Uk Visas - The Hicks Report

[Andrew Hicks]

Some Serious Thoughts on Immigration Into the UK

These notes are based on experience of my Thai wife’s visit visa being refused and I’d like to pass on the following information to help everyone to understand things better. I am not an expert and do not hold this out as being definitive but hope it’s useful.

Applying for visas is always horrible but there are many features of the British system that are admirable… they have to give reasons for refusals, there’s a right of appeal if you’re married and principles of human rights incorporated into UK law give you a right to a fair hearing and to family life (and hence to have your wife with you). It’s complex though and the problem is understanding it all.

The process is as open as possible and thus there’s a huge amount of material in the public domain. Using the internet can be crucial to getting your application right.

Now for some specific points.

1. If married there’s a right of appeal, but not otherwise. Appeals take place in UK before an independent tribunal and many succeed. In the case of a visit visa (no appeal), you can immediately make a fresh application focusing on the reasons for refusal, explaining the discrepancies or adding the information that was missing. They will accept your fee and consider this application afresh.

2. The Entry Clearance Officers (ECO) have to follow the ‘Diplomatic Service Procedures’ (DSP) which lay down procedures for applications. See www.ukvisas.gov.uk.

3. The DSP indicates to ECOs what sort of questions they should ask when interviewing the applicant. (see 8.13 and 13.15.) Have a look at this before the interview. ‘There is no blanket ban on sponsors attending interviews,’ and ECOs may permit sponsors or representatives such as a lawyer to attend as observers 8.13, 13.16. If your lady is extremely nervous and in the interests of openness, I think it would be unfair if they say no such a request.

4. Sometimes the grounds for refusal of a visa are that there are discrepancies or inconsistencies in the application, perhaps as between the sponsor’s supporting papers and the answers given by the applicant at interview. Under the law that requires a fair hearing, these issues must first be put to the applicant for an explanation before they rely on them for a refusal. When ECOs fail to do this, they are in breach of the law, giving grounds for appeal or a (futile) judicial review. DSP at 8.13 says, ‘You should put all negative factors that have arisen in the case to the applicant so that he or she has an opportunity to respond to them.’

5. ECO’s are obliged to keep notes of interviews which are especially relevant where there is a right of appeal. DSP 8.13 says, ‘If an applicant requests a copy of their interview notes, they should be supplied free of charge.’ Elsewhere it says notes should ideally be typed, so maybe they’ll send them to you later, though I see no reason why you cannot have a handwritten copy immediately when the visa is refused at the interview.

6. Fees for consular services are set out in a statutory ‘fees order’. Very properly these appear on the wall in the consular section at the Embassy. There are some strange variations in charges, for example if they certify copy documents against originals produced by you or if they produce a certified copy from the original. The Embassy surprisingly has been running at a deficit despite low local costs and so they need your money…you should always check with the fees order that you are being charged the correct amount.

7. It’s always difficult to know what supporting papers they want for applications and are admittedly coy about this… being too specific could be an invitation to concoct fake documents. Broadly they are looking for the following…for a visit (tourist) visa, that there is a good reason for traveling (ie a proven relationship over a reasonable period), that there are funds to support the visit and that the applicant will not overstay. As you are entitled to family life by law, a settlement visa should be granted if you are settled in UK, have a genuine (prospective) marital relationship and the accommodation and funds in UK to support your wife. While there is a clear discretion to refuse visit visas for all sorts of hazy reasons, for a settlement visa the Embassy can put you through the wringer when it comes to producing paperwork, but ultimately, if you’re genuine, you’ll get there.

8. Advice is available. The Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner has an ‘adviser finder’ on www.oisc.go.uk and IAS, the Immigration Advisory Service, provides advice and representation for a fee.

9. There is also considerable public scrutiny of the whole visa industry. Apart from individual appeals to the AIT (Asylum and Immigration Tribunal), the National Audit Office has recently reported on the process, mainly as an efficiency survey but also commenting that the quality of decision-making is questionable as it is not based on clear information about levels of over-staying. This point has been accepted by the Home Secretary. (In Bangkok, one farmer’s daughter looks much like the next one and frankly they’re stabbing in the dark in making decisions.) A complaint about your treatment can be sent to the Director at UKVisas who will not ignore it. The Independent Monitor for Entry Clearance, based at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office writes an annual report on worldwide visa refusals where there is no right of appeal, based on selective visits to Embassies and scrutiny of sample files. (The last report attracted a major article in The Times of 8 August 2006, focusing on her criticism that the additional fee for processing applications has no statutory basis and is unlawfully charged. It also reported her concern that huge numbers of applicants are being refused visas simply on grounds that they are poor, which is not a lawful immigration consideration. Thus, reading between the lines, ECOs simply look for any possible pretext as grounds for refusal of applicants who are not well-off.)

10. In this context, those who sponsor their Thai partners inevitably feel that the assumption is negative towards young Thai women. That of course will always be denied as ECOs are merely applying the criteria of the Immigration Rules (that you can’t find anywhere!). The only corroboration would be if comparative figures could be found of refusals of say, Thais, Malaysians and Singaporeans, especially if this could be narrowed to young/females. The broader figures will be available somewhere on the web, though it’s unlikely that statistics will be available showing rejection rates specifically for Thai females. (The article in The Times reported visa refusals worldwide for 2004-05 at 19% and 9% for SE Asia. Sitting in the interview area in Bangkok some time ago watching the glum faces coming out, it looked more like a 100% refusal rate.)

I hope this information is useful and will benefit everyone on both sides of the visa divide.

Andrew Hicks

Edited March 28, 2007 by Andrew Hicks

[topfield]

A brilliant exposition !

I can add some further information .

A few years back I was able to access the visa statistics at the Singapore High Commission and I seem to remember that the was not a single refusal of a settlement visa application there.

Secondly the refusals and visas issued statistics stated that they were the "final' decisions ie there may have been earlier refusals and rejections or cases where refusals were issued but on review by the ECM the decision was reversed.

Therefore the published figures should be taken "with a pinch of salt"

[Eff1n2ret]

"the Immigration Rules (that you can’t find anywhere!). "

Yes you can. Try the Home Office website, Immigration & Nationality, Law & Policy, and they're there

[Andrew Hicks]

"the Immigration Rules (that you can’t find anywhere!). "

Yes you can. Try the Home Office website, Immigration & Nationality, Law & Policy, and they're there

Yes, you're quite right. The Immigration Rules are available but they're appallingly badlydrafted and as obsure as they could possibly be. Expanding on my point in the 'report', it's ECO-speak to say that the applicant has not complied with the Rules but in reality the Rules contain no criteria whatsoever that indicate what is or is not an application that should be granted. They are just a mish mass of procedural rules.

The essential policy that determines how the discretion is exercised to grant visas is never stated anywhere. It is of course a political matter and it blows in the wind as immigration becomes more or less controversial. Nevertheless, we never know the ECO's criteria... that being a bar girl is a minus, that there is a presumption against black hair, that there's a weekly quota or that Fridays are bad but Wednesdays good. Perhaps the only criterion is think of a reason to reject and get hitting the keys.

All refusals are checked and cleared by the Entry Clearance Manager before being acted upon, but so what. That doesn't assure any consistency. The outcomes of the decisions that are made in Bangkok look pretty arbitrary so perhaps there are no criteria at all. You certainly won't find them in the Immigration Rules, which was my initial point. Nor will they ever say what they are. Funny that!

Andrew

[the gent]

I'm no apologist for the visa section but your appreciation of the system verges on the naive and raises issues already explored ad nauseam in other threads, chiefly those featuring prolonged exchanges between GU22 and Silomfan/Atlastaname.

The fact that your post has gained favour with the eccentric Topfield must surely suggest to you that perhaps your view is not necessarily the most balanced. Nevertheless, you must speak as you find but I think it important to emphasise that contrary to your findings the principle determining visa issues is actually quite clear. The onus is on the applicant to satisfy the eco that on the balance of probability they meet the requirements of the published rules. The official websites all amplify on this and in case anyone is in any doubt as to what the requirements are then they can always refer to the published Diplomatic Service Procedures which are a model of clarity and pitched at a level most should be able to comprehend.

The system is not perfect and instances of injustice inevitably occur, hence the popularity of this forum. My personal beef with Bangkok's visa section is their apparent unwillingness to concede cases where the ECO has plainly made a mistake. Doubtless, this could be attributed to an obdurate management style but it is not the fault of the system per se but rather a failing of those charged with operating it.

[atlastaname]

Despite the slight dig at me , i must congratulate "the gent" on an unusually well written and easy to read post that sums it up pretty well. Even a genuinely funny dig at Toppers thrown in .

Having said that the OP makes a few good points if you can be bothered to plough through it all . The bit i agree with most is the point he makes about it all being political , the inference being that depending on your looks and status you are treated differently , yet no where in the rules does it say this (naturally) as they want the freedom to keep THEIR idea of "undesirables" out of the country and make it very hard for lower status Thais by accusing them of being prostitutes etc or calling them liars when they say they met their boyfriends other than in a bar (like one recent case we had here). All political and underhand and yet there are still otherwise intelligent people on this forum who choose not to see it.

[Andrew Hicks]

I'm no apologist for the visa section but your appreciation of the system verges on the naive and raises issues already explored ad nauseam in other threads, chiefly those featuring prolonged exchanges between GU22 and Silomfan/Atlastaname.

The fact that your post has gained favour with the eccentric Topfield must surely suggest to you that perhaps your view is not necessarily the most balanced. Nevertheless, you must speak as you find but I think it important to emphasise that contrary to your findings the principle determining visa issues is actually quite clear. The onus is on the applicant to satisfy the eco that on the balance of probability they meet the requirements of the published rules. The official websites all amplify on this and in case anyone is in any doubt as to what the requirements are then they can always refer to the published Diplomatic Service Procedures which are a model of clarity and pitched at a level most should be able to comprehend.

The system is not perfect and instances of injustice inevitably occur, hence the popularity of this forum. My personal beef with Bangkok's visa section is their apparent unwillingness to concede cases where the ECO has plainly made a mistake. Doubtless, this could be attributed to an obdurate management style but it is not the fault of the system per se but rather a failing of those charged with operating it.

No, I'm sorry, I'm new on Thai Visa and haven't read previous threads, so I'm sure I'm guilty of repetition. I totally miss your point as to what I'm supposed to have been naive about though.

Yes, you're right, the ECO's do run the line that 'the onus is on the applicant to satisfy them on the balance of probabilities that she/he has satisfied the requirements of the rules'. My point is that the Immigration Rules merely establish powers and procedures for ECOs to apply, while the Diplomatic Service Procedures usefully flesh out these procedures as operating guidelines. They do not tell you who you have to be nor what is the substance of the case you have to build to get a visa.

My point was that none of these documents clarify any of the policy of current immigration practice... what it is designed to achieve, what mischiefs it is intended to avert, who is desirable or undesirable, what criteria apply to allow a visa to be granted and therefore how the applicant can construct a successful case. Saying the onus is on the applicant to show that they meet the requirements of the Immgration Rules is meaningless because those rules relate to procedure and not substance... thay do not tell what case has to be established.

Of course you have to work it all out for yourself and I summarised the essentials in my 'report' in a few lines. When translated, from ECO-speak, saying that the onus is on the applicant etc. simply means that they've got an absolute discretion especially in the case of visit visas and can refuse your nicely constructed case at will and you can't do a damned thing about it.

Your second point is that ECOs will not back down when it is clear they've made a mistake. In the case of a visit visa, there is no right of appeal and while the refusal form (at least a little while ago) even invited a response, if you email them showing them the error of their ways, they cannot allow you an informal appeal and reverse their decision. They'll say we got it right but do come back tomorrow and give us another fee and we'll look at it again. They have little choice in the matter, otherwise everyone would demand an nformal appeal.

In the case of settlement visas, I have no knowlege, but I would have thought, as in all litigation, where an appeal has been entered, they would consider an informal review and reverse their decision to avoid it going all the way if they realise their decision was based on a clear error. It would be very wrong of them if they did not do this.

In this reply I have now expressed opinions that may or may not be balanced in your view, though as before they are hardly controversial. In my original 'report' I expressed very few opinions and deliberately stuck to hard facts. I hope setting out these facts was helpful to those less informed than yourself.

Andrew Hicks

[atlastaname]

Too many issues here Andrew, but i would comment on just one you raised.

In your second-to-last sentance , you rather charmingly state that they (ECO'S/BE) would rather look again at a case and reverse it than see it go all the way (to appeal) and show them to be wrong. Such innocence !! Do you not understand that the BE and the staff there care NOTHING for any hurt and heartbreak they cause and i'm sure they forget each refusal as soon as they leave the office for the day. They take the view that if they are wrong the appeal will rectify it . They will take no steps to rectify a wrong , because they do not care and they don't have to care either.

Rather like there is no shortage of people who relish being traffic wardens , there is no shortage of people who possess the particular character flaws you need in order to be an ECO.

[Andrew Hicks]

Too many issues here Andrew, but i would comment on just one you raised.

In your second-to-last sentance , you rather charmingly state that they (ECO'S/BE) would rather look again at a case and reverse it than see it go all the way (to appeal) and show them to be wrong. Such innocence !! Do you not understand that the BE and the staff there care NOTHING for any hurt and heartbreak they cause and i'm sure they forget each refusal as soon as they leave the office for the day. They take the view that if they are wrong the appeal will rectify it . They will take no steps to rectify a wrong , because they do not care and they don't have to care either.

Rather like there is no shortage of people who relish being traffic wardens , there is no shortage of people who possess the particular character flaws you need in order to be an ECO.

How nice to be called innocent! With my sixty years and many years of legal practice and experience of immigration law, I'm glad if you think I retain some nice qualities.

If you re-read my comment, you'll see I actually say that in the case of settlement visas, I simply don't know what happens but speculate that if it is shown they are clearly wrong, it would minimise their work and embarassment if they were to review their decision and grant the visa. On the other hand, perhaps there is no power in the Rules for them to do this. Once they have made their decision, maybe they are functus officio and the only power to overturn that decision lies with the Tribunal.

Can anyone clarify this point?

I would never expect ECOs to reverse a decision out of love and concern for the applicants. The very idea is ridiculous. They're just doing a thankless and difficult job because they failed to get into a higher grade in the Diplomatic Service.

[Prakanong]

It is funny though as one poster above states if true regarding Singapore

I personally (anecdoted do not make data I know) of no one refused VV or SV from Singapore where I now reside but know many from Thialand where I used to reside!!!

Just a personal observation which may be meanless

[mr_hippo]

They're just doing a thankless and difficult job because they failed to get into a higher grade in the Diplomatic Service.

Do you always talk utter drivel? Sounds like you are jealous that you did not get in.

[Prakanong]

They're just doing a thankless and difficult job because they failed to get into a higher grade in the Diplomatic Service.

Do you always talk utter drivel? Sounds like you are jealous that you did not get in.

I thought a lot of them in the Consular Office were home Office staff ie Immigration and not FCO - i am probably completely wrong of course ;-))

What grade are ECO's anyway?

I think I remember my pals grade when he made First Secretary but he has been promoted now to what I know not - I better ask!

[Andrew Hicks]

They're just doing a thankless and difficult job because they failed to get into a higher grade in the Diplomatic Service.

Do you always talk utter drivel? Sounds like you are jealous that you did not get in.

I thought a lot of them in the Consular Office were home Office staff ie Immigration and not FCO - i am probably completely wrong of course ;-))

What grade are ECO's anyway?

I think I remember my pals grade when he made First Secretary but he has been promoted now to what I know not - I better ask!

Good point, Prakanong... which is where I live in Bangkok when I'm not in Surin.

That point about grades was put to me as a consolation when we'd just had a visit visa refused. Home Office/FCO, I'm really not sure, though my snide point still remains valid. Frankly, I can think of no more ghastly job an wouldn't do it for anything!

And yes, I'd heard hippos were vicious.

Andrew

[Prakanong]

They're just doing a thankless and difficult job because they failed to get into a higher grade in the Diplomatic Service.

Do you always talk utter drivel? Sounds like you are jealous that you did not get in.

I thought a lot of them in the Consular Office were home Office staff ie Immigration and not FCO - i am probably completely wrong of course ;-))

What grade are ECO's anyway?

I think I remember my pals grade when he made First Secretary but he has been promoted now to what I know not - I better ask!

Good point, Prakanong... which is where I live in Bangkok when I'm not in Surin.

That point about grades was put to me as a consolation when we'd just had a visit visa refused. Home Office/FCO, I'm really not sure, though my snide point still remains valid. Frankly, I can think of no more ghastly job an wouldn't do it for anything!

And yes, I'd heard hippos were vicious.

Andrew

I must make it clear I know my pals job title but not grade now after First Secretary.

I have met a few ECO's on my travels and most have been a nice bunch - never had to deal with them professionaly though!!

One was at my birthday party in Brussels a few years ago and since he was buying my birthday drink I asked him the chances of a visa for my then GF - his advice was bring her to Belgium as given the situation he said any person in his position would refuse her - ie Uni student, no money, no children and no property/land.

[topfield]

"the Immigration Rules (that you can’t find anywhere!). "

Yes you can. Try the Home Office website, Immigration & Nationality, Law & Policy, and they're there

Yes, you're quite right. The Immigration Rules are available but they're appallingly badlydrafted and as obsure as they could possibly be. Expanding on my point in the 'report', it's ECO-speak to say that the applicant has not complied with the Rules but in reality the Rules contain no criteria whatsoever that indicate what is or is not an application that should be granted. They are just a mish mass of procedural rules.

The essential policy that determines how the discretion is exercised to grant visas is never stated anywhere. It is of course a political matter and it blows in the wind as immigration becomes more or less controversial. Nevertheless, we never know the ECO's criteria... that being a bar girl is a minus, that there is a presumption against black hair, that there's a weekly quota or that Fridays are bad but Wednesdays good. Perhaps the only criterion is think of a reason to reject and get hitting the keys.

All refusals are checked and cleared by the Entry Clearance Manager before being acted upon, but so what. That doesn't assure any consistency. The outcomes of the decisions that are made in Bangkok look pretty arbitrary so perhaps there are no criteria at all. You certainly won't find them in the Immigration Rules, which was my initial point. Nor will they ever say what they are. Funny that!

Andrew

Dear Mr Hicks,

I could not agree more with you. It is all arbitrary.

The only people who really know what is going on are the ECM and those with knowledge and experience.

So called "experts " such as the 'G' 's proclaim their expertise but have had little true knowledge or experience dealing with applicants themselves.

Perhaps they did their own wife's application some years ago (as one of the 'G''s admitted here recently ) and has read postings on TV .

They then proclaim themselves as experts despite having no qualifications legal or otherwise.

These so called 'experts' in order to maintain their phony status on this forum as experts, will then vilify, belittle, insult and flame any other person who shows him/ her self self to be more experienced, knowledgable or qualified than they are !

Their tactics are simple and predictable : Anyone such as yourself posting factual information such as the Hick's Report is told there is no need for this information as the facts are all online , and /or told the facts are incorrect and that two and two really make three.

Should anyone dare to give an opinion or their personal viewpoint they will be told their opinion either stinks or is rubbish . In addition to protect these phony experts there is a good chance the thread will be closed !

One only has to read these "experts" postings and it is clear for all to see how they take over the forum and drive away anyone daring to post who is not in their clique.

Andrew Hicks's posting is well written and extremely informative. Instead of being thanked and welcomed for his brilliant well thought out exposition, he is basically shown the door.

Twenty years experience and legal qualification means nothing to these people other than representing a threat to them and they will then ensure that these newcomers and trespassers are so crudely insulted and personally abused that they will never dare to post again.

PM' received show this clearly to be the case as many people are simply too frghtened to post for fear of nasty insults being directed against them. ..What a way to treat people ! Admin wake up and do your duty !

[buriramboy]

"the Immigration Rules (that you can’t find anywhere!). "

Yes you can. Try the Home Office website, Immigration & Nationality, Law & Policy, and they're there

Yes, you're quite right. The Immigration Rules are available but they're appallingly badlydrafted and as obsure as they could possibly be. Expanding on my point in the 'report', it's ECO-speak to say that the applicant has not complied with the Rules but in reality the Rules contain no criteria whatsoever that indicate what is or is not an application that should be granted. They are just a mish mass of procedural rules.

The essential policy that determines how the discretion is exercised to grant visas is never stated anywhere. It is of course a political matter and it blows in the wind as immigration becomes more or less controversial. Nevertheless, we never know the ECO's criteria... that being a bar girl is a minus, that there is a presumption against black hair, that there's a weekly quota or that Fridays are bad but Wednesdays good. Perhaps the only criterion is think of a reason to reject and get hitting the keys.

All refusals are checked and cleared by the Entry Clearance Manager before being acted upon, but so what. That doesn't assure any consistency. The outcomes of the decisions that are made in Bangkok look pretty arbitrary so perhaps there are no criteria at all. You certainly won't find them in the Immigration Rules, which was my initial point. Nor will they ever say what they are. Funny that!

Andrew

Dear Mr Hicks,

I could not agree more with you. It is all arbitrary.

The only people who really know what is going on are the ECM and those with knowledge and experience.

So called "experts " such as the 'G' 's proclaim their expertise but have had little true knowledge or experience dealing with applicants themselves.

Perhaps they did their own wife's application some years ago (as one of the 'G''s admitted here recently ) and has read postings on TV .

They then proclaim themselves as experts despite having no qualifications legal or otherwise.

These so called 'experts' in order to maintain their phony status on this forum as experts, will then vilify, belittle, insult and flame any other person who shows him/ her self self to be more experienced, knowledgable or qualified than they are !

Their tactics are simple and predictable : Anyone such as yourself posting factual information such as the Hick's Report is told there is no need for this information as the facts are all online , and /or told the facts are incorrect and that two and two really make three.

Should anyone dare to give an opinion or their personal viewpoint they will be told their opinion either stinks or is rubbish . In addition to protect these phony experts there is a good chance the thread will be closed !

One only has to read these "experts" postings and it is clear for all to see how they take over the forum and drive away anyone daring to post who is not in their clique.

Andrew Hicks's posting is well written and extremely informative. Instead of being thanked and welcomed for his brilliant well thought out exposition, he is basically shown the door.

Twenty years experience and legal qualification means nothing to these people other than representing a threat to them and they will then ensure that these newcomers and trespassers are so crudely insulted and personally abused that they will never dare to post again.

PM' received show this clearly to be the case as many people are simply too frghtened to post for fear of nasty insults being directed against them. ..What a way to treat people ! Admin wake up and do your duty !

Topfield i have seen numerous posts where people have asked you your qualifications and how you are qualified to give immigration advice, but every time you seem to ignore the question, so i won't hold my breath for an answer.

BB

[Old Croc]

So called "experts " such as the 'G' 's proclaim their expertise but have had little true knowledge or experience dealing with applicants themselves.

Perhaps they did their own wife's application some years ago (as one of the 'G''s admitted here recently ) and has read postings on TV .

They then proclaim themselves as experts despite having no qualifications legal or otherwise.

These so called 'experts' in order to maintain their phony status on this forum as experts, will then vilify, belittle, insult and flame any other person who shows him/ her self self to be more experienced, knowledgable or qualified than they are !

Is their a market where I can place a bet on "G's" qualifications ahead of Topfields?

[the scouser]

...they will then ensure that these newcomers and trespassers are so crudely insulted and personally abused that they will never dare to post again.

.... Admin wake up and do your duty !

Toppers,

Your poor attempts at vicarious moderation of this forum are beginning to rankle.

Rest assured that if you or any other member is truly flamed, then the matter will be addressed. Otherwise, don't consider a particular post to be a flame solely because a poster holds a differing opinion to you.

Scouse.

[mrbojangles]

So called "experts " such as the 'G' 's proclaim their expertise but have had little true knowledge or experience dealing with applicants themselves.

Perhaps they did their own wife's application some years ago (as one of the 'G''s admitted here recently ) and has read postings on TV .

They then proclaim themselves as experts despite having no qualifications legal or otherwise.

Is their a market where I can place a bet on "G's" qualifications ahead of Topfields?

I'll have a few thousand Baht on that as well OldCroc

[atlastaname]

They're just doing a thankless and difficult job because they failed to get into a higher grade in the Diplomatic Service.

Do you always talk utter drivel? Sounds like you are jealous that you did not get in.

Yes can't agree with that either ...it' s not a difficult job . Once you have had the required training and gleaned a bit of experience i would imagine its quite easy as long as you have a certain level of intelligence. And a very enjoyable job . Personally i would love to do it AND i would be good at it .

[atlastaname]

So called "experts " such as the 'G' 's proclaim their expertise but have had little true knowledge or experience dealing with applicants themselves.

Perhaps they did their own wife's application some years ago (as one of the 'G''s admitted here recently ) and has read postings on TV .

They then proclaim themselves as experts despite having no qualifications legal or otherwise.

Is their a market where I can place a bet on "G's" qualifications ahead of Topfields?

I'll have a few thousand Baht on that as well OldCroc

We are all in the dark as to Topper's qualifications as although he has been repeatedly asked for them , he doesn't produce. So he remains an unknown quantity. Regarding our currently absent friend GU22 he has had very limited experience of actual contact with the Embassy , having had a refusal and a couple of approvals i believe the count is . Anyway its quite limited. So his actual experience is tiny, but he makes up for it by copious reading on the subject. So actually neither of them has any qualifications if you are talking about betting (to be fair GU has never claimed to have any), but they both have a lot of knowledge.

[mrbojangles]

So called "experts " such as the 'G' 's proclaim their expertise but have had little true knowledge or experience dealing with applicants themselves.

Perhaps they did their own wife's application some years ago (as one of the 'G''s admitted here recently ) and has read postings on TV .

They then proclaim themselves as experts despite having no qualifications legal or otherwise.

Is their a market where I can place a bet on "G's" qualifications ahead of Topfields?

I'll have a few thousand Baht on that as well OldCroc

We are all in the dark as to Topper's qualifications as although he has been repeatedly asked for them , he doesn't produce. So he remains an unknown quantity. Regarding our currently absent friend GU22 he has had very limited experience of actual contact with the Embassy , having had a refusal and a couple of approvals i believe the count is . Anyway its quite limited. So his actual experience is tiny, but he makes up for it by copious reading on the subject. So actually neither of them has any qualifications if you are talking about betting (to be fair GU has never claimed to have any), but they both have a lot of knowledge.

Sorry for the confusion atlastaname. I'm talking about the Gent not GU22

[atlastaname]

Oooops !! Maybe for the benefit of the dumb ones like me , posters could be clearer? Thanks for the correction MrBoj... i'm glad i didn't say anything nasty about GU now ... in fact i was quite nice

[topfield]

...they will then ensure that these newcomers and trespassers are so crudely insulted and personally abused that they will never dare to post again.

.... Admin wake up and do your duty !

Toppers,

Your poor attempts at vicarious moderation of this forum are beginning to rankle.

Rest assured that if you or any other member is truly flamed, then the matter will be addressed. Otherwise, don't consider a particular post to be a flame solely because a poster holds a differing opinion to you.

Scouse.

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful remarks.

Please will you allow a compilation of such insulting postings from these people to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the use of totally unnecessary and hostile, rude, abusive and insulting language on this section of the forum ...usually directed at people who have a greater knowledge and experience than the people who post these ?

Then you (and indeed others) can judge whether the claims made in the posting above hold water or not .

Surely there is no place on this section of the forum for the constant use of such demeaning and insuting language as this is clearly a section dealing with serious and often legal matters which affects peoples'lives . Would you not agree ?

As for "flaming" which is clearly banned under the rules of this forum, it can be defined as :

" the act of sending or posting messages that are deliberately hostile and insulting, usually in the social context of a discussion board on the Internet. "

Would you allow me to prove that also by pastings of such deliberate and hostile remarks ?

In return , as this perusal of postings will take many hours, all that is asked is that if these pastings prove beyond all reasonable doubt that rude impolite and insulting language has indeed been used on this section of the forum by certain individuals , you wil take firm action to ensure this does not happen again. . Is this agreed ?

Sincerely,

Topfield

[topfield]

So called "experts " such as the 'G' 's proclaim their expertise but have had little true knowledge or experience dealing with applicants themselves.

Perhaps they did their own wife's application some years ago (as one of the 'G''s admitted here recently ) and has read postings on TV .

They then proclaim themselves as experts despite having no qualifications legal or otherwise.

These so called 'experts' in order to maintain their phony status on this forum as experts, will then vilify, belittle, insult and flame any other person who shows him/ her self self to be more experienced, knowledgable or qualified than they are !

Is their a market where I can place a bet on "G's" qualifications ahead of Topfields?

................................................................................

...........

OK Thank you for your challenge

One Million Baht deposited with a solicitor as stakeholder pending examination of proof of :

1. Legal qualifications and status

2. Evidence of experience handling visa applications including names of those applicants .

3. Evidence of financial status to prove the money is there.

Since you made the challenge please provide the name of your lawyer.

We will also require the name/address and true identity of the individual concerned (which will remain confidential) and proof it is the true identity of the person posting the insulting remarks.

I await your reply on this forum openly and not by pm.

Please ensure you have the funds ready....and no excuses or delaying tactics please .

Thank you

[coldcrush]

I tell you, if you lot spent as much time helping people as you did flaming each other the world would be on the move...anyways nice to see so called intellectuals can still play schoolyard games...enjoy. I bet you sip baht?

[topfield]

So called "experts " such as the 'G' 's proclaim their expertise but have had little true knowledge or experience dealing with applicants themselves.

Perhaps they did their own wife's application some years ago (as one of the 'G''s admitted here recently ) and has read postings on TV .

They then proclaim themselves as experts despite having no qualifications legal or otherwise.

These so called 'experts' in order to maintain their phony status on this forum as experts, will then vilify, belittle, insult and flame any other person who shows him/ her self self to be more experienced, knowledgable or qualified than they are !

Is their a market where I can place a bet on "G's" qualifications ahead of Topfields?

................................................................................

...........

OK Thank you for your challenge

One Million Baht deposited with a solicitor as stakeholder pending examination of proof of :

1. Legal qualifications and status

2. Evidence of experience handling visa applications including names of those applicants .

3. Evidence of financial status to prove the money is there.

Since you made the challenge please provide the name of your lawyer.

We will also require the name/address and true identity of the individual concerned (which will remain confidential) and proof it is the true identity of the person posting the insulting remarks.

I await your reply on this forum openly and not by pm.

Please ensure you have the funds ready....and no excuses or delaying tactics please .

Thank you

NB Should the TV admin feel that my acceptance of Old Croc's challenge in anyway breaches the rules of this forum , I withdraw my acceptance of the offer forthwith and unconditionally as it is not my intention to break any rules of this forum which I greatly appreciate respect and admire. If and when subscriptions are introduced I will immediately gladly pay up what ever amount is asked.

[markr]

So called "experts " such as the 'G' 's proclaim their expertise but have had little true knowledge or experience dealing with applicants themselves.

Perhaps they did their own wife's application some years ago (as one of the 'G''s admitted here recently ) and has read postings on TV .

They then proclaim themselves as experts despite having no qualifications legal or otherwise.

These so called 'experts' in order to maintain their phony status on this forum as experts, will then vilify, belittle, insult and flame any other person who shows him/ her self self to be more experienced, knowledgable or qualified than they are !

Is their a market where I can place a bet on "G's" qualifications ahead of Topfields?

................................................................................

...........

OK Thank you for your challenge

One Million Baht deposited with a solicitor as stakeholder pending examination of proof of :

1. Legal qualifications and status

2. Evidence of experience handling visa applications including names of those applicants .

3. Evidence of financial status to prove the money is there.

Since you made the challenge please provide the name of your lawyer.

We will also require the name/address and true identity of the individual concerned (which will remain confidential) and proof it is the true identity of the person posting the insulting remarks.

I await your reply on this forum openly and not by pm.

Please ensure you have the funds ready....and no excuses or delaying tactics please .

Thank you

NB Should the TV admin feel that my acceptance of Old Croc's challenge in anyway breaches the rules of this forum , I withdraw my acceptance of the offer forthwith and unconditionally as it is not my intention to break any rules of this forum which I greatly appreciate respect and admire. If and when subscriptions are introduced I will immediately gladly pay up what ever amount is asked.

I'm glad this thread isn't by someone asking for help regarding 'visas' the talk of law suits and gambling would surely scare them into never using thaivisa again!

Get with it guys!

Mark

[Andrew Hicks]

So called "experts " such as the 'G' 's proclaim their expertise but have had little true knowledge or experience dealing with applicants themselves.

Perhaps they did their own wife's application some years ago (as one of the 'G''s admitted here recently ) and has read postings on TV .

They then proclaim themselves as experts despite having no qualifications legal or otherwise.

These so called 'experts' in order to maintain their phony status on this forum as experts, will then vilify, belittle, insult and flame any other person who shows him/ her self self to be more experienced, knowledgable or qualified than they are !

Is their a market where I can place a bet on "G's" qualifications ahead of Topfields?

................................................................................

...........

OK Thank you for your challenge

One Million Baht deposited with a solicitor as stakeholder pending examination of proof of :

1. Legal qualifications and status

2. Evidence of experience handling visa applications including names of those applicants .

3. Evidence of financial status to prove the money is there.

Since you made the challenge please provide the name of your lawyer.

We will also require the name/address and true identity of the individual concerned (which will remain confidential) and proof it is the true identity of the person posting the insulting remarks.

I await your reply on this forum openly and not by pm.

Please ensure you have the funds ready....and no excuses or delaying tactics please .

Thank you

NB Should the TV admin feel that my acceptance of Old Croc's challenge in anyway breaches the rules of this forum , I withdraw my acceptance of the offer forthwith and unconditionally as it is not my intention to break any rules of this forum which I greatly appreciate respect and admire. If and when subscriptions are introduced I will immediately gladly pay up what ever amount is asked.

I'm glad this thread isn't by someone asking for help regarding 'visas' the talk of law suits and gambling would surely scare them into never using thaivisa again!

Get with it guys!

Mark

A new boy on Thai Visa, I posted my 'Report' in the hope that it might be useful to readers, though I do know that much has gone before . Thanks to those who complimented it, but the rest of the posts are more than a little surprising to me.

I post under my real identity, have nothing to sell and think that this Forum at its best is extremely valuable. I hope it can stay that way.

Andrew

[the gent]

Welcome to the forum, a broad church featuring a rich kaleidoscope of characters most of whom could earn a reasonable living as axe grinders!

Reading the inestimable Topfield's posts I'm put in mind of the barking mad Captain Queeg, master of the good ship Caine as played by Humphrey Bogart. You may recall the scene where he is measuring out sand into the empty can of strawberries to establish just how many portions have been purloined by his supposed recalcitrant crew to the accompaniment of much twitching and rolling of manically paranoid eyeballs. A disturbing image and one that is beginning to haunt me.