BREAKING NEWS British Embassy Bangkok to Stop Certification of Income Letters

[Pattaya46]

2 hours ago, Esso49 said:

Sorry but not on this forum.

So to summarize your posts in this thread, you just tell us :

"I know the truth. You are all wrong. But I will tell you nothing!"  

 

Thanks for posting on TV 

 

[Spidey]

Just now, dick dasterdly said:

 

The point I was trying (and obviously failing) to make - is that it would take a reasonably intelligent/experienced brit. employee 10 mins. (at most), to "reasonably ascertain whether or not the documentary evidence provided was genuine, and to use a calculator....." to check the calculations.

Yes, and I agree with you. The point I was trying to make is that Brit employees don't have any involvement in your application.

[Tanoshi]

9 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

The point I was trying (and obviously failing) to make - is that it would take a reasonably intelligent/experienced brit. employee 10 mins. (at most), to "reasonably ascertain whether or not the documentary evidence provided was genuine, and to use a calculator....." to check the calculations.

Is it not the job of an Embassy employee to authenticate documents and never has been.

You've always been allowed to submit originals, copies, or scans for that reason.

[geoffbezoz]

2 hours ago, Esso49 said:

I have had 2 out of 3 responses from the FCO regarding my requests under the FOI act.  Although I orignally said that I would publish the replies, given the current regime within TV for publishing some factual items I felt it more appropriate to publish those replies on another forum which I shall not name, but a Google search should find them for those interested.  Needless to say the actual data provided by the FCO, throws much , if not all of the TV conjecture as to the cessation of income letters from the BE,  into the  bin. It is obvious as to why the BE took such actions and the information/requests highlighted the major issues which triggered such actions.

Took me a while to find it but I have responded on the alternative media to which you referred   However the point I should like to raise on this thread, based on your feedback is, if as reported there was such a high percentage of fraudulent claims by those requesting extensions based on retirement, and hence the consequential actions taken by the UK and other embassies once pressured by the Thai authorities, then why is it do you think that rather than the Thai authorities putting the onus onto the UK embassy, why didn't they immediately cancel the retirement extensions of all those "retirees" that the Thai authorities claimed gained them through fraudulent means ?

The way things appear to have unfolded is that those whom have extensions based on marriage, now seem to have been prejudiced for future extensions by those large numbers of retirement extension frauds which appears, from your feedback,  to be a high majority of claims submitted.  I  may not have read all of your feedback correctly, and correct me if I missed something on those transcripts of meetings, if I am wrong, but Thai immigration had raised no concerns whatever regarding extensions based on marriage , yet I for one will have possible problems next year when it comes to renewal.  It seems so unfair that the honest ones amongst us are being penalised by those high numbers of "fake" retirees, do you not agree ?

 

Only wish on a personnel note that they distinctly separate the rules and regulations for those of us married to Thais and those whom wish to stay here on "retirement " extensions.

[Spidey]

24 minutes ago, geoffbezoz said:

Took me a while to find it but I have responded on the alternative media to which you referred   However the point I should like to raise on this thread, based on your feedback is, if as reported there was such a high percentage of fraudulent claims by those requesting extensions based on retirement, and hence the consequential actions taken by the UK and other embassies once pressured by the Thai authorities, then why is it do you think that rather than the Thai authorities putting the onus onto the UK embassy, why didn't they immediately cancel the retirement extensions of all those "retirees" that the Thai authorities claimed gained them through fraudulent means ?

The way things appear to have unfolded is that those whom have extensions based on marriage, now seem to have been prejudiced for future extensions by those large numbers of retirement extension frauds which appears, from your feedback,  to be a high majority of claims submitted.  I  may not have read all of your feedback correctly, and correct me if I missed something on those transcripts of meetings, if I am wrong, but Thai immigration had raised no concerns whatever regarding extensions based on marriage , yet I for one will have possible problems next year when it comes to renewal.  It seems so unfair that the honest ones amongst us are being penalised by those high numbers of "fake" retirees, do you not agree ?

 

Only wish on a personnel note that they distinctly separate the rules and regulations for those of us married to Thais and those whom wish to stay here on "retirement " extensions.

I very much doubt that there were vey many fraudulent claims for income letters to the British Embassy.

 

And how would TI know, unless the letters themselves were fraudulent? Never heard of a British citizen being asked for backup evidence when presenting their embassy letter.

Edited November 11, 2018 by Spidey

[lamyai3]

14 hours ago, Spidey said:

Yes, and I agree with you. The point I was trying to make is that Brit employees don't have any involvement in your application.

I suspected this earlier in the year, when I received my income letter from the embassy spelling Nationwide with only one N... 

[Pattaya46]

18 hours ago, Esso49 said:

Sorry but not on this forum.

15 hours ago, geoffbezoz said:

Took me a while to find it but //

What's the problem for you not wanting to name that other forum ? 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Pattaya46

[JackThompson]

On 11/11/2018 at 2:07 PM, Esso49 said:

I have had 2 out of 3 responses from the FCO regarding my requests under the FOI act.  Although I orignally said that I would publish the replies, given the current regime within TV for publishing some factual items I felt it more appropriate to publish those replies on another forum which I shall not name, but a Google search should find them for those interested.  Needless to say the actual data provided by the FCO, throws much , if not all of the TV conjecture as to the cessation of income letters from the BE,  into the  bin. It is obvious as to why the BE took such actions and the information/requests highlighted the major issues which triggered such actions.

I'm not finding it.  Tried searching:

 

British embassy thailand income letter fco reply

 

Can you give us some key words - maybe a less-common word - which would narrow down the search-engine results?

[JLCrab]

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/fco

[marcusarelus]

4 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/fco

They told him it would take 3 1/2 days and they wanted 600 pounds?  Am I missing something?

[JackThompson]

5 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/fco

Found that - but the only info is the 1st request-reply, and the follow up which is awaiting a response.  He said:

 

On 11/11/2018 at 2:07 PM, Esso49 said:

Needless to say the actual data provided by the FCO, throws much , if not all of the TV conjecture as to the cessation of income letters from the BE,  into the  bin. It is obvious as to why the BE took such actions and the information/requests highlighted the major issues which triggered such actions.

I'm not seeing anything in the FOI responses to-date which sheds any light on matters.

[JLCrab]

3 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

They told him it would take 3 1/2 days and they wanted 600 pounds?  Am I missing something?

Ask a Brit.

[bigginhill]

         Think there is another forum, cos I tried that one and haven't got anything, and someone here replies they've found it and replied on the forum, and there are no replies there, and no documents to read as they ask for 600 £.   

Anyone?

[evadgib]

17 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/fco

Quote

Yours sincerely, 
 
 
Central FOI Unit 
 
We keep and use information in line with the Data Protection Act 1998.  We may release this 
personal information to other UK government departments and public authorities. 
 

That they don't seem to realize DPA 98 was superseded some months back should cause concern..

[evadgib]

33 minutes ago, bigginhill said:

         Think there is another forum, cos I tried that one and haven't got anything, and someone here replies they've found it and replied on the forum, and there are no replies there, and no documents to read as they ask for 600 £.   

Anyone?

600 is a Red Herring/get-out-of-jail card relating to their time and effort & will NOT be presented or expected to be paid by enquirers. The secret is to narrow any enquiry to the point where your subject material is likely to present itself.

HTH

Edited November 12, 2018 by evadgib

[bigginhill]

14 minutes ago, evadgib said:

600 is a Red Herring/get-out-of-jail card relating to their time and effort & will NOT be presented or expected to be paid by enquirers.

HTH

  "1. The total number of letters confirming income issued to British Nationals by the Embassy during the following periods: a) 8th October 2015 to 7th October 2016. b) 8th October 2016 to 7th October 2017. c) 8th October 2017 to 7th October 2018. 2. Minutes of meetings, notes, correspondence (including emails) and conversation recordings between Embassy staff and Thai Authorities, and between Embassy staff which relate to the withdrawal of the provision of letters confirming income to British Nationals. I can confirm that the FCO does hold information relevant to your request."

It would be to ask just for 2018.

[dick dasterdly]

39 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

They told him it would take 3 1/2 days and they wanted 600 pounds?  Am I missing something?

As far as I can see, you are 100% right ☹️.

 

Unsuprisingly, the brit. govt. has no intention of even attempting to justify the BE decision.....

[007 RED]

49 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

They told him it would take 3 1/2 days and they wanted 600 pounds?  Am I missing something?

FYI…. The FCO is not asking for a payment of £600 to provide the information.

 

Under the provisions of the UK Freedom of Information Act 2000 there is an exemption (Section 12) which allows the public body to refuse the request if locating, retrieving and documenting the requested information exceeds what is known as the ‘Appropriate Limit’.

 

In the case of central government bodies (e.g. FCO) the ‘Appropriate Limit’ is set at £600.  The Act also defines a standard hourly rate of £25 and a standard working day of 7 hours. Thus £600 equates to 3.5 man-day.  

 

Therefore if locating the requested information is going to take longer than 3.5 man-days it can be refused, which is what the FCO has done.

 

FYAI… One of the 2 requests was mine… the other is an identical request which another TV member copied (including a typo) and submitted a couple of days later – for details go back to post 1087.

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, 007 RED said:

FYI…. The FCO is not asking for a payment of £600 to provide the information.

 

Under the provisions of the UK Freedom of Information Act 2000 there is an exemption (Section 12) which allows the public body to refuse the request if locating, retrieving and documenting the requested information exceeds what is known as the ‘Appropriate Limit’.

 

In the case of central government bodies (e.g. FCO) the ‘Appropriate Limit’ is set at £600.  The Act also defines a standard hourly rate of £25 and a standard working day of 7 hours. Thus £600 equates to 3.5 man-day.  

 

Therefore if locating the requested information is going to take longer than 3.5 man-days it can be refused, which is what the FCO has done.

 

FYAI… One of the 2 requests was mine… the other is an identical request which another TV member copied (including a typo) and submitted a couple of days later – for details go back to post 1087.

We always appreciate posters desperately trying to explain why the brit. govt. are not prepared to answer questions (they would prefer were not asked.....) - without paying 600 sterling.

 

FOI?? Only if you can afford it apparently!

[bigginhill]

11 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

FYI…. The FCO is not asking for a payment of £600 to provide the information.

 

Under the provisions of the UK Freedom of Information Act 2000 there is an exemption (Section 12) which allows the public body to refuse the request if locating, retrieving and documenting the requested information exceeds what is known as the ‘Appropriate Limit’.

 

In the case of central government bodies (e.g. FCO) the ‘Appropriate Limit’ is set at £600.  The Act also defines a standard hourly rate of £25 and a standard working day of 7 hours. Thus £600 equates to 3.5 man-day.  

 

Therefore if locating the requested information is going to take longer than 3.5 man-days it can be refused, which is what the FCO has done.

 

FYAI… One of the 2 requests was mine… the other is an identical request which another TV member copied (including a typo) and submitted a couple of days later – for details go back to post 1087.

so by doing as their reply suggests and reducing the time frame it may enter within the lime limit 

[007 RED]

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

We always appreciate posters desperately trying to explain why the brit. govt. are not prepared to answer questions (they would prefer were not asked.....) - without paying 600 sterling.

 

FOI?? Only if you can afford it apparently!

Dick.... Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely not defending the government's action... I was the one making the initial request.  As I said, they are not asking for any payment... FOI is free.

[007 RED]

2 minutes ago, bigginhill said:

so by doing as their reply suggests and reducing the time frame it may enter within the lime limit 

Correct and I've already submitted a modified request but I'm not going to hold my breath as there are other 'get out of jail cards' that they can use to refuse my request like it may harm international relations.

Edited November 12, 2018 by 007 RED

[bigginhill]

2 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

Correct and I've already submitted a modified request.

when you have your answer I.ll ask the for the previous year, just in case. let me know

[dick dasterdly]

21 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

Dick.... Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely not defending the government's action... I was the one making the initial request.  As I said, they are not asking for any payment... FOI is free.

I'm still missing out on why they didn't just say that it would take 3 1/2 days to provide the information (free of charge) under the FOI act?

Edited November 12, 2018 by dick dasterdly

[007 RED]

33 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'm still missing out on why they didn't just say that it would take 3 1/2 days to provide the information (free of charge) under the FOI act?

Dick.... Agreed .... It's because of the complications within the FIO legislation.  As mentioned, the so called 'Appropriate limit' for central government bodies is set at £600, whereas other public bodies (e.g. schools, hospitals, local authorities etc.) is set at £400 (equivalent to approximately 2 1/4 days). 

 

Mad... I agree.

[marcusarelus]

3 hours ago, JLCrab said:

Ask a Brit.

Didn't work.  No answer except the one guy who said he asked the government and they told him and he put it on a website that he won't tell anyone what it is.  Except the one that says they have the info but aren't telling. 

[wayned]

4 hours ago, marcusarelus said:

Didn't work.  No answer except the one guy who said he asked the government and they told him and he put it on a website that he won't tell anyone what it is.  Except the one that says they have the info but aren't telling. 

If you want an answer just go to the US Embassy website and click on the PDF fact sheet that they have posted.  They will not provide any answers to emails other than this.

 

It tells you to what the Brits are saying,  PISS OFF  and it's free, not 600 pounds.

[evadgib]

This should keep the serial posters happy til christmas ????

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/inside-the-foreign-office-bbc-series-2018

[OJAS]

2 hours ago, evadgib said:

This should keep the serial posters happy til christmas ????

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/inside-the-foreign-office-bbc-series-2018

I find it amazing that the Beeb have apparently been able to spin out the series to as many as 3 parts!????

[Thaidream]

I.m not quite understanding this- a poster states he has an answer from FCO or someplace else regarding why the BE stopped the letters but posted it on some unknown website- I have searched extensively for it- unable to find anything.  What is the secret?  What is the Website and why  all the intrigue- the answer either exists or does not? If  it doesn't say so- if it does  either tell us the answer or point us  to the site.