teatree

With respect, any one who thinks that a Labour government, or a Labour led coalition, would have changed, let alone abolished, any of the changes to the rules, such as the financial requirement, over the last 5 years is very much mistaken.

Yes, it was Labour who abolished the primary purpose rule; but they still allowed spouse/partner applications to be refused on the grounds of it not being a genuine relationship; so I fail to see the difference.

When Labour came to power, the initial settlement visa fee of £260 (not a typo!) included the cost of in UK applications; FLR and ILR.

Labour introduced separate fees for these in UK applications, without reducing the initial visa fee.

Having introduced these extra fees, Labour started the annual above inflation increases in most visa and LTR fees.

I don't have the actual figures to hand, but from memory am confident in saying that by the time Labour left office in 2010, the total cost in fees alone of settlement, from initial visa through to ILR, had increased to well over £1000, possibly closer to £2000.

It was Labour who introduced Koll, first for citizenship and shortly after for ILR.

Refusals under Labour paid as much attention to the ECHR as refusals under the last government; i.e. none at all.

The last government simply carried on where Labour left off; and I am confident that had Labour formed the new government, on their own or as leaders of a coalition, they would have done the same.

Yes, Labour would have done the same as the CON/lib coalition. In order to at least attempt to meet imigration quotas, they would have clamped right down on non-EU immigration just as the government did.

Non-EU immigration is the only thing they have any control over - EU citizens have rights to move to the UK.

Shame you only show interest in rich idiot drivers, an not poor drunk drivers who kill and disappear weekly of the Radar. Pure Envy. Why not ask how the Victims are today.

Show me an example of when a poor person has got the same treatment as the red bull ahole. If a poor person had done what he did they would be in jail right now.

It is only the very wealthy who can do what he did and get away with it.

You could try going to a tailor.

Allowing the sale of single cigarettes actually reduces smoking.

You buy a couple of ciggies, smoke them and when you fancy another you have to get up off your arse and buy some more.

When you buy a pack of 20 you smoke a couple, but then you still have a nearly full packet staring at you, and you smoke another one, and another and another until you are hooked and smoking a pack a day as a habit.

I know if the law allowed the sale of single cigs when I was a student i would have smoked far less.

Yes, listen out for the hilarious automatic number announcements.

Stop the idiots who throw water after 6 pm.

I would recommend a large moo baan called 'Sammakorn' in the Saphan Sung district off Ramkhamheng Rd in the eastern part of BKK.

There should be plenty of houses for 20k a month, although some are quite old.

Lots of facilities - shops, restaurants, supermarkets. Get a scooter or a bicycle and you have a great location to live - there are a number of small lakes, very green area. Travel into central BKK is a bit of a pain (1-2 hrs by car depending on traffic) but you would not need to do that often as everything you want is on your doorstep.

The ARL should be taken out of the hands of the idiots who set up the system and into private hands.

I'm not usually a fan of privatisation but the SRL are so incompetent they remind me of the movie 'Idiocracy". I don't see any other choice.

It could be so much better and could have been so much better designed if only for a little brain power.

Bring a photocopy to both for UK and Schengen application, show the original and explain that you need the original to show to the other embassy. That's what I would do. I don't know the UKs policy but for a Schengen you should be fine just showing the original at the counter, but this depend on the embassy in question! An other reason why I would make a direct appointment when dealing with a Schengen application rather then the optionsl service provider (VFS or TLS), a well trained counterclerk at the embassy should be able to help you better (read: see if you can get your original back).

THank you!

My wife is about to apply for a UK visa. Does anyone know if a photocopy of a letter from her employer would be acceptable? She use the original one getting a Schengen visa. Or would she have to get another original copy? She could do that but it would be a pain.

I knew a guy who ran a bar on one of the islands. One day a gang of thugs turned up and told him he and his gf had 10 mins to pack their things and get out.

It really is the wild west on some of these islands.

Sorry to hear your story OP. I don't think you can win by staying put. Sounds like they will keep coming back till they have sucked you dry. Good luck.

Tried it and regretted it the next day.

Makes 100 pipers seem like 30 year old single malt whiskey.

Your "friend" should change his username to "worrierbangkok" immediately, because he has plenty to worry about. No, in all honesty, you'll be fine. Why would you not be able to get a new passport just because you have bad debts in the UK with a private-sector bank? Last time I heard, HSBC wasn't running the operation to print UK passports.

Why do people always suspect that if someone is asking a question on this forum on behalf of a friend, that automatically means that the person asking the question is concerned party.

This is an anonymous forum! Do people really care about sullying their good (user)name that much?

When I took out a student loan the agreement was that when I reach 50 years of age (or so) any requirement to pay the outstanding amount is waived.

Also, I understand that any overdue amount owed to credit card companies after 8 years and is just written off as bad debt.

It will affect credit ratings however.

Durhamboy, rather than relying on what you read in the press you really should familiarise yourself with the directive itself and the UKVI guidance , the UKVI casework instructions and the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, plus, of course, subsequent amendments to same.

You will then see that it is not as simple for EEA nationals to live in the UK as "roll(ing) up at Dover (and saying) "I am exercising my EU treaty right under Directive 2004/38.""

BTW, what have you got against Romanians? Are you as fervently against other EEA nationals exercising their treaty rights; EEA nationals like the well over a million Brits currently doing so?

If someone knows that they do not qualify for a UK visa and so does not apply for one, then of course they are not going to be included in any figures! I don't qualify to be a judge, so should I be included in the figures of those who have failed to become one?

The US and Australia are as relevant as the EEA to this discussion; though if you have read or understood anything I have ever posted about UK settlement visas and the financial requirement in particular you would know that I most certainly do not think "the UK is only half as bad as those countries then it's all ok and we should be grateful!"

You are complaining that EEA nationals find it easier to settle in the UK than non EEA nationals do. That is true, just as it is true that UK nationals find it easier to settle in other EEA states than non EEA nationals do. I merely pointed out to you that settlement in the UK is a hell of a lot easier than it is in other countries.

Taking the Home Office to court and losing is not the same as actively campaigning and lobbying for change.

Having said all that, the main reason why I find it difficult, if not impossible, to take you seriously is because you have posted on several occasions that you feel the settlement requirements should apply to everyone except the Thai partners of British citizens! (See, I can remember what you post.)

In other words, you are looking at this from a purely selfish position; whereas I, and many others, want a fair and equitable system for all; not just our partners.

No doubt you will feel the need to come back with more; but I have said all I have to say to you on this matter in this topic.

I think the point he is trying to make is that it is far, far easier for a non UK EU passport holder to take their non EU wife to live in the UK. Some might say it is a formailty compared to the absurd and unfair hoops UK nationals have to jump through.

Settle down, you bunch of clowns. She meant the Winter Olympics, not the Summer Olympics. Which makes perfect sense. Happy now, everyone?

Well, it will snow in Bangkok before they are awarded summer Olympics!

They couldn't manage to build one measly little futsal stadium on time for the world champinships, how can they be trusted to host an event as big as the Olympics?

Sorry Thailand, you are not getting the Olympics for a very , very long time if ever.

May I remind/inform you that it was the Tory(conservative) government who raised the limit to £18,500 per year.

You can vote for the future government in May this year!

The income limit was not 'raised to £18,500 per year;' prior to 9/7/12 there was no official limit.

One was introduced for applications made on or after 9/7/12 of £18,600p.a. for a spouse/partner; more if children are applying as well.

If you want to bring party politics into this;-

It was Labour who doubled the residential qualifying period for ILR.

It was Labour who introduced the LitUK test and language tests.

It was Labour who introduced settlement visa and leave to remain fees which are well over the actual cost of processing the applications; effectively a tax upon applicants and sponsors.

If UKIP has any say in the matter it will be far easier for non EU spouses to migrate to the UK

They'll be getting my vote.

I was at Changi recently and noticed that the carpet where the duty free is takes more effort to push a trolley along and slowing you down.

Sneeky f**kers!

Seems fair enough to me.

What deterent would a few hundred Euro fine be?

There's one in Wave Place opposite 'The Embassy' mall.

Tel:026553916.

I just got some translations done, I think it was 350-400b per page.

ASEAN will be a success because it is more democratic than the EU. Each country has its own say.

The day there is a president of ASEAN making all of the decisions is the day it will fail, like the EU.

Yes, it will move more slowly, but what's wrong with that?

Also, ASEAN is simply about business, not one identity with one currency.

The countries of ASEAN will be business partners, not fools.

For now this is true, but the EU started along the same lines and changed gradually into the undemocratic mess we have today.

My feeling is that the northern countries such as Sweden, Denmark etc will play by the rules and the southern countries such as Spain, Italy etc will make their own rules up and be more bureaucratic.

If doing a tour of Europe (why not as the countries are packed relatively close together) I would make a Nordic country one of my destinations and apply at that country's embassy.