loppylugs1

Ah! you mean the black gaberdine belted type,the ones so favoured in the 1940s,1950s type. For that also you have to be wearing the round wired NHS type goggles and a black beret,something like the "some mothers do 'ave em "type.

Definitely the way forward,can see the bar girls down New Plaza especially at Mickeys British beer bar having a interest in you

As I said above; in theory it was discretionary, in practice it wasn't.

What do you think about the actual figure?

Do you think having a minimum required income which is above the earned income of 40% of the working population of the UK is a plus?

Do you think that taking no account of regional variations in income and living costs is a plus?

Do you think using gross rather than net income (see above for examples of how daft this is) is a plus?

So what is the likely amendment (if any) - just to add a "disposable income" minimum alongside the gross minimum. I can understand the gross minimum, simply to protect against recourse to public funds (and it is pretty low really for an employed person to bring in a spouse - average wage being 26,500 - i.e. 70% of average). The argument against outgoings on this is more likely IMO to just add a clause to stop hardship coursing recourse also (tax credits etc) - by by of introducing such a "disposable Income" limit IN ADDITION.

I do think that full families returning, after 3+ years of marriage, should be given special circumstances.

Any amendment is unlikely, unless the government is forced to do so by the courts.

As I have already outlined, I believe, as do many others including the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration, that the minimum required income should be the same as the amount the government expects a British family to live on; the income support rate, for a couple, £5852.26 p.a., plus housing costs, plus the extra for any children.

This required minimum income should, of course, be net of tax, debt repayments and other commitments.

The government expect a British family to live on this; where is the justification for demanding that a couple where one is an immigrant need more?

The current minimum, £18,600 p.a., is indeed below the average UK income. But approx. 40% of the UK working population earn less than this.

The APPGM report linked to earlier includes a case of a nurse whose income is below the limit and so cannot obtain a settlement visa for her husband.

If she was doing the same job on the same pay grade in London then her London allowance would put her income above the minimum and she would meet the requirement. Even though the cost of housing in London would use up more than her London allowance and effectively she would be earning less!

How can anyone claim that makes sense?

Reading your comments as to the facilitation into the UK by even more refugees or whatever you refer to as returning families, and your comment in second paragraph "as many do" I have to conclude that the sympathy vote alongside your comments is somehow lacking.

Taking a snapshot viewing of the UK.GOV e petitions site on the very subject you keep harping on about and the need to obtain (is it 100.000 votes to force a debate in parliament)? it had precisely one vote,may have gone up to three,unless this was a similar poll still banging on about the unfairness of it all. The All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration are all full of past immigrants anyway,so not hard to see the way forward there.

Yes I think there is a justification to demand more hoops that a immigrant has to jump through and for that end I did contact James Brokensure,the minister for immigration on this very subject. Surprise surprise ,no I did not receive an automated response but a personnel reply.

The tightening up of rulings concerning returning so-called families is being looked at,I did point out the ludicrously low amount the £62000 needed and how it could be "managed" also

Anyway ,if anybody else thinks there is a unfairness to it all,contact the minister for immigration

Use Darren at Key Visa. Supply him with bank statements (copies). They go to UK Embassy every Wed (?). They take all papers/passport copies etc. Get it back the following week & then you pay. Excellent service despite rip-off fee from robbing bastards at UK Embassy BKK.

Thanks Mikebell,

Overlooked your post,I am at Embassy on Monday for passport,see if I can kill two birds with one stone with income letter too.

I take it will be twelve months of statements,not a snapshot of last three months

I have held a deposit of the 800.000 baht for a number of years also, in a sterling account,now the £ has increased I just want it out and having as little financial exposure in Thailand as possible. I just get the feeling for farangs at least things will be a'changin' in the not too distant future. Just want an easy escape plan in place

Here we go, the perpetual, "I bet I am less broke-arse than you" posting frenzy.

What has this to do with anything"broke-arse"? "perpetual" "frenzy" just a case of basic maths actually,it is so damned basic a five year old could see a logic

What is it £16.000 or somewhere around that?,now interest rates are virtually on the move in the UK you could easily gain more than that in interest in a bond ....

I get interest on my deposit here. Not as much as I used to get here a year or two ago (3.8%) but still more than I could get for a similar deposit in the UK.

Anyway, it's a matter of principle.

3.8 % on a falling currency,was Sterling up almost 17% against the Baht recently? So you could say you have lost in Sterling terms around 13% Would that be around £208 lost? 4 times the £50 of what your principles dictate

2500 plus is what it is -we do not have a choice.

I chose to take the deposit route.

There will be snow on Jomtien beach before I donate 2500B to the UK consulate for them to rubber-stamp a piece of paper. I would rather move to Cambodia.

What is it £16.000 or somewhere around that?,now interest rates are virtually on the move in the UK you could easily gain more than that in interest in a bond Premium bonds for one,have about that amount in,on av I get £50 a month,I do wheeling and dealing on the stock market,with that Barclay's bank shares they are at a low,good dividends,few hundred a year at least,could go on but not jesting,you could do a lot with that 800.000 baht

Could also add you could make a decent profit on those shares too

2500 plus is what it is -we do not have a choice.

I chose to take the deposit route.

There will be snow on Jomtien beach before I donate 2500B to the UK consulate for them to rubber-stamp a piece of paper. I would rather move to Cambodia.

What is it £16.000 or somewhere around that?,now interest rates are virtually on the move in the UK you could easily gain more than that in interest in a bond Premium bonds for one,have about that amount in,on av I get £50 a month,I do wheeling and dealing on the stock market,with that Barclay's bank shares they are at a low,good dividends,few hundred a year at least,could go on but not jesting,you could do a lot with that 800.000 baht

I tried the Swedish consulate and they refused so we have to stay with the rip off British Embassy letter. Key Visa offer a very good service for getting the letter from BKK.

I just sent it EMS to the British Embassy. 49 baht. Posted on a Monday and got it back the following Monday.

Was it 12 months of bank statements? ..and how did you pay?presumably giving your card details in the mailing, return postage included?

Thanks

No bank statements, just letters from pension providers. Payment is by postal order. All the details are on the embassy website.

Not according to Key visa,bank statements are OK

e bay put in sonicare china see what comes up try Korea hong kong too

Yes it hits and it hits hard. Just a numbing effect the first few days,just does not sink in the total realisation that you will never see that person again,or share the pleasures that you thought would go on forever.

But realisation does take hold and coming to terms with the realisation is the hardest of all,anything and everything you grasp hold of to keep the memories afresh. You never get over it,but you learn to live with it

Nowadays ,years after those events ,for me anyway, I often think I am one day closer to joining my mum and dad,all my long lost friends even my long departed dogs.

Is there life after death? who knows,but I look on it as this, you came from something so you go back to that something.

Anyway you had time to plan and say your goodbyes,for some they do not have that opportunity

As I said above; in theory it was discretionary, in practice it wasn't.

What do you think about the actual figure?

Do you think having a minimum required income which is above the earned income of 40% of the working population of the UK is a plus?

Do you think that taking no account of regional variations in income and living costs is a plus?

Do you think using gross rather than net income (see above for examples of how daft this is) is a plus?

So what is the likely amendment (if any) - just to add a "disposable income" minimum alongside the gross minimum. I can understand the gross minimum, simply to protect against recourse to public funds (and it is pretty low really for an employed person to bring in a spouse - average wage being 26,500 - i.e. 70% of average). The argument against outgoings on this is more likely IMO to just add a clause to stop hardship coursing recourse also (tax credits etc) - by by of introducing such a "disposable Income" limit IN ADDITION.

I do think that full families returning, after 3+ years of marriage, should be given special circumstances.

Returning from where? the UK? chances are none excepting the husband has ever set foot in the UK

All wishful thinking. The stable door is well a truly shut and bolted, and I would say heavily nailed into position as well

Griping about something that in substance will get everlastingly more difficult to overcome,and I think impossible to overcome in the foreseeable future may give a bit of temporary lift,but that is all it is temporary

No, returning from somewhere else, to the UK (otherwise it would be off topic, no?). As with your scenario, a British man married to a foreigner living abroad and with kids by that marriage, should be able to return to the UK without being forced to split. This does not man they should have recourse to public funds directly, but it may not be possible in such a situation to show the income or a lump sum - in which case they should look at accepting such as job offers and family sponsorship. A citizen has the right to return to their country; a nation is not land, it is the people. It is immoral to spilt up a family. These are two truisms that combines should provide room for special consideration.

I'm not griping - I am discussing. It does not affect me, my wife and kids have dual nationality - we had a much harder course to run, though the Primary Purpose days - some 17 years ago now, which we luckily navigated fairly easy (many didn't).

The argument is that the decision is based on gross income/savings and not disposable income, I am suggesting at most they will probably get an extension (and extra hurdle if you will) based on disposable income of that gross - get it? Nothing in UK policy is nailed down - they can and so rework policy on public reaction and where there is issue - they did with Poll Tax, with Syria involvement (took it to Parliament, first time ever), and many, many other occasions. That is a working democracy.

Rubbish. Choice,...now the Brit guy chose,his own choice to marry and have kids in whatever country other than the UK. It is not immoral to split up a family because the Brit guy now gets fed up in whatever country he chose in the first place,if he has baggage ,his problem,he stays where he is

Look not my problem or decision,this is the UK parliaments and more importantly the vast majority of the UK populations decision

Face it,majority want to get back to the UK with their baggage because life is easier,in time they probably will be on all sorts of freebies (poll tax ,syria have nothing to do with anything with this problem). Universally the UK population do not want extra migrants,it is a vote loser for any political party that would allow it

It will never happen

As I said above; in theory it was discretionary, in practice it wasn't.

What do you think about the actual figure?

Do you think having a minimum required income which is above the earned income of 40% of the working population of the UK is a plus?

Do you think that taking no account of regional variations in income and living costs is a plus?

Do you think using gross rather than net income (see above for examples of how daft this is) is a plus?

So what is the likely amendment (if any) - just to add a "disposable income" minimum alongside the gross minimum. I can understand the gross minimum, simply to protect against recourse to public funds (and it is pretty low really for an employed person to bring in a spouse - average wage being 26,500 - i.e. 70% of average). The argument against outgoings on this is more likely IMO to just add a clause to stop hardship coursing recourse also (tax credits etc) - by by of introducing such a "disposable Income" limit IN ADDITION.

I do think that full families returning, after 3+ years of marriage, should be given special circumstances.

Returning from where? the UK? chances are none excepting the husband has ever set foot in the UK

All wishful thinking. The stable door is well a truly shut and bolted, and I would say heavily nailed into position as well

Griping about something that in substance will get everlastingly more difficult to overcome,and I think impossible to overcome in the foreseeable future may give a bit of temporary lift,but that is all it is temporary

I send a print out of my most recent bank statement and the fee in cash by EMS .... never had a problem

Right. depending on who opens the envelope depends where it goes

Ten years is a long time and a lot can happen in that time, and at least two general elections.

Obviously the £18,600 rule has not been in force for 2.5 years so we have not seen this tested, but I would say if someone has been here 2.5 years or more and combined incomes do not meet the £18,600 yet they can exist without funds to which they are not entitled then further "Leave to Remain" should be granted, further more if they can demonstrate they can not afford the fees they should be waived.

Edit in: I am solely referring to situations that would split a family, "right to a Family Life"

What? after 2.5 years? So what happens in the next 7.5 years?,and after that? You can have the right to a family life in Thailand also

You see there are Food banks ,selling Big Issues, life living on the fringes,keeping your head down until the need inevitably arises where Public Funds are needed

Will never happen,the £18.600 needs to rise proportionally with cost of living

I tried the Swedish consulate and they refused so we have to stay with the rip off British Embassy letter. Key Visa offer a very good service for getting the letter from BKK.

I just sent it EMS to the British Embassy. 49 baht. Posted on a Monday and got it back the following Monday.

Was it 12 months of bank statements? ..and how did you pay?presumably giving your card details in the mailing, return postage included?

Thanks

The new procedure urolift is getting excellent reports, less invasive surgery for BPH. In contact with a couple of surgeons in India,will be taking a trip over in near future to finalise details and getting on with it

Some of the visa agents in Pattaya can do anything and everything at a price. Google a few

I was really quite surprised that the moderators in this forum did not delete your first post and my reply to it. I could get into a long argument with you about how morally and factually wrong your comments are. However, frankly you are not worth it. The sort of views that you express were those of the Nazis in 1930s Germany. In my opinion you and your sentiments have no place in this forum.

You can be damned sure this one is looking for a way in regardless of what restrictions are applied

The old chestnut "nazis" " morally""factually" what the hell has that to do with anything? Simply if you or your family cannot pay your way in the UK you should and will be denied entry, and am all in favour,not only personally, but the the UK gov. and the overwhelming majority of the UK tax payers say so.

1 example English guy falls in love with Thai woman (who by the way has 3 kids,not his) after a spell the Thai woman believes ghosts are after her,into the looney bin for a year or so,meanwhile the 3 kids are not only struggling with everything and anything the English guy obviously draws on "public funding" to help alleviate his problems. To my mind the lot of 'em should be bundled on the next Thai airways jet that happens to be warming up at Heathrow Could go on Thai women lining up at county courts to take English husband for all they are worth with a few months of landing in the UK

If as you say 7 by 7 no public funding is now available that would be a magnificent achievement by UK govt. to control immigration

Thanks for the replies,looks as if it BKK then

Used to hold the 800.000 in bank ,but now chewing my way through it. The income letter the British embassy supplies ,do I just show my income through bank statements etc. ?

Probably still got a fair bit in, so a combination of the two I think.

Was it ever established that the Austrian consul could provide income letter for UK ex pats for immigration purposes in Pattaya ?

It may well be Egyptian air that is putting this deal across, I just get daily prices fed to my comp. Anyway go to Skyscanner for latest price,next day it is around £600

Jet airways have reduced tix by an astonishing £150 last few days into j burg on 30 july if anyone interested now about £475

Plus we now know the spouse/partner is earning over £18600 and a net contributor to Her Majesty's Government!

I would still love to know what the government is going to do with all those families at FLR renewal that no longer meet the requirements! Children settled in school for two years being loaded onto a plane to be repatriated?

These requirements still have a lot of challenges ahead!

I seem to recall reading somewhere that no family member will be removed from the UK for not meeting the financial requirement alone, and they will eventually be able to qualify for residence under the 10 - year long residence provision.

That's interesting. Any idea how that would work in practice? What if they went back to Thailand (or anywhere) say for a holiday? Would they be allowed back in? Would they have to keep applying for FLR every 2 1/2 years, paying the £600 visa fee but not getting it?

Also after 10 years can they get ILR without passing KOLL?

Sorry to ask so many questions but have the government really thought this through?

I wonder more importantly where would they stand under the human rights act? say that they have children and say they can not meet the financial requirements are they going to try and say that the mother/father can not stay in the UK considering that a person could not be deported due to having a cat I would think that a child is more important than a cat.

I am sure the UK govt. have thought many things through. It is up to any potential sponger off the benefits system who has not thought it through. The slice of the welfare cake in the UK is not exactly getting reduced ,it is staying exactly the same,it is the claimants on that slice of cake that increases,less and less for everybody taking a bite.

Better if the other half gets a job in the UK that pays above the min threshold the govt requires then easy peasy. The min figure the UK govt. requires will increase significently as time progresses,so better earlier than later

I have known a few Thai wives plus kids taken to the UK and it cost the UK taxpayers a fortune.

Better to have a system where no benefits are paid,not one penny,to immigrants. Once they are forced by whatever circumstances to apply for them ,then they are deported

Wow - full of compassion aren't you?

Don't forget to put your jackboots on when you frogmarch them to the airport.

.What has compassion to do with anything?

If you yourself are in the position of attempting to get wife/kids into the UK and there is any doubt that you could not permanently support them ,then you should not consider taking them

I have known a few Thai wives plus kids taken to the UK and it cost the UK taxpayers a fortune.

Better to have a system where no benefits are paid,not one penny,to immigrants. Once they are forced by whatever circumstances to apply for them ,then they are deported