KhaoYai

Buddy, you need to get out more.

Not at all, never had so much fun.

You can't actually blame them - have you taken a look at the stuff they are brainwashed with at school. Parents too - presumably because they were brainwashed with the same stuff. I tried to teach my ex about the industrial revolution - how, when and where the modern world began. I don't think it sank in - everything came from Japan and China of course. UK?? They just copy everything - and copy it badly. My ex ex would not believe that Myanmar has a coast - even when I showed her a map. You ain't ever going to win this one - not when the whole education system is Thailand is great, Thailand is No.1, Thailand is best, Buddhism is the only way................etc. etc. And that's before we get on to what they are taught about royalty. I took a look at me ex's son's school timetable - the amount of time spent actually learning what we would regard as core subjects is bloody unbelievable. And of course, nobody is allowed to fail their exams so nobody realises that they are actually lacking and need to improve.

You actually have a third option - and one that I took back in June. Get yourself single.

Sort of 'On Topic' but not replying to the OP. I've always found Bacarra on Cowboy an amusing place to take newbies. A few years ago I took a guy who was on a short working trip to Bangkok. We settled in with a drink, sat up to the downstairs dance floor. As a first timer he was transfixed to the semi-naked dancers shaking their stuff in front of him. I let him drink it in for a few minutes before suggesting he looked up. He almost swallowed his glass - ahh that glass ceiling ???? If you've never been and don't know what I'm talking about - pay a visit.

Can you confirm that this was for a 12 month Multi Entry?

Thanks - no I'm not sorted. I'll be getting quotes when I get back in mid December.

Yes but in most countries they have to have good reason to refuse entry and there is an appeal process. However 'some' countries (mentioning no names) put people off appealing by locking them in a jail until their case is heard and 'some' officers use spurious reasons for refusal. Relating this to the OP, its not something I would recommend - my ex did it at her own risk. I've known people be gievn a grilling on their first entry. Its not something I'd risk without an e-mail to (and reply from) UK Immigration noting any pertinent circumstances - i.e. that the funds are in place, with proof. In his particular case though, as his wife hasn't actually made the application yet, he should make sure that the possibility of a second visit exists and make sure full details are given. I don't think the date of the second visit would need to be accurately covered though. If his wife is questioned at any stage, the most important things will be to establish reasons to return and that the costs are fully covered.

Officially, there is no limit on the amount of entries on a standard British visitors visa. However, depending on the information given to support the visa application in the first place, an immigration officer would be entitled to question whether that information is relevant to any subsequent entries. For example, if the purpose of the visa was to visit a husband/boyfriend and they had acted as sponsor - the I.O. would be entitled to check that the relationship still exists and that the funds are still available, In theory, most subsequent visits are likely to involve a material change - in that the information given will usually refer to just one visit. As such, an entry could be refused. A different scenario would clearly exist if the applicant had stated that they intended multiple entries on the application form. That said, my ex visited again without any questions being asked. However, there will always be a risk of denied entry if there is any material change to the applicant's circumstances or the information given on the application. Entry is never guaranteed - refusal is always possible at the port of entry.

'Amazing Thailand' ????

I'd make sure I had. Thanks.

If I ever went down the retirement route I would be doing it on a monthly income basis.

My Kasikorn statements show inbound Wise transfers as 'Trade Finance Deposit' - nothing at all about the transfer being international which I doubt would be acceptable - anyone else had this problem? How did you get around it?

From what I can see, he's brought it all on himself. Given his behaviour both before and after arrest, I'm not at all surprised at his treatment. He's been causing problems for his neighbours and generally behaving like a git. The way he was handled was not because he was an overstayer - it was because of his behaviour. What was he expecting - a visa extension? Never mind, he'll have a few days eating slop and sharing a room with 20 other people, enjoying all the niceties of an immigration jail whilst he contemplates what a d*%k he's been. Next, a lifetime ban before being returned to his homeland that is just entering winter! Well done that man! One of life's winners, living the dream.

Complete lunatic - they have destroyed cars that got too close before. He's very lucky there were no calves around. Adult Elephants will kill to protect their calves.

Maybe or maybe not. As I mentioned earlier, drivers automatically calculate whether they can or cannot carry out a manoeuvre depending on conditions and the proximity of 'at risk' vehicles. It is very difficult for the brain to calculate the speed of a directly oncoming vehicle and when that vehicle is a bike, many car drivers calculate that risk wrongly because bikes, especially big bikes are very likely to be travelling at much higher speeds than other vehicles. I'm not an authority on the subject - I base what I'm talking about after taking part in a study conducted in the UK a few years ago which opened my eyes. Until then I was amongst the majority of bikers who often claim that car drivers 'pull out on them without looking'. I took part by post, simply answering a few multiple choice questions but the study also included 'live' segments = albeit carried out on a simulator. The starting point was that the law in most countries (certainly UK law), states that you should not carry out any manoeuvre that causes other road users to alter their speed, course or direction. The simulation segment interestingly included 2 groups - one, everyday car drivers, the other, bikers driving a car in the simulation. Each group was tested for their likelihood to either pull out of a side road onto a main road or cut across from one carriageway to aonther - i.e. a right turn off the main road (based on driving on the left). The study found that the majority of car drivers, faced with medium to heavy traffic, would in fact pull out or make a right turn across carriageways if the felt they would 'get away with it'. In other words, they were prepared to cause another road user to alter their speed, course or direction if they calculated that it would just cause annoyance rather than a collision. Interestingly, the biker group were much less likely to pull out/cut across other traffic than the car driving group when the oncoming vehicle was a bike - probably because their brain knows that bikers are usually travelling at higher speeds than other vehicles. The likelihood of a collision was markedly reduced when there were clear points of reference with regard to the speed of the other vehicle. Many drivers claim that they didn't see the oncoming vehicle - especially whe it was a bike. The study questioned that claim by including oncoming bikes with their lights on and the riders wearing high visibilty jackets - it made little difference to the likelihood of them 'pulling out'. They would do so anyway as long as their 'calculation' told them the oncoming vehicle was noy collide with them. The fact that the vehicle may have to brake heavily was of reducing consequence as traffic numbers increased. The conclusion was as I said above - that in many cases drivers are prepared to take that 'calculated risk' based on the subconcious calculation their brain makes. So, it is very likely in this case, that the truck driver did see the bike but calculated his manoeuvre based on a much lower expected speed for the bike. It seems that the biker was riding at a very high speed - therefore it is highly likely that speed was the major factor that caused the collision. I've looked at things differently since that study and when riding I am constatly making my own calculations but I do so very conciously.

You seem to know a lot about the poster - even though he hasn't given you any information - don't jump to conclusions. I also have some land - the land my house is built on and I can also live there until I die - enjoying much the same rights and privileges as a registered owner would. Its called a Usufruct agreement if you didn't know and as long as its written correctly (mine was written by a Thai lawyer) and duly registered at the Land Office, its fully legal.

No I didn't - I'm not in Thailand at the moment. If you read my post fully, you will realise that what I'm getting applies to riding motorbikes in general and especially in Thailand. I did say 'we can only speculate' - I certainly, and it seems many others, didn't have the information that the crash was caused by stupidity on the part of the rider at that time. If that is the case then its clear where the blame lies and there could of course be other factors such as drugs, alcohol etc. If someone is hell bent on riding like an idiot, then no amount of 'defensive riding' will protect them.

A man has died and none of us no why - we can only speculate - nevertheless, its a sad occasion. Coincidentally, I ride the same model of bike (in Thailand) and have been riding bikes for over 50 years. No matter where you ride, you have to accept that you are very vulnerable and adjust your riding to suit the conditions. I've seen/heard thousands of comments over the years regarding the stupidity of other drivers causing accidents that kill/injure bikers. Yes, stupidity happens but there is another factor that many bikers fail to take account of - speed and the perception of speed/risk by other road users. By way of example: When, as is claimed so many times, a car 'pulls out on you', bikers should remember what exactly happens in many situations. A driver sees you and in a split second their brain automatically calculates how far away you are and whether they can pull out or not - based on percieved speeds. However, bikes, especially big bikes are often travelling at high speeds, the car driver's mental calculation is wrong and mayhem often ensues. Its difficult to ride a big bike slowly - most, by definition, are simply not comfortable at slow speeds. The almost 'ask' you to go faster. So, instead of blaming other drivers for their apparent stupidity, you have to take responsibility for your own safety and ride accordingly. I'm no slouch, quote the opposite and often tear around at speeds and in situations which should dictate careful riding but I often ignore that. So why am I still alive? Because to ride a bike, you have to develop a highly advanced state of awareness. You need 4 sets of eyes and the intelligence to realise that that car on the side road WILL pull out - not might. Awareness of the situation is the most important factor in what bikers call - defensive driving and its served me well over the years. Its no use complaining about the stupidity of other road users, that won't change - you have to take responsibility for your own safety or you die. Remember your vulnerability with no metal box to protect you. That applies in any country but in Thailand, where there's a fairly high % of uneducated/stupid drivers, its an absolute must. If you can't develop such skills or want to look macho riding at high speed in your T shirt with or without a crash helmet - you ain't going to survive. So whilst none of us know what happened in this case, I think its a very safe bet that the poor biker was riding too fast for the conditions/traffic/potential risks.

Over the years I've seen hundreds of stupid/pointless/groundless/baiting comments on this forum but that one is currently in the top ten of all time. Clearly written by someone who has all those traits and possibly comes from a country where racism is quite widespread.

Odd, I have several good Thai friends, one very good one who has stated that I'm 'family' now and has helped me a lot. I'm invited for dinner regularly and we all visit each other's houses/get together at restaurants etc.

I hope its months not years - if not, my business plans for next year will have to be shelved. There's no way I can make things attractive to customers when it costs them £1500 just to get to Thailand. Despite claims of busy airports, this must be hurting the Thai tourist industry. Let's wait until the next set of tourism figures are released. Several sources are claiming that demand is still high - given the current cost of living crisis in much of Europe, I really can't see European demand being/remaining high much longer. I've mentioned this before but a British couple with 2 kids (over full price age) would be looking at a bill for flights alone this Christmas/New Year of over £6000. For many, that's out of the question - they'll just find alternative destinations.

The land remains in Thailand for god's sake. Its not as if you're going to put a fence round it and call it Farangland. Jeez!

Don't expect anything soon from London RTE. I've pointed out several inaccuracies on their website in the past and have been told to mind my own business ????. Last time I looked they were well behind on Covid restrictions. The problems with them really start when they did their heels in over either a regulation that's changed or where the information on their website is just plain wrong. I can't remember the details now or even the name of the guy at Hull but he had exactly the same problems with them and he was Honorary Consul. He told me that with a particular anomally, he could only speak to one person at London about it and get the particular application approved - all of the others refused. The biggest problem for us is that we are slowly running out of alternative offices to use. When they go over to E-Visa they will only accept applications from their own citizens or people with legal residence. No idea how long I'll be able to use HCMC.

I've just had a look at the RTE London's website and under Non O to visit family (which includes your wife), there is no figure mentioned. The £10,000 you mention is for a Non O based on retirement. It matters not that you are over 50, the correct visa for you is the family one.