dbrenn

One more question: the financial requirement. I have cash savings of more than 62,500 for the initial application, but I find the documentation a bit confusing on how much in cash savings is required for the subsequent FLR and ILR applications - is the whole 62,500 required on each step or does it diminish:

1) Initial application: GBP 62,500 cash is required

2) FLR after 2.5 years -> how much is required?

2) ILR after 5 years -> how much is required?

Section 7.3.3 of this document is the art that I'm not sure about ....

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/525708/Appendix_FM_1_7_Financial_Requirement.pdf

I'm British, so the application is just for my wife.

Thanks again

15 minutes ago, The Deerhunter said:

Video calling SOON?????   You aren't using new Google Duos yet???????  Think what you are missing.....

I mean. ... video calling will replace voice calling and everyone will be expected to use it. ..

Thanks all

16 minutes ago, lemonjelly said:

Honda phantom... why did they do it? 

There was a market - biker wannabees who hadn't got the cash or a licence to ride a big bike

The transistor - made computers and cheap amplifiers possible

Facebook - the world's greatest waste of time. 

Candy Crush - ditto

Pokemon Go - ditto

1 hour ago, GAZZPA said:

Thats one way of looking at it. I personally think we are more then capable of finding a thousand different ways to fight and kill each other without resorting to religious beliefs. If religion was suddenly erased from the earth people would still be killing each other.

 

I think that most people who do have some sort of belief are generally peaceful people so on the whole religion does less harm then money for example.

 

So, I say money is the worst invention. It does nothing but put too much in the hands of too few and leaves people starving and vulnerable. It's the source of greed, wars, corruption, heir achy, and a huge %age of all violent crimes,,, in a world of plenty it's totally insane.

Agreed the bit about religion - if it didn't exist people would just find another reason to start wars

36 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Two issues here.

 

Firstly, although the period of leave granted is 33 months, the actual visa vignette will only be valid for 30 days. During that time the holder travels to the UK and then obtains their Biometric Residence Permit.

 

If they do not enter the UK within that 30 days then they can extend it. I can't find the UKVI page on this, but if memory serves it costs £150, payable, like the visa fee itself, in USD.

 

Secondly, as said the initial period of leave is 33 months. After 30 months in the UK one applies for FLR and 30 months after that for ILR.

 

However, if one delays travelling to the UK for more than 3 months then their leave will expire before they have lived in the UK for 30 months. They should still apply for FLR when the initial visa expires, but as that will be valid for 30 months it will expire before they have lived in the UK for the 5 years required to qualify for ILR; so they will need to make, and pay for, a second FLR application to make up the missing time.

 

Of course, if one doesn't use the visa within it's 33 months validity then it will expire and so if they still wish to settle in the UK they will have to start the whole process all over again.

 

Hope that's clear.

 

 

Thank you

1 hour ago, lemonjelly said:

Capitalism 

Capitalism does indeed seem to be going wrong, but so did communism. ..

6 minutes ago, thaihome said:

I can't keep up with you moving the goal posts as you continue to maintain that sexual assaults are only valid if a police report and now a conviction?

 

As I well know, I can't have a rational discussion with somebody that is determinedly disgenous. 

 

Later?

 

TH 

Which means that you have lost the argument. Enjoy your day. 

18 minutes ago, thaihome said:

 

Ah, another one that believes a sexual assault only exists if it is reported to the police. In Trump's case, several women have come forward with reports of such assaults,  including a lawsuit in 1997 that described behavior exactly as he bragged about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html?mtrref=gephardtdaily.com&_r=0

TH 

Sure this man is boorish, brash and rude. But did he break any laws, and if so why didn't these women go to the cops at the time? Does he have any criminal convictions for sexual assault? Or, could it be that these people are just making noise, to get some kind of compensation to shut up. He's a rich man, right?

In England too, there is this wave of historic sex abuse cases against most well known celebrities of the time. Very few have actually gone to court, and many of the accusers turned out to be fantasists or people looking to make a buck. Times change - also in England we had comedians such as Benny Hill, who made a career out of bawdy humour, such as slapping women's bottoms in his comedy show. Unthinkable now in these politically correct times of the liberal left, of course.

12 minutes ago, thaihome said:

Of course I have engaged in "bawdy remarks or humor". I just don't consider,  and never have, sexual assault as humorous.  You do? 

TH 

Thanks to political correctness, a lot of women see bawdy remarks and humour as sexual assault these days, and it is viewed as sexual harassment in the workplace. Even wolf whistling is viewed as hate crime and prosecuted in parts of the UK these days, so don't be surprised when you are no longer allowed to make the bawdy remarks that you acknowledge to have enjoyed making - something that may come back to haunt you.

Most men who make these remarks make them in an exaggerated way, so as to show off to their mates, and since Trump was never prosecuted for an actual sexual assault, and is an inveterate show off, how do we know that he actually assaulted women? Why didn't they go to the cops at the time?

Anyway, thanks for admitting you are human and enjoy a smutty joke now and again. We all do, because that's how our psyche is made up.

41 minutes ago, thaihome said:

You don't believe I have never grabbed a women by the crotch or that I have never bragged about doing it with impunity?

 

My answer to both is no and I still maintain that most men don't.

TH 

Sorry, I still don't believe that you've never indulged in bawdy remarks or humour.

38 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Most men brag in the locker room about sexual assault and being RAPEY? Not true. That's B.S. 

Well, Trump had a point about Bill Clinton though, and Hillary is a hypocrite for standing by her man while pretending to be the world's most ardent feminist ....

That aside, it's very saddening to see the depths to which US politics has sunk, where sexual peccadilloes is all that both candidates for the president of the most powerful country in the world can talk about. Instead of indulging in such trivia, shouldn't they instead be philosophising about righting all the wrongs in the world?

Just now, thaihome said:

No

TH 

Never? I don't believe you.

1 minute ago, thaihome said:

 

I disagree that "most blokes" make jokes about being able to get away with sexual assault.  I do agree that most discuss women's physical attributes and speculate on their chances or inclination to participate  sexual acts. But I don't think they brag about sexual assaults which is what Trump did.

TH 

 

Trump: “I’ve gotta use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.”

Unknown: “Whatever you want.”

Trump: “Grab them by the p—y. You can do anything

 http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/transcript-trumps-lewd-remarks-from-2005/

Think hard. As a younger man, did you ever made bar room jokes to other men about coming on strongly to a woman, even if it's not what actually happened because you were rebuffed, or it never actually happened to the extent of your boasting in the first place? Or it did happen, because the woman didn't rebuff you and welcomed it? Most men have behaved in this way, and I'm sure you have too.

13 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The only thing that surprises me about this is how many men claim to have never, ever said anything about women that their old granny couldn't hear.

Methinks some less than truthful statements are being made .

Right - everyone's done it. Lots of women do it too. Bawdy remarks and humour are ingrained in the human psyche, and pretending to suppress such a natural trait has turned the politically correct lefty brigade into a bunch of sneering neurotics.

4 minutes ago, kannot said:

Gods

Yes, but did we invent them or did they invent us?

34 minutes ago, allane said:

When I read only the title of your post on the listing of topics, I said "the mobile phone". At least in Thailand, these things are making people even stupider and less-organized, even if it is hard to believe that is possible. Maybe I was just born too early. In the old days, you made an appointment to meet someone. Nothing further was required until the time you met. Telephones were available, and one party could call the other if he had to cancel the appointment for any reason. Now it seems, after an appointment has been made, 3 or 4 phone calls are necessary to ensure that the agreed meeting is still on.

This next part is probably more applicable to Thai's, especially to those in junior employment positions, than it is to foreigners here in Thailand. Employees are at the beck and call of their boss 24 hours per day and 7 days per week. Unlike the landline only days, they don't have the option of pretending they are not home when the phone rings, or of having someone else pick up the phone and say they are not there. They are expected to have their mobile phone with them at all times.

And, it is difficult to start or have a business meeting because someone is always making, or taking, phone calls. Again, it is the bosses and senior employees who are most guilty.

Thank God I am now retired !

Agreed - mobile phones generally are a curse. As you say, you are at the beck and call of your employer 24 hours a day, but it goes further than that -- there is never a time when you can enjoy being alone. People expect that you'll have your phone on all the time and blame you for not taking their calls or chastise you for being 'hard to reach' if you dare to turn the bloody thing off. Soon, video calling will be the norm, making the problem far worse - it will be impossible to say that you are somewhere you are not, with all that implies.

Agree with the OP - the music noise is awful and blights many a nice place.

I'll start the ball rolling:

1) Smart phones - they've turned a one friendly population into zombies. Thai's these days are always looking down, glued to a screen. I do it too, I'm ashamed to say. When we are with people, we are not really with them at all, preferring to surf the web or message other people thousands of miles away. People idolise Steve Jobs for inventing these things, but has the net effect on society been positive? I think not.

2) Low cost amplifiers - peaceful places in Thailand are always spoiled by an ear-splitting din. Just the other day, I was at a beauty spot and some idiot in a pick up had his doors open and was playing awful music at full volume

Most blokes make jokes like this, and many women do to. Locker room banter is ingrained in human psychology, according to Freud (read Wit and its Relation to the Unconscious). People joke about the opposite sex, and for the politically correct lefty Twitterati to pretend that they don't do it is as ridiculous as it is unnatural. We all do it.

"Inclusive" in Prayuth's world means including only him, his family, his mates and his supporters. Since this oaf grabbed power, public spending in the provinces had reduced to just 17%, the remaining 83% is spent in Bangkok.

What a hypocrite this man is.

33 minutes ago, taichiplanet said:

A good example of what to do and what not to do. Thailand for decades had an advantage of infrastructure over the rest of the region but this is disappearing fast as the other nations are catching up.

Right - Thailand is fast becoming the land of missed opportunity.

I'm planning to apply for a UK settlement visa for my wife. Her details are:

1) She's originally Thai

2) She moved to Australia to live with me in 2009, on a settlement visa, and she subsequently naturalised as an Australian citizen in 2013, meaning that now she is a Thai / Australian dual national

3) We mover to Thailand in 2013, and are still living here

4) We are planning to spend a few months in Oz, and then migrate to the UK

Now my questions:

1) Will we be able to apply for her UK settlement visa as soon as we arrive back in Oz, or will she have to apply here, where we have been most recently resident -- will having just arrived back in Oz prevent her from applying there?

2) As an Australian, she will be exempt from the English language test, but residing in Thailand she will have to take the TB test. If we apply in Oz, will she be exempt from the TB test or will she still have to take it?

3) What are the processing times for an Oz application, versus a Thailand application?

Just trying to make this as easy as possible Thanks for helping out all.