bkkandrew

I hope (for your sake) we do not meet...

Really, I'm living in Fang, 150Klm north of Chiang Mai city (just drive up the 107), you want it? Im here, just PM me when you think you will be in town.

Address?

You can have a flamefest anywhere you like as long as it's not on Thaivisa. Alt.flame on Usenet might suit or if you fancy political flames try the Bearpit. Flames on Thaivisa will get you suspended and eventually banned. We try to cater for the grown-up market

He is doing his best without permission! See http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...p;#entry1379796

A Hobble, is simply the s h i t hole you live in. As for the crap you are talking about, get real.

You really think this has any weight? OMG get real, this will pass, just like our good PM.

Edit to add

The UK Gov are on a power trip, lets just see what happens in reality, again to you, get real.....

I am quite happy with my condo, as it goes. You, on the other hand, are quite mad and I see no reason to continue to humour you...

I hope (for your sake) we do not meet...

Easy then, don't take the piss, stay single unless you want to comit. Stay in your own hobble until you want to marry...... So whats the problem.

You may of course be the type to take the piss, but you say you are married, so whats the problem with you?

What do you mean? Don't bring beer into this? You don't want to debat this over a case of Chang?

You are a nutcase. Read the article, then comment. In case you can't, the summary is that the law is confused and could include ANYONE that cohabits, namely Thai PY and sponsor.

What's a hobble?

Someone tell him, or the case of Chang will be on his head!

PS - yes I am dispassionate about this new law, as I am not affected in any way. I am merely commenting on the reprocussions for other members. You, by contrast are not offering any useful information at all!

OK, so you are the type of person that is worried about this, can I suggest you don't settle with a lady...........

Or if in fact you decide to settle, just do the village marriage, it will suet you just fine.

If however you are real about your marriage, then shut the f up, and get real about what you are doing.........

Sorry, but it needs saying, you sound like an idiot.

So, you can't admit you are wrong and wish to call me idiot instead. I wish we were inthe same room..

I am quite happily married in the UK (for 11 years), so have no axe to grind. Unlike, who evidently needs some help on a number of levels!

Help? only to understand what your problem is with this................... So your married, good for you, so of all people you understand that your partner will need help when/if you split.

All I am saying is that this is not going to F up sponsers, and to be honest, I don't really think this is Thai related.

As far as you and I being in the same room, after a few beers, I'm sure you and I would both agree, this is just bull s h i t politics.

You are simply wrong. Please leave beer out of it.

The new act is based on the Scottish Act passed over a year ago:

The days of an unmarried couple setting up home together, with no legal rights or obligations being imposed on this arrangement, are soon to be over. The Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006, which came into force on 4 May 2006, has introduced entirely new rights for cohabitants in Scotland.

There has not been a huge amount of publicity about these new rights for cohabiting couples, to say the least, and considering the fact that there are over 150,000 couples cohabiting in Scotland, this may lead to future difficulties as the vast majority of those living together will be unaware that the legalities of their relationship have changed. To attempt to combat this, the Family Law Association is planning a campaign to raise public awareness of the Act and its implications.

An unclear definition

Sections 25-29 of the new Act deal with cohabitants. Section 25 provides a definition. Under section 25(1) a “cohabitant” is a person who is, or was, living with another person as if they were husband and wife, or two persons of the same sex who are or were living together as if they were civil partners. So far, so clear. However, section 25(2) then goes on to muddy the waters, by stating that in “determining for the purposes of sections 26-29” (the remaining sections on cohabitation) whether a person is a cohabitant of someone else, the court shall have regard to (a) the length of the period during which they lived together, ( the nature of the relationship during that period and © the nature and extent of any financial arrangements subsisting or which subsisted during that period. Therefore, we are given a straightforward definition of cohabitant, and then a list of factors which should be considered when deciding whether or not someone is a cohabitant.

This seems contradictory and confusing. Under the new Act it is conceivable that a person could have multiple cohabitants – for example, someone who works away from home may have different cohabitants in different cities. It does seem likely from the drafting of this section that it is intended that the Act will not bestow rights for example on those who have had a very short relationship, although if their financial affairs were extremely interdependent, the outcome might be different. At this stage, it could be very difficult to advise clients confidently whether they will qualify as a “cohabitant” under the Act. Judicial interpretation will hopefully make matters clearer. It should be stated that the requirement for those cohabiting to be living together as if they were “husband and wife” or civil partners, means that those who simply share a flat, for example, as flatmates, will not be affected.

So what are the main changes which the legislation will bring in? The two most important changes relate to the breakdown of the relationship, first by separation and secondly by death of one of the cohabitants.

Support after breakdown

Under section 28, a cohabitant has the right to apply for financial provision on the termination of the cohabitation “otherwise by reason of death” – i.e. separation. The applicant can apply to the court for an order for payment of a capital sum for their own benefit and/or a further sum to reflect the additional burden of having to care for a child who is either a child of both of the parties or a child who has been accepted as a child of the family. The court also has the power to make an interim order and can order payment to the applicant by way of a lump sum or instalments.

In deciding whether or not to make an order, the court has to take account of the extent to which the defender has derived an economic advantage from the contributions of the applicant and also whether the applicant has suffered an economic disadvantage in the interests of the defender and/or any child of the family. The court then must balance any economic advantage or disadvantage gained or suffered by either party. “Economic advantage” includes gains in capital, income and earning capacity and “economic disadvantage” is to be construed accordingly.

On the face of it, this section would appear to mirror section 9(1)( of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985. However, under the 1985 Act, the primary focus when dealing with financial provision on divorce is the identification and valuation of “matrimonial property” and any deviation from an equal division must be justified. The new provisions however do not use division of the parties’ property as a starting point and simply allow the court to make an order as it sees fit concerning financial provision on the cohabitants’ separation. This introduces a very wide power and it is extremely difficult to predict how the courts will deal with quantification in respect of orders under section 28. Will they take a “broad axe” approach or will a more rigorous approach be insisted upon? Only time will tell.

Significantly, the application must be brought within a year from when the couple separated. The court has no discretion to extend this period. One year does not give people a lengthy period of time to deliberate about raising an action or negotiate a settlement. This is one of the problems of lack of publicity in this area – people may not realise that they had a right to apply for financial provision, until it is too late to do so. The ever-present problem of identifying a date of separation will arise in these type of applications as well.

Rights on intestacy

The second main change is to be found in section 29. This provision deals with the rights of a surviving cohabitant following their partner dying intestate. If the deceased cohabitant has made a will, the law remains unchanged. However, if the situation is one of intestacy, the survivor may apply for financial provision out of the deceased’s estate, which can take the form of a capital sum or a property transfer out of the deceased’s net intestate estate. A lump sum or instalments are both competent.

The court will consider (a) the size and nature of the estate, ( any benefit received or to be received by the survivor (for example, from the deceased’s pension scheme or joint life policies), © any other claims on the estate, such as those of the deceased’s children, and (d) any other matters which the court considers to be appropriate. Significantly, the court cannot make an order awarding the survivor a higher amount that they would have had right to had the parties been married (or in a civil partnership.)

Another important feature is that any order for payment of a capital sum/transfer of property must be made from the deceased’s net estate after payment of inheritance tax, debts and satisfaction of any prior or legal rights claims of a surviving spouse/civil partner. Therefore, if someone is married but separated and living with their new partner, even for a number of years, the wife’s rights on succession are not overridden and the surviving cohabitant could be left with nothing. Essentially, the legislation is designed to give some rights to cohabitants but not the same rights as married couples. Overall, this new provision strengthens the argument for making a will, although the Scottish Law Commission is presently reviewing cohabitants’ rights to claim in testate estate.

Little time to act

The timescales are even tighter for these types of application as they must be brought within six months of the death. Again, there is no judicial discretion allowed to extend this time limit so it will be important for solicitors to act quickly for their clients who intend to claim. The deceased must have been living with the survivor in Scotland immediately before he or she died. So, if the parties separate just before the death, the survivor has no right to claim.

There are two other provisions which the new Act brings in concerning cohabitants. Section 26 deals with the rights of cohabitants in the ownership of household goods. There will be a (rebuttable) presumption that household gifts acquired (other than by gift or succession from a third party) during the cohabitation should be owned in common. There is no guidance offered as to how the presumption may be rebutted.

Section 27 provides that where any question arises as to the rights of a cohabitant to (a) any money derived from any allowance made by either cohabitant for their joint household expenses or for similar purposes, or ( any property acquired out of such money, that (subject to any agreement to the contrary), the money/property shall be treated as belonging to each cohabitant in equal shares. However, crucially, “property” does not include a residence used by the cohabitants as the sole or main residence in which they live (or lived) together.

The new law means that cohabiting couples separating after 4 May will be affected, thus having retrospective effect on a largely uneducated public. Practitioners in this field will be dealing with an entirely new set of rights for cohabitants, rights of which many clients will not be aware. As with all new law, some judicial interpretation will be necessary before solicitors will be able to advise their cohabiting clients with any degree of certainty. It will indeed be interesting to watch this area of law evolve in the coming years.

Source: http://www.journalonline.co.uk/article/1003011.aspx

Sorry guys. I am kind of dim.

Does all this mean that if i am going for a holiday in LOS, I am better off bringing my dolars IN and exchanging them at SuperRich or someplace like that rather then exchanging them into Baht offshore or through an ATM machine?

sorry. I get real confused about this stuff.

Yes. Bring cash. Change Super Rich. All done now?

OK, so you are the type of person that is worried about this, can I suggest you don't settle with a lady...........

Or if in fact you decide to settle, just do the village marriage, it will suet you just fine.

If however you are real about your marriage, then shut the f up, and get real about what you are doing.........

Sorry, but it needs saying, you sound like an idiot.

So, you can't admit you are wrong and wish to call me idiot instead. I wish we were inthe same room..

I am quite happily married in the UK (for 11 years), so have no axe to grind. Unlike, who evidently needs some help on a number of levels!

Blizzard said you have to be a drug smuggler to bring big sum of cash, not true. My half brother in Holland deals with antique watches, he make frequent buying trips or auction trips to Hong Kong, Shanghai, Frankfurt, and all over the world. He has to carry big cash to make deposits or buy on the spot, especially auction in HK or China only accept cash on the spot. I see him carry more cash than this 1000 sheets of euro paper.

Actually we went to Super Rich again to exchange my wife's last 500000 bahts, this time we asked for 500 euro bill, and amazing they have it, rarely used but they siad they have as many as we can exchange. So only 22 sheets or so. We should have ask the 500 bill at first place, so quantity would shrink to just a small bundle. But serious to me this is not such incredible amount of money.

My wife chatted with Super Rich clerk, clerk said there are many people a day, exchange 20 to 50 million bahts to foriegn currency in a single day, so our amount is still very small. She said just before we came, an old Thai lady came to exchange 12 million bahts to HK dollars, and she does not want to wait, she will send her driver to pick up in the afternoon, for shopping in HK??

Yep - I am one of them. Once saw a guy witn a rucksack FULL of €500 notes to change to THB.

I would still caution about entry to EU with undocumented cash over €10K

This is why it's so easy to write horror movies. Some people are so easy to scare.

Her legal status is that of a visitor, not a resident. Maybe hotels should be careful not to rent to people longer than five months? You are providing accommodation to a foreigner on a holiday. That is all. Other than the visitor visa they have no legal status in your country.

Find if you can, a single incident where someone on a tourist visa has made a valid claim on their host's home in any country with similar laws. (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc)

Exactly

Exactly wrong - see above...

This is why it's so easy to write horror movies. Some people are so easy to scare.

Her legal status is that of a visitor, not a resident. Maybe hotels should be careful not to rent to people longer than five months? You are providing accommodation to a foreigner on a holiday. That is all. Other than the visitor visa they have no legal status in your country.

Find if you can, a single incident where someone on a tourist visa has made a valid claim on their host's home in any country with similar laws. (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc)

Legal status in the UK has never been a bar to legal claims. For an extreme example see the asylum claim by the Afgan hijackers at Stansted airport:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4767463.stm

Even Bliar called it "an abuse of common sense". (This is despite the fact that his Government enacted the law that made their claims successful).

I don't believe that Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc. have the idiotic laws the UK has recently added to the Statute Book. Therein lies the difference...

Its about time too, so you live with a young lady, spend maybe ten years together, then you decide to go your own ways, sure she needs a decent split. Anyone that denies this is a w a n k e r.

I think that you miss the point that, with the legislation, it is conceivable that Thai PY comes over on a 6-month tourist visa, stays at the sponsor's house (as is required by the visa terms), has a fall-out (perish the thought!! ) and then (if streetwise) has a claim on the house, as they have being living as "common law" man and wife..

Happy with that?

Her status in the country as a visitor should easily negate that. Were she a sponsored immigrant it would be a different matter.

There have been similar horror stories prior to the same laws being introduced elsewhere but it all turned out to be nothing.

Want to bet on it?

Better still, perhaps you could provide an indemnity against such a turn of events?

Andrew, no disrespect, but you are being paranoid

No bets though, no indemnities. Yes, when it comes to the nutty goings on in the UK, no one would put their money where their mouth is, because madness prevails.

Can you, perhaps, tell me where the line would be drawn?

Its about time too, so you live with a young lady, spend maybe ten years together, then you decide to go your own ways, sure she needs a decent split. Anyone that denies this is a w a n k e r.

I think that you miss the point that, with the legislation, it is conceivable that Thai PY comes over on a 6-month tourist visa, stays at the sponsor's house (as is required by the visa terms), has a fall-out (perish the thought!! ) and then (if streetwise) has a claim on the house, as they have being living as "common law" man and wife..

Happy with that?

Her status in the country as a visitor should easily negate that. Were she a sponsored immigrant it would be a different matter.

There have been similar horror stories prior to the same laws being introduced elsewhere but it all turned out to be nothing.

Want to bet on it?

Better still, perhaps you could provide an indemnity against such a turn of events?

Its about time too, so you live with a young lady, spend maybe ten years together, then you decide to go your own ways, sure she needs a decent split. Anyone that denies this is a w a n k e r.

I think that you miss the point that, with the legislation, it is conceivable that Thai PY comes over on a 6-month tourist visa, stays at the sponsor's house (as is required by the visa terms), has a fall-out (perish the thought!! ) and then (if streetwise) has a claim on the house, as they have being living as "common law" man and wife..

Happy with that?

ID plan for one-year-olds

BANGKOK: -- If the Interior Ministry has its way, children from age one will have to apply for and carry identification cards.

Failure to apply for the card carries a Bt500 fine while not producing the card to officials is punishable by a Bt200 fine.

The Interior Ministry plans to submit draft legislation for Cabinet approval tomorrow. The Council of State has approved the bill.

According to the law, applications for those under 15 years can be submitted by parents and carried by them on their children's behalf.

Today, only those older than 15 need to have identification cards.

Critics attacked the move as "irrelevant and impractical". Children and parents are not together all the time, they said.

Children under 15 are already considered the responsibility of parents and schools.

--The Nation 2007-06-25

If anything could demonstrate the idiotic thinking that the Junta represents, this is it! One-year olds being hauled down the Police Station, interviewed, brought to Court and fined for not having an ID Card!

At least it should provide some entertaining Court news. I look forward to the transcripts now:

Judge: so what have you got to say for yourself?

Luk: Goo goo ga ga goo

Also, what happens if the 1-yr old has no funds to pay the fine? Jail??? Are they sure???

i cannot believe that some people here still buys this sanam luang stuff. most of the people who joins the rally are all being paid! it's thaksin vs junta, who would you choose? thaksin is the master of all the puppets who are rallying in SL and they have to do it to get to the news locally and internationally. also, T is doing everything he can to get publicity. i prefer the junta than T.

It says a lot about Thailand when you have to decide between two evils such as that with no third option on the menu!

I apologize.. I guess I assumed you had more specific medical knowledge regarding that specific practice than that, but I was wrong.

Spin it any way you want, it still does not change the fact the people in question have been sterilized and you cannot tell if they are police, military or unemployed rubber tappers trying to earn 200Bt a day. I realize you don't think heavily about these things often. I just found it interesting they were sanitized in such a way. BTW - Woven insignias would not cause them or anyone else, any type of medical hazard but would offer them some identification which obviously, to some of us, was not wanted for some reason.

It means, simply, that they are expecting trouble. And they don't want to be the ones in the firing line if Toxin's mob get back in. Victor's justice and all that...

Botulinus toxin can kill you in less than a day. Most common in home canned goods.

[

Botulinus Toxin?

Brilliant!

P.S. The slimy <deleted> leaves his job today anyway, lets see how good it gets with a scotsman running the country?

Are you implying a Scotsman shouldn't or couldn't run the country?

Of course, Tony Bliar was born in Edinburgh, which I believe is in Scotland, a fact you should have known had you half a brain.

Sorry mate, not with you on this one... As over 70% of the laws Brown will be passing will not affect his constituents (Dunfermline East) in any way, he should not be entitled to vote on them, let alone propose or introduce them as PM.

Bliar's Constituency (Sedgefield), being in England meant that his voters were subject to matters he voted on... His birthplace was irrelivent.

Keith Harris. Didn't he do some tricks with a green bird called Orville?

What I would do at this point is go over to a friends house and try to access my mail using his computer. Or go to an internet cafe and try to do it there.

Flying in 7-hours, will use the PCs in Swampy airport lounge. Thanks.

I've been using lycos mail for years and have only had very sporatic and tempory problems which have been fixed usually within a couple of hours at the most. And it's never been any slower, or faster, than any of the other ones I use. Try signing into your mail using this site and see what happens. Lycos Mail

Thanks for this, but alas, I have a lycos.co.uk address, which cannot be access via lycos.com. I have also checked and there is no .co.uk equivelent page...

Still stuck!

Little chance of a autopsy to find the real cause.

Do the Swedish Govt. not do one when repatriating the body? The UK does as a matter of course and a Coroner's Court is established to determine cause of death...

It is sad, and worse for those living through it. They seem to be willing to kill anyone who stands in their way, be it a Buddhist teacher in a classroom or a Muslim who won't join up. They've killed both.

Yes, when this happened on European soil in the 1990's, it was called ethnic clensing, the UN moved in and several proponents of the deaths were tried in The Hague. Of course, this is Thailand, there are bigger fish to fry, jostling for turns at the trough, so don't expect any action soon...

The key point about this, is that the situation has deteriorated to the point that incidents like this do not make headline news now. Thais expect killing, maimings and burnings in the South, in the same way that all over the world, people expect another car bomb in Bahgdad.

Sad, but true.

If it is any consolation, my email from lycos.com has been extremely slow for ages. Email from yahoo. uk is no problem. Via TOT Ipstar.

Have a coffee while you're waiting.

Coffee gone cold mate. 3rd day of trying and still timing out!

The most annoying thing is that you can get the bit that says how many unread emails you have (which goes up every day ) then times out on the inbox request.