Mp's Say New Visa Rules Causing Anguish For British Families.

[bangkockney]

It's worth noting that the number of migrants from Thailand is so small it does not even feature on the table below which demonstrates where the bulk arrive from. 75% from the Indian sub continent and Africa. Somalia and Nigeria exceed the USA. Note the number from the Philippines and ask yourself why is Thailand not there?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-january-to-march-2013/immigration-statistics-january-to-march-2013#admissions-3

These data are pretty useless when discussing family migration as they represent total migration across all categories.

More useful is the Family Migration: Evidence and Analysis document available here (published 2011, analysis of 2010 data):

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/115900/occ94.pdf

Thailand ranks sixth in the largest volume nationalities for family route visas granted, 2010.

The sections on UK employment and earnings of both sponsor and applicant are particularly interesting.

Edited June 13, 2013 by bangkockney

[Waterloo]

MrZM in post 294 you stated

The 47% who earn below the requirement, are entitled to claim certain benefits which would take them above the minimum income

I believe you have been out in the sun to long, please point out were it says benefits can be used in leu of the income requirement, this totally defits the object of having a minimum income requirement.

[7by7]

MrZM,

You seemed to have missed my point completely. I will try and keep it simple for you.

An Example.

Husband sponsor, wife applicant, no children.

1) The income support level for a couple is just under £6000, so this is the base figure at which the ECO starts.

2) The sponsor pays £7,000 p.a. rent.

Therefore, sponsor must show an income of at least £13,000.

Sponsor provides pay slips showing he earns £18,000 p.a. (which under the current rules means his wife would be refused). After tax and NI this is (rough calculation) £14,400 p.a.

He also provides his bank statements (currently not required) showing he has no debts or other regular commitments over and above normal living expenses.

Therefore available income is £14,4000 p.a.

Result; has shown he can support his wife without resort to public funds, albeit not to a particularly high standard. So, assuming all the other criteria are met, visa issued.

OR

His bank statements show debt repayments and other commitments over and above normal living expenses of £2000 p.a.

Therefore available income is £12,400 p.a.

Result; unlikely to be able to support his immigrant wife without resort to public funds, so application refused.

Got it now?

As for all your other posts and suggestions about people getting dodgy payslips or whatever (I have to admit that I gave up reading after a while they were getting so ludicrous); this would be visa fraud.

Visa fraud has always been a crime, and always will be. Like other crimes it is impossible to eradicate completely.

But this is not a discussion about visa fraud; it's supposed to be a discussion about the new rules, especially the financial requirement, and whether or not people think they are fair or not.

You think they are fair. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it; but in attempting to persuade others that you are correct it would be better if you stayed away from the realms of fantasy!

[MrZM]

I apologise for bringing up a new subject, the man earns over the required income, in desperation, he has gone to new lengths to ensure his family can come to the UK.

What he is doing is not fraud. Taxes and nix are being paid. How can that be fraud? He is an employee of a company and being paid wether he works or not. It is not money laundering or etc..

I understand what's that the new rules are causing problems for certain individuals.

I also understand, that if you earn and spend £18,600 you will get a visa, I thou earn £18,599 and don't spend anything you won't get a visa.

I also understand that it is causing families to separate.

I also understand that although the new rules may be unfair, the are now fairer for the ones who pay mortgages, pay for a car, etc etc and are allowed to be normal.

I also understand that the minimum requirement may be to high, but from Thailand for example, the majority of spouse visas were issued. If you were refused, there is no guarantee it was down to not meeting the financial requirements.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone, everyone has there own opinion and are able to make up there own mind (it would be know different if I was to say the same to you).

The likelihood in my opinion the rules won't be changed in the near future.

Wether you have or not you seem to forget I have been in this position for 4 years, waiting to take my family home, I was almost forced into 6 months separation last year, which would have been the first time since my wife was pregnant when I had to return to work (kids are expensive). Either way whether I applied under the new or old rules this year I would have qualified. I realised my mistakes from last year (partly down to an agent) but mainly down to me.

It's a disgrace that families are being separated.

It's also a disgrace that applicants for visas have to please people they will never meet in order to run your own life. Have to disclose personal information and so forth.

If you are a citizen of a certain country and married to a different citizen of another country you should be able to share the rights each other has on the particular country. The whole visas malarkey especially for legitimate family migrants, is complete and utter ....

Edited June 18, 2013 by theoldgit
Removed lengthy quotes

[TCA]

I also understand that although the new rules may be unfair, the are now fairer for the ones who pay mortgages, pay for a car, etc etc and are allowed to be normal.

No they are not fairer for people who pay for mortgages and cars. Your so-called normal people. They favour people with higher salaries irrespective of their outgoings. There's a huge difference.

[MrZM]

I also believe that both the husbands and wife's income should be able to be combined, when applying for a spouse visa, as this is possible when applying for FLR.

I don't see the difference.

[Jay Sata]

One would think we'd all want to lower the requirements Bob but that's not the case.

Trying to change matters now is going to be an uphill struggle.

I'd be interested to hear suggestions for expats who have moved to Thailand,spent all their capital and now want to bring the wife and kids over.

Anguish and suffering when the UKBA say's no?

Every bit for sure.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Jay Sata

[7by7]

To be sure, anyone who has been refused a visa to live with their partner in the country of their choice will suffer; and I, for one, have sympathy with them.

However, there is, and I think must be, a responsibility on them to be able to support themselves.

For the UK, under the old rules the old requirement was that they could support and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds.

The funds for this could come from the resources of the sponsor, the applicant, a third party or any combination of these.

I can see no logical reason why this had to be changed.

What many people fail to realise is that these changes apply only to family members of British citizens and non citizens living in the UK with ILR.

These account for less than 25% of all immigrants.

The vast majority of immigrants enter under the PBS (workers or students) or the EEA rules.

This new financial requirement does not apply to them; the old one does.

So it is mainly British citizens and their families who are being penalised by this arbitrary limit which takes no account of the actual resources available to the family, nor the their outgoings.

[a99az]

The rules, however, aren't "tearing British families apart". There is always the option of the British partner to go and live in the country of the foreign spouse.

You know that this is seldom an option, and many are unable to reside or work in there spouse's country. I am sure that Thailand would not allow a carpenter to work in Thailand even if he where married to a Thai lady.

[bobrussell]

Non-EU citizens have few rights to come to the UK and few rights under human rights legislation.

The British families are the ones that have rights (whatever ethnic origins they may be from) that should include the ability to marry whomever they wish and in principle live with them wherever they wish and is legal.

Nobody has the automatic right to have someone else pay for it but they should have the right to provide evidence that they are capable of affording to live in the UK. This may well not be by meeting strict and inflexible target incomes.

This does not mean this process will be easy and for many it may not be achievable. Extra conditions may need to be added to the visa and enforced!

Teresa May made it clear that she is not interested in individual families budgets. She really should be!

Edited June 14, 2013 by bobrussell

[bangkockney]

1. It's clear what I said was incorrect. Otherwise I'd have to quote you with ... And [ ] etc

2-1. The RLMT doesn't apply to positions on the shortage list, subject to criteria. Chef positions appear, but I'll give you the fact that this may be a small number.

2-2. Regardless, the RLMT is a simple process of 28 day advertisement.

3. Tier 2 uptake is currently running at roughly 50% capacity according to MAC.

4. Chef does appear on the shortage occupation list valid April 2013.

5. A search for "Thai" of the Tier 2 Register returns a decent number of hits.

6. There are plenty of expensive Thai restaurants in UK (Charlotte Street, London comes to mind) who could pay the required occupation shortage salary to negate the RLMT.

Edited June 14, 2013 by bangkockney

[7by7]

The notion that the spouse and family members of British citizens should not receive NHS treatment because they have not paid tax is ridiculous.

As I said here, you would have to apply that to British citizens who have not paid tax; children for example. Besides, anyone who ever buys anything pays tax; ever heard of VAT?

Just because one spouse is entitled to free prescriptions doesn't mean that the other is. I get free prescriptions as I have a medical exemption certificate; my wife pays for hers.

If medical tourism is big business in the UK, it's big business for private hospitals!

Visitors to the UK are not entitled to any NHS treatment except initial emergency care in an A&E department and treatment for certain infectious diseases and psychiatric conditions. They may register with a GP, with certain conditions, but it is up to the GP whether they accept them and whether they charge them for treatment.

Everything else has to be paid for; and this includes any follow up treatment after any A&E treatment.

This includes visitors from other EEA states, unless they obtained an EHIC before arrival. Even then they may still be charged for some things which are free in their home country.

The UK has reciprocal healthcare agreements with some non EEA countries, and visitors from those countries are entitled to free care, and vice versa; but not for pre planned treatment nor for treatment which could wait until they have returned home.

See Information for overseas visitors to the UK for more details.

Yes, it is possible for a visitor to receive NHS treatment and then leave the UK without paying; but if they did then it is probable that any future visa application would be refused until they paid the bill.

People are entitled to their views and to express them, this is a forum. But I do wish they'd check the facts first!

[matsky13]

I Hoped to find some information that is usefull in this thread , but the amount of what seems to be either blatant racism ,ignorant and narrow minded views is amazing , Why are you following and posting on threads on a Visa site ?. I can't be bothered to get into arguments with the numb skulls , And how the likes of 7 by 7 and others have the patience to continue to answer some them is incredible , you must have patience of saints .

I will state my personel position though , and maybe some of you may see that its not so black and white .

I am married to a Thai lady , I have a Thai step Daughter 4 years old and we have a mutual Daughter who is 2 months old . Born in Thailand but has a British and Thai passport . I live in the North of England . House prices are low , but so are earnings especially at the moment !

We are currently in the UK The Thais are on 6 month Visitor visas , and we are looking towards the future now and I feel that maybe the best thing for my Natural Daughter would be to be in the UK with access to the national health service that i have been paying into since i started work at 16 and also leading on to education for her in the UK . My step daughter would also benefit from being with her Natural mother , who i would like to be here with her newborn baby . I currently own 2 properties one i live in one i rent out it provides an income of 5 k a year . I have been spending a few months 2 to 3 in Thailand a year for the last few years . Its very cheap to live there as most people on here know . so i am only working and earning for 9 months a year . But as both of my properties are fully paid for I don't need a lot to live on either in the UK or Thailand.For around 15 years i have Had nothing on Hire purchase and Have Zero outstanding debts no credit cards , nothing . I only require enough money each year to cover my insurance , heating lighting etc and food .I currently have not been earning enough to meet the New requirements for a Settlement visa for my wife and her Daughter . But I do have savings that i have built up over the last few years as i have been living with such low overheads . But this is no where near the 75k i would require for the savings route on the settlement Visa .

So as a self employed person who has never claimed for any benefits in the UK ,Has never been a burden to my country with 2 properties and savings in the bank a "successfull " business with No outstanding Debts .

Remember it is not possible to combine savings and earnings as a self employed Person ! ( I guess this is because they feel that self employment is not a secure form of employment .) I have had the same business for 25 years .

I am unable to have my wife and daughters join me in the UK to live as a family . we may have to continue to spend months a year appart , I could look at the possebility of remortgageing my property and put myself into debt . but appart from that i can't see another way forward that is straight forward . even this has a large cost to it . That even when i have paid the bank to set up a new mortgage and the surveyor , the interest fees i will be paying for 6 months before the application . then the Visa application fees , that maybe could all fail for some other reason not only the finance side .

Some idiot may suggest i should of thought of this before i Fell in love with someone who is not British .

I see my self as a law abiding Tax paying debt free working and pretty usefull member of the comunity .But cannot get my wife and children to join me in my country . unless i put myself in a much worse financial position .

But someone who earns a few thousand pounds a year more than me ,with no assets and has massive debts already and is living an unsustainable lifestyle ,that is bound to become a burden on the tax payer sooner or later if he adds to his outgoings when a wife and family join them is deemed a better bet than me .

A ridiculous knee jerk headline grabbing policy from the current government is keeping Honest familys apart it is doing nothing to stop the influx of unwanted law breakers from coming here who will risk the penalty's of getting caught . they will keep on coming here where they will continue to lie and cheat as they try to embezzel all the benefits that are available .

I am living in hope that the rules will change !

[Waterloo]

Matsky13, great post good to see an example of how this issue is more complicated than some would like to think.

[7by7]

Indeed.

Matsky13's situation is a prime example of what is wrong with this new financial requirement.

[theoldgit]

To avoid this thread degenerating further, I am closing it until I can clean it up.

I will reopen it later. ///

OK, I will reopen this thread again, I apologise for closing it earlier than stated, but one member just wouldn't let go.

I have tried to clean it up my removing some off topic remarks and unnecessary lengthy quotes, I don't think for a minute that I've got it completely right, but it's the best I can do without spending a disproportionate amount of time on it.

I apologise if I have left some off topic posts in, and if I have deleted some relevant posts.

If it goes off topic again I will close it until, or if, the Government makes a response to the report.

[MrZM]

I Hoped to find some information that is usefull in this thread , but the amount of what seems to be either blatant racism ,ignorant and narrow minded views is amazing , Why are you following and posting on threads on a Visa site ?. I can't be bothered to get into arguments with the numb skulls , And how the likes of 7 by 7 and others have the patience to continue to answer some them is incredible , you must have patience of saints .I will state my personel position though , and maybe some of you may see that its not so black and white .I am married to a Thai lady , I have a Thai step Daughter 4 years old and we have a mutual Daughter who is 2 months old . Born in Thailand but has a British and Thai passport . I live in the North of England . House prices are low , but so are earnings especially at the moment !We are currently in the UK The Thais are on 6 month Visitor visas , and we are looking towards the future now and I feel that maybe the best thing for my Natural Daughter would be to be in the UK with access to the national health service that i have been paying into since i started work at 16 and also leading on to education for her in the UK . My step daughter would also benefit from being with her Natural mother , who i would like to be here with her newborn baby . I currently own 2 properties one i live in one i rent out it provides an income of 5 k a year . I have been spending a few months 2 to 3 in Thailand a year for the last few years . Its very cheap to live there as most people on here know . so i am only working and earning for 9 months a year . But as both of my properties are fully paid for I don't need a lot to live on either in the UK or Thailand.For around 15 years i have Had nothing on Hire purchase and Have Zero outstanding debts no credit cards , nothing . I only require enough money each year to cover my insurance , heating lighting etc and food .I currently have not been earning enough to meet the New requirements for a Settlement visa for my wife and her Daughter . But I do have savings that i have built up over the last few years as i have been living with such low overheads . But this is no where near the 75k i would require for the savings route on the settlement Visa .So as a self employed person who has never claimed for any benefits in the UK ,Has never been a burden to my country with 2 properties and savings in the bank a "successfull " business with No outstanding Debts .Remember it is not possible to combine savings and earnings as a self employed Person ! ( I guess this is because they feel that self employment is not a secure form of employment .) I have had the same business for 25 years .I am unable to have my wife and daughters join me in the UK to live as a family . we may have to continue to spend months a year appart , I could look at the possebility of remortgageing my property and put myself into debt . but appart from that i can't see another way forward that is straight forward . even this has a large cost to it . That even when i have paid the bank to set up a new mortgage and the surveyor , the interest fees i will be paying for 6 months before the application . then the Visa application fees , that maybe could all fail for some other reason not only the finance side .Some idiot may suggest i should of thought of this before i Fell in love with someone who is not British .I see my self as a law abiding Tax paying debt free working and pretty usefull member of the comunity .But cannot get my wife and children to join me in my country . unless i put myself in a much worse financial position .But someone who earns a few thousand pounds a year more than me ,with no assets and has massive debts already and is living an unsustainable lifestyle ,that is bound to become a burden on the tax payer sooner or later if he adds to his outgoings when a wife and family join them is deemed a better bet than me .A ridiculous knee jerk headline grabbing policy from the current government is keeping Honest familys apart it is doing nothing to stop the influx of unwanted law breakers from coming here who will risk the penalty's of getting caught . they will keep on coming here where they will continue to lie and cheat as they try to embezzel all the benefits that are available .I am living in hope that the rules will change !

It's sad to read your story, especially when you've had a business longer than I've been around.

However you take my comment, if it really what you want for your family to reside with you in the UK, if I was you and had the assets behind me, to ensure your family life, I would re-mortgage the house, it would be temporary, you could place it in an account that could earn 2/3% interest which could cover an amount you have to pay back.

It's only my thoughts.

Making sure my family returned to the UK for me was a must and even at a young age have had to make sacrifices to ensure this. When my son was born I sold my business, it would have been impossible and costly to carry on, as in my head I didn't want a moment away from my wife and son, and for 3 and half years we haven't spent a day apart, back and forth Thailand and UK.

We were unable to apply for a spouse visa when our son was born, because back then a spouse minimum age was 21 for a visa, which meant we had to wait and wait, and then they changed it back to 18 in october 2011 but by this point and not having a real job, my funds had melted.

Last month my wife was issued a spouse visa, and it was a huge relief, as last year we were refused under the old rules, and I made sure when I returned to the UK, I had a job that met the requirements, I admit I was lucky, and even luckier, to obtain a visit visa for my wife shortly after the refusal, I almost moved to Bangkok where I was offered a job, I was almost certain we had to stay in Thailand, but I fought for it, and accomplished what I wanted and honestly needed for my family.

I hope for the families, that are struggling to obtain spouse visas for their loved ones, that the rules are changed.

[7by7]

However you take my comment, if it really what you want for your family to reside with you in the UK, if I was you and had the assets behind me, to ensure your family life, I would re-mortgage the house, it would be temporary, you could place it in an account that could earn 2/3% interest which could cover an amount you have to pay back.

It's only my thoughts.

Yes, matsky13 could do that; but why should he have to?

From what he says he can easily support his family without calling upon public funds; but to satisfy this new financial requirement he has to put himself into debt!

(A mortgage is a debt, no matter how rosily it's wrapped up.)

Ludicrous.

I hope for the families, that are struggling to obtain spouse visas for their loved ones, that the rules are changed.

I concur; preferably by reverting back to the fairer and more logical system used before.

[MrZM]

However you take my comment, if it really what you want for your family to reside with you in the UK, if I was you and had the assets behind me, to ensure your family life, I would re-mortgage the house, it would be temporary, you could place it in an account that could earn 2/3% interest which could cover an amount you have to pay back.

It's only my thoughts.

Yes, matsky13 could do that; but why should he have to?

From what he says he can easily support his family without calling upon public funds; but to satisfy this new financial requirement he has to put himself into debt!

(A mortgage is a debt, no matter how rosily it's wrapped up.)

Ludicrous.

I hope for the families, that are struggling to obtain spouse visas for their loved ones, that the rules are changed.

I concur; preferably by reverting back to the fairer and more logical system used before.

He says he can easily support his family if they come to the UK.

He will have 3 extra mouths to feed, plus 2 schools to pay for!

When my son starts pre-school in September it's going to cost me £400 a month.

Obviously he earns less than me, and like myself have no debts and also live in the north of England, etc, but its expensive to live in the UK as you well know.

I know a mortgage is a a debt, as I said if his wish is to bring his family to the UK then a sacrifice can be made, at any cost.

Have they given a date yet of when the new rules will be reviewed?

I don't think they will revert to the old rules, but as you have said previously, they should drop the financial requirement, to what they believe is enough to live on in the UK.

As matsky quite rightly said, it is unfair that ones who are self employed are unable to use there savings towards the financial requirements, which in it self is completely wrong, and possibly discriminative to self employed people. But again it wouldn't help everyone.

The savings requirement is far too high, how many people actually have £64,500 hidden away, and then the calculation of you earn, let's say, £14,000 a year, you would need something like £30,000 in savings. These calculations are completely wrong.

In my opinion if they don't change the financial requirement from £18,600, then someone who earns £15,000 a year should be able to total the income with £3,600, reef pre equalling the requirement. Which wouldn't be so bad.

[nontabury]

That's a good idea,except that even if he sold 1 of his houses in the North of England, it possible would not realise the capital sum of 75000 pounds, even by selling both of the houses maybe he would not reach that figure, likewise he could try and find company employment for just 1year, but would he be able to get a job in the North,let alone one that would meet the financial requirements.

The main point, why should he have to go through all these stringent requirements.What should be taken into account is the fact that he has never been a drain on the benefit system, has zero debt, and presumably throughout his working life he has contributed thru his taxi's, to His Own country,the same country that is now stopping him from bringing his family into.

[theoldgit]

Excessive quotes, again, removed.

[MrZM]

That's a good idea,except that even if he sold 1 of his houses in the North of England, it possible would not realise the capital sum of 75000 pounds, even by selling both of the houses maybe he would not reach that figure, likewise he could try and find company employment for just 1year, but would he be able to get a job in the North,let alone one that would meet the financial requirements. The main point, why should he have to go through all these stringent requirements.What should be taken into account is the fact that he has never been a drain on the benefit system, has zero debt, and presumably throughout his working life he has contributed thru his taxi's, to His Own country,the same country that is now stopping him from bringing his family into.

Nobody said anything about selling his house.

Anyway people are taking to much notice on the income requirement.

The level of savings that is required is £64,500 (not £75,000)

This is far to high.

If you earn lets say £15,000 a year then you would need something like £30,000+ savings which is again to high.

The calculations are completely wrong.

In my opinion if you earn £15,000 then savings of £3,600 should be suffice as this would total up to the minimum income of £18,600.

In his case, he wants to bring a Thai national child over as well, which means his requirement level has increased to over £20,000 per year. I also find unfair that they increase the income, per child.

The income level should be set once regardless of how many people you sponsor.

He could set up his company and pay him self a wage, receiving pay slips and paying tax, it is normal, and know many people who do this, (not ones that need spouse visas).

That way he wouldn't be classed as self employed. He would be working for his company and paying himself.

He hasn't explained what work he does? It call all be cash in hand, he may not pay taxes.

Guess ill get in trouble again for assuming.

[Kevin1908]

When my son starts pre-school in September it's going to cost me £400 a month.

What do you mean by pre school and why is it £400 per month. A state pre school nursery is free.

[7by7]

As is all state schooling.

I'm not sure about pre school, but local education authorities are obliged to provide a free school place for all children living in their area up to the age of 16; regardless of the child's immigration status.

So, unless someone wants to educate their children privately, school fees don't enter into it.

MrZM, matsky13 has stated he can easily afford to support his family from his current income; I have no reason not to believe him. Forcing him to mortgage one of his houses so he can meet some arbitrary limit is, as I said, ludicrous.

I have already explained why I feel the new minimum income is too high as well as what I consider to be a fairer method of calculating this aspect; and why. I don't intend to repeat myself.

I don't know when, or even if, the government will review the new requirements; this report is just recommendations from an inquiry. The government can simply ignore it if they wish.

[Kevin1908]

Not sure if pre school nursary is compulsory, I assume not, but every parent has a right to a place for a child if thay want it.

[MaprangHolmes]

Pre school nursery is free for 3 and 4 year old's for 15 hours per week also if you would be entitled to free school dinners you can get funding for a 2 year old child from September 2013 for the same amount of time 15 hours per week.

[MrZM]

When my son starts pre-school in September it's going to cost me £400 a month.

What do you mean by pre school and why is it £400 per month. A state pre school nursery is free.

No there not. Only 16 hours a week are free.

Lucky the other school was more it was £35 a day, after free hours.

Nursery schools in the north of England are anywhere from £20/£50 a day.

Once a child has finished nursery and pre-school, then it's free in a state school.

[MrZM]

Pre school nursery is free for 3 and 4 year old's for 15 hours per week also if you would be entitled to free school dinners you can get funding for a 2 year old child from September 2013 for the same amount of time 15 hours per week.

16 hours a week are free, but this works out to be just over 3 hours a day.

And it only covers the mornings.

My son will be going full time, as it will enable my wife to work.

Some may see it as expensive, guess ill have to sacrifice a few takeaways a month.

[MrZM]

As is all state schooling.

I'm not sure about pre school, but local education authorities are obliged to provide a free school place for all children living in their area up to the age of 16; regardless of the child's immigration status.

So, unless someone wants to educate their children privately, school fees don't enter into it.

MrZM, matsky13 has stated he can easily afford to support his family from his current income; I have no reason not to believe him. Forcing him to mortgage one of his houses so he can meet some arbitrary limit is, as I said, ludicrous.

I have already explained why I feel the new minimum income is too high as well as what I consider to be a fairer method of calculating this aspect; and why. I don't intend to repeat myself.

I don't know when, or even if, the government will review the new requirements; this report is just recommendations from an inquiry. The government can simply ignore it if they wish.

As the rules are set there is not much people can do. And I sympathise for all families, who may end up separating!

But I also believe, that if its possible then the sacrifice can be made to ensure your families future.

Like with other rules that have been changed, ie age requirement (which held me back 2 and a half years, at a big financial loss, sacrificing a business I built up from the age of 16) it won't be until someone takes it to the high court, that the government will takes second look.

You all know my story.

Good luck to all

[theoldgit]

Inappropriate and racist remark deleted, cut it out.