Jump to content
BANGKOK 13 November 2018 07:10


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13,290 Excellent

About Suradit69

  • Rank
    Star Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Quite likely because unless you are on a Thai family extension you can't legally work in Thailand and if it is income from investments in Thailand you don't need the income method, but No information yet Extremely unlikely as they would be income and it would commonly be used not saved but No information yet. When you use terms like "Thai family extension," your credibility sinks rapidly since there is no such thing. He asked if the funds "over the pension" would need to be seasoned, not the income portion. Yes, if you are currently combining income and money in the bank, most offices want the money in the bank portion to be seasoned for three months or longer. It was once thought that that requirement didn't apply to the combination method as long as the money in the bank part was there when your applied, but most offices do now expect it to be seasoned for three months under the current application of the rules.
  2. Not sure what "instructions" you're reading Bobo. In the past, the existence of income was sufficient. No requirement that it be transferred into a Thai bank. And the type of acceptable income reported on an embassy "letter" pretty much depended on what the embassy was willing to "certify." If immigrations does allow evidence that you deposited Baht 800,000 over a 12 month period, but won't accept embassy affidavits or printouts from foreign banks as proof, then how will they know whether it comes from a pension? If it's from a salary and you're claiming you're retired, that may raise more questions. They're not very picky about where the Baht 800,000 in the bank came from if you use that method, so there's nothing to say that won't be equally content to see Baht 65,000 going into your account monthly from abroad regardless of whether it comes from a pension or whatever. We'll have to wait and see.
  3. That sounds like you're advocating that the hospital hold the woman against her will. If she was conscious, rational and an adult, she should have been advised that she needed immediate treatment, but I doubt the hospital could legally have "overridden her decision." A hospital can't kidnap someone who may be doing something that they deem to be stupid. Hard to make any definite decision regarding her understanding of her condition or of her mental state, but if she was insisting on going to another hospital it seems that was her choice. If they had held her and forced unwanted treatment on her and she died, what would everyone say then?
  4. While there may be things about Thailand that differ from your experience living at home with mom & dad and there are bound to be things beyond your understanding that you immediately, defensively designate as irrational, the vast majority of people visiting Thailand or who choose to stay here long term are not overwhelmed by the requirements of immigrations. I suppose there may be some countries that have special immigrations regulations for people who are engaged to be married, maybe, possibly, sometime, but the absence of such in Thailand is certainly not an example of irrational behavior on the part of immigrations officers. Of course it's always fun massaging one's ego with comments like yours in an attempt to demonstrate the trials and tribulations that Freddy Farang must endure. Exactly. I've done a similar number of extensions based on retirement and never felt it too be that difficult.
  5. Suradit69

    'More than 7,000' still watching black and white TV across UK

    Probably more than that still watching their radios wondering why the only thing they see is the speaker cover vibrating. Apparently not having a TV increases fecundity.
  6. Well according to the British embassy they weren't doing more than providing "a supporting document" and were not able "to verify the income of British Nationals." Brits may have implied they were doing more, but the embassy seems to admit otherwise. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/british-embassy-bangkok-to-stop-certification-of-income-letters
  7. I can't jump on the soapbox while you're occupying it while saying nothing new about Thailand wanting people with money.
  8. I also said: I have the required income and I have documentary proof, but the affidavit from the embassy was not a reliable verification of that. I agree we have no idea how many people claimed things on the affidavit which were untrue, but we know that everyone who got the affidavit from the US Embassy did so without supplying verifiable proof.
  9. For what other reason would any government want foreigners to take up residence in their country? If you're not contributing to the economy why else would you be wanted? Did you think they found you charming and lovable? The problem isn't that they are asking for anything new. The problem is that they've come to realize that people don't have the money available that they've been claiming via embassy letters. If you've been saying you have at least Baht 65,000 or Baht 40,000 a month available and you don't, then you fail to meet the requirements that have existed for a very long time. Nothing has changed aside from realization that people are claiming something to be true which is not true, or at least which has not be reliably verified.
  10. And in many cases doing so would violate State Department policy (in the case of the US Embassy) and would probably hit numerous roadblocks in terms of American law or pension provider policy. For some countries that have citizens in Thailand receiving a single government pension, verifying the source and amount might be possible, but many people receive retirement income from multiple non-government sources. I agree with you that those who brag about their own deceit on income affidavits (or claim to know legions of friends who made fraudulent claims) and the loud-mouths (one in particular comes to mind) who harped on and on about the verification process, provoked the reaction ... just as the bragging over-stayers, the education visa scammers, et al have created other problems.
  11. Not sure what you think you know. I get 90 day reports done in minutes (actually these days I just send someone to do this) and annual extensions have been amazingly quick and painless at Jomtien.
  12. With a word of caution that it could easily be interpreted as recruiting foreigners to form a protest group in conflict with the Thai government. It's not so much your intent or peaceful purpose, but the optics. You could easily make the situation worse for everyone. Although it seems the problem arose ages ago, it has been a fairly brief time period. The fact that the Thai government is taking its time to react and set guidelines for the future doesn't mean nothing is being done. They've even allowed, in most cases, flexibility regarding when letters will still be accepted ... which suggests they are buying time to reach a solution. Despite their apparent indifference, the embassies aren't totally clueless. If they didn't know it before, by now they know the impact this may have on their citizens in Thailand. I would rather allow some time for clarification and resolution. Send emails or phone your embassy if it makes you feel better, but be careful about what actions you take with regard to any Thai government entity and be especially careful about any claims you make regarding who you think you represent.
  13. Yes, the use by date on the visa you (the o/p) got from an embassy or consulate is irrelevant. Assuming a single-entry visa, it ceased to be valid once it was used to enter the country. The permission to stay stamp you got from immigrations when you entered is what legalizes your stay in Thailand. Once it ends, you are in the country illegally. Considering the recent "crackdown" on over-stayers, it would be less risky to get an extension of your (the o/p's) permission to stay at an immigration office.
  14. None the less, the character he played never had paid employment which doesn't really qualify the family as "normal." In real life Ozzie wasn't much like the character he portrayed, Wouldn't even let his sons attend college because the TV show was all that mattered. https://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/18/arts/dousing-the-glow-of-tv-s-first-family-time-for-the-truth-about-ozzie-and-harriet.html And as far as the show Father Knows Best is concerned, the actor who was the central character suffered from mental issues & alcoholism and numerous suicide attempts. http://www.hollywoodnewsdaily.com/2014/robert-young-father-knows-best-stars-life-of-mental-illness-and-suicide-attempts/3903 Just saying that as "normal families" there was some dark behind-the-scenes issues .... but then maybe that's true of normal families. I never missed Ozzie and Harriet on the radio and then on TV. I thought that was how life was supposed to be. My "normal family" didn't come close. I think we were closer to Fibber McGee and Molly.