5 hours ago, sandyf said:

No I am not saying that, the site is made up of centralised pages and country specific pages but not sure how you are directed to the right ones, could be linked to your account.

I just logged in and as a matterof interest put in UK passport and Saudi resident, a message popped up and said to contact regional offices.

I wouldn't take that as gospel as the system may have seen a conflict in respect of my account, the OP should try it with a new account. It could however mean that residents of countries not on the e-visa platform cannot use the e-visa. When I tried the same thing before it was another e-visa country and that worked.

Understood. 👍

So presumably if  the OP put in UK passport and UK resident that would work(?)

As I intimated above, assuming the visa is granted, once you get to Thailand, nobody would know.

Even handing over one's boarding pass shouldn't cause a problem - I always get my visa in UK (which is genuine in my case) fly UK-Dubai-Thailand  and hand over  a BP showing I've arrived from Dubai - never even questioned even though I keep the London to Dubai BP "just in case".

2 hours ago, MickTurator said:

Jack Hargreaves

Fred Dinneage

John Miller

 

The program was How

 

No idea who the tranny is

Bunty James?

2 minutes ago, sandyf said:

The E-visa platform is only available in 23 countries.

I created my account when e-visa was only available in China, did quite a bit of testing on the China one and then on the London site when available.

Had several e-visas, one obtained here in Thailand, well aware of how it works.

 

 

I guessed you were, but although I replied to you to keep the thread moving, the information was for the OP.

BUT...are you saying that the OP could not even access the site from KSA?  If so, that I didn't know.

4 hours ago, sandyf said:

No, you cannot do it "here" if you mean Saudia Arabia as it is not on the E-visa platform. Even if it were there may be language issues, Hong Kong created their website in English.

You should be able to do it online using the London website, full instructions can be found here

https://thaievisa.go.th/static/English-Manual.pdf

 

All Thai visa applications are now online, so the KSA embassy were correct, if a little abrupt.

Apply here https://www.thaievisa.go.th/  not on any other, unofficial site.

If you choose the London option, one of the questions asked will be your current location. If you say KSA, you're telling the truth, however were you to accidentally say that you're in UK, (!) I imagine the application would be successful.  When it's granted, all you get is a PDF file which you must print out and present at immigration  with your passport on arrival.
 

9 hours ago, Sigmund said:

is he stupid ? Such criticisms should never show one's face or name and home whereabouts... and better, should be posted only when abroad.

Or at least if in Thailand, by using the available technology to avoid being traced!

15 hours ago, still kicking said:

I live in OZ not Britain

That's obvious but your previous comment made no sense at all

48 minutes ago, still kicking said:

If you were an Aussie and lived in Perth would take a break in Britain?

What ARE you on about?

London to Dubai to Bangkok is hardly any sort of a diversion!

2 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

And a 100% guarantee of no repeat offending that can be relied on.  Far more trustworthy than the considered opinions of some mealy mouthed, progressive liberal, woke probation officer

And if any doubt that the police need guns..... 

 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68927702

"Two Metropolitan Police officers who were injured have "significant but not life-threatening" injuries and will require surgery, the Met confirmed."

Let's see...if they'd simply shot the worthless SoB dead........ 

Just now, MangoKorat said:

Well not exactly.  I know of a few, including at least one member of this site, that already do exactly as I have suggested. Its not my idea.

I meant for both you and me....

1 hour ago, still kicking said:

I fly Thai and the reason is it is the only non-stop from Perth to BKK.

Your choice. I prefer a break in my UK - Thailand flights, and Dubai is usually quite nice - I dodged a bullet with the recent floods though!  😬

2 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

You clearly failed to read my post detailing the 'back door'.

 

You also failed to spot, im several posts, that I have not retired yet and therefore haven't broken any rules.

 

Further, I am aware of the powers available to HMRC, I also had a tax investigation a few years back - which resulted in no further action.

So this whole conversation is hypothetical.  (Always was for me!)

That's that then.

2 hours ago, georgegeorgia said:

Some of these guys wouldn't know who he is because they have only been to one place being Thailand 

Google knows 🙄

1 minute ago, Bday Prang said:

why would you care about an armed criminal being shot dead by police?   Seems fair enough to me

I'm with you on that one.

It's a win all round - no need for a trial, no expense of keeping the sh1tbag in prison for years and a warning to his cohorts - this could be you next time.

3 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

All that was taken care of a long time ago. My tenant does not have a current agreement.  That apartment has always been an 'insurance policy' for me and if I was staying in the UK, I would be moving there when I retire.

 

Think of it like this - I currently live in a tourist area of the UK and a couple of weeks ago I spoke to a couple who were in a camper van in a local car park.  We get literally hundreds of them every year and their season seems to get longer and longer.  This couple told me that since they retired, they've spent every year travelling around the entire UK with a few visits to Europe.

 

Provided they didn't have access to my passport details, how would anyone know my whereabouts and that I was any different to the couple I mention above?

 

Travel and passport details can be shared between countries but as far as I know, other that names on 'arrest lists' cropping up or a court request, there is no routine sharing of travel details in that way. 

 

The main thing here is not to raise any suspicions in the first place - therefore not triggering any more detailed investigations.  I very much doubt that HMRC simply go though pensioner's details randomly and think..........hmm let's check if that pesky pensioner is really living in the UK.  You would need to do something to raise that suspicion in the first place.

 

You might not be aware but HMRC are having serious staffing problems at the moment -as has been reported in the national news.  I don't think their main attention is focused on pensioners.

Well so far you've avoided being caught out, mainly as you say, due to HMRC and the like being short staffed.

BUT whenever you enter UK "they" do have access to your passport - remember scanning it at the airport?

(Unless your "back door" avoids that, in which case I'm either calling BS, or suggesting you're making yourself vulnerable on another front)

So if they were to suspect anything amiss, HMRC, DWP and Home Office can and almost certainly do exchange information.

Plus if an investigation is opened they can apply for access to your bank account(s) credit card(s), Council Tax records (to which you alluded earlier) etc etc.

So what you're really saying is you know you're breaking the rules but are gaming the system, so far successfully.

Good luck to you  but IMO, you're riding for a fall that might just come out of the blue one day and bite you in the nether regions (pardon my mixed metaphors)

My only other comment is I hope you don't fall foul of HMRC - I got investigated some years ago for no fault of my own, and eventually exonerated...but it took 2 years of arguments and digging up records, letter writing, accountant conversations  that I wouldn't wish on anyone.

Sweet dreams!  '🙄😎

37 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

I think they would find it difficult to prove otherwise. Anyone who knows about this as I now do, shouldn't find it too difficult to provide such evidence.

 

I for example, have an apartment in the UK that I rent out.  The girl who rents that apartment has been there for years and I know her very well - she loves it and doesn't want to move. I'm pretty sure she'll agree to facilitate what I need so when I move to Thailand, that will become my address and it will be me that pays the council tax.  I will also make sure that I use my UK bank account regularly and leave and enter the UK by the back door when I return to visit family etc.

 

I would prefer not to do any of that really but it seems I will be forced to if I want my pension increases.

The fact that you rent the apartment out on a long term basis pretty much shows that you do not live there.

If there is both a rental agreement and you then state it as your address might raise interest and cause an enquiry. That might also raise interest from HMRC as to your exact status and tax liabilities.

I have no idea whether either of those scenarios is likely but would tread carefully it it was me.

As for the "back door",  I tend to agree with @Mike Teavee comments above.

47 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

Sorry I can't agree.  When I was a teenager/early twenties it was pretty standard for fights to break out between young guys at clubs etc. on a weekend - combination of booze and testosterone. Rarely did it turn in to anything serious.

 

These days, kids that are carrying guns - thankfully still rare in the UK, are very likely to shoot someone in those circumstances and think later.

 

Look at the occasions in Thailand where people have been shot in road rage incidents. Why is that? - almost certainly because they are carrying guns as they are freely available in Thailand.  The road rage incidents that I've witnessed in the UK have mainly involved a lot of shouting and flashing of headlamps etc.

 

Yes, the cause is misuse of guns but as is so often illustrated in the US, how do you keep those guns out of the hands of people who are likely to misuse them.

 

Sorry but I don't accept your argument that 'Those people would have found a way to kill someone anyway' - I suspect that a lot of shootings are done on the spur of the moment and/or simply because a gun was available. 

 

Besides - the crime figures comparing gun owning countries with non gun owning, speak for themselves.

There's far more to what you just wrote mainly regarding the personalities of those involved, to whom is a duty of care applicable, who is responsible for the caretaking of the guns etc etc..... 

However, I'm comfortable in my opinion, so are you in yours, there are facts and statistics that support both of us so this argument is going nowhere.

We'll have to agree to differ.

7 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

And just how would it be proved that the intention was not permanent? One guy I know did actually return to the UK and not in order to receive his pension increases.  He lasted 4 months - until the November fog made him realise he was better off in Thailand.

The government case would be that he had to prove it WAS permanent. 

For example... Takes a long-term lease on a property or sets up financial arrangements that only a resident would need.

Something that shows one's intent to stay for more than a short holiday even if that intent changes later.

I'm neither defending nor opposing this - it's just what I might do if I was a suspicious official looking to establish the situation.

2 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

And the death rate from guns is?

Zero. It's all from people USING or rather MISUSING guns.

But I get what you're saying - if they hadn't had guns etc.

But 2 points:

Those people would have found a way to kill someone anyway.

By your logic, ban cars because of the people MISUSING them and causing fatal crashes.

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Indeed….  Pay that amount of money for a business class seat and it doesn’t recline he has every right to be upset - a full refund or equivalent miles should be the very least of the airlines response.
 

On numerous TG flights have had screens not working - no biggie as I carry and pad - low expectations!!! 

Flying with those idiots you must have!

One question...... Why?  There are so many other airlines to choose from and yet, knowing what you're going to get you still choose Thai.

Bit like banging your head on a brick wall isn't it?

11 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

Shouldn't UK police carry guns?

 

No thanks, we don't want to end up like the USA.  Guns breed guns.

And here, even though I'm British, I shall quote the NRA and say "Guns don't kill people. People kill people"

17 hours ago, Digitalbanana said:

Related to the Trotters by any chance?

10 hours ago, charleskerins said:

"PC and Woke nonsense"  You have no idea how good some of you have it .  https://whyy.org/articles/philadelphia-police-ryan-pownall-david-jones-arbitration/

That particular story to which you have linked seems to me to be full of "He said, and he said" arguments. Not sure if it proves or disproves much.

10 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

As far as I know, there is no 6 month requirement, you simply have to establish that you are back in the UK permanently - i.e. have a checkable address, bank account, register with a doctor etc.  However, there is no legal definition of 'permanent' - your plans can change as you so wish.  I believe the 6 month thing is just something that's been kicked around and as with a lot of stories that are passed from person to person, it's become 'law' - law without foundation.

 

Therefore, once you establish a degree of permanence and receive your pension increases, as far as I know, you can change your plans and move abroad again. You would of course, not receive any future increases after you leave.

That may be the case, but if one made a short visit to UK and couldn't prove that the intention to return was permanent then one may not keep the increase. Tbh, I cannot find any law on this, as you say, "legal definition of 'permanent' "

11 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

As long as they point the gun in the right direction its good enough for me. As far as I am aware none of the feral scrotes,some still in their teens, who manage to get hold of a gun  receive any appropriate training whatsoever. If anybody is seen to be brandishing  a gun , shoot to kill should be the default setting.  No exceptions

Absolutely!! The scrotes shouldn't have the guns in the first place, so they've already placed themselves outside the law so no quarter should be shown. 

And if that makes me a Right-wing hardliner - BRING IT ON!

11 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

The answer to that lies in your sentence - because its illogical.  Why would I think such a rule existed?  Its unjustified and as I've stated throughout - pensioners who leave the UK actually save the country money.

 

When I left school I began paying tax and national insurance on my wages.  I don't ever think anyone told me why, its just something that is implied - that in return, the state will provide you with healthcare, finacial assistance should you fall out of work or become disabled.  There will be many rules associated with those benefits and I doubt that most learn of them until they actually need a particular benefit.

 

When you take out a private pension you are provided with reams of paperwork containing the terms and conditions applicable.  No such paperwork is given when you begin paying national insurance, its just deducted from your wages or you pay in at your year end if you're self employed.

 

Outside this forum and within the expat community that I know in Thailand, nobody that I've discussed this rule with was/is aware of it.

 

Had it been something that was enacted recently, such 'terms and conditions' would be in the news and given the current UK government - I would be on the lookout for this type of thing.  I cite for example, the current Conservative Party who have just enacted an immigration bill in Parliament that states that Rwanda is a safe country - because THEY SAY IT IS. I am 'on my guard' when the current government propose or bring out any new laws - no longer can you expect ot take British Justice for granted.

 

Pension rules were brought about well before I was born, until discovering this rule, with a couple of clear exceptions, I have never discussed them, nor has anybody discussed them with me. As I say, its simply implied that once you reach retirement age, you will receive a pension.

 

The exceptions I refer to are the changes to the retirement age and the amount of pension - both of which are brought to the public's attention through the news as and when they change.

I can see your point, and obviously, sympathise, however the onus is still on all of us to do our "due diligence" even though that should not be the case.

Would i have done as you did? Quite possibly.