paully

"Chalerm Yoobamrung may have given more insight into the state of Thai politics than a political scientist can ever tell his students in three lectures combined.

Facing intense speculation that he would be "demoted" in a Cabinet reshuffle, Chalerm painted a gloomy political system where the most powerful pulled all the strings, ministerial appointees are clueless about their assigned jobs but have to accept them anyway, and government politicians won't talk about massive corruption or major state policies in danger of breaking the laws until they are kicked out of key posts."

And this is new insight for the Nation

I have been lambasted for pointing the following out in this topic before, but it is the reality of the situation.

people do need to understand the realities. Unless the government listens to the recommendations of the Parliamentary review, doubtful, these requirements are not going to be changed in the short term.

Absolutely correct. No lambasting from me.

"Neither Thaksin nor older sister Yaowapa Wongsawat have tried to influence Yingluck in running the government, Suranand said."

Talk about 'he doth protest too much'..

^ But, as theoldgit has already pointed out, the OP's girlfriend and your 'many people' run the risk of being classed as spending a disproportionate amount of time in the UK for a visitor. The OP's girlfriend would appear to have had this raised with her by the immigration officer although the OP of course does not have a transcript of exactly what was said.

With respect, and I don't doubt your word, the immigration officer at Manchester was totally wrong to make such a statement. Are you sure that is what the immigration officer said ?

There is absolutely no limit on the number of visits that a genuine visitor can make to the UK ( as long as there is no overstaying, working illegally, etc).

How could your girlfriend be on the wrong visa ? She is a visitor, and requires a visit visa, unless she wants to enter for some other purpose. What visa was she advised to obtain ?

If she was informed that she cannot enter the UK again on a visit visa, then you have grounds for complaint. If you want to PM me the immigration officer's name ( if you noted it ) or the number in the stamp in your girlfriend's passport, then I will contact the Inspector of Immigration at Manchester Airport, who happens to be a friend of mine. She is now away for two weeks, but I can contact her when she returns to work.

"My longtime thai girlfriend has been accompanying me to the uk for summer on visit visas spending just less than 6 months in uk each year since 2009"

I suspect this was the issue rather than the actual number of visits she made, Tony. This regular pattern and length may indicate to the immigration officer that she is not really a visitor to the UK and is therefore on the wrong visa.

how will a 2 day camp do anything if it are not one - on - one sessions ?

It's meant to be 'fun' not hard work

14 years?! Seems excessively long!!!

Or not long enough?? Personally, I'll believe it when I see it but then I'm an ageing cynic.

Should I choose to be a crook I think I would not have chosen Thailand...

but 2 Brits...worth a Dutchman coming from a country with 3 stars jails... Criminals have no brain anymore

They never think they'll get caught so the star rating of the local jail is their last concern. But it is a big concern now

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but can't replace foresight!

That's true!!

"We did look into a tourist visa for him but we wouldn't be able to appeal the settlement visa if we did that and we really want him here and here to stay. It would also be very difficult/impossible to get him one as it would be hard to prove he would go back!"

Yes, that was very sensible, kate.

Finally to all you other guys that think that Kate is somehow playing the system then you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Steady on, old boy. Some of us were merely attempting to point out to kate that she should be realistic about her appeal and chances of success.

Kate,

At the risk of sounding like one of those

miserable <deleted>! .

you railed against, the case you cited above: http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2013/02/04/another-critique-of-the-new-immigration-rules-codification-of-article-8/ [izuazu] is a little different to yours, and not that much help to you.

Whilst the first immigration judge in the Izuazu case clearly felt it was unreasonable for the husband to be obliged to leave the UK and live in Nigeria if his wife was refused her asylum application, by your own admission you lived perfectly happily in Thailand for 7 years - which hardly amounts to an onerous obligation to live in that country against your will. Furthermore, the Upper Tribunal in Izuazu concluded on further appeal "that although there would be some hardship in relocating to Nigeria, there was nothing to suggest that he would be unable to follow his wife there...it would not be unreasonable for the husband to have to decide between retaining his residence in the United Kingdom and following his wife to Nigeria for the time being to continue family life there". The UKBA will use this reasoning against you, you need to be prepared for it.

why come in here and comment so negatively? Should be supportive.You say Good Luck, but not sure how sincere that is.

Not trying to be negative, just realistic! The 'good luck' was perfectly sincere.

What if I couldn't get a job there? What if they were as strict about visa's?

With respect, Kate, that's not your strongest point, in part because of this from the refusal "I note that there is no impediment to you and your sponsor continuing to reside as a family unit in Thailand."

Keep hammering on at the 'the best interests of the child' point, but bear in mind that if the child is young he/she will be treated as being easily adaptable to ilfe in another country. Good luck!

^ Frankly with the chaos the UKBA is in, as revealed in the chief inspector's review yesterday, with "unacceptable" backlogs:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21170495

I'd be pressing them regularly to ensure that your paperwork has not been 'lost' with many others. The fact that your payment hasn't yet been taken is a real concern in this regard.

Keep on at them, and good luck.

I wouldn't be too bothered about the location to be honest. It is the school that future employers will want to know about and what you did when you were there.

And, of course, why you left or want to leave.

^ Thanks, 7by7.

It strikes me that the government could be in trouble on this part of their statement:

"43. A person who does not meet the requirements of the rules will no longer be considered for Discretionary Leave outside the Immigration Rules on Article 8 grounds. A grant of Discretionary Leave provides automatic access to public funds, which currently places them in a better position than those who meet the rules."

It's going to be difficult, IMHO, for the government to take away a discretionary right completely even if it (as they argue) gives the successful applicant preferential treatment in regard to access to public funds.

Yet to be tested in the Court.

That's exactly the point, isn't it. Article 8, like many Articles of the ECHR, gives a qualified right not a absolute one; the limit of the qualifications to be ultimately set by the Court. You may be right in your view but I wouldn't be 100% sure. "The economic well-being of the country", in regard to respecting private and family life, must mean something.

A holiday in Thailand will be fine, has. How long is she thinking of spending in Thailand?

for Thai people who plan to come back to Thailand and not work overseas, I think they waste their money leaving Thailand to study. International programs are good enough to teach them how to be competitive in ASEAN market.

I certainly agree with you on that point. Many Thai students studying abroad (a friend of the wife's who recently did an MA in the UK springs to mind) appear to leave with precious little improvement in their overall level of English (spoken or written) than they arrived with and have had precious little interaction with the local populace, hanging out exclusively with Thai and Chinese students. She might just as profitably, and far more cheaply, have studied on an international programme in Thailand.

Feel free to look at the syllabus for International Business Management (IBM) on our website and compare it with an American (IBM) program.

Never mind the quality, feel the syllabus..

"1 month ago i submitted her PR application to ukba."

If she has permanent residence in the UK and you then divorce, she should be fine to stay.

and will have learned the same thing that is taught in the USA

I think that's questionable, richard.

In a court case dealing with residency etc the parents are considered of more minor importance. They deal with what is considered best for the child. All relevent parties will have a chance to be heard but the Judge ultimately decides what is in the childs best interests.

Absolutely correct, bob, but as the child is so very young here in effect it would be whose parental 'care' plan is the more convincing. Finances are certainly important too.

There is a large element of truth in what you say in the highlighted 2 lines above.But the main element of doubt is that a Court who favoured the Mother,could not guarantee that the child would be better off living in another Country,and the Court would need to prove she has the means to look after the child.and then there would be the difficulties of the fathers right to access,and consideration be made that the child has never lived in Thailand (as far as I know).And there are many things for a Judge to consider in this case,that are not obvious.

What the court would hear, in effect, is two different sets of plans for the child, one provided by each parent: where it is proposed that he lives, what plans there are for his education, who will actually do the caring for him (the father/mother or grandparents), what plans there are for contact with the parent he does not live with and, of course, which country it is proposed that he lives in. Evidence about the quality of care (or lack of it) likely to be given by each parent can be taken into account. The court's first duty is for the welfare of the child, but it essentially comes down to whose plan is more convincing to the judge, the father's or the mother's. There is no such thing as a 'guarantee' that a child will be better off, merely more convincing evidence of the same presented to the judge. The court does not have to 'prove' anything, it is the parties (mother and father) who have to show that the child is better off with him/her. Normally it is more difficult for a father to succeed where the child is as young as he is here, but it is not impossible for the OP to do this.