mfd101

150 days to do what exactly?

OK, so I'll pick up each ballot paper and YOU count aloud and YOU make a note on a piece of paper. OK? Let's start now: 1 for XYZ, 2 for ZYX, 3 for YXZ, 4 for XZY, got it? OK? Let's start now: 1 for XYZ, 2 for XYZ, 3 for um ZXY, 4 for XYZ ... 

On 1/18/2019 at 12:01 PM, srowndedbyh2o said:

Anyone tried using Instarem to do transfers?

I just stumbled across their webpage. Had never heard of them before.

Like Transferwise, they list all fees and the total amount recipient receives before you complete the transfer.

I just went online and checked to compare a US$1000 transfer.

Transferwise shows US$11.90 total fees, a rate of 31.71, with recipient receiving 31,332.65.

Instarem shows US$ 5.00 total fees, rate of 31.69, with recipient receiving 31,531.55.

Not sure what their method of moving funds is.

 

I would love to use Instarem - easily the best (ie cheapest) - compare on Monito.com. BUT hard to join - they won't let me in the door because, transferring money from Oz, I have (now) only a Thai address. And Thailand is not on their 'safe' list - can transfer money in, but only with a 'safe' address on their list elsewhere. Have pointed out to them the idiocy of this, but to no avail. International security rules, and Thailand doesn't make it.

3 hours ago, darksidedog said:

Proposed changes include abolishing 90-day reports and introducing 10-year visas for foreign retirees, Surachate said.

Well losing the 90 day report would be nice. I will be interested to see the fine print on the 10 year visa though.

Funny that he is talking about making staying here easier, at the same time that it seems to be getting much harder. Coincidental timing no doubt?

There's no necessary contradiction. You make it easier for those who obey the laws, and harder for those who don't.

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

https://www.economist.com/open-future/2019/01/15/the-dangerous-imperfections-of-a-three-way-vote

 

Interesting PoV from The Economist

Preferential voting. Australia's been doing it at both federal & state levels since the 1920s. Gives a much more mathematically accurate outcome when you have more than 2 parties or proposals to vote for.

But I guess that's too rational for most Brits who pride themselves on their eccentricity. Rather like never actually mentioning the words 'federal' or 'federal system' in their presence ...

Conspiracy after conspiracy. And the Parliament full of vile, evil & corrupt people whom none of you voted for.

I just don't know how you Brits are going to manage ...

1 hour ago, malt25 said:

I must be missing something here. Why would anyone go to their embassy to get verification of their Thai address ? Immigration office with the appropriate docs, proof of residence is the place. Immigration have finally extracted their head from the sand & realised a Stat Dec only confirms one's signature, absolutely NO verification of what you have written on the document. Same as income letter verification.

As explained in my first sentence at the top, it was because the BKK Bank out here in the sticks thinks they need it from the Embassy. Everything followed from there. I now have to go to Kap Choeng Immigration next week when I return home to get the residence certification, then back to the bank ...

1 minute ago, DrJack54 said:

Thanks OP. I kid you not. Was heading off to oz embassy tomorrow to do same, except my residence letter was to obtain Thai driving license. I live in a bkk condo and just use lease for my extensions (retirement). Umm not sure what to do now. 

Phew. I at least have my Thai d/l all in order. You can, if you're not careful, get the run-around between amphoe & DLT, each referring you to the other ...

16 minutes ago, ezzra said:

The Oz embassy stat dec use to charge 1,800 for a rubber stamp from a obviously bored thai female employee, you could state that you live on the moon and they would have stapeed you on that, never like those consular people, looked at you alloff like, why are you bothering us today look in their eyes...

The young lady behind the security window was perfectly nice & apologetic this morning. She's just following the (new) rules. I said that they needed to put the announcement re address certification on the website but she said it was already there. Which it is, though not dated (unlike the income announcement which shows the 7 Jan cutoff date). My impression is that the paragraphs on what they WILL do/witness have been tightened up too - all about Oz docos for use in Oz.

So no point in haggling there & getting all uptight. Back to dealing with the wonders of Thai bureaucracy.

Well, face-to-face might help with the manager, rather than the girl at the desk over the phone (as my b/f is inclined to do). House book might help but I'm not in it ... Of course, when they see what a well-dressed & kindly old man I am, and how RICH, that might help too - the house is insured with them for multi-millions, but of course that's in b/f's name too.

Will come back with further news next week after visit to Kap Choeng Immigration & the Prasat bank. Cheers

This morning I arrived at the OzEmb, draft stat dec in hand to certify my address in Surin so the Prasat BKK Bank will allow me the privilege of opening a new account with them so I can deposit 70K฿+ each month ...

But NO, the Embassy doesn't do address stat decs any more either. I said this was the first I had heard, having made my appointment explicitly on the basis of getting such a certification/stat dec. To no avail. No can do (and I have checked &, after some searching, found the announcement to that effect on their website).

Thought I should warn any others ... Of course the BKK Bank in Prasat hasn't heard of ANY change to the rules of life and insists they must have the Embassy certification of address. (Sigh) I guess I could continue to use my BKK Bank account in BKK (Asoke) but I'm not sure how that will work next October when I need an up-to-the-minute bank statement of my almost 12 months of deposits ... Meantime I will visit Kap Choeng Immigration next week for an address certification and then revisit the Prasat bank (yawn).

Lovely photo of Farage & Junkers. Says it all about politics, integrity, morality ...

But of course these people were, by one means or another, voted for by The People to be the people they are.

I'ld be careful. Sounds like a bit of a lottery to me.

Persuading your pension people to enter the C21st could be useful ... It can be done, and mostly is in my experience in the case of the Australian equivalents. They even accept digital signatures these days. Heavens! what is the world coming to?

On the rare occasions when a letter comes (invariably airmail) from Oz, it generally takes about 2 months to arrive here in Surin ...

2 minutes ago, kannot said:

its  always been mad

True, but we wouldn't have been told about it 50 years ago, with or without the gruesome details.

20 hours ago, happy chappie said:

I can't see why she has to go to Australia.shes safe here and I don't know why ol big jokes laughing as it was him and his team that cocked it all up in the first place.

Haven't you just answered your own question?

2 hours ago, nontabury said:

In the run up to the people’s 2016 referendum, the Government sent a leaflet to every household, setting out the facts, and recommending that the electorate vote to remain in the E.u.

Unfortunately for the establishment in 2016, the people remembered how they had been lied to and deceived  in the run up to the 1975 referendum, when we were assured that we would be only joining a trading block.

They then took to social media, and filled their minds with as much information as possible, and consequently used this knowledge to vote to leave this so called union.

 This has lead to the impass we now have in our halls of government, with the people who we wrongly thought were are representatives, working against the people. But not to worry, come the next G.E many of them will be collecting their P45, courtesy of their electorate.

OK, I guess I'm used to the Oz constitutional referendum situation (which happens about once a decade or 2, and almost always fails because of the very high threshold for success - "a majority of votes in a majority of the States"). The way it works is that the Electoral Commission - not the politicians - puts out a brochure to all households with the facts, the pros & cons etc. And it's neutral on which way to vote - the pollies do that bit separately. Seems to work pretty well. The failures of constitutional change come from the 'smaller' States (WA, SA, Tas), always suspicious of change which they see as being imposed upon them by those horrible people in The East or on The Mainland ...

Under Oz law, that's the only thing that can be called a 'referendum'. Anything else is just a popular vote or plebiscite (eg the vote on gay marriage 18 months ago) and has political force but no force of law.

2 minutes ago, JAG said:

Whoa! 

 

The whole point of a democracy is that it is based on the universal franchise. That means that everyone has the vote, one person one vote. The only limitations should be age (18 in the UK), and possibly a few disbarred: in the UK prisoners serving a sentence after a conviction, members of the House of Lords and (I think) the insane. As soon as you introduce any subjective qualification, educational attainment. religious convictions, political views, race, income threshold, owning property, perceived intelligence, anything really, you no longer have a universal franchise, you no longer have a democracy.

 

 

To return to my first point, as soon as you start to rationalise that because someone disagrees with you they must be a fool, and too stupid to be entrusted with a vote (a not uncommon argument on this forum lately) you have ceased to practice democracy.

I wasn't suggesting ANY of that. This is the C21st not the C19th.

I was merely suggesting that political & other leaders have a moral (non-partisan) duty to ensure that, to the extent possible, every voter is well-informed of issues, consequences & related facts so that the voters can make (one hopes) rational decisions BEFORE they vote. Something that was apparently NOT the case in the Brexit referendum.

32 minutes ago, lvr181 said:

Well, I am not gay but my boyfriend is. I'll get him to vote.

 

TIC

Yes, I'm not gay, I'm homosexual and both my b/f (Thai) and I find men - of ANY description - dressed up as women both ridiculous and a complete turnoff.

2 minutes ago, Snow Leopard said:

In case you didn't know it. Democracy involves listening to the people who are going to vote for you.

 

Problems and issues have a way of sorting themselves out in the long run. 

I should have thought that any half-intelligently run democracy requires the voters to have a clear knowledge and understanding of current issues BEFORE they vote so that the collective outcome can be at least half rational ...

Headline is a classic example of clumsy English syntax.

Will it allow me to consider extension of stay on the ground of marriage (as opposed to my current retirement extensions)?

Oh dear, looks like Mum'nDad are going to continue to live in the same house even though they sleep in separate rooms. Meal times are a pain.