Humberstone

As soon as the renewal process has started then the current passport is cancelled. However as I said, from my ow personal experience, the UK Immigration cannot refuse entry to a UK citizen.

The passport is proof of your status as a UK Citizen and that status doesn't change because a passport is out of date, you can enter the UK on an expired passport, but not leave on one.

The Passport Agency advise that you shouldn't travel on a passport after you have made an application for a replacement for a new one, they further advise that passports are cancelled electronically.

I'm not sure at what stage they cancel the passport and whilst I doubt very much if it would be picked up by your carrier, it might be flagged at the UK Border, though I doubt very much if the Border Force Officer would refuse to land her.

You say that there is a problem with her documentation, is her status in question?

Thanks for all the responses above.

The problem with the documentation could be the subject of another thread. The short version is that the name in her current Thai passport is different from that in her UK passport and in the application. If you're a dual national then the names have to be the same in both passports - this was my mistake in not reading the small print.

It is now apparent we will have to change the name for the UK passport. We are waiting for the UK passport office to confirm what documentation is acceptable to them to confirm how we can further proceed with the application and change the name.

My daughter plans to visit the UK soon. She is dual national (Thai/UK) and holds passports from both countries.

She is currently in the process of renewing her UK passport and due to an issue that the UK Passport office has with some documentation this process has become protracted and will likely delay the renewal of this UK passport.

The issue I have is that her current UK passport will be valid when she travels to the UK but will expire during the trip.

Based on the above, and my understanding that someone having UK citizen rights cannot have a UK visa in a Thai passport, my questions are:

- can my daughter travel to the UK with her current UK passport given that it will naturally expire during her visit?

- if the answer to the above is 'no' what are her options ?

Hope that this is clear and would appreciate your advice. Thanks.

I run Netflix from a Samsung BD player (F 5500) as there is a Netflix app in the Samsung App Store. Apart from a bit of buffering early on, this works very well and the picture quality is just fine.

Anti Semitism was alive and cooking in Poland. Whether they would have gone as far as the germans is another matter. Ukrainians and Russians were not too good either. "Beyond the Pale" is a saying from pogrom era Russia. Some Ukrainians were a great help to the einsatzgruppen.

Primitive atavism is deep within humans. Most cope with it better than the vicious haters that crop up against various groups, breeds or political trends.

Anti semitism has been prevalent in every European country at one time or another. And the phrase 'beyond the pale' has nothing to do with the pogroms, it's derived from Irish history

There goes part of my youth. RIP.

I watched the British inter-leader debate on YouTube last night - part of the build up to the upcoming Westminster elections. What stood out was how civilized everybody was. They were questioned, they made their points - there was a bit of cut and thrust - but it was a given that everybody, from the audience, to the politicians, to the bloke doing the lighting, all understood that everything would be decided by the ballot box, and that it was all about convincing the electorate. I'm pretty down on Britain generally, but compared to the crap that goes on on Thailand, it was like getting a breath of air after being held under water for minutes.

No doubt examples of that kind of open and essentially respectful debate could be found for any normal civilized democracy. So the role-model for continuous, repeating, stable government is there for all to see.

What the hell is the matter with Thailand that it can't follow such a simple and basic roadmap?

The UK has had over 1,000 years more practice at democracy than Thailand and they have also had civil wars on the way not not mention lopping off a kings head along the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_civil_wars

Being a king was not all a bed of roses. See the bottom part of the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_of_the_British_Isles_by_cause_of_death

They also had their own home grown dictator called Oliver Cromwell and even a witchfinder general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins

I'm note sure what your point is? You're quoting a lot of history and not providing any context. Yes, there was a civil war in England and briefly there was a 'commonwealth' with Cromwell as the head of state. But, there was no 'real democracy' in England for another 400 years. A lot of other European countries went through similar changes and, of course, the USA.

The point is that it took the UK over 1,000 years to get democracy yet Thailand has only tried since 1932. Democracy in the UK took a long time so it won't be quick in Thailand either but certainly it will be less than 1,000 years.

Yes true but to counter that, the Republic of India is hailed as the world's largest democracy in terms of voter numbers. This since it became independent in 1947 and I can't recall any serious coup attempts during this period. It has been a parliamentary democracy for a much shorter time than Thailand.

I watched the British inter-leader debate on YouTube last night - part of the build up to the upcoming Westminster elections. What stood out was how civilized everybody was. They were questioned, they made their points - there was a bit of cut and thrust - but it was a given that everybody, from the audience, to the politicians, to the bloke doing the lighting, all understood that everything would be decided by the ballot box, and that it was all about convincing the electorate. I'm pretty down on Britain generally, but compared to the crap that goes on on Thailand, it was like getting a breath of air after being held under water for minutes.

No doubt examples of that kind of open and essentially respectful debate could be found for any normal civilized democracy. So the role-model for continuous, repeating, stable government is there for all to see.

What the hell is the matter with Thailand that it can't follow such a simple and basic roadmap?

The UK has had over 1,000 years more practice at democracy than Thailand and they have also had civil wars on the way not not mention lopping off a kings head along the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_civil_wars

Being a king was not all a bed of roses. See the bottom part of the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_of_the_British_Isles_by_cause_of_death

They also had their own home grown dictator called Oliver Cromwell and even a witchfinder general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins

I'm note sure what your point is? You're quoting a lot of history and not providing any context. Yes, there was a civil war in England and briefly there was a 'commonwealth' with Cromwell as the head of state. But, there was no 'real democracy' in England for another 400 years. A lot of other European countries went through similar changes and, of course, the USA.

There was a gentleman incarcerated in California for 1st degree murder and served 27 years before he was acquitted. He got 1 million $ for every year he spent inside from the state as compensation (it's an episode of CBS's '48 Hours' BTW).

This is extremely embarrasing for a magazine that used to pride itself on it's journalism. When i think of RS I think of all the great journalists who wrote for RS in it's heyday such as a PJ O'Rourke, Hunter S. Thompson, Tom Wolfe etc. But, that, alas, was a very long time ago.

I haven't seen anything which would support the proposition that the results from trials before the Thai military justice courts are in any way inferior to the results from the Thai civilian court system. For the most part, the Thai civilian court judges make the law up by themselves, because the nation lacks a national reporter system. A national case reporter system is an indispensable part of stare decisis, or court precedent. How is a judge supposed to determine prior Supreme Court precedent where there is no reporter system or indexing system by which applicable prior court decision can be researched? Moreover, the judges don't have clerks to do the intensive research required to have a firm grasp of prior precedent. The civilian courts decisions are completely random, that's why you have rulings such as the injunction prohibiting the screening of Fast and Furious 7. The civilian judges just do what they want, regardless of common sense or prior binding appellate rulings.

Everything you say is true as it applies to a judicial system that follows case law such as found in the USA.

Thailand judiciary does not follow case law but rather common law such as found in the UK. Common law is influenced by tradition, custom, and current practices that may or may not relate to precedential court decisions. Therefore, a national case reporter system is NOT an indispensable part of judicial decisions. In some ways use of common law allows more precise and modern rulings than those pinned to a generation of outdated and inapporpriate court decisions.

Sorry, what you have said is completely incorrect. Both the USA and the UK use a common law legal system. Both these jurisdictions use judicial prededent (from case law) to decide cases.

Thailand uses a civil law system where the laws of the land are codefied and the judge(s) will use these laws to decide a case. The judge has little scope to use previous cases as a 'precedent' for the cases he is looking after.

There are pros and cons with both systems. Most of what was previously the British Empire (including the USA) use a common law system. The majority of other countries use a civil law system or hybrids of both such as South Africa.

I haven't seen anything which would support the proposition that the results from trials before the Thai military justice courts are in any way inferior to the results from the Thai civilian court system. For the most part, the Thai civilian court judges make the law up by themselves, because the nation lacks a national reporter system. A national case reporter system is an indispensable part of stare decisis, or court precedent. How is a judge supposed to determine prior Supreme Court precedent where there is no reporter system or indexing system by which applicable prior court decision can be researched? Moreover, the judges don't have clerks to do the intensive research required to have a firm grasp of prior precedent. The civilian courts decisions are completely random, that's why you have rulings such as the injunction prohibiting the screening of Fast and Furious 7. The civilian judges just do what they want, regardless of common sense or prior binding appellate rulings.

Thailand does not have a common law legal system, there is no binding precedent. The courts base their rulings on the law.

Most of the world use a civil law based legal system and, for the most part, it works just fine. The problem is always the people not the system.

If only more countries would adopt one of Lee's policy cornetstones......you can't give peasants too many freedoms because they can't manage their lives.

I see evidence of that every time I drive. If 95% of people conduct their lives the way they drive, they shouldn't be out without bells round their necks to let the 5% know they're on the loose.

Mr Lee ruled/managed Singapore the way a country should be managed. I've been a supporter and admirer of his political style since I first visited Singapore in 1969.

We were all peasants at one time. Probably a couple of generations ago - you and me included.

LKY says that the bad things he had to do were required to ensure stability is stretching it a lot. Singapore is a small island state and he was starting with a blank canvas, he was able to exert that level of control because he could do, not because he had to.

He's a good musician granted. Is he great ?well that's conjecture. He was at his best in Cream imho. If you compare him to Jeff Beck, his contemporary and band member, he is very limited. He never really explored the possibilities of electric guitar or different genres but seems content to re hash 12 bar blues and indulge in AOR bore fests.

Sent from my GT-P6800 using Thaivisa Connect App

Like him or not, he is a British Legend. He is a superstar

You're damn right ...he is a British[& indeed Global] superstar because of his very nature patriotic,confrontational,rebel who doesn't suffer fools gladly & hates deceit & bullshit.He shoud be knighted ! I'm pretty sure as he owns a part of Top Gear he'll engineer a divorce & go to a higher bidder -just like the Malcolm Maclaren the manager of the Sex Pistols did to EMI Records back in late 60's.

You make him sound like Winston Churchill. He's just one of the Holy Trinity of British TV's overpaid, overbearing, talentless braying jackasses - the others being Piers Morgan and Simon Cowell.

This has got nothing to do with him being anti PC, if you lamp a fellow employee you'd expect to get the boot.

Should always strive for a meritocracy, having quotas based on gender won't work.

However, equality in society for women has some way to go and that needs action. Family law, equal pay, longer maternity leave, advertising standards etc. The list is long.

The same restrictions imposed on people who want to join IS should also apply to people wanting to fight them as part of militias or even, as claimed by some, terrorist organisations. You can't condemn one and turn a blind eye to the other.

Surely they would rather her go than stay ? She would potentially be a far bigger problem to General Prayuth if she stays for obvious reasons.

Well I can happily report that there were no muslim no-go areas in Cornwall, Bath and Chipping Norton when I last visited.

wow another piece of 'non-discrimination'?

No, the time for justice has come for some politicians that avoided the law for years.

Costas is the one sided hero of the yellows, What about prosecute Abhisit and Suthep for the killing of red shirts and civilians, no this will never happen, because this government and the NACC are avoiding the law.

As noted above.... Looking at the calendar, 2010 comes after 2008.

Using a calendar's only relevant when the PP date is being looked at. It's when the case is filed that matters.

(edit: typo)

The greater majority of those countries will not extradite persons on these charges, there are laws in place in other countries, however they are seldom if ever used.

Lese-majesty laws in the UK. do exist on the statute book, however they are as said seldom or ever used nowadays. I know people are not prosecuted anymore for it.

Contempt of the Sovereign is an offence under the common law of England.

Paragraph 369 of Volume 11(1) of Halsbury's Laws of England (2006) suggests that the last prosecution for this (Les Majeste) offence was R v Price in 1840. I would suggest you worry more about the libel-laws. They sting just the same.

Contempt of the Sovereign is not the same as Lese Majeste

44% are minorities. Doesn't sound like they will be the minority for long.

So long Europe. It's been real nice knowing you.

London has been an immigrant sponge for two thousand years. It is easily already the greatest city in the world - and within fifteen years the immigrant boom will see the Uk, led by London, as by far and away the largest economy in Europe.

Greatest Shittthole City in the world - lol right.

London is somewhere in this list but a long way from the top.

A miserable cold, dirty, grey and smelly city....perhaps it's at the top of that list?

Seems like you're bored with life ?

The NLA are clearly scared that they will be cowed into submission by the firebrand rhetorical skills of such a noted orator .This is the reason the former PM won't be taking the stand, they've got too much to lose.

Even if, as claimed, he had retired from the Army before he passed the confidential information on to his lover, surely he is still liable for prosecution under CIA/Army secrecy agreements and Federal Law?