Laganside

being so well established you would think TV had nothing to fear by allowing people to mention the names of other forums.

Everyone keeps ignoring the fact that one (want-to-be) competitor has slandered George and many of the moderators - accusing Thai Visa of being a criminal conspiracy and all kinds of other wild charges over many years. Why would Thai Visa allow anyone to promote these kinds of libelous forums on their website?

Is mere mention of the unspeakable a promotion?

Hardly, dear boy, but I can well appreciate the defensiveness that may be engendered by what others understand to be nothing more than the exercise of free speech.

Horses for courses.

This forum may well be drearily predictable, possibly for reasons one could attribute to its blue collar demographic and the culture of absurd overmoderation stifling any satisfying debate, but it does benefit from scale and the resultant exchange of information based on personal experience can be an advantage over other fora.

However, if one wants a more thrusting and dynamic cyber exchange then there are much better sites to be found elsewhere.

I suspect that many who jump on the "never buy in Thailand" band wagon simply don't have the resources to do so.

For some it makes good perfect sense to buy, little is ever mentioned about quality of life, living in your own place undoubtedly adds "quality" to your life! what value do we put on this?

Possibly, but not always the case. Ordinarily I would agree that in the long term purchase over renting is the better option but Thailand does present risks that question that assumption and makes investing cash in secure Western institutions, there are still some (!), producing income sufficient to defray rental costs still an attractive proposition. Committing oneself to home purchase in Thailand can be fraught not least because selling it in the future at a reasonable price may well prove impossible. The other main worries are inevitably the prospect of neighbours from hel_l about whom nothing can be done and the risk that nonexistent planning laws will destroy the environment which may have seduced you to buy in the first place. In either case one's quality of life will inevitably suffer - those who choose to rent can always simply up stumps and move on with nary another thought.

So, he only stopped fighting because he lost his glasses?

Your grasp of British political history seems as tenuous as your understanding of economics.

Agree, further discussion is now redundant.

So you're predicting that a new government (presumably the Conservative Party) will make swingeing (sic) cuts in public expenditure and make themselves immediately hugely unpopular in what is a recession?

Your " sic " is as redundant as your question.

Popularity has nothing to do with it. NuLabour and the idiot Clown are pretending there wont be any cuts and the Tories are saying there will be but will not specify how much. Either way, the markets expect once the election is over there will be at least 10% cuts each year for at least 3 years. No capital spend, more redundancies, retail and construction to wither and silly service crap no one needed to evaporate. The pus has to be excised and that means property is going nowhere but South. The future is shares, like it always was.

Only an idiot would pay the asking price but, then, Britain has possibly the greatest concentration of the economically illiterate

one could hope to find in one place. How else could one explain the Labour Party?

but the UK is different market entirely, limited supply and a much smaller land mass.

Oh dear, that old chestnut again.

There is no limited supply as such in any part of the market. What there may be is a shortage of properties priced at a level supported by the market and that is a whole different ball game.

Currently, the UK is a distorted market place in which the folly of the unsupportable boom is still being masked by a government continuing to socialise bad debts in the vain hope a stupid electorate will vote for them again this May.

That of course will not happen and consequential swingeing cuts in public expenditure means the recent phoney recession will very soon begin to truly bite. Expect more unemployment and further falling house prices.

The impact of all this on Thailand is a microcosm of the world recession and its effects. Less disposible income, a devalued currency and falling asset prices experienced by Brits means fewer buyers in Pattaya, Hua Hin, Samui etc.

The property market is based on sentiment as much as any other economic factor.

People generally believe what they want to believe and reality is often obscured by foolish optimism.

Savills are simply doing what any other vested interest would try to do and that is to talk up the market.

Frankly, I wouldn't have thought anyone with even a modicum of sophistication would fall for that vacuous tosh but like they say there's one born every minute and when one sucker bites others are bound to follow.

Property practically everywhere else in the world, as a speculative investment, is a busted market and deservedly so. It's former value was utterly disconnected from previous ratios of income to loan and a repetition of the boom is extremely unlikely not least because the banks' recklessness in fuelling the madness is unlikely to be supported again by governments to come.

Get used to the reality chaps and don't take any notice of Britain as a current model with it's prevailing nonsense. Any talk of the recession being over is delusionary and the property market there, now that quantitative easing is soon to cease, will collapse further

They simply haven't got a clue.

Corruption and graft operates throughout Thai society almost with surreal impunity and most who have even the slightest passing knowledge of their system together with the more seasoned observer are well aware of its extent, particularly the diplomatic corps and the multi nationals who have to negotiate its perplexities on a daily basis, but nothing is done about it.

Yet the moment one of their society figures is exposed internationally for their criminal greed they squeal like stuck pigs screaming that the image of Thailand is tarnished irretrievably and, wringing their little trotters, they agonise over what the impact might be when in truth the sad reality is that the rest of the world couldn't give a flying fart. To most, Thailand is either an exotic beach destination or a glorified knocking shop and that's about it.

The day they ditch this vainglorious notion of themselves, inflated to a preposterous degree of deluded self importance, and actually take account of just how pitiful their institutions truly are will be the day when perhaps progress could be made.

Those squealing pigs flying is perhaps more likely.

Perhaps you would care to direct me to those guidelines?

Maybe you are confusing non EEA nationals with EEA nationals?

Please see Chapter 7 IDIs for enlightenment.

Your patronising tone vis a vis my apparent confusion is unhelpful and, in the context of my posts, quite insulting.

I am not a professional in this field but I can read what is plainly stated in the UKBA's web site and have obtained legal opinion which confirmed my understanding as expressed in this thread.

I have no interest in point scoring.

Perhaps you may wish to check the UKBA's own guidelines to its staff. Not having a family permit does not disqualify a family member who qualifies otherwise and cannot in itself prevent them from exercising treaty rights including right to movement.

Best to view the Regulations as published by the UKBA as a framework and not the ' Ten Commandments ' as you are evidently doing.

The bottom line is that anytime a qualified family member turns up accompanied by their EEA sponsor wishing to exercise Treaty rights entry cannot be barred nor is their admission subject to any time limit.

Otherwise I see no point in having these periods in the regulations.

Precisely, there is little point but that's the UKBA for you. In truth what they are saying is that if one were to spend a significant time out of the UK whilst on a 5 year residence card they would take that into consideration when any future application for a permanent card might be sought.

Sort of but not really.......

Provided the family member is seeking entry as a qualified person exercising Treaty rights there is no bar to return, at any time.

Sure, if permanent residence is obtained and the member ceases his/her relationship to the EEA national and is seeking entry in their own right as a permanent resident, then the 2 year rule would operate.

There is no requirement for an EEA family permit holder to seek a resident card or to apply for permanent residence in order to remain as a qualified person. They can remain indefinitely provided their status is unchanged. The issue of a residence card and PR is simply there to facilitate international travel and proof of entitlement to employment and services.

Qualifying periods may assume a significance if naturalisation is contemplated.

Tuk-tuk mafia bribe the police and the Amphur in order to operate their extortionate trade preying on tourists. It's the same in Pattaya. Crime and business are inseparable in Thailand and what happened to the French tourists was simply a piece of enforcement reminding everyone of their power.

Thailand is very much a feudal state governed in reality by robber barons who maintain their position through nepotism, cronyism, political graft and brute violence. Unfortunately, western tourists naively assume that the police are there to maintain law and order and to protect society from criminals whereas the opposite is usually the case. Primarily, they are there to protect vested interests and to further their own ends. Any law enforcement is incidental to those aims and usually occurs whenever there is no clash in interests.

If the assailant is apprehended and prosecuted it will only be a cynical attempt to enhance Thailand's perceived image and will have nothing to do with a coherent campaign to rid their society of a criminal blight.

Think of Thailand as a beautiful model strutting down the catwalk but leaving a spoor of foul smelling hypocrisy every bit as repugnant as the dribble of sewage that often seeps seawards along otherwise paradisal beaches.

One does wonder about the criteria for posting in this forum but here goes again.

Does anyone with even a scintilla of intelligence seriously doubt that this appalling crime actually took place?

If they do, and God knows one must seriously question just how stupid you would have to be for arriving at such an idiotic conclusion, just how many of those are either motivated by a personal dislike of the journalist, Drummond, or by a desire to suppress anything that may reflect badly upon Thailand and perhaps their own agenda?

People may not be happy with that, and think that it is unfair; but it is the law.

Actually, no, the law is not the law. That is a simplistic view and quite facile in practice.

The law is a framework within which those charged with enforcing it interpret rules as prescribed by policies determined by governments but decisions are often challenged in the Courts from time to time and case law develops which determines principles. Often, the executive lag behind the curve of this development and certainly in the context of the current UKBA, operating in their more robust style as they are prone do, this deficiency has never been truer. Just because the UKBA make decisons purportedly within their perception of what the " law " may be does not necessarily make them " lawful " or even right.

Appeal determinations contrary to the UKBA abound and prove the point.

Folk prognosticating upon hypothetical cases should take note.

Ambling down memory soi, so to speak, I am quite nostalgic for Soi 23 when the International German Beerhouse played host to the expat scene in its heyday, the Ship Inn opposite was packed early every night and the promise of Soi Cowboy just around the corner sweetened the night air.

Happy days.......

As I understand it, the visa holder has the right of appeal exercisable in country should she be refused entry on the grounds that a subsequent material change in circumstances since its issue had rendered her visa ineffective. The Immigration Judge may well uphold the appeal if he determines the change was not so material as to remove the basis of the visa issue.

For example, sponsor A withdraws his support but sponsor B, of equal standing both in economic and in relationship terms, steps into the breach and pronounces himself, if called upon to do so, the new sponsor. Clearly, in this scenario one could reasonably conclude that the visa officer would not have been bound to refuse the application in the light of the change in circumstances since it could be argued the change in itself would not have altered his original decision and was therefore neither relevant nor material.

Or have I got it wrong? Kitsch may wish to rejoin the debate and if he does would he please note that attempted deception is not a factor in my hypothesis.

Until the divorce, yes.

Alternatively, you could always dispense with the State's approval and get married by the Church of England. Pop round to your local vicar or to the Church where you may have been christened and discuss. Some do insist that you are a parishioner and actually attend services but others are more flexible and simply look for sincerity and a modicum of faith.

No need to involve the UKBA.

And what price to live in Thailand and not among Australians?

Some of we more civilised expats would put a premium on that.

Cheap at half the price ...........

I am not in pro or con about Siam Ocean World. Without doubt its great fun to visit.

Here's my story. I went to SOW together with my son. (Thai).

I asked the cashier for 2 tickets and she mentioned the "farang entrance fee".

When I handed her my CC issued by a local bank she hesitated and asked if I live in Thailand and I answered yes.

I was charged the "local" fee....

I always wonder why people complain about dual pricing in Thailand. Its not an only in Thailand issue. You will find

that worldwide and I found it worldwide. I can't remember exactly the places but in the USA and Canada they apply dual pricing too.

So does Germany, UK, France Italy and others....

Not sure which leisure venues charge dual pricing in the UK and the rest of Europe but doubtless you will provide examples.

Of course dual pricing does exist in the UK but this tends to reflect one's indigenous status and consequential rights and obligations not least of which is the payment of tax and welfare contributions. Examples in the UK may be college fees and access to the NHS but beyond that I am struggling to think.

The Thai practice of dual pricing is comparatively rare in the developed, and not so developed, world and probably reflects their uniqueness although most would argue it is simply a crude unjustifiable tax. Previously, the relatively cheap cost of living rendered the dual pricing almost irrelevant but given the rise in recent years it is now approaching something beyond the irksome and counterproductive to the quaint notion that the LoS is a welcoming country beyond par to tourists.

Personally, I wouldn't pay it but then captive goldfish was never my thing and I would much prefer to spend the money saved on jetski hire costs whenever the opportunity arises .

The idea that the Thai can weigh their actions to a nicety before making a decision involving cognitive thought is reallly quite alien to them and incidents such as this bit of thuggery come as no surprise. However, I shouldn't read too much into the fact that the victim was a farang. If a local had provoked them as much as this chap clearly did then I should imagine the consequences would have been much the same.

The moral of the tale is to avoid conflict, particularly with strangers and never assume that violence meted out as a consequence of failing to observe this rule will be proportionate to the slight, imagined or otherwise. Thai don't do violence in half measures and can be beyond all reason when resorting to it. Remember, Thai and cognitive thought are not usually reconcilable.

Unless he has continued to make voluntary UK National Insurance contributions while living in Thailand, his NHS entitlement is dead at the moment. If he returns to the UK, it will take him some time to re establish his entitlement. So, if he was hoping to step off the plane and get instant NHS care for free, sorry, not possible. (Unless of course he made those voluntary contributions...)

Nonsense.