Only Fools and Horses star reveals heartbreak as Thai wife banned from the UK

[Kieran00001]

11 minutes ago, Thai Ron said:

Rubbish

Brits have a head start on most people from countries outside the G8.

Most of us were born at a time you could got to university for free, all of us were entitled to free secondary education to a high standard, free healthcare at the point of delivery, better opportunities, a welfare system, a passport that's in the top 3 most welcomed on the planet, many of us are on final salary pensions.... need i go on?

As far as I'm concerned, you've really gotta be going some to cock up your life given all the advantages we had

 

Imagine how most of us would fare if we'd been born in Thailand.....2nd rate education, a healthcare system that routinely misses congenital diseases and conditions, a future in a factory job or as a security guard if our parents didn't have the money to pay for further education and tough regs if we wanted to travel to Europe.

We don't know how sweet we've got it so I never, ever slag off Britain. She might not have given me everything but she sure provided the tools and an environment in which i could build a decent life.

 

God Save The Queen

 

I agree with all you say apart from the fact that I do sometimes feel correct to criticise the UK, and this is one of those things I feel the right to criticise. I don't believe that it is correct to deny entry to a spouse based on financial means, they have set the threshold low but, I believe that it is a human right to be able to live in your country with your family. I suspect that the reason we are seeing this rule in place has nothing to do with economics and is purely a political move that was designed to win some traditionally Tory votes back from UKIP, which if true, I am sure we could all agree was a shameful move and worthy of criticism.  I also think it pertinent to note that most all of the things that you mention that make Britain great were brought to us by a different political party than the one who made this rule.

[KiChakayan]

2 hours ago, Thai Ron said:

Anyway, look; I didn't expect my viewpoint to be popular on a forum used mostly by older guys, many in generation-gap relationships and more than a few of modest means that wouldn't cut much mustard with UK immigration authorities in the the event they wanted to return home with their new families.

So, you knew you were provocative? Isn't this what we would call "trolling" ?

 

You see when I looked at the photos from the OP I just saw a happy family, young wife that looks just as good as mine and true father/daughter love. My only thought being: "indeed they should be together...". Bickering about a few thousands Quid more, or less, is just lacking humanity.

 

And, little man, if you want to live a full life, you take risks, whether it is in love, mountaineering, diving, paragliding, base jumping, sex, whatever.....

[mommysboy]

10 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Well if it were not refugees that were being referred to then the entire claim was nonsense, the rules are the same for all, I was not making a bad statement but actually giving the benefit of the doubt.

 

Well, dont bother.  I don't need or want it.

 

Lets be honest: refugees/economic migrants may have only a tenuous link to the UK, and perhaps none at all.  The UK can not be responsible for the terrible events in the world and already has a foreign aid budget of 15 billion pounds per annum.

 

The rights of a British husband and British child are directly about the UK.

 

I am left with the impression that some people begrudge giving any benefit to their own, but would cast millions to others at a drop of the hat- look after your own back yard first.

 

 

[Kieran00001]

9 minutes ago, rasg said:

There is no visa that is only granted on the basis of the statement. It is the combination of all the documentation that is required. If I had been in that situation I would have probably used a visa company.

 

I now see what you meant, you just took my comment a little too literally, when I asked if it was all based on the statement I was referring to the exceptions that can be made being based on the statement, which I believe they are, but I could be wrong, and I really was asking a question.

[sklmeeera]

2 minutes ago, KiChakayan said:

 

And, little man, if you want to live a full life, you take risks, whether it is in love, mountaineering, diving, paragliding, base jumping, sex, whatever.....

What utter <deleted> !

[Thai Ron]

4 minutes ago, KiChakayan said:

So, you knew you were provocative? Isn't this what we would call "trolling" ?

 

You see when I looked at the photos from the OP I just saw a happy family, young wife that looks just as good as mine and true father/daughter love. My only thought being: "indeed they should be together...". Bickering about a few thousands Quid more, or less, is just lacking humanity.

 

And, little man, if you want to live a full life, you take risks, whether it is in love, mountaineering, diving, paragliding, base jumping, sex, whatever.....

If having an opinion that differs from the majority is trolling, then ok.

You're not talking about the government showing humanity; you're talking about the government showing favouritism

To your final point, how do you know what I've done or not done?

 

[mommysboy]

32 minutes ago, Thai Ron said:

Rubbish

Brits have a head start on most people from countries outside the G8.

Most of us were born at a time you could got to university for free, all of us were entitled to free secondary education to a high standard, free healthcare at the point of delivery, better opportunities, a welfare system, a passport that's in the top 3 most welcomed on the planet, many of us are on final salary pensions.... need i go on?

As far as I'm concerned, you've really gotta be going some to cock up your life given all the advantages we had

 

Imagine how most of us would fare if we'd been born in Thailand.....2nd rate education, a healthcare system that routinely misses congenital diseases and conditions, a future in a factory job or as a security guard if our parents didn't have the money to pay for further education and tough regs if we wanted to travel to Europe.

We don't know how sweet we've got it so I never, ever slag off Britain. She might not have given me everything but she sure provided the tools and an environment in which i could build a decent life.

 

God Save The Queen

You maybe!  But that simply isn't true of many millions any more, and clearly that largesse does not extent to the Brit in question but does to many foreigners. Fact that!

 

Playing the patriot card I see.

 

I'm as patriotic as the next but have no need to brag about it.

 

Poor posting.  But while we're here: your objection was about protecting the public purse.  That being the case I assume you object to much, perhaps most immigration, since obviously we are talking about poor people who haven't really got much of a chance of covering costs in UK.

[Thai Ron]

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

You maybe!  But that simply isn't true of many millions any more, and clearly that largesse does not extent to the Brit in question but does to many foreigners. Fact that!

 

Playing the patriot card I see.

 

I'm as patriotic as the next but have no need to brag about it.

 

Poor posting.  But while we're here: your objection was about protecting the public purse.  That being the case I assume you object to much, perhaps most immigration, since obviously we are talking about poor people who haven't really got much of a chance of covering costs in UK.

Patriot card? Really??

I responded to the nonsense you wrote saying that the UK doesn't treat its own very well.

Those are the remarks of an ingrate.

[Kieran00001]

Just now, mommysboy said:

 

Well, dont bother.  I don't need or want it.

 

Lets be honest: refugees/economic migrants may have only a tenuous link to the UK, and perhaps none at all.  The UK can not be responsible for the terrible events in the world and already has a foreign aid budget of 15 billion pounds per annum.

 

The rights of a British husband and British child are directly about the UK.

 

I am left with the impression that some people begrudge giving any benefit to their own, but would cast millions to others at a drop of the hat- look after your own back yard first.

 

 

 

You clearly did as you made crazily false statements that only held any resemblance to the truth if talking about refugees, which you just denied having been referring to but now want to talk about, funny that.

 

You cant lump refugees and economic migrants into the same box unless you want to sound daft.  Half of us are economic migrants in Thailand.

 

Our aid budget is less than 1% of our GNI, we don't feel it at all but they do, and what it does is help prevent further displacement of people, more refugees, thank God we don't have a blinkered dimwit in charge!

 

Anyway, the two issues are unrelated, and for your information, Idon't believe in denying a British person the right to bring their family to the UK but, I also don't look at every refugee with suspicion and resort to labelling them as economic migrants.

 

And who are you to tell anyone what to look after first?  If it were down to me then I would choose the most in need first, I couldn't give a damn about nationality as see a life for what it is, a life, but take care of who you wish, if that is centred around a nationalistic belief then up to you.

[Canada]

23 hours ago, ThaidaGwaii said:

Took me 5 months to bring my wife to Canada as a permanent resident which is very short time even for here.  I got lucky!  Income amount is irrelevant here.  One financial rule: Can't have been on social welfare for the last 5 years.

Income amount is relevant. It states cleary in the application for permanent residency. 

[mommysboy]

1 minute ago, Thai Ron said:

Patriot card? Really??

I responded to the nonsense you wrote saying that the UK doesn't treat its own very well.

Those are the remarks of an ingrate.

 

It simply doesn't anymore when compared to our peer countries, most of whom enjoy a better standard of living.

 

But it will look after others: take the case of born and bred east Londoners for instance who can't get public housing, while immigrants can. Not that there is much public housing.  How does that equate with your assertion?

 

I call looking after your own patriotic.

 

 

[Thai Ron]

21 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

Well, dont bother.  I don't need or want it.

 

Lets be honest: refugees/economic migrants may have only a tenuous link to the UK, and perhaps none at all.  The UK can not be responsible for the terrible events in the world and already has a foreign aid budget of 15 billion pounds per annum.

 

The rights of a British husband and British child are directly about the UK.

 

I am left with the impression that some people begrudge giving any benefit to their own, but would cast millions to others at a drop of the hat- look after your own back yard first.

 

 

The British government doesn't entrust immigration vetting to arbitrary diligence conducted by silly, horny old men.

He has the right to bring his wife and his daughter to the UK if he satisfies the criteria.

He doesn't right now but when he does, he'll be sorted.

 

 

 

[mommysboy]

6 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

You clearly did as you made crazily false statements that only held any resemblance to the truth if talking about refugees, which you just denied having been referring to but now want to talk about, funny that.

 

You cant lump refugees and economic migrants into the same box unless you want to sound daft.  Half of us are economic migrants in Thailand.

 

Our aid budget is less than 1% of our GNI, we don't feel it at all but they do, and what it does is help prevent further displacement of people, more refugees, thank God we don't have a blinkered dimwit in charge!

 

Anyway, the two issues are unrelated, and for your information, Idon't believe in denying a British person the right to bring their family to the UK but, I also don't look at every refugee with suspicion and resort to labelling them as economic migrants.

 

And who are you to tell anyone what to look after first?  If it were down to me then I would choose the most in need first, I couldn't give a damn about nationality as see a life for what it is, a life, but take care of who you wish, if that is centred around a nationalistic belief then up to you.

 

Refugees and economic migrants equal immigrants.  I can see that I mixed up words, but it is nothing more than that.

 

There is nothing wrong with looking after your own first for heaven's sake.  That doesn't make me blinkered. And of course I am not against genuine refugees, or immigration for that matter since it is of benefit in the long run.

 

Displacement! Well what is transporting them half way across the world?  There are other ways.  It's daft to think that immigration is the only solution.  There isn't currently enough money to go round for British folk, but perhaps you are unaware that many millions now live in poverty.  Pop along to a food bank and check it out.  You might even bump in the odd nurse.  And that is a crucial point that really upsets a lot of Brits. You seem oblivious to it.

 

 

 

 

[Kieran00001]

12 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

Refugees and economic migrants equal immigrants.  I can see that I mixed up words, but it is nothing more than that.

 

There is nothing wrong with looking after your own first for heaven's sake.  That doesn't make me blinkered. And of course I am not against genuine refugees, or immigration for that matter since it is of benefit in the long run.

 

Displacement! Well what is transporting them half way across the world?  There are other ways.  It's daft to think that immigration is the only solution.  There isn't currently enough money to go round for British folk, but perhaps you are unaware that many millions now live in poverty.  Pop along to a food bank and check it out.  You might even bump in the odd nurse.  And that is a crucial point that really upsets a lot of Brits. You seem oblivious to it.

 

 

 

 

 

The blinkered remark was in reference to your complaint at the amount we spend on overseas aid, a fund which does something to prevent even greater increases in immigrants, I thought I made that clear.  And obviously we look after our own first, we spend 99.3% of our budget on our own, if that isn't coming first then what is?  I guess some would only be happy to give something to someone outside of our island once every single British person was rich.

 

The things that transport many refugees are their legs, many of the recent ones walked their way from Syria, not that money is the issue with refugees, many come with funds, they flee for their lives, that is the mistake with mixing them with economic migrants, some are both but many are affluent people, in fact they may have needed to be to escape, but money does nothing to protect you from war, and so they leave, some can take a train or pay a truck driver, others need to walk, but it is not the issue, displacement is being caused by wars and corrupt regimes, something our aid does something to minimise the effects of.

 

I am in no way oblivious to British poverty, but I am not so daft as to think that there is not enough money when we come from the country with the greatest divide between rich and poor in Europe and the second greatest divide in the western world, the problem being unfair policy not lack of funds, something that the 0.7% we give away would change nothing but giving them even more, you would have to be really stupid to imagine that cutting off foreign aid would mean that British poor people would get that money.

[mommysboy]

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The blinkered remark was in reference to your complaint at the amount we spend on overseas aid, a fund which does something to prevent even greater increases in immigrants, I thought I made that clear.  And obviously we look after our own first, we spend 99.3% of our budget on our own, if that isn't coming first then what is?  I guess some would only be happy to give something to someone outside of our island once every single British person was rich.

 

The things that transport many refugees are their legs, many of the recent ones walked their way from Syria, not that money is the issue with refugees, many come with funds, they flee for their lives, that is the mistake with mixing them with economic migrants, some are both but many are affluent people, in fact they may have needed to be to escape, but money does nothing to protect you from war, and so they leave, some can take a train or pay a truck driver, others need to walk, but it is not the issue, displacement is being caused by wars and corrupt regimes, something our aid does something to minimise the effects of.

 

I am in no way oblivious to British poverty, but I am not so daft as to think that there is not enough money when we come from the country with the greatest divide between rich and poor in Europe and the second greatest divide in the western world, the problem being unfair policy not lack of funds, something that the 0.7% we give away would change nothing but giving them even more, you would have to be really stupid to imagine that cutting off foreign aid would mean that British poor people would get that money.

 

I was not complaining about the amount of foreign aid- I merely stated that we already spend 15 billion or so on foreign aid and that is how we help.  And you call me stupid.  And all along you have done your level best to exaggerate or misinterpret what I write, often with insulting name calling.

 

If I am being honest, no I don't think the refugees should be allowed to stay in the UK as a moral issue, but fortunately for all of us overall immigration is beneficial to the nation, so it is a moot point really.  I don't see it as our problem in the same way you do, but of course sympathise with their plight, and look on in horror at the atrocities of course. But we can't change it by taking in increasing numbers.  But that again is rather a moot point, isn't it?  However we are prepared to close the door on the relatives of British people.  That's kind of mixed up, isn't it?

 

I don't think it is possible to dismiss the UK's problems regardiong its own as merely poor policy.  We are not the nation we once were; sadly.

 

 

[elliss]

1 hour ago, sklmeeera said:

She is over 30 years younger than him . Dont they have laws against that  in the UK ?

  UK  ,  would jail him , as  a   pervert . 

   45 years younger is acceptable. 555

Edited September 19, 2017 by elliss

[TheLobster]

15 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

And obviously we look after our own first, we spend 99.3% of our budget on our own, if that isn't coming first then what is?

Are you sure about that or is it 99.3% in the UK?

[rasg]

19 minutes ago, elliss said:

  UK  ,  would jail him , as  a   pervert . 

   45 years younger is acceptable. 555

Your maths is way off. He is 61, she is 36. They are both adults. End of.

 

Or do you think it should be you that decides what is acceptable or not?

[mommysboy]

11 minutes ago, TheLobster said:

Are you sure about that or is it 99.3% in the UK?

 

11 minutes ago, TheLobster said:

26 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

And obviously we look after our own first, we spend 99.3% of our budget on our own, if that isn't coming first then what is?

 

I didn't write this.

[rasg]

30 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

 

I didn't write this.

We can see it was the lobster.

 

As far as foreign aid is concerned, what makes me angry is that the money we do send is not targeted correctly to causes that actually need it. The girl band and the Indian space programme, probably being the most reported.

They could probably slash it by 50% if somebody in charge of the budget had a few brain cells.

[stanleycoin]

3 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

It is the same for non citizens to bring their spouses in, they also need to make the financial threshold.  Perhaps you are conflating issues and referring to refugees, quite distasteful if you are, but anyway they are not eligible to work for quite a long time and are left to live off half the benefits that a citizen is entitled to, I know I could not live off that little myself, but I guess to some that looks like a lot, are you one of those people who are jealous of half of the dole?

Refugees,  1 in a million maybe.

the rest are free loaders, scroungers,  and a hole bunch more,   the list is to long.

Refugees,   is a BS term now days.

My government is disgraceful not me. 

Great Briton,  what a laugh. 

 

 

[MrPatrickThai]

On 9/17/2017 at 2:08 PM, Rc2702 said:

I don't get it. London cabbie does not meet minimum requirement of £18600?

He should back to acting. I can't even remember him.

Maybe he has some kinda drink problem or something.

[Rc2702]

Just now, MrPatrickThai said:

He should back to acting. I can't even remember him.

Maybe he has some kinda drink problem or something.

This is a BS thread that only got air due to the guys past and the story is kind of tongue in cheek in that it kind of paints him as a bit of a wide boy so many years later. Blinking guy gets airtime but a paedophile who sodomised a 5 yr old boy and then fakes his death in US and flees US and assumes a fake identity and begins working as a teacher as was first published months ago. Gets zero coverage and yet the alabama assistant to attorney have confirmed this week that he faked his own death and he has been spotted in thailand. It's a fuuucked up world alright.

[mommysboy]

16 minutes ago, Rc2702 said:

This is a BS thread that only got air due to the guys past and the story is kind of tongue in cheek in that it kind of paints him as a bit of a wide boy so many years later. Blinking guy gets airtime but a paedophile who sodomised a 5 yr old boy and then fakes his death in US and flees US and assumes a fake identity and begins working as a teacher as was first published months ago. Gets zero coverage and yet the alabama assistant to attorney have confirmed this week that he faked his own death and he has been spotted in thailand. It's a fuuucked up world alright.

 

Off topic rant.

 

 

[TheLobster]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

I didn't write this.

My apologies, when I copied it you were quoted by the forum automatically.

Kieran00001 said: And obviously we look after our own first, we spend 99.3% of our budget on our own, if that isn't coming first then what is?

I posted this reply: Are you sure about that or is it 99.3% in the UK?

 

We also need to ask ourselves why the 'refugees' from Syria etc. are all male?

Edited September 19, 2017 by TheLobster
Addition

[B4Jazz]

On 18/09/2017 at 10:27 AM, Thai Ron said:

First off, how's someone on 20K going to get a mortgage of 200k?

The guy's a self employed minicab driver with no accounts to show what he earns.

I would've declined his application in a nanosecond

Maybe they had the mortgage before they lost their job and maybe their earnings fell. I'm not talking about this taxi driver I'm talking about this ruling in general. If you are retired you may not have a high income esp. with interest rates being so low but you could have savings and no mortgage, no rent and be better off than many working.

[rasg]

1 minute ago, B4Jazz said:

Maybe they had the mortgage before they lost their job and maybe their earnings fell. I'm not talking about this taxi driver I'm talking about this ruling in general. If you are retired you may not have a high income esp. with interest rates being so low but you could have savings and no mortgage, no rent and be better off than many working.

This has already been discussed earlier in the thread.

 

Savings are fine. If you have £62,500 in the bank, it means you don't have to show income at all.

[B4Jazz]

On 18/09/2017 at 10:31 AM, dunroaming said:

Actually all of that is taken into consideration.  If you own your house then you have considerable assets and your income is pretty much irrelevant as long as you can support yourself and your family.  When we moved back to the UK  I was self employed (in that I had my own business) but it was not then a British registered business.  I had no property in the UK and I had to jump through quite a few hoops to show that I could support myself, wife and son.

OK thanks, did not realise that. I have a house with no mortgage, no children, so there is hope for me yet. There are ways to boost income but it's more risky rather not go down that route.

[B4Jazz]

2 minutes ago, rasg said:

This has already been discussed earlier in the thread.

 

Savings are fine. If you have £62,500 in the bank, it means you don't have to show income at all.

Thanks, only just come back to this and have not read through all the pages yet. I take it by bank can mean Building societies and other investments, how about pension funds?

[rasg]

1 hour ago, B4Jazz said:

Thanks, only just come back to this and have not read through all the pages yet. I take it by bank can mean Building societies and other investments, how about pension funds?

Anything where you have quick access to the money. Premium Bonds were not in the list when my wife applied for Settlement but that may have changed. I cashed some in earlier this year and the money was in my account in two days. I doubt pension funds would qualify but I'm not an expert on this.