Mattd

5 minutes ago, steve187 said:

number 2 is a waste of money, if he already has a single, with  no advantage

Agreed, I just want to clarify to the OP that he CANNOT do as he proposes, i.e. get another single re-entry permit on his way out this time, because he already has a valid single re-entry permit, if he does, one negates the other, so his only cheap option is to do number 1, unless he cannot, for whatever reason, get another single re-entry permit between his arrival and the next departure.

29 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

You can apply for the re-entry permit at DM on departure from the country.

You can only have one re-entry permit at a time. You could get a multiple re-entry permit for a fee of 3800 baht that would be valid for entry until the date your extension ends.

@ubonjoe If my take on this is correct and to clarify for the OP, then as he seemingly already has a valid single re-entry permit in his passport, then his options are??

1. Depart the country this time without applying for any further re-entry permit, upon his return use the one he already has in his passport, then upon his departure the next time apply for a new re-entry permit.

2. Apply for a multiple re-entry permit whilst departing the country this time, which would cancel the one that he has in his passport, but he can use this for his arrival and the following departure / arrival.

22 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

During his visit to the cockpit demonstrator, the Defence Secretary also met with representatives from some of the 500 UK companies who are in the F-35 supply chain. UK industry will provide approximately 15% of each F-35 to be built and, with more than 3,000 aircraft projected, the programme will support 20,000 UK jobs over the 30 year production phase.

Once upon a time Britain had the engineering talent and expertise to make the best warplanes in the sky. WTH happened?

How about Britain makes it's own warplanes, or is that impossible because Britain doesn't have anyone that can actually make anything anymore?

 

They could even reopen the Harrier production lines and update the technology, but even that is apparently beyond their capabilities.

Seems the UK government really is a waste of space.

It is nothing to do with the availability of the expertise in the UK, I would imagine that the only reason the UK doesn't is down to cost, the cost of developing and then actually building a suitable aircraft would be enormous, especially given the relatively small amount of planes that the UK actually need, it would simply make no sense whatsoever, far better to purchase a plane that has been developed and is being produced and at the same time gain employment / revenue from it.

As it happens, my BIL is heavily involved with the F35 via BAE and heads up quite a large team based in Preston.

Regarding the leak from the shaft, this, as has been mentioned, is really not uncommon, building something as complex as an aircraft carrier is bound to involve some niggles that need sorting, hence the sea trials and the length of time needed to commission.

Exactly why the F35 deliveries lag are so so far behind the carrier itself is a bit of mystery to me, were they just ordered too late, a design change delay or is it just they cannot be produced fast enough?

Possibly one of the biggest mistakes made with these two carriers is the power plant, ideally this should have been nuclear, again it probably came down to cost, lets hope that they have learnt from the type 45 design mistakes and resolved the cooling issues in warmer waters, as this is likely where they will be most operational.

The other mistake is the defense systems deployed, these are out of date and not really suitable for a large carrier, especially given the lack of available suitable support ships to form a viable carrier group.

The reality is that Thailand's immigration policy for any EU country citizens is in general far easier than it is in any EU country for a Thai.

All Thai's must apply for a visa to any EU country prior to visiting, with conditions that are prerequisite and acceptance is by no means guaranteed. 

All EU citizens can visit Thailand for 30 days visa exempt, then extend for another 30 days very easily.

I'd imagine that 99.9% of Thai tourist visa applications are approved.

Regarding marriage, as mentioned on here several times by other posters, the conditions of a Thai wife to go and live in an EU country are just as strict, if not stricter than the EU husband living here, the only major difference being that upon acceptance the wife can obtain work, although this is also possible for the husband here, albeit a little more hassle.

It really comes down to a matter of choice, if the husband doesn't agree with Thailand's immigration policies, or finds it 'difficult' to comply with them, then he can always get his wife to apply for a settlement visa and take his wife to his home country.

I suspect in most cases, that they cannot do this option due to lack of funds / accommodation and so on and complain about Thailand for similar reasons.

36 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

This is stated in the guidelines for naturalization. Not sure if they accept the applications though.

I read this such that a person applying for citizenship would still have to meet all the criteria to apply, i.e. be a PR or married to a Thai, this clause just seems to state that the financial requirements are less than those not married or with children / degree from Thailand?

3 minutes ago, watcharacters said:

Does it mention "thinking distance"?

My point was and still is that it is not IMHO safe to follow another vehicle whilst maintaining the vehicles MINIMUM braking distance, to do so would be suicide, there are a lot of factors that would change the braking distance and to rely on the minimum available to you (even if you knew what that distance was for the prevailing conditions) would be stupid, especially on a motorbike, where the mechanical grip is a lot less than a car and you are so much more vulnerable.

The safe distance needs to include reasonable braking distance under normal circumstances, not an emergency stop!

This is even more pertinent today, whereby vehicles can have huge differences in braking ability, the car in front of you may have 50% better braking ability than your vehicle, which is why it is very important to be aware of what is going on as far ahead as is reasonably practical, drive / ride too close and that advantage is negated, because all you can see is the rear of the vehicle ahead.

It is not disputed that conditions change and  that folks in front of you can and do make stupid moves, however you are responsible to drive accordingly and should in 99% of cases be able to stop or avoid the vehicle in front of you.

A motorbike rider does in a way have a certain advantage, in that they are able to position themselves on the road to allow better vision / escape.

11 minutes ago, transam said:

READ THE ROAD AHEAD....If you cannot read it then drive carefully until you can READ THE ROAD AHEAD...

100% correct.

6 minutes ago, watcharacters said:

Safe distance is reaction time plus  minimum braking distance of your vehicle.

Sorry, but I'd hate to be in or on a vehicle with you driving sir, if you truly believe what you wrote, it certainly is not a safe distance if you leave only the reaction time and the vehicles minimum braking distance.

As an ex. motorcycle rider with quite a lot of experience, then no matter the conditions you should always have an escape plan, unfortunately the Malaysian rider lost his life in this accident, there is little doubt in my mind that this was avoidable, by paying proper attention, being fully aware and riding with due care with a proper distance between the next vehicle, whilst giving yourself a line of sight as far down the road as is possible.

One of the things that you see here on a daily basis is the lack of foresight, most drivers / riders barely look past their bonnet / front wheel and their reaction time is badly affected because of this, one of the most important things they teach in advance driving or riding courses is to plan ahead and have an out.

24 minutes ago, greenchair said:

What is the difference between naturalisation and citizenship? 

Naturalisation is the process whereby a foreigner becomes a citizen of a country by means other than birth right.

10 minutes ago, Happy enough said:

it was pointed out to me on the other thread that they are watching footage that happened before on a pc from the dash cam camera. I thought they were recording it also but i was wrong. they are recording the screen of the laptop from their phone

This is possible, certainly not something taken directly from a dash cam, although the camera angle does seem strange for a dash cam, as it is angled in towards the pavement.

Not that it really matters, the fact remains that this guy should not be out in public, a kick like that could have caused the child some serious harm.

51 minutes ago, giddyup said:

The guy was filmed on a car cam.

Not entirely convinced that it was a dash cam, picture is a little shaky and the angle keeps on changing.

True use a transparent proxy, so this maybe the cause of your issues?

Although it should have been affecting you prior to the cable fire, as they have been operating this way for a very long time.

OP, I'm sorry to say, but you openly admit that you are a serial traffic offender and by your own description you were not fined illegally, you quite possibly committed more than one offense.

As others have stated, pay the fine and move on.

I have been driving here for well over 20 years and never once have I been fined illegally, might be good luck, or it just might be that I keep within the law!

Any child born to a British Father (otherwise by descent) prior to 1st July 2006 will not automatically get British Citizenship if the parents were not married as the child is considered illegitimate.

The OP needs to move on this quickly, as once the Child reaches the age of 18, then the process will become that much more difficult.

My first son was born out of marriage in 1999 and at that time we had to go to the British Embassy and swear an oath regarding his parentage, the application then went to the UK for approval by the home office, exact process is a bit hazy nowadays, though I do remember it took about 3 months and was not cheap!

This is a useful document to read:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/118568/legitimation-and-domicile.pdf

3 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

As a result, the FRS capability was abandoned in favour of having an IO doing the facial comparison. It is envisaged that within the next few years FRS will be reintroduced once the system can be made reliable.

3 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

The one officer can oversea up to 10 e-Gates at any one time, hence the through put at the e-Gate is considerably higher than that of the normal face-to-face check.

Seems that their website needs updating then!

It makes me wonder why the UK uses this type of system if it still requires the human interface.

Surely it would make more sense for a system that works and doesn't need a human continuously overseeing it, in reality as it stands now, the British Passport cannot be described as Biometric in the true sense of the word.

If an officer is tasked to oversee 10 e-Gates at one time then I'd imagine that there is a high probability of mistakes happening, especially at busy times.

I assume there is some reason why we do not use fingerprints as the biometric, at least until the technology for FRS is advanced enough to be reliable?

Singapore have recently introduced this for certain Nationalities when departing and it seems to work very well.

14 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

So if you exited and re-entered the Country whilst on your extended permission to stay, using a re-entry permit, just where do the financial conditions of entering on a Visa come to force.

It would stand to reason that an IO could ask for proof of funds upon entry in to the country, as the entry is still (in the examples cited) an non immigrant entry, they would be entitled to do this under the immigration act, using the same logic, it would also stand to reason that if this was to be asked, then the person entering could politely state that they have had to prove funds to enable the extension to be approved.

It is all a bit debatable regarding regulations, however, it has to be remembered that proof of funds doesn't necessarily mean that a person has liquidity, for both retirement and marriage this proof could be in the form of monthly income and is often abused, as is the funds in a bank, this we all know happens, I'm sure that immigration do also.

You could use the same argument for an O-A visa for example, to get this will have involved showing funds available to you, in reality, immigration are entitled to ask whatever questions they feel fit to ask, to determine the eligibility of an entrant. I suspect this happens only when they have any doubts, or perhaps somebody is rude to them etc.

In my case, in the 29 years that I have lived in Thailand, with at least 6 entries per year, I've never been asked one question by an IO whilst entering or departing.

18 minutes ago, Birdman said:

In case time not enough to make the 7 days granted at the immi on the day of the divorce, what will happen? Pay overstay and the 7 days next time the immi opens? Or at the boarder or at the passport control at the airport?

Is the divorce going to be an amicable one at an Amphur office? If so perhaps ask the soon to be ex. if the divorce can be delayed until it all aligns, so that you can leave Thailand at the same time as the Non B paperwork is ready?

On 1/13/2018 at 7:43 PM, Tanoshi said:

Taking that argument at face value, then many members of this forum are wrong when informing members 'you don't have a visa', when they actually have an extension of permission to stay.

Your logic would then suggest we actually extended the Visa, so technically I am still the holder of a Non Imm O Visa even though the validity of that Visa expired a long time ago.

Actually, IMO, you are technically extending your permission to stay based on that original visa.

If this is not the case, then why do they refer to that original visa and entry on that visa each and every time that you renew your passport, I have been extending the same non b visa entry for over 14 years and that info has been transferred to 3 different passports during that time, it would make no sense to transfer that info if it was not connected. 

On 1/13/2018 at 5:20 PM, 007 RED said:

Sorry Mattd but the e-Gate does not work in the way that you described.

Really, then the good old UK Government is blatantly lying then (not that it would surprise!)

'To help speed up your time at passport control, there are now ePassport gates at all major airports in the UK. ePassport gates are automated, where a passport reader and camera, rather than a border officer, will verify your identity and check your ‘chipped’ passport.

The gates use facial recognition technology to compare your face to the photograph recorded on the ‘chip’ in your passport. Once the check is made successfully, the gate opens automatically for you to walk through.'

https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/using-epassport-gates-airport-border-control

19 hours ago, wgdanson said:

There is no way that biometrics ie retina pattern, facial dimensions etc. can be obtained from a passport sized photograph, the resolution is too small. It would be much better that the Passport people ask for a 10 x 8 at 720 dpi, or a high res jpg file. They could then reduce the size to fit on the passport.

The photo and the biodata are embedded in to the chip and the photo within the chip is used together with the camera at the e-gate, this camera has facial recognition software that compares certain facial features for ID authentication.

1 minute ago, Happy enough said:

danger of using an agent? vfs are an agent but i get your point. 

Agreed, but they 'should' have some experience to be able let folks know if the photo complies.

The biometrics are taken off the photo the applicant provides, the photos must be to the criteria on the Government website.

This is one danger of using an agent, as if they are not correct the whole application will fail

10 minutes ago, persimmon said:

It was stated in a previous post that hotels and g/houses must report the arrival of every foreigner within 24 hrs.Is this really happening ? I don`t think so ,particularly as it doesn`t seem possible to do it on-line

They are certainly supposed to by the letter of the law and most of the bigger hotels will be, whether or not the smaller hotels / guesthouses are is debatable, some will be, some won't, you as a guest would have no clue if they had or hadn't, well at least until you had to deal with immigration for an extension (example) at an office that insists on reporting!

Businesses can register to report online, individuals cannot.

So long as the marriage was correctly performed within Thai law, then there is no need or requirement to register a marriage in the UK, the Thai Marriage certificate and a translation will suffice.

https://www.gov.uk/marriage-abroad

Regarding the going to live in UK part, your wife will have to apply for a settlement visa in order to do this, I hope that you have looked in to this carefully, as it isn't as straightforward as it used to be, you will have to satisfy all of the requirements prior to the visa being granted, which includes the yearly financial requirements, English language tests, medical tests and NHS supplements etc. etc. there is a lot of info and knowledge in this regard within the visa and migration to other countries forum.

https://www.gov.uk/settle-in-the-uk

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/forum/25-visas-and-migration-to-other-countries/