rockingrobin

10 hours ago, NanLaew said:

That is worded as an application for a ETD to be issued in the UK for someone urgently departing the UK to go overseas. Applying for an ETD to replace a lost-stolen passport overseas may be handled differently with possibly the local Embassy involved and typically is issued solely to get the person back to the UK, with limited international travel during its 1-year validity.

The process is no different if oversees.

The online application gives the British Embassy in Bangkok as the option available

The online application allows for returning to back to returning to Thailand

5 minutes ago, smedly said:

To do what exactly, they cannot legally work, claim benefits, get housing etc etc

 

once we leave the EU migrants from the EU will need a visa to enter and remain in the UK "Irish citizens excluded as they have been for Decades

How  will the UK be able to differentiate to those EU migrants in the UK before Brexit , to those arriving via the non-existent Irish border after Brexit

10 hours ago, smedly said:

https://briefingsforbrexit.com/brexit-and-the-irish-border/

I don't understand how this equates to the leave requirement of taking control of UK borders

How will not having border checks prevent the EU migrants from entering the UK?

How will not having border checks prevent goods liable for UK customs using the Irish republic to avoid UK customs

18 minutes ago, jimbob333 said:

Yeah that lasts 90 days? Also I'm guessing I would have to tell the British embassy is my plans are to go to Laos, then return to Thailand?

Sent from my LG-H870DS using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

You can apply for the ETD online, but will be required to provide travel details

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

1 hour ago, rasg said:

We didn't pay for the premium service and I submitted my wif'e first FLR two days before her visa was due to expire specifically to prevent something like this happening. (I'd read about it somewhere.) My wife came to the UK on a Fiancée visa that lasts for six months and they don't include the six months of that visa to make up the five years. I will do the same next April to make sure that my wife fulfills the five year requirement.

 

In your shoes I would contact a company like Thai Visa Express (the sponsors of this forum) and ask them. It will probably be free for the consultation. They will give you a definitive answer. I would also pay the NHS surcharge to get the new FLR they are offering and then argue with them afterwards. They've doubled it the last few weeks.

 

 

The last paragraph of the letter is confusing.

It states that the last permission was granted under conditions R-LTRP 1.1 (a),(b) and (d). and this requires a continuous period of 60 months.

I may be reading this incorrectly, but  does this not require 120 months and the 60 month period is for (a) to (c)

1 hour ago, ironryon said:

Hi rasg

 

I remember thinking that when we did the one day service to get the FLR.  We got cut short because they started the FLR (M) visa from that day and not from when the Spouse visa ran out.

 

What I keep getting drawn to in the rejection letter tho isnt that - its the part which says 

 

"As you has only previously  been granted one period of leave to remain on the basis of your family life under R-LTRP.1.1.(a), (b) and (d) you do not meet the above requirements...."

 

What is family life under R-LTRP1.1.(a), (b) and (d)? 

From this site

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-appendix-fm-family-members

The R-LTRP , is conditions to be satisfied for limited leave to remain

34 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

I pay tax to the US on my social security pension payments which I reclaim under a tax treaty by filing a tax return, I have no option but to pay those taxes at source.

That may be so but misunderstands the purpose of DTA

Double taxation treaties are to promote cross-border trade by eliminating the taxation of the same income twice. They determine which state have the taxing rights.

1 hour ago, simoh1490 said:

It's not so much a matter of taking precedence as it is that there is a secondary path that can be followed. Tax is still due and payable but can be reclaimed under a tax treaty.

No , it is not a matter of a secondary path. It is an international treaty and thus takes precedence over domestic laws where they clash

1 minute ago, stud858 said:

But I thought the tax treaty trumps local law and stops a person having two residencies. If the treaty is honored the thai law is bypassed and for my situation Id not be taxable in Thailand after 180 days. That's what the Australian side says.  What the Thai side says about treaty needs investigation.  I feel an excursion coming up to tax office.

3

Correct , the tax treaty takes precedence over domestic laws where applicable

11 minutes ago, OJAS said:

So if "all pensions are included in the dual taxation agreement", then kindly direct me to the specific provisions in the UK/Thailand DTT where private sector occupational pensions and the State Pension are explicitly covered, since I have not been able to find them. If any such provisions do exist, then I can only assume that they have been written in invisible ink - in which case I am sure that many of us on here would appreciate your sharing with us how you managed to acquire the necessary magical powers to read such ink!

I agree the DTT is problematic with regards occupational pensions. It would be interesting to know where the Thai revenue would place them , if at all within any of the Articles. It could be contested that as they are employment derived and thus a delayed payment for services rendered they could fall within the Article for dependent services. 

4 hours ago, stud858 said:

Does my statement sound acceptable.?

I am an Australian citizen and resident and for tax purposeses also the same by definition of gov.  I travel overseas for extended periods but always intend to return to live in my house in Australia.

So and because of the Australian tax treaty  with Thailand I am not considered a resident in Thailand for tax purposes.

 

 

Reading the relevant tax treaty and Article 4 , it would appear that due to having a permanent  home and being tax resident in Australia  , your statement sounds correct

1 hour ago, bandito said:

 

Pensions are not taxed or taxable in Thailand.

That is my understanding from the ministerial regulations

4 hours ago, Mattd said:

If you marry in Thailand there is no need to register it in the UK, the marriage is perfectly legal, however, as the certificate is in Thai, then you would need to have the properly translated for use in the UK.

https://www.gov.uk/marriage-abroad

As far as I understand, Thailand recognizes a foreign marriage between a Thai & a foreigner, or even two Thai's, the need to actually register it comes only if you want it to be legal in Thailand.

As per @rockin robin this is covered under the Civil & Commercial Code Section 1459:

"A marriage in foreign country between Thai people or between a Thai people and a foreigner may be effected according to the form prescribed by Thai law or by the law of the country where it takes place.

If the spouses desire to have the marriage registered according to Thai law, the registration shall be effected by a Thai Diplomatic or Consular Officer."

If already in Thailand, then as per other posters, it can be registered at the Amphur office covering where the spouse is registered.

However what this does not cover , is married couples of non thai nationality living in thailand but married elsewhere.

2 hours ago, sometimewoodworker said:

You either will get a pension under the new system, in which case to get the full pension you need 35 years. Or you get a pension under the old system in which case you only need 30 years for the full pension. 

 

This is ignoring contracted out years as you should be getting a pension from another source so that is why you contradicted out in the first place.

 

nobody ever has a combination old and new pension.

Under the transition arrangements, the pension system used will be determined by whichever gives the greater amount.

12 minutes ago, riclag said:

Between June and Nov 2016 Steel was giving his mostly unsubstantiated reports to the FBI.These reports were used in a FISA app.Don't call me a liar.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/politics/steele-timeline/?utm_term=.5f6e0ddda1a0

 

 

Me-Well  your one of the few that accept Mr. Trump as the POTUS.The only suspicion of illegal acts  during the campaign was with the Dems,DOJ and FBI(opposition research paper bought by the DEMs then used as unsubstantiated facts to bring down a candidate and President .Oh and bad leadership can happen in every WH .

You and I have been down this road before.Your hatred for Mr. Trump is tantamount to the facts on hand .Shoe on the other foot for a moment,If Trump had his DOJ and FBI do the same to Clinton    

You-"The FBI was investigating possible illegal activities on both sides; very publicly for the Democrats, very privately for the Republicans.  The investigation of the Democrats ended with no charges filed, the investigation of the Republicans continues with charges filed against key Trump campaign and administration officials.  These are facts, independent of my desire to see a dangerous incompetent removed from the White House.

 

Check your facts (or stop lying if that is what you're doing).  The Steele dossier was not used in the campaign, and the portions presented to the FISA court were verified".

Even if the Steel dossier was used to obtain the initial FISA.Anybody with an understanding of the process would know that further extensions require additional proof.

The Steel dossier was relaying in real time, events not known in the public domain

1 hour ago, terryw said:

Maybe it is a coincidence, but the two main Government departments not ready for Brexit, the Home Office and Treasury, are both managed by Remoaners.

Without the immigration white paper, there is no methodology to plan. Immigration extends beyond border and ports and includes such entities as banks, employers, landlords. How is each supposed to distinguish between an EU citizen who arrived before brexit, during the transition, and after

31 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

I was referring to direct rebuttals on social media, not general warnings in the msm. Sure, they're not going to reply to every troll. But replying to as many as possible would be far easier and more effective than trying to get each individual account shut down (only for a new account to spring up immediately).

Every rebuttal will be perceived as an admission, and will itself further disseminate the troll message

3 minutes ago, sandrabbit said:

I agree it's not a problem but an inconvenience for a Thai friend to hang around immigration for hours. For our marriage application we had a house visit and the officer was quite friendly and helpful to the point of telling us that his visit was a success, 1st renewal was actually quite painless as Rayong immigration had had a clear out of the deadwood with no house visit required so maybe I'm thinking too much as I'd had a few stressed out retirement extensions under the old regime.

Check with immigration if they want the witness to be present or a document signed by the witness.

My local immigration required a signed document, the person was not required to attend

8 minutes ago, smedly said:

This IMO is another case of "if you don't change your story we will prosecute you", this is in fact blatant intimidation scaring people to retract statements or else we will lock you up for years, it is no better than what was going on in the USA in the 1920's

 

It is absolutely shameful coming from the police

The pre trial hearing commenced yesterday.

8 hours ago, nontabury said:

According to one report out today, the ones who are playing hardball are the E.U. Commission, France and Germany, while 10-12 of the other countries are wanting the E.U side to relax their demands.

 This I can quite understand, as after Britexit is finalized, Germany and France will have to increase the amount they pay in, to cover the loss of the U.K charitable contribution. And as for the E.U. We all know they are looking after themselves, and are afraid, that if The U.K makes a success of their newly found freedom, then this will encourage others to get out of the E.U straigtjacket.

 

The eastern Europe members have already committed to increase their contributions

The narrative is changing

Initial report the guns and ammunition found in the camp tents, now they are nearby the campsite.

33 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

No. What is tiresome is the conspiracy theorists constantly claiming that Russian interference has been proven, but never actually coming up with any proof.

The British foreign minister disagrees

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-russia-johnson/stop-meddling-in-foreign-elections-uks-johnson-tells-russian-hosts-idUSKBN1EG00W

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

Donations
Regulated donees must report to the Commission all donations – whether in the form of money or goods or services provided without charge or on non-commercial terms – if they exceed the reporting thresholds. Donations over £7,500 to a members association or £1,500 to an individual regulated donee must be declared. Multiple donations from a single source that aggregate to more than the threshold must be reported. Reports must be made within 30 days of accepting the donation.

 

     —————+-+++

 

This is the law for Northern Ireland, as stated by the Electoral Commision.. So I don’t know where your getting your information from

The DUP declared that the donation came from the CRC, but neither the CRC or DUP would clarify further on the particular donors. 

The Electoral Commision issued CRC a fine of GBP 6000. The CRC is what is categorized as an unincorporated association, they do not appear on any registers. All laws in relation to such associations have a maximum fine of GBP 5000, except one, failure to disclose donors

11 minutes ago, nellyp said:

I agree...the pot is empty. Is it not equally true that i may have been paying in Lieu of my wife if I didn't have children thoug?. A pretty circular argument I suppose. If I have to pay more for my wife ( who has already paid 6 years worth) then so be it. I have no problem paying the contribution necessary as I believe we all should. Though it does make finance more difficult

2

The system does not function as you describe.

Everybody is paying for everybody else