Jump to content

Normal UK immigration rules for Yingluck: Don


webfact

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, CGW said:

For some reason? The UK & the Uk press has always been very "forgiving" of the Thai's, specifically why I have no idea?

Is that why the Daily Mail, Andrew Marshall and Andrew Drummond are banned then?

Edited by Orton Rd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

I think you solved their problem - no color printer and no colored photo copy paper. How to do a Blue Notice then!!!

 

Whilst she was indeed the last elected PM, she was also the last PM removed from office by a court! The UK, like all developed major countries will be very well informed on all the dalliances and habits of the Shins. Just as they will the Junta. It's the mega wealth and all the benefits that brings that's the driver. Politically, the UK seem fairly neutral. Military exercises with the Junta, plenty of business and educational development as usual. The UK isn't going to actively support the Shins politically. So better she pursues the mega wealth route to citizenship,

 

They stand little chance of extradition though, even if they ever manage to get that far. Fall at the first hurdle.

Well now, neither of us believe that the Junta/Shinawatra balance is "six of one and half a dozen of the other", and we certainly lean in opposing directions in ascribing malice and virtue, but at least we can agree, any extradition attempt, viewed from either position, will fall at the first hurdle. Can you imagine the slavering chops in "Runn, Grabbitt and Sue - Solicitors Specialising in Asylum and Extradition Cases."

 

I have a friend (what they would here call a"Ladyboy" but that is another story) who is a barrister. As well as "LGBT" discrimination cases (I always thought they were a brand of garden model railway manufactured in Germany) she also deals with asylum cases. We had a fascinating conversation on Skype a couple of weeks ago. She doubts it would ever get to any form of arbitration (or courts) either as asylum or extradition, but if it does would love the brief. She reckons she could retire on the proceeds!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Orton Rd said:

Is that why the Daily Mail, Andrew Marshall and Andrew Drummond are banned then?

Is that sarcasm? it may be an issue that others don't want banning, but I'm sure you have your own opinion as to why they give "fair" press if there is such a phrase in this day and age, I was merely asking if anyone had an intelligent reason why, obviously wasted my time with some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, sawadee1947 said:

Prayut's power ends at Thailand's borders.

If Yingluck needs a new passport (EU) then she will take some money to buy one. The former Yugoslavia countries are very generous. Or even Malta. It might be a pain in your ass dear PM, isn't?

 

Only one former Yugoslavian country is actually in the EU, Slovenia, and in order to gain citizenship you must live there part of the year for 5 years before applying. 

 

Malta are selling off some citizenship's under their individual investor scheme, but one of their requirements is that you must have already have had 12 months residency before applying.

 

I do not believe there are any countries in the EU that you can just walk in and buy citizenship, there are only a few that you can in the world and none of them offer an attractive passport. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, bheard said:

 


The revoking exercise was only recent. They didn't do it earlier so as she would have time to travel where she wanted.

Sent from my BLL-L22 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

Of course, the last thing they want is to succeed to bring her back. One month ago, they also trumpeted that they would ask for a red notice to be issued. And now, nobody talks again about a red notice, only about "locating" her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Only one former Yugoslavian country is actually in the EU, Slovenia, and in order to gain citizenship you must live there part of the year for 5 years before applying. 

 

Malta are selling off some citizenship's under their individual investor scheme, but one of their requirements is that you must have already have had 12 months residency before applying.

 

I do not believe there are any countries in the EU that you can just walk in and buy citizenship, there are only a few that you can in the world and none of them offer an attractive passport. 

That is not quite right: you forgot Croatia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Thechook said:

Now let's hear what England has to say.  This Thai government has a reputation of making statements for others.  At the moment it's just manure being fed to the mushrooms.

Well the British immigration kicked Thaksin out so it is unlikely that they would accept his criminal sister.  Given that the UK does criminal checks on "normal" Thais applying it would be pretty poor practice to accept someone on the run.

 

As it says in the above article “The UK said that if Yingluck came to stay in the UK, there would not be an issue of political asylum. If she wanted to stay, she would need to follow the normal immigration process,”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, yellowboat said:

Why? Just because the Thai government happily treats foreigners poorly does not mean other governments must do the same.  The rights of a Thai national who behaves lawfully is no business of the Thai government.  Thai law does not have any influence of foreign countries.  Should ?  Why ?

Its really not about Thai law doesn't have any influence. Its more like the political forces and backings of influential figure preventing the police and court from issuing the official extradition documents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, webfact said:

Wherever Yingluck is located, the host country should confirm her whereabouts to Thailand so official procedures could be carried out, Prayut said, apparently referring to extradition efforts by authorities. 

Some neck on this guy telling the International community what they should do for him and his agenda, after countless humanitarian and political breaches of international concerns on domestic Thai issues ignored day in and day out.

 

He becomes more alienated with reality every millisecond.

Edited by coulson
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Yingluck did apply for asylum in the UK, such information would not be shared with the Thai government.

 

If she chose to visit, or settle there, Yingluck would not be subject to extradition because the offence she was convicted of in Thailand has no equivalent in the UK. 

 

She has not subject to a flag of any hue by interpol despite Thailand's request, because the Thai powers that be have not provided information to justify it.

 

Thus, despite all the big talk by some, she will remain free to carry on her merry way, carrying the passport of whatever country is prepared to grant her citizenship for a consideration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mike324 said:

Its really not about Thai law doesn't have any influence. Its more like the political forces and backings of influential figure preventing the police and court from issuing the official extradition documents.

Given that a policeman allegedly drove Yingluck to the border, already says a lot.  Before they actually issue any documents, they have to locate her.  Even if they do find her, few elected governments would pander to coup leaders.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don seems to know more than the UK does on this or think he does more of the brownstuff.

 

If you think the UK will take any notice of this lot you are mad, their are principles in Democracy and none with this country as it is right now.

 

When and if a story leeks the press in the UK will tell it not Don and his ar>> of liars.

 

What would they do if she is given asylum, send over the sub and snatch her back or send the men in black, not a chance in hell and they know it> The UK is not Laos and has in the passed had a problem that is still on the records, that is why there are no visits there by some.

Edited by wakeupplease
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked a friend who is still serving in the right place in the UK so he knows if an extradition was possible.

 

Another poster has stated this also

 

For a extradition to take place between the UK and Thailand a person must have committed a crime in that country, that is also a crime in the UK. The UK would access a crime and if found to be political reject any applications on those grounds. This would be a big problem for Thailand to face so it is thought no request will ever be made.

 

So more of the brownstuff going on Don.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

She could easily buy citizenship as an investor if she wants.

No she could not BB, her brother tried this and put many tens of millions (talking GBP now) into a business and was told to sell it.

 

Anyone can buy a house in the UK, the latest figures are showing people buying (investing) who have never actually been there.

Citizenship --no . That's a whole different question as her brother found out.  He did want to live in London as he stated some years ago.

Thailand's former premier Thaksin Shinawatra

Monday announced his decision to seek political asylum in Britain.

-Thaksin issued a statement from London in this regard. August 11, 2008

https://web.archive.org/web/20090323004713/http://news.smashits.com/281898/FormerThai-premier-seeks-asylum-in-Britain.htm

He withdraw the attempt to do so after meeting with the foreign office. I think Yingluck would stand as much chance as him in attaining UK Citizenship--Slim & none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/11/2017 at 12:38 PM, Kieran00001 said:

 

Her own brother "rolled like that".

I don't believe Thaksin Shinawatra ever applied for political asylum in a Western nation. I believe he stayed in the UK on an investor visa.

 

So, I don't understand your comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Briggsy said:

I don't believe Thaksin Shinawatra ever applied for political asylum in a Western nation. I believe he stayed in the UK on an investor visa.

 

So, I don't understand your comment.

 

His lawyer said that he had put in a claim for asylum in the UK and then withdrew the application when the UK revoked his visa following charges being pressed on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

His lawyer said that he had put in a claim for asylum in the UK and then withdrew the application when the UK revoked his visa following charges being pressed on him.

There is no UK "asylum visa" which allows the applicant multiple entries, to travel around the world whilst his/her claim for asylum is processed. 

 

The lawyer's claim therefore doesn't make sense. I don't believe for a moment any Shinawatra ever made an official claim for political asylum in the UK. It is all just political rhetoric. (as is the false extradition claims by the other side) No reliable source has ever stated that Thaksin or Yingluck ever made an official claim for political asylum in the UK.

 

Please feel free to provide any reliable source refuting my assertions that Thaksin ever claimed political asylum in the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Briggsy said:

There is no UK "asylum visa" which allows the applicant multiple entries, to travel around the world whilst his/her claim for asylum is processed. 

 

The lawyer's claim therefore doesn't make sense. I don't believe for a moment any Shinawatra ever made an official claim for political asylum in the UK. It is all just political rhetoric. (as is the false extradition claims by the other side) No reliable source has ever stated that Thaksin or Yingluck ever made an official claim for political asylum in the UK.

 

Please feel free to provide any reliable source refuting my assertions that Thaksin ever claimed political asylum in the UK.

 

The visa that was cancelled was just a normal visa, your comment is the thing that makes no sense.  You can make an application for asylum on any visa, without a visa, or in any other legal situation within the country you are applying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The visa that was cancelled was just a normal visa, your comment is the thing that makes no sense.  You can make an application for asylum on any visa, without a visa, or in any other legal situation within the country you are applying.

You have no source. Because Thaksin Shinawatra never made any application for political asylum in the UK, contrary to your claim. You do not wish to admit you were wrong. I understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Briggsy said:

I don't believe Thaksin Shinawatra ever applied for political asylum in a Western nation. I believe he stayed in the UK on an investor visa.

So, I don't understand your comment.

Then either you ...or Wikipedia and all the British newspapers have it wrong Biggsy......

 

I think I know where I would put my money..........:omfg:

 

The Home Office told officials in Bangkok that it had taken the decision to withdraw the visas of Mr Thaksin and his wife, apparently after he was found guilty by a Thai court of misusing his position while Prime Minister. His conviction in absentia is just the latest twist in the turbulent career of the flamboyant politician, who was ousted by a bloodless military coup in 2006.

  In exile, he spent much of his time in the UK, where he applied for asylum, snapped up a house in Surrey and bought himself a football team. But now, facing jail if he returns to Thailand and unable to enter Britain, Mr Thaksin is in need of another home.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/thaksin-searches-for-bolthole-after-uk-withdraws-visa-1003966.html

-----------------------

Thailand's former premier Thaksin Shinawatra

  Monday announced his decision to seek political asylum in Britain.

Thaksin issued a statement from London in this regard. August 11, 2008

https://web.archive.org/web/20090323004713/http://news.smashits.com/281898/Former-

Thai-premier-seeks-asylum-in-Britain.htm

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

You have no source. Because Thaksin Shinawatra never made any application for political asylum in the UK, contrary to your claim. You do not wish to admit you were wrong. I understand.

 

According to the Mirror the home office confirmed that he did make an application.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/thaksin-shinawatra-seeking-political-asylum-344507

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

According to the Mirror the home office confirmed that he did make an application.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/thaksin-shinawatra-seeking-political-asylum-344507

 

 

Thank you for providing a source.

 

I can see that the way this has been written by The Mirror it leads the reader to think an application for political asylum had been made. However the article does not explicitly state that.

 

Contrast that with this article from the FT which is more detailed.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/f91bc66c-ae4d-11dd-b621-000077b07658

 

It clearly states the Thaksin and Potjaman were in the UK on "tourist" visas a.k.a. visitor visas.

 

And look at this. In order to travel abroad, asylum seekers must request their passports back to travel outside the UK which automatically withdraws any asylum request.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/travel-abroad-process

 

Given the info above, it is impossible Thaksin made an asylum application.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Briggsy said:

Thank you for providing a source.

 

I can see that the way this has been written by The Mirror it leads the reader to think an application for political asylum had been made. However the article does not explicitly state that.

 

Contrast that with this article from the FT which is more detailed.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/f91bc66c-ae4d-11dd-b621-000077b07658

 

It clearly states the Thaksin and Potjaman were in the UK on "tourist" visas a.k.a. visitor visas.

 

And look at this. In order to travel abroad, asylum seekers must request their passports back to travel outside the UK which automatically withdraws any asylum request.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/travel-abroad-process

 

Given the info above, it is impossible Thaksin made an asylum application.

 

"Where the claimant travels without first requesting the return of a passport for this purpose, the asylum claim will normally be treated as withdrawn upon embarkation for any destination outside the UK"

 

Given the above information I can not understand how anyone could reach your conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.








×
×
  • Create New...
""