Kitsch22
-
Posts
251 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by Kitsch22
-
-
so........anybody have directions for the shoping mall with TOPS,
or EPI SQUARE DEPARTMENT
Api Plaza burnt down, so that leaves us with Api Square.
Let's say that King Mengrai, the noble man in bronze at Hi Yek (since 1957), would look backwards over his right shoulder.
I hope that's "Haa Yek"; the other does not bear thinking about
He would see the new location of the Tourist Police (though the big sign at the Night Bazaar still wants to tell the needy-for-help tourist that he or she can get assistence of this strange brand of police opposite the Office of the Public Roads, without telling where this could be), he would also see the office of the TOT where you in former times had to pay your telephone bills and still can do and ten meters further on at the same side a big building with small miserable appartments (costing only 1200 Baht a month) and a big department store bottom floor. I think there the machine is, between the TOT office and the side entrance of Api Square.There is namely a kind of bank look-a-like office with a money producing machine.
Thanks; that is very helpful. I shall attempt to check it out on Thursday.
Some people say that you indeed don't have to pay the 150 Baht fee, but some others say that this is only to your advantage when you want to withdraw small amounts of the machine.The reason that they say this is that they noticed that the exchange rates of this financial institute are not really the ones you would like them to be...
I have the strong feeling that it is better to open an account here and transfer money from your bank abroad to your account here.
And then take it out with a local card (free at your own bank and 20 Baht elsewhere).
Yes, I know, you don't get interest here, so keep your millions at home and just send some lousy hundred thousands here once in a while
Limbo
If you are suggesting (as you appear to be) that Aeon plays any part in the currency exchange transaction (when the card is not their own), then could you please explain. My last transaction was with a Nationwide card displaying the VISA logo and my understanding is that in the circumstances the exchange rate depended solely upon the VISA dynamic conversion carried out at the time and that the identity of the institution owning the paying ATM had no effect whatsoever. If that is wrong, then I must rethink my entire cash withdrawals strategy.
-
I assume you are contemplating the northern (Chiang Dao) route as opposed to the southern (Mae Suai) route which is less challenging but much less pretty.
I've done that run numerous times (though not for visa purposes) on machines ranging from 110cc to 750cc and it's good fun (even in the rain) if you are sensible and allow for the facts of (very) steep hills and (very) tightly winding roads, albeit much improved in recent years.
Tips: top up your fuel once you are down to half a tank and take refreshment at the Chiang Dao Resort.
Bike security at Mae Sai is no different from what it is in any busy Thai market town. Hundreds (maybe thousands) of Thais park their machines in the usual way with no problems but there are (near the bridge) plenty of paid and supervised parking facilities as well.
-
Do Aeon charge for issuing the card? Do you have to have an account with them to obtain one?
Aeon are, in substance, a finance company specialising in the provision of hire purchase or similar facilities, but they also issue a range of credit cards for which they charge (a range of) annual fees. I know a couple of Thais who have their cards, but am not personally aware of any farang members.
Fortunately their ATM machines accept many (though not all) western-issued credit cards, debit cards and similar ATM fodder without the 150 baht per-transaction fee that is now otherwise ubiquitous within Thailand.
-
Very sad to hear that people are dying from exposure in what I find to comfortable temperatures.
Not sure, but I think this thread is about the weather, not the climate.....
It was plenty cold in Chiang Rai today with the wind blowing hard most of the day,they are not as fortunate as us and with housing, clothing and body fat.
Yes, so chilly, indeed, that yesterday was the first day for ages that I did not need to use the aircon whatsoever.
-
I am confused. I went into Tukcom in Pattaya to the Telewiz counter. Asked for a Net-SIM. She gave me a FREEDOM SIM, which she recommended for Internet use. It was 400 Baht and valid for one month only. I asked if I can renew via ATM, like my normal phone. She said not possible and I would have to come back to their counter to recharge.
This would be difficult, as it is for a friend up country near Udon, who has no internet access, so want to try an EDGE Gizmo in his PC.
(No TV or Telephone lines in his village, he tells me. Happy will not work, but I-2-call does.)
Looks like back to the Drawing Board.....
A pity. IMHO you should have insisted on a NetSim. If you have not opened it, take it back and change it. If you have opened it, ring the callcentre on 1175 and I am optimistic that they will tell you how to switch the SIM to their Internet Lover package at the appropriate time.
-
Don't let Mr Toad catch you speaking that way!
Who is Mr Toad ?
Now you've really gone and done it!
I'm a toad , not a Frog. You Pollywogs all look the same to me, anyway.
-
Wrong info.
All the AIS One2Call simcards allow internet access and on all of them you can get the different packages (*138 for the automated system, or 1175 and ask the operators).
Although indeed there is a so-called net-sim. This is some kind of promo on this simcard where you pay monthly 99 Baht and get 30 hours of access. Also, a 100 Baht top up gives you a full month of validity (as opposed to only 10 days when topping regular One2Call sim cards up with 100 Baht)
The One2Call NetSim represents the best PAYG value for money that I have been able to find (more accurately their "Internet Lover" package). I use two of them in tandem and if 60 hours proves inadequate for any month just top up one of them with a further 20 hours for 107 baht.
-
My wife and I both have found that the Overbrook Hospital is great value.
Now ... I recall that you had some other questions but because of the new and brilliantly intelligent TV policy of concealing the OP in any thread from the person attempting to reply, I cannot remember what they were. TiT, I suppose.
-
spit my card back out
I used the one at Tesco-Lotus Mae Sai successfully and fee-free on 16 November.
No idea where Udonkit Road is, though. Where precisely did this spitting out occur? Directions related to some local landmark would be really helpful and much appreciated.
-
Sounds as though you want a NetSim. The right direction:
<http://www.12call.ais.co.th/en/Content/Simcard/simNetsim210.html>
Available from any TeleWiz shop.
Actually you can (I think) use any of the OnetoCall SIMs and then change to one of the Net packages by calling 1175 and speaking to one of their (excellent) English-speaking agents
-
In 20 years I have never once felt the need on the basis of my own personal tastes to go out looking for a "good farang restaurant" in Jangwad Chiang Rai. The only times when I have needed commercially pre-prepared farang food have been either when hosting farang guests who cannot handle the local Thai cuisine or alternatively to meet the clamorous demands of one or more of the local kids when I am treating them as a consequence of birthdays, outstanding performance at school or some similar achievement. In the latter case, sadly, in descending order of stridency they demand KFC, Pizza (they do not really know nor care about the difference between Hut and Company) and Swensen's, none of which really qualifies as "good farang". Once upon a time under popular pressure I took a bunch of them to McDonalds in Chiang Mai where they immediately pronounced the fare to be Bor Lum (no good taste) and none of them has ever asked to go to McDonalds again.
For those farang visitors who would have been better off staying at home, I have usually ended up taking them to restaurants in a midmarket or upmarket hotel. The restaurant at the Wiang Inn has met with praise on those occasions as has the food at the Anantara (? used to be the Meridien Ban Boran) up towards the Golden Triangle.
Very occasionally I get a hankering for a decent full English breakfast and then, I am pleased to say, Ee Kaae is well able to deliver the goods. That said, I have heard that Don's is capable of providing a quality real (or ersatz) English sausage. I have been meaning (in a half-arsed sort of a way) to visit both Don's and Rico's ever since I became aware of their existence. The fact that I had never got round to it I take as an encouraging indication that I may perhaps have the balance of my life here about right. Nevertheless, this thread has got me thinking about British bangers and, because I have to go to Chiang Rai town sometime in the next few days anyway (a 50km drive each way, and so not to be undertaken lightly or without good reason), perhaps I shall make the effort to visit, always assuming that I can find Don's or, failing that, Rico's. Now I think about it, does Don also do UK-style back bacon, as opposed to the streaky variety usually encountered around here?
-
The Northern Ireland case is not at all relevant to silent deception. It addresses more the question of whether a student was able to change courses without having to inform the immigration authorities. As it is already established in case law that a student was not restricted to attending the original course, there was a degree of inevitability about the outcome, but nothing to do with silent deception.
However, the judgement is useful insofar as it does refer to silent deception, upon which subject it states:-
"While there is no duty of candour on the part of an applicant he or she must not mislead the authorities on a material fact. A material fact is an effective but not necessarily decisive fact in obtaining the visa or obtaining entry."
In the case in question, it is my opinion that a change in boyfriends is, prima facie, material to the grant of entry and failure to disclose such, whether asked or not, would constitute either a 24A administrative offence or 26(1)© criminal offence.
I'm not going to get bogged further down in the discussion of hypotheses. This is not a legal forum for the discussion of minutiae, and to be honest, I've got far better things to do with my time. The OP has got all the advice he needs and can make his own mind up. If you wish to continue to disagree, then fine: you disagree. I'll take my stance and you take yours.
Fair enough. I shall not post further in this thread.
-
May I in the circumstances quote you as advising that a person who tells no lies and honestly answers every question put to her may nevertheless be held to have made "a return, statement or representation which (s)he knows to be false or does not believe to be true"?
Personally, I find myself compelled to disagree with that proposition. In saying so, I take comfort from the relatively recent (albeit N. Ireland) High Court Judgment in the case of Jamiu Olanrewaju Omikunle - Neutral Citation No. [2008] NIQB 79. If Mr Omikunle did not practice deception, then it is hard to see how our hypothetical Thai lady traveller could be held to have done so. I do not think that the IDIs can modify the words of a statutory provision in the way that you seem to be suggesting.
Sigh. Various posters have tried to explain this to you - perfectly competently - and yet you still don't get it.
If the lady merely appears, without saying anything, at immigration in this situation she is making "a statement or representation which (s)he knows to be false or does not believe to be true" in regard to her visitor visa because the circumstances under which the visa was granted have changed and she has not notified the authoritiesas she was under a duty to do. This is based on general principles of English law, not on some Northern Irish immigration case you happen to have looked up or been informed of (and, incidentally, have not provided a link to).
What do you find so difficult about this?
You miss the point. Scouser (who usually posts reliably in this field) has opined that silence is capable of amounting to a criminal misrepresentation in the circumstances that I have posited. I think that he is almost certainly wrong and wrong by a wide margin. If somebody has contrary authority, I would love to see it. The task of the prosecution in obtaining a conviction is an order of magnitude harder than the task of an IO defending a discretionary decision.
Northern Ireland High Court judgments have persuasive authority in the courts of England and Wales. Here is the URL which (notwithstanding the neutral citation number having been given) you still appear to need:
<http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/QB/2008/79.html>
To answer your last question I find this a difficult question in a difficult area. Much of the difficulty arises from a lack of direct judicial authority. It is an area bestrewn with misinformation and consequent misunderstanding. Much of the misinformation emanates from the civil servants charged with the administration of the mechanisms of immigration law and process. My past reading of Scouser's output leads me to believe that he is usually highly accurate and reliable but (in my opinion) not so in this case. There is absolutely no cause for any acrimony here; it is a relevant discussion and no more. This example of a relationship collapsing following the grant of a visitor visa is by no means unique.
-
Whether attempting to enter the UK with an entry clearance issued based upon circumstances which one knows no longer exist would be construed as deception is an interesting point. Any thoughts, Scouse?
It would constitute silent deception. The visa applicant/person seeking entry to the UK is under an obligation to disclose any material fact to either the ECO or immigration officer, as relevant. If s/he fails to do so, and is admitted to the UK, this would constitute on offence under sect. 26(1)© of the '71 Act and s/he would be classed as an illegal entrant.
Thank you. That is both lucid and helpful.
May I in the circumstances quote you as advising that a person who tells no lies and honestly answers every question put to her may nevertheless be held to have made "a return, statement or representation which (s)he knows to be false or does not believe to be true"?
Personally, I find myself compelled to disagree with that proposition. In saying so, I take comfort from the relatively recent (albeit N. Ireland) High Court Judgment in the case of Jamiu Olanrewaju Omikunle - Neutral Citation No. [2008] NIQB 79. If Mr Omikunle did not practice deception, then it is hard to see how our hypothetical Thai lady traveller could be held to have done so. I do not think that the IDIs can modify the words of a statutory provision in the way that you seem to be suggesting.
-
Well, don't take this the wrong way, but your question is not framed in a way that makes it particularly easy to answer.No-one? nothing? not even a 'don't bother'?*sigh*
It sounds as though you are looking for a standalone property rather than a bungalow in a resort (which would be much more straightforward) but the length of rental which you propose is uncommonly short for that class of property. Then you say "Chiang Saen" without making it clear whether you mean just the town or the entire amphoe nor why you have chosen that particular area.
Most probably the reason for the silence is that quite genuinely none of us who have read your message can instantly think of anywhere that immediately and obviously suits your needs.
If you are stuck you could try contacting the people at Viang Yonok who have a superb location on Chiang Saen Lake. I am sure that they will try to sell you their facilities (which everybody raves about) but they are nice people anyway and may well know of something locally that would fit your special requirements. Googling will take you to their website.
-
Having obtained the visa with boyfriend A as a sponsor, but then seeking entry at a UK airport to visit boyfriend B is a material change in circumstances and the visa's validity would then be withdrawn. She would then, legally speaking, require a new visa to enter the UK to visit boyfriend B and she wouldn't have one. Thai require a valid visa to visit the UK and in that situation can't seek leave to enter of the immigration officer at the UK airport, so providing evidence of B's ability to maintain and accommodate would be pointless. The relevant paragraph of the Immigration Rules that an IO can rely upon to refuse entry in such cirucmstances is 321 and is cited above.
If no attempt were made to either misrepresent the facts or conceal the change of circs to the IO, she may not be subjected to an accusation of deception, and thereby escape a 10-year "ban". However, that would depend precisely upon the circumstances of her arrival in the UK and what was said/not said to the IO; something that we don't know as this is all largely hypothetical.
I agree that the IO *could* refuse entry, but that is not the same thing as saying that he *would*. My point is that the answer to the OP's question, "Can Still Use?" is, prima facie, "Yes". Especially if boyfriend B were, say, the son of a Cabinet Minister.
If you are now saying that there is a deception/dishonesty requirement as a precondition for a 10-year ban, then we are at last in agreement. Which is why I hypothesised conditions expressly to exclude that possibility.
-
Kitsch,
I don't want to speak for Scouse, but as previously quoted, the immigration rules, Para321(ii) clearly states that a person can be refused entry if "a change of circumstances since it was issued has removed the basis of the holder's claim to admission."
As it appears that the visa was issued on the basis of a relationship that no longer exists, then Para321(ii) obviously applies.
Two points here:
Firstly a refusal of entry is a very different thing from a 10-year ban. I respectfully maintain the opinion that such a ban imposed on a person who had broken no rule nor done anything wrong would be unlikely to survive appeal/judicial review.
Secondly, if one adequate sponsor has been replaced by another adequate sponsor, then in what way is "the basis of the holder's claim to admission removed"?
-
In "the old days" it might take the UK immigration officer anything up to 2 weeks to obtain the visa application form from the visa-issuing post, but modern technology now means that they have instant access. Consequently, if the IO at the UK airport were so inclined to check, he could easily establish that the person with whom the woman arrived was not the original sponsor. As others have commented, this would constitute a change in circs and result in refusal of entry.
Depending upon the circumstances as a whole, she might get a right of in-country appeal, or she might be limited to an appeal from abroad. However, whichever she were given, there would be little point pursuing it as the refusing IO would have solid grounds. Additionally, if she were to either misrepresent the new boyfriend as the original sponsor, or state that she would be visiting the old boyfriend knowing this not to be the case, this could be sufficient to justify an accusation of deception, which would then result in any visit visa application for 10 years being refused without consideration.
I am acutely aware that this is your territory and that you know your stuff but I remain surprised that your view is so strongly nergative. Could you please cite for me the rule whereby the holder of a valid visa who presents and tells no lies and answers truthfully every question put to her might be liable to a 10-year ban?
I agree with you that an IO might well validly refuse entry, but if the new sponsor could (by immediate production of comprehensive documentary evidence) demonstrate his soundness, what do you think might be the grounds for refusal, bearing in mind that the change(s) must be material and that we are talking about a tourist visa here and not a settlement visa?
-
(3) neither the girl nor the sponsor tells any lies nor makes any misleading statements but answers honestly and openly any questions that are put
Then in those circumstances the worst that could (improbably) happen is that she would be turned away. There would be no grounds for her to be barred. The strong likelihood is that she would get in. After all, she has a valid tourist visa.
But she will be making a misleading statement, in effect, by presenting herself without reporting the material change in her circumstances - that she has a new b/f and a new sponsor. She has a duty to report any changes, that's the point. A visa stamp does not give her an absolute right of entry under all circumstances.
Presenting oneself is not a statement. Additionally I have tried quite hard but without success to find the rule requiring a visa-holder to "report any changes"; could you help me by identifying it, please?
-
Yes! along with your reaction.......!
And especially if he knows what "dagling" really means!
-
So she should go back to the embassy and get them to cancel the visa and apply again?
If she wants to do everything by the book then yes that would be the way forward,
there again if that someone else and her want to take the chance then go for it but it could turn out to be an
expensive mistake with the cost of the ticket,and then theres the chance of being barred for 10 years as well wich
would <deleted> any future travel plans to the uk.
I remember when my then g/f now wife come to the uk on a tourist V V we travelled back to the uk together
and the IO grilled her to pieces,nearly bringing her to tears with all the questions,and re asking her the same
questions trying to trip her up,we made the mistake of going through the clearace channels seperatly,then when i
tried to politely intervene and help my now wife he started on me,questions like why have you been in thailand so long,were do you get all your money from,why you coming back to uk etc etc,at this time i was getting a little bit
naffed off with him,so i then had no choice but to pull out everything that i had included in my g/f visa application
from my hand luggage and place it in front of him,luckily he just stamped the visa andtold her to move on,
great i thought WELCOME home,that was at LHR.
If you will pardon my saying so, I think that you paint a picture that is unduly dark.
If this girl turns up and presents at the UK airport accompanied by her new sponsor who stays with her all the time and if:
(1) the sponsor has with him adequate proof of his own financial and other status
(2) the girl has with her (but only for production upon request) paperwork equivalent to a full and satisfactory set of application papers including coverage of her new relationship and
(3) neither the girl nor the sponsor tells any lies nor makes any misleading statements but answers honestly and openly any questions that are put
Then in those circumstances the worst that could (improbably) happen is that she would be turned away. There would be no grounds for her to be barred. The strong likelihood is that she would get in. After all, she has a valid tourist visa.
-
Ah, I just spotted my typo and corrected it. Thanks. "Does" should have read "doesn't", but it seems you understood what I meant anyhow.
There's a difference between denotation and connotation. Roughly speaking, denotation means to state explicitly, and connotation means to imply or state implicitly. Usually a metaphor is implicit. Shakespeare wrote "All the world's a stage" -- he's making an implicitly metaphorical statement.
Adding "so to speak" makes it rhetorically explicit that one is being metaphorical, rather than just implying as much based on the context. At least, that's how I would put it.
I have been reading this thread with interest but with growing bewilderment. I may have missed something, but can you please explain why and how you produced the example:
"Every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square, so to speak"?
To me that seems to be a highly unusual and unnatural deployment of the phrase "so to speak"; it strikes me as incongruous. It is tacked on to a sentence which expresses a mere fact of geometry, as you acknowledge. The sentence requires no amplification nor qualification and the addition of the words "so to speak" conveys no ancillary meaning to me. As a consequence I find it very difficult to recognize any attempt to translate it into the Thai language as being valid. I start from the position that it is pointless to try to translate something that is not rigorously meaningful in its original form.
These references to metaphor accordingly seem to me to be inappropriate. What is the metaphor there? A metaphor involves the use of words which upon a most strict interpretation are untrue. Where is the untruth in that example?
A construction either is a metaphor or it is not. I cannot see how any "implicit/explicit" dichotomy arises.
-
His money is as good as gone. I hope it will be spent educating the rural poor.
You mean "educating" as in "teaching them that in the new improved democracy their votes will elect, say, 30% of the legislature and all candidates must be approved by the military anyway"?
-
Ajahn Brahm has caused the Sangha to argue & or possibly split according to an earlier post by fabianfred, he is in danger of being blocked from nirvana for an aeon.
Having said that, it's very worrying to see the Sangha being controlled by ego & politics rather than the spirit of Buddhism.
Unless the Buddha forbade women to ordain for any reason other than being in danger due the environment of the times then blocking their ordination is wrong.
I think you're jumping to a conclusion here because you seem to be saying that the Sangha IS being intentionally controlled by ego and politics. We talk a lot about intent in this forum. Perhaps the Sangha's intent is high minded. Perhaps they think they are protecting Buddhist traditions.
Perhaps they have the wisdom to recognise that the cancer that is political correctness necessitates radical surgery as soon as it is detected.
I'm a toad , not a Frog. 
Is "r.i.p." An Appropriate Valediction?
in Buddhism
Posted
I had understood (perhaps wrongly) that Theravada Buddhists believe in reincarnation forthwith after death. If that is correct, then does it follow that there is no Buddhist equivalent (short of Enlightenment) to the (hazy) Christian concept of "eternal rest"?
Perhaps I am being simplistic, but in strict terms, to wish "R.I.P." upon the death of a devout Buddhist seems at first glance to be grossly inappropriate.