Video Interview with the British Embassy Consular Team in Thailand - August 2020

[CorpusChristie]

1 hour ago, Stoker58 said:

  Yeah, sure. Ever been in a Thai prison?

He wouldnt have been in prison at that time, he would have been being held at a police station in a police station cell . I also do not understand the connection between the condition of his incarceration and him not wanting to tell his UK family back home 

[Stoker58]

8 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

He wouldnt have been in prison at that time, he would have been being held at a police station in a police station cell . I also do not understand the connection between the condition of his incarceration and him not wanting to tell his UK family back home 

 It’s simple. Thai law gives him the right to make a phone call. If he was not allowed the option to make a phone call then he could not legally be brought to court - same as almost every other country in the world.

[soi3eddie]

41 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Sounds like he was renting his property out and the Government funds by the way of someone else receiving housing benefits/UC  and paying him rent money .

  

No. All his income was direct from UK government (taxpayer) funds. He owns no assets.

Edited August 12, 2020 by soi3eddie

[philba]

56 minutes ago, Stoker58 said:

 Agreed, but getting back on topic here, this discussion is about the failings of the British consulate. Where a British citizen has been illegally imprisoned, contrary to the laws of Thailand, there would be no point reporting that to the police. That’s where the consulate has an obligation to get involved. That’s why we have consulates.

And they DO, as soon as they are made aware of it.

[kingofthemountain]

52 minutes ago, Stoker58 said:

 Agreed, but getting back on topic here, this discussion is about the failings of the British consulate. Where a British citizen has been illegally imprisoned, contrary to the laws of Thailand, there would be no point reporting that to the police. That’s where the consulate has an obligation to get involved. That’s why we have consulates.

Consulates can act only in the way left by the host country

in Thailand this ''room for maneuver'' is narrow.

 

 

[Stoker58]

2 minutes ago, kingofthemountain said:

Consulates can act only in the way left by the host country

in Thailand this ''room for maneuver'' is narrow.

 

 

 Not correct. Consulates can only act in the ways permitted in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The host country has no discretion in this.

[Stoker58]

9 minutes ago, philba said:

And they DO, as soon as they are made aware of it.

 And there’s the problem, because in many cases the police do not notify the embassy, and this is illegal. The British consulate knows this happens often but refuse to challenge this crime against British citizens.

[kingofthemountain]

6 minutes ago, Stoker58 said:

 And there’s the problem, because in many cases the police do not notify the embassy, and this is illegal. The British consulate knows this happens often but refuse to challenge this crime against British citizens.

That's exactly what i was talking about

the british consulate know already how far he is allowed to go

and where is the limit. And not any convention can fix that.

[Stoker58]

5 minutes ago, kingofthemountain said:

That's exactly what i was talking about

the british consulate know already how far he is allowed to go

and where is the limit. And not any convention can fix that.

The Convention is an international treaty.......so you’re saying the Consulate are willing to tolerate repeated breaches of an international treaty?

[kingofthemountain]

1 minute ago, Stoker58 said:

The Convention is an international treaty.......so you’re saying the Consulate are willing to tolerate repeated breaches of an international treaty?

Yes of course

 

[Arkady]

11 hours ago, Neeranam said:

It's not their fault that the government have slashed consular services, they are just doing their job. 

 

When getting a letter of intent to renounce my citizenship, the lady was very helpful. 

 

My complaint is the Thai staff working at the gate. When on British soil, I resent being shouted at "you you telephone". 

 

 

Having Thai staff at the gate is also another sign of costs having been cut. In the old days there were never any Thai staff at the gate, only gurkhas who were very polite but firm in doing their job. When the red shirts took control of the Ploenchit/Chidlom area the embassy staff made a case to London for giving a stay of execution to the gurkhas, as they believed, that, if a push came to a shove they could rely on the gurkhas to protect them to the last man with their kukris, whereas Thai security guards could easily be intimidated into stepping aside to let rioters do whatever they wanted.  In the end the security contract was given to Chubb on condition they took on the gurkhas after the embassy fired them. I assume they are all gone now. The US embassy on the other hand is guarded by a squad of heavily armed marines and inside the US embassy one sees guys walking around openly carrying handguns.  They certainly don't trust their lives to a contract with a Thai security guard firm.

[elliss]

12 hours ago, SteveK said:

So the key point here is, don't rely on the UK embassy for anything, ever.

 

 However that said , it is a jolly good free lunch ..

 

 

Edited August 12, 2020 by elliss

[Stoker58]

8 minutes ago, kingofthemountain said:

Yes of course

 

 Agreed. That has been my experience too. Not really a consulate at all, and staffed by the B team at best.

[Arkady]

I have to say that things have changed a lot since I have had dealings with the embassy and consular section.  In the old days they were really helpful in renewing passports and getting visas for the Thai missus. I got many documents notarised there by just dropping in without an appointment and they willingly notarised anything from the UK or British dependencies like the British Virgin Islands, as long as it looked above board.  Now they have a list of only about half a dozen things they can notarise and you need an online appointment to see them. During the 1997 financial crisis I was targeted by corrupt politicians who were looking for scapegoats for the collapse of the financial system and about 30 cops raided my office going through papers using an invalid search warrant and issuing copious threats on behalf of their political masters.  I called the embassy and they told me to come over immediately.  By the time I got there they had already been on the phone to London about the situation and assured me that London had instructed the embassy to take up the matter on a government to government basis, if the situation got any nastier.  Luckily it didn't get too much nastier as the opposition in the form of Abhisit Vejajiva took up the issue in parliament and managed to ridicule the government until they backed off.  However, it was reassuring to know that the embassy was willing to put its neck out for me and I had the mobile number of the 24 hour duty officer.  I just can't imagine receiving that level of help today.  It is more likely that I would be left talking to a recorded message or trying to make an appointment online but unable to because the matter I wanted to consult them about didn't fall into any of the categories on the menu.

[soi3eddie]

15 minutes ago, Arkady said:

Having Thai staff at the gate is also another sign of costs having been cut. In the old days there were never any Thai staff at the gate, only gurkhas who were very polite but firm in doing their job. When the red shirts took control of the Ploenchit/Chidlom area the embassy staff made a case to London for giving a stay of execution to the gurkhas, as they believed, that, if a push came to a shove they could rely on the gurkhas to protect them to the last man with their kukris, whereas Thai security guards could easily be intimidated into stepping aside to let rioters do whatever they wanted.  In the end the security contract was given to Chubb on condition they took on the gurkhas after the embassy fired them. I assume they are all gone now. The US embassy on the other hand is guarded by a squad of heavily armed marines and inside the US embassy one sees guys walking around openly carrying handguns.  They certainly don't trust their lives to a contract with a Thai security guard firm.

I've been in both the Old British Embassy on Wireless under control of the Gurkhas numerous times and the US Embassy just once. Both were very well protected and fair. I last went to the British Embassy on Wireless in early 2019 and wasn't really sure of the security (maybe Thai contractors). One thing for sure is that a Sovereign Embassy on foreign soil should have it's own staff and people guarding and working there. No messing and no misunderstanding.

[Stoker58]

6 minutes ago, Arkady said:

I have to say that things have changed a lot since I have had dealings with the embassy and consular section. 

  Those days are long gone, probably an indication of the long term decline of British influence. Certainly, where consulates are concerned, a country gets what it pays for.

[philba]

47 minutes ago, Stoker58 said:

 And there’s the problem, because in many cases the police do not notify the embassy, and this is illegal. The British consulate knows this happens often but refuse to challenge this crime against British citizens.

They do a lot more behind the scenes than most people know.

[philba]

6 minutes ago, soi3eddie said:

I've been in both the Old British Embassy on Wireless under control of the Gurkhas numerous times and the US Embassy just once. Both were very well protected and fair. I last went to the British Embassy on Wireless in early 2019 and wasn't really sure of the security (maybe Thai contractors). One thing for sure is that a Sovereign Embassy on foreign soil should have it's own staff and people guarding and working there. No messing and no misunderstanding.

They have to have some local staff, as Brits would never truly understand the Thai way to talk to authoities in the correct manner, however about half the consular staff ARE British.

[Dogmatix]

11 hours ago, Neeranam said:

Are you blaming the Thai government? You should be happy that the government here make it so easy for pensioners to live here, compared with say the US or UK. 

In quite happy as I qualify for the UK pension despite only working for 4 years in the UK. They paid 7 years for me when I was a student at school and uni. 

They let me pay back 10 years of NI contributions recently, class 2, £1500 total.

 

On the contrary.  I am not blaming the Thai government for anything. I am blaming the British government for seizing on any old excuse to avoid paying full pensions commensurate with the contributions they have paid.  You may feel happy to be entitled to anything, having only worked there for 4 years and I also spent most of my career abroad. However, there are many here who worked for their entire careers in the UK paying full NIC contributions and income tax, only to be short changed by the government on retirement.

[Dogmatix]

9 hours ago, chilly07 said:

Yes like many others I am unable to find this so called reciprocal agreement on pension updating. Brexit negotiations with 27 individual EU countries on pensions may flush it out. They will all demand reciprocity. 

And with all other embassies other than UK USA and Aus still issuing income letters their excuse doesn't hold water. Does data protection only apply in 3 countries. Absolutely not. The UK aquired it's data protection laws from the EU which still applies to EU nation's who still provide income letters. 

Do you believe the other embassies that are still issuing the letters really verify the pensions.  I seriously doubt it.  I think it is much more likely they told Immigration they would continue to witness affidavits made by their citizens according to the laws of their countries which would based on presentation of evidence by the pensioners. I think the cost and trouble of verifying state and private pensions would make it impossbile and they are likely to limited by data protection laws in their countries.  

 

I think the difference is that they stood up to Immigration and Immigration backed off.  They also felt the letters were a service that was of great value to their citizens that they wanted to continued. A former British consular staffer admitted that they had been looking for a way to dump this service for some years and Immigration's initiative to try to force them to verify the pensions was extremely opportune. 

[Stoker58]

14 minutes ago, philba said:

They do a lot more behind the scenes than most people know.

 They do nothing behind the scenes, and there’s the problem. I know because I have looked into their messages and I also have a source in the Thai police, well placed.
  They also actively sneer at the ex-pat community in private.

[Dogmatix]

6 hours ago, sandyf said:

There is no mystery. Reciprocal Agreements are not about pensions, they are about social security and pensions are part of that, but an agreement can be in place without pensions being involved.

The UK has an agreement with Canada but at the time it was drawn up the Canadian state pension could not be exported so pensions were not included. Since then the Canadian government has changed the law but the UK has never agreed to the agreement being amended so expats in Canada do not get the increases.

I think it was about 30 years ago government policy changed and it was stated that there would be no more Social Security Reciprocal Agreements. It will be interesting to see what happens with the EU. The current agreement must come to an end and if they introduce a new one it will fly in the face of government policy.

The legislation that prevents overseas pensions being index linked is embedded in the Social Security Act which comes before parliament every year. The problem is that the government controls business in the house and they only allow time for the changes they propose to be debated, what attempts there has been to bring the matter before the house have never seen the light of day.

Unfortunately, unless there is some procedural change in the house the matter will never be debated far less go to a vote. 

 

So from what you are saying the reciprocal agreements are actually to do with social security, rather than pension, like the agreements within the EU that allow EU citizens to claim social security and healthcare in other member countries?  On the other hand I don't know the reciprocal agreement with the US covers, since they have virtually no social security zero national health service. 

 

Anyway it still sounds like the reciprocal agreements have nothing or little to do with pension but not having them is just a great excuse for government to cheat pensioners out of large chunks of their pensions. Politicians can afford to cheat expats and ignore their complaints because they present no threat at election time.

[Dogmatix]

5 hours ago, CorpusChristie said:

Unfortunately , you do not get any  special benefits when returning from Thailand , the UK Gov will not house you , you will have to find your own accommodation and then apply for U.C.

   You seem to be wanting something that doesnt exist, I.E a Gov department  that will provide you with a home , food and money .

  You do not just fly back to the UK after a long absence and get given a house or even any place to live

Not only do you get those things, which are anyway unreasonable to expect, but you are also not entitled to free treatment on the NHS until you have been back for 6 months and that is something that British citizens are entitled to expect. Thais are certainly entitled to gold card treatment as soon as they return to Thailand.

[Arkady]

50 minutes ago, philba said:

They have to have some local staff, as Brits would never truly understand the Thai way to talk to authoities in the correct manner, however about half the consular staff ARE British.

Of course all embassies in all countries need to have some local staff.  I think he was mainly saying the embassy guards should be trusted nationals of the home country or trusted nationals of a third country and I tend to agree with him. Even the Gurkha guards were no spring chickens at the end and they were not provided with firearms at the end, I am quite sure that they would have put up as solid a defence as they could with the weapons at their disposal.  Any malefactor unwise enough to get within range of their kukris would have suddenly found himself missing a body part.  I recall my very first meeting with a British ambassador in Thailand in the early 80s when he attended a function I arranged as a visiting export manager still based in London. I noticed that the ambassador came into the hotel tailed by a uniformed Gurkha bodyguard with a pistol on his belt in a polished old fashioned holster with a flap covering the whole gun (although it might have been filled with tissue paper for all I knew).  I have never seen a British ambassador with a Gurkha bodyguard since then or any Gurkha in Thailand armed with a firearm. The Gurkha guards at the embassy told they were not issued with any firearms. The Thai government issues firearms licenses for foreign embassy guards but I don't know there are any in the British embassy.  However, they certainly request permission for British detectives to bring pistols and ammunition when they come to protect British VIPs.  They are usually assigned armed Thai VIP protection officers to work with them. However, the Americans refuse to allow armed Thai VIP protection officers to get anywhere near their own visiting VIPs.

[CorpusChristie]

3 hours ago, soi3eddie said:

No. All his income was direct from UK government (taxpayer) funds. He owns no assets.

Explain how he did that ? 

Waiting .

[CorpusChristie]

59 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

Not only do you get those things, which are anyway unreasonable to expect, but you are also not entitled to free treatment on the NHS until you have been back for 6 months and that is something that British citizens are entitled to expect. Thais are certainly entitled to gold card treatment as soon as they return to Thailand.

Just need to keep registered with a UK G.P and no need to mention why you havent been to visit the GP in the previous 10 or however many years

[CorpusChristie]

1 hour ago, Stoker58 said:

  Those days are long gone, probably an indication of the long term decline of British influence. Certainly, where consulates are concerned, a country gets what it pays for.

We can all do everything for ourselves now , absolutely no need to ask an Embassy for anything 

[soi3eddie]

5 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Just need to keep registered with a UK G.P and no need to mention why you havent been to visit the GP in the previous 10 or however many years

True, UK GPs don't care how long since they last saw you. The GPs still get £100,000+ GBP per annum for 5 easy days per week even if no one gets through the surgery door (good luck with getting an appointment these days anyway). 

[CorpusChristie]

3 minutes ago, soi3eddie said:

True, UK GPs don't care how long since they last saw you. The GPs still get £100,000+ GBP per annum for 5 easy days per week even if no one gets through the surgery door (good luck with getting an appointment these days anyway). 

I think that GP's get about 3000 GBP per patient per year .

Went to visit my GP after 10 years of being away

They said "Havent seen you for a long while , whats wrong with you "

I just said "Nothing , I just thought I'd come and say hello"

NEXT PATIENT

[philba]

8 hours ago, Stoker58 said:

 They do nothing behind the scenes, and there’s the problem. I know because I have looked into their messages and I also have a source in the Thai police, well placed.
  They also actively sneer at the ex-pat community in private.

They do plenty behind the scenes. You and your well placed source just don't know about it.

What on earth do you mean by "I have looked into their messages" ? Whose messages to who ?