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

[rasg]

One is A and the other is B. Two different reasons to apply or extend a visa.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

13 hours ago, jenny2017 said:

 

      Amazing. All the migrants in Germany have no problem to get people from their family in and the taxpayers bleed for it. How can they be so inhuman to revoke a visa for his wife?

 

     I hope that they'll soon be together, time for a petition with many signatures. I'm in. 

Firstly, what on earth have migrants in Germany got to do with a UK citizen who goes to Thailand, fathers a child at 58 years of age and then deserts the child and mother when he runs out of money ?

 

Secondly, how can a visa be revoked if they don’t have one, and if you mean application for visa revoked, as far as anyone knows, a visa has not been applied for because he knows it will be refused, for reasons already well discussed.

 

And finally, you want a petition so that this irresponsible chancer can circumnavigation a law that has been in place for 5 years and that thousands of other UK citizens have had to adhere to. Take it to the Pig & Whistle pub in Benidorm, you might get a few signatures there ?? ✌️✌️
 

[elviajero]

8 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

fathers a child at 58 years of age and then deserts the child and mother when he runs out of money ?

 

8 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

this irresponsible chancer

Sanctimonious much! 

 

You no nothing about this person. He could have £50K in his bank and still not qualify as a sponsor. A woman that is married to a Brit (birthright), and the mother of a Brit (birthright), should be able to live with her family automatically by right. The system is shot because of all the immigration mistakes of the past, and families like this are suffering.

 

He is simply complaining about the time he has to wait before the home office will accept proof of his income, and yet there are pages and pages of assumption, judgement and insults. All this "irresponsible chancer" wants is to live with his family in the UK instead of Thailand. Unbelievable!

[7by7]

20 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

You could just answer my question, how does this help someone trying to bring their non EU spouse intimthe UK.  

The question has been answered many times since the Surinder Singh route was first mentioned; both directly and in the many links provided. That you haven't bothered to read those links is your fault, not mine. in the links I have provided!

 

20 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

You say that the treaty right applies after th 3 months but it does state that after the 3 months that they will have to meet further requirements so as not to be a burden, that is meeting the financial threshold, right?

Wrong; as said many times, there is no set financial threshold for those entering the UK via the EEA regulations; as confirmed in the links to the guidance and regulations previously provided, which you would know had you bothered to read them.

 

20 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

So what difference does any of this make, you seem intent to avoid answering that, is that because it makes none?

I have attempted to explain the differences between the UK's family migration rules and the EEA regulations. I have provided links to them both and to the guidance on them both. Even if you found my explanations confusing, despite my efforts to keep such as simple as possible for you,  had you bothered to read the links you would know the differences.

 

19 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

I have read again and now I understand, hard to understand why you have explained it so poorly though

At last!  You have actually read and understand. explained it so poorly? Sorry if I made it difficult for you to comprehend by using polysyllables and linking to legal documents and regulations.

 

19 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

what you have neglected to say the entire time is that the treaty rights cannot be used in your own state, so all of this is only relevant to making the Singh route anyway, I thought you were claiming that someone could enter their own state on this right as you kept just saying all EEA nationals not EEA nationals in another EU state, but never mind we are on the same page now.

Whilst I can't remember the exact words used when I first mentioned the Surinder Singh route it was along the lines of "as he is living and working in Spain" which I thought made it clear. The guidance I linked to at the time, and the directive itself and the regulations I linked to since, certainly makes it clear.

 

 

 

 

[7by7]

19 hours ago, nontabury said:

Again I refer to post 635, which relates to the exemptions for Relations of asylum applicants.

 I repeat my  previous response, this time without bothering to correct the misinformation that post 635 contains.

 

This is a topic about family migration, not asylum. The asylum rules are not an exception to the family migration rules; they are a different set of rules altogether!

 

However, regular readers of the visas and immigration to other countries forum will be well aware of my opinion of the financial requirement for family migrants. That I believe it not only unfair, but totally illogical; that I believe the previous adequate maintenance requirement to be much fairer and more logical.

 

But, I also believe in dealing with the world as it is, not as I wish it to be.

[7by7]

18 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

19 hours ago, rasg said:

But it's UKVI and the Government that decides on what constitutes a significant difficulty. The bar has been set very high.

I don't know where the bar has been set, I just know what it says there and my interpretation of that a lack of ability to provide in the other country may be enough for them, perhaps it wouldn't though.

  Rasg is right, despite the Supreme Courts ruling the government have set the bar extremely high; see   

 

[keithpa]

On 9/17/2017 at 2:09 PM, MickTurator said:

Only if they were married before the birth.

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

You would have both to be dead for that to be possible.

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

The question has been answered many times since the Surinder Singh route was first mentioned; both directly and in the many links provided. That you haven't bothered to read those links is your fault, not mine. in the links I have provided!

 

Wrong; as said many times, there is no set financial threshold for those entering the UK via the EEA regulations; as confirmed in the links to the guidance and regulations previously provided, which you would know had you bothered to read them.

 

I have attempted to explain the differences between the UK's family migration rules and the EEA regulations. I have provided links to them both and to the guidance on them both. Even if you found my explanations confusing, despite my efforts to keep such as simple as possible for you,  had you bothered to read the links you would know the differences.

 

At last!  You have actually read and understand. explained it so poorly? Sorry if I made it difficult for you to comprehend by using polysyllables and linking to legal documents and regulations.

 

Whilst I can't remember the exact words used when I first mentioned the Surinder Singh route it was along the lines of "as he is living and working in Spain" which I thought made it clear. The guidance I linked to at the time, and the directive itself and the regulations I linked to since, certainly makes it clear.

 

 

 

 

 

Can you see any particular reason tha you can find the time to write epic posts but simulatiously are too impatient to answer a short question regarding them?  Hardly an endearing quality. 

[7by7]

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Can you see any particular reason tha you can find the time to write epic posts but simulatiously are too impatient to answer a short question regarding them?  Hardly an endearing quality. 

Questions asked have been answered. Sometimes in order to answer them fully and accurately lengthy posts are required. The various rules and regulations are complex and cannot be explained in one liners! I did my best to keep it simple, though, and linked to the relevant directives, regulations and guidance for those who required confirmation of further guidance. Not my fault that you couldn't be bothered to read those links.

 

I am not going to go through it all again; not only do I have better things to do, but it would also be extremely boring for everyone else and clog up this already lengthy topic even further with useless repetition!

 

Unless you have something new to say or ask, I wont be responding to you again.

[wakeupplease]

51 pages on this guy who no doubt got a large wad off the mirror, not a single mention of the UK lady with her two children who cannot get her American Husband of 7 years in for the same very reason. Laws are laws, except here where a farang gets treated like scum with local laws, wise up.

Edited October 15, 2017 by wakeupplease

[clashpie]

Can't Dellboy sort him out a visa for his Mrs?

You know it makes sense!

[nontabury]

20 minutes ago, wakeupplease said:

51 pages on this guy who no doubt got a large wad off the mirror, not a single mention of the UK lady with her two children who cannot get her American Husband of 7 years in for the same very reason. Laws are laws, except here where a farang gets treated like scum with local laws, wise up.

True, he’s no more special than anyone else. Allthoigj he has helped bring this problem to the attention of vast numbers of people.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

 

Sanctimonious much! 

 

You no nothing about this person. He could have £50K in his bank and still not qualify as a sponsor. A woman that is married to a Brit (birthright), and the mother of a Brit (birthright), should be able to live with her family automatically by right. The system is shot because of all the immigration mistakes of the past, and families like this are suffering.

 

He is simply complaining about the time he has to wait before the home office will accept proof of his income, and yet there are pages and pages of assumption, judgement and insults. All this "irresponsible chancer" wants is to live with his family in the UK instead of Thailand. Unbelievable!

You can continue to view him through celebrity tinted glasses, I really don't care. I have just called him out for exactly what he is. 

 

You are free to think it is responsible to father a child at 58 years of age in a non EU country knowing that you cannot support them financially, and knowing (or being so irresponsible as to not finding out) that you cannot bring them to live in the UK. I however will continue to view this as an act of gross irresponsibility.

 

“A woman that is married to a Brit (birthright), and the mother of a Brit (birthright), should be able to live with her family automatically by right” …… well they can’t, completely pointless comment  ….. everyone has to live by the laws relative to their particular scenario.

 

“You no nothing about this person” ….. I assume you mean “know”

 

Well I know that he was in Thailand in 2013
I know that he fathered a daughter there and she is nearly 3 years old now
I know that he married her mother in April 2016, days before returning to the UK
I know that he could not afford to support them in Thailand and that is why he returned 

 

I know that he had a great opportunity to bring them back to the UK by working the full tax year from April 2016 to April 2017 to provide the authorities with evidence of the minimum income requirement
I know that he spurned this opportunity by going to Spain on 21st February 2017 (10 months into the aforementioned tax year)

 

I know that he was making appearances in the Pig & Whistle pub in Benidorm in February and March 2017
I know that he has been subsequently appearing in ‘Sinatra’s Premium Bar” in Benidorm
I know that he said  ....... "Before this ruling came in, it would have been fine. Now I’ve got to be separated from my baby while she’s growing up” ……. 

I know that the the ruling he refers to has been in place for more than 5 years

I know that you will continue to defend him, whilst failing to show any concern for the real victims here ….. his wife and daughter         PEACE  ✌️✌️ ??

[nontabury]

31 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

You can continue to view him through celebrity tinted glasses, I really don't care. I have just called him out for exactly what he is. 

 

You are free to think it is responsible to father a child at 58 years of age in a non EU country knowing that you cannot support them financially, and knowing (or being so irresponsible as to not finding out) that you cannot bring them to live in the UK. I however will continue to view this as an act of gross irresponsibility.

 

“A woman that is married to a Brit (birthright), and the mother of a Brit (birthright), should be able to live with her family automatically by right” …… well they can’t, completely pointless comment  ….. everyone has to live by the laws relative to their particular scenario.

 

“You no nothing about this person” ….. I assume you mean “know”

 

Well I know that he was in Thailand in 2013
I know that he fathered a daughter there and she is nearly 3 years old now
I know that he married her mother in April 2016, days before returning to the UK
I know that he could not afford to support them in Thailand and that is why he returned 

 

I know that he had a great opportunity to bring them back to the UK by working the full tax year from April 2016 to April 2017 to provide the authorities with evidence of the minimum income requirement
I know that he spurned this opportunity by going to Spain on 21st February 2017 (10 months into the aforementioned tax year)

 

I know that he was making appearances in the Pig & Whistle pub in Benidorm in February and March 2017
I know that he has been subsequently appearing in ‘Sinatra’s Premium Bar” in Benidorm
I know that he said  ....... "Before this ruling came in, it would have been fine. Now I’ve got to be separated from my baby while she’s growing up” ……. 

I know that the the ruling he refers to has been in place for more than 5 years

I know that you will continue to defend him, whilst failing to show any concern for the real victims here ….. his wife and daughter         PEACE  ✌️✌️ ??

A complete rant, devoid of Any sympathy for this British child. 

How heartless.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

11 minutes ago, nontabury said:

A complete rant, devoid of Any sympathy for this British child. 

How heartless.

Which British child ??

 

Are you referring to Mr Murray or his daughter ..... ??

 

If you are referring to his daughter, I have made countless comments on this thread hoping that he is sending monthly maintenance payments to support her after he deserted her and her mother to return to the UK ..... I haven't seen any such comments from you  

 

.... and did you not read my last sentence  "I know that you will continue to defend him, whilst failing to show any concern for the real victims here ….. his wife and daughter" 

Edited October 15, 2017 by Eloquent pilgrim
grammar

[nontabury]

4 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Which British child ??

 

Are you referring to Mr Murray or his daughter ..... ??

 

If you are referring to his daughter, I have made countless comments on this thread hoping that he is sending monthly maintenance payments to support her after he deserted her and her mother to return to the UK ..... I haven't seen any such comments from you  

My only comment on cases like these is. As a British citizen,he should be allowed to bring his wife into the country along with his daughter, Without the need for financial restrictions. After all, refugees can.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

3 minutes ago, nontabury said:

My only comment on cases like these is. As a British citizen,he should be allowed to bring his wife into the country along with his daughter, Without the need for financial restrictions. After all, refugees can.

You failed to answer my question, which British child are you accusing me of being devoid of sympathy for ??

[Eloquent pilgrim]

13 minutes ago, nontabury said:

My only comment on cases like these is. As a British citizen,he should be allowed to bring his wife into the country along with his daughter, Without the need for financial restrictions. After all, refugees can.

But he's not allowed to ...... how difficult is that for you to understand. It has absolutely nothing to do with refugees and the laws that apply to their eligibility to immigration status 

[Kieran00001]

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Questions asked have been answered. Sometimes in order to answer them fully and accurately lengthy posts are required. The various rules and regulations are complex and cannot be explained in one liners! I did my best to keep it simple, though, and linked to the relevant directives, regulations and guidance for those who required confirmation of further guidance. Not my fault that you couldn't be bothered to read those links.

 

I am not going to go through it all again; not only do I have better things to do, but it would also be extremely boring for everyone else and clog up this already lengthy topic even further with useless repetition!

 

Unless you have something new to say or ask, I wont be responding to you again.

 

Except the question I asked three times has still not been answered, one last time, if your spouse enters an EEA country under this rule then it states that after 3 months they will have to meet local rules, if you cast your mind back to when I first joined this conversation I was referencing the different amounts that different countries deem to be sufficient not to become a burden with regard to their spouse visas, you claimed that it was not allowed to set a threashold under this route but according to what you have posted local regulations need to be met after three months, these local rules vary, some specify that you must be able to support yourself, I presume that the amount considered enough to not become a burden remain the same for the residency as they are for a spouse visa, but this is not mentioned anywhere that I cqn find, just ambiguous statements such as, demonstrate an ability to support yourself.  Do you know if they are the same or not?  If they are the same, then what difference does any of this make?  After all, you could just go to that country on a spouse visa, get residency after months and then move to the UK under the freedom of movement rules, what differnce does the EEA ruling actually make if you must meet the same local regulations regarding income threshold after three months, or are they different?

[rasg]

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

Although he has helped bring this problem to the attention of vast numbers of people.

Yes he has. One of the few worthwhile contributions to the 52 pages...

 

Most have no clue and that includes many, so called journalists who don't do their homework.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

A complete rant, devoid of Any sympathy for this British child. 

How heartless.

..........  do you have any idea whatsoever, even the tiniest clue, of the difference between a rant, and a chronological listing of a sequence of events …… nah, didn’t think so

[7by7]

18 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Except the question I asked three times has still not been answered, one last time, if your spouse enters an EEA country under this rule then it states that after 3 months they will have to meet local rules, if you cast your mind back to when I first joined this conversation I was referencing the different amounts that different countries deem to be sufficient not to become a burden with regard to their spouse visas, you claimed that it was not allowed to set a threashold under this route but according to what you have posted local regulations need to be met after three months, these local rules vary, some specify that you must be able to support yourself, I presume that the amount considered enough to not become a burden remain the same for the residency as they are for a spouse visa, but this is not mentioned anywhere that I cqn find, just ambiguous statements such as, demonstrate an ability to support yourself.  Do you know if they are the same or not?  If they are the same, then what difference does any of this make?  After all, you could just go to that country on a spouse visa, get residency after months and then move to the UK under the freedom of movement rules, what differnce does the EEA ruling actually make if you must meet the same local regulations regarding income threshold after three months, or are they different?

 <deleted>!!

 

I have said many times that there is no fixed minimum financial requirement, income, savings or combination of both, for those exercising a treaty right under the directive.

 

I have linked to the EEA regulations which confirm this; which you claim to have now read.

 

The requirement is to not be an unreasonable burden upon the state. Similar, but not identical, to the pre July 2012 adequate maintenance financial requirement for those entering under the family migration rules.

 

I have explained the difference between a member states own immigration rules and the freedom of movement directive.

 

I have also explained how the Surinder Singh ruling can be used to return to one's home state with one's non EEA national family after exercising a treaty right in another member state.

 

I have done all this in greater and greater detail following your questioning and included links to the directive itself, the relevant part of the UK's immigration rules and to the UK's EEA regulations.

 

It is complicated, so if you lack the intellectual capacity to understand all of this I sympathise, but I cannot help you further.

 

Although I suspect it isn't that you can't understand, it's that you choose not to. Get back under your bridge; I'm done with you.

Edited October 16, 2017 by 7by7

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 <deleted>!!

 

I have said many times that there is no fixed minimum financial requirement, income, savings or combination of both, for those exercising a treaty right under the directive.

 

I have linked to the EEA regulations which confirm this; which you claim to have now read.

 

The requirement is to not be an unreasonable burden upon the state. Similar, but not identical, to the pre July 2012 adequate maintenance financial requirement for those entering under the family migration rules.

 

I have explained the difference between a member states own immigration rules and the freedom of movement directive.

 

I have also explained how the Surinder Singh ruling can be used to return to one's home state with one's non EEA national family after exercising a treaty right in another member state.

 

I have done all this in greater and greater detail following your questioning and included links to the directive itself, the relevant part of the UK's immigration rules and to the UK's EEA regulations.

 

It is complicated, so if you lack the intellectual capacity to understand all of this I sympathise, but I cannot help you further.

 

Although I suspect it isn't that you can't understand, it's that you choose not to. Get back under your bridge; I'm done with you.

 

What is wrong with you?  Why are you insulting me and telling me to get under my bridge for asking if you know something that is neither in your previous posts nor in your links?

 

As I have clearly stated, I understand that you can enter in this way without any financial requirement, but it also says that after three months you must meet local requirements, as I also stated these requirements vary, some state that you must prove not to be a burden, others that you must be employed, as you above acknowledge there is a requirement not to be a burden, my question was if you know if the individual states measure this in the same way as they do for their respective spouse visas or in some other way?  You keep repeating irrelevant things as if you have not even read my questions, so I really should take a look at yourself before accusing others of lacking anything.

[rockingrobin]

19 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Except the question I asked three times has still not been answered, one last time, if your spouse enters an EEA country under this rule then it states that after 3 months they will have to meet local rules, if you cast your mind back to when I first joined this conversation I was referencing the different amounts that different countries deem to be sufficient not to become a burden with regard to their spouse visas, you claimed that it was not allowed to set a threashold under this route but according to what you have posted local regulations need to be met after three months, these local rules vary, some specify that you must be able to support yourself, I presume that the amount considered enough to not become a burden remain the same for the residency as they are for a spouse visa, but this is not mentioned anywhere that I cqn find, just ambiguous statements such as, demonstrate an ability to support yourself.  Do you know if they are the same or not?  If they are the same, then what difference does any of this make?  After all, you could just go to that country on a spouse visa, get residency after months and then move to the UK under the freedom of movement rules, what differnce does the EEA ruling actually make if you must meet the same local regulations regarding income threshold after three months, or are they different?

I cannot see anything in the UK eea rules that specify , must be able to support yourself after 3 months.

The initial residence rights , do state that if the EEA national and family member is  an unreasonable burden on the state then the right to reside does not apply.

There is no such statement for extended residence, only that they must be a qualified person.

 

The  Burden criteria is defined for migrants in the categories of student and self sufficient

 

(a)they exceed the maximum level of resources which a British citizen (including the resources of the British citizen’s family members) may possess if the British citizen is to become eligible for social assistance under the United Kingdom benefit system; or

(b)paragraph (a) does not apply but, taking into account the personal circumstances of the person concerned and, where applicable, all their relevant family members, it appears to the decision maker that the resources of the person or persons concerned should be regarded as sufficient.

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/1052/made

[rockingrobin]

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

What is wrong with you?  Why are you insulting me and telling me to get under my bridge for asking if you know something that is neither in your previous posts nor in your links?

 

As I have clearly stated, I understand that you can enter in this way without any financial requirement, but it also says that after three months you must meet local requirements, as I also stated these requirements vary, some state that you must prove not to be a burden, others that you must be employed, as you above acknowledge there is a requirement not to be a burden, my question was if you know if the individual states measure this in the same way as they do for their respective spouse visas or in some other way?  You keep repeating irrelevant things as if you have not even read my questions, so I really should take a look at yourself before accusing others of lacking anything.

Can you provide where UK legislation states after 3 months you have to meet local requirements

[Kieran00001]

8 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Can you provide where UK legislation states after 3 months you have to meet local requirements

 

The EEA rule is that you must.

[Kieran00001]

29 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Can you provide where UK legislation states after 3 months you have to meet local requirements

 

This is the part of UK legislation that I was looking for, it turns out it is a different requirement to the Spouse visa and I take it that it will be the same in all EEA countries, as long as you are not a burden in that you are not eligible for benefits then you will be allowed residency.  I managed to answer the question I had been getting to and managed to avoid more abuse from 7by7, in short, it is possible to go to a third country in the EEA for three months and then enter the UK on this route without ever having been working in the third country, great news, as can go somewhere very cheap such as Bulgaria where eligibility for benefits is very low.

 

The EEA national must therefore be able to provide evidence that they have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the UK’s social assistance system during their period of residence and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover. There is no fixed amount that is regarded as ‘sufficient resources’. The personal situation of each applicant must be taken into account.

There is no requirement regarding the origin of the resources on the basis of which an EU citizen may be self-sufficient.  To assess whether an EU national is self-sufficient in the UK, he or she only needs to show that there are sufficient resources available. This in turn means that the origin of the resources can equally be from employment of a spouse or other family member, a point made by the CJEU on several occasions (see, e.g., C-200/02 Chen [2004] ECR I-9525 and C-86/12 Alokpa 10 October 2013). Regulation 4(4) of the 2006 Regulations now confirms that an EEA national can qualify as self-sufficient based on the income of their non-EEA family member.

[7by7]

50 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

<snip>

What is wrong with you?  Why are you insulting me and telling me to get under my bridge for asking if you know something that is neither in your previous posts nor in your links?

What is wrong with me?

 

What is wrong with you, more like!

 

I answered your questions, I provided links to the relevant directives and regulations; yet you would not accept those answers because they proved you to be wrong.

 

8 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

This is the part of UK legislation that I was looking for, it turns out it is a different requirement to the Spouse visa and I take it that it will be the same in all EEA countries

Which is what I have been telling you from the very beginning!

[Kieran00001]

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

What is wrong with me?

 

What is wrong with you, more like!

 

I answered your questions, I provided links to the relevant directives and regulations; yet you would not accept those answers because they proved you to be wrong.

 

Which is what I have been telling you from the very beginning!

 

Wrong about what?  I just wanted my question answered, it was your funny take on it, a silly little fantasy you had of me, that said to you that I was arguing with you, I was actually questioning, asking what it changed, as I took the statement of having to prove not to be a burden as being more than it was, an assumption on my part that that would be measured in the same way as the spouse visas own requirement, having not read the extended parts of the legislation which I had not yet found.  I also found that there is a minimum time needed to be spent in the third country which you denied existed, it is 3 months as I originally stated I had heard, so perhaps you are not the best person to be asking advice from as you have clearly not read it in its entirety anyway. 

[7by7]