7 hours ago, cornishcarlos said:

 

You need to give us married folk a 10 year visa too ?

Why, what's so special about being married to a Thai?

2 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Not sure the election law and constitution allows Thaksin to place her as PM. Junta may do that but not civilian government.

 

All not lost. You do have compassion for those killed by the military. I too have sympathy for innocent children killed and hope the justice system will hunt them down and convict whoever they are. 

 

Showing your ignorance and / naivety again? She was elected PM by the PTP MP's. Guess who employed them all?

 

In a real country those carrying out the attacks and murders, and those financing and instructing it, would be hunted down and brought to justice. Same with those causing death by driving through drink, drugs, speed, messing with phones etc etc. Wishful thinking.

6 hours ago, Darcula said:

 

Is this the same visa category as the Red Bull kid, UK?

Why would anyone here be privy to knowing what Vorayuth's visa is?

2 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

Why, what's so special about being married to a Thai?

 

Same as anyone being married to a person of a different nationality. They are a couple and should be able to easily live in either country especially as children will likely be citizens of both.

Oh....those pathetic army clowns simply could not do anything over this issue.......LOL

4 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

Why, what's so special about being married to a Thai?

 

Um, not really understanding your comment !!

My comment was referring to people living in Thailand, with a Thai spouse, being given a longer visa..

Nothing super special about it, well apart from my wife, she's "different" 

4 hours ago, eggers said:

So how come "the Puppet" gets a Visa w/ an outstanding Arrest Warrant against her, yet Julian Assange has to be holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy?

She hasn't committed an arrestable offence in the UK, Assange has, he's stuck in  there because he'll be arrested if he sets foot on British soil.

Thailand's loss is Britain's gain. 

What nonsense and sophistry. Conjecture to meet your own preferred agenda.
 
She has a passport and therefore citizenship of a European country (note European not EU member state).
There are no Interpol notices out for her and despite all the internal BS no real attempts from the Junta to extradite her.
She has not been convicted of any crime by her country of current citizenship, the one that issued the passport and nor have they seemingly been asked to extradite her.
She is a billionaire and can easily afford expensive immigration lawyers to obtain the visa for her. Investor class visas require certain amounts of money which are chump change for her.
The UK has also granted visas to Russian billionaires with dubious backgrounds, and not necessarily on Russian passports.
 
If you are a billionaire it's fairly easy to buy citizenship from numerous countries for what to a billionaire is chum change. What's surprising is she and her brother didn't go for Malta or Cyprus which would have given them a EU passport. Or perhaps they tried and couldn't get them?
 
The UK is following it's visa rules. The Thai government, despite all the bluster, aren't actively pursuing her extradition or arrest. She has the resources to fly around privately and employ an army of lawyers. 
 
She pissed off before the verdict, despite countless promises she'd never flea, and 'die for democracy" - 555! Just like her brother, corrupt liar whose self interest is paramount. Hyperbole about show trials is nonsense. If they wanted that she'd never been allowed to leave. 
 
I wondered how long it would take the Shin fans to try and exploit this and claim it shows Yingluck to be innocent. Didn't have to wait long did we!
 

Someone is guilty as charged when relevant and undisputable evidence has been brought to table in a fair trial, free of influence from certain third parties using article 44 to ensure a conviction. No one in their right mind could claim the evidence is undisputed or the trial she received was fair.

Wether the above was any consideration in awarding her a visa I can only guess. But let's not pretend that the trial she received was anything othrt than a shameful political witch hunt...

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

3 hours ago, Lancashireman said:

Think you need to research your comment. A visa request and a ‘foreign’ passport are not synonymously connected. She obviously has a passport, and applied under routine procedures. And I would suggest it was through the British system.

 

How would that explain her needing a visa to enter the UK, then?

2 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Someone is guilty as charged when relevant and undisputable evidence has been brought to table in a fair trial, free of influence from certain third parties using article 44 to ensure a conviction. No one in their right mind could claim the evidence is undisputed or the trial she received was fair.

Wether the above was any consideration in awarding her a visa I can only guess. But let's not pretend that the trial she received was anything othrt than a shameful political witch hunt...

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk
 

Witch is the right term,     so you think she was squeaky clean  OMG

32 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

Why on earth would you be happy for a corrupt greedy immoral politician and a family that has thieved billions by exploiting the people?

Because she is a nice lady who speaks excellent English and was elected by the people. 

I have met her myself btw. If I would pick a lady to marry I would pick her instead of an uneducated Isaan farm girl. 

 

 

Edited May 29, 20188 yr by balo

 
Same as anyone being married to a person of a different nationality. They are a couple and should be able to easily live in either country especially as children will likely be citizens of both.

And they indeed can, In both countries I might add. Once you comply with visa regulations. The people whinging about 90 days reporting must have missed that Yingluck has to leave the uk every six months as mentioned in the Op.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

3 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

And they indeed can, In both countries I might add. Once you comply with visa regulations. The people whinging about 90 days reporting must have missed that Yingluck has to leave the uk every six months as mentioned in the Op.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk
 

BUT  she only has to do that, she already has the 10 year visa,   at the most we have to report every 90 days and have to renew every year.   DIFFERENT.

 

8 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

The implication of this is that the UK specifically and several other countries in general do not recognize the legitimacy of the court case against her.

 

 

 

That's the romantic interpretation, in reality its simple diplomacy/politics playing both sides of the fence as the Shins will no doubt be part of Thai politics for years to come.  Don't forget  the UK also still maintain full diplomatic relations with the military government. Backing both horses until its clearer who the winner will be, simple as that.

37 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Not sure the election law and constitution allows Thaksin to place her as PM. Junta may do that but not civilian government.

 

All not lost. You do have compassion for those killed by the military. I too have sympathy for innocent children killed and hope the justice system will hunt them down and convict whoever they are. 

 

Eric 

 

IIRC the rules of the Thai election were (perhaps still are) that political parties who win seats at an election were given extra seats called party seats I believe, in proportion to the number of seats they won. The parties then chose non elected party members to fill those seats and the #1 member was usually selected to become the PM.

 

The PTP chose Yingluck to be #1 and nominated her to become PM.

 

That is how I understand it, and how she became the PM. How she became the #1 candidate was probably due to the fact that her brother owns the PTP. ("Don't you know who my brother is" popped into my mind here).

 

The fact that she was a politcal novice made no difference simply because she was a puppet for her brother who did run the party and the government during that period.

14 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

And they indeed can, In both countries I might add. Once you comply with visa regulations. The people whinging about 90 days reporting must have missed that Yingluck has to leave the uk every six months as mentioned in the Op.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk
 

 

 

With a private jet at her disposal, it is probably easier for her to exit than it is for me to do my 90 day report.

 

There are worse things in life than a periodic jolly to Dubai, or Singapore, or.........

8 hours ago, cornishcarlos said:

 

You need to give us married folk a 10 year visa too ?

Does the 6 months in 12 still apply???

 

For those Brits with none EU spouses the "Hostile" immigration policies still apply, yet it seems a convicted criminal with money can still come and go as they please.? 

10 minutes ago, ginjag said:

BUT  she only has to do that, she already has the 10 year visa,   at the most we have to report every 90 days and have to renew every year.   DIFFERENT.

 

 

BUT we can stay in Thailand for the year and she can only stay for 6 months at a time. It won't really matter much to her as she bimbles off around the world every few weeks or so anyway.

33 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

...or you can put it in the post and not have to waste any of your time, or do it online and waste even less.  So many options.

I have considered that and did try the online part a while back, which didn't work, although I have been told it does now.

 

Maybe I should venture out of my comfort zone and try it on line once again 

But have also have to notify if leaving--( retirement)   if had the big money option to go to Singapore every 3 months, not mind  if I can keep my 1 year visa---Also it is only 1 year--Yingluck has a 10 year one and has not given 38 years into the UK economy the same I have into theThai economy,  sure ly your not going to find a way of saying we ex pat not have a gripe  ??

It is what it is. Thailand has this visa policy. If you not happy with those arrangements, you can either obtain citizenship or move elsewhere. It has absolutely no bearing on this topic.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

8 hours ago, cornishcarlos said:

 

You need to give us married folk a 10 year visa too ?

Why? She didn't marr a UK citizen, did she?

 

Money opens most, if not all, doors

Is there no article 44 in the UK? 

6 hours ago, theoldgit said:

I'd be interested to know which European country has issued Yingluck with a passport, holders of passports from most countries in Europe don't need a visa to enter the UK. 

Yes, it is very strange. A 10 year visa when you don't need one is also very strange.

7 minutes ago, Sydebolle said:

Is there no article 44 in the UK? 

We have the Magna Carta, the UK government is overlooking this.

39 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Eric 

 

IIRC the rules of the Thai election were (perhaps still are) that political parties who win seats at an election were given extra seats called party seats I believe, in proportion to the number of seats they won. The parties then chose non elected party members to fill those seats and the #1 member was usually selected to become the PM.

 

The PTP chose Yingluck to be #1 and nominated her to become PM.

 

That is how I understand it, and how she became the PM. How she became the #1 candidate was probably due to the fact that her brother owns the PTP. ("Don't you know who my brother is" popped into my mind here).

 

The fact that she was a politcal novice made no difference simply because she was a puppet for her brother who did run the party and the government during that period.

That’s right. She was a top candidate in the party list system and there must be enough yes votes in constituencies to secure those party list seats. 

 

The rest was the proverbial history on why the party nominated her in the parliamentary session for premiership. The party knew that she can help win the election because of her connection to Thaksin. Not at all surprise but still a subject of convenient discourse by her haters. Bottom line was her party win the election by a majority and her relationship with Thaksin help fueled the massive election win. If she doing such a lousy job, surely the electorate will vote her out and no need to scheme a chaotic situation to invite a coup. 

Never mind, she can reside in knightsbridge,  with other super-rich ex-pats from Asia, The Middle East, and Russia most of whom achieved their wealth through corrupt and dubious means, that left millions of their fellow countrymen starving and internally impoverished, and who once in the UK can and usually do indulge in a vulgar and risable display of riches which is the very antithesis of good taste and reserve, those rare qualities that can only come from a good upbringing, solid learning, a sense of history, class, and dignity.
 

Yingluck stays in Stepney not in Knightsbridge.

8 hours ago, Darcula said:

 

Is this the same visa category as the Red Bull kid, UK?

he is not politicall so i say no, this is a different category  he is a murderer, wich seems to be less of a crime overhere ?

9 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

The implication of this is that the UK specifically and several other countries in general do not recognize the legitimacy of the court case against her.

 

I bet Prayut nearly choked when he heard it!

 

Thailand- if you want to have international respect for your country and system of justice, you need to have a respectable system of justice and put an end to these 'show trials' where political opponents are brought down. The proper way to hand over power from one government to the next is through an election.

 

You will be a laughing stock until you manage this....

 

An earlier report said that the UK immigration had heard nothing from the Thai authorities concerning Yingluk Shinawatra.  Who knows?