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

[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

[Thai Ron]

11 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

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.

If the cap fits . . . but one assumes you've got the money to raise your kid so you're not in the same boat, are you?

What lowlier circumstances? Fleeing war or persecution isn't a lowlier circumstance in my view. Especially when you haven't had a hand in that war or persecution.

Mr. Murray had a big part in causing his problems. He could've bagged it up or he could have terminated the pregnancy.

No one's stopping him from being with his kid - he could come back here.....provided he can meet the criteria for a long stay visa.

Having children might not have been a rational or economic choice for you but an awful lot of people wait until they have home and adequate funds before they do so.

The wisdom of having children at his age aside, he must have known that most unskilled people over 45 have difficulty finding work in the UK but now he's going to have to bust his guts to earn a crust to raise that kid just when most people his age are thinking of taking it a bit easier.

The guy's a loser, plain and simple

 

 

[geordiel]

On 9/17/2017 at 4:04 PM, nausea said:

 

Actually, I suspect this legislation is designed to stop immigrant communities flooding the country with spouses; people like Mr. Murray, and you and me, are collateral damage.

Correct.  This same legislation done for me , my wife and two step kids.  I managed to get us all in to Australia, not where I want to be but is the best I could do. Now Im exiled from my own country.

[KiChakayan]

22 minutes ago, Thai Ron said:

If the cap fits . . . but one assumes you've got the money to raise your kid so you're not in the same boat, are you?

What lowlier circumstances? Fleeing war or persecution isn't a lowlier circumstance in my view. Especially when you haven't had a hand in that war or persecution.

Mr. Murray had a big part in causing his problems. He could've bagged it up or he could have terminated the pregnancy.

No one's stopping him from being with his kid - he could come back here.....provided he can meet the criteria for a long stay visa.

Having children might not have been a rational or economic choice for you but an awful lot of people wait until they have home and adequate funds before they do so.

The wisdom of having children at his age aside, he must have known that most unskilled people over 45 have difficulty finding work in the UK but now he's going to have to bust his guts to earn a crust to raise that kid just when most people his age are thinking of taking it a bit easier.

The guy's a loser, plain and simple

 

 

So you are in favor of castration for all the "not well off, more then 45" ? Do you realise the implications of f...st shit you are writing? Does the word compassion have any meaning for you?

Edited September 19, 2017 by KiChakayan

[Thai Ron]

2 minutes ago, KiChakayan said:

So you are in favor of castration for all the "not well off, more then 45" ? Do you realise the implications of f...st shit you are writing?

Ok that's just rubbish.

I said nothing of the sort.

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.

If people want to do this kind of thing in the twilight of their lives, have at it but if you don't have the income, it's just better all round it you bag it up.

[rasg]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

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.

And that is one of the main reasons that even a visit visa for a Thai national is not that simple to get.

 

26 minutes ago, Thai Ron said:

Having children might not have been a rational or economic choice for you but an awful lot of people wait until they have home and adequate funds before they do so.

The wisdom of having children at his age aside, he must have known that most unskilled people over 45 have difficulty finding work in the UK but now he's going to have to bust his guts to earn a crust to raise that kid just when most people his age are thinking of taking it a bit easier.

The guy's a loser, plain and simple

I was 58 when I met my GF and I made to clear very early on in our relationship that I didn't want kids. Not because I dislike kids, the opposite. It's simply not fair on a child to have a dad that's so old. From my point of view, if my wife had a kid now, and if I make it to 75 I would have a 15-16 year old. No thanks!

 

He's not a loser. He simply needs to jump through the same hoops that we all have to.

 

 

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

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.

 

A refugee is in "lowlier" circumstances, nice, their lives are at risk, that is the definition and you want the same protection because you feel above having your life in danger?  Just how some people's minds work baffles me,

[Kieran00001]

8 minutes ago, rasg said:

And that is one of the main reasons that even a visit visa for a Thai national is not that simple to get.

 

I was 58 when I met my GF and I made to clear very early on in our relationship that I didn't want kids. Not because I dislike kids, the opposite. It's simply not fair on a child to have a dad that's so old. From my point of view, if my wife had a kid now, and if I make it to 75 I would have a 15-16 year old. No thanks!

 

He's not a loser. He simply needs to jump through the same hoops that we all have to.

 

 

 

Obviously he is a loser, he was an actor on a highly successful TV program and since doing that he has become a taxi driver making roughly minimum wage, by definition a loser.

[rasg]

He was an actor with a very small part on a highly successful TV program. A big, big difference. If you look him up on Wiki he didn't do that much over the years. The big movies he was in, (The Firm, Breaking Glass, Curse of the Pink Panther etc) he is only mentioned on the cast list in two of them. After Only Fools finished in 2003, the next thing he did was in 2015. I have no doubt that he had other jobs along the way, maybe been divorced once or twice. The only reason he even made it into the newspapers is because he was was in Only Fools. I don't see him as loser. Just a normal bloke, the same as most of us.

 

 

[7by7]

19 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

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.

 

Yes, I know the various ways in which the financial requirement can be met, thank you. But as this topic is about meeting it visa income, I stuck to that.

 

See the link to the financial appendix I posted earlier for all the various other ways of meeting it.

 

The Supreme Court ruling last February did make some changes; which came into effect on 10th August. But the Home Office wont make it easy to follow that route!    

 

See  https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/993489-important-changes-to-uk-settlement-visa-requirements-from-august-10th-2017/     and https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/996630-new-settlement-requirements-for-uk-after-the-supreme-court-decision/

 

 

I

 

[Thai Ron]

2 minutes ago, rasg said:

He was an actor with a very small part on a highly successful TV program. A big, big difference. If you look him up on Wiki he didn't do that much over the years. The big movies he was in, (The Firm, Breaking Glass, Curse of the Pink Panther etc) he is only mentioned on the cast list in two of them. After Only Fools finished in 2003, the next thing he did was in 2015. I have no doubt that he had other jobs along the way, maybe been divorced once or twice. The only reason he even made it into the newspapers is because he was was in Only Fools. I don't see him as loser. Just a normal bloke, the same as most of us.

 

 

Well he's not really a "normal bloke" is he?

"Normal blokes" aren't knocking up women 25 years younger than they are in Pattaya at 58 when they don't have a pot to piss in.

"Normal blokes" at 58 are coming towards the end of their working life, have a few bob or a pension stashed away and are looking forward to retiring.

 

This guy is foolish and irresponsible and there's a good chance his wife's on ThaiFriendly right now looking for a replacement guy to support her and her child.

I daresay she'd be better off

[Kieran00001]

5 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Yes, I know the various ways in which the financial requirement can be met, thank you. But as this topic is about meeting it visa income, I stuck to that.

 

See the link to the financial appendix I posted earlier for all the various other ways of meeting it.

 

The Supreme Court ruling last February did make some changes; which came into effect on 10th August. But the Home Office wont make it easy to follow that route!    

 

See  https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/993489-important-changes-to-uk-settlement-visa-requirements-from-august-10th-2017/     and https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/996630-new-settlement-requirements-for-uk-after-the-supreme-court-decision/

 

 

I

 

 

What do you mean by they won't make it easy?  Is it not all basically down to the statement you write?

[Kieran00001]

12 minutes ago, rasg said:

He was an actor with a very small part on a highly successful TV program. A big, big difference. If you look him up on Wiki he didn't do that much over the years. The big movies he was in, (The Firm, Breaking Glass, Curse of the Pink Panther etc) he is only mentioned on the cast list in two of them. After Only Fools finished in 2003, the next thing he did was in 2015. I have no doubt that he had other jobs along the way, maybe been divorced once or twice. The only reason he even made it into the newspapers is because he was was in Only Fools. I don't see him as loser. Just a normal bloke, the same as most of us.

 

 

 

His career was acting, as you pointed out he did rather poorly in that

career, some would say he lost.

[stanleycoin]

Uk loves to treat its citizens, children and wives of ex-pats  like shit.

But just loves, none uk,   citizens, children and wives of,    who just turn

up on our doorstep, with there hands out.

Give me , money , give me house, give me car,  give me job !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry  ( give me job ) that one was wrong !!!!!!!!!

 

 

[Kieran00001]

5 minutes ago, stanleycoin said:

Uk loves to treat its citizens, children and wives of ex-pats  like shit.

But just loves, none uk,   citizens, children and wives of,    who just turn

up on our doorstep, with there hands out.

Give me , money , give me house, give me car,  give me job !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry  ( give me job ) that one was wrong !!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

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?

[jeab1980]

Christ  hes got more posts than he did episodes in only fools and horses.

Bottom line is he has to conform to the rules as we all do like them or not.

He doesnt have to be apart he can come live here.

[rasg]

54 minutes ago, Thai Ron said:

Well he's not really a "normal bloke" is he?

"Normal blokes" aren't knocking up women 25 years younger than they are in Pattaya at 58 when they don't have a pot to piss in.

"Normal blokes" at 58 are coming towards the end of their working life, have a few bob or a pension stashed away and are looking forward to retiring.

 

This guy is foolish and irresponsible and there's a good chance his wife's on ThaiFriendly right now looking for a replacement guy to support her and her child.

I daresay she'd be better off

There are many normal blokes doing exactly that. Quite a few on here I think.

[rasg]

57 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

What do you mean by they won't make it easy?  Is it not all basically down to the statement you write?

Err. No it's not. Did you read the link that 7by7 posted?

[Kieran00001]

10 minutes ago, rasg said:

Err. No it's not. Did you read the link that 7by7 posted?

 

Ok, so say you hope to be accepted though exceptional circumstances, how would you let them know of these circumstances aside from the statement?

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

A refugee is in "lowlier" circumstances, nice, their lives are at risk, that is the definition and you want the same protection because you feel above having your life in danger?  Just how some people's minds work baffles me,

That's codswallop! You're just not batting on a flat wicket. 'Lowlier circumstances' is just a description to denote that they are poor and seemingly without a fair connection to the UK. The 2 issues are entitlement, and money: he's first in the list where the first is concerned as he is already British, and financially is ahead of most too.

 

Genuine refugees are a special case of course, but most immigrants are economic migrants really.

 

What a truly bad statement and accusation you made!

[mommysboy]

49 minutes ago, stanleycoin said:

Uk loves to treat its citizens, children and wives of ex-pats  like shit.

But just loves, none uk,   citizens, children and wives of,    who just turn

up on our doorstep, with there hands out.

Give me , money , give me house, give me car,  give me job !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry  ( give me job ) that one was wrong !!!!!!!!!

 

 

It does treat its own very badly.

[Thai Ron]

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

It does treat its own very badly.

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

[AGareth2]

1 minute ago, Thai Ron said:

God Save The Queen

well said

[Kieran00001]

23 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

That's codswallop! You're just not batting on a flat wicket. 'Lowlier circumstances' is just a description to denote that they are poor and seemingly without a fair connection to the UK. The 2 issues are entitlement, and money: he's first in the list where the first is concerned as he is already British, and financially is ahead of most too.

 

Genuine refugees are a special case of course, but most immigrants are economic migrants really.

 

What a truly bad statement and accusation you made!

 

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.

[sklmeeera]

On 9/18/2017 at 7:15 AM, AhFarangJa said:

 

That is ridiculous . I wonder why you think that ?

[bannork]

There is another point to mention Ron. British folks who are teaching English in Thailand can thank their lucky stars they were born in the UK and not France for instance. Not too many jobs going at the Alliance Francaise.

[rasg]

30 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

Ok, so say you hope to be accepted though exceptional circumstances, how would you let them know of these circumstances aside from the statement?

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.

[sklmeeera]

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