British Consul In Jomtien

[LeCharivari]

thank you for responding HM

i for one am looking forward to a response from lecavalry

every time the British consul/embassy/ambassador/honorary consul is mentioned on TV he responds in a derogatory manner

he sure has a stick up his arse over it

i think he got turned down for the job!

As you requested.

I should first point out that I have never made any "derogatory" comments about the British Consulate in Pattaya at all and, for the record, I have had nothing but great service from all the staff and volunteers I met there since it opened. As for the Embassy, I'm not quite so impressed but the idea that if you complain about the food at a restaurant that means you must have been "turned down" for the chef's job is a little bizarre.

Howard, thanks for replying and I don't want to sound patronizing either so I'll try to explain the "errors" you said I made and why I wrote as I did:

1. You are correct that British Honorary Consuls everywhere (in Thailand now only in Chiang Mai and Phuket) receive no actual "salary" and are "unpaid", but most (all in Thailand) are paid a stipend or honorarium - if you didn't get yours, you should claim it! The Vice Consul's salary is around 600,000 baht per year, making it around 6 times what you and Barry received.

2. You are correct again, in that the new Consular Officer is on a lower pay band than the previous one, but because she is employed full time (4½ days / 38 hours a week) and not part time (5 mornings a week) like the previous one she is on a higher salary (around double) for processing exactly the same amount of documentation.

3. Sorry, I was going by what the two staff from Bangkok told me at the end of last year, when they also told me that there had been no requirement for the Consul to come down from Bangkok for any ex-office visits during their 3 month tenure, as all other enquiries could be answered by phone or e-mail; maybe you are better informed than them. I agree that they "had to turn-around documents on the same day to avoid a 1 week waiting time", but that they managed to complete a full week's worth of documents in one morning was exactly my point - if a week's worth of paperwork could be completed and all consular ofice enquiries answered in one morning a week, as it was for three months, I really can't see any reason for paying someone to man an office for 4½ days a week to do the same job.

4. Sorry again, but I actually do have a pretty good idea of "the first idea of the consular cases the Pattaya team have to deal with" as I have worked closely with Embassy and Consular staff in a number of places rather more violent and "challenging" than Pattaya, including escorting Consular staff in war zones in the Middle and Far East, although that has no relevance here, and having known your predecessor I also know the type of cases he dealt with during his lengthy tenure which were probably very similar to yours. I have also, by co-incidence, been involved by the Thai Police a couple of times when friends of mine have died here, confirming their identity, passing the details on to their Embassies in Bangkok (none were British, nor did they have a local Consul), informing next-of-kin abroad, etc; apart from keeping the Embassy informed, there was nothing that a local Consul could have done to assist, as in my absence it would have been the Thai Police's job to pass details to the Embassy (all of which could have been done by phone or e-mail).

British tourist numbers are well down, as never before, and according to Pattaya Immigration there are some 10,000 expat retirees in the Pattaya area, of whom around a third are British. Add on a number of Brits working here or retired under 50 and you still have a figure a fraction of what it is in other areas, such as Cyprus where there are ten times as many Brits retired in some areas as there are here or Lanzarote where there are three-quarters of a million British tourists a year. Honorary Consuls supported by a part-time Consular Officer have no problems providing support to the British communities there and elsewhere, as they have done here since the Pattaya Consulate was established in 2008 (and as they did before that) without needing a full time Vice Consul and Consular Officer.

I am not be-littling the job done by Honorary Consuls anywhere, least of all in Pattaya, and least of all by Howard or Barry, but as explained elsewhere the idea (suggested by timekeeper, as I recall) that the Consul has to go to every "unpleasant" incident involving a Brit is simply nonsense. It is not only not the Consul's job to look at the remains of someone who has jumped off a balcony or who is "in the morgue", but there is nothing he is either allowed to do or physically can do by being there. Identifying the body, establishing what happened, etc, is strictly the job of the Police, and Consular staff are strictly not allowed to carry out any investigation, etc - all they can do is contact next-of-kin (which would only be necessary if the deceased had no friends to do so) once the police tell them who he/she was, and (if they want) be seen to be there. The Police may be only too happy to let someone else do their job for them if they want to, but at the end of the day it is their job, not a Consul's, and those countries without local Consuls have had no problems with this.

Similarly, there is no consular reason for a Consul to visit every Brit who gets arrested or hospitalised unless asked - what for, particularly in Pattaya where the Foreign Police Volunteers are there to help and translate if necessary and all the hospitals have staff who speak English? All a Consul is allowed to do for those arrested is pass on a list of local lawyers (not to recommend one) and inform next-of-kin (if they want, which is often the last thing many want); all he can do for anyone hospitalised (if they want, again) is inform next-of-kin (and ask them to pay, if the casualty can't) and pass on a list of hospitals in the area.

There is no need for a Consul to see a body to know if it is dead or not, and no need to visit someone to tell them that the Embassy can't pay for their hospital bill, their solicitor's fees, their lost or stolen plane ticket or holiday money, find their lost husband or holiday snaps, issue them a passport, tell them if they need a visa for Vietnam or the best way to get to Angkor Wat, help them with their visa overstay in Thailand or to get their money back for a fake watch, or that the Consulate can't give them an Emergency Travel Document or help them with their visa application to the UK - the personal touch may be nice, but if the answer's "no" then its simply making work unnecessarily and wasting everybody's time.

The only restriction on Consuls talking about their work is that they cannot name or identify individuals, but there is no problem over them detailing incidents, etc, so if I am wrong then I (and others who have asked a similar question elsewhere) would appreciate Howard or any "ex-Honorary Consul" from Pattaya or elsewhere explaining what they can actually achieve by attending such "unpleasant" and "challenging" incidents, and what happens when they are away or when those involved have no such Consular representation on the ground, or to give specific examples of the "many ... unpleasant and extremely challenging ... consular cases the Pattaya team have to deal with" - with the emphasis on the ones they "have to deal with", rather than choose to be involved with.

If anyone chooses to visit people in hospital, in prison, arrested, pancacked on the pavement, drunk or stoned in a cell, etc, to help them in any way they can, then I take my hat off to them for doing so and give them all the respect they deserve for it, BUT ....

there appears to be no shortage of people in Pattaya competent, willing and able to do so vountarily, as Howard, Barry and his volunteer assistants such as John, the many varied Foreign Police volunteers, RBL welfare case staff, and all others who are ready "to attend any local charity events, or any British expat clubs to impart information to British expats,or to attend British expats in hospital, or the morgue, or at the scene of a disaster or any tragic events involving British expats" without being paid for it, have proven. I expect the newly appointed Consular staff will do a perfectly good job, with or without other people's advice (although I know nothing about the new Vice Consul and find the appointment of someone connected to and working for a visa agency as the Consular Officer to be questionable, at best) and I have never said or implied anything "denigrating" or "derogatory" about them - they are simply doing a job that was advertised. My point isn't that there is any reason they shouldn't be able to do the job well (or that I could do the job any better), but that at a time when the British civil service and the military are being cut as never before and salaries capped, and when the Consulate has less work and less responsibility than at any time since it was opened, I cannot see any good reason why these jobs have been created at all and I can't help wondering why the Embassy have done it.

Edited January 20, 2012 by LeCharivari

[hm1973]

LeCharivari,

Thanks for the reply, and very detailed and informative it was too!

Couple of points to correct though:

1. The previous consulate officer WAS full-time. There is a public opening time of 09.00 - 11.30 Monday to Friday, although the full-time officer is there from 08.00-16.00 working in the office.

2. The FCO/Embassy are obliged to make contact with any individual who may be incarcerated/hospitalised, they are made aware of, within a certain time period as laid down in FCO regulations. Once contact is made it is up to the person whether they accept assistance or not. If not, the FCO/Embassy officer will take no further involvement unless the person changes their mind at some point, which can happen a lot. A complication can come in if the family of the person then contact FCO/Embassy demanding they help the person which can sometimes lead to conflict as this would not be possible in most cases.

3. There are MANY restrictions on consular staff (full-time or voluntary) having any contact with the media. ALL inquiries must be forwarded to the Press Officer at the Embassy which will then take over the media inquiry. Being involved in the media myself it was very important to treat every consular case I was involved in as STRICTLY confidential which I achieved. Sometimes it was difficult to keep my mouth shut and not respond to forum posts or articles which I knew were inaccurate (The Hewitt case (man chained to the prison cell) being a prime example).

Your immigration figures are VERY different (much lower) to the ones given to me by the Superintendent in a meeting involving other Embassy staff last year. I don't think it would be correct of me to tell you what they are as they were given to us in a conference room and were not meant for publication.

In my opinion, I believe the case-load and work generated through the Consulate during opening hours does warrant two full-time staff, which the Embassy recognised and acted upon.

Howard

[LeCharivari]

A pleasure, HM

The only point I'm surprised by is the previous Consulate Officer's work hours, which must have changed from the original; my apologies - there were no visible signs of change and no change to the service. I still can't work out what he did "working in the office" from 8.00 to 9.00 and 11.30 to 16.30 (13.00 on Friday) all week (with the lights off), that the Bangkok staff managed to do between 11.30 and 13.00 in one day!

The official FCO rule on contacting those hospitalised is "contact" within 24 hours - that includes phone contact or verified contact through the hospital. Actual visits are only mandated for victims of "assault or other crimes". Similarly, for those arrested its "contact" within 24 hours and visits and contact only if requested.

I am aware of the restrictions placed on Embassy staff during their employment and how difficult the Hewitt case, for example, was for you, how distorted the reports were, and that you are still not in a position to talk about it in the media or make any statement on it - fortunately that restriction doesn't apply to cases where those involved are unnamed and not identified.

My figure of 10,000 retirees in total came from the Pattaya Immigration Office (Barry Kenyon when interviewed on TV, actually). That gives a figure of about 45 retirement extension applications at Pattaya Immigration every working day, or roughly one every 10 minutes; difficult to imagine how they could process them any quicker than that if the figure is "VERY different" to mine (and when I've done my retirement extension I've timed the interval at between 12 and 15 minutes, to work out how long I had to wait). Apart from figures from Immigration, I can't really imagine where any other verifiable figures can have come from.

Whatever statistics, figures or "work" was actually done in the Consulate during working hours (which is what full time staff are paid for rather than opening hours), the unavoidable fact is that the two staff from Bangkok completed a week's office work, consular advice and documentation in one morning for three months, with no reported complaints from anyone in Pattaya (quite the reverse, in fact) and that the physical absence of any Consul (paid or unpaid, Honorary or Vice) did not create any problems whatsoever. That, in my opinion, shows how many paid staff are warranted.

[Rimmer]

Unnecessary comment removed lets leave it at that please now we all have the facts as presented.

If you wish your posts to remain on here please do not alter a members name in your reply it is not nice and is not allowed

[VisasPlus]

A pleasure, HM

The only point I'm surprised by is the previous Consulate Officer's work hours, which must have changed from the original; my apologies - there were no visible signs of change and no change to the service. I still can't work out what he did "working in the office" from 8.00 to 9.00 and 11.30 to 16.30 (13.00 on Friday) all week (with the lights off), that the Bangkok staff managed to do between 11.30 and 13.00 in one day!

The official FCO rule on contacting those hospitalised is "contact" within 24 hours - that includes phone contact or verified contact through the hospital. Actual visits are only mandated for victims of "assault or other crimes". Similarly, for those arrested its "contact" within 24 hours and visits and contact only if requested.

I am aware of the restrictions placed on Embassy staff during their employment and how difficult the Hewitt case, for example, was for you, how distorted the reports were, and that you are still not in a position to talk about it in the media or make any statement on it - fortunately that restriction doesn't apply to cases where those involved are unnamed and not identified.

My figure of 10,000 retirees in total came from the Pattaya Immigration Office (Barry Kenyon when interviewed on TV, actually). That gives a figure of about 45 retirement extension applications at Pattaya Immigration every working day, or roughly one every 10 minutes; difficult to imagine how they could process them any quicker than that if the figure is "VERY different" to mine (and when I've done my retirement extension I've timed the interval at between 12 and 15 minutes, to work out how long I had to wait). Apart from figures from Immigration, I can't really imagine where any other verifiable figures can have come from.

Whatever statistics, figures or "work" was actually done in the Consulate during working hours (which is what full time staff are paid for rather than opening hours), the unavoidable fact is that the two staff from Bangkok completed a week's office work, consular advice and documentation in one morning for three months, with no reported complaints from anyone in Pattaya (quite the reverse, in fact) and that the physical absence of any Consul (paid or unpaid, Honorary or Vice) did not create any problems whatsoever. That, in my opinion, shows how many paid staff are warranted.

I don't intend to get to involved in this, but since I was, on one occasion, accused of being "LeCharivari", I would firstly like to assure everyone that I am not. A couple of points, though:

I think this statement needs some further explanation - "the unavoidable fact is that the two staff from Bangkok completed a week's office work, consular advice and documentation in one morning for three months, with no reported complaints from anyone in Pattaya (quite the reverse, in fact)" How do you actually know that there were "no reported complaints", and how can you say "quite the reverse, in fact " ? What does "quite the reverse" mean ? Reported approvals ? There were in fact many complaints, but I assume they were unreported. I know there were complaints because the complainants used to come into our office to complain !

Since you are obviously aware that the new Consular assistant worked with us before getting this job, I find your statement could do with a bit more explanation from you. You say " although I know nothing about the new Vice Consul and find the appointment of someone connected to and working for a visa agency as the Consular Officer to be questionable, at best". Are you saying that the new CA should never have been employed as she once worked with us ? Why should her previous job with a visa agency make her employment questionable ? If she had applied for, and got, the job advertised as an entry clearance officer, then I might agree with you, but Consular Assistant in Jomtien ? She was selected by the Embassy Consular Section in the full knowledge of her employment with us. They were obviously satisfied that there is no conflict of interest, and I would suggest that she got the job because she was the best applicant.

Edited January 22, 2012 by VisasPlus

[LeCharivari]

Not much surprises me in Pattaya any more, but I am pretty surprised that anyone would think I was a front for VisasPlus! I can confirm 100% that I have never had anything to do with VisasPlus or any visa agents anywhere, never used their services, never recommended any, and have no need of their services to arrange or assist me in getting a visa for anyone (nor did I know before that Khun Ell had worked for VisasPlus!).

An “explanation”, as requested:

I may be old-fashioned but as British Embassy staff represent Britain I think they should not only be above suspicion but be seen to be above suspicion, and that potential conflicts of interest should be avoided as a matter of course. I am not saying that Khun Ell is unsuitable as a Consular Officer per se, but “yes”, I am saying that her having worked for VisasPlus up until she was appointed Consular Officer should have meant that she should never have been considered for the post as the potential conflict of interest is as obvious as if she was to work for the UK Border Agency (if not more so*). Consular staff are not permitted to give any advice on visas or to recommend visa agents, even if they are asked to do so – I may be wrong, but I am guessing that the many “complainants” who came to you about the two staff from Bangkok over the last 3 months did so because the staff stuck to the rules and wouldn’t advise them about visas (I can’t think of many other reasons to go to a visa agent).

Khun Ell may be the most incorruptible and highly principled person in Pattaya, Thailand or the world but obviously the Pattaya Consulate are frequently asked for advice on visas and as she will be the one being asked she is undeniably now in a perfect position to pass a great deal of business your way (and away from your competitors). She may well not do so, but even if she doesn’t she will still be unable to deny any such suggestions, let alone disprove them, leaving people to draw their own conclusions (rightly or wrongly).

The Embassy’s rules make it impossible for their staff to protect themselves against such suggestions - as in the Hewitt incident referred to above when Howard Miller was unable to say anything to protect himself from the unjustified criticism here and elsewhere; instead the Embassy made no effort to respond to the criticism on his behalf, again leaving people to draw their own conclusions (rightly or wrongly) and the Embassy and its staff looking, in the Hewitt case, incompetent and, if any allegations were to be made over recommending visa agents, corrupt.

Not only should she not be put in that position but, more importantly, neither should the Embassy she represents and I can’t help thinking that the Embassy appear to be less concerned with preventing potential damage to their reputation and their integrity than they do with exaggerating the number of British nationals in Pattaya and Thailand to justify recruiting extra locally employed staff to do their job for them.

An “explanation” of my “statements” as you requested (and I apologize to anyone else for stating what I had thought was blindingly obvious):

“quite the reverse” means “quite the opposite”, “in contrast” or ”on the contrary”.

“reported complaints” means complaints (“criticism”, “objections”, etc) that have been “reported” (“documented”, “publicized”, etc).

Thus, “ no reported complaints from anyone in Pattaya (quite the reverse, in fact)” means that while there had been a number of “complaints” about previous consular staff (such as those often “reported” here on TV) there had been no such “complaints” about the “two staff from Bangkok” and any “reported” comments about them (including all those here, until yours) were very positive (as in this thread) .

*: to avoid you asking me to explain how there could be "more" of a potential conflict of interest by her working for the Consulate rather than the UKBA, I'll explain: working for the UKBA she may or may not get to deal with any cases VisasPlus were to send to them, and in any cases she dealt with she would be identifiable as the case officer in the event of any investigation; working for the Consulate she is in a unique position (potentially) to recommend you as a visa agent, with little or no way of proving or disproving her actions by any investigation.

I repeat, I am only saying the potential is there, not that it will happen, but there is no need for that possibility to be there in the first place.

[Satcommlee]

I think the embassy has actually moved to avoid conflict of interest, especialy so through the constructive dismissal of HM as Honourary consul.

People who have media interests really have no place in this role, although in my opinion both BK who edited a newspaper and HM who operated a website and TV channel had acted in utmost professionalism during thier tenure's.

However, there is the realism that such appointed roles should be for "Unknowns".. I would be seriously concerned if my governement's representative who attended my needs at the gaol/police station, actually turned out to be somebody who used to wander up and down walking street dressed like a Thai policeman.

I don't for one minute doubt the aforementioned's integrity, ability or dedication to the job in hand, but it is just not "politically correct" or normal.

There is nothing to suggest that being a former Visa agent employee, they would use this position to point people in a certain direction. Embassy guidelines are quite strict, and they would be a fool to even try it. In fact experience in such a role would be a plus point if I was deciding who to employ.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Satcommlee

[VisasPlus]

I thank LaChiavari for his comments. As I said, I'm not going to get involved any further. I have given my thoughts, and there is obviously no way to argue with somebody who is so obviously sure that his opinion is the only one that matters. I will just say a couple of things. Nobody came to us to complain about the staff that came from Bangkok one day each week. The complaints were about the closure of the Honorary Consulate while new staff were awaited, or as he put it "the physical absence of.......". It did cause problems, and there were complaints ( to us ). The reason they came to us, a visa office, was because we are visble, and, at times, obviously "farang". The complainants did not come to us because the staff in the consulate had been unable to advise them about visas. They came because there were no staff in the consulate, and they wanted assistance. Secondly, I didn't say, or certainly didn't mean to, that people thought that LC was a front for Visas Plus ( egomania rules !). It was rather the other way round. It was being accused of being a front for him that hurt ! My involvement in this thread ends.

Edited January 25, 2012 by VisasPlus

[Basil B]

I would say LeCharivari posting on the issue conflicts of interest regarding one of Visa+'s former employee's as being rather over reactive, as far as I know the consulate does not deal with visa applications so where is the conflict of interest?

The only exceptions maybe in cases such as Anthony Giles ( http://www.dailymail...d-accident.html ) the diving instructor who sustained serious injuries following a motor bike accident in Dec 2010 where I believe a visa application for his wife was expedited enabling her to travel back with her husband who was repatriated to the UK for continuing medical treatment.

Regarding the consular office only being open one day a week and still being able to process all the work, this was mainly only "administrative" services and only accounts for a small part of the wide ranging duties of the consular service.

As pointed out by HM:

... Really don't mean to sound patronizing in any way but you would not have the first idea of the consular cases the Pattaya team have to deal with. Many are unpleasant and extremely challenging. Tourist numbers are down but the numbers of long stay Brits is still at a level where consular cases occur on a daily basis. Prison visits, Hospital visits etc etc...

Given the number of news stories relating to Brits every week which probably only accounts for a small fraction of "Consular Cases" I would say there would not be a day that does not go by without one and probably more cases coming in, given that many would be on going over days, weeks and even months that in itself would be more than a full time job.

Also as pointed out by HM there are many "unpleasant and extremely challenging" aspects of the job and wish the appointees well in their new jobs, hope I do not need thier services but it is nice to know they are there.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Basil B