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

[mommysboy]

4 minutes ago, rasg said:

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.

 

 

He does have a moral right that can't be questioned and that is not the issue.  So it would be understanable, but rather foolish of course to just make a blind assumption.  He also grew up in an era when human rights trumped money!

[rasg]

Maybe he should tap Del Boy up for a loan?

 

I spent ten minutes on Wiki and in the movies and programmes he appeared in he only appeared in the cast list in three of them.

Edited September 18, 2017 by rasg

[mommysboy]

6 minutes ago, sammieuk1 said:

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.

I don't know the exact breakdown, but it was condemned by the Supreme Court, and Labour will uphold their view if elected.

 

Somewhat ironic that he is associated with the phrase 'only fools and horses (work)'.

I suppose your viewpoint will depend on whether you put issues such as equality, equal application of law, and human rights above financial considerations. 

 

I mention equality because clearly this rather harsh requirement is not applied to all immigrants, and equal application because in the eyes of the law it is a founding principle that all men are equal in the eyes of the law.  The rights issue is done and  dusted as an argument already and is not contested by anyone.

 

 

 

 

 

[Thai Ron]

18 minutes ago, KiChakayan said:

Beautiful young wife and an adorable daughter...

Besides that I found it rather amusing you ask..

Don't be ridiculous.

Why would I want to tuck myself up like a kipper by getting involved in a generation-gap marriage.

I can have the young chicks - if I want them - without all that guff.

 

[theguyfromanotherforum]

Very funny reading posts from what must be all the retired guys who regularly claim backpackers should not be in Thailand because they are poor.

Well, if a 61 year old guy doesn't have less than 20k quid a year or hasn't saved 62k in his lifetime what business does he have importing a wife to uk?

Get a job you bum.



Sent from my EVA-L19 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[mommysboy]

5 minutes ago, Thai Ron said:

Don't be ridiculous.

Why would I want to tuck myself up like a kipper by getting involved in a generation-gap marriage.

I can have the young chicks - if I want them - without all that guff.

 

That I doubt based on your rather base posting.

 

To many, myself included, having a daughter is a wonderful event in their lives.  And on the face of it at least he wants to live up to his responsibilities.

 

Somewhat sad situation imo, although I do understand honest objections.

Edited September 18, 2017 by mommysboy

[Thai Ron]

Just now, mommysboy said:

That I doubt based on you rather cynical posting.

 

To many, myself included, having a daughter is a wonderful event in their lives.  And on the face of it at least he wants to live up to his responsibilities.

 

Somewhat sad situation imo, although I do understand honest objections.

Er . . . I have a beautiful 3 year old thanks very much and yes, you're right it is a wonderful event.

[7by7]

32 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 .

 No; it's the Tory's 2010 manifesto pledge to reduce net migration.

 

Roughly half of the immigrants to the UK come from other EEA states; which before Brexit nothing could be done about.

 

Of the remainder, about 90% are temporary migrants; students which the government wants as their fees contribute to the costs of running the UK's universities and skilled workers, which the government wants to fill skilled labour shortages.

 

So May, as Home Secretary, went for the easy target; family migrants who make up the bulk of the remainder.

 

Of course, as seen, this has had little effect on the overall net figures; all it has allowed is the government to say that they are doing something about net migration whilst separating families who are perfectly capable of supporting themselves without any state aid at all.

 

Fact: the income support level for a British couple, both over 18, is £114.85 per week; £5972.20 per year, plus most are also entitled to housing benefit; which, of course, depends on where you live, but the average UK rent is £901 per month (source) or £10,812 p.a. A total of £16784.20. 

 

Of course, some pay less rent and so get less than this as they live in areas with rents below the average, some pay above the average so get more.

 

My point being, if the government expects a British couple to be able to survive on £5972.20 p.a. plus, if eligible, rent; why do they demand so much more when one partner is an immigrant?

 

Also, as mentioned earlier by someone ( I forget who; apologies); the figure takes no account of outgoings. So someone earning £18,600 p.a. with rent or mortgage payments of £6,000p.a. and debt repayments of £5,000 p.a. meets the requirement; but someone with an income of £18,599 p.a. with mortgage paid off and no debts doesn't!

 

Prior to July 2012 the financial requirement was known as Adequate maintenance. Under this system couples had to show that the immigrant family member(s), spouse, partner, children etc., would be adequately maintained in the UK without recourse to public funds. In making this assessment the ECO not only considered the sponsor's income, but all of their fixed outgoings as well.

 

In my opinion, not only is that a fairer system; it's also more logical.

 

 

[mommysboy]

4 minutes ago, theguyfromanotherforum said:

Very funny reading posts from what must be all the retired guys who regularly claim backpackers should not be in Thailand because they are poor.

Well, if a 61 year old guy doesn't have less than 20k quid a year or hasn't saved 62k in his lifetime what business does he have importing a wife to uk?

Get a job you bum.



Sent from my EVA-L19 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

You mean doesn't earn more than 20k a year.

 

A typo I guess.  But others might not be so kind given your high-handedness.

[roo860]

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.
 

There's a fair bit of truth in that statement, I met a Thai lady in the UK who had done just that, she'd left the kid with the father and shacked up with the young landlord of a pub I used to go in.
But of course not all end up like that, they'll always be horror stories.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[mommysboy]

2 minutes ago, Thai Ron said:

Er . . . I have a beautiful 3 year old thanks very much and yes, you're right it is a wonderful event.

Well, ..... shouldn't you really be sympathising with him?  Not a nice boat to be in, is it?  And it has been established that she does have the basic right.

 

I qualify, but really don't fancy the UK life.

[sammieuk1]

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

You mean doesn't earn more than 20k a year.

 

A typo I guess.  But others might not be so kind given your high-handedness.

mommysboy  Only a mother could love.

[mommysboy]

1 minute ago, roo860 said:

 

There's a fair bit of truth in that statement, I met a Thai lady in the UK who had done just that, she'd left the kid with the father and shacked up with the young landlord of a pub I used to go in.
But of course not all end up like that, they'll always be horror stories.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

I think other checks are conducted these days.  Yes it is a common tale.  Thais often don't adapt to UK life. 

[mommysboy]

2 minutes ago, sammieuk1 said:

mommysboy  Only a mother could love.

Oh well... you've rather forced my hand.

 

Get an English lesson, you bum!

 

Note: his language in a previous posting not mine, so I assume no offence will be taken.

 

 

[rasg]

5 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

And it has been established that she does have the basic right.

He does have the basic right but the way the rules are he needs to fulfill the requirements first.

 

17 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

I don't know the exact breakdown, but it was condemned by the Supreme Court, and Labour will uphold their view if elected.

Corbyn has to be elected first...

 

Off topic but it made me chuckle earlier when I read that Vince Cable thinks he will get the numbers to be PM. Currently on 7% of the vote.

[mommysboy]

6 minutes ago, rasg said:

He does have the basic right but the way the rules are he needs to fulfill the requirements first.

 

Corbyn has to be elected first...

 

Off topic but it made me chuckle earlier when I read that Vince Cable thinks he will get the numbers to be PM. Currently on 7% of the vote.

It comes down to the assertion that a right is a right.  But, yes correct for sure: the law was upheld by the Supreme Court on legal grounds, if not moral.

 

It does seem a somewhat financially ill-advised move to have a kid at 61.  I don't know if it was his first.  If so, who would begrudge him?

[sklmeeera]

15 hours ago, AhFarangJa said:

 

That is ridiculous . I wonder why you think that ?

[sammieuk1]

15 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Oh well... you've rather forced my hand.

 

Get an English lesson, you bum!

 

Note: his language in a previous posting not mine, so I assume no offence will be taken.

 

 

My mistake tried to amend but Mr bum in future .

[mommysboy]

3 minutes ago, sammieuk1 said:

My mistake tried to amend but Mr bum in future .

Good sport!  We all make 'em.  Mine was to choose the name.

[Kieran00001]

25 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 No; it's the Tory's 2010 manifesto pledge to reduce net migration.

 

Roughly half of the immigrants to the UK come from other EEA states; which before Brexit nothing could be done about.

 

Of the remainder, about 90% are temporary migrants; students which the government wants as their fees contribute to the costs of running the UK's universities and skilled workers, which the government wants to fill skilled labour shortages.

 

So May, as Home Secretary, went for the easy target; family migrants who make up the bulk of the remainder.

 

Of course, as seen, this has had little effect on the overall net figures; all it has allowed is the government to say that they are doing something about net migration whilst separating families who are perfectly capable of supporting themselves without any state aid at all.

 

Fact: the income support level for a British couple, both over 18, is £114.85 per week; £5972.20 per year, plus most are also entitled to housing benefit; which, of course, depends on where you live, but the average UK rent is £901 per month (source) or £10,812 p.a. A total of £16784.20. 

 

Of course, some pay less rent and so get less than this as they live in areas with rents below the average, some pay above the average so get more.

 

My point being, if the government expects a British couple to be able to survive on £5972.20 p.a. plus, if eligible, rent; why do they demand so much more when one partner is an immigrant?

 

Also, as mentioned earlier by someone ( I forget who; apologies); the figure takes no account of outgoings. So someone earning £18,600 p.a. with rent or mortgage payments of £6,000p.a. and debt repayments of £5,000 p.a. meets the requirement; but someone with an income of £18,599 p.a. with mortgage paid off and no debts doesn't!

 

Prior to July 2012 the financial requirement was known as Adequate maintenance. Under this system couples had to show that the immigrant family member(s), spouse, partner, children etc., would be adequately maintained in the UK without recourse to public funds. In making this assessment the ECO not only considered the sponsor's income, but all of their fixed outgoings as well.

 

In my opinion, not only is that a fairer system; it's also more logical.

 

 

 

It is not so black and white, if you are applying as a parent then you are encourage to apply even if you earn less than the threshold, also having savings of over 62,000 is accepted instead of an income or a combination of the two providing the savings are over 16,000.  Also investments over 62,000 are accepted, but I don't think property, but I suspect one could get around that somehow such as owning it through a company.  But you are right, the former system was fairer, it also allowed other family members to provide sponsorship, not only the spouse, and I think they recently discussed allowing that again in the future.

[NeoDinosaw]

On 9/17/2017 at 9:00 AM, Rc2702 said:

Ok thanks for the correction, My point is cabbies regardless of black cab or even private hire. Working full time they  should be earning over the threshold requirement. The uk average wage is nearly 18k for a taxi driver. If he's in London it is far more than the average surely. Perhaps creative accounting has it's downside.

Sounds like our hero is a bit of a plonker. He should have got Del Boy to sort it. 

[holy cow cm]

I have met oodles of English cabbies, oodles! Nice and idiots, but end of the line is a UK cabbie is a cabbie and has limited funds, PERIOD. Not the premium the Thai want. Wrong color and English tourists are becoming non desirable now.

[rasg]

All of the licensed taxi drivers I have ever met are very well off.

[Drago]

I'm not sure if it has already been mentioned in this thread as I'm not reading through 26 pages of bitching, but the Conservatives 2017 manifesto actually states that they are going to increase the earnings threshold from £18,600.

 

The manifesto reads:

 

Quote

“We will increase the earnings thresholds for people wishing to sponsor migrants for family visas.”

 

But it does not set out a new minimum amount.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-manifesto-lest-theresa-may-immigration-foreign-spouses-threshold-a7742791.html

 

 

[sanemax]

"Micky" does have a foreign background , Irish .

I do think that many people who sympathise with his plight, would have no sympathy what so ever , if "micky" was brown and had a Pakistani background

Also how would sympathetic posters have re acted if he had posted a thread about this anonymously on TV ? 

    "Im a 61 year old man living in the UK ,I have a Child and Wife in Thailand , but I dont earn enough money to support them in the UK and so cannot bring them here , what should I do"

[Thai Ron]

13 hours ago, mommysboy said:

Well, ..... shouldn't you really be sympathising with him?  Not a nice boat to be in, is it?  And it has been established that she does have the basic right.

 

I qualify, but really don't fancy the UK life.

Why should I be sympathising with him?

My contention since my first post on this topic is the fact that, at 58 or whatever he was when he knocked up his wife, the guy should have thought long about how he was going to support the child and her mother. One presumes he can't do it in Thailand because he can't work and that's why he's gone back to England.

The guy made a monumentally stupid life decision and now he's paying for it.

 

He's playing the victim and expecting UK immigration to bend the rules to make up for his stupidity.

He's found sympathy on here because there are a lot of old men who've made similar decisions but at least some of them might have the money to support their kids.

There's no sympathy from me.

 

[Thai Ron]

10 minutes ago, sanemax said:

"Micky" does have a foreign background , Irish .

I do think that many people who sympathise with his plight, would have no sympathy what so ever , if "micky" was brown and had a Pakistani background

Also how would sympathetic posters have re acted if he had posted a thread about this anonymously on TV ? 

    "Im a 61 year old man living in the UK ,I have a Child and Wife in Thailand , but I dont earn enough money to support them in the UK and so cannot bring them here , what should I do"

 

Indeed. This type of thread has only given the usual suspects another opportunity to vent about Muslims, Syrians. Iraqis, Africans etc

Edited September 19, 2017 by Thai Ron

[kiwiaussie]

1 hour ago, Thai Ron said:

Why should I be sympathising with him?

My contention since my first post on this topic is the fact that, at 58 or whatever he was when he knocked up his wife, the guy should have thought long about how he was going to support the child and her mother. One presumes he can't do it in Thailand because he can't work and that's why he's gone back to England.

The guy made a monumentally stupid life decision and now he's paying for it.

 

He's playing the victim and expecting UK immigration to bend the rules to make up for his stupidity.

He's found sympathy on here because there are a lot of old men who've made similar decisions but at least some of them might have the money to support their kids.

There's no sympathy from me.

 

I fully believe that blocking legitimate family reunion is a breach of a basic human right. He should be with his wife and daughter. Both the UK and Thailand have rules with regard to this which are appalling. 

 

Having said that I love threads like as it exposes the little englanders and their ilk for the hypocrites they are.

 

The reason there are rules like this was that in the early 2000s governments needed to move to the right on immigration given complaints from the little Englanders on seeing too many brown people and other Johnny Foreigners on their streets.

 

But when they want to have their own 'brown bird' come back to blighty, well you get 20++ pages of whinging and moaning and a daily mail story on one of their tax evading cash in hand poster boys. 

 

Love karma coming back to bite the @rses  of these blokes. Careful what you wish for I guess. 

Edited September 19, 2017 by kiwiaussie

[Thai Ron]

1 hour ago, kiwiaussie said:

I fully believe that blocking legitimate family reunion is a breach of a basic human right. He should be with his wife and daughter. Both the UK and Thailand have rules with regard to this which are appalling. 

 

Having said that I love threads like as it exposes the little englanders and their ilk for the hypocrites they are.

 

The reason there are rules like this was that in the early 2000s governments needed to move to the right on immigration given complaints from the little Englanders on seeing too many brown people and other Johnny Foreigners on their streets.

 

But when they want to have their own 'brown bird' come back to blighty, well you get 20++ pages of whinging and moaning and a daily mail story on one of their tax evading cash in hand poster boys. 

 

Love karma coming back to bite the @rses  of these blokes. Careful what you wish for I guess. 

I fully agree. It's as if they consider themselves legitimate proxies for the UK immigration authorities

A kind of reasoning whereby they're effectively saying "I've done my back-of-a-fag-packet due diligence, so take my word for it, she's alright, mate".

But when he can't satisfy the proof the government asks for to show that he actually can take financial responsibility for her, it's "Oh if she was a refugee on a boat, she'd be allowed in".

No end to the double standards these people apply to life

[mommysboy]

2 hours ago, Thai Ron said:

I fully agree. It's as if they consider themselves legitimate proxies for the UK immigration authorities

A kind of reasoning whereby they're effectively saying "I've done my back-of-a-fag-packet due diligence, so take my word for it, she's alright, mate".

But when he can't satisfy the proof the government asks for to show that he actually can take financial responsibility for her, it's "Oh if she was a refugee on a boat, she'd be allowed in".

No end to the double standards these people apply to life

But this guy, and presumably me too, are characterised as wasters, fools, and little Englanders with double standards.  There may be some like that.  But I'd say a great many are just ordinary people living a life.

 

And as I say, time and again, we are talking about a fundamental right that is upheld for others with lowlier circumstances such as refugees, who in fact arguably don't really have a right.  I go with the Supreme Court who decribed it as very harsh.

 

On a side point, having children has never been an economic or rational decision.  And should everything be about money anyway?  Is that what we are now?  Just economic units.  What about humanity?

 

One thing that does bother me is that many of these relationships end up on the rocks, often with the women simply absconding for whatever reason.

Edited September 19, 2017 by mommysboy