jonclark

43 minutes ago, indepth said:

Got to be proven pension money, no,yes!

Err - no income!

And most pension income comes from private sources that people have paid into - not governmental so that income is a result of investments. 

2 hours ago, Leslie850 said:

Thanks for your Comment, I have lived here in Thailand 6 years now, I have not broken any rules i have complied with every request the Immigration requires over this 6 year period. Circumstances have changed, my Embassy stooped verifying my income from the UK My income was over 800,000 per year, its up to me how much I need to live on so I only drew 45,000 Baht per month.

But now my situation is that I need to show 65,000 per month as do many others, my way does not break any rules, its not cheating the system, i'm not going via an agent it complies with what they require. I have decided to go the Marriage visa way, a much harder way than my Retirement visa because I comply with what they want an income of 44,000 Baht per month. I was told i needed to show this every month.

The Immigration have been more than fair with me I asked what they needed and still they turned me down, giving me another 60 days to get what I needed. which is a reasonable amount of time to achieve this.

Follow the rules of this Country it's their Country not yours.

 

I think you are fine - as far as I know immigration does not make any mention of how the money coming into Thailand is to be spent. If you choose to spend it outside of Thailand that is your prerogative. I would imagine a cash withdrawal of 20'000 and then sent back in a different account would leave a paper trail but that would require so much effort immigration would not find it worth their while. 

35 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

Security theater fails again.

 

Another example of TSA and like agencies mainly being security theater.

 

I have to take off my belt, everything out of pockets, glasses have to go thru the machine, shoes at most airports, etc.

 

How can the cub not have been detected - a bribe or as in the picture there is no one watching the screen?

There are two plausible theory's here:

1) All the security agents were in on it and looked the other way. which is very risky given the number of passengers and the chaotic nature of going through security and then immigration. Highly likely someone would have raised the alarm. 

2) The courier went through security without the cub and then picked it up once inside the departure area, There would have been a single inside facilitator in this who has access to restricted areas, to store and then pass off the cub once the courier passes security. Fewer people involved and less risk. 

I have to say that given that survamabhumi is a secure site and is riddled with security cameras it would be incredibly easy to piece together the movements of the courier and the pick up. 

But i have no doubt that this is highly embarrassing to AoT and their security apparatus. Whether we hear about it or not someones P45 is definitely in the post.

44 minutes ago, Psimbo said:

 

It's about time people were not allowed to board aircraft without demonstrating that they have taken adequate measures to protect themselves when abroad. Alternately- if people turn up at Immigration on arrival and can't show they have insurance introduce a Gov't scheme at B 1500 per person giving full coverage for 30 day visitors. I would also welcome a compulsory scheme for longer term stayers as well. (By the way I AM insured).

The compulsory health insurance needs to be very carefully considered especially if it becomes a mandatory requirement. 

If you are over 60 health insurance becomes increasingly difficult and expensive as, well, the older you get the greater the risk of falling ill. And that risk is covered by the company to whom the premium is paid.  Additionally most insurance companies request that older people get a check up so the risk can be assessed, and the premium adjusted to compensate for any risk. 

If a a government sponsored scheme for a fee of 1'500 is introduced, without a health check (and its kinda hard with 32 million visitor per year to insist they all have a health check - imagine the queues at immigration! ) it makes very good sense to go on 'holiday' to Thailand just to use the health insurance that is mandatory (government sponsored??) to your entry, even if it is a relatively 'cheap procedure' the cumulative cost will soon outstrip the cost of the premiums for the country. And we need to remember that travel insurance would define this woman's condition as 'emergency medical care' , as it appears to be life threatening. 

The obvious answer it to exclude pre-existing conditions, and associated procedures, but does pre-existing translate into conditions that have not been diagnosed? Does it only cover cost up to a limit? Or treatment at a government hospital, Does it include repatriation costs as Thailand has a sadly high number of tourist deaths. It is not a simple make travel insurance mandatory situation.

I am sure the vast majority of people would take the insurance and not claim, they would rather enjoy their holiday, but given that Thailand is a medical tourism hub, many medical tourist would be looking at this and think why not lets put in a claim? 

Is it not the job of the police to provide security? 

Or have we now reached the point where the army do the policing and the police fight the wars. 

Wait, wait now this can be marketed by TAT as "The Real Unseen Thailand"

Yep doing away with 90 day reports and replacing with 30 day reports instead. 

I foresee hoards of Chinese waving their phones, displaying their visa application, in front of the faces of beleaguered immigration officers at suvarmabhumi 

1 hour ago, KhunBENQ said:

1) Saudia Arabia forbids it's citizen travel to Thailand. Shouldn't this be a concern for Kuwait Airlines too?

 

Actually Saudis are allowed to travel to Thailand for 3 exceptions under saudi law.

1. to visit family

2. to seek medical treatment

3. during transit to a 3rd country.

so if she did show an onward ticket in kuwait the airline was operatong correctly. Option 3 seems very plausible and supports her claim. 

Traveling without her families permission as she is female has no bearing in Thailand as Thai law not Saudi law is the law we are all subject to once we arrive here.

Having a return ticket in this case would actually made no difference as this young lady (and by extension any other refugee) had no intention of returning home.

A ticket reserves you a seat on the plane. Does not mean you are required to sit in it

The only group I can see this applying to are tourists which arrive in Thailand without their own banks cards holding a wad of cash?

Most bank cards come with visa / MC etc (be them debit or credit). So the idea behind this does not make sense. Why would you withdraw money from your overseas bank which has a visa etc facility, put it onto this card and then use this. Is it not better to just miss out the middle man and use your own bank from the start? 

I do not understand the appeal unless it offers discounts or some other incentive.