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

[B4Jazz]

11 minutes ago, rasg said:

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.

I see so it's got to be quick access? Anyway it seems you can combine  income and savings now so should not be a problem.

[rasg]

Yes. With a normal job you can combine income with savings. If you are self employed, you can't.

[Jack Mountain]

Wow, it took me 31 pages to realize that this is not Rodney's 'Frost' brother, the long tall guy. This man i do not remember, had probably a very minor role ... Sad story.

[Kieran00001]

10 hours ago, mommysboy said:

 

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.

 

 

 

I never actually called you any names, you chose to infer that.

 

I fail to understand how you can sympathize with a refugee yet not believe that they should be allowed safe haven, that is not very sympathetic at all.

 

And we have also closed the door on refugees don't forget, millions of displaces Syrians, countries near us taking tens of thousands, and how many have we pledged to take over the years?  I feel it is not actually all that mixed up at all, our government have surrendered to populist policy and are closing the door on all the wrong people, from British families to child refugees.

 

And no, we are not the nation we once were, and the reason for that is policy, we could have taken different steps instead of the ones we did which while making some areas the richest in Europe also created the largest underclass since before the industrial revolution, it was policy that divided our nation and it is this disparity in wealth and our massive benefits reliance that has left people rightly bitter and looking for the reason, unfortunately they have been mislead into blaming the likes of refugees for their woes instead of the true culprits our traitorous politicians.

 

[Kieran00001]

9 hours ago, stanleycoin said:

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. 

 

 

 

Nonsense, the millions displaced by ISIS are refugees by definition, as are the boys escaping slavery in Eritrea, not all asylum seekers are genuine refugees of course, some are trying it on, and that is why more applications are rejected that accepted in the UK, not sure how rejecting the majority translates into them being disgraceful in your opinion but considering you cannot even spell the name of our island I cant help but assume you don't really know all that much.  And refugee is not a BS term now or ever, it is clearly defined and the acceptance criteria are as strict as ever.

[sanemax]

13 hours ago, mommysboy said:

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.

 

 

He and the Child have the right to live in the UK and to receive benefits , She isnt from the UK, She is Thai and therefore dosent have the right to arrive in the UK and to go straight onto benefits

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

I never actually called you any names, you chose to infer that.

 

I fail to understand how you can sympathize with a refugee yet not believe that they should be allowed safe haven, that is not very sympathetic at all.

 

And we have also closed the door on refugees don't forget, millions of displaces Syrians, countries near us taking tens of thousands, and how many have we pledged to take over the years?  I feel it is not actually all that mixed up at all, our government have surrendered to populist policy and are closing the door on all the wrong people, from British families to child refugees.

 

And no, we are not the nation we once were, and the reason for that is policy, we could have taken different steps instead of the ones we did which while making some areas the richest in Europe also created the largest underclass since before the industrial revolution, it was policy that divided our nation and it is this disparity in wealth and our massive benefits reliance that has left people rightly bitter and looking for the reason, unfortunately they have been mislead into blaming the likes of refugees for their woes instead of the true culprits our traitorous politicians.

 

Maybe I should feel differently but I don't, whereas I can fully identify with 'Mickey', and he has presented what I class as a British problem.  If someone has the ingenuity to still get here, then I take my hat off to them, and they should be treated as one of our own.  There are connections with some countries, eg, Pakistan, India, and all our cousins in Australia, and New Zealand.  I'm also angry that white South Africans can't get citizenship easily.  To get my sympathy, I suppose there has to be a connection.

 

 

Yes, if you call income inequality a failure of policy then you raise an important point.  You and I are the only ones to make it. In my case I said how reprehensible it was that a man working full time hours can not support a wife or small family.  Millions are in this position.  Although a blue collar worker, my mum was able to stay at home and raise myself and my brother at least until school age.  But there was good social housing then; unfortunately, the Tories spoiled that.

 

The underclass in Britain will continue to grow, and that is where our focus should be.  I sincerely hope  the Opposition party triumph as they appear to be for the common man.

 

 

[Pilotman]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Nonsense, the millions displaced by ISIS are refugees by definition, as are the boys escaping slavery in Eritrea, not all asylum seekers are genuine refugees of course, some are trying it on, and that is why more applications are rejected that accepted in the UK, not sure how rejecting the majority translates into them being disgraceful in your opinion but considering you cannot even spell the name of our island I cant help but assume you don't really know all that much.  And refugee is not a BS term now or ever, it is clearly defined and the acceptance criteria are as strict as ever.

My Grandfather was a refugee from Russia in 1915.  if it wasn't for the policy of the UK government of that time to accept such peoples in the face of discrimination, my family would have been caught up in all kinds of horrors as the 1900s progressed. I doubt that many people in the UK can say that they have a pure Anglo Saxon past. At some point, the vast majority had a refugee or other incomer in their family history.  That's how Nations progress. The post issue is one of fairness and equability in the face of badly applied immigration rules, not one of immigration  as a  general policy. 

[mommysboy]

13 minutes ago, sanemax said:

He and the Child have the right to live in the UK and to receive benefits , She isnt from the UK, She is Thai and therefore dosent have the right to arrive in the UK and to go straight onto benefits

Yes the UK taxpayer is protected. There should be no concern about her being here then really.  She can get a part-time job maybe or 'Mickey' can carry on working all hours, which is tough but many millions in the same income inequality trap.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

Mr Murray came to Thailand looking for a wife. He found one, got married and they had a child together. He did all this in the knowledge that he did not have the financial resources to stay in Thailand and take care of them, and that he did not meet the minimum income criteria for bringing a non EU spouse back to the UK. It would seem that he stayed in Thailand until his money ran out, and then returned to the UK in April 16; so he has now worked for more than a year and can produce a tax return, which is the only acceptable proof of earnings for the self employed.  

 

 ……. It can be argued infinitum that this law is unfair, but we all have to deal with whatever laws are in place, and this law has been in place since 2012, long before his daughter, who we are told, is 2 years and 10 months old was conceived; so he has acted irresponsibly and is now portraying himself as a victim, blaming everyone other than himself.  

 

The real victim here is his lovely little daughter who is being denied a two parent upbringing because of his irresponsibility. I have some sympathy for him, but he has created this situation himself and cannot expect to be immune from the law simply because he had a bit-part in one of Britain’s favourite TV comedy programmes. I hope he is working his nuts off so that he can soon bring his wife and daughter to be with him, and I hope that in the interim, he is sending them some living expenses every month ?? ?? ✌️✌️ 

[sanemax]

Just now, mommysboy said:

Yes the UK taxpayer is protected. There should be no concern about her being here then really.  She can get a part-time job maybe or 'Mickey' can carry on working all hours, which is tough but many millions in the same income inequality trap.

I do not believe that "Micky" ever did "work all hours", reason being that he seems to have spent alot of time in Thailand and hes also been DJing in Spain and if he indeed had been working all hours , he would have earned enough to pass the minimal income threshold .

    Cab driving is self employed and they work when they want too

'

[Kieran00001]

2 hours ago, sanemax said:

He and the Child have the right to live in the UK and to receive benefits , She isnt from the UK, She is Thai and therefore dosent have the right to arrive in the UK and to go straight onto benefits

 

Even if she was allowed in she would not be allowed to claim any benefits for the first 5 years, the only people who can claim straight away are refugees and they only get half the standard benefits.

[Kieran00001]

2 hours ago, sanemax said:

I do not believe that "Micky" ever did "work all hours", reason being that he seems to have spent alot of time in Thailand and hes also been DJing in Spain and if he indeed had been working all hours , he would have earned enough to pass the minimal income threshold .

    Cab driving is self employed and they work when they want too

'

 

Taxi drivers need to work all hours, those who are not willing to work unsociable hours do not make enough to survive, the average earnings in the UK as of last year was just 17,992. 

http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Taxi_Driver/Salary

[Eloquent pilgrim]

11 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Taxi drivers need to work all hours, those who are not willing to work unsociable hours do not make enough to survive, the average earnings in the UK as of last year was just 17,992. 

http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Taxi_Driver/Salary

Yes Kieran, but those figures are for “declared” earnings; I’m sure you’ve been around the block enough times to appreciate that most self employed taxi drivers are 'cavaliers of the alternative economy' ?????? 

[brewsterbudgen]

17 hours ago, sklmeeera said:

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

Thankfully not!

[xkkpafi]

Surprised that anyone still actually want to go a dump like the UK.

[jeab1980]

3 minutes ago, xkkpafi said:

Surprised that anyone still actually want to go a dump like the UK.

How very very true

[Jip99]

19 minutes ago, jeab1980 said:

How very very true

 

23 minutes ago, xkkpafi said:

Surprised that anyone still actually want to go a dump like the UK.

 

 

About 65 million at the last count including hordes from eastern Europe.

 

So popular they are queuing up on the French side.

[mommysboy]

3 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Mr Murray came to Thailand looking for a wife. He found one, got married and they had a child together. He did all this in the knowledge that he did not have the financial resources to stay in Thailand and take care of them, and that he did not meet the minimum income criteria for bringing a non EU spouse back to the UK. It would seem that he stayed in Thailand until his money ran out, and then returned to the UK in April 16; so he has now worked for more than a year and can produce a tax return, which is the only acceptable proof of earnings for the self employed.  

 

 ……. It can be argued infinitum that this law is unfair, but we all have to deal with whatever laws are in place, and this law has been in place since 2012, long before his daughter, who we are told, is 2 years and 10 months old was conceived; so he has acted irresponsibly and is now portraying himself as a victim, blaming everyone other than himself.  

 

The real victim here is his lovely little daughter who is being denied a two parent upbringing because of his irresponsibility. I have some sympathy for him, but he has created this situation himself and cannot expect to be immune from the law simply because he had a bit-part in one of Britain’s favourite TV comedy programmes. I hope he is working his nuts off so that he can soon bring his wife and daughter to be with him, and I hope that in the interim, he is sending them some living expenses every month ?? ?? ✌️✌️ 

You've just made a whole lot of assumptions about him based on your prejudices, which may or may not be true.  For instance, do you think he approached this in the cold, systematic way you describe?  Most people kind of stumble in to a marriage, and a child follows.  It's not an economic decision.

 

You've then tried to blame him for acting irresponsibly when clearly he is attempting the opposite.

 

And there are his daughter's rights.  As you say it's a shame she can not be with him in the UK.  He is not preventing that really.

 

I do agree the law is the law.

 

Also, it needs to be pointed out that relationships involving Thais in UK often end messily.

Edited September 20, 2017 by mommysboy

[sanemax]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

You've just made a whole lot of assumptions about him based on your prejudices, which may or may not be true.  For instance, do you think he approached this in the cold, systematic way you describe?  Most people kind of stumble in to a marriage, and a child follows.  It's not an economic decision.

You've then tried to blame him for acting irresponsibly when clearly he is attempting the opposite.

 

He has made a slight attempt to act responsibly NOW , but its much too late now.

He should have acted responsibly three years ago . Its not as if came as a surprise, he must have know the rules and laws three years ago .

    He could have brought himself a business in Thailand, took qualifications to be an English teacher or gone back home and worked to pass the threshold for her getting a UK Visa .

    He seems to have made no effort at all , 

[mommysboy]

10 minutes ago, sanemax said:

He has made a slight attempt to act responsibly NOW , but its much too late now.

He should have acted responsibly three years ago . Its not as if came as a surprise, he must have know the rules and laws three years ago .

    He could have brought himself a business in Thailand, took qualifications to be an English teacher or gone back home and worked to pass the threshold for her getting a UK Visa .

    He seems to have made no effort at all , 

Just pure assumption again really.  We simply don't know.  Maybe he didn't know the rules.  Perhaps he clung on in Thailand in the hope something would turn up.  Or perhaps he was blissfully unaware, since nearly all human rights are not subject to financial regulations.

 

Nobody's going to hand out any prizes for being the smartest one in the class, sure.

[transam]

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Just pure assumption again really.  We simply don't know.  Maybe he didn't know the rules.  Perhaps he clung on in Thailand in the hope something would turn up.  Or perhaps he was blissfully unaware, since nearly all human rights are not subject to financial regulations.

 

Nobody's going to hand out any prizes for being the smartest one in the class, sure.

A guy heading for his pension with no assets has a bird in LOS and they have a babe....The guy knows he probably will not be able to support them because of his age....

So thinks, get them into the UK, social security will take care of them.......

I think simple logic...

[rasg]

3 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

Taxi drivers need to work all hours, those who are not willing to work unsociable hours do not make enough to survive, the average earnings in the UK as of last year was just 17,992. 

http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Taxi_Driver/Salary

And the low end is 12K with the high end around 35K. I would think that most black licensed taxi drivers would be at the high end. There is a reason they queue at airports in a feeder system for 15 mile trips to and from London for £50-60 one way. Many of them only work during the day.

 

I wonder how many of them actually declare all of their earnings for tax purposes? Not many, if any...

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, transam said:

A guy heading for his pension with no assets has a bird in LOS and they have a babe....The guy knows he probably will not be able to support them because of his age....

So thinks, get them into the UK, social security will take care of them.......

I think simple logic...

Not really, no.  Anything but- aswe know precious little about the way his mind works.

 

Reasonable guess, maybe!

[7by7]

22 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

What do you (7by7) mean by they won't make it easy?  Is it not all basically down to the statement you write?

 

21 hours ago, rasg said:

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

 

21 hours 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?

 

21 hours 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.

 

Indeed, rasg.

 

Making a simple statement is not enough; evidence must be supplied to back that statement up.

 

It is worth mentioning at this point that as of 30th June 2017 around 5000 families have been separated, many since this requirement came into force just over 5 years ago, whilst this case slowly wended it's way through various appeals before reaching the Supreme Court. 

 

The Supreme Court ruling does not mean that family migrants in 'exceptional circumstances' will be exempt from the financial requirement; it means that in such circumstances other, credible sources of income, such as family support, will be considered. Credible to UKVI, that is.

 

But what are exceptional circumstances? Well the Home Office do not give a definitive answer, though they do give some examples (see below). Their attitude is that exceptional circumstances are just that; exceptional, and that each case will be looked at individually and considered on it's own merits.

UPDATED: Home Office makes changes to Appendix FM Minimum Income Rule following MM case is, as usual from them, an excellent summary of the situation. A few quotes follow.

 

Quote

According to the recently published guidance (p.g.56), the Home Office will only go on to consider alternative sources of income where:

the decision maker must consider whether refusal of the application could breach ECHR Article 8 because it could result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant, their partner or a relevant child….The decision maker must take into account, as a primary consideration, the best interests of any relevant child.

.............The guidance describes this as a ‘high threshold’, and that it is likely to only be in ‘unusual cases’ where applicants will be permitted to rely on ‘other credible and reliable sources of income’ as a result of meeting it. This test, though, is not as high as the ‘ultimate’ test (where unjustifiably harsh circumstances definitely would result

However, there is a second test to be applied:

the decision maker must consider whether there are exceptional circumstances which would render refusal of the application a breach of ECHR Article 8 because it would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant or their family… they must grant entry clearance or limited leave to remain

Where refusal of the decision definitely would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences then entry clearance must be granted.

 

..........The .guidance describes this as a ‘high threshold’, and that it is likely to only be in ‘unusual cases’ where applicants will be permitted to rely on ‘other credible and reliable sources of income’ as a result of meeting it.

 

.........to give a flavour of the approach taken in the guidance, subsection d) is adorned with this tasty nugget, almost certainly as a reason to find that ‘unjustifiably harsh’ results will not flow from a refusal:

whether the couple chose to commence their family life together whilst living in separate countries, or while one of them was temporarily in another country, therefore knowing that they would have to meet the immigration requirements of one country or another in order to live together

 

As if when deciding to commence a relationship, a couple should consider to what extent the immigration rules of their respective nations will allow their relationship to be a long-term proposition:

‘I’m sorry, we can’t see each other anymore. It’s not you, it’s … the UK immigration rules’.

I could go on, but think it's better that people read the whole article themselves.

[mommysboy]

One reasonable guess is that there will be further erosion of citizen rights in all sorts of directions, because the current welfare system is utterly unsustainable in the long run.  The advent of robotics will largely make people redundant, both in vocational and societal terms and governments will have less incentive to keep the population well.  Maybe "Mickey" is getting his taste of the bitter medicine early. 

 

The NHS is already increasingly passing the burden of cost back to the sufferer.  By the time many on this board have taken the big dirt nap, they'll have most most or even all of their assets lost on care costs.  Sometimes in Thailand I get the wobbles about the future, because as we all know it's a precarious position to be in, and I have to remind myself that Blighty isn't what it used to be either. 

 

I could afford to move back to UK with wife and child but we decided against it, reasoning that the wealth we have is put to better use over here.  A friend of mine concluded much the same.  He actually took his wife over on a holiday, and she didn't like life in the UK.  Many relationships do come to a sticky end, so maybe this hurdle is a blessing in disguise for 'Mickey'.  He could live in Thailand.  Teaching does spring to mind, but unless he has a degree he may well find opportunities rather limited, but less so in the sticks.  I trust he at least will have the state pension in 5 years time.

I'm weighing up whether to sign a teaching contract.  It will bring in 40k per month over 9 months in the year, but there is substantial free time, and it's a doddle.

[7by7]

16 hours 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?

 

See "7. Cash savings" of the financial appendix for all the details on using savings, especially "7.4. Cash savings – further guidance" for the acceptable forms of savings and the evidence required.

 

You can use monies obtained by cashing in a pension fund; but cannot use monies still held in one.

 

May I suggest that if you are considering a UK family settlement application and want pertinent advice that you start a topic in the Visas and migration to other countries forum where you will get such advice without your questions being lost in a topic such as this.

[Kieran00001]

22 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

 

 

Indeed, rasg.

 

Making a simple statement is not enough; evidence must be supplied to back that statement up.

 

It is worth mentioning at this point that as of 30th June 2017 around 5000 families have been separated, many since this requirement came into force just over 5 years ago, whilst this case slowly wended it's way through various appeals before reaching the Supreme Court. 

 

The Supreme Court ruling does not mean that family migrants in 'exceptional circumstances' will be exempt from the financial requirement; it means that in such circumstances other, credible sources of income, such as family support, will be considered. Credible to UKVI, that is.

 

But what are exceptional circumstances? Well the Home Office do not give a definitive answer, though they do give some examples (see below). Their attitude is that exceptional circumstances are just that; exceptional, and that each case will be looked at individually and considered on it's own merits.

UPDATED: Home Office makes changes to Appendix FM Minimum Income Rule following MM case is, as usual from them, an excellent summary of the situation. A few quotes follow.

 

I could go on, but think it's better that people read the whole article themselves.

 

They imply that they will not break up a family if it is impossible for the family to live in the spouses country, also they consider those who are unable to work through disability.  As much as I disagree with the concept, really how hard is it to find a £9 an hour job?  I would have thought anyone could if they were willing to put themselves out a bit, labourers on building sites are getting more than that these days, agricultural labourers from Eastern Europe are finding higher wages, what actually went wrong for those 5000?

[7by7]

5 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Yes Kieran, but those figures are for “declared” earnings; I’m sure you’ve been around the block enough times to appreciate that most self employed taxi drivers are 'cavaliers of the alternative economy' ?????? 

To use self employed earnings to meet the financial requirement evidence of those earnings including copies of one's Self Assessment returns and an SA300 or SA302 from HMRC has to be provided.

 

So undeclared income could not be used.

[Kieran00001]

4 hours ago, xkkpafi said:

Surprised that anyone still actually want to go a dump like the UK.

 

It is really only a dump where the poor peoole live, I guess you couldn't make it out of those areas.