rockingrobin

19 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

 

would i be correct in assuming that you can not provide a link to "the BBC has already informed that the alleged Novichok agent deployed was A-234"?

The Russian Ambassador suggests that the British have identified the agent as A-234

To me the most pertinent question is the motive. Skripal had lived openly in Salisbury , (I would assume that the security services would have conducted a risk assessment once he had been swapped ) , it would appear that no special precautions had been put in place. 

If Russia felt so betrayed by his actions why release him from prison  for the Anna Chapman spy circle.

39 minutes ago, sawadee1947 said:

Probably we would never get to know how massive Facebook was involved and of course nobody can give exact figures about the percentage of "wrong voting". And.....how much influence Russia got in this game. We are living in a world of "fake news" published even by our govts. To find the truth we have to inform ourselves not only by "Sun" but UK, USA, Continental News (as SPIEGEL) or Russia Today. But in this forum sometimes it seems as if Sun and Guardian is the "non plus ultra". The Observer e.g. is never mentioned. I would guess that the majority of TV members are following the populists, Neo Nazis are "ante portas". However we have to use our brain (if any) to fight freedom and our way of democracy. It was a long way since and we shall give 3rd world countries the chance to achieve it and not ongoing with daily "Thai bashing". That's to easy and too mean.

The current manager director of SCL , elections , who was in the C4 documentary ( I am a master of disguise) was former Bell Potinger  , stating on his profile

" At the root of every challenge: understanding and influencing how target populations think, feel and behave; and then using behavioural analysis and a range of channels/networks to shape narratives in order to meet security, political and development objectives "

8 hours ago, Rajab Al Zarahni said:

The right to live elsewhere is better expressed as the exercise of a  choice to live elsewhere. The fact that it is not expressed as a right is for reason that there are almost no restrictions preventing anyone from exercising that choice. The main exceptions are those who are the subject of arrest warrants or bail restrictions or prisoners in custody. Similarly, there is no right to the issue of a passport but in practice almost all applicants who meet the eligibility criteria will be successful except those who are the subject of arrest warrants, bail restrictions etc. Any decision to refuse a passport to an eligible applicant would be susceptible to an appeal which would likely succeed unless there were good grounds for the refusal. The State cannot simply refuse to issue a passport without any grounds for doing so.

deleted

5 hours ago, evadgib said:

- The rules were not clear before Carson and nor was there any daylight in NI contributions for any that later exercised their right to live elsewhere upon retirement.

- I maintain a UK account and make purchases from it regardless of my geographic location. VAT is deducted whether I like it or not.

 

Please stop and think before disrupting the board any further.

Where is the right to live elsewhere?

There is no right in UK law for the issue of passports. The state can bar anyone from leaving the country.

11 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

But that would be the end of that government if they tried.

 

How would the government pay back all the payments taken and explain themselves to the electorate.

 

Remember that every person of working age has NI contributions deducted from their salary and have no choice about it.

The payments taken are for existing pensioners, not a saving fund for the future

37 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

If you live on the US side of the Niagara falls you get the increase. If you you live a mile or so away in Canada, you don't. If you live in the US Virgin Islands you get the increase. If you live in the British Virgin islands then you don't.

 

Can you explain why British expats living in the Philippines (which is not part of the USA) can get the increase but those expats living in most Commonwealth countries cannot?

The difference between the US and Canada with regards UK pensions is  Canada only has a Double Contributions Convention , whereas the US is a full Social Security agreement

3 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Most pensioners also pay income tax on their pensions. I started off paying income tax in July 1959 and have paid income tax every year since then and will do until the day I die. I have NO choice in the matter.

 

quote "Expats don't make purchases in the UK, so don't contribute back to the exchequer via VAT at 20%.  It's only fair they get less generous state pensions."

 

Equally they don't get any benefits from not using the NHS or any other UK facilities and therefore are in effect saving the UK spending on them. So IMHO they government should work out the cost for the use of those facilities and give a rebate to those who do not use them. That is equally fair. By not spending money in the UK we are also not contributing the cost of imports either.

The majority of pensioners would not be entitled to a rebate or even a state pension , if the government decided to adopt such a policy as above

1 hour ago, transam said:

That is crap because there is a list of countries we can live in that nothing from our pension is paid back to the UK regarding tax....USA is one..

Before using the US as an example of perceived unfairness , it is necessary to understand the social security agreement between the UK and US.

The purpose of the agreement is to eliminate double social security taxation that would otherwise occur.  It also allows for contributions made in each country to count towards respective entitlement to pensions

49 minutes ago, vogie said:

But this brings me back to the question, how long does it take to become an ordinarily resident in the UK. Can it ever happen, have I burned all my bridges by living in Thailand for 5 years (previously 5 years in France also).

As far as I am aware  , the term ordinary residence has not been defined in UK statute. However the issue did arrive at the Lords in 1982 , when they was the final appeals court.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1982/14.html

The words ^'ordinarily resident' mean that the person must be habitually and normally resident here, apart from temporary or occasional absences of long or short duration.

It is possible to become ordinarily resident on day one.

7 minutes ago, vogie said:

Thanks for that, but I suppose nobody knows what that "sufficient" period is.

According to the Act an oversees resident means somebody who is not ordinarily resident in GB or one of the territories. 

1 hour ago, vogie said:

Yes that is my understanding as well, but if I return to Thailand it would go down to the figure previously paid. I was wondering how long to stop in the UK for the upgrade to become permanent, even if I return to Thailand.

Looking at sections 20(3) and 20(4) of the 2014 Pension Act , it would appear that for the upgrade to be permanent , a person would have to be in the UK for a sufficient period to be classed as ordinarily resident.

Section 20(3) is about oversees resident in the UK , not UK residents, whilst 20(4) is about ceasing to be an oversees resident.

5 hours ago, KhunBENQ said:

Do you refer to the picture below, Q21?

Yes, it is another example where these English language questions are plain wrong/confusing.

Even though answer 3 would be correct:

the solutions that are written in Thai at the end of the pdf say that number 1 is correct.

That something is wrong, is indicated by the fact that the pointer goes to 3 and the bold text is 1.

 

To me Number 3 is incorrect because the parking bays are to long for cars, and more suitable for coaches / buses etc

9 minutes ago, nontabury said:

O.K. Sitting on a bar stool in Nana, you obviously know more about what is involved than a British farmer, who is actually having to do this paperwork. Her reluctance to do it online, if possible, cannot be attributed to her age or education, as she is only early 30’s and university educated.

But I will ask her in the next few days, when I see her.

If they do not have internet access, then a self-service telephone line is available to report up to 50 movements in bulk

17 minutes ago, nontabury said:

Off course it’s accurate. She has a farm ( one holding ) her father is the owner of  another holding, that is the farm next to hers. Consequently when she moves a beast from her field into the Next field of her father, she must comply with the E.U. Rules.

 I first became aware of this stupid E.U rule, while  visiting her house, when the postman came. I was absolutely amazed at the amount of E.U. Forms ( think Brazilian rain forrest) she has to deal with.She exclaimed how the E.U system works. To what benefit she’s no idea. 

 

The cattle is being moved from one farm to another. The amount of paperwork is minimal. The passport is issued at birth, or importation and remains with the beast for life. The update of the passport can be done online.

Here is the cross Whitehall briefing, that the government claimed was confidential

https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/Exiting-the-European-Union/17-19/Cross-Whitehall-briefing/EU-Exit-Analysis-Cross-Whitehall-Briefing.pdf

40 minutes ago, nontabury said:

Do the Australian cows have to have a passport, the same as E.U.cows. And if so what colour is the cows passport? Do they have to submit that passport in order to move a beast from one field to an adjacent one. The answer to both questions is NO. Why because they’re not E.U cows.?

This is not truly accurate.

There is no requirement to update the passport for moving the cattle from one field to an adjacent field unless it is listed as a separate livestock holding.

A single livestock holding can cover the land and buildings within 10 miles of its main livestock handling area.

58 minutes ago, nontabury said:

This applies to All cattle, throughout the E.U. Nothing to do with BSE.

 It’s all about the opportunity to create little empires, controlled by the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. There are other examples I could give you, including unnecessary regulations from the E.U relating to non licensed semi medicines relating to pet animals.

As a matter of interest, the colour of the passport is Green.

please try and keep up.

The Australians have NLIS

and Canada RFID is mandatory

7 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

The info only states return to where you live. That does not mean residence.

Having a proof of a address here will be enough for the embassy. As I wrote before others have done it.

The application process requires proof of residency.

The passport application requires proof of residential address

Under Thai immigration law ,the OP  does not have residency , but temporary permission of stay

5 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

It says this which is enough for the OP. He can use it for a trip to the consulate in Laos and get a visa and return to here. Even a single entry non-o visa would allow him a total stay of almost 5 months by getting a 60 day extension of the 90 day entry from it.

 

 

The issue I am trying to reconcile , is how can the UK issue a travel document to a British national , which terminates in a country that the UK cannot guarantee their right of residence

36 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

They look similar to a regular passport now and are valid for a year. The are only taken away if you arrive in the UK with one.

It can only be used once to travel to your destination

https://www.gov.uk/emergency-travel-document

25 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

It can be used for more than one trip. Five countries can be shown on it. It is valid for a year which indicates it is close to being equal to a regular passport.

No ,it is clearly spelt out in the T and C

It is good for 1 journey as specified in the documents observance page, with the possibility of 5 transit countries. On reaching the destination it is no longer useable. If after being produced alterations to the specified journey printed in the obsevance page are required then a new EDT is required. The exception to this is where the return journey is specified.

The validity for upto 1 year is to allow for certain countries requirements that travel documents should be valid x months beyond  entry into that country.

1 hour ago, BritTim said:

The emergency travel document is not intended as an alternative to a regular passport. It is intended to substitute for a regular passport until a replacement can reasonably be acquired. As long as application for a new regular passport is made promptly, the embassy will supply an emergency travel document for the same purposes where you would normally use your regular passport (as far as allowed by the countries you intend to visit). Endorsements will restrict use of the passport to those valid activities. Leaving the country to apply for a fresh visa when your permission to stay expires is a valid use, as is applying for an extension of your permission to stay.

The ETD is only valid for 1 single journey specified within the document. The itinery cannot be changed or altered. I fail to see how this is a substitute for a passport.

1 hour ago, ubonjoe said:

He only needs an address for here to prove residency. It is the same for applying for a new passport here.

Others have done the same thing when there passport was lost or stolen.

Up to 5 countries can be shown on the ETD. In his case they could be Laos, Thailand. Laos, Thailand and then the UK.

The decision maker will want to know why the journey being proposed is an emergency.

Why is Laos Thailand Laos Thailand and then the UK more of an emergency as opposed  Thailand to UK, considering the issue of any visa or entry into any of the countries mentioned is not guaranteed apart from the UK

13 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

They will issue it since he has less time than it requires to get a new passport.

The ETD will allow him to leave, get a new visa and then re-enter the country. Thailand will be his final destination.

The decision maker will require the purpose of journey.

Once the applicants states that they require the ETD to make a journey to obtain a visa for Thailand , it surely will be refused if Thailand is the final destination.The reason being  they cannot have residency otherwise a visa would not be required.

The ETD is for emergency travel where a passport replacement cannot be obtained in time, its purpose is not to allow the holder to gain residency in lieu of a passport.

I suspect that the British Embassy will require the UK to be the final destination

9 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

He only has 2 weeks left on his permit to stay. It would require a miracle to get a new passport before then.

At 500 baht a day for a overstay it does not take long for it to be equal to or greater than what the ETD costs. Plus the risk of being caught without a passport and being on an overstay.

 

In order to be eligible for the ETD , the person is required to prove that they have residency in the country of final destination, in this case Thailand. I am not sure how the British Embassy will view the application considering only 2 weeks left on the existing permit to stay.