bigt3116

Yeh, getting overcharged for stealing content must be annoying

Strange, the OP is from Britain and it clearly states on the embassy website "This service should not be used to support the opening of a bank account. Read our Living in Thailand guide for information about money and banking in Thailand."

Nah, it is you that cannot see the obvious! Nowhere does it state that you have to enter the country to use a visa, hence why immigration here can and do issue single use visas. Can you not see on the example that it does not say "enter by" it says "This visa must be utilized on the date of issuance".

It is 200 baht a day and it most certainly is for foreigners as well.

Correct, CW cannot cancel a visa, only an extension of stay. You leave to get your Non-B and your single entry Non-O will become defunct.

Can you see at the top left of the photo where it clearly states "NON-IMMIGRANT VISA", so yes, it is a f'in visa!

When you receive your extension that will count as your first 90 day report, many offices do it that way.

A TM87 is used when you enter visa exempt, and it enables immigration to issue you with a Non-Imm visa, (it does not "change your visa status" as you did not have any visa). Have a look at the top left of the photo, there is a VISA that immigration has issued!

Oh yes they quite often are ! Hence the forms TM86 Application for change of visa (tourist to Non-Imm) and TM87 Application for visa

Everything is free ?

He does not have an extension of stay, he has a permission to stay based on the visa in his passport, (totally different).

If Nong Khai had an airport, which it does NOT.

Surely the Kor Ror 2 is that proof ?

Easier still, why don't you show me where anyone got a different visa validity ?

Me too, never heard it, but maybe nearer the border?

Nothing to do with the validity though. All multi Non-imm have the same validity, all single Non-imm have the same validity, all METV have the same validity, and all SETV have the same validity. No "discretion". You clearly wrote "The validity of a visa is granted with discretion", and that is wrong.

Ireland/Eire , not NI

For formal documents, stick to would have (and so on) — but for most other writing, it's okay to use the contracted form. For example: ✅ I would have been an only child if it weren't for IVF. ✅ I would've been an only child if it weren't for IVF.

There is no "discretion" for the validity of the visa, the timelines are set in stone.

It is already taught to many in Kindergarten, and mandated to be taught from P1

Just to clarify "would've" is absolutely correct also.

That would suggest that you entered on either a Non-Imm or a SETV ? Not visa exempt?

Bard thinks maybe your English is a little lacking too. " The grammar of the sentence "I have rarely met an English person that knows 'lose is not loose' nor 'have is not of'" is correct, but it could be improved by making a few changes. First, the word "that" should be replaced with "who" because it is referring to a person. Second, the word "nor" should be replaced with "or" because it is connecting two negative statements. Third, the phrase "have is not of" is a bit awkward and could be replaced with "is not of having." Finally, the sentence could be made more concise by removing the word "rarely." Here is the revised sentence:

She is worried about the tax implications

Very true, no problem with it at all. However maybe immigration will