MangoKorat

The cost of running NHS paid for out of taxes and NHS contributions paid by UK taxpayers. This thread is about charges made by a private hospital. You have placed two sentences one after the other which could be construed as an apparent attempt to make it look as if UK Nationals who have left the UK may have to pay 150% of any NHS charges. Whilst that is a possibility, in practice such people will not be asked if they have left the UK and if they have any sense, will answer appropriately if they have. Those who return to the UK - whether as a result of illness or not are, in fact entitled to free NHS care as long as they intend to live in the UK. That does not preclude anyone from changing their mind on that - should they so wish. As per my thread above, there is no minimum time that a returning UK national must be in residence and no minimum duration of stay. In effect then, a returning UK national will not have to pay for any NHS charges from day 1, provided they prove they are now residing in the UK. The level of proof required to show that someone has returned to live in the UK is easily met. Those reading the post that I have quoted here, should read the entire NHS link contained within it.

No, it has already been pointed out that he is wrong. Some say that no free treatment will be available until you've been back in the UK for 6 months. However, the actual rules seem to state that a UK National simply has to prove that they have returned to live in the UK. Using the NHS when you return to live in the UK Complete a GMS1 form to register with a GP near your home. Bring proof that you are eligible for free healthcare. (unnecessary text removed to save space) If you are a UK national living abroad and are returning to live in the UK, you will be able to use the NHS for your healthcare. You will need to complete a GMS1 form to register with a GP near your home. See how to register with a GP practice Prove you are eligible for free healthcare The first time you have treatment anywhere in the NHS you will need to bring proof that you are eligible for free healthcare. You should bring at least two of the following documents: Residence in the UK Proof of your purchase of property or a tenancy agreement Recent utility or council tax bill payment UK bank account showing recent UK activity Employment status Payslip or letter from employer Bank statement Unique tax reference number Documentation from your local job centre to show that you are receiving job-seekers allowance https://www.gov.uk/guidance/using-the-nhs-when-you-return-to-live-in-the-uk

You seem to be forgetting that this story is about private medical treatment. I fully understand why Thai citizens might get cheaper treatment at a government hospital or clinic but in the commercial medical world, there should be no discrimination on price based on race nor any excuse for it. Its not a cheaper price for Thai citizens - its totally ripping off foreigners. The actual price vs the 'farang price'. Should a Thai citizen fall ill in the UK whilst on holiday for example, firstly any emergency (NHS) treatment is free (unless it leads to an admission) regardless of race or residence status and secondly, where treatment is chargeable - everyone is charged the same for treatment received in an NHS facility. Certain other treatments are also free: Services that are free to everyone Some services or treatments carried out in an NHS hospital are exempt from charges, so they're free to all. These include: A&E services – not including emergency treatment if admitted to hospital family planning services – this does not include abortions or infertility treatment treatment for most infectious diseases, including sexually transmitted infections (STIs) treatment required for a physical or mental condition caused by torture, female genital mutilation (FGM), domestic violence or sexual violence – this does not apply if you have come to England to seek this treatment https://www.nhs.uk/nhs-services/visiting-or-moving-to-england/how-to-access-nhs-services-in-england-if-you-are-visiting-from-abroad/

Crazy but quite normal.

Not the one's I've seen........ugly as sin.

The 'underage sex industry' has gone on in Thailand for as long as I've know the country and almost certainly for many years before that. What seems to have changed is that a few recent cases have involved Beer Bars and GoGo bars that any one of us may visit. I was aware of it in Bangkok many years ago but the gossip then was that it went on in the 'upstairs bars' in Patpong where you could find any sort of perversion you wanted. The places I mentioned above were blatantly offering girls in the general area of the bars. - that seems to have been the case with the bar in the OP. However, just as the section of the Thai sex industry that targets foreigners is only around 10% of 'the business' - I suspect that the underage business that is available to Thais is probably of equal proportions. I've read several stories and indeed there was a recent prosecution, regarding so called massage establishments, providing 'services' mainly to Thai men in the North of Thailand - Chiang Ma, Chiang Rai etc. Young girls have been found 'working' who's families had 'sold' them to the 'club' and they are forced to work.

That is a different situation - equally as bad and I'm not defending it in the slightest. However, it did not go on in a bar in a public area. I have never heard of a bar in Rochdale, Manchester, Rotherham, Sheffield or anywhere else in the UK for that matter, where sex in general is up doe sale, never mind sex with underage girls. There have been several 'grooming scandals in the UK in recent years - usually involving Asian men who form grooming gangs and prey on vulnerable girls from children's homes. None of those cases have involved underage girls working in a bar and I don't think the girls were on offer to the general public. Equally as disgusting but a different situation. They were paedophile gangs.

The OP raises an interesting point. Many times I've seen advice on here that states that you don't have to register TM30 if you go away for a short time but return to your usual address - that you had registered at previously. However, some hotels do as they should do and register all foreign guests. Does that not then change your address and require you to re-register when you return to your home?

In the right place at the right time? Hardly! The fact that underage sex is available in Thailand and I have no doubt, in Pattaya in particular is in fact, well known. There have been several TV documentaries about it and at least one movie - 'She Has A Name'. Its hard to understand how you don't know about it and even harder to understand why you seem to be trying to deny its widespread and defend Pattaya itself. Pattaya is a cesspit but its a cesspit that I've had many a good night out in, I'm not knocking it, I'm just telling it how it is. When an place has a reputation like Pattaya's, don't be too surprised when its discovered that a more sickly side to the sex industry exists alongside it.

Then you should open your eyes. I rarely go to Pattaya these days but in September when I was in Bangkok, a bar owner friend told me of a bar on the same Soi that had underage girls available - not on a back street or in an 'upstairs bar' but on one of Sukhumvit's main entertainment Soi's. In March 2020, just before Covid hit, I was in Hua Hin for a friend's wedding and went out for a few drinks in the evening. I noticed a few very young looking girls sitting outside one bar and mentioned it to a girl I got talking to in a bar on the same Soi. She told me that it was well known that the bar had girls as young as 13 available. The bar was raided the next night. I'm not a regular visitor to Thailand's 'entertainment' areas nowadays but that's just 2 cases of bars blatantly involved in offering underage girls that I've come across in maybe 5 visits across 2 years. If some bars are prepared to offer underage girls so openly, how much is going on 'behind the scenes'? * Off topic deflection comments edited out *

We do, what I'me referring to is the confusion it cause to non native English speakers.

There has been a material change - in that the amount has changed, therefore the latest change, if implemented can be challenged. The Supreme court does not supercede the ECHR so what's your point over the 2017 decision? I note you fail to show where I said the minimum income requirement has been overturned by a court. That a challenge is now possible - leaves it open to being denied. That is all I have said. It is my belief that many of the current government's policies and those of past governments are in fact illegal. However, the courts will decide that, not you or I. Was I to challenge the minimum income requirement my first port of call would be the UK courts and not entirely on human rights issues. The basis of my challenge would be because the amount required discriminates against those on the minimimum wage or pension. I know of no other law in the land that allows the UK government to determine who someone can legally marry and have live with them based on their income. That is just plain wrong. Its quite clear where your thinking comes from and its certainly not based on compassion. With that in mind, we must accept that our opinions are different but don't tell me I am wrong when I'm not and/or all you have to go on is past decisions. The principle of a past decision can be challenged where there is a material change and/or the challenge is covered by a different rule/directive. That applies to both the UK courts the ECHR and the ECJ. Theresa May thought she could go against legal advice given to the government over the deportation of foreign criminals with families and lost several cases - that formed her basis for trying to leave the jurisdiction of the ECHR. She completely dismissed the reason the UK signed up to the ECHR in the first place. In the UK if you lose a court case, in most cases you have a recourse to a further level of justice that will examine the findings of the lower court and either find with them or against them. However, what do you do when you know have been unfairly treated by even the highest court in the land? The fact that a case has been decided by the UK's Supreme Court does not guarantee that such a decision is correct and in some cases, courts accepts that their 'hands are tied'. In many cases you can go to either the ECHR or the ECJ. As someone who has been through that procedure I can tell you that this higher tier is a very necessary component of an individual's right to justice. Should we lose it, the injustices of government's like the current one will no doubt rise dramatically. I won my case without having to go to the ECJ. I won't go into detail other than to state that I was being prosecuted by the CPS in a matter that had been created out of a totally unjust 'Case Law'. A 'Case Law' described by most lawyers as one of the most draconian ever implemented. I threatened the CPS with the ECJ if I lost and that was enough for their lawyers to advise them that they would lose at the ECJ (factual, I know the KC). Not wanting to lose their 'Case Law', the CPS craftily backed down and dropped the charges. I would have been happy to take it all the way and in doing so, overturn their 'Case Law' but with charges dropped, I was unable to do so. I am sure that many people will have been sucessfully prosecuted using the same 'Case Law' since then - that doesn't make it right. I sincerely hope that someone does challenge the requirements for a UK spouse visa now - its got completely out of hand. Especially when considered against the politically decided 'helping hand' given to BN (O) passport holders from Hong Kong. However, the days of this Conservative government are almost certainly numbered. Some of their current policies won't be passed now and others will probably be overturned by a new, non Conservative government.

Exactly - especially as each airline is likely to have its own requirements. I suspect however, that some, if not all will only accept non passport photo ID from Thai nationals - they have no way of knowing if anything else is genuine.

Unless things have changed - the spouses income cannot be included until the second visa. There didn't used to be any allowance given for a 'promise of a job'.

I haven't been wrong at all - where have I said the minimum income requirement has been overturned by a court? Where please?

Its not ancient history, its part of an overall trend - If the law prevents our policies, we will change the law. The income requirement is both discriminationary and, I believe, against Human Rights laws. The UK government has for years, demanded that those bringing a spouse in to the country must earn far more than the minimum benefit levels. Those are supposed to be the minimum amounts people require to live on. What justification is there then, to require someone bringing a spouse to the UK to earn so much? It also discriminates on age by being far higher that the minimum state pension? Since when has the government had the right to place an age limit on marrying a non British citizen - which in effect is what they are doing?

A completely ridiculous situation and one that just invites corruption. An Army that own businesses - even a bank - TMB Thai Military Bank - madness!

As long as criminals know that they can actually obtain protection from the law in Thailand by paying bribes, serious crimes such as Extortion, Class A drugs and Sex Trafficking will continue. A walk along Sukhumvit Road in Bangkok, starting around Soi 11 if I remember correctly, illustrates just how openly drugs are sold by foreigners in Thailand. Drugs that by the way, would mean extremely lengthy prison sentences for others. If it was not possible to avoid prosecution by paying bribes - such crimes would be greatly reduced. I find it impossible to believe that Pattaya police have not been fully aware that underage prostitution has been going on there for years. That can only mean one thing.............................................................. You're never going to stop prostitution overall so its better all-round if its out in the open but what must be stopped is underage prostitution and sex trafficking.

As I understand it, the bail was 500,000 - the 1 million was a separate item.

It has, but it is now likely to be challenged further. Then you need to keep up with UK politics. Johnson wanted to change parliamentary law twice, once trying to help out another party member and then when he illegally prorogued parliament. The Conservatives have been seeking to exit the ECHR since Theresa May was Home Secretary - because the ECHR have consistently ruled against their immigration policies. Sunak is doing the same now with his Rwanda policy. The Court of Appeal sent him a clear message that the Rwada policy was not only against ECHR rules but also falls foul of the UK's own Human Rights laws - yet he is as we speak, trying to implement a Rwanda Mk2 policy. The court found clear evidence that Rwanda had mistreat asylum seekers sent their by other countries with similar policies - yet Sunak is claiming that his new treaty will sort that. He is also trying to place his immigration policies outside the jurisdiction of the courts. There is a clear ECHR and EU law that requires countries to provide protection to genuine aslylum seekers. To clarify my position - I think many of the so called Asylum Seekers are in fact, economic migrants and something has to be done about them. However, I cannot condone my country going against internationally agreed laws in order to do so. If you don't think the Tories are slowly dismantling democracy - in addition to trying to go against the UK Court of Appeal's ruling, just look at the recent changes to the laws over protests and the the Tories attempts to take them further. Just recently they wanted to ban a march against Israel's war in Gaza - even when the London Police Commissioner told them he had examined the law and there was no basis on which he could ban the march. The policy seems to be, if a law gets in the way, change the law, not examine why it is in place! And that is why, they will never get my vote again. One of the things we in the UK can be proud of is that the government is not above the law - how long that will survive under the Tories is anyone's guess.

No you haven't - you're just incapable of admitting being wrong.

It is very likely that this policy, if passed, will be challenged at the ECHR under the 'right to family life' provisions. That will add further impetus to the Conservative's desire to take the UK out of the jurisdiction of the ECHR. Just at Johnson sought to change Parliamentary rules when he effectively broke the law - the Conservative's view in general seems to be that when they come up against the law - change the law. The fact that the UK was one of the founding proponents of the ECHR seems to be lost on the Conservatives. I have no intention of getting married again and even if I did, I would not take my wife to the UK. However, I will always defend the rights of those who wish to do so. There will be cases where a UK national, married to a foreigner and living abroad, becomes ill with a long term, possibly life long illness and needs to return to the UK. How would that person be able to take his wife to the UK if he didn't meet the income requirements? Should he leave his wife (and carer) behind? Many of the changes to visa regulations and increases in charges affecting those who wish to bring their wife to the UK are, I have no doubt, aimed at a particular group (nationality) who deliberately seek a wife from their country of heritage - often with no intention of continuing that marriage. That wife, then seeks to bring her aging parents and other members of her family to the UK - placing further burdens on the UK's welfare system. Discrimination laws would prevent any different treatment of that particular group so it seems we all have to pay for their behaviour. However, as I say, I fully expect these new proposals to be challenged. On the subject of discrimination, it could be said that by imposing a minimum income level, the UK government is discriminating between those who have and those who have not - again potentially illegal. The fact that laws are put in place for a reason seems to go above their heads as they continue trying to dismantle democracy and remove laws that prevent them from implementing their policies. I used to be a Conservative voter but now I've seen their true colours - never again.

I guess that's the nearest thing to an admission that you have been spouting inaccuracies we're going to get.

Sore point. I would love to get hold of the idiot that decided to make Australia a penal colony but leave the rest of us here on this cold, wet, foggy and increasingly cramped island.. 'I sentence you to 5 years in a hot country with surf and beautiful sunny beaches'. Somehow I think they got it the wrong way around all those years ago.

1. You missed the joke 2. I really don't give a damn about anybody's status - do you think people even notice that?