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

[mommysboy]

15 hours ago, bobbymack said:

What is unfair and irrational about the minimum income threshold is that no account is taken of outgoings. The law makers are so thick that they have not thought about that. Hence someone could be on an income of £18,000 and own their own home with no mortgage whereas someone with an income of £18,500 but have a huge mortgage or debts and thus have less disposable income than the person with less income and small outgoings. UK law-makers as stupid as usual with only half a brain between the lot of them.

The other thing I said in a previous thread: if 18.500 is applied to UK citizens generally then many millions would need to be deported.

[Canada]

Have a similar situation myself. Different country. Not much to do about it except what you can I guess and it looks like in this case, all he can do is write letters - which are unlikely to help. In my case, I decided that going that route would just make me crazy. So we just accept our fate, I work some in my country of origin and I live here some. It's not ideal, but it does solve the problem of an income in Thailand.

It is difficult sometimes to accept the consequences of our choices in life. 

[jeab1980]

13 minutes ago, Thai Ron said:

LOL!

Far from it.

If some silly old man wants to risk it all on a Thai bird half his age and then import her to the UK like a kit car then that's his business but this forum is full of stories from those same idiots who've been dumped the minute the wife gets indefinite leave to remain.

What's more, she always seems to have found herself a geezer her own age with a lot more energy, a lot more money and who doesn't get laughed at like her her geriatric husband tottering through Aldi with a 2 year old.

 

Yep i was correct jealous oxygen thief.

[7by7]

On ‎17‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 8:09 AM, MickTurator said:

On ‎17‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 7:30 AM, mommysboy said:

Just to clarify: his daughter is entitled to a British passport I'm sure. 

Only if they were married before the birth.

I fell foul of that law and it has plagued me and my daughter for the rest of our lives.

 Prior to 1st July 2006 British fathers could only pass their citizenship onto their children born outside the UK or a qualifying territory if they were married to the non British mother. However, if they married after the birth it was a simple matter to then register the child as British. Still is; so, MickTurator, you could do so for your daughter provided she is still under 18. If over 18, I believe she will need to meet the standard requirements for naturalisation.

 

Since 1st July 2006, unmarried British father's have automatically passed their British citizenship onto their children born outside the UK or a qualifying territory in the same way that unmarried mothers have always been able to.

 

Provided that the British parent is British not by descent; that is British in their own right because they were born inside the UK or a qualifying territory and at least one of their parents was British at the time of the birth.

 

People who are British by descent inherited their British citizenship from one or both of their parents because they were born outside the UK or a qualifying territory (unless one or both of their parents were in Crown service or similar at the time), and they cannot automatically pass on their British citizenship onto their children unless those children are born in the UK or a qualifying territory. It may still be possible to register those children as British, though.

 

N.B. The qualifying territories are all the British overseas territories, except the sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (in Cyprus).

[sanemax]

2 hours ago, flyingfox1 said:

After many millions of people of uk and around the world have been entertained by the truly amazing talent of the cast of only fools n horses they now are shown zero loyalty or companion by the decision makers, seems their are no exceptions to the rules... so sad considering f the scumbags, thugs and Terrorists uk have welcomed in across the borders.. this could also reflect of more tight visas for British coming or living in Thailand to... wake up mrs May and do the "right thing"

He was  an actor who played a role .

Are you saying that because of a character that he played on TV, he should be given different treatment ?

  What if Nasty Nick from Eastenders was in the same situation, would you suggest that his Thai Wife should not be allowed in, because Nasty Nick wasnt very nice ?

[mommysboy]

I suppose some have provided good financial  reasons why his wife should not be admitted. I am not in agreement with those that say he has made a bad life choice.  My main argument though is that if the financial criteria was applied equally then not many would qualify.  Why should he be treated like this?  I think the Supreme Court said it was very harsh.

 

There is also a major point that is being overlooked here imo.  Taken as a family unit they are stateless, and that goes against a fundamental human right.  He is British and so too his daughter.  People with money are not prevented from bringing in their wife, who is of course also the child's mother.

 

To a man the naysayers have assumed they will be on benefits.  That's rather an assumption.  It may prove accurate, but equally he has shown himself to be hard working before, his wife might get a part time job, and who knows what his daughter might become.  People have claimed their rights as a tax payer are being abused, but what about his rights as a tax payer- are they to be dependent on what he does or doesn't earn?

 

Nobody has mentioned what a dreadful state of affairs it is that a man working full time, and more, cannot afford to support a small family.  It's a pity people don't turn their searching spotlight on the powers that be rather than one strugging husband and father.

 

And isn't amazing that his own peer group should be his worst critic?

 

 

Edited September 18, 2017 by mommysboy

[JAG]

I was helping a Thai friend obtain a UK tourist visa. She was called by a Thai person and asked for more money to speed up her application. She didn't want to and her application was finally rejected. I wrote an email of complaint to UK authority in UK. They told me to get in contact with the crooked embassy in Thailand. Poor experience. Hope UK has taken back control of it's embassy.

I had a similar experience about 15 years ago. My girlfriend ( now wife) was refused, and then told when picking up her passport, to contact an agency. The card she was given included a handwritten reference number she was told to quote, presumably to ensure that the consular official was suitably rewarded.

I passed the card, with a covering letter to the home office when I returned to England. No response. Eventually I had a chat with my MP. He followed up and I had an answer, stating that I should take it up with the Embassy.

Funnily enough since then on the three occasions that I have contacted the consular department, once about a visa for my wife of several years and twice about my daughters nationality the answer has been a flat no. No explanations, just no .

I'm sure that there is no connection.

Utterly corrupt, down to the last pair of "crisply ironed slacks..."

 

[mommysboy]

6 minutes ago, sanemax said:

He was  an actor who played a role .

Are you saying that because of a character that he played on TV, he should be given different treatment ?

  What if Nasty Nick from Eastenders was in the same situation, would you suggest that his Thai Wife should not be allowed in, because Nasty Nick wasnt very nice ?

I suppose it could be argued that he is a valued member of society, but I agree it is not a factor save for public sentiment.   I imagine he must have paid a fair wedge of tax during his better years.  Most of the arguments provided by the nay sayers seem to centre around how much tax they paid in the past.  Doesn't it work the other way round then guys?

[rasg]

14 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

I suppose some have provided good financial  reasons why his wife should not be admitted. I am not in agreement with those that say he has made a bad life choice.  My main argument though is that if that criteria was applied equally then not many would qualify.  Why should he be treated like this?  I think the Supreme Court said it was very harsh.

 

There is also a major point that is being overlooked here imo.  Taken as a family unit they are stateless, and that goes against a fundamental human right.  He is British and so too his daughter.  People with money are not prevented from bringing in their wife, who is of course also the child's mother.

 

To a man the naysayers have assumed they will be on benefits.  That's rather an assumption.  It may prove accurate, but equally he has shown himself to be hard working before, his wife might get a part time job, and who knows what his daughter might become.  People have claimed their rights as a tax payer are being abused, but what about his rights as a tax payer- are they to be dependent on what he does or doesn't earn?

 

Nobody has mentioned what a dreadful state of affairs it is that a man working full time, and more, cannot afford to support a small family.  It's a pity people don't turn their searching spotlight on the powers that be rather than one strugging husband and father.

 

And isn't amazing that his own peer group should be his worst critic?

The Supreme court ruling was for the £18,600 requirement generally, not the actor's individual case.

 

The whole point of the £18,600 threshold is that they will not be allowed to claim benefits although as his daughter is almost certainly British she would be allowed all of the benefits of the system. His wife will be allowed to use the NHS because they will have to pay the NHS surcharge and she will be allowed to work.

 

His own peer group are not criticising. Merely pointing out that the rules that they had to adhere to to bring their wives here should be the same for everybody and not different for somebody who was on TV donkeys years ago.

 

I just looked at his info on Wiki and he didn’t do that much and as far as I can see he didn't have a big part in anything he appeared in. Probably typecast by Only fools.

Edited September 18, 2017 by rasg

[mommysboy]

6 minutes ago, rasg said:

The Supreme court ruling was for the £18,600 requirement generally, not the actor's individual case.

 

The whole point of the £18,600 threshold is that they will not be allowed to claim benefits although as his daughter is almost certainly British she would be allowed all of the benefits of the system. His wife will be allowed to use the NHS because they will have to pay the NHS surcharge and she will be allowed to work.

 

His own peer group are not criticising. Merely pointing out that the rules that they had to adhere to to bring their wives here should be the same for everybody and not different for somebody who was on TV donkeys years ago.

No it is not because he was a former tv star, but because he does not meet the financial requirements. Yet because others do (many hundreds presumably) we can assume their is a basic right, and this right is being blocked by a financial rule.  Thus, rights depend not on someone being entitled, but on their financial circumstances.  I think that is the basic challenge, and that is why the matter was referred to the Supreme Court.  They deemed the rule lawful, but were clearly scathing.

Edited September 18, 2017 by mommysboy

[sanemax]

15 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

Nobody has mentioned what a dreadful state of affairs it is that a man working full time, and more, cannot afford to support a small family.  It's a pity people don't turn their searching spotlight on the powers that be rather than one strugging husband and father.

 

And isn't amazing that his own peer group should be his worst critic?

 

 

How do you know that hes been working full time ?I am quite certain that had he put the hours in, he would have exceeded the 18 000 Pound threshold

[champers]

1 hour ago, MickTurator said:

Depends on what contract options you go for.

Someone I know opted for a low fee with repeat payments rather than one off higher fee.

It was only an advert for R Whites Lemonade but went on to be one of the most repeated adverts in history.

She was getting cheques for at least the next 20 years, maybe still getting them.

The singer on that advert was Elvis Costello's dad, Ross McManus. A very young Elvis (Declan as he was then) has a small part in the ad.

[mommysboy]

Just now, sanemax said:

How do you know that hes been working full time ?I am quite certain that had he put the hours in, he would have exceeded the 18 000 Pound threshold

Well I think it was in the Daily Mirror report.  Apologies if that is incorrect.

 

But I maintain there are many millions of guys who work hard and struggle to reach the required mark.

[MickTurator]

27 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Prior to 1st July 2006 British fathers could only pass their citizenship onto their children born outside the UK or a qualifying territory if they were married to the non British mother. However, if they married after the birth it was a simple matter to then register the child as British. Still is; so, MickTurator, you could do so for your daughter provided she is still under 18. If over 18, I believe she will need to meet the standard requirements for naturalisation.

Thank you very much for your help.

My daughter is over 18 and lives in Thailand.

[Kieran00001]

3 hours ago, barsie said:

 

Tourist visa for a thai to UK - is just as much paperwork.

 

It's not about entitlement - people don't want economic migrants. You remove that risk by having people visit who aren't economic migrants.

 

The belief that 100k should remove the paperwork that someone on 18k has to do is an entitled belief, there is no justifiable reason to give any extra benefit to someone on a higher salary than someone whose salrary is already deemed high enough not to be importing a burden. 

[sanemax]

1 minute ago, mommysboy said:

Well I think it was in the Daily Mirror report.  Apologies if that is incorrect.

 

But I maintain there are many millions of guys who work hard and struggle to reach the required mark.

Those poor guys struggling to make 18 000 Quid a year will not be able to afford the luxury of having a Thai Wife, they will have to make do with a Brit girl 

[mommysboy]

Actually it does appear that 'Mickey' is being a bit impatient: he just has to qualify for the one year which is as yet incomplete.

 

But this is what he has to do:

"In 2015 it was estimated the lower £18,600 threshold stops 41% of the population bringing a foreign spouse here.

The threshold rises to £22,400 if, as in Patrick’s case, there is also a non Europe-born child."

 

Note 41% would not make it.

 

Also consider what the result would be if every immigrant was required to satidfy this requirement.

[mommysboy]

3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Those poor guys struggling to make 18 000 Quid a year will not be able to afford the luxury of having a Thai Wife, they will have to make do with a Brit girl 

Something of a fait accomplis  Nobody is required to lead a prosperous or moral life in order to asser rights in other respects- who'd be left standing?

 

And the report says 22,400.

Edited September 18, 2017 by mommysboy

[sambum]

4 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

I suppose it could be argued that he is a valued member of society, but I agree it is not a factor save for public sentiment.   I imagine he must have paid a fair wedge of tax during his better years.  Most of the arguments provided by the nay sayers seem to centre around how much tax they paid in the past.  Doesn't it work the other way round then guys?

I think what annoys people most is that priority seems to be given to families of "outsiders"  who have not contributed a penny towards the country. What doesn't help the situation is when these people start complaining about their accommodation, or  "being offended" by certain customs in their adopted country. Whereas people that have worked all (or most of) their working lives in the country, and consequently, as stated above, have paid a substantial amount of money into the system, seem to be treated unfairly in comparison.

[Thai Ron]

44 minutes ago, jeab1980 said:

Yep i was correct jealous oxygen thief.

Excuse me, but what in God's name am I supposed to be jealous of?

 

 

[ThaidaGwaii]

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.

[KiChakayan]

2 minutes ago, Thai Ron said:

Excuse me, but what in God's name am I supposed to be jealous of?

 

 

Beautiful young wife and an adorable daughter...

Besides that I found it rather amusing you ask..

[sammieuk1]

Its years of abuse from the likes of Indian ,Pakistan and more recently old English  women rocking up with their 20 year old Turk in tow that have done for the genuine man/woman that find themselves on the wrong end of more stringent  immigration laws .

Its a political hot topic and brits with non EU partners are easy fodder pay to stay or do one its a rich mans world .

[7by7]

10 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Something of a fait accomplis  Nobody is required to lead a prosperous or moral life in order to asser rights in other respects- who'd be left standing?

 

And the report says 22,400.

 The report says

Quote

The threshold rises to £22,400 if, as in Patrick’s case, there is also a non Europe-born child.

Which is wrong.

 

The child is dual Thai/British. Therefore she does not need a visa to live in the UK and so is not included in the financial requirement, so he needs to obtain a British passport for her, easily enough done, and £18,600 p.a. minimum income.

 

I would hope, nay expect, a national newspaper such as The Mirror to check and get such a basic fact correct!

 

The report also says that he has been working in the UK since April 2016. 

 

If employed and earning above £18,600 p.a. his wife could have applied after he had been working for 6 months; i.e. in October 2016. If self employed, then after 12 months and a full tax year; i.e. in April 2017.

 

See the relevant parts of the financial requirement appendix.

 

 

[Kieran00001]

3 minutes ago, sammieuk1 said:

Its years of abuse from the likes of Indian ,Pakistan and more recently old English  women rocking up with their 20 year old Turk in tow that have done for the genuine man/woman that find themselves on the wrong end of more stringent  immigration laws .

Its a political hot topic and brits with non EU partners are easy fodder pay to stay or do one its a rich mans world .

 

18k is hardly a rich man, it is £8.60 an hour, it's a labourers wage, you basically just have to be in full time work to be eligible.

[Kieran00001]

6 minutes ago, sammieuk1 said:

Its years of abuse from the likes of Indian ,Pakistan and more recently old English  women rocking up with their 20 year old Turk in tow that have done for the genuine man/woman that find themselves on the wrong end of more stringent  immigration laws .

Its a political hot topic and brits with non EU partners are easy fodder pay to stay or do one its a rich mans world .

 

I more put it down to years of the bankers party (ukip) putting the blame on immigrants and the Tory party not being adverse to some populist appeasement policies chose to do this as it was easy to implement and did not restrict their flow of cheap labour.

[mommysboy]

17 minutes ago, sambum said:

I think what annoys people most is that priority seems to be given to families of "outsiders"  who have not contributed a penny towards the country. What doesn't help the situation is when these people start complaining about their accommodation, or  "being offended" by certain customs in their adopted country. Whereas people that have worked all (or most of) their working lives in the country, and consequently, as stated above, have paid a substantial amount of money into the system, seem to be treated unfairly in comparison.

Yes.  Too right.  I mean many would agree that he has more right than others, and although he doesn't currently meet requirements surely he stands more of a chance of getting there than others.

Edited September 18, 2017 by mommysboy

[rasg]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

I would hope, nay expect, a national newspaper such as The Mirror to check and get such a basic fact correct!

 

The report also says that he has been working in the UK since April 2016. 

 

If employed and earning above £18,600 p.a. his wife could have applied after he had been working for 6 months; i.e. in October 2016. If self employed, then after 12 months and a full tax year; i.e. in April 2017.

At least four of the newspapers are reporting the £22,400 figure. They are all guilty of the same thing and rarely bother to thoroughly research immigration stories. Or they do know and it suits them to report incorrectly as the larger figure sounds "better" .

 

Wondering of he didn’t bother researching what would be needed and just assumed that he could bring his wife over here whenever he wanted to. Until they are in the situation most people have no clue about the rules.

 

 

[sammieuk1]

2 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

18k is hardly a rich man, it is £8.60 an hour, it's a labourers wage, you basically just have to be in full time work to be eligible.

You also have tax NI on your quoted £8.60ph that's before any housing costs c/tax etc making the 18k required fairly unrealistic to survive  yet alone with a family hence a rich mans world.

[rasg]

Not forgetting the 7K plus needed over the five years that it takes to get to ILR. £18,600 is probably too low but it is the figure that is used.