MangoKorat

16 minutes ago, Liquorice said:

Nuts!

 

Dear Mr MangoKorat,

I'm afraid we have to reject your application for a Tourist visa as our records indicate that on entry to Thailand on your previous Tourist visa you failed to submit a TM30 as required by the Immigration Act.

Thank you for your understanding.

 

Kindest regards,

Thai Embassy.

Jeez, another one with Alzheimer's!

What on earth are you talking about?

On 25th November 2014 I arrived at Suvarnabhumi Airport. I was on my way to Taiwan to attend a friend's wedding with my wife who at the time lived in Bangkok.  My wife and I left Thailand on 27th November and arrived in Singapore the same day. We left Taiwan 3 days later and flew wife back to Bangkok where my wife stayed and I returned to the UK.  At that time, Eva Air allowed free stopovers in Bangkok which fitted in perfectly with my plans.

Prior to that I had intended on moving to Thailand in late December 2014/early January 2015 (no exact date fixed) and applying for a 12 month extension of stay based on marriage. I had obtained a single entry Non O in readiness for that move. The wedding invitation came very late but it was not possible for me to change my plans and move to Thailand earlier.  Nevertheless, the wedding was that of a close friend and I didn't want to miss it.

I therefore arrived in Bangkok with a single entry Non O in my passport. I didn't want to use the Non O as it could make things very tight for my forthcoming extension application.  The I.O. saw the Non O in my passport and insisted that I use it.

I have no idea what, if any, the regulations say on that matter but when you are entering a country, you are not in a position to start arguing with the immigration officer!

Stickerless or not, it is my contention that Thai Immigration will indeed have information on their system relating to visas and that it is quite possible that they will be aware of the OP's visa.

You claim to have knowledge that Thai immigration have no access to the visa system - sorry but what makes you so special that you have that information?  How do you know what Immigration has access to?  Can you prove that?  I don't believe you can, you just think its that case.

It seems incredulous that a country's Immigration department doesn't have access to vital information on the status of entrants.  I do not believe a word you have said and unless you can prove otherwise, I will not be moved on that.

If you can prove your claims, I will of course reply and accept your claims.  However, until then, I have stated what happened to me, what I think could possibly happen to the OP and that stands - I'm not about to argue further.

Just to add to that, I know you mention a Vigo - a newer model of Hilux but in your price range its doubtful that you'll find anything other than a worn out old knocker.

A Tiger/Sport Cruiser is an older model but many are treated as collector's pieces and very well looked after.  If you go buy condition rather than age, you are much more likely to tick all your boxes with a Sport Crusier - especially with a 4x4.

9 minutes ago, Liquorice said:

You totally miss the point, the OP has a stickerless visa that is not in his passport, it printed on a separate piece of paper, and yes the Thai Embassy system and Thailand internal entry are totally separate systems.

I did not miss that point at all.

I will repeat:

When he enters, I am almost certain that his visa will show on the system. I don't agree with you that Immigration don't have access to that system. They may well be separate systems but it would seem incredible that immigration does not have access to both. How would they verify a visa's authenticity for example?

A few years ago I entered with a physical Non O in my passport that I didn't want to trigger but the I.O. insisted.  If I am correct and his visa does show on the system (clearly it not in his passport), he runs the risk of the same thing happening.

Hilux Tiger Sport Cruiser ticks most of your boxes but as you note, they can be expensive. They have a bit of a 'cult' following these days. Really nice 2.5 D4D Sport Cruisers are advertised at up to 300,000 for a 20 year old truck!

I had an old Mitsubishi Grandis - it absolutely loved diesel. Some older Navara's have serious known engine issues. Never was a fan of the older Fords.

In my book that leaves you with either an Isuzu or a Chevrolet.  Given that they were both almost identical and shared many of the same parts - why would you object to a Chevy.  There are no parts issues with Chevrolets yet, I own one (a car) and have had no problems.

If you can find a Hilux at a reasonable price, that would be your best bet, next would either be an Isuzu or a Chevy.

I saw a 4x4 Sport Cruiser for sale in Bangkok recently for 79,000 but is was a 3.0L.  They are quite thirsty but if you are not doing big mileages, you should be OK. The 'go to' model is the 2.5 D4D.

I will be looking for a 4x4 Sport Cruiser in a few months but if I can't find one, I won't have a problem with a Z71 Chevy.

8 minutes ago, Liquorice said:

If you've been reading along and following the topic, the OP won't show his 'stickerless' e-visa.

I am aware of that, I am simply saying that the fact he has a visa may well show up on the system when he enters. In that case, if the I.O. on entry, behaves the same as they did with me, they will insist of triggering the visa. If they don't - great for the OP but there is no guarantee.

You are claiming that Immigration have no access to the visa system and therefore won't be aware of his visa - I find that incredible as they would have no way of detecting fake visas etc.

2 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

Well I still have to repeat myself with the same reply, they wasn't last night as they helped Israel.

Ground control to Major Tom, are you receiving over.🥴

Firstly, see the edit to my last post.

Secondly, I think you have misunderstood my entire meaning.  Another poster stated that Israel cannot fly over Saudi or Iraq to reach Iran.  I am questioning why they would have any reason to fly over Saudi.  They wouldn't care about flying over Iraq - Iraq no longer has the capability of doing anything about that.

Looking at a map of the region, Jordan would be the obvious route, not Saudi.  As you say, Jordan helped Israel out last night so it seems doubtful they would object to Israeli aircaft flying over their territory and even if they did, I doubt Israel would care. 

I don't see your point - unless you have misunderstood Ground Control.

9 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

Israel was not a gnat to Jordan last night

I didn't say that, I said Jordan is a gnat to Israel. Meaning that Isael is far more powerful and would probably not be worried about crossing Jordanian airspace.  They are not going to publish their flight plans but it seems highly unlikely that they flew any other route in their recent attacks in both Iraq and Syria.

8 minutes ago, Liquorice said:

Regardless if he entered on his Non Imm O visa, he could obtain a re-entry permit which would allow him to re-enter Thailand after his Philippines trip, provided the visa was still valid.

Pretty sure he's aware of that, but then, re-entry permit of not, the 90 day clock is ticking and his stay may expire before he planned it to.

5 minutes ago, Liquorice said:

Immigrations entry system does not access the Thai Embassy systems.

Are you suggesting the immigration can't check the validity of an e-visa?  I very much doubt that you are correct.

11 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

True, but in this case I doubt whether Thai border Immigration - if they detected in their system that you were provided with a 90-day Non Imm O eVisa - would stamp you in for 90-days when you say you did not bring the document of that 90-day Non Imm O eVisa with you.  The easiest way for border Immigration would then simply be to stamp you in VisaExempt (which is what OP wanted in the first place, such that he can use the eVisa later before it expires). 

As I said in a previous post.  A number of years ago I entered with a physical Non O in my passport. I was staying for a few days then leaving and returning a few weeks later.  The I.O. insisted on triggering my visa.

1 minute ago, Wobblybob said:

Do you think they had permission, I can't think of any other way a foreign country would fly over another country without permission, unless at war with that country of course.

No idea on that one but I doubt Israel would care whether Jordan gave permission or not.  In military terms, Jordan is a gnat to Israel.

2 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Not initiating a war is admirable, unlike the UK. 

Altthough Sunak has been weak in his 'crticism' of Israel's recent actions, he's way out of touch with the opinions of the British people.

However, although I have no love of the current UK government, I doubt any of them think war is admirable as you suggest.  British forces have only been involved in defensive matters in the current conflict.

1 minute ago, Wobblybob said:

I answered your question as fairly as I could so I have no intention of playing hypothetical games with you. The most important point to remember is that 4 Arab countries helped Israel and that will not go down well with the terrorists cheer leaders on here.

I'm not playing hypothetical games.  Another poster seemed to be indicating that Israel's planes would not be allowed to fly over either Saudi or Iraq.  Israeli aircraft have already carried out attacks in both Iraq and Syria countries so I doubt they have any worries about flying over them. There is no need for them to fly over Saudi to get to Iran - that's my point.

2 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

One thing to remember is that Iran has never initiated a war, they are a peace-loving country.

Really? Yes, a fountain of goodness that doesn't repress its people, imprison them and execute them for dissent........no, not Iran.  They may not have initiated a war but they certainly supply the weapons for their proxy's to wage war across the entire Middle East. They just get others to do their dirty work for them.

Just now, Wobblybob said:

My guess is that Jordan didn't allow these missiles/drones to fly over their airspace, infact Jordan helped Israel shoot down Iran's incoming missiles as did a few other Arab countries.

Possibly but doesn't the fact that Jordan appears to have been involved in Israel's defence, indicate that they would not stop any attacks in the opposite direction?

To date, AFAIK, Israel has used aircaft based missiles on its attacks in Iraq and Syria - pretty sure they will have flown over Jordan to reach both those countries.

1 minute ago, Red Phoenix said:

If that's the case, there would be no need to have the eVisa document with you as it would be in the system anyway.

Let's not forget - we are dealing with Thailand.  How many times are you required to provide pointless information in Thailand?

Why for example, are Thai citizens required to show both their ID card and their Tabien Baan as ID in various matters when one can't be obtained without the other?

8 hours ago, JackGats said:

Difficult. Israelis now no longer allowed to fly over Saudi Arabia (or Irak) I think. They would need to use missiles. I've read the Iranians had scattered their "nuclear facilities", especially whichever nuclear warheads they may already have produced. So no easy option apart from armageddon.

Why would they need to fly over Saudi or Iraq? Over Jordan would be the direct route.

10 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

So in this case the OP should NOT show the eVisa to the border-immigration officer when he enters Thailand,

That is on the presumption that when his details are entered, his visa won't show up.  I'm pretty sure it will because there must be some form of visa verification for those entering without a physical visa in their passport.

I once tried to do the same, the I.O. on entry wouldn't allow it and used my visa.  Of course though, that was a physical visa in my passport.  I guess it will depend on whether or not your visa shows on the screen on entry - my guess is it will.

I don't see any reason why they have to start your visa but they may have their rules, I doubt you'll find out until you enter.

8 hours ago, Goat said:

Not really the place to "pick up"

Pay for a prostitute yes.

Really? And there's me thinking they wanted a date. You are a fountain of knowledge Mr Goat, I'd never have guessed - thank you for sharing.

11 hours ago, Ralf001 said:

Ask her if she owns a dildo

Dildo's are illegal in Thailand - honestly!!!

😁

Whether or not Bob's telling yet another tall tale - let's just clear up the law on this. 

The Thai Labour laws are there to protect Thai jobs not to prevent foreigners from going about their normal daily lives. Household cleaning or anything else to do with your normal life is not employment - paid or otherwise.  If your wife does it, is it her job?  You are also, while we are on the subject, allowed to do DIY on your home.

I've seen several stories about this on here and on other forums, including one where a bloke reckoned he was fined for drilling a hole in the wall in his condo.  I didn't believe that for one moment but let's say it was true - I'll bet my last penny that the 'fine' was not issued by a court. I'd also bet that the 'fine' didn't end up in any official coffers or that a traceable receipt was given.

When your Thai friend fixes the plumbing at his house, is he depriving a Thai plumber of a job?  Of course he's not and neither would you be. To be breakling the law, what you're doing would have to be deemed as employment.  It doesn't have to be paid employment but it has to be classed as an occupation.  Hence the rules when translated relate to 'Reserved Occupations'.

I have raised the issue of carrying out DIY on your home with my lawyer who tells me that its perfectly legal.  So, anyone who is threatened with being fined for doing work on their home or car - don't pay any 'fine', simply elect to have the matter heard in a Thai court. I very much doubt you'll here any further on the matter.

On 4/8/2024 at 1:13 AM, Gottfrid said:

No, it´s not. They are doing checks in tourist areas to protect the tourists as they do not want them dead in the news. Also, when doing checks in tourist areas like Patong, Pattaya and so on, the most common to catch are foreigners.

So why don't we see news stories about Thai drink drivers then?

Its quite clear to me that its high season for publicising wrong doings by foreigners and there's a ready audience of Thai 'netizens' waiting to spread these stories all over social media.

3 minutes ago, JimTripper said:

Taking a dump.

Really? So you think he means most of us have taken a dump on Soi 4?  If that is what he means, he must live a very strange life.