, once trying to help out another party member and then when he illegally prorogued parliament.

 

The Conservatives have been seeking to exit the ECHR since Theresa May was Home Secretary - because the ECHR have consistently ruled against their immigration policies.

 

Sunak is doing the same now with his Rwanda policy.  The Court of Appeal sent him a clear message that the Rwada policy was not only against ECHR rules but also falls foul of the UK's own Human Rights laws - yet he is as we speak, trying to implement a Rwanda Mk2 policy.  The court found clear evidence that Rwanda had mistreat asylum seekers sent their by other countries with similar policies - yet Sunak is claiming that his new treaty will sort that.  He is also trying to place his immigration policies outside the jurisdiction of the courts.

 

There is a clear ECHR and EU law that requires countries to provide protection to genuine aslylum seekers.

 

To clarify my position - I think many of the so called Asylum Seekers are in fact, economic migrants and something has to be done about them.  However, I cannot condone my country going against internationally agreed laws in order to do so.

 

If you don't think the Tories are slowly dismantling democracy - in addition to trying to go against the UK Court of Appeal's ruling, just look at the recent changes to the laws over protests and the the Tories attempts to take them further.

 

Just recently they wanted to ban a march against Israel's war in Gaza - even when the London Police Commissioner told them he had examined the law and there was no basis on which he could ban the march.

 

The policy seems to be, if a law gets in the way, change the law, not examine why it is in place! And that is why, they will never get my vote again.  One of the things we in the UK can be proud of is that the government is not above the law - how long that will survive under the Tories is anyone's guess.

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

1 hour ago, Doctor Tom said:

People will not be fooled when their local hospital can't find the staff to stay functional. 

The NHS is exempt. 

30 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

It is very likely that this policy, if passed, will be challenged at the ECHR under the 'right to family life' provisions.

 

That will add further impetus to the Conservative's desire to take the UK out of the jurisdiction of the ECHR.  Just at Johnson sought to change Parliamentary rules when he effectively broke the law - the Conservative's view in general seems to be that when they come up against the law - change the law. The fact that the UK was one of the founding proponents of the ECHR seems to be lost on the Conservatives.

 

I have no intention of getting married again and even if I did, I would not take my wife to the UK. However, I will always defend the rights of those who wish to do so.  There will be cases where a UK national, married to a foreigner and living abroad, becomes ill with a long term, possibly life long illness and needs to return to the UK. How would that person be able to take his wife to the UK if he didn't meet the income requirements? Should he leave his wife (and carer) behind?

 

Many of the changes to visa regulations and increases in charges affecting those who wish to bring their wife to the UK are, I have no doubt, aimed at a particular group (nationality) who deliberately seek a wife from their country of heritage - often with no intention of continuing that marriage.  That wife, then seeks to bring her aging parents and other members of her family to the UK - placing further burdens on the UK's welfare system.

 

Discrimination laws would prevent any different treatment of that particular group so it seems we all have to pay for their behaviour. However, as I say, I fully expect these new proposals to be challenged. On the subject of discrimination, it could be said that by imposing a minimum income level, the UK government is discriminating between those who have and those who have not - again potentially illegal.

 

The fact 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. I used to be a Conservative voter but now I've seen their true colours - never again.

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

40 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Not to be confused with student visas which allow them to work 22 hours per week .

I was speaking to a Japanese female student who was working in the local Sainsburys small shop and the bosses were asking her to work Sundays night , which she wanted to , but her 22 hours working per week prohibited it . 

   She rejected the extra hours and the Sainsburys closed down early on Sunday night  due to lack of staff 

So it's 22 hours and not 20? My bad. 

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Interesting...   

 

I have always considered it rather offensive to impose such sanctions on those with a foreign spouse when the UK permits those without any UK ties on a seemly more frivolous basis.

 

I wonder if the 'savings' limit of £62,500 is also going to be increased. 

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.