I Wonder How This Is Going To Pan Out?

[wolf5370]

From the UK Embassy website :

Can I join my husband, wife, civil partner, fiancé, fiancée or proposed civil partner in the UK?

You can apply to join your husband, wife, civil partner, fiancé, fiancée or proposed civil partner in the UK as long as:

• they currently live and are settled in the UK, or
• they are coming to live permanently in the UK, and
• they are not under 21

How do I qualify to join my husband, wife or civil partner in the UK?

You must show that:

• you are legally married to each other or are in a civil partnership recognised in the UK
• your husband, wife or civil partner is present and settled in the UK (see the next section)
• you both intend to live together permanently as husband and wife or as civil partners
• you have met each other before
• you can support yourselves and any dependants without any help from public funds
• you have suitable accommodation, which is owned or lived in only by you and your household, and where you and your dependants can live without any help from public funds
• your husband, wife or civil partner is not under 21, and
• you are not under 21 at the date of arrival in the UK .

From 29 November 2010, you must show that you can speak and understand English.

So, either she lied to get the settlement visa or failed to notify the embassy when the circumstances of her marriage changed.

I find it hard to sympathise with either of them. He is Scottish. She is a journalist.

What's the 21 bit all about? In the UK you can marry at 16 (with concent - 18 without) - in some countries even earlier - so a couple married for 4 years at 16 until 20, can not be together as one is under 21? Seems arbitrary!

WHen I first married my wife (and last married her too for that!) she was 20 and I was 26, so she joined me in the UK she was under 21. We had had a 2 year engagement prior to that. This was 13 years ago (when primary purpose was still in law), but she sailed through with no problems. Today she would be denied?

[NanLaew]

Britain decides who comes into Britain not layers or, solicitors,

LOL.... it's how much money you have that is the decider. If you are piss poor, you are in. If you are stinking rich, you are in. This unfortunate woman married a skinflint jock... who probably can't spell prenupt so her legal counsel will prevail. He should man up and get divorced instead of wasting taxpayers money on this circus.

[GuestHouse]

The UK is a sucker now they have the EU human rights act.

So you're saying that human rights are a bad thing and we should abolish them ?

Not at all - its just only the UK abides by all the EU rules, whether its good for the populace or not.

Having lived and worked in The Netherlands, France and Italy I've not observed any difference in the way that EU laws and regulations are applied between these places and the UK.

Perhaps there's something wrong with this idea that only the Brits play by the rules.

[GuestHouse]

In the UK you are ' incredibly ' innocent until proven guilty, no matter what.

Though if arrested the police will take and keep a sample of your DNA regardless of whether or not you are subsequently found guilty of any crime - in direct contradiction to an EU Court of Human Rights ruling that says they should not keep DNA samples of people unless a suspect if found guilty.

An example of Britain applying the rules?

[GuestHouse]

Where is this suet filed? Under the European Court of Human Rights? It will likey be kicked out as immigration is down to the member state (part of one of the early agreements - Maastricht ??). If in the UK, then I believe it is not possible to take a Government Agency to court (remember this when the Families Need Fathers brigade wanted to takew the CSA to court but couldn't and when the contractor's groups wanted to suet the IR over IR35 - both had to go to Europe, and both were kicked out also - State affairs). If in Thailand, it must surely also be kicked out as they have no power of enforcement of remit over foreign power's foreign/immigration policy.

Can't see this going anywhere - whether it is deserved or not.

There are plenty of examples of people taking government agencies to court and winning damages - cases against the police are an example.

[F1fanatic]

Where is this suet filed? Under the European Court of Human Rights? It will likey be kicked out as immigration is down to the member state (part of one of the early agreements - Maastricht ??). If in the UK, then I believe it is not possible to take a Government Agency to court (remember this when the Families Need Fathers brigade wanted to takew the CSA to court but couldn't and when the contractor's groups wanted to suet the IR over IR35 - both had to go to Europe, and both were kicked out also - State affairs). If in Thailand, it must surely also be kicked out as they have no power of enforcement of remit over foreign power's foreign/immigration policy.

Can't see this going anywhere - whether it is deserved or not.

There are plenty of examples of people taking government agencies to court and winning damages - cases against the police are an example.

And good luck to her .

[chickenslegs]

In the UK you are ' incredibly ' innocent until proven guilty, no matter what.

Though if arrested the police will take and keep a sample of your DNA regardless of whether or not you are subsequently found guilty of any crime - in direct contradiction to an EU Court of Human Rights ruling that says they should not keep DNA samples of people unless a suspect if found guilty.

An example of Britain applying the rules?

Fortunately (IMHO) the EuCHR does not have precedence over legislation made in UK parliaments for UK citizens.

The UK has a Human Rights Act and a Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Taking samples and keeping them on a national database is legal in the UK - provided they are only used for preventing or detecting crime.

So, Britain is applying the rules !

(Sorry to go so far off topic)

[TAWP]

A journalist that complains over not getting a translator...

[KeyserSoze01]

Keep in mind that until a court decides otherwise, half of everything he's trying to hang on belongs to his wife.

Is that truly the case -or- is it half of what they jointly acquired during he marriage?

Claiming rights to half of whatever his has acquired during his entire life is not a fair nor equitable settlement and will not stand up in a court of law.

And just what has the devoted wife brought to the table during the marriage? I know, it's a rhetorical question.

[StreetCowboy]

.......

And just what has the devoted wife brought to the table during the marriage? I know, it's a rhetorical question.

? All that she possessed?

If that wasn't enough, he should not have married her...

I am a little surprised that the immigration authorities took it upon themselves to judge whether the marriage was over. My understanding was that under common law a separation of seven years was normally sufficient to conclude that a marriage was finished...

SC

[GooEng]

quite why does this dear lady think that she's entitled to 2 million quid in compensation for what amounts to a night in the cells?

emotional damage?

or p'raps it's more a case of loss of earnings?

Edited December 6, 2010 by joe ekkamai

[chickenslegs]

.......

And just what has the devoted wife brought to the table during the marriage? I know, it's a rhetorical question.

? All that she possessed?

If that wasn't enough, he should not have married her...

I am a little surprised that the immigration authorities took it upon themselves to judge whether the marriage was over. My understanding was that under common law a separation of seven years was normally sufficient to conclude that a marriage was finished...

SC

I don't think they decided the marriage was over. They decided her visa was invalidated because it was issued for the purpose of her joining her husband and settling in the UK, whereas she was trying to enter the UK with the purpose of starting divorce proceedings.

[StreetCowboy]

.......

And just what has the devoted wife brought to the table during the marriage? I know, it's a rhetorical question.

? All that she possessed?

If that wasn't enough, he should not have married her...

I am a little surprised that the immigration authorities took it upon themselves to judge whether the marriage was over. My understanding was that under common law a separation of seven years was normally sufficient to conclude that a marriage was finished...

SC

I don't think they decided the marriage was over. They decided her visa was invalidated because it was issued for the purpose of her joining her husband and settling in the UK, whereas she was trying to enter the UK with the purpose of starting divorce proceedings.

I thought she wanted to join her husband and settle in court... in accordance with her visa as his wife for the time being

Regardless of the pros and cons of any specific case, I am always worried about how innocent people might suffer in similar cases...

Being an innocent person myself who associates with other such...

SC

[wolf5370]

Where is this suet filed? Under the European Court of Human Rights? It will likey be kicked out as immigration is down to the member state (part of one of the early agreements - Maastricht ??). If in the UK, then I believe it is not possible to take a Government Agency to court (remember this when the Families Need Fathers brigade wanted to takew the CSA to court but couldn't and when the contractor's groups wanted to suet the IR over IR35 - both had to go to Europe, and both were kicked out also - State affairs). If in Thailand, it must surely also be kicked out as they have no power of enforcement of remit over foreign power's foreign/immigration policy.

Can't see this going anywhere - whether it is deserved or not.

There are plenty of examples of people taking government agencies to court and winning damages - cases against the police are an example.

Ah, but the police is not an Agency - it also has a mechanism for dispute (Police Complaints Commission) - I am pretty sure it is not legally possible in the UK to take a Government Agency to court (there is some kind of Governmental/Legal definition of an Agency/Department etc - something to do with Ministries, but I no longer have any such documents - I was part of the IR35 challenge, so had paperwork back then - about 6 years ago give or take) - but it is possible to take them to the European Courts. As I stated, both the Inland Revenue and the Child Support Agency side stepped legal action in this way - its why they have appeals processes as there is no other legal recourse against them.

[Mrbiggus]

Well I googled Namchai Ritkhampee and came up with some nice photos

It appears that they got married in the UK. So I wonder if this makes a difference regarding her getting a visa back into the UK so she can start divorce proceedings, obviously with a happy ending.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/208750/lawyers-back-effort-to-sue-uk-agency

[Scully]

I think there ws a serious lack of knowledge on her behalf and probably thought that having a visa would give her right to travel.

I took my girlfriend back to the UK for 5 months and was given the third degree by a 20 something immigration officer, this only took 5 minutes as we had proof we had been together years. There is also a friend of mine who went to Thailand for 3 months and brought a girl back through an agency, I do not know how they got her the visa but apparently he paid a large amount of money for some sort of bribe, wether that is true or not I do not know.

Anyway at immigration in the UK they were both interigated for two hours and the immigration officer only let them in because he was unable to contact the UK consulate in Thailand. After 2 years she left him now an illegal immigrant.

I suppose they have their reasons.

[Kwasaki]

Well I googled Namchai Ritkhampee and came up with some nice photos

It appears that they got married in the UK. So I wonder if this makes a difference regarding her getting a visa back into the UK so she can start divorce proceedings, obviously with a happy ending.

A legal government marriage in Thailand is recognized in England as it is vice-versa, the fact remains she is still a Thai citizen on a visa.

[F1fanatic]

Well I googled Namchai Ritkhampee and came up with some nice photos

It appears that they got married in the UK. So I wonder if this makes a difference regarding her getting a visa back into the UK so she can start divorce proceedings, obviously with a happy ending.

http://www.bangkokpo...o-sue-uk-agency

Appreciated - reminds the thread that there was a happy marriage.

OP may regret it now - but he was happy at the time.

[Mrbiggus]

What I do not understand is: what is stopping the Mrs from applying for a visitors/tourist visa to the UK.

And then going to a solicitor and start divorce proceedings?

[Eff1n2ret]

What I do not understand is: what is stopping the Mrs from applying for a visitors/tourist visa to the UK.

And then going to a solicitor and start divorce proceedings?

But does she have to be in the UK to get a divorce? She can instruct a solicitor from wherever she is. Most divorce cases don't come to court, but if hers did, she would then have grounds for applying for a visa to attend the hearing.

[Mrbiggus]

What I do not understand is: what is stopping the Mrs from applying for a visitors/tourist visa to the UK.

And then going to a solicitor and start divorce proceedings?

But does she have to be in the UK to get a divorce? She can instruct a solicitor from wherever she is. Most divorce cases don't come to court, but if hers did, she would then have grounds for applying for a visa to attend the hearing.

Why is she making a big hooohaa about the UK boarder agency?

If she wants a big pay out then divorce her multimillionaire husband and then go for a nice settlement.

She has to be in the country (that is UK) in order to make a petition and be at the Decree Nisi.

You cannot divorce without being there. Both parties have to be present in front of the judge when setting the date for Decree Nisi.

http://www.ondivorce.co.uk/scprocess.htm

I'm confused aboot this story, maybe the law is different in Scotyland.

[CWMcMurray]

She may need to be there for the court case (if it came to that), but she could surely hire a lawyer to start the divorce without her being in country. As others have said, it it did go to court, she could surely get a visa to attend.

[Mossfinn]

She should have played the domestic violence card ........ that usually works.

I would suggest you need a police report and medical evidence, eye witness accounts......

[Mossfinn]

As far as the Law is concerned, they are still married so the visa would still be valid IMHO.

With the info we are aware of, the visa would have been granted on certain criteria dispayed within the application, one of which would have been 'a continuing and subsisting' marriage,

The husband obviously didn't agree to the continuing and subsisting part and so part of the reason of the issueing of the visa is no longer valid, hence the refusal.

[Mossfinn]

What's the 21 bit all about? In the UK you can marry at 16 (with concent - 18 without) - in some countries even earlier - so a couple married for 4 years at 16 until 20, can not be together as one is under 21? Seems arbitrary!

WHen I first married my wife (and last married her too for that!) she was 20 and I was 26, so she joined me in the UK she was under 21. We had had a 2 year engagement prior to that. This was 13 years ago (when primary purpose was still in law), but she sailed through with no problems. Today she would be denied?

Age Restrictions

I believe was brought in because of fears of forced marriage and sham relationships.

[Eff1n2ret]

You cannot divorce without being there. Both parties have to be present in front of the judge when setting the date for Decree Nisi.

http://www.ondivorce.co.uk/scprocess.htm

I'm confused aboot this story, maybe the law is different in Scotyland.

When my first wife and I got divorced, we never went to court. In the link you provide, it's clear that only at this stage:-

"Respondent Disagrees:

Answer required within 29 days - the Court will consider each issue separately - divorce then becomes defended (which is unusual)"

- might appearance in front of a judge become necessary. But the lady doesn't need to be in the UK to start proceedings, and the phrase highlighted in bold indicates that attendance at court is the exception rathr than the rule.

[Mrbiggus]

Now I'm even more confused......!!!????!!!!

http://www.andrew-drummond.com/2010/12/11/culture-shock-a-thai-brides-fight-for-dignity/

She says “But as a result of my marriage I have lost all my rights in Thailand. Thai law dictates that I must have my husband’s signature if I buy a house or take out a loan. Dennis will not give me a divorce and I cannot go to the British court to apply. He says he is just not going to waste his money.”

It definitely is not up to him whether she can divorce him or not. If she wants a divorce then so be it.

There is something more going on here that is not being said......

[GuestHouse]

Now I'm even more confused......!!!????!!!!

http://www.andrew-drummond.com/2010/12/11/culture-shock-a-thai-brides-fight-for-dignity/

She says “But as a result of my marriage I have lost all my rights in Thailand. Thai law dictates that I must have my husband’s signature if I buy a house or take out a loan. Dennis will not give me a divorce and I cannot go to the British court to apply. He says he is just not going to waste his money.”

It definitely is not up to him whether she can divorce him or not. If she wants a divorce then so be it.

There is something more going on here that is not being said......

She's probably like most of the respondents to this thread - Ill informed.

[Chunky1]

This guy owes this woman half of his finances and he is trying to get out of paying. Guys like this give farang a bad name.

[NanLaew]

As far as the Law is concerned, they are still married so the visa would still be valid IMHO.

With the info we are aware of, the visa would have been granted on certain criteria dispayed within the application, one of which would have been 'a continuing and subsisting' marriage,

The husband obviously didn't agree to the continuing and subsisting part and so part of the reason of the issueing of the visa is no longer valid, hence the refusal.

Interesting viewpoint. So one party says the marriage is over and the Border Police say, "OK, miss, he says it's over so you're gone." No contest.

Now imagine Joe Bloggs from Scunthorpe returns to Suvarnanbhumi from a visa run and the Thai Immigration officer says, "Your Thai wife just filed for divorce so your 'O' visa is now invalidated. Get back on the bus."

The skirtmaker has a few bob and is reasonably well connected, he knew what date she was coming, probably flight and time since he was 'too busy' to meet her. So he calls in a favour with some people and miraculously she is detained at that very attempted entry.

Drummond's subsequent post reveals a "she said, he said" pissing contest developing. But I still think the wee doork of a Lowlander should put his money where his mouth is, lawyer up and grant her the divorce he seems reluctant or 'too busy' to proceed with. He was also too busy and didn't have enough money to change the plane ticket that he had given her. He must have know the expiration date of her "Resident Permit" when he bought the ticket no?

We also now have the 'cheating' scenario thrown in and her visit in February where she did not contact her husband. She admits to being there, staying with friends and being angry. Anyone read her book yet?