Oh dear. Is there no end to you exhibiting the chip on that shoulder of yours.

Quite simply, all the statistical evidence is against you but you continue to cite isolated anecdotal cases as if they were irrevocable proof of some vast conspiracy against the poor and innocent.Frankly, it is tedious and utterly misleading to anyone who chances to read this forum.

We all know facts are not particularly convenient for you but, strange as it may seem, not all visa applicants, or their sponsors, are telling the truth when they seek to persuade the ECO of the genuineness of their intentions.

For example, in the 3 years from 2000 some 12,000 Thai students were smitten by cupid's bow whilst in the UK and contracted marriages which led to their gaining residence.Sure, people fall in love and previously stated intentions fly out the window but only an idiot would ignore the obvious fact that there was a clear migratory trend.

Simply put, Thai don't like going back.New Zealand was the last developed country to impose a visa regime on the Thai when in one year some 600 "visitors" claimed asylum to postpone their return.

There will always be a need for a control and inevitably standards will occasionally fall. There are processes available to address perceived injustices but we do live in an imperfect world and I think it a bit naive of you to demand otherwise.

Your crusade is becoming tiresome.

A member for a month and already you know TV intimately. A reincarnated banned baddy I'd guess. You have had a shot at me and flame others on here. You are no gent. But you are being watched.

Although 'the gent' has proved by his homophobic rant elsewhere to be beneath contempt, he does have a point when he says that Silomfan has a tendency to ignore the facts.

The rules for student visas were made more strict precisely because people were abusing the system. Ditto the rules for marrying on a visit visa and switching within the UK. It is the chancers and criminals that are responsible for all the hoops that genuine applicants now have to jump through.

Last year 43,511 visa applications, of which 39,938 were successful and 2,586 (5.9%) were not. Fact.

If the ECOs were as spiteful and malicious as Silomfan claims, then the success rate would be a lot lower than 94.1%!

I have read many posts on various forums from people who feel their application has been unfairly treated. Some have asked the ECM to review the decision and a small minority have had the decision reversed (the ECOs are only human and can make mistakes). But the vast majority, when pushed for all the information about their case, have shown that the ECO made the correct decision. Either because the application was ridiculous (the "I want a fiance visa for the girl I bar fined for a week" variety, for example). Or the application failed because it was ill prepared with vital information missing. Or, far too often, the advice of a so-called visa agent was followed and the ECO saw through the lies.

And there is always the "I pay your wages, how dare you ask me to wait!" sort as well. Remember, the original Bangkok Post letter was from an idiot who keeps losing his passport and doing nothing about replacing it until a few days before he needs it!

94.1% of applications last year were successful. That figure alone shows that the system, and ECOs, whilst not perfect, is as fair as it can be.

But I am not saying anything new here.

in the 3 years from 2000 some 12,000 Thai students were smitten by cupid's bow whilst in the UK and contracted marriages which led to their gaining residence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can you give the source of your information?

This is a composite post in that I wish to address two issues, a moderator's comments and those of GU22.

I have been in Thailand for nearly 2 years during which time I have learned many things from divers sources.Last month I joined the cyber age and bought a laptop which prompted me to join TV, a forum which, hitherto, I have followed on and off but always in a passive manner through sojourns in internet caffs. I am not sure what is being alleged when it is intimated that I am ' a reincarned(sic) banned baddy' but doubtless it has some significance to the moderator with whom I thought I had had a sporting jest in the spirit of the forum but evidently I have misjudged the moment. So be it. My card has been marked but I suppose worse things can happen.

GU22 considers my 'homophobic rant' elsewhere to render me 'beneath contempt' but graciously he concedes that my post in this thread has a point nevertheless. To me his motives in making that asinine statement are quite clear in that he is a self appointed pseudo expert who is only too happy to garner whatever support he can from whichever quarter in order to enhance his own standing. His comments and advice are doubtless well intentioned but they never quite measure up to the Scouser's eruditions in whose shadow he always seems to fall but perhaps he thinks his pandering elsewhere will change things.

It seems fashionable these days to taint people with descriptions they scarcely understand.Redressing the balance would simply dignify their ignorance.

in the 3 years from 2000 some 12,000 Thai students were smitten by cupid's bow whilst in the UK and contracted marriages which led to their gaining residence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can you give the source of your information?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, according to my recollection it was in the Times circa Sept. 2003.

in the 3 years from 2000 some 12,000 Thai students were smitten by cupid's bow whilst in the UK and contracted marriages which led to their gaining residence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can you give the source of your information?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, according to my recollection it was in the Times circa Sept. 2003.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you. I think that your source was incorrect. According to Control of Immigration: statistics United Kingdom 2004 (cm 6690) the total number of people from Thailand granted settlement (should include students via marriage, etc) were:

Year: 2000; 2001; 2002; 2003; 2004

Number: 955; 1,260; 1,335; 2,020; 985

See Table 5.5 Grants of settlement by nationality, excluding EEA nationals and Switzerland, 1994-2004, page 78.

It is nowhere near 12,000.

The Gent (he is not my understanding of the word "gent") says my opinions are tiresome, so why does he keep replying to them , thus perpetuating the arguement?. Just let it be and the topic will slowly fade away.

GU22 keeps spouting the facts as if that proves his case completely. UK Visas keeps tabs on every overseas post and if there was too large a number of refusals at Bangkok it would be investigated. Just because only 5-6% of visas are refused doesn't prove GU22's claim that the ECO's are totally fair. It shows they refuse thousands of visas a year many of which will , like mine, be due to a spiteful ECO and not because they have failed on merit.

Can i ask GU22 and the other cheerleaders of the ECO's a question (even the gent if he can force himself to be polite and doesn't think it too tiresome) ? If a Thai came to the UK in the past and broke immigration rules (worked not studied, or overstayed as examples) and returned to Thailand and now wishes to apply for a fiancee visa (gay or straight), should the ECO refuse under section 320 general grounds?? Remember this is 2 people who want to marry so its a serious life-changing thing. Section 320 allows the ECO's the power to refuse even if the criteria are met , due to past immigration breaches. So should it be refused or granted ??

A bit off topic i know but i would love to know their opinion on this.

SILOMFAN

GU22 keeps spouting the facts as if that proves his case completely.

Er....sorry, I don't get this. Of course I keep quoting the facts, because they do prove my case! What do you expect me to quote, the price of fish!

Just because only 5-6% of visas are refused doesn't prove GU22's claim that the ECO's are totally fair. It shows they refuse thousands of visas a year

2,586 last year to be precise, but they issued 39,938!

many of which will, like mine, be due to a spiteful ECO and not because they have failed on merit.

Planning to fail!? If so, you wont be disappointed. I'm sorry to say this, but I sometimes get the impression that you would be far happier if your boyfriends application did fail! As this means you could continue to blather on about how spiteful and unfair the ECOs are!

Section 320 allows the ECO's the power to refuse even if the criteria are met , due to past immigration breaches. So should it be refused or granted ??

A bit off topic i know but i would love to know their opinion on this.

I can only answer that each case is different and it depends entirely on the circumstances. I do know at least one poster on Thailand-UK has been successful in obtaining a settlement visa for his partner who had previously been subject to administrative removal from the UK. So it is possible, it does happen. Sorry, I know that you don't like them, but that's a fact.

Sorry, forgot to add:-

The Gent (he is not my understanding of the word "gent")

We can agree on something, then!

GU22 keeps spouting the facts as if that proves his case completely.

Er....sorry, I don't get this. Of course I keep quoting the facts, because they do prove my case! What do you expect me to quote, the price of fish!

Just because only 5-6% of visas are refused doesn't prove GU22's claim that the ECO's are totally fair. It shows they refuse thousands of visas a year

2,586 last year to be precise, but they issued 39,938!

many of which will, like mine, be due to a spiteful ECO and not because they have failed on merit.

Planning to fail!? If so, you wont be disappointed. I'm sorry to say this, but I sometimes get the impression that you would be far happier if your boyfriends application did fail! As this means you could continue to blather on about how spiteful and unfair the ECOs are!

Section 320 allows the ECO's the power to refuse even if the criteria are met , due to past immigration breaches. So should it be refused or granted ??

A bit off topic i know but i would love to know their opinion on this.

I can only answer that each case is different and it depends entirely on the circumstances. I do know at least one poster on Thailand-UK has been successful in obtaining a settlement visa for his partner who had previously been subject to administrative removal from the UK. So it is possible, it does happen. Sorry, I know that you don't like them, but that's a fact.

Sorry, forgot to add:-

The Gent (he is not my understanding of the word "gent")

We can agree on something, then!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whils,t on the topic of the British Embasy.I would like to add my story.Just recently i had to attend to get a new passport.Because of my age,it is issued free,but can only be done from the UK.Itook my old one and an addressed envelope and asked them to send the new one on to me.[in 6 to 8 weeks time]They told me they couldn,t do this as i had to take the old one back to get it cancelled.As i live in Pattaya and my previous Passport hadn,t been cancelled.I can-not see the reason for this unneccesary journey Albert.

Can i ask GU22 and the other cheerleaders of the ECO's a question (even the gent if he can force himself to be polite and doesn't think it too tiresome) ?  If a Thai came to the UK in the past and broke immigration rules (worked not studied, or overstayed as examples) and returned to Thailand and now wishes to apply for a fiancee visa (gay or straight), should the ECO refuse under section 320 general grounds?? Remember this is 2 people who want to marry so its a serious life-changing thing. Section 320 allows the ECO's the power to refuse even if the criteria are met , due to past immigration breaches. So should it be refused or granted ??

A bit off topic i know but i would love to know their opinion on this.

SILOMFAN

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm no "cheerleader" of ECOs - I've never met one - both my wife's visas (one visitor, one settlement) have been issued without problem and without me even coming across an ECO. But anyway...in my opinion, it certainly IS FAIR for an ECO to refuse someone a UK visa when they have previously broken UK immigration rules. You say "even if the criteria are met", presumably you might mean financial, acccommodation etc. but what about the unavoidably subjective "criteria" about the truthfullness and the genuineness of the intentions of the applicant?

For example, someone says they are going to study but instead works, is caught and has to return to Thailand. They then resurface as someone's fiance - any ECO, in fact anyone, is going to reasonably wonder if, going by past form, the applicant is merely appearing as a "fiance" in order to gain access to the UK.

Certainly if I was an ECO, I'd need a lot more to convince me than the couple knowing each other for a few months and a few e-mails, photos or telephone calls presented as evidence. If on the other hand it was a marriage visa and the couple had been demonstrably married and living together in Thailand for over a year, for me that might be enough to overcome the previous immigration indiscretion. And I expect most ECOs would take the same view.

You make it sound like a sob story but in fact it is cases like the above that make things difficult for Thai people who genuinely want to study in the UK. This, a bit like football players frequently diving to win undeserved penalties, means that sometimes genuine claims get turned down - not because the referee (or the ECO) are bitter and twisted - but because sometimes they have to make very difficult, subjective decisions.

Spot on, Charles.

It is people who attempt to break the rules that make it more difficult for genuine applicants.

The actual visa processing service is fine, the non UK staff seem very good. What has soured my experience at the UK Embassy is the absolutely disgraceful attitude of the man who "served" us in the visa section and his translator. The attitude of his manager and the way in which our complaint was dismissed has forever tarnished my view of the people in that section.

The actual visa processing service is fine, the non UK staff seem very good. What has soured my experience at the UK Embassy is the absolutely disgraceful attitude of the man who "served" us in the visa section and his translator. The attitude of his manager and the way in which our complaint was dismissed has forever tarnished my view of the people in that section.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Having never been in the Bangkok embassy I cannot comment on the staff there and likewise having never had a visa refused/acceped (yet) I also cannot comment.

I would say though that I have been in several British embassies world wide for several reasons and the treatment of the reception staff I could compare to the treatment you usually get from the gas company when you have the audacity to question where they estiamte there readings from or somone in the Department of Work and pensions/Inland revenue/Child tax credit - in fact any Government department. It is just unbelievable!

Maybe they hate their jobs - I don't know - but my goodness leave if it is that bad (some of these people have been based in USA and OZ Brit embassies so it's not like they can claim it because of the hassle from locals!!!)