British Embassy Admits Serious Error

[topfield]

To Scouse and all others interested. Update on earlier posting on the subject.

After two months of intense argument and disagreement whereby the Embassy bluntly refused to accept divorces by UK resident British husbands of their Thai wife carried out at a Thai district office, the ECO (who claimed she had the full backing of the Entry Clearance Manager) has now written to say that such divorces ARE recognised under English law and that they do indeed constitute proceedings....something they have been told all along but chose to ignore. At long last the Embassy will be recognising the law in this matter.

Needless to say the Embassy did not even have the politeness and decency to apologise for their most serious mistake and the inconvenience it caused..

In future therefore there should be no more problems in this regard at the Bangkok Embassy.

[GU22]

So,

After consulting with the relevant legal experts, the embassy have clarified the situation and now accepts that an Ampur divorce between a Thai national and a British national is indeed valid; but only where the couple married in Thailand.

I can understand the confusion, as explained in the other thread. After all, this is not a situation that occurs very often. Remember too that a divorce registered at the RTE in London is treated as an Ampur divorce under Thai law, but is not recognised under UK law.

[atlastaname]

You would have thought that a personalised letter of apology would not have been out of place would you not ?

Considering the importance to people's lives of their decisions, it is amazing that something as trivial as an apology was not proferred when they do get it wrong. On the plus side i, this particular problem shouldn't occur again

[topfield]

So,

After consulting with the relevant legal experts, the embassy have clarified the situation and now accepts that an Ampur divorce between a Thai national and a British national is indeed valid; but only where the couple married in Thailand.

I can understand the confusion, as explained in the other thread. After all, this is not a situation that occurs very often. Remember too that a divorce registered at the RTE in London is treated as an Ampur divorce under Thai law, but is not recognised under UK law.

A rare occurance ? Sorry, but in my experience I know of dozens and dozens of cases of UK men who after an unhappy marriage returned to Thailand to divorce their Thai wife (whom they originally met and married in Thailand) and who then remarried afresh a new Thai wife in Thailand . The Embassy ALWAYS recognised such a divorce when granting a settlement visa for the new Thai wife.

Secondly there was no need for any "consulting with legal experts". Over the last 20 years or longer it has been Embassy policy to recognise such divorces and I have numerous documents to prove this.

Indeed up to only three years ago, the Bangkok Embassy used to even accept divorces carried out at the Thai Embassy in London and it was only when I raised this matter with the Vice Consul that they , "after consulting with the relevant legal experts " decided I was right and changed their policy so that henceforth these Thai Embassy divorces would no longer be accepted at the Bangkok Embassy.

[GU22]

Yes, of course you did. Now go and lie down, it must be time for your nap.

You frequently make these claims of vast legal expertise, yet there are two things that give the lie to them.

1) You never, ever, cite your sources or even provide links to articles that support your claims.

2) More importantly, you claim to be a lawyer acting for clients. Yet you freely discuss their cases on an open, public forum! No ethical lawyer would do such a thing.

[topfield]

Yes, of course you did. Now go and lie down, it must be time for your nap.

You frequently make these claims of vast legal expertise, yet there are two things that give the lie to them.

1) You never, ever, cite your sources or even provide links to articles that support your claims.

2) More importantly, you claim to be a lawyer acting for clients. Yet you freely discuss their cases on an open, public forum! No ethical lawyer would do such a thing.

OK dear GU22 ...since you ALWAYS disbelieve, criticise and make defamatory accusations on this forum even in relation to the simplest and most obvious matters , the actual letters/emails from the Embassy confirming every single word to be true will be published here in return for you getting out from behind your bush and publishing your true name and address and status on this forum.

There is nothing more cowardly than to hide your true identity and continually snipe behind a cloak of anonymity. It is clearly against the rules of this forum to make unreasonable and unfair personal attacks on other members and most surprising the administrators have not reminded you of the rules . The administrators can easily see the pattern of your behaviour by looking back over your responses over the last few months which clearly are blatantly libellous and gratuitously hostile in nature.

So now its up to you ...put up .....or shut up .....as John Major once famously declared.

All the information from topfield imparted on this forum has been aimed at helping and assisting forum readers and providing them with the benefit of knowledge and experience gained in immigration matters. Every single piece of information given on this forum is true, accurate and correct and based on personal experience in dealings with the authorities. For you to suggest otherwise is outrageous. This is a serious immigration forum where people exchange experiences and learn from others and nobody would knowingly lie or deceive in their postings.

Readers to this forum will now be waiting for your response. And by the way, documents from government departments that are on the public record can be published and are freely available under the Freedom of Information Act but that of course is something you would not know. Furthermore the whole basis of English common law is case law when particular cases are published in both law journals and even newspapers but you would not know that either. Thank you.

[GU22]

the actual letters/emails from the Embassy confirming every single word to be true will be published here in return for you getting out from behind your bush and publishing your true name and address

Revealing such information is not recommended by the admin of forums such as this, but I will, if you will.

Why can't you publish this information anyway? Doing so would prove your case and shut me up. Is it because it does not exist?

In your OP you say

After two months of intense argument and disagreement whereby the Embassy bluntly refused to accept divorces by UK resident British husbands of their Thai wife carried out at a Thai district office, the ECO (who claimed she had the full backing of the Entry Clearance Manager) has now written to say that such divorces ARE recognised under English law and that they do indeed constitute proceedings....something they have been told all along but chose to ignore.

Then in your second post you say

Over the last 20 years or longer it has been Embassy policy to recognise such divorces and I have numerous documents to prove this.

So, is it 20 years or three months? Both statements are obviously contradictory. Not unusual in your posts. I've told you before; make notes! Then you wont contradict your self so often.

by the way, documents from government departments that are on the public record can be published and are freely available under the Freedom of Information Act but that of course is something you would not know.

I am well aware of this, so I ask again; why don't you ever refer to these documents or post links to them?

the whole basis of English common law is case law when particular cases are published in both law journals and even newspapers

Correct, but again you never quote these sources or provide links.

Also, if you are what you claim, you would know that whilst it is perfectly acceptable to discuss past cases, discussing the details of ongoing cases in public, as you appear to do, is a not the action of an ethical lawyer.

All the information from topfield imparted on this forum has been aimed at helping and assisting forum readers and providing them with the benefit of knowledge and experience gained in immigration matters. Every single piece of information given on this forum is true, accurate and correct and based on personal experience in dealings with the authorities.

If only this were true, but it obviously isn't, for all the reasons I have stated before. Edited February 10, 2007 by the scouser
Flaming

[Thaddeus]

I'm only posting this for the sake of concrete evidence.

I know several people who have married and divorced at an Amphur, and not had a problem with it being recognised at the Embassy. I have no documentation for them.

But I have for me.

I married and then divorced about three years ago, it didn't even cause a ripple in the water when the current wife applied for a Visa, if anyone wants to see, you're quite welcome to cast an eye over the paperwork.

Of course, this was in the days when you went to see an ECO yourself and it sounds to me like this was a mistake made by the agency that vets the paperwork before it gets to the Embassy....... and the complaint wasn't followed through correctly

I would expect that some serious re-training will now occur.

[topfield]

I'm only posting this for the sake of concrete evidence.

I know several people who have married and divorced at an Amphur, and not had a problem with it being recognised at the Embassy. I have no documentation for them.

But I have for me.

I married and then divorced about three years ago, it didn't even cause a ripple in the water when the current wife applied for a Visa, if anyone wants to see, you're quite welcome to cast an eye over the paperwork.

Of course, this was in the days when you went to see an ECO yourself and it sounds to me like this was a mistake made by the agency that vets the paperwork before it gets to the Embassy....... and the complaint wasn't followed through correctly

I would expect that some serious re-training will now occur.

[Prakanong]

I know of many cases where the guy has married in the amphur and divorced there - at least 4 in Prakanong ;-)))

I also know of at least 1 guy who has taken a second Thai wife back after his divorce at Prakanong.

[topfield]

It is noted that GU22 who responds to each of topfield's postings with libellous and defamatory allegations will not publish his name occuptation or even country of residence. Nevertheless GU22 continues his almost daily campaign of what can only be described as bitterness and hatred .

It is clear from his latest posting that GU22 does not possess a logical mind.

Topfield wrote that for 20 years the Bangkok Embassy has accepted and recognised Amphur divorces.

Topfield then raised a current case where this policy has not been followed at the Embassy and that three months of argument with the Embassy recently ensued owing to their non recognition of an Amphur divorce

GU22 states that the above two statements are incompatible and therefore must be untrue !!!

Any logical person over thge age of 6 can see that there is no illogicality whatever in this.

That the Embassy without warning or explanation suddenly changed their 20 year old policy and decided they could not recognise the Amphur divorce of a UK resident huband and his Thai wife (where the marriage took place in Thailand) contains not an ounce of illogicality and is a fact.

GU22 furthermore refuses to accept the truth of the posting and demands a name before he will accept the above information as being correct . From his latest postings GU22 clearly believes certain people use this serious immigration forum to desseminate lies and miinformation !!.

To satisfy GU 22 and hopefully silence his false and defamatory allegations the name of the Embassy official who recently refused to accept an Amphur divorce is K.Sumana Vejajiva who claimed she was backed up in her dfecision by the Entry Clearance Manager. She has now however discovered she was wrong and understands that such divorces are in fact recognised under English law.

I trust GU 22 will now cease his campaign of hostility against the writer.

[solo siam]

whay are you talking in the third person?

[Thaddeus]

Topfield.

I think this is the bit that sparked the challenge...........

After two months of intense argument and disagreement whereby the Embassy bluntly refused to accept divorces by UK resident British husbands of their Thai wife carried out at a Thai district office, the ECO (who claimed she had the full backing of the Entry Clearance Manager) has now written to say that such divorces ARE recognised under English law and that they do indeed constitute proceedings....something they have been told all along but chose to ignore. At long last the Embassy will be recognising the law in this matter.

1. No ECO received the paperwork, both the ECO's and the ECM will know about the Amphur divorce legality in the UK.

2. The two months were probably full of introspection and remand of the paperwork passers to the real ECO.

3. "At long last the Embassy will be recognising the law in this matter." They always have, the agency before them were wrong and that will now be addressed, it has probably already been started and completed.

Unfortunately the wording of your first post contained quite a few errors in 'who did what wrong'

I know GU22, have done for years, a stickler for accuracy. Your post first was seriously full of holes...... it isn't a personal assault, think of it as Tippex.

FOREX opens again Monday morning

//edit/forgot it was still Saturday

Edited February 10, 2007 by Thaddeus

[billd766]

This post (and several others) between Topfield and GU22 reminds me of one of the things I miss about the UK.

The pantomime.

Oh yes it is Oh no it isn't

Behind you

My Dad is bigger than your Dad. Oh no he isn't Oh yes he is.

Could you both give it a rest for a couple of days, please.

I don't know about anybody else but I am getting bored by it all.

[atlastaname]

quote Thaddeus

"FOREX opens again monday morning "

this is actually very funny but unless you follow topfields posts on the business forum none of you here will get it . But I did ...thanks for the laugh Thaddeus

I have to hand it to GU22 , even when under moderator supervision there is no quelling his determination . Even I found myself making shorter non-controversial posts during our joint week long suspension , so i do admire his energy.

[GU22]

Unfortunately the wording of your first post contained quite a few errors in 'who did what wrong'

As do many of his posts. As did many of his posts under his various pseudonyms on this and other forums.

If this happened at all, it was an error by the VAC or an ECO, which has now been corrected.

As UK law does recognise an Ampur divorce then of course the embassy does as well. To say that they have done so for 20 years in one post and then in another claim that one has finally persuaded them to so so, as Topfield does, is self contradictory.

Topfield, it is not the name of the embassy official I asked for, as you well know, but yours. You accuse me of hiding behind anonymity, whilst doing so your self.

I ask again, where are these articles you refer to? What evidence do you have to back up your claims? If you are what you claim, why do you break professional ethics and publicly discuss ongoing cases.

Unfortunately Scouse has seen fit to edit my posts to remove my theory about why you post as you do.

[the scouser]

It is certainly true that after having accepted amphur divorces as valid in the UK, a bright spark at the visa section decided capriciously that s/he would deem them no longer valid. This was done without any apparent consultation with either the UK Visas policy section or UK Visas' legal representatives. I can confirm that the Bangkok visa section has now been told in no uncertain terms that amphur divorces are valid in the UK.

Scouse.

[Mossfinn]

"FOREX opens again monday morning "

this is actually very funny but unless you follow topfields posts on the business forum none of you here will get it . But I did ...thanks for the laugh Thaddeus

Thanks for the clarification, I was a little mystified.

Hey Thad, keep it simple for the likes of me, or provide a link

Good Luck

Moss

[chuchok]

Stupid post deleted....

Edited February 10, 2007 by chuchok

[Prakanong]

It is certainly true that after having accepted amphur divorces as valid in the UK, a bright spark at the visa section decided capriciously that s/he would deem them no longer valid. This was done without any apparent consultation with either the UK Visas policy section or UK Visas' legal representatives. I can confirm that the Bangkok visa section has now been told in no uncertain terms that amphur divorces are valid in the UK.

Scouse.

Scouse

Thanks for the clarification - that explains it all.

[topfield]

It is certainly true that after having accepted amphur divorces as valid in the UK, a bright spark at the visa section decided capriciously that s/he would deem them no longer valid. This was done without any apparent consultation with either the UK Visas policy section or UK Visas' legal representatives. I can confirm that the Bangkok visa section has now been told in no uncertain terms that amphur divorces are valid in the UK.

Scouse.

Scouse

Thanks for the clarification - that explains it all.

Thanks Scouse.

You have explained exactly and accurately what happened in this matter. Had we not challenged the bright spark concerned ...who by the way claimed she had the full support and backing of the Entry Clearance Manager, , mainly through the Registrar of Marriages in Southport, many other visa applicants would have suffered the same inconvenience and delay in their visa applications.

topfield

( only name used on this forum despite latest false accusation by GU22 that pseudonyns are used)

[topfield]

Reply to 'thaddeus" / Note for Scouser

Have just seen your posting and trust I might be allowed to reply.

There were no inaccuracies whatsoever in the original posting as you claim in your posting.

The Embassy official concerned Ms Sumana Vejajiva not only wrote to say that the Amphur divorce was not recognised and that therefore the application for a marriage visa could not proceed ...a mistake that any junior local official could make , but she also added that she had the full support and backing of her Manager , the ECM , ( Gerry Grant was given as name of ECM) in this decision !

If K.Sumana was in fact lying in her claim of full ECM backing , she should be subject to serious reprimand and dismissal .

If she was telling the truth and the ECM, who is in complete charge at the Visa Section did support her contention then it could be taken that it was official Bangkok Embassy policy not to recognise Amphur divorce , even though as was pointed out to Ms Vjajiva in several emails that she was wrong in her decision on any interpretation of the law.

Sorry Thaddeus, the application was in fact dealt with almost immediately and the two months were indeed taken up with correspondence and consultation with both the Registrar of Marriages in Southport and well as the local Marriage Registrar who it seems (reluctantly) raised the matter with the Embassy.

In fact it was only by working with these two bodies and their assistance that Ms Vejajiva finally saw the light ....and her mistake ..........and the ECM must have concurred.

[Briggsy]

She has the same surname as the leader of the Democrat party.

[GU22]

I think everyone by now has made their mind up about the bone fides of Topfield.

As Scouse has confirmed that an incident of this nature occurred I do, of course, believe him.

It seems to me that this was a simple error by a Thai member of the admin staff, which has now been rectified. Regrettable and unfortunate for the applicant and sponsor concerned, of course. It shouldn't have happened, but it was quickly and easily put right.

What is sick making is the use of this case in yet another attempt at self-aggrandisement.

Edited February 11, 2007 by the scouser
Flame removed.

[atlastaname]

Yes but to be fair GU22 it is to be wondered how Gerry Grant ECM actually passed the first refusal . If the man in charge and at least some of his staff don't know something as basic as this then surely this casts SOME doubts over their ability to judge applications that really do affect people's lives.

You are not usually slow in coming down hard on those who make mistakes in their applications, so if you were being even handed why are you not coming down hard on the BE?

Also you say it was "quickly and easily put right" . From what has been posted here it seems it was neither "quick" nor "easy" . And all without an apology . I do think you have dismissed their serious error rather lightly . If visa staff are to be put in jobs that affect people's futures then they must ensure mistakes do not happen and when they do appropriate compensation should IMHO be paid.

Do NOT see this as an attack on you in any way because it is not . More surprise at your rather light dismissal of their mistake .

Most serious of all is how it got passed the ECM. Either he was just rubber stamping it without really looking (very serious ) or he didn't know something he should have . Or the ECO was lying (very serious).

Topfield why wasn't this followed up with direct questions to the ECM asking him to explain his error?

[frankthetank]

Admin, why don't you remove 'TOPFIELD' and 'GU22'?

Maybe others can then get the information needed without two people snapping at each other.

If the forum is here to help, then stick to helping!!

I guess the next line would be ' my mummys bigger than your mummy', etc.

[LaReina]

It is noted that GU22 who responds to each of topfield's postings with libellous and defamatory allegations will not publish his name occuptation or even country of residence. Nevertheless GU22 continues his almost daily campaign of what can only be described as bitterness and hatred .

It is clear from his latest posting that GU22 does not possess a logical mind.

Topfield wrote that for 20 years the Bangkok Embassy has accepted and recognised Amphur divorces.

Topfield then raised a current case where this policy has not been followed at the Embassy and that three months of argument with the Embassy recently ensued owing to their non recognition of an Amphur divorce

GU22 states that the above two statements are incompatible and therefore must be untrue !!!

whay are you talking in the third person?

Most likely there are two people posting with the same nickname. Hence the contradictions GU22 notes. Weird.

[Nickel]

The

[Briggsy]

The

Two and a half years and then "the". I love it. I'll be brown bread before you finish the sentence.

[Briggsy]

Those of you who have ever dealt with Thai bureaucracy will know that wild inconsistencies in application of policy often occur between different branches of the same organisation. Currently the 90-day visa exemption rule is causing much confusion and different answers are received depending upon which immigration office one asks. In addition, it is most important that you do not cause the official to lose face in any way. One way this might happen is for you to say, "You are wrong." The result of this is often a great reluctance on the part of the official to admit a mistake.

It would appear that the British Embassy in Bangkok is taking this working style on board.