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

[Pilotman]

2 hours ago, sanemax said:

Which rules were different ?

UK Asians were bringing wifes back to the UK , as were British bringing mail order brides back .

    Were they actual different rules for different people ?

check the history.  Its all there. It was a deal done on Independence from the UK. 

[soyoukan]

it's all about money in the UK...

 

1k for residency visa, more money for the NI card to work, plus the citizen test (a joke, more about buying a book and learning the content - i scored 40%)..  all in all probably around £7k to have a foreign wife come and live here.

[NeoDinosaw]

3 hours ago, Rc2702 said:

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

Maybe London cabbies do not declare all their earnings to the authorities (i.e. tax man).  I knew one London cabbie who paid his daughters private school fees in cash !

[sanemax]

7 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

check the history.  Its all there. It was a deal done on Independence from the UK. 

That maybe to do with different rules for Commonwealth countries.

Its easier for Commonwealth Countries to get UK visas

[sanemax]

11 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

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

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?

Laws were bought in to stop people abusing the system, like long term unemployed going to Asia and getting a wife in order to get more benefits

[473geo]

34 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.

 

People fighting for their individual perceived 'rights' with no element of judicial control, or respect of any infringement they may cause on the 'rights' of others, leads to anarchy.

Yes indeed a very bad place indeed.......

[brewsterbudgen]

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.

He is applying for a Settlement visa not a Visitor visa. There is no requirement to be married for either!

[mommysboy]

9 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Laws were bought in to stop people abusing the system, like long term unemployed going to Asia and getting a wife in order to get more benefits

I had to think twice before even bothering to reply directly.  I hope you can see why.

 

Modern economies rely on the belief that given an opportunity and within a family unit, people will seek to become good, productive citizens, since it basically increases their wealth and is wholesome.  It is indeed this basic platform that the dominant political party is elected.

 

Yes, absolutely, there are serial abusers of the welfare system, but this really falls within a different remit, and should not be a central point.  Although, I would say that in fact immigrants help drive the economy, tend to work harder, and for less money.

 

I would assume some basic check of authenticity is done, but don't know.

 

 

[mommysboy]

12 minutes ago, 473geo said:

People fighting for their individual perceived 'rights' with no element of judicial control, or respect of any infringement they may cause on the 'rights' of others, leads to anarchy.

Yes indeed a very bad place indeed.......

'Perceived rights'.  It's a little more than that I think.  Again I refer to the Supreme Court's comments.  Take a look at the UN Charter of human rights. 

 

Who on earth said anything about not having any judicial control?  What are these 'rights of others' specifically?

[473geo]

3 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

'Perceived rights'.  It's a little more than that I think.  Again I refer to the Supreme Court's comments.  Take a look at the UN Charter of human rights. 

I think 'Perceived rights' is a major part of the equation, the attempt  to transfer the 'perceived rights' from one country to another is another part of the same equation,  and often proves a miscalculation.

 

I will get back to you when we are able to discuss the UN initiative following on from this revelation, and the subsequent reversal of the laws that protect a population against the self serving interests of individuals.

[JAG]

36 minutes ago, NeoDinosaw said:

Maybe London cabbies do not declare all their earnings to the authorities (i.e. tax man).  I knew one London cabbie who paid his daughters private school fees in cash !

Whilst I recoil in absolute horror at the foul slur which you have directed at London Taxi Drivers, if this is the case then Mr Murray's problems have only just started.

Now he has been highlighted in a national newspaper, I should imagine that the Income Tax inspection will begin at 0900 tomorrow morning....

[mommysboy]

3 minutes ago, 473geo said:

I think 'Perceived rights' is a major part of the equation, the attempt  to transfer the 'perceived rights' from one country to another is another part of the same equation,  and often proves a miscalculation.

 

I will get back to you when we are able to discuss the UN initiative following on from this revelation, and the subsequent reversal of the laws that protect a population against the self serving interests of individuals.

The central issue is whether the guy (his wife anyway) has a fair and good reason to qualify for residence in the UK.

 

In actuality, there is a fair claim providing there is enough money for her to be sponsored.  This is not open for contradiction.  It is merely a fact.  So in effect, it has been decided in law that she would satisfy conditions in the main.

 

The bone of contention is really about the money-isn't it always- and the Supreme Court decided that it was unfair for the reasons previously stated: that a basic right that is upheld generally in law should not be denied to any citizen on economic grounds.

 

There really isn't any other argument. The law is the law, but people have an absolute right to challenge that law, and vote for the party that will agree with them I guess!

 

 

 

 

[chrisinth]

I feel sorry for Mr. Murray, I really do.

 

But i don't feel sorrier for him than I do for the hundreds, if not thousands of others that are in the same or similar situation with immigration policies in force in Britain because he is/was a minor celebrity on a popular British series.

 

That said, he does seem to have caught the media's attention which can only show the rest of the population a small part of what they are probably unaware of, what is happening in the case of legally trying to get a spouse to Britain. 

 

When I see stories like this, Thailand is an easy run for a Thai bringing a foreign female spouse here.

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, AGareth2 said:

what are you going on about?

About your post.

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, soyoukan said:

it's all about money in the UK...

 

1k for residency visa, more money for the NI card to work, plus the citizen test (a joke, more about buying a book and learning the content - i scored 40%)..  all in all probably around £7k to have a foreign wife come and live here.

I suppose it is there to stop spurious abuse.  If someone has 'skin in the game, they are more likely to make it work. 

 

And this alone should stop the naysayers.

[mommysboy]

4 minutes ago, chrisinth said:

I feel sorry for Mr. Murray, I really do.

 

But i don't feel sorrier for him than I do for the hundreds, if not thousands of others that are in the same or similar situation with immigration policies in force in Britain because he is/was a minor celebrity on a popular British series.

 

That said, he does seem to have caught the media's attention which can only show the rest of the population a small part of what they are probably unaware of, what is happening in the case of legally trying to get a spouse to Britain. 

 

When I see stories like this, Thailand is an easy run for a Thai bringing a foreign female spouse here.

Eh! Quite the contrary.  What do you mean?

[AGareth2]

4 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

About your post.

marvelous

[Pilotman]

57 minutes ago, sanemax said:

That maybe to do with different rules for Commonwealth countries.

Its easier for Commonwealth Countries to get UK visas

I think so

[adammike]

1 hour ago, soyoukan said:

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. 

The European Court of human rights is not a EU court, it was set up by the council of Europe which now has 47 members.there is no EU human rights act it's the European convention on human rights. 

[laislica]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

"If at say 70, I chose to marry a 50 y/o and I have an excellent annual income from pensions, then why should it be an issue as to where I settle together with my wife?"

 

I gather it wouldn't be a problem as long as you have 18,600 p.a. income? 

 

Sorry, I don't understand what problem you refer to.

Quoting part of a post can be confusing:

I posted this:-

"Sorry to say that this idiot had no idea!

I assumed I had certain basic rights....

Then I found out - too late - that I had none!

 

The problem is that knee jerk laws are introduced and there is no room for common sense to be used to take into account the different situations that occur.

Discretion has been mentioned in this thread but discretion is not allowed to be used in every case.

Perhaps it should be?

 

If at say 70, I chose to marry a 50 y/o and I have an excellent annual income from pensions, then why should it be an issue as to where I settle together with my wife?

Why would she need to integrate?

Are you integrated into Thailand?

Probably not, so you can see what I mean. There is no need to integrate if you are old enough and have sufficient income not to be a burden."

 

My point is that every case is different and I ask why should each one not be considered on it's merits?

 

In my case I have much more than the 18,600 pa.

My wife would return to Thailand after I pass (assuming I go first).

I have made provision for her in Thailand so she won't have to work there either.

 

I spent my working life working and saving for retirement, I've been retired 17 years so far.

Many of my friends didn't do that, they exist on basic pension and need hand outs.

For many, it's the way they feel the system should work.

They spent it and had loads of experiences that I denied myself - until now!

So why should all cases be treated under the same blanket?

 

 

 

[wow64]

Deport all of them even the cabbie.. just taking up room for more would be terrorists. 

 

Must be a question on the visa app that asks religion.. ticked the wrong box.

[Bluespunk]

27 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

marvelous

So glad you approve. 

[iReason]

10 minutes ago, wow64 said:

Deport all of them even the cabbie.. just taking up room for more would be terrorists. 

Must be a question on the visa app that asks religion.. ticked the wrong box.

 

What on earth are you babbling about?

[chrisinth]

24 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Eh! Quite the contrary.  What do you mean?

I put that line in with reference of both spouses being together. This was the cry for help by Mr. Murray.

 

For a female married to a Thai spouse applying for a one year extension of stay for reasons of marriage there is no financial proof needed from the Thai husband, only proof of tax paid. The female can extend annually and remain in the country for as long as the relationship is good. From an article (actually on TV) from a few years ago:

 

Requirements for female married to a Thai national for one year extension of stay:
2 photos
all thai visa stamps and ID page in the passport
arrival card
marriage license (in thai-english or other language marriage licenses have to be translated and approved by the MFA I believe)
marriage ledger (this was new for me this year)
id card of husband
house registration of husband
personal income tax receipt of husband
photos (first year for this too)
hand drawn map to house (again first year for this)
application form and fee
The husband must accompany the wife and will be interviewed separately.

[473geo]

27 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

The central issue is whether the guy (his wife anyway) has a fair and good reason to qualify for residence in the UK.

 

In actuality, there is a fair claim providing there is enough money for her to be sponsored.  This is not open for contradiction.  It is merely a fact.  So in effect, it has been decided in law that she would satisfy conditions in the main.

 

The bone of contention is really about the money-isn't it always- and the Supreme Court decided that it was unfair for the reasons previously stated: that a basic right that is upheld generally in law should not be denied to any citizen on economic grounds.

 

There really isn't any other argument. The law is the law, but people have an absolute right to challenge that law, and vote for the party that will agree with them I guess!

 

 

 

 

We can simplify this even further

 

She is his wife, has his child, and accepted, she has the right to be with her husband ( Human rights)

 

Only if he can prove the ability to support his family,  and his wife and son will not be a burden on the welfare state (Accepting the rights of others )

 

I support both these statements, I believe if applied correctly, supports the rights of the individual, but also the rights of the much more numerous indigenous tax payers.

 

 

[KhonJaiYen]

His wife isn't banned, the family just doesn't meet the financial requirements set by Mrs May when she was home secretary. The irony of this story is that when this ruling was challenged by similar families in similar situations in the European court is was deemed correct and legal. Since Mrs May has now said the EU citizens wanting to stay in the UK after Brexit must also meet this ruling it is now being seen as illegal and totally against the human rights of EU citizens either living or wanting to live in the UK by the same people who were totally supportive of this rule when it only affected Brits. 

[mommysboy]

8 minutes ago, 473geo said:

We can simplify this even further

 

She is his wife, has his child, and accepted, she has the right to be with her husband ( Human rights)

 

Only if he can prove the ability to support his family,  and his wife and son will not be a burden on the welfare state (Accepting the rights of others )

 

I support both these statements, I believe if applied correctly, supports the rights of the individual, but also the rights of the much more numerous indigenous tax payers.

 

 

It's a cogent answer and genuinely held belief.  The Government agrees with you.  The Supreme Court agrees with me.

 

My fundamental argument is that wherever possible, human rights should not be determined according to wealth.  We see this in UK law alresdy, as for instance when someone commits a crime. 

 

But where I do agree is that there has to be a system of other checks to ensure the ordinary tax payer is not being abused.

[sanemax]

24 minutes ago, wow64 said:

Deport all of them even the cabbie.. just taking up room for more would be terrorists. 

 

Must be a question on the visa app that asks religion.. ticked the wrong box.

I do think that you are taking your exaggerations a bit too far

[the guest]

Once UK breaks away from Europe they should also adopt a reciprocal law, in keeping with Thai law for foreigners or non UK citizens i.e

 

No Thai can own land in the UK

No Thai can only own 49% of business in the UK

All thai must report to immigration every 90 days

Foreign business act implemented similar to Thailand's FBA 1999

Any thai born on British soil is no entitled to British citizenship

 

and the list goes on ....

[mommysboy]

50 minutes ago, laislica said:

 

Sorry, I don't understand what problem you refer to.

Quoting part of a post can be confusing:

I posted this:-

"Sorry to say that this idiot had no idea!

I assumed I had certain basic rights....

Then I found out - too late - that I had none!

 

The problem is that knee jerk laws are introduced and there is no room for common sense to be used to take into account the different situations that occur.

Discretion has been mentioned in this thread but discretion is not allowed to be used in every case.

Perhaps it should be?

 

If at say 70, I chose to marry a 50 y/o and I have an excellent annual income from pensions, then why should it be an issue as to where I settle together with my wife?

Why would she need to integrate?

Are you integrated into Thailand?

Probably not, so you can see what I mean. There is no need to integrate if you are old enough and have sufficient income not to be a burden."

 

My point is that every case is different and I ask why should each one not be considered on it's merits?

 

In my case I have much more than the 18,600 pa.

My wife would return to Thailand after I pass (assuming I go first).

I have made provision for her in Thailand so she won't have to work there either.

 

I spent my working life working and saving for retirement, I've been retired 17 years so far.

Many of my friends didn't do that, they exist on basic pension and need hand outs.

For many, it's the way they feel the system should work.

They spent it and had loads of experiences that I denied myself - until now!

So why should all cases be treated under the same blanket?

 

 

 

Because that is the way rights work.

 

Logically, it hasn't stopped you prospering has it?

 

Perhaps you will end up requiring hundreds of thousands of pounds medical attention from the NHS- hope not of course.  Will you deny it?  Of course not.  But there will be another guy with your attitude who would see you denied.  He'd no doubt argue that it is unfair that he has not used it at all while you are taking his share.