Jockey

I visited HH Hospital last week and remember thinking the place looked unusually quiet and a lot less busy than normal.

Thank you to everyone for all the help and advice. I decided to go to the Bluport immigration today and I can now confirm that I only need 800k for two months before the application date. The rule is either proof of regular income of at least 65k a month or have 800k or more in your Thai bank account 2 months before the application. You also need 800k or more for 3 months after the application, and at least 400k for the other 7 months. I was given written confirmation of this rule.

 https://www.immigration.go.th/en/?p=14714

On the filing date, the applicant must have account deposited (saving / fixed account) in a bank in Thailand of no less than
Baht 800,000 for the past three months. For the first year only, the applicant must have proof of a
deposit account in which said amount of funds has been maintained for no less than 60 days prior to
the filing date; So not good news. It has to be in the bank for 3 months not 2.

Thanks, that is good news if true, but someone has just informed me... The 800K needs to be in the bank for 3 months for renewal, only 2 months for initial application, unless things have changed.

https://immigrationbangkok.com/thai-retirement-visa-2/

I have a VISA question / problem. I made a mistake and didn't realize I need to renew my 12 month retirement VISA on Sept 27th. I thought I had until December. I have let my bank account fall below 800,000 baht, so even if I send money from the UK into my Thai bank to top up my account to get it above 800k, I will not have the stipulated 3 months 800k needed. I receive a UK company pension and in the past I could have taken my pension payment slips to the British Embassy and they would have given me a letter to give to the Thai Immigration to account for the shortfall, but apparently I can't do that anymore. Can anyone give me advice on how I can proceed?

Thank you so much for your replies. I use Transferwise and this is what it looks like on my bank statement: 

So you don't think this will be accepted because it doesn't state "International Transfer"? How about I also show them my UK Bank account statement which looks like this:

I can also take along the receipt of each transfer from Transferwise. So for each transaction I would have proof of the money going out of my UK bank account, receipt from Transferwise of the transfer from UK into the Bangkok Bank, and my Bangkok Bank bankbook statement, together with a letter from my bank.

My Immigration office is Hua Hin and I can show proof of a pension, but my pension only covers about 80% of the payment. If I can do this it will save me a load of money!

Hopefully this is a straight forward question, but somehow I feel some of you will have different opinions because I can't seem to get a straight forward answer when I speak to my friends about it and my local Thai immigration folks don't seem to understand the question I'm asking them! I will try to keep this as simple as possible. 2,000 UK pounds, is currently worth just over 75,000 Thai baht. If I send 2k UK pounds every month from my UK bank into my Thai bank, and can show immigration my bank book having made these transfers on the same day each month for 12 straight months, will that be sufficient to satisfy the rules to qualify for a non immigration O retirement visa without having to have 800k baht or 400k baht in my account? I suppose the question relates to the rule that the foreigner must have evidence of having income of no less than THB 65,000 or 800k baht or 400k baht in his Thai bank account. What constitutes "evidence"? Will the Bank Book showing the regular money transfers be enough evidence?

The Guidelines for this matter are as follows:

(1) Must have been granted a non-immigrant visa (Non-Im)

(2) Must be 50 years of age or over

(3)  Must have evidence of having income of no less than THB 65,000 or;

(4) At least 2 months prior to filing date, and at least 3 months after being granted permission, the alien must have fund deposited in a bank in Thailand of no less than THB 800,000. The alien can withdraw the fund 3 months after being granted permission and the remaining balance must be no less than THB 400,00 or;

(5) Must have and annual earning and fund deposited with a commercial bank in Thailand totaling of no less than THB 800,000 until the filing date. The said fund must remain in the account prior to and after the permission is granted and the alien can make a withdrawal under the same conditions as stated in (4).

Why not join the Chiang Mai Hash House Harriers? http://www.chiangmaihhh.com/ You don't need to be fit. Many just walk.

A thirty year lease is not a good idea, the owner of the land can borrow from a bank useing the land as surety, don't pay the loan the bank takes the land back and guess what ? You have no lease haul ass.

As explained to me by my lawyer.

I don't think your lawyer explained fully perhaps, but if you have a legitimate 30 year lease, the lease must be registered at the land office and the chanote is updated to show the land is leased, therefore the bank should not be lending based on the surety of the land, unless the bank is prepared to become landlord of the lease in the event of non payment of the loan.

I have lived here 12 years. In that time I bought a house by creating a Thai company. I bought for about 5 million baht and sold for 9 million a couple of years later. I was lucky I sold during a property "frenzy". I have similarly bought land and sold at profit / loss using the same type of company structure. I also know many people who have bought AND sold using the same method. The great thing about selling a house that is owned by a company is that you only need to sell / transfer the shares of the company which negates the need to visit the land office.

That said, buying land using a shell company is a risk which I think many are willing to take. Many others, (obviously some of the posters on here), think that the risk is not worth taking. In my years living here I have read many articles on this forum and through other media with shock headlines "LAND OFFICE TO CLAMP DOWN ON LAND OWNERSHIP OF THAI COMPANIES" but the big clamp down never seems to materialize. That is not to say there won't be a massive purge of this type of ownership in the future, but many who have "the company" ownership feel that should the massive purge start happening, they will have time to change the ownership structure of the land by selling it to a trustworthy Thai who then leases the land back to them.

Interestingly, I know of a person who owns a legal office who has assisted foreigners setting up thousands of companies with his and his co-workers owning at least 51% of these companies. The foreigners owning the remaining 49% or less. The foreigner thinks he has control of the company because an "imaginary" meeting takes place where it is recorded that the "shareholders" have "voted" to give the foreigner 51% or more of the voting rights within the company. Now the foreigner feels secure he has control of the company and his shares can be passed on to his heirs.

Imagine what might happen when that said foreigner dies. Even if the heirs manage to have the shares of the company transferred into their names, I am not sure the voting rights of the deceased foreigner will also be automatically transferred into their name. This effectively means the guy from the legal office and his co-workers own 51% or more of the company and have the majority of voting rights. What is to stop them selling the land & house at a fraction of what its worth to friends and family, the heirs receiving 49% or less of the paltry amount of the land sale? If you effectively owned thousands of companies would you be tempted to become mega rich by legal means such as this. Of course if the said person who owns the legal office and has his name on thousands of companies did not have the stomach to do such a dastardly deed, but were to sell his shares to some "big wig" politician or "police chief" we are talking the potential billions of Thai Baht being transferred into Thai names (almost) perfectly legally. Given that obvious scenario must have crossed certain people in high places minds, and given the huge amount of rewards on offer to implement such a scenario, I feel the temptation may be too great and confiscation of property after the death of each foreigner owning property through a company structure will become the norm.

There are many other possible interesting scenarios, which makes me feel owning land though a company is kind of like playing a game of pass the parcel time bomb. I also think a lot of houses will come on to the market at knock down prices the more "owners" are aware their property is not inheritable.

My advice to anyone who owns property through a company is to review the shareholders of your company. It used to be you needed at least 4 or 5 Thai nationals in your company, but that changed a couple of years ago. Now you only need 2 Thais and one foreigner. Arrange to transfer the Thai-owned shares of your company into the names of two Thais you can trust and are well known to you. Keep all records of your company in your own hands and get all company documents translated into your native language.

"Then it doesn't matter who the other two people are in your company or what percentage of stock they own"

Regardless of their management/voting rights, other people own 51% of your company and it's assets. When you die and your will leaves your company to someone other than these shareholders, you are only bequething YOUR 49% arn't you.? Your will cannot give your heirs this 51% as YOU don't own it.

If you have several companies then surely you are willing the 51% in each company to these anonymous shareholders?

Americans can own 100%.

Yes there is a US / Thailand trade agreement whereby US citizens can own 100% of a company, but this type of company, (100% US owned) can not own land.

Scottish man goes into hiding on Thai island after claiming he knows who killed backpackers David Miller and Hannah Witheridge http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/scot-goes-hiding-thai-island-4302708

The police have arrested a suspect in the murder of two British tourists in Koh Tao and are still hunting for a second suspect who has escaped into Bangkok. Both suspects were captured by CCTV cameras and the police have gathered enough evidence to implicate them in the murders http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/one-tourist-murder-suspect-now-arrested-another-run

Man says police beat him after he declined to be witness in Koh Tao murder case http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/4373

Says it all really

Man says police beat him after he declined to be witness in Koh Tao murder case http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/4373

Says it all really.

i see a scotish kid has had to go into hiding for posting on facebook that he new who did it,

he was told he was going to die,,

its in the scotish record

Scottish man goes into hiding on Thai island after claiming he knows who killed backpackers David Miller and Hannah Witheridge http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/scot-goes-hiding-thai-island-4302708

Man says police beat him after he declined to be witness in Koh Tao murder case http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/4373

Says it all really.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Babes. Lol.

Yes, " two foreign babes ."

Real class publication.

"Babes"... and is the Monk a "Hunk" ?

The police did a good job on this case.

You have to give credit where credit is due.

What brings you to that conclusion? A warrent has yet to be issued for the arrest of a 60 year old man and the police have already informed the media who they think the guilty man is. Informing the media of the suspect's name and giving details of the evidence they have collected before even a warrent is issued is not good procedure by any police standards anywhere in the world.

What if the man they have identified as the killer is not the killer? Would you then say they have done a bad job on this case and deserve critisism not credit.

Notice a pattern here? ANYONE, no matter how qualified, no matter how clear the argument, no matter the evidence provided, ANYONE who questions the supreme authority and judgments regarding the safety of vaccines is immediately characterized as a loony, yet if you take the time to read what these men have to say, you realize that they are not loony's, but actually experts and leaders in their fields of medicine who challenge the supreme authority of the establishment, backed up with very convincing evidence.

Here is what Dr. Russell Blakelock has to say on the matter. Read it and judge for yourself if this man is talking sense or is some kind of loony as the establishment would wish you to believe:

In 1976, children received 10 vaccines before attending school. Today they will receive over 36 injections. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control assured parents that it was safe to not only administer these vaccines, but that multiple vaccines could be given at one time with complete safety. Is this true? Or are we being lied to on a grand scale?

The medical establishment has created a set of terms that they use constantly to boost their egos and firm up their authority as the unique holders of medical wisdom—the mantra is “evidence-based medicine,” as if everything outside their anointing touch is bogus and suspect. A careful examination of many of the accepted treatments reveals that most have little or no scientific “evidence-based” data to support them. One often cited study found that almost 80% of medical practice had no scientific backing.

This is not to say that medical practice should be entirely based on pure and applied science, as understood in the fields of physics and chemistry. Medicine, as pointed out by many of the great men of medicine, is an art. For those interested, the paper, Regimentation in Medicine and the Death of Creativity (located on the Internet website http://www.russellblaylockmd.com) discusses the proper role of medicine.

Most medical practitioners recognize that some things are obvious without a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized study. For example, there has never been such a study to see if smashing your finger with a hammer will be painful, but we accept it without such pristine evidence. The same is true with removing brain tumors or sewing up severe lacerations.

I find it interesting that there exists an incredible double standard when it comes to scientific evidence versus vaccination-supporting evidence. The proponents of vaccination safety can just say they are safe, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, and the public is expected to accept this without question. They can announce that mercury is not only safe but also that it seems to actually increase the IQ, and the public is to accept such pronouncements as the truth. They can proclaim Thimerosal safe to use in vaccines without ever having conducted a single study on its safety in over 70 years of use, and we are to accept it.

Yet, let anyone else suggest that excessive vaccination can increase the risk of not only autism but also schizophrenia and neurodegenerative diseases, and the vaccine apologists will scream like banshees: Where is the evidence? Where is the evidence? When independent researchers produce study after study questioning vaccination-program safety, the vaccine apologists always proclaim them either as presenting insufficient evidence or as having design “flaws.” More often than not, they just completely ignore the evidence. They have continued to do this even after independent researchers have produced dozens of published peer-reviewed studies that not only demonstrate clinical and scientific links between vaccination and/or vaccine ingredients and autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) but also clearly show the mechanism by which the damage is being done—even on a molecular level. These include cell culture studies, mixed cell cultures, organotypic tissue studies, in vivoanimal studies using multiple species, and even human studies. To the defenders of vaccine safety, this ever-increasing body of evidence is never sufficient and what independent researchers accept as a proven reality—the vaccine apologists either ignore or treat as a non-reality.

In the 1950s, there was no proof that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer. The connection was as obvious as the layman’s observation that smashing your finger with a hammer would cause pain and even the town drunk knew it was true, but, to the medical establishment’s position was, “there is no proof.”

No one had ever produced lung cancer in animals by exposing them to cigarette smoke. In fact, my pathology professor, Dr. Jack Strong, had trained monkeys to chain smoke, and after years of smoking, none developed lung cancer. Yet, he was convinced that smoking caused lung cancer. Dr. Alton Oschner, founder of the famed Oschner Clinic in New Orleans, led the charge in proclaiming the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. It took almost another decade before the medical establishment was willing to admit that smoking caused most cases of lung cancer.

Almost 30 years passed from the time some iconoclastic men of medicine tried to convince the medical establishment that smoking caused most cases of lung cancer until it became generally accepted. The question that needs to be asked is: How many people died of lung cancer, the most prevalent cause of cancer death in the United States, during this time? Data from the National Cancer Institute estimated that in the year 2004, 157,000 people died of lung cancer. If 80% were secondary to smoking, that would be 125,000 dead. Over a ten-year period that would be over one million dead and, over 30 years, almost 4 million people would have died from a preventable cause of death that, at the time, was still being hotly debated by the medical establishment. Lung-cancer death rates were actually higher during that time period.

Thus, when questions of medical importance are obscured by the medical establishment’s demands for conclusive causal proof that is acceptable to the establishment, the cost can be ongoing harm to the health of the public and millions of lives.

Today, there are over one million U.S. children and adults with autism, millions more with other identified neurological and behavioral disorders, and the numbers continue to grow. This is a medical disaster of monumental proportions. The link to the vaccine program is scientifically and logically compelling and, a recent vaccine-injury case, Hannah Poling v. Sec. HHS, has even been conceded by the medical personnel at the Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, Department of Health and Human Services (DVIC). However, the vaccine apologists are still refusing to listen.

Like smoking and lung cancer, there is more than enough proof today to call a halt to the present excessive vaccine program and ban any level of mercury in vaccines. In 1983, before the autism epidemic began, children received 10 vaccinations prior to school entry and the U.S. autism rate was on the order of 1 in 10,000. Today, children receive 23 or more vaccines prior to the age 2 years and 36 or more by the time of school entry and the U.S. autism rate is now greater than 1 in 150. Medical “experts” have provided no plausible alternative explanation for this dramatic and sudden increase in ASD cases, despite their frantic efforts to find one.

Medical “experts” attempted to blame the increase on a genetic factor, but independent geneticists were quick to respond that genetic disorders do not suddenly increase in such astronomical proportions. The vaccine apologists then said it was because of better diagnosis, despite the facts that: a) the diagnosis is obvious in virtually every case and the criteria officially accepted for diagnosis has become more, not less, restrictive.

When trapped by a lack of evidence, defenders of a nefarious position resort to their old standby—the epidemiological study. Statisticians will tell you that the least reliable type of study is an epidemiological study because it is easy to manipulate the data so that the study tells you anything you wish it to. Every justification offered by vaccine defenders is based on such studies and never the actual science. Moreover, the epidemiological studies conducted and/or pointed to by the vaccine apologists suffer from the post-publication refusal of the contact authors to provide the datasets they used so that independent researchers could confirm the validity of the design and findings of their studies. Then, the vaccination-safety defenders have had an Institute of Medicine review committee that they hired and charged to review the initial studies and announce that the issue is settled and no further studies need be done. In addition, in subsequent epidemiological studies conducted by those who defend vaccine safety, the papers have also made these “it is settled” claims even though all know that no epidemiological study can disprove the possibility of a link – it can only determine the statistical probability that there may be a link in the population studied. Of course, vaccine apologists tout their findings to the mainstream media who, because of the advertising dollars they receive from the healthcare establishment, are only too happy to publish such pro-vaccination propaganda as if it were factually accurate.

After the media has been informed that the issue has been settled, those who continue to present the evidence are considered kooks and the great unwashed ignorant.

Pattaya Pat "Every year my wife gets a flu vaccine for our daughter and every year it causes a row as I'm sure it is not needed and it is just a ploy from the hospital to extract more money out of you. They tell her that our daughter should have it done and of course she just meekly agrees. There goes another thousand baht in the hospital coffers..

Or, am I wrong? I've always believe that flu vaccines are only for old people and/or if you live in a cold country and the winter is approaching?

Thanks".

Despite the fanatics who promote vaccines as if they are on some sort of religious crusade, I recommend you take the advice of this man who is actually an expert on the subject:

Dr. Russell Blaylock Warns: Don’t Get the Flu Shot — It Promotes Alzheimer’s

“The vaccine is completely worthless, and the government knows it,” says Dr. Blaylock. “There are three reasons the government tells the elderly why they should get flu shots: secondary pneumonia, hospitalization, and death. Yet a study by the Cochrane group studied hundreds of thousands of people and found it offered zero protection for those three things in the general community. It offered people in nursing homes some immunity against the flu — at best one-third — but that was only if they picked the right vaccine.”

The government also says that every baby over the age of six months should have a vaccine, and they know it contains a dose of mercury that is toxic to the brain. They also know the studies have shown that the flu vaccine has zero — zero — effectiveness in children under 5.

Here’s the bottom line: The vast number of people who get the flu vaccine aren’t going to get any benefit, but they get all of the risks and complications.

Flu vaccines contain mercury in the form of thimerosal (ethylmercury), a brain toxin, which accumulates in the brain and other organs. “It’s incorporated into the brain for a lifetime,” says Dr. Blaylock. “After five or 10 years of flu shots, enough mercury accumulates in the brain that every single study agrees is neurotoxic. Mercury is extremely toxic to the brain even in very small concentrations, and there are thousands of studies that prove it.”

The changes that we see in the brain associated with neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s are all easily produced by mercury in these doses.

Dr. Blaylock is a board certified neurosurgeon, author of numerous published papers, and lecturer. Dr. Blaylock serves on the editorial staff of the Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association. He is the associate editor of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, official journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. He now serves as a Visiting Professor in the Department of Biology at Belhaven College.

Check out his excellent paper titled "The Danger of Excessive Vaccination During Brain Development - The case for a link to autism spectrum disorders (ASD)" https://secure.eznettools.net/D305742/X367201/science/health-issues/vaccinationDanger-brain.html

Thimerosal is made up of 49.6% mercury, a known neurotoxin. There are 25 mcg of mercury included in each regular season flu shot. The EPA sets the toxicity limit of mercury at .1 mcg. This is a 250 times greater amount than the EPA considers the toxic level in each injection. While denial by vaccine makers and welfare scientists exist as to the effects of ethylmercury compared to methylmercury, there can be no denial that mercury, in any form, is harmful to the brain.

Consider now the size of a baby or indeed an unborn baby in the mothers womb that has to absorb this poison for each injection made.

Mercury is not the only dangerous substance contained in vaccines. Squalene, aluminum, polysorbate 80, and many other dangerous substances are included in most vaccines. All of these substances are capable of irreversible harm.

Vaccines containing high concentrations of neurotoxic aluminum were added to the child immunization schedule when several vaccines containing mercury were removed. Two-month old babies now receive 1,225 mcg of aluminum from their vaccines -- 50 times higher than safety levels! Although the FDA, CDC and World Health Organization are aware of the dangers, they expect parents to play Russian roulette with their children.

As I stated earlier, there are no official tests whatsoever to see if giving babies 4 times the amount of vaccines that was given to babies in the 1980's has any detrimental effects to the babies bodies, brains or natural immune systems. We see chronic conditions such as AHD, Asthma and Autism reach epidemic levels, proportionate to the increase in vaccines given to babies, but anyone brave enough to suggest vaccines may be the cause of these epidemics, or even question the amount of vaccines given to babies, opens themselves up to fanatical condemnation, ridicule and ostrichisation, particularly if they work within the medical profession.

Any patient, especially a parent, should be aware of the risks and dangers associated with vaccination and should make their decision accordingly, regardless of the orders of their doctor or the propaganda. Remember, doctors used to advertise the health benefits of smoking cigarettes!

The truth is out... there IS a link between vaccines and autism and it has been known for over a decade by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) but the CDC has been actively covering up the data.

CDC Whistleblower Reveals Widespread Manipulation of Scientific Data and Top-Down Pressure on CDC Scientists to Support the Fraudulent Application of Government Policies on Vaccine Safety http://www.prohealth.com/library/showarticle.cfm?libid=19191

Natural News again. This "item" has already addressed in this very thread. If you're not going to read the thread, just stay out of it. Or at the very least, stop posting and reposting the same garbage and paranoia over and over.

"Posting and reposting the same garbage over and over"! If YOU read the thread you will see every post I have made has revealed completely different points. It seems to me you are so polarized in your view that you can not accept clear hard evidence and you are acting foolish to the point of complete "head in sand" denial. To be honest I try to avoid debating anything with your type. If there's an elephant in the room you'd deny it was there.

A doctor who worked in a very senior position for the CDC for 12 years and the doctor states the CDC have been lying and covering up the link between Autism and Vaccines for at the very least over 10 years. but you think this hugely important information is something you can just dismiss as "Garbage and Paranoia" just because it was reported in Natural News (amongst many other sites). I think you are the one who should take a hard look at your postings as its so obvious you will dismiss any evidence by trying to disassociate the facts by using your obvious dislike for the Natural New website. Do you really think that because this story is covered by Natural News somehow its untrue? Get a grip - the story is out there whether you like it or not. Do you think the doctor is lying? Do you think its all made up?

1 in 68 children in the USA are now inflicted with autism. The CDC have been accused of lying, fraud and cover up by a senior insider. You can't see the elephant.

As for the original posters question regarding the flu vaccine, they finally took mercury out of most of the vaccines but they keep using mercury in the flu vaccine. For that reason alone keep your child well away from it. Injecting mercury into the blood veins of a child is criminal in my opinion as mercury poisons the brain. Do you really trust the CDC who claim its "safe"?

The truth is out... there IS a link between vaccines and autism and it has been known for over a decade by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) but the CDC has been actively covering up the data.

CDC Whistleblower Reveals Widespread Manipulation of Scientific Data and Top-Down Pressure on CDC Scientists to Support the Fraudulent Application of Government Policies on Vaccine Safety http://www.prohealth.com/library/showarticle.cfm?libid=19191

"The CDC whistleblower informant, who has worked for the government agency for over a decade, remarked to Dr. Hooker in phone calls: "We've missed ten years of research because the CDC is so paralyzed right now by anything related to autism. They're not doing what they should be doing because they're afraid to look for things that might be associated." The whistleblower alleges criminal wrongdoing of his supervisors, and he expressed deep regret about his role in helping the CDC hide data"

There you have it folks... in plane black and white! The house of cards regarding vaccine safety is about to fall. The CDC have been lying!

Autism Links to Vaccines: Whistleblower Reveals Evidence of Criminal Coverup by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) http://www.globalresearch.ca/autism-links-to-vaccines-whistleblower-reveals-evidence-of-criminal-coverup-by-the-centers-for-disease-control-cdc/5397928

For twelve years, this cover-up haunted Dr. Thompson, who has now decided to clear his conscience and admit to the fraud. He now says:

Now, this MMR vaccine-autism cover-up continues to be perpetrated by the mainstream media which has so far run a total media blackout on the story, hoping to suppress the truth about MMR vaccines and autism for as long as possible.

Vaccine Brain Damage Cover Up Implodes http://www.infowars.com/vaccine-brain-damage-cover-up-implodes/