Liquorice

Naam, on 15 Nov 2014 - 16:41, said:

AnotherOneAmerican, on 15 Nov 2014 - 14:10, said:

Naam, on 15 Nov 2014 - 14:08, said:

Faz, on 15 Nov 2014 - 12:08, said:

The problem with joint bank accounts is that Immigration don't accept them as proof of funds.

Funds for extensions must be in the applicants name only.

If it is your intention to leave your Thai banking assets to your wife, then leave a Will to this effect. Even then she will have to go through Court to get those funds released to her.

incorrect information! last february we had our 11th extension based on our joint account.

Yes, but you're both aliens.

why should a Farang/Thai couple be treated less favourable?

Why does a foreign man married to a Thai women have to prove supporting funds, but a foreign woman married to a Thai man doesn't.

That's Thailand for you Naam

The information is correct.

AnotherOneAmerican, on 15 Nov 2014 - 14:46, said:

She could have a go earning her own money, like we (men) all had to do.

No woman with any respect for herself, needs to be supported by a man, she supports herself.

My gf can live off me for as long as she likes.

She can leave at any time, she can work at any time, I will pay for her education if she wants one.

(She just finished high school, I have suggested she now attends university at my expense)

The idea she can live off me then take a chunk of my money if she leaves is incomprehensible to me.

AnotherOneAmerican, on 15 Nov 2014 - 15:17, said:

Faz, on 15 Nov 2014 - 14:54, said:

You recently posted in another thread how women deny you sex, when you feel the urge and that sex should be on your demand.

Seems to me when it suits your needs, you want to explore that 'secret garden' which belongs to her.

But you don't want to share money which belongs to you!

In the UK we refer to men with such attitudes as 'male chauvinistic **** '

If she lives off me, I have visiting rights to that garden.

She is free to leave at any time she doesn't agree.

I define that as freedom of choice.

For both of us.

Only the deepest respect for women then eh!

Maybe one day you might meet your 'Miss Right'......................I sincerely hope her first name is 'Always'

AnotherOneAmerican, on 15 Nov 2014 - 14:41, said:

BlackJack, on 15 Nov 2014 - 14:13, said:

In my experience it would be hard for her to raise the funds for Solicitors and costs to fight this in UK.

I would agree to represent her for 30% of the take on a no win, no fee basis.

(If he were in the USA, in the state where I held a license, and he had assets worth $300k+).

I don't represent men in divorce, ever, not worthwhile (although I have given advice for a fixed fee).

I'm real happy I didn't ask you for advice.

Please read previous post #85 from someone who has gone through this in the UK, then you'd also know it's a County Court.

sustento, on 15 Nov 2014 - 14:49, said:

BlackJack, on 15 Nov 2014 - 14:13, said:

All of the above proves a point and this is why there are Lawyers and Solicitors to handle such things. And Judges to make judgment.

UK, Australia and Canada and some of the USA have similar Laws - different terminology ie common law wife, de facto relationship, domestic relationship, close personal relationship etc.

In England and Wales there is no such thing as a common law wife.

Correct, although it is a term often used for unmarried people living together, but it has no legal recognition in the UK.

Jay Sata, on 15 Nov 2014 - 15:01, said:

Meanwhile the Daily Mail has tracked down the Roma woman at the centre of the court case.

The newly married mother whose husband is also unemployed moved four years ago from Romania to Leipzig, where her sister Cristina had already relocated with her husband and five children.

Dano is a convicted criminal who has never worked a day in her life but has been given a State-funded flat and a range of benefits.

The European ruling this week, however, means she cannot claim welfare benefits intended for jobseekers because she has made no effort to find employment in Germany.

The judgment suggests the UK can, similarly, refuse to pay welfare benefits to migrants who have moved to Britain simply to live off the State.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2835442/The-Roma-gipsy-sparked-crackdown-benefit-tourism-Elisabeta-Dano-25-tracked-German-city-finding-centre-landmark-welfare-case.html#ixzz3J7dNcCmE

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The judgment suggests the UK can, similarly, refuse to pay welfare benefits to migrants who have moved to Britain simply to live off the State.

Jay the ruling was against EU citizens, not migrants......let's not go there again. lol.

Any links to the Daily Mail are unfortunately blocked in Thailand.

AnotherOneAmerican, on 15 Nov 2014 - 13:48, said:

Faz, on 15 Nov 2014 - 12:08, said:

The problem with joint bank accounts is that Immigration don't accept them as proof of funds.

Funds for extensions must be in the applicants name only.

If it is your intention to leave your Thai banking assets to your wife, then leave a Will to this effect. Even then she will have to go through Court to get those funds released to her.

The problem with joint accounts is, you gotta be stupid to let someone else access money you earned.

You recently posted in another thread how women deny you sex, when you feel the urge and that sex should be on your demand.

Seems to me when it suits your needs, you want to explore that 'secret garden' which belongs to her.

But you don't want to share money which belongs to you!

In the UK we refer to men with such attitudes as 'male chauvinistic **** '

Jungle Jim, on 15 Nov 2014 - 13:22, said:

Sadly i think the OP does not get it! I hope you have a few million more to give her. She will be back to her old tricks within a week. Again i ask. Where did you meet her ?

No, I think the OP does get it, sadly you don't.

What relevance does where he met her have. It's the person, not the place that matters.

Are you implying if she was a 'bargirl' she has no morals.

Do you think bargirls like to sleep with old farts because they enjoy it!

They do it purely for the money, for financial security when their older.

JockPieandBeans, on 15 Nov 2014 - 12:12, said:

I would much rather be here than in the UK.

And for what it is worth. I find it abhorrent that the UK pensioners that now reside in Thailand do not get the annual increases that they should be getting.

Agreed Jock, I've got a few years to go before I get the UK state pensions.

There is pressure on the government, maybe it will change before I am in that situation, otherwise it's plan B.

OP, I'm sure this was a one off random test, not a general requirement for a retirement Visa.

I would have politely asked for him to put his request in writing, that may have given him reason to think again.

The problem with joint bank accounts is that Immigration don't accept them as proof of funds.

Funds for extensions must be in the applicants name only.

If it is your intention to leave your Thai banking assets to your wife, then leave a Will to this effect. Even then she will have to go through Court to get those funds released to her.

manly100, on 15 Nov 2014 - 11:59, said:

Yes this is my hope.

She has calmed down today and seems to understand an error in her method. I told her again that it’s good to save but not in secret and showed her a plan to save money together.

Now I have to say that this will color my thinking in the future and I hold little confidence that we can buy a house together.

Naturally I need this to be a one-off incident and if a pattern of this behavior recurs I’ll have to plan my exit.

It does seem her thinking is indeed one of “money she can hide away from me is her money” While my income and assets are also hers not ours. Not sure if an “us” exists in our relationship, just an “what I get?” and “how much I got” (her view)

Have to agree with some posters that much of this behavior can be attributed to facebook gossiping along the lines of “be careful he will do what all men do and leave you with nothing!” and “therefore get all you can Quick! Quick! Quick!”

Could this be a beneficial learning experience for us both?

kevin2852, on 15 Nov 2014 - 11:35, said:

In all of these cases, it is possible to make very dangerous assumptions and to build on them until the resulting tower bears no relation to reality. I like the Occam's Razor philosophy which holds that the simplest explanation is most likely true. Our wives need cash, sure enough and even though you are only middle aged, there will come a time when you have a lot at stake and perhaps you become sick or die. Don't forget that this is a nightmare which Thai women live with all of their lives, looking after old and /or sick parents husbands and children. My thought is that there is nothing at all wrong with squirrelling money away and, she is quite possibly doing you a favour and may not actually wish you any harm at all, but taking harsh advice and punishing her for years for something that you only expect to happen is both dangerous and unfair. I advise you to put all of the money on the table, and take her hand and tell her that you think it is good that she is thinking of all 3 of you, then, take the money and deposit it into an account at your local bank, Not ATM accessible and which requires both signatures to open. That way, she can see it there safe and then both of you can put whatever you can spare into it on your own. This means that even if one of you dies, the other will gain full access and in the meantime, who cares if she can find free money to put into the account. It is there to care for both and if it eventually amounts to a couple of million Baht, it will provide for security and care for all 3 of you for at least a few years. Then, on the passing of the two in say 30 years, whatever is left becomes a legacy for your daughter

Yes, read my post #232.

JockPieandBeans, on 15 Nov 2014 - 08:02, said:JockPieandBeans, on 15 Nov 2014 - 08:02, said:

Faz, on 14 Nov 2014 - 18:22, said:Faz, on 14 Nov 2014 - 18:22, said:

JockPieandBeans, on 14 Nov 2014 - 16:11, said:JockPieandBeans, on 14 Nov 2014 - 16:11, said:JockPieandBeans, on 14 Nov 2014 - 16:11, said:

samran, on 14 Nov 2014 - 07:05, said:samran, on 14 Nov 2014 - 07:05, said:samran, on 14 Nov 2014 - 07:05, said:

Wrong that you are an immigrant? No, you are one fella. Suck it up.

But as always, your condecention is breathtaking. Not being able to take pot shots at the locals here must be frustrating!

Wrong again.

Thailand, the Country where I live, class me as a Non - Imm. They have even stamped it in my passport

Thailand, the Country where I live, class me as a Non - Imm. They have even stamped it in my passport

That one cracked me up Jock ............not laughed so much in ages.

You can show your passport to the DWP then and get your yearly Pension increases because your not an Immigrant..................

Would love to Faz.

Unfortunately I am nowhere near UK retirement age. By the time I reach that age I doubt very much that there will still be a State Pension. Speculation on my part of course.

If a State pension comes my way it will be nothing more than an added bonus.

I'm still laughing Jock. I've got visions of thousands of TV members reading your post and now writing to the DWP claiming their increases because they have a Visa which states they are Non-Imm.

What is an Immigrant?

A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/immigrant

Although your intention may be to leave the UK/USA etc and permanently live in Thailand, unfortunately the Thai government do not offer a Visa for this purpose.

Therefore in the eyes of the Thai authority your Visa is a Non Imm, i.e. It is not a Visa on which you can permanently reside in Thailand.

In the eyes of the UK, you are an Immigrant because you migrated to live permanently in another Country. The fact that Country may not offer a suitable Visa to permanently live there is not their concern. The UK has no reciprocal agreements with Thailand about Pensions, so you don't get the yearly increases.

The other side of the coin, the UK does offer a Visa to permanently reside in the UK. So a Thai could apply for a 'Settlement Visa' (providing they meet the criteria for this Visa). After 5 years residency in the UK as an Immigrant, they can apply for Indefinate Leave to Remain (after again meeting the requirements) and they now become a 'permanent resident' and free of Immigration rules.

In Thailand we constantly have to deal with Immigration here, so we are classed as 'aliens' as opposed to 'Immigrants' because we never held a Visa allowing us permanent residency.

@Lemmy.

Your experience is the mirror image of my experience to my ex Chinese wife, so this advice is from personal experience.

After agreeing to a divorce, I bought her a one way ticket back to China. The plan was for me to go to China a few months later to get the divorce there.

That plan changed when her 'Chinese' friends started to whisper in her ear.

She came back to the UK after 2 months to seek a divorce in the UK.

I sought legal advice and my lawyer said she'd be lucky to get anything, but to offer £1,000 for a quick uncontested divorce.

I won't go into the reasons why he gave me that advise on here.

Anyway, she refused and went to see a lawyer herself.

She came back tail between her legs, accepted the £1,000 + airfare back to China.

I have no idea what her lawyer told her, but I guess it was the same as my lawyer told me.

I applied and paid for the divorce myself through my local County Court on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour and irretrievable marriage.

She didn't contest. Cost about £400 for the DIY divorce.

The UK is very fair in these matters. This 50/50 crap doesn't apply in these situations.

She is a foreign wife who you supported and sponsored to come to the UK. Thereafter shortly after getting permanent residency (ILR) they want a divorce.

To the UK that equivalent to a sham marriage, they married to get UK residency and it's frowned upon.

It's happening all the time in the UK.

In my case I had proof of paying all bills etc. Although she worked later on she had no proof of paying anything.

You have been married a little longer than I was, but don't be intimidated by her demands.

Find a good lawyer, show him your evidence and you'll come out of it OK.

Do not provide any further financial assistance to her, that's her problem if she wants to come back to the UK.

Asian women don't like a scrappy in court battle, they can lose a lot of face.

The ball is in your court, you have her over the barrel, you just don't realise it yet.

Let her get her own legal advice, then see how her tone changes.

She can't get legal aid so if she wants to contest anything, she'll have to pay her own legal fees and could end up with nothing, or even in debt.

(I'm guessing that's what my ex's lawyer told her).

manarak, on 14 Nov 2014 - 21:47, said:

Faz, on 14 Nov 2014 - 21:37, said:

manarak, on 14 Nov 2014 - 21:26, said:

manarak, on 14 Nov 2014 - 21:26, said:

AnotherOneAmerican, on 13 Nov 2014 - 21:12, said:

AnotherOneAmerican, on 13 Nov 2014 - 21:12, said:

She is entitled to,

At least half your home, maybe more, and residence in said home with an exclusion order for you until sold.

At least half any savings and investments you made in the last 6 years, judge would probably just award 50/50 on the lot.

Half any pension you earned in that 6 years.

Half of your NI payments, for the time she didn't earn any.

UK divorce law is brutal.

And as she isn't working, and you are, she gets legal aid, and you don't.

That means at the end you get to pay all her legal fees as well as your own.

(as legal aid is generally recovered from the working spouse)

Strangely,

she can afford the very best lawyer, as she has to pay nothing up front, while you probably can't.

A mediocre lawyer in the UK, in a contentious divorce, will cost about 5,000UKP/month and up (that's each).

Whatever you do, don't let her back in the house under any circumstances for any reason at any time (change the locks now, front and back).

If she calls at your house, do not open the door to her, record what she says through the door.

All and any meetings with her should be in public places in front of many witnesses, I would suggest only meeting during arbitration, which can be arranged very cheaply by your lawyer, about 50UKP/hour.

At the moment she has voluntarily relinquished her rights of residence in your home, which may prevent her getting a court order to stay in it (with you out) and you can claim she deserted you.

I say may, because if she claims she left because she was frightened of you, threatened by you, or beaten by you, then she's back in, any you're out.

PS

Don't mention 'rent free', she was your wife, expecting her to pay rent would be considered 'controlling behaviour' which is a form of abuse as far as UK family court is concerned.

err... as OP got married in Thailand, wouldn't the UK court be required to apply Thai Law?

Married under Thai law recognised in the UK.

Divorced under UK law recognised in Thailand.

?

I can't follow.

Have there been additional legal steps that turned the Thai marriage into a UK one under UK Law ?

Was it maybe a requirement for immigration/settlement?

No, a British citizen is free to choose a wife of any nationality.

In the case of a Thai marriage as long as they follow the correct marriage procedures in Thailand then they are legally husband and wife.

They only have to show a legal marriage certificate to prove she is the wife of a British citizen.

The UK have no choice but to accept that.

As a note, to get married in Thailand the foreigner must get an affidavit of freedom to marry first.

Guess where he gets that?................the British Embassy in Bangkok.

manarak, on 14 Nov 2014 - 21:26, said:

AnotherOneAmerican, on 13 Nov 2014 - 21:12, said:

She is entitled to,

At least half your home, maybe more, and residence in said home with an exclusion order for you until sold.

At least half any savings and investments you made in the last 6 years, judge would probably just award 50/50 on the lot.

Half any pension you earned in that 6 years.

Half of your NI payments, for the time she didn't earn any.

UK divorce law is brutal.

And as she isn't working, and you are, she gets legal aid, and you don't.

That means at the end you get to pay all her legal fees as well as your own.

(as legal aid is generally recovered from the working spouse)

Strangely,

she can afford the very best lawyer, as she has to pay nothing up front, while you probably can't.

A mediocre lawyer in the UK, in a contentious divorce, will cost about 5,000UKP/month and up (that's each).

Whatever you do, don't let her back in the house under any circumstances for any reason at any time (change the locks now, front and back).

If she calls at your house, do not open the door to her, record what she says through the door.

All and any meetings with her should be in public places in front of many witnesses, I would suggest only meeting during arbitration, which can be arranged very cheaply by your lawyer, about 50UKP/hour.

At the moment she has voluntarily relinquished her rights of residence in your home, which may prevent her getting a court order to stay in it (with you out) and you can claim she deserted you.

I say may, because if she claims she left because she was frightened of you, threatened by you, or beaten by you, then she's back in, any you're out.

PS

Don't mention 'rent free', she was your wife, expecting her to pay rent would be considered 'controlling behaviour' which is a form of abuse as far as UK family court is concerned.

err... as OP got married in Thailand, wouldn't the UK court be required to apply Thai Law?

Married under Thai law recognised in the UK.

Divorced under UK law recognised in Thailand.

She has no rights to any assets you acquired before the marriage.

Assets acquired after you married will be divided dependant on who put what in, financially.

cup-O-coffee, on 14 Nov 2014 - 19:43, said:

AnotherOneAmerican, on 14 Nov 2014 - 19:32, said:

cup-O-coffee, on 14 Nov 2014 - 19:27, said:

LemmyDude, on 14 Nov 2014 - 18:35, said:

We got married in an amphur in Bangkok but I am still going to go to a solicitor for advice.

If I can get her to agree to a settlement and cooperate and fly back to Thailand would that be the end of it? Or would she still be able to make a claim at a later date if she ran out of money?

Unfortunately she hasn't been very cooperative since she went back to Thailand in October.

What makes you think that she has anything on you?

She does not. In fact, by what I read in about one hour on the Internet, you two are not even recognized as being married by UK law.

If there is a Thai marriage certificate, he is married under UK law.

Your understanding of UK law is wrong.

No registration in the UK is required, any UK government office will accept a Thai marriage certificate, and a certified translation into English.

Exactly the same as Birth certificates.

In all those UK laws I read, and the ones I posted (not to name the many others I read), I did not read anywhere that "he is married under UK law". Care to provide a government link which states exactly that, verbatum?

The marriage will only be recognised under UK law if it is valid under Thai law. For it to be valid in Thai law, the marriage must be registered with the Registrar at an Amphur Office (District Office). A list of some Amphur offices in Bangkok and upcountry is attached.

http://www.siam-legal.com/Thailand_Service/thailand-marriage-uk.php

Recording a Thai marriage in the UK isn't necessary. It is still recognised as a legal marriage if it was legal in Thailand.

Thai women have insecurities about almost everything, marriage and money probably the worst.

It's the experiences they grew up with, cheating husband and poverty in old age.

A Thai woman needs to know she has security.

Usually farangs tend to be older and it's expected you will die before she does.

I don't know if you have made a will or not.

This may just be a case of sitting down and talking about the future and how she will be cared for after your not there.

You need to assure her that she will be secure come what may.

There is no need to hide cash or be dishonest.

The business she talked about was probably her plan to secure her future after your gone.

She needs to know there are alternative arrangement in place and she needn't worry about poverty in the future.

Perhaps you treated her really well, but you haven't given her any assurances.

For her, the future is unknown and frightening.

Unless you walk in on the act............you have no proof, unless they both admit it...........doubtful.

JockPieandBeans, on 14 Nov 2014 - 16:11, said:

samran, on 14 Nov 2014 - 07:05, said:

JockPieandBeans, on 13 Nov 2014 - 22:33, said:

Wrong that you are an immigrant? No, you are one fella. Suck it up.

But as always, your condecention is breathtaking. Not being able to take pot shots at the locals here must be frustrating!

Wrong again.

Thailand, the Country where I live, class me as a Non - Imm. They have even stamped it in my passport

Thailand, the Country where I live, class me as a Non - Imm. They have even stamped it in my passport

That one cracked me up Jock ............not laughed so much in ages.

You can show your passport to the DWP then and get your yearly Pension increases because your not an Immigrant..................

JockPieandBeans, on 14 Nov 2014 - 08:40, said:

Faz

Quote

A classic example, a few years ago a family friend came home from work one day and announced some good news to his 19 year old son.

A position had opened for a junior worker at his place of employment.

Speaking to his son, he said "you start after the holiday break in January, how's that for a Xmas present"

The son replied "I'd rather have a new X-Box".

Who's fault would that be ? The father or the son ?

If I had said that to my father I would have woke up in hospital.

If my son had said that to me, he would have woke up in hospital.

Bit of an exaggeration of course, but I'm sure you get my point.

Times change Jock. Kids can quote you the Human Rights Act now!

You can't lay a finger on them or force them to do anything they don't want to do now.

I remember when a 'copper' could give you a clip around the ear and you didn't dare tell your parents for fear of another crack.

You could also jump from job to job when we were youths then..................now their lucky to have a job.

Lissos, on 14 Nov 2014 - 03:05, said:

Faz, on 13 Nov 2014 - 12:08, said:

I speak from personal experience, having spent 45 years working in, around, and with families.

The youth of today either can't work.....or don't want to work.

A classic example, a few years ago a family friend came home from work one day and announced some good news to his 19 year old son.

A position had opened for a junior worker at his place of employment.

Speaking to his son, he said "you start after the holiday break in January, how's that for a Xmas present"

The son replied "I'd rather have a new X-Box".

Unfortunately, that's the attitude of to many of today's youth in the UK.

From my own experience of the workplace, for every shifty and mopey heel dragged that appears, I can point to excellent young workers who come in to the workplace brimming with a great work ethic and enthusiasm to get ahead, but the lament narrative either isn't aware of them at all or chooses to conveniently ignore them. Most importantly of all, I can point to many (especially males) who came in with an eager work ethic, did everything right by the book and show great commitment, outpeforming long termers (some of whom are on cast iron contracts and excellent pay deals from years ago, protected by strong unions) many times over but find themselves treated like disposable whores in return for all their efforts, leaving highly dissilusioned and resentfull young men behind in its wake. I've certainly worked with youth of the kind you are probably referring to, but also with others who were nothing like that but ended up as shadows of their formers selves further down the line for various reasons. It is not 1950, it is 2014 and the options, stability of income and the kind of relationship between employers and the employed is a world apart. In 2014, we're defined as - "human resources", no longer "personnel", and from that seed a bitter fruit forms I'm not here to defend the work shy and those who may be scamming the system. I'm here to defend the hard working among youths who are being ignored as if they don't even exist. Anyone who wishes to alienate an entire generation and cause subsequent resentment, only needs to keep pumping out that sort of narrative about them.

Note, I said either can't or don't want to work.

I also know a lot of unemployed youth who studies hard to get decrees and diplomas, only to be told they are over qualified for many job opportunities.

In short it's as bad as it's ever been for todays youth to find a job, either through a lack of incentive or job opportunities.

Some get lucky through perseverance..

What happened to all the apprenticeships for the youth in the skilled sector.?

Gone.............replaced by zero hour contracts............what a joke.

JockPieandBeans, on 13 Nov 2014 - 23:21, said:

Quote

Never said it was a racist ruling......far from it.

I said UKIP is racist, just my opinion.

If he gets his way, EU citizens will once again become migrants to each other.

I also think the people of the UK would vote to remain in the EU for a number of reasons, but that's not the topic.

2 years ago Cameron denounced UKIP as bunch of racists and basket cases. How times have changed.

If he gets his way, it will mean that the UK has control of its borders. Thats as it should be, a Country that says who comes in and who doesn't.

As for the people of the UK voting to stay in the EU, total speculation, and I think you just might be wrong.

I also think the people of the UK : Does that mean that you are not from the UK ?

The UK still has it's borders, that's why the UK didn't sign the Schengen treaty.

JockPieandBeans, on 13 Nov 2014 - 23:21, said:

Quote

Never said it was a racist ruling......far from it.

I said UKIP is racist, just my opinion.

If he gets his way, EU citizens will once again become migrants to each other.

I also think the people of the UK would vote to remain in the EU for a number of reasons, but that's not the topic.

2 years ago Cameron denounced UKIP as bunch of racists and basket cases. How times have changed.

If he gets his way, it will mean that the UK has control of its borders. Thats as it should be, a Country that says who comes in and who doesn't.

As for the people of the UK voting to stay in the EU, total speculation, and I think you just might be wrong.

I also think the people of the UK : Does that mean that you are not from the UK ?

I think the avatar speaks for itself Jock. Born and raised in Manchester, UK.

I spoke in the past tense as I now live in Thailand (a migrant)