I Wonder How This Is Going To Pan Out?

[Eff1n2ret]

. Anyone read her book yet?

Ah, so THAT's what it's all about. She's promoting a book!

[Thaddeus]

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.

This woman is trying to get a payout that she doesn't deserve.

Women like this give Thais a bad name.

[blackdug]

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obviously didn't agree to the continuing and subsisting part and so part of the reason of the issueing of the visa is no longer valid, hence the refusal.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

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

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

nan laew this is the 3rd time you have replied on this thread and every time you have had a sly dig at the scots ,,,WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH THE SCOTS!!!!!!!!!my bet is one has been up your wife before you !!!!!!!probally a skirt wearing lowland jock!!!!!!! keep your sly digs to yourself as you come across as a bitter man

[Mossfinn]

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.

This woman is trying to get a payout that she doesn't deserve.

Women like this give Thais a bad name.

I have a feeling that Chunky's irony didn't come across well over the ether.

[Mossfinn]

^ Crickey Dug, chill out a bit

[NanLaew]

nan laew this is the 3rd time you have replied on this thread and every time you have had a sly dig at the scots ,,,WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH THE SCOTS!!!!!!!!!my bet is one has been up your wife before you !!!!!!!probally a skirt wearing lowland jock!!!!!!! keep your sly digs to yourself as you come across as a bitter man

Haud oan a wee minnut ther dug.. or is it blackie? I haven't a problem with the Scots, and there's absolutely nothing sly about my having a go about the wee bottach of a shirking tightwad who is center stage of this drama.

I am a 100% kilt wearing Highlander by the way so as my Aussie mate would say, pull your head in mate!

[Thaddeus]

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.

This woman is trying to get a payout that she doesn't deserve.

Women like this give Thais a bad name.

I have a feeling that Chunky's irony didn't come across well over the ether.

I read it both ways mate, still came up with the same reply.

[XXpate48USA]

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.

Just curious, why does he owe her half of his pay? isn't this an equal rights era now? How long were they married?

Half his pay?....what the heck.....pleaz....they are getting divorced and a woman is just as equal as a man. Why are you discriminating again't this woman's abilitys?.....to care for herself? as he will do too?...just because she is a female does not make her less than a man?....goodness sakes...........does he get half of her pay too?.....what's with this STILL? in 2010............

[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.

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."

An interesting viewpoint? That doesn't state whether you agree with it or not, however it is my reading of the situation, care to make statement either way?

As for the anology regarding 'ole bloggsy from Scunthoroe', it would suggest you think the immigration laws of Thailand are inextricably linked to the Uk, they are separate entities and one countries procedures does not reflect the other, in my humble opinion of course.

[NanLaew]

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."

An interesting viewpoint? That doesn't state whether you agree with it or not, however it is my reading of the situation, care to make statement either way?

As for the anology regarding 'ole bloggsy from Scunthoroe', it would suggest you think the immigration laws of Thailand are inextricably linked to the Uk, they are separate entities and one countries procedures does not reflect the other, in my humble opinion of course.

It's your opinion and I found it interesting that it accepted that only the word of the husband was accepted as proof for her expulsion and visa cancellation. There's always two sides to a story but that's not the remit of the average airport passport stamper. I would consider that there's more snap and possibly flawed decisions being made under the guise of enhanced security and profiling than any government agency is going to admit to.

I also respect AND AGREE with your statement that the Thai and UK immigration are separate and unique. However, this lady was ran out of Glasgow ostensibly because her husband said they were separated. I was just running the scenario in reverse, for the punters that are married and living in Thailand but have to jump through hoops to satisfy immigration. I wasn't inferring a tit-for-tat action, just trying to see if the 'wronged Thai woman in UK' would be treated or even perceived any differently than the 'wronged UK man in Thailand.'

Edited December 17, 2010 by NanLaew

[GuestHouse]

It's your opinion and I found it interesting that it accepted that only the word of the husband was accepted as proof for her expulsion and visa cancellation. There's always two sides to a story but that's not the remit of the average airport passport stamper. I would consider that there's more snap and possibly flawed decisions being made under the guise of enhanced security and profiling than any government agency is going to admit to.

This is a point that will, I am sure, not go missed by her lawyers if she does take legal action against the UK immigration office.

In any large organisation it is almost assured that to varying degrees the staff operating the organisation's procedures make mistakes, take short cuts, don't know the procedure.

Where the procedures are in place to protect individuals rights under the law, failure to follow procedure may result in denial of legal rights.

This is the very reason why so many cases against government, the police, the NHS, and employers are settled in cash out of court.

[TAWP]

They CAN only use the husbands words - her stay is COUNTING on his FULL cooperation.

I am surprised you guys have such a hard time following this.

If her stay has a condition that they are to live together and the marriage is alive and well, and one partner says that is no longer the case, then it is no longer so. A couple clearly cannot live together if one partner no longer wishes it.

Hence, her stay was rightfully declined upon the given status of her passport. If she want to enter to visit and live with her friends, she can get a proper Visa for that purpose.

[ableguy]

Advice to Konakrat is get the UK taxpayer to pay for the shortcomings of their public servants and take the cheap Scottish git for all you can get.

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

I can't see that having Immigration lock her up and send her back to Thailand will help his case when the time comes for the court to decide.

Not true that half of every thing he owns belongs to her, ask any UK lawyer, the court will decide what she owned when married, what she contributed financially and what she will take out on a financial settlement, also how much time did they spend together, there are many facts pertaining to the marriage that will be part of the settlement, the main one being how long were they married, This lady is dreaming, that pot of gold is a long way off, I doubt she would qualify for legal aid in the UK and divorce cases are not based on a no win no fee.

[Thaddeus]

Not true that half of every thing he owns belongs to her, ask any UK lawyer, the court will decide what she owned when married, what she contributed financially and what she will take out on a financial settlement, also how much time did they spend together, there are many facts pertaining to the marriage that will be part of the settlement, the main one being how long were they married, This lady is dreaming, that pot of gold is a long way off, I doubt she would qualify for legal aid in the UK and divorce cases are not based on a no win no fee.

Yes, it's amazing how many people in the UK think that you have lost 50% of everything the second you marry. It just isn't that way at all.

When I divorced my first wife (English) the mortgage was in my name only as I bought the house before we married, I paid for all the power bills, I bought all the food, she basically made no financial contribution to the union and even though we had lived together for a number of years before we married the marriage itself did not last long. She took legal advice and was told (thankfully) that she probably wouldn't get anything. I let her keep the motorbike and the sunbed, and that was it.

This 50/50 split thing is only perpetuated by, guess who, most lawyers, and as we all know, in most legal cases, only the lawyers end up benefiting.

[transam]

Advice to Konakrat is get the UK taxpayer to pay for the shortcomings of their public servants and take the cheap Scottish git for all you can get.

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

I can't see that having Immigration lock her up and send her back to Thailand will help his case when the time comes for the court to decide.

Not true that half of every thing he owns belongs to her, ask any UK lawyer, the court will decide what she owned when married, what she contributed financially and what she will take out on a financial settlement, also how much time did they spend together, there are many facts pertaining to the marriage that will be part of the settlement, the main one being how long were they married, This lady is dreaming, that pot of gold is a long way off, I doubt she would qualify for legal aid in the UK and divorce cases are not based on a no win no fee.

Correct.

If no agreement between the parties it goes to court and loads of stuff is taken into account and a judge just listens, reads financial stuff and makes his/her ' opinion ' on a settlement. Usually it is accepted, if not it goes to a full blown court case with the mega costs involved.

[Thaddeus]

Correct.

If no agreement between the parties it goes to court and loads of stuff is taken into account and a judge just listens, reads financial stuff and makes his/her ' opinion ' on a settlement. Usually it is accepted, if not it goes to a full blown court case with the mega costs involved.

Absolutely, which is why this women would be well advised to just leave it ..... TINT (This is not Thailand)