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

[Eloquent pilgrim]

3 hours ago, rasg said:

And that is exactly it. He believes him to be. Unless he knows something we don't, it's just supposition. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt knowing the only reason this even hit the headlines is because he played a relatively small part in a TV show many years ago.

“knowing the only reason this even hit the headlines is because he played a relatively small part in a TV show many years ago”  …….. huh, you're kidding right .......... the only reason this event hit the headlines is because he went to the Daily Mirror to sell his story ….. and what a remarkably one sided story he sold   ….. wakey wakey  

[rasg]

5 hours ago, wakeupplease said:

A story not worth the space it was given.

Very true but still worth 47 pages of mainly hogwash and guesswork with so many determined to blacken his name. He has been referred to as a chancer and many other things when none of us know the true story. You certainly won’t get that from the newspapers...

 

One silver lining. Eleoquent Pilgrim now has some knowledge of the Surinder Singh route.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

9 hours ago, rasg said:

Very true but still worth 47 pages of mainly hogwash and guesswork with so many determined to blacken his name. He has been referred to as a chancer and many other things when none of us know the true story. You certainly won’t get that from the newspapers...

 

One silver lining. Eleoquent Pilgrim now has some knowledge of the Surinder Singh route.

And what a remarkably edifying experience it has been, gaining some knowledge of the legendary Surinder Singh route; it's a shame that Mr Murray does not appear to have acquired the same knowledge, because if he is still in Spain, he will have been there for nearly 8 months now, well past the 3 month mandatory period. 

 

But maybe he is chancing his luck elsewhere these days, we just don't know, because since selling his sob story to the Mirror he appears to have gone incommunicado ?? ✌️✌️

[salavan]

17 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

There is nothing in the law to say that you should be married before your child is born in order to claim citizenship, it is whether or not your name is on the birth certificate, and even that is possible to add at a later day, although I think there was a time limit.   Some people seem to build the brick walls themselves that they then come up against.

There was something in the law that said you had to be married before 2006 after that the law in the uk changed before 2006 you had to he married or be recognised as the legal father in Thailand by court order then you could apply for the child's citizen ship in the UK but the decision would be discretionary by the home office 

[Kieran00001]

10 minutes ago, salavan said:

There was something in the law that said you had to be married before 2006 after that the law in the uk changed before 2006 you had to he married or be recognised as the legal father in Thailand by court order then you could apply for the child's citizen ship in the UK but the decision would be discretionary by the home office 

 

Ok, but someone born out of wedlock outside of the UK to a British parent prior to 2006 can still get citizenship today, I just looked it up, but yes it is somewhat discretionary, the applicant must be of good character, that seems to be the only discretion.

[jimster]

On 9/17/2017 at 1:41 PM, FreddieRoyle said:

Indeed. Rules for ethnic Brits are not the same as for other ethnicities, even though we were born there. Sheer madness. Immigration officer was touchy (to put it mildly) when we commented as above on a prior visit to the UK.

I would have given that officer my two cents. It's disgusting that foreigners (depending on their ethnicity or religion) can get more rights than the locals who built the country - a clear sign of a declining society (although it's probably not a policy that has been put in writing but rather something that happens in practice). In a few decades at the latest, the UK will be dead. I personally wouldn't be caught dead living in that country and it's not just because of it's cold, cloudy, rainy and otherwise dreary weather - despite it's faults Thailand is way better in so many respects - it still has a national identity, there aren't too many laws, the media isn't weaponized, the locals aren't constantly being demoralized and reviled by the ruling classes and foreigners.

[sanemax]

3 minutes ago, jimster said:

 It's disgusting that foreigners (depending on their ethnicity or religion) can get more rights than the locals who built the country - 

Are you saying that the Thai Woman in question should be let into the UK to receive housing and benefits , possible ahead of a British Woman , or are you saying that She should not be allowed in ?

[sanemax]

14 minutes ago, jimster said:

I personally wouldn't be caught dead living in that country and it's not just because of it's cold, cloudy, rainy and otherwise dreary weather - despite it's faults Thailand is way better in so many respects - it still has a national identity,

Have a got this right ?

You are a foreigner living in Thailand who prefers Thailand to the UK , because the UK lets too many foreigners in and Thailand doesnt and you would like the UK to let one more foreigner in ?

[rasg]

6 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

But maybe he is chancing his luck elsewhere these days, we just don't know, because since selling his sob story to the Mirror he appears to have gone incommunicado

I hope he did well out of it but I doubt it. It also appeared in the Mail, the Star and the Sun too and it was almost identical in each newspaper. And you have finally acknowledged that you just don't know. 47 pages of guessing, name blackening and you don't know.

 

[abrahamzvi]

On 10/11/2017 at 9:59 AM, Eloquent pilgrim said:

With respect, any laws applying to asylum seekers or refugees are irrelevant to this issue. He is a British citizen that has been living in  Thailand and now wants to bring his wife, who is a Thai national, to live in the UK. The only law that is relevant is the law governing bringing a spouse from a non EU country; as I have said before he should have made sure that he was fully aware of those rules and if he did not then it is irresponsible, especially as it has meant leaving a wife and young daughter behind.

 

To the best of my knowledge, we do not even know if he has made an application for her (and the daughter) or if he just realised that he does not meet the minimum income requirement, and did not bother to waste money on an application that would of failed; either way, he cannot expect to be excused from the relative law just because he was a bit part celebrity 30 years ago. I have 2 friends that have brought their Thai wives back to live in the UK, they fulfilled the income criteria that the law demands, and so must he ..... and again, as I have said before, I hope that he is sending monthly maintenance payments for his daughter ?? ✌️✌️

As far as referring to the existing laws is concerned, you are right. However, as I stated before, I consider the laws you are referring to as anti social and unjust. Why should a poor man, or woman, not earning the minimum required by law, be barred from leading a family life, which is really a generations old social tradition. This principle, people leading a family life (with wife/husband and children) irrespective of their income, is applied to refugees, a principle which, I emphasize, I fully support. However this principle does not apply to the country's own citizens. Does this make sense, does this make a society healthy and just?!!!

[rasg]

The Government rational is that a couple living here where one is for outside the EU should be able to stand on their own two feet financially without having to rely on tax payers money to top up their income to live. It sounds reasonable to me. I object to the high cost of the visas though.

[Kieran00001]

6 minutes ago, abrahamzvi said:

As far as referring to the existing laws is concerned, you are right. However, as I stated before, I consider the laws you are referring to as anti social and unjust. Why should a poor man, or woman, not earning the minimum required by law, be barred from leading a family life, which is really a generations old social tradition. This principle, people leading a family life (with wife/husband and children) irrespective of their income, is applied to refugees, a principle which, I emphasize, I fully support. However this principle does not apply to the country's own citizens. Does this make sense, does this make a society healthy and just?!!!

 

If you cannot live in the spouses country, which could be argued due to not being able to gain employment there, then you can apply to bring your spouse to the UK despite not earning enough, its all made clear in the website, they do not intend to break up families but most of the time the person just doesn't want to live in the other country, those people will not be entertained, it must be proven as being not a possibility, and this failed actor turned cabby would no doubt have that on his side, what would Thailand find for him to do?

[Kieran00001]

5 minutes ago, rasg said:

The Government rational is that a couple living here where one is for outside the EU should be able to stand on their own two feet financially without having to rely on tax payers money to top up their income to live. It sounds reasonable to me. I object to the high cost of the visas though.

 

Does it sound reasonable to you that a British persons spouse must not be a burden on the state for the first five years that they're are in the Uk but an EU immigrant with no attachment to the Uk can become a burden after just 3 months?

[7by7]

20 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Holland has a minimum income of about 1500 euro, France about 800, Germany just states reasonable funds, the UK we already know is 18k per year.

 The UK financial requirement, such as a minimum income of £18,600 p.a. applies to those applying for settlement under the family migration rules, not the EEA regulations. If there is any mention of a minimum income in the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 then I can't find it.

 

Are you sure the figures for the Netherlands and France you've quoted are for EEA migrants and their non EEA national family members?

[Kieran00001]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

 The UK financial requirement, such as a minimum income of £18,600 p.a. applies to those applying for settlement under the family migration rules, not the EEA regulations. If there is any mention of a minimum income in the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 then I can't find it.

 

Are you sure the figures for the Netherlands and France you've quoted are for EEA migrants and their non EEA national family members?

 

The EEA regulations state that you must also meet the local requirements, otherwise the family migration rules would be superceded by the EEA for the UK.

[7by7]

20 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

“Even if he is paid in cash, you have no reason to believe that he is being paid illegally and is not paying whatever Spanish taxes are required of him”

 

…….. meanwhile, in the real world, you have no reason to believe otherwise 

However, I have seen nothing to suggest that he went to Spain to utilise the Surinder Singh route, absolutely nothing whatsoever. 

 

There is nothing in the article that mentions it; so it would appear to merely be something that you are obsessed with, and nothing to do with why Mr Murray went to Spain, or his complaint that the UK government are somehow to blame for his wife and daughter not being able to join him in the UK …… or Spain, or wherever he happens to be right now  …..

 Ok, you believe that if he is living and working in Spain he is doing so illegally, even though he has the right to do so under the freedom of movement directive; we get that.

 

Not obsessed with Surinder Singh, merely discussing it in the context of his possible situation as it is one option open to him and his wife.

[rockingrobin]

22 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The EEA regulations state that you must also meet the local requirements, otherwise the family migration rules would be superceded by the EEA for the UK.

deleted

[7by7]

19 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

There is nothing in the law to say that you should be married before your child is born in order to claim citizenship, it is whether or not your name is on the birth certificate, and even that is possible to add at a later day, although I think there was a time limit.   Some people seem to build the brick walls themselves that they then come up against.

 

That is the current situation; but was so not before 1st July 2006.

 

Before that British fathers could not pass their British citizenship onto their children born outside the UK or a qualifying territory unless they were married to the mother. Although the child would become British if the father subsequently married the mother or, if their parents didn't subsequently marry, it was, and still is, possible to register the child as British.

 

Since 1st July 2006 unmarried British fathers have automatically passed their British citizenship to their children born outside the UK or a qualifying territory the same as unmarried British mothers.

 

Edit:

I see this has been covered already.

[rasg]

30 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

Does it sound reasonable to you that a British persons spouse must not be a burden on the state for the first five years that they're are in the Uk but an EU immigrant with no attachment to the Uk can become a burden after just 3 months?

I don't agree with it but they are the rules and presumably they will change after we leave the EU. There is supposedly a reciprocal arrangement between the UK and other EU members but as, say in Romania, where the annual salary is a 10th of what it is here, who wants to actually move there?

 

 

[Kieran00001]

4 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The EU FoM is a directive and as such each member state has to incorporate into domestic law, thus beomes part of UK law

 

FOM does not cover non EU spouses, the directive in question, the EEA family permit, states that you must also meet the requirements of the individual state, the requirement of the UK being a minimum income of 18k, others have different requirements, Spain only requiring employment.

[Kieran00001]

5 minutes ago, rasg said:

I don't agree with it but they are the rules and presumably they will change after we leave the EU. There is supposedly a reciprocal arrangement between the UK and other EU members but as, say in Romania, where the annual salary is a 10th of what it is here, who wants to actually move there?

 

 

 

The rule regarding non EU spouses has nothing to do with the EU so don't expect that one to change.

[Kieran00001]

9 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

That is the current situation; but was so not before 1st July 2006.

 

Before that British fathers could not pass their British citizenship onto their children born outside the UK or a qualifying territory unless they were married to the mother. Although the child would become British if the father subsequently married the mother or, if their parents didn't subsequently marry, it was, and still is, possible to register the child as British, provided they do so before the child reaches the age of 18.

 

Since 1st July 2006 unmarried British fathers have automatically passed their British citizenship to their children born outside the UK or a qualifying territory the same as unmarried British mothers.

 

Which does counter what the OP was claiming, that they have been up against this law since their child was born, in actual fact they could have just registered their child and perhaps still could if they are not yet 18.

[7by7]

49 minutes ago, rasg said:

The Government rational is that a couple living here where one is for outside the EU should be able to stand on their own two feet financially without having to rely on tax payers money to top up their income to live. It sounds reasonable to me. I object to the high cost of the visas though.

 I have no problem with the requirement for a family where one or more is an immigrant being required to support themselves without resort to public funds; never have,

 

What I do object to is an arbitrary minimum figure which takes absolutely no account of the varying cost of living in different parts of the UK and completely ignores fixed outgoings such as rent or mortgage and servicing debts.

 

The pre July 2012 adequate maintenance requirement did both of these, and was not only fairer but also more logical.

 

Although most estimates of the average UK income are around £27,000 p.a., people forget that this includes everyone, from people on zero hours contracts earning minimum wage to premier league footballers on tens of thousands of pounds a week! Many estimates say that around 40% of British workers earn less than £18,600 p.a.

[7by7]

59 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Does it sound reasonable to you that a British persons spouse must not be a burden on the state for the first five years that they're are in the Uk but an EU immigrant with no attachment to the Uk can become a burden after just 3 months?

You, like many others, have forgotten that the provisions of the freedom of movement directive apply to British citizens living in other EEA member states and Switzerland as well.

 

At the moment; post Brexit, who knows?

 

23 minutes ago, rasg said:

I don't agree with it but they are the rules and presumably they will change after we leave the EU. There is supposedly a reciprocal arrangement between the UK and other EU members but as, say in Romania, where the annual salary is a 10th of what it is here, who wants to actually move there?

 Maybe not Romania, but there are approximately 1.5 million British citizens exercising their treaty rights in another EEA state or Switzerland. No doubt some of them are claiming benefits there.

[7by7]

21 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

FOM does not cover non EU spouses, the directive in question, the EEA family permit, states that you must also meet the requirements of the individual state, the requirement of the UK being a minimum income of 18k, others have different requirements, Spain only requiring employment.

 Have you read the directive? I linked to it before, but here it is again

 

It does cover qualifying non EU national family members of EEA nationals. From the preamble

Quote

(5) The right of all Union citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member

States should, if it is to be exercised under objective conditions of freedom and dignity, be

also granted to their family members, irrespective of nationality. For the purposes of this

Directive, the definition of "family member" should also include the registered partner if the

legislation of the host Member State treats registered partnership as equivalent to marriage.

 

You are also still confusing the UK's immigration rules with the directive and the UK's EEA regulations. They are not the same and there is no minimum income required for those entering via the EEA route. The financial requirement is part of the immigration rules, not the EEA regulations.

[Kieran00001]

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

You, like many others, have forgotten that the provisions of the freedom of movement directive apply to British citizens living in other EEA member states and Switzerland as well.

 

At the moment; post Brexit, who knows?

 

 Maybe not Romania, but there are approximately 1.5 million British citizens exercising their treaty rights in another EEA state or Switzerland. No doubt some of them are claiming benefits there.

 

I am not forgetting anything, but does it seem to fair to you that an EU immigrant can receive benefits after only a few months of paying in taxes whereas a British citizens spouse and parent of a British child cannot for 5 years and if they were to require benefits then they would be deported?  I am not complaining about the benefits given to some immigrants, I am disgusted with the way our government is treating British familes, there should at least be continuity, if we can afford to take in EU immigrants who quickly become a burden then we can afford British people's spouses.  The fact that we have to take in the EU immigrants has actually nothing to do with what I am talking about, which is British made benefits rules.

[rockingrobin]

 

deleted

[7by7]

27 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Which does counter what the OP was claiming, that they have been up against this law since their child was born, in actual fact they could have just registered their child and perhaps still could if they are not yet 18.

 As i said much earlier in this topic, the article quoted in the OP is very short of facts when it comes to Uk immigration law.

 

There is no need to register the child as British; as she was born after 1st July 2006 then she is British already; provided Murray is, himself, British not by descent; i.e. was born in the UK or a qualifying territory and at least one of his parents was British.

 

If so, then the child is British by descent, i.e. inherited her citizenship from her father, and so cannot pass her British citizenship onto her children unless they are born in the UK or a qualifying territory.

[Kieran00001]

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Have you read the directive? I linked to it before, but here it is again

 

It does cover qualifying non EU national family members of EEA nationals. From the preamble

 

You are also still confusing the UK's immigration rules with the directive and the UK's EEA regulations. They are not the same and there is no minimum income required for those entering via the EEA route. The financial requirement is part of the immigration rules, not the EEA regulations.

 

Read paragragh 10, it is up to the individual state to set the conditions of stay of over 3 months to make sure that they do not become a burden, the UK sets this at 18k, Holland at 1500 Euro per month, France at 800 Euro per month and Spaín at just being in employment.  Nothing you have posted counters anything or changes anything, you must meet the individual states requirment in order to remain.

[7by7]

16 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

I am not forgetting anything, but does it seem to fair to you that an EU immigrant can receive benefits after only a few months of paying in taxes whereas a British citizens spouse and parent of a British child cannot for 5 years and if they were to require benefits then they would be deported?  I am not complaining about the benefits given to some immigrants, I am disgusted with the way our government is treating British familes, there should at least be continuity, if we can afford to take in EU immigrants who quickly become a burden then we can afford British people's spouses.  The fact that we have to take in the EU immigrants has actually nothing to do with what I am talking about, which is British made benefits rules.

 I am not saying it is right nor fair; but it is the law; at least until Brexit.

 

I would not be at all surprised if on some other internet forum a, for example, Spanish citizen was saying exactly the same about British migrants in Spain!

 

But are EEA migrants a drain on the UK public purse? Do they come here to leech off the UK's benefits system? Not when taken as a whole: UK gains £20bn from European migrants, UCL economists reveal

Quote

European migrants to the UK are not a drain on Britain’s finances and pay out far more in taxes than they receive in state benefits, a new study has revealed.