Jump to content

Only Fools and Horses star reveals heartbreak as Thai wife banned from the UK


rooster59

Recommended Posts

Just now, laislica said:

Me too, we need to organise.....

and what about human rights?

Too many rhinos in the room and the ones who planned are not interested. Way too many "opinions of hardship" yes it's unfair but I'm sure everyone has said "life is unfair" to somebody before. He has a challenge which if paper quotes correctly is: 22400 a year earnings based on the previous year or 62500 in the bank. So the target would be possibly easier to attain by working for 1 year straight and exceding the min requirement and is he not then home free with his family in the UK?

 

1 year of working hard is not a big ask but the 5 years of no access to NHS unless chargeable is a major issue but is that solely for the wife if the child already has British citizenship by birth right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 805
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Not starting a political debate, but I believe the opposition party will change the rule.  In effect, they are upholding the Supreme Court's comments that rights should not be subject to a person's economic circumstance.  Whether they ever get in to power is another issue.

 

Personally, I'm surprised the number of posters that believe opposite: rights are rights!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, iReason said:

 

That didn't take long.

Only five posts in and the first xenophobe crawled from beneath his rock to seize the opportunity to illustrate his religious bigotry.

Even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the OP.

:coffee1:

Kind of obvious and not worth the mention though really. Just an invitation for more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Not starting a political debate, but I believe the opposition party will change the rule.  In effect, they are upholding the Supreme Court's comments that rights should not be subject to a person's economic circumstance.  Whether they ever get in to power is another issue.

 

Personally, I'm surprised the number of posters that believe opposite: rights are rights!

You do not think it is possible to affect the rights of another by insisting on your version of your 'rights'

 

So tell me, without an element of control......your opinion as to where your 'rights are rights' approach leads?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, laislica said:

The stampede already happened!

We need something to differentiate between genuine born n bred and others!

Yes, even if the roots of the born were foreign!

 

Eh ?

Although the Child and woman in question would not be privileged to those rights, as they were not born in the UK .

    Let the Thai Woman and Child into the UK , but give people who were not born  at least third generation  in the UK less rights than those who were there when the Romans were there .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mercman24 said:

typical,, here is a hardworking guy scratching a living and is solvent, not a burden,  ( and to think his tax is giving money to absolute wasters)but its ok if you rock up on our shores on a banana boat with jack shit money in your pocket, we will give you hundreds of pounds and a <deleted> house as well .

which is not true. And the people 'rocking up' on a banana boat (????), are refereed to as refugees, fleeing wars that we have a hand in start, prolonging or flogging arms to the despots and terrorists doing the killings. 

 

And you have no guarantees even if you are a refugee. Ironically, it is your kind of hyperbolic rhetoric that gives rise to the stupid rules brought in by May of the minimal wage for spouses coming from outside the EU. Bet the Daily Mail don't talk about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rc2702 said:

I don't get it. London cabbie does not meet minimum requirement of £18600?

It doesn't say anything about him being a London cabbie. I doubt any taxi driver, cab driver or private hire driver that take a lot of their income in cash declare it all, and that doesn't seem to be the problem anyway. He needs to work for 1 year to be able to provide the tax return needed to prove his income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MickTurator said:

Only if they were married before the birth.

I fell foul of that law and it has plagued me and my daughter for the rest of our lives.

Marriage has nothing to do with it. He, presumably, is British by birthright, therefore, any of his children are British by birthright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With respects what happened to all his money ? Did he  pee it all up against the wall ? Beer, drugs. etc ? You cannot be upset if you did it to yourself.

 

I am 53. I worked all my life. I live in Thailand with my wife and child, and like this man want to return to the UK with them. BUT. I still own my own house that I rent out, and I have a small pension in two years. By selling my house and moving away from the south east I can facilitate  the visa costs and rules. I was not some TV movie start - I worked, saved and used my brain.

 

If you do NOT plan your life, then you have to live with your mistakes - however sad that is or may appear. YOU make the consequences  most of the time. Many here have sold their houses in the UK to live here, that is their decision. They have to live with the threat of what happens  'IF'. Should I feel sorry for them ? 

 

It's not a case of being heartless, I fully understand what he is going through.

 

And before you say it yes the European laws are bad and discriminatory against us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RichardColeman said:

With respects what happened to all his money ? Did he  pee it all up against the wall ? Beer, drugs. etc ? You cannot be upset if you did it to yourself.

 

Do you know how much money he earned ?

He had a minor role in a sit-com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, champers said:

I am only guessing, but the current rules allow Euro spouses in regardless of merit; they are allowed in carte blanche. After Brexit there may be more flexibility for Non-Euro spouses.

Nigel Farage would probably know better than me. His wife is German.

I believe that there are more immigrants entering the UK from outside the EU than from the EU. You know statistics and lies.be careful what you wish for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dipterocarp said:

I don't understand that either with the high fares but if he is broke it is not the British peoples problem he can  go back to Thailand and live with his dependents. 

He isn't a London cabbie and where does it say he's broke! He could have 50K sitting in the bank and still not qualify for a visa for his wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

had similar problems.

wife came for 6-month visit visa and returned home. next year applied again the same visa and was refused for made up reasons, e.g. despite a copy of marriage certificate and specifying on the form, one refusal point was because there was no evidence of UK marriage ceremony date.  duh? we're already married... lol

 

spent a year searching for ways to contest, dead ends. tried the tribunal, it didn't even get to a judge it was said to be incontestable (law changed 2014 to stop it).

 

the bottom line of refusal letter says you can reapply but there is a high chance it will be refused again - costing another £100 plus which they keep - and basically, we're living 6k miles apart for the foreseeable  future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, 473geo said:

You do not think it is possible to affect the rights of another by insisting on your version of your 'rights'

 

So tell me, without an element of control......your opinion as to where your 'rights are rights' approach leads?

It depends on the definition of rights: if for instance you are talking about the right for everyone to have a luxury yacht, then that is not a true right.  If one is talking about ordinary people having the right to live together with their family and honestly persue life in a reasonable manner, then that is another matter entirely.  And of course it is relative to the rights of peers.

 

Where does it lead?  Well if one does not uphold basic human rights then it leads to a very bad place indeed; I shouldn't need to elaborate on this point.  Obviously, there are grave dangers in making rights dependent on an individual's financial circumstances.

 

Certainly, the UK Supreme court sees it that way too with regard to the matter under discussion.

 

I do think it's more appropriate for you to justify your position as it appears somewhat regressive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, champers said:

A rule that is likely to be defunct post Brexit. I feel for him; I hope he can find a solution.

I would have thought that royalties from endless repeats of Only Fools and Horses would keep the money rolling in. Maybe not.

I knew Forbes Collins and Gertan Klauber both actors and asked Gertan way back in the 90's about royalties and did he get paid each time Carry On films were aired etc and he said if we're lucky we'll get £50 on a good week.

The top boys may get decent royalties but most dont

Link to comment
Share on other sites

interestingly the EU human rights act applies to people who are married to foreign nationals, to have a "life" together, and are prevented from doing so. Article 8, i believe.  however, in order for someone (ME) to contest it, you need to go to court and that costs money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

It depends on the definition of rights: if for instance you are talking about the right for everyone to have a luxury yacht, then that is not a true right.  If one is talking about ordinary people having the right to live together with their family and honestly persue life in a reasonable manner, then that is another matter entirely.  And of course it is relative to the rights of peers.

 

Where does it lead?  Well if one does not uphold basic human rights then it leads to a very bad place indeed; I shouldn't need to elaborate on this point.  Obviously, there are grave dangers in making rights dependent on an individual's financial circumstances.

 

Certainly, the UK Supreme court sees it that way too with regard to the matter under discussion.

 

I do think it's more appropriate for you to justify your position as it appears somewhat regressive.

 

If a person doesnt earn enough money to be able to feed his family , how are they going to survive ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

If a person doesnt earn enough money to be able to feed his family , how are they going to survive ?

It is a tricky issue that's for sure.  And it is a very valid question. 

 

Look at it though: if we were to apply this measure to UK citizens as a whole then there are millions of people who would be deprived citizenship, since most are struggling at present.  It's about rights that are equal to the average citizen I suppose. 

 

Taking the guy in question: well he is gainfully employed, and his wife is relatively young and will presumably work.  Also, the UK needs younger people to pay in to the system to support older people. 

 

But as I say applying rights according to economic status is not really desirable.  Yes there is a cost, but there is also a cost in not upholding them.

 

It goes beyond economics though, doesn't it?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...