Gaccha

2 hours ago, flbkk said:

I did mine in person recently after moving to another room (same building and landlord).

I've experienced exactly the same scenario. 

The issue of whether you need to present a new TM30 when you move within the exact same apartments to a different room causes friction within the immigration police.

If you telephone the immigration police they will tell you it is not a requirement, but there are officers who will say it is a requirement. This has been the case since the immigration officers presented a notice requiring the TM30 for extensions to visas in around 2020.

My impression is that it has relaxed again.

32 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

The Italian version of Boris in many ways!

This is very accurate.

Until Berloscuni, politicians covered up their dirty private lives and demanded journalists not intrude into them.

Berloscuni was an innovator. He grasped that the best way in hedonistic modern times is to deflect attention from policies by encouraging the media to look at his naughty private life.

The media would ask him serious economic questions, and he would ask why don't they talk about his naughty swimming pool party.

You can see that Boris and Trump took notice of this new style.

The Friese-Greene Club, off Sukhumvit soi 22, is famous for having a tiny cinema with around a dozen seats. Perhaps they will let you use their screen. 

In general, you can renew 6 months before expiry and up to one year after, without incident. After one year, there are annoying extra documents/tests required.

28 minutes ago, kingstonkid said:

Just out of curiosity where does the foreign aid (Foreign Office) get the money for asylum seekers?

They siphon it out of their own foreign aid budget. That total budget amount has consistently been below the amount that the government promised for international aid.

As a First World country, the UK sends development aid to the  Third World. The government has simply deducted from that budget to pay the budget of asylum seekers. There is no net increase in cost to the taxpayer.

You can imagine that a lot of left-wingers are rather upset about this as they already feel the international aid amount is unimpressive. Daily Mail readers, by contrast, are simply ignorant and feel there has been some extra cost incurred by the arrival of asylum seekers.

8 hours ago, Dene16 said:

Thank you for letting google explain that you are talking a load of tosh,

Cost of retirees in 2022: 112.5 billion British pounds

Cost of unemployment benefits for all the unemployed in the UK, not only migrants, was 1.23 billion in 2022.

Cost of asylum seekers was £3.7 billion, or 29% of its aid budget, in 2022. 

[Source: Statista, the UK government's own statistics unit]

They are the simple statistics.

Crucially, you will note, as I stated before, that the entire cost of asylum seekers come out of the foreign aid budget, so there has been not a single penny extra in cost to the taxpayers because of asylum seekers. I don't know how I can make this any clearer.

You will also notice that the entire cost of all unemployment benefits in the UK is a rounding error compared with the cost of retirees.

The facts don't care about your feelings.

If you had actually used Google as I told you to I would not now have to waste my time pointing out that I was right on every point I made. 

•mic drop

Is this "somethings crawling on us" in the room with you right now?

Is it talking to you? Is it trying to get you to do anything?

I think the psychiatrist might be an option.

But make sure you select roaming on your phone before you take off from Thailand! (It is normally disabled on your phone's menu)

8 hours ago, Dene16 said:

packed full of foreigner's bleeding our welfare state dry

The cost of refugees comes out of the funds siphoned from the foreign aid budget. It actually has incurred no cost to taxpayers, but has worsened the suffering of desperate foreigners abroad.

If you mean the cost of welfare for people of working age then I you are living in fantasies concocted by The Daily Mail and The Sun newspapers. The welfare budget is a rounding error compared with the astonishing cost of the pension budget.

Please use Google. It is your friend.

This is the second case in a week where a hospital has informed the police of a wanted man. I'm impressed. This suggests decent and active communication between the police and the hospitals.

Everyone eventually needs to see a doctor. A person can always be identified by dental records and other such means. This means they will always eventually be caught. As close to karma as we can get.

There are seemingly three different companies operating in Thailand in the money exchange business called "super rich". And all of them have highly competitive exchange rates.

The largest two are the green ones ("Super Rich Thailand") and the orange ones ("Super Rich 1965") but you might find a gold one somewhere, although I cannot confirm this is separate to the orange ones.

5 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

No, it is Thailand related as I live here and have multiple

It was not Thailand related. He simply expresses the general claim-- a legal claim-- that since it is his property he can do what he wants. This is an interesting assertion based on his misunderstanding of the concept of ownership of property. I have helped remedy his misunderstanding.

1 minute ago, FritsSikkink said:

Thai law. I don't have a mortgage

Okay. This is another learning opportunity for you.

The English statutory law which I quote uses the example of a mortgage (it literally says in the statute that it is an example) to show that where somebody else has a proprietary interest besides the owner of the property, then criminal damage is a legal possibility.

It is irrelevant to my point that it is a mortgage. It is irrelevant to my point that it is English law. 

9 hours ago, Captain Monday said:

What the hell does English law have to do with a jurisdiction where the law is whatever a man with a badge says it is

This is is a great learning opportunity for you, as you have struggled to grasp the reason why I mentioned a point of English Law. I am going to assume you raise the question in good faith.

The point that I was responding to was the disbelief on the other commentator that a person could be charged with criminal damage even against their own property.

Their disbelief was unrelated to Thailand itself but simply a more general disbelief. Hence if I could show that a legal system recognises the idea of criminal damage to the person's own property then I would be able to disabuse the commentator of his false understanding of legal principles. I have done that.

What I have not done is what you seem to believe I have done, which is to discuss the practical application of the law in this case. But I have helped clarify the legal issues surrounding the possible practical application, which makes my comment rather useful.

36 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

I leased nothing, I bought it.

You are the lessor! You created a lease on the property. That alienates you from the property for the duration of the lease.

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

How can changing the locks on his own apartment that HE owns be criminal damage?

This is a well established point of law. 

As an example, here is the English Law:

"Meaning of Belonging to Another

An owner can damage their own property if, at the same time, it belongs to someone else – s.10(2) CDA 1971. For example, if a person sets fire to their own house, which is subject to a mortgage, they can still be charged under s.1(1) and (3) CDA 1971 as the mortgagor will have a proprietary right or interest in the property."

The lock is subject to the lease. He can be charged with criminal damage.

14 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

I open the door of your condo, move your things out and change the locks. Then you have to sue me which means you have to pay a Thai lawyer. This would be a bigger hurdle for you than for me as if you can't even pay the rent for your place to live, how are you going to afford a very long court case? 

Over and out.

He won't need a lawyer. If your eviction attempt is illegal, it is a crime and you will face a prison sentence. The prosecution will be by the police not by him so he will not need a lawyer. You, however, will need a lawyer.

By changing the locks you've caused criminal damage to the property and may also face prosecution for that.

I am sure the police will assist him in removing your changed locks and possibly they might carry his bed back in.

There is a process for a legal eviction in Thailand and it can take many months.

On 5/24/2023 at 2:38 PM, Goat said:

 

I have already chipped in $500 for this kid.

Great news!

He's back home in blighty and they were able to avoid paying a lot of the hospital bills... at least for now. In the meantime, he's in an NHS hospital now, so the UK taxpayer will surely help fund things going forward.

But thanks to your generosity, three of his family had a lovely no-expenses-spared trip to Thailand which included elephant rides; great fun was had by all! Another post has the photos!

21 hours ago, webfact said:

was taken to Vachira Phuket Hospital

That's a public hospital.

And yet:

"The young man is currently alone in a private Phuket hospital"

What happened? Did they, without adequate resources, move their relative to a private hospital, deciding they were entitled to better healthcare but without the hassle of paying for it?