Foggy Bottom

.... Unfortunately democracy may even overcome Hadrians wall.

NEVER!!!

Here in God's Garden (Northumbria) we are debating rebuilding "The Waal" to keep out the Cameronian French and their ilk.

We're also in talks with Jockland to rebuild the Antonine Waal and keep out the Immigrant enclave in Aberdeen.

Klaus Peter Buhrig. How many nationalities could it possibly be?

Middle name Peter? Might be Israeli?

Spite & malice take their toll, again...they reacted against all things French after the Frogs stationed a gunboat next to the Grand Palace while taking most of Laos & Cambodia from them (Paknam, aka Samut Prakan, Incident, 1893)...never got over that...comes back to haunt them. ;-} rap.

Paknam Incident 1893

An interesting link - many thanks

I particularly like this bit - "On July 1, 1893, England send the Pallas from Singapore. The ship moored at the bar to protect British nationals and their interests, without any sign that it would give assistance to the Thais."

Glad to see that at least the Royal Navy got the priorities right

I hope this never happens. I teach English (part time) in a local education center and of the several other English teachers here, the only one that actually CAN speak English ( I'm English BTW) is Canadian. I have stood in for many other teachers here and their students speaking and writing skills are way below what they should be. I struggle to understand them on many occasions, with even the simplest of phrases. Yet somehow they always seem to get good grades. Myself and the Canadian teacher have discussed this many times and are appalled by the quality of the English education here. Allowing just anyone to teach will only serve to make the situation worse.

P.S The spell checker here, has just tried to correct the word "Center" to "Centre". ( Mine is the correct English spelling). Case proven lol

if you're British English, Lucifer, then you're wrong.

Centre = a point in the middle, a location, a place (in British English)

Center = someone or something that makes cents (in British English)

In American English, center is used the same as the British centre and is most prevalent internationally in computer programming such as the HTML positioning command " align=center".

About time but the answer is very simple. If (for example) a Romanian pitches up in England or Germany seeking benefits then it's fair he/she should get the benefits if meeting the correct criteria. He/she should get exaclty what they would have got in their home country and the home country should pay it -wether family allowance, income support, medical benefits or housing etc. Same should apply to Brits and everytbody else too within the EU. Those from outside the EU, what are they doing being allowed in the country anyway on anything other than a tourist visa (which allows them to 'tour')? If they have been granted student or working visa/permission this should not qualify them for benefits of any kind except medical if they are paying NI. Not rocket science really is it?

Another one with no idea of what the law actually says.

EU citizens do not automatically get benefits when they enter the UK - they have to have worked for at least a year (or been self-employed for the same amount of time) before they can claim unemployment benefits - but only the contributions based benefits. They cannot claim the non-contributory benefits.

Non-EU citizens can only claim benefits after being sponsored in as a spouse or partner and having completed five years in country and having gained Indefinite Leave to Remain or full settlement. Before 12 July 2013, those on settlement visas would have immediate access to full benefits, now new entrants do not.

About time but not just EU migrants - should be ALL migrants

Try learning about the topic before spouting - it already is off-limits for non-EU nationals from all countries ... including according to the law, for Britons returning home after more than 2 consecutive fiscal years overseas. If you return to the UK and bring in your Thai spouse/partner and any non-Brit Thai-born kids, then none of them have recourse to public funds for 5 years.

When these Buddha day bans were first introduced by Abhisit 4 or 5 years ago everywhere had to refrain from selling alcohol. Then the rich who own the hotels (or rather the land the hotels are built on) got together with their friend Mr Abhisit and hey presto, hotels were excluded.

Abhisit did not begin these bans - they existed under Thaksin and under Chuan Leekpai before Thaksin.

400 years old would make it the early 1600s AD, possibly late 1500s, either way this is in the middle period of the Burmese occupation of LanNa.

Odds are it's a buried cache from the sacking of the 2nd Chiang Saen - the current Chiang Saen is the 3rd rebuild of a city of that name in the same general location.

It would be of extreme interest to know if it was found within the current (Kawila era) ruined city walls, or in one of the earlier cities' perimeters.

WOOHOO - it took two hours of reading to understand why he said it, but the conclusion in Para 155 states -

"I conclude that there is substantial merit in the contention that the interference represented by the combination of the five (financial requirement) factors in the family life of the claimants on the assumed facts is DISPROPORTIONATE AND UNLAWFUL. "

There ya have it - the High Court Judge says the 12 July 2012 financial requirements for sponsors are UNLAWFUL !!!

Paragraph 140 in the judgement document (Yeah - I'm still reading it all) -

In my judgment, the aim of transparency cannot justify an agglomeration of measures that cumulatively very severely restrict the ability of many law abiding and decent citizens of this nation who happen not to earn substantial incomes in their employment from living with their spouses in the land of their nationality.

Quoted from the judgement document of the case linked above ...

Paragraph 100

British citizens are also in a different position from foreign sponsors generally. This is because they have an independent right to reside in their own country. This is not a right afforded by permission of the Secretary of State but it is a fundamental right of constitutional significance recognised by the common law before the legislation was codified in the Immigration Act 1971. This Act describes the right as the ability to reside without 'let or hindrance'. The right to enter one's own country is also a fundamental human right recognised by all civilised societies and reflected in Protocol 4 Article 3 to the ECHR and Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. An inability to continue to reside in the country of one's nationality because of the exclusion of a spouse of a genuine relationship is an interference with that right of residence.

and

Paragraph 103

In the context of justification of this interference I respectfully agree with the observations of Lord Justice Sedley in Quila in the Court of Appeal, that in the case of British citizen sponsors, we are dealing with a combination of factors: a fundamental domestic law right for the sponsor to reside in the United Kingdom without let or hindrance, a right for such sponsors to both marry and found a family, and a right to respect for the family and private life created as a result of the exercise of the two previous rights.

Interesting ... though I note there's no FAQ where an income-only refusal has already been escalated to an immigration tribunal appeal, which is awaiting reply from the consulate to the tribunal before a hearing date is set.

When I heard this on the news today I wondered if anyone would have posted anything about it.

Glad to see that TVE is on the ball.

Not glad to see that the usual suspects from both sides have already used this topic to yet again air there ignorant prejudices rather than discus this very important ruling!

Getting back to the actual topic; does anyone know if the appellants have been given leave to appeal to a higher court?

Yes they have, but the Home Secretary has also been given leave to appeal the recommendation regarding proportionality

I notice you have not answered the question is £16.00 a week too much?

Professor J Meirion Thomas, a senior consultant in the NHS, makes some interesting points in today's Daily Mail.

Ineligible patients is that British taxpayers are kept on waiting lists and drugs are denied them, while the emergency treatment of overseas visitors takes precedence.

He says the proposed new health care levy of £200 a year for foreigners will rank as the cheapest travel insurance ever devised, especially if it covers family and dependants.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2355152/Professor-J-Meirion-Thomas-A-200-wont-stop-foreigners-abusing-NHS-But-I-know-.html

He also states that he believes the charge will be treated by the foreigners as providing unlimited health insurance and access to unlimited health care. Which would completely undermine the intended purpose of the charge and the proposed health care access limitations mentioned by the Health Minister.

Stop reading selectively and look at the whole picture.

Ought to charge GBP 1,000/year for the first 5 years until they can show they are regular tax payers. And if not, kick them out.

Perhaps the Thais should do the same to Brits living in Thailand?

Is no one else as concerned as I about this and the effect it will have on family migrants?

Maybe people haven't read the document, or the Home Office consultation, properly.

If this proposal goes ahead, any British citizen who wants to live in the UK with their non EEA national spouse or partner will have to pay this.

On top of visa and leave to remain fees which are, according to the government's own figures, already set at way above the actual cost of processing an application.

On top of the tax already being paid by the British spouse or partner.

On top of the tax which the foreign spouse or partner may pay if they work once in the UK, which many do.

The message from this government is clear.

If you want to marry a non EEA national and live in the UK with them; forget it unless you are rich!

With you 110% on your sentiments 7x7 ... the disingenuous part that you didn't mention is that it will be waived only for those with indefinite leave to remain (ILR), which rules out family migrants as that category was removed from them in last July's Appendix FM changes.

A non-EU spouse or partner no longer gets ILR - they go from the first two 30 month periods of the Leave to Enter to either FLR (10 year route) or Settlement after 5 years. Therefore, until a non-EU spouse or partner has settlement and if they first applied after 12 July last year, they will have to pay this NHS levy each year they are in the UK, even if they are employed and paying National Insurance.

This is no more than another prejudicial and xenophobic tax against mixed nationality families. I will be looking for where and how members of the public can make input against this in the consultation site (which appears to be down) and strongly recommend all Brits with non-EU spouses and partners submit reasoned objections to the proposal.

Meanwhile, EU nationals can just walk in, take a job and get full NHS access for all new and pre-existing conditions. When will this government understand that it's not the family migrants from the rest of the world that are the problem, it's the European Economic Migrants?

Well, I suppose one will find a lot of drugs in a place known as the Golden Triangle. I'll bet one could also find a lot of oil in the Middle East as well... or a lot of corn in Ohio as well.

What's all the fuss about?

Obviously someone with no clue about the geography of Thailand and neighbours

They look well fed and great for the enviroment....Been used for thousands of years in Thailand not a recent finding..

Agree on the time-scale - when researching a book on Lan Na history that I wrote in 2002, I came across references to Mengrai engaging Karen mahouts for agricultural and forestry work - this was in the 13th century chronicles written during Mengrai's lifetime.

It's so typical of Bangkok-led reporting on Thai cultural topics that anything good being done in the provinces has only commenced since the pre-Thailand principalities were fully unified after the Japanese occupation of last century, when the reality is that they've been occurring for at least 1,000 years before the capital of Chao Phraya Siam was built in Thonburi.

Just as a matter of interest, how many dairy herds are there in Thailand. Nearest fresh milk, which I assume the article is about, is about 30kn from our home.

I don't know... but there seem to be a lot of 'steak houses' in Isaan!

Can you tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi?

Can you tell the difference between Bull and Buffalo?

... I can with the first question, I can't with the second one.

if its the UK appeal ,had the same problem ,you end up in court in newport ,from start to finish takes one year ,your need all the facts ,home office/british embassy bangkok will do everything to give you a hard time ,best get lawyer ,going cost ,the court case takes at least 2 hours ,they will go back into your past and your wife ,child ,where did you meet your wife ,they will ask her the same alone ,its all quite bad ,but we did win in the end ,read somewhere they are stopping appeals soon ,maybe next time get a agent in thailand to try for you ,again it all costs ,younger thai kids are easer for them at school life in the west ,my feeling best future

You give the impression that entry clearance to attend the tribunal will be given to the appellant - this is not the case. The immigration rules expressly state that entry will not be granted to attend the tribunal. Only appellants already within the UK will therefore be able to attend the tribunal in person.

The good news is your son doesn't appear to be banned from entering the UK at present.

With the available and apparently limited evidence the ECO has had at his / her disposal has obviously given rise to the impression that you've bolstered your son's application with the show submission of little over a year's worth of contact and wire transfer evidence.

Additionally I am not satisfied one of your parents is present and settled...

I have seen some refusals but this is severe. You should seek advice from an OISC registered immigration lawyer to allow you to appraise the likelihood of a successful appeal or reapplication.

The Notice of Entry Refusal allows appeal under Section 82(1) of the rules, which is the good news. However building the appeal will be difficult because as Rin states in her opening post, she herself believes she has left her son too long in Thailand, but do not despair - here are a few grounds for appeal but you need to use them collectively to build the case.

European Convention on Human Rights and UK Human Rights Act 1998 are broadly identical - Article 8 (Right to a family life) is in big trouble under the current UK government as they're trying to make it non applicable to inbound migration and as such have introduced the minimum income rules of last July. Further exclusionary legislation is under way, including prohibiting immigration cases from access to Legal Aid.

However, other clauses in those Acts can be combined with Article 8 to give a stronger, less deniable case. In particular ...

Article 2 of Schedule II of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42) (Right of parents to ensure education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions)

Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42) (Public authority not to act contrary to Human Rights Convention)

Article 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42) (Right to Marry) - in this case of the parent pre-settled before the child travels

Additionally, the United Nations Charter on the Rights of the Child contains many clauses breached by the ECO's Entry refusal. Also, the UN's Convention on Civil Rights is both broadly similar to the EU and UK Human Rights bills and is far more expansive, and again the ECO's Entry Refusal breaches many parts of it. However, whilst the UK is signatory to both of these charters/conventions, they are not part of UK law other than through portions being included in various statutes; therefore they should only be used in support of an appeal based on UK law clauses, not as a sole basis for appeal.

Good luck with it.

I have an 18 year old son about to take his first un-parented foreign trip, so I feel for her loss. Children should never die before their parents.

The slick tyres - well, if the bus had recently passed an inspection then someone should pay for that obvious error.

Regarding the lack of seat belts in the bus. Does any passenger bus anywhere in the world have seat belts?

Do the smaller Toyota buses in Thailand have passenger seat belts? I know full sizes buses don't.

Anyway - good luck to her in her uphill challenge. I doubt suing a company now out of business is going to be easy - or fruitful.

You're wrong there Mike - Nakhonchai Air is one of the companies running long distance buses out of Chiang Mai and all their buses have seat belts on every seat. They also carry a relief driver on each bus and the two swap over every 4 hours on the longer journeys (e.g. Chiang Mai - Nakhon Ratchasima).

gold price hits lowest level in 30 years

= rubbish!

I agree Naam - when I bought gold as part of the (now) wife's show wealth for the wedding in 2006, gold was just over B 10k per Baht weight - at the gold shop, not wholesale. She got very excited when it went up to B 12k per Baht weight and I told her if she pawned/sold it, she'd get no more from me.