chrisyork

If it's been said before, apologies, I haven't read all the pages..............

Seems to me that there are two aspects to this.

First is the control of migrant workers. Yes, correct thing to do. Far too many abuses as of now.

But the collateral damage is tourism and expats.

What happens when an expat goes to stay with family or friends? Are they now meant to report in to immigration? Or is the existing report of home address sufficient?

And then there's back-packers. The foundation of Thailand's tourism decades ago and probably how many of us started our association with the country. They tend to want to stay in out of the way places.........

My suggestion. This needs an "Indefinite Leave to Remain" (substitute five years or whatever, to taste) category tacked onto the top the Visa system that takes that foreign passport holder out of the reporting system altogether. Then a waiver added for the rest to cover stays in one place of less than one week.

I'm sure you're right!

Better prepared, though..............

3 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Why didn't you have an embassy letter?

I shan't be extending until November, when Embassy letters will already have lapsed and be out of date eligibility.

So this was an enquiry as to exactly what they are looking for under the new system.

Better prepared than having to fly to the UK and start again...............

As an aside to this for UbonJoe and for JackThompson.........

Savanakhet had led me to believe that the whole process could be done on the spot at my local immigration. So I was a bit disappointed with this extended sequence of actions explained more fully at Lopburi. I opined that perhaps it might be better to take another trip out of country and get a straightforward O-A Retirement at Vientiane/Savanakhet. Lopburi were VERY keen for me not to do that but to follow this process through them.

Maybe the mesage is getting through that a lot of farang are spending a lot of money OUTSIDE Thailand at Thailand's behest......

I would add that Lopburi is a positively exemplary office. Well laid out, pleasant officers, never a queue etc etc. Just a pity it's a 120 km drive... Us farang want everything, don't we... :)

Ta muchly, UbonJoe!

Yes. That's exactly how I understood it, ubonjoe. The only bit that surprised me was the "legalisation" requirement for the Embassy Income letter bit......

Am I right that the legalisation service is done here.....???

http://bangkok.immigration.go.th/en/location1.html

You and I both would have supposed so..... Savanakhet instructed me to do it this way and Lopburi thought it routine on Friday....... Strictly speaking, what they say they are doing is converting one type of Visa to another......... And that is apparently OK......

The bit with wider relevance is this requirement to validate the Embassy Income letter. Which is new to me.

I attended my local Immigration Office in Lopburi on Friday 18th. I had, I thought, all documents to allow me to convert a single entry Tourist Visa ex Savanakhet into a one year OA "Retirement" Visa..... The office accepted that my UK Embassy Income letter was OK. But require it to be stamped as valid at ChaingWaettana before accepting it with the application.

That's news to me! Has it happened to anyone else?

The implication is that that would be necessary for all circumstances in which an Embassy Income letter is a required document........

I shall be visiting ChainWaettana tomorrow, then back to Lopburi thereafter....... I will report how I get on......

Thanks UbonJoe.

Worked that one out for myself already.... The question is, how do I track down the schools and courses...??

I have a friend who is a Swedish national aged 25 years. He wants to spend an extended period based on Kanchanaburi. I am in the role of search assistant (!)....

The most promising avenue seems to be to sign him up for a college course that would allow him to get an O - ED category visa (I think that's the right terminology - please correct me if wrong). But I haven't been able to find any listing of suitable courses.

Any clues where to look, please folks.

Thanks for that!

Hi 

I'm a UK citizen with a Thai family and have been living here continuously (bar visa runs) for a bit over three years. My partner is a bloke, so I can't show marriage eveidence. I live with his family - I've been coming to and fro for another 18 years. - and regard them as my own. 

My OA Retirement visa expired at the end of January and I am unable to renew it because the combination of the collapse of the pound and the raising of the income threshold to 65,000THB means I'm below the requirement. All will be well again in July 2018 when my state pension kicks in.

In the meantime I am planning to do runs to Vientiane - the closest to where I live in rural Lopburi - getting a single entry tourist visa (they seem not to be prepared to issue multi entry) and exteding it at the local immigration office in Lopburi to give an effective 90 day between visa runs. I've done two runs so far.

I've heard rumour, but can find no evidence on line, that there is now a limit of two conscutive tourist visas from the same consulate.

That would well and truly screw up my plan.......

Firstly, is it true?

Secondly, any suggestions?

Thanks,
Chris

2 minutes ago, off road pat said:

Are you kidding ??? The BBC can cost Thailand hundreds of millions in lost tourism spending....If they run a few negative reports on a regular basis......The BBC is watched world wide,...so if they block them in Thailand there's always the rest of the world !!!

Thailand's tourism industry counts for, at most, 10% of GDP. Let's keep the importance of western visitors in perspective......

20 minutes ago, tukkytuktuk said:

This isn't about Ian Rance and his wife getting a lawyer to sign over his half of the house to her.

This is about a way up high figure in Thai society that wants to make an example of a high up foreign journalist.

The BBC is getting involved which could bring in to play the governments also getting involved. But judging by the PM of Thailands foreign relations with western powers recently. I don't think he gives a flying duck.

No time for Johnny to get out or do a deal behind closed doors and save poor old little Britainers the embarrisment.

I'm sure this is right.

AND the colatoral of making public - and thereby stopping - the corruption of many on Phuket may well be equally desirable.

2 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

this case will only publicize the scam

My point exactly......

...and since the Thais also realise this. That implies the authorities are keen to see that scam ended.

1 minute ago, lucky11 said:

No!! let him face the Thai courts. 

What we can be quite certain of is that, once this is played out, no one in the UK will ever again buy property in Thailand......

I wonder whose interests that will serve......

It could be that it will serve the interests of a Thai elite getting to grips with reigning in corrupt practices on Phuket......... That has been garnering extensive coverage in Thai media, if not in western media. Such practices largely being Thai on Thai, but perhaps based on a supply of riches from the Islands western visitors and residents.....

Thailand has always instinctively been a closed society. Openess to the presence and ideas of westerners is based ONLY on profit and could readily be rolled back if the elite thought it was corrupting Thailand.....

13 minutes ago, nakhonandy said:

The problem as I see it is the defamation and computer crime laws. 

 

Even if the person being defamed is guilty, obvious in this case, they will still win! Absurd! 

 

Also because he reported the truth he will be charged with computer crime due to the arse backwards defamation law.

 

The defamation law should only be applied if the defamed is innocent! Not the case here. 

Absolutely right from a Western perspective.

But remeber the other key criteria for a defamation defense to succeed......  The promolgation of the information has to have been <<in the interests of Thailand>>. 

If not, the Thai way of looking at this will be to see it as an unnecessary attempt to cause public loss of face. And be condemned on this ground alone.

Or worse, to see it as an attempt to belittle Thailand in the eyes of the international community......

The Thai approach to such things is NOT the same as the western.......

JH has had a particular thing going about Lese Majeste. And about the shortcomings - as he sees it - of Thailand's approach to democracy.

He has failed to report effectively - ie in increasing the understanding of his readers - on the dynamics of how Thai society and governance has worked and evolved for generations.

He could definitely be accused of a pro Shinawatra take on everything. Whether or not readers here think that is a good or bad thing, it shouldn't be what foreign correspondent level journalism is about. The BBC, above anyone, ought to be even handedly explaining......

It would be a huge surprise to me if the authorities did NOT depreciate that.....

Remember. The "plaintif" lawyer may just have been "encouraged"....... He isn't necessarily aware of the wider agenda......

Just now, MorristheRunt said:

Thailand needs to be very careful, I am 100% certain the BBC has evidence about what the Thai "elite" get up to in their spare time, which if released to the masses would cause untold damage.

Indeed......

I think that's why the chosen battleground is so far away from Bangkok.....

Phuket seems to have been causing distress to the authorities (in BKK) for some time....

Perhaps this is a "two birds with one stone" exercise...??

I do agree with that, Nip.

Westerners, property and Thailand have been a scandalous combination for deacades.

I'm afraid I've always taken the view that the victims tend to be the ones who've brought their assumptions, culture and wealth with them and not modified any of it in the light of the society they find themselves in.....

But I don't see any particular relevance to what is happening to JH....

I read the facts.....

But I also "get" the context.......

Head's reporting of the Army takeover has been wrong headed and lacking in understanding of Thailand from the start. He continues to apply western values to a situation in which they simply don't work. Instead of explaining Thailand he has spent his efforts throwing bricks and misrepresenting what the authorities have been trying to achieve.

Sure, there are occasions where that IS a good idea.... But overall, a reporter's first responsibilty is to facts. Their second is then to context and understanding. On those scores he's a disgrace to the profession.

I'm shocked it has taken Thialand this long to do something about him.

The particular crime he's accused of is a neat fix for this situation. The issues are neatly distant from anything of consequence. Yet have the potential to do him serious damage.

I don't expect to read too many more of his reports from Thailand.

Thailand used to have exactly the same problem with the public long distance bus system. Improved regulation has fixed that.

Tourist busses and private hire busses still have a little way to go, though.

It's unclear to me what the advatage to the operator is of running vans over proper busses. Fuel costs and lifetime purchase and maintenance cost would appear to be much higher for vans than the equivalent number of bus seats.... I accept that the additional wage costs from all the extra drivers are less of a problem here.

Perhaps the advantage is in serving a much gretaer number of routes and destinations? Yet I see public long distance busses in the most out of the way locations.

So for once, I think the transport ministry have the right answer. Simply convert all the van route licences to bus licenses. There looks to me to be a net benefit to Thailand in that.