Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


7by7 last won the day on March 12 2013

7by7 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,938 Excellent

About 7by7

  • Rank
    Star Member
  • Birthday 09/09/1955

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Previous Fields

  • Location
    Surrey and Bangsu

Recent Profile Visitors

29,105 profile views
  1. As far as I am aware, since May's announcement the Conservatives have never been 10/1 or any other odds against; they have always been odds on favourites. The last time I looked the best odds available for a Conservative win were 1/16, and today are 1/20. (source) For those who don't understand odds; the stake is on the right, the potential winnings on the left. So, for example, 10/1 means bet £1, win £10: 1/10 means bet £10, win £1. If the stake is lower than the potential winnings, this is known as odds against. If the stake is higher than the potential winnings, this is known as odds on. Evens means that the potential winnings are the same as the stake. Best odds means best for the customer; i.e. the odds offering the best return for their stake.
  2. Westminster terror suspect identified He is not believed to be part of the group targeted the next day (Friday) in another intelligence led operation: Willesden shooting: Police foil 'active terror plot' Well done to the Met, the intelligence services and their sources.
  3. As I have already said; to exercise the right to reside, one first has to enter; and it is entry which is the subject of this debate! Having shown your ignorance of the directive by asking you are now going round in circles.
  4. As you are someone who likes to refer to and quote the directive so much, I am amazed that you need to ask this! The answer should be obvious to anyone who has even the most basic knowledge of the directive; they are exercising an economic treaty right because they are: a student, a worker, employed or self employed, a jobseeker, a person of independent means such as a pensioner or a qualifying family member of one of the above. Such as a Polish labourer working on a building site in the UK, a British pensioner retired to the Costa del Sol, a German student at a French university etc., etc..
  5. Yes, the EEA nationals host member state! Not the state of which the EEA national is a citizen. Not the state they are travelling to. But if you want to argue with a court, including if necessary up to the ECJ, that the wording of Metock covers illegal entrants, good luck to you. Let us know how you get on.
  6. Metock is about the rights of non EEA national partners of EEA nationals who are residing in an EEA state other than that of which the EEA national is a citizen. From the judgement Nothing there about the rights of the UK resident spouse of a UK resident British citizen travelling to the RoI with their British spouse to do so without the proper paperwork. Of course, under the directive non EEA national family members of EEA nationals have the same freedom of movement rights as their EEA national family member; provided they are travelling with or to join their EEA national family member. But they need the required paperwork to show that they have the right. The easiest way of doing this is, as the EU guidance Travel documents for non-EU family members says, is As we all know, any required visa must be issued with the minimum documentation, without delay and be free of charge. Some countries are notorious for not following this, but as far as i am aware Ireland is not among those. The guidance also says So if travelling from the UK to Ireland without first having obtained the required visa, one should have the necessary documentation to prove one's rights under the directive if required to do so.
  7. It is easy to get confused when using a foreign language in a pressure situation unless one is completely fluent. If she is interviewed they may ask her how you and she communicate, so she should say she can speak English, but isn't fluent.
  8. My first response was intended to put you off! To show you the impossibility of legally employing someone who is not currently in the UK in the role you actually want them for. Whatever you pay them, whatever job title you give them; the first step is for you to become a licensed sponsor. Becoming a licensed sponsor is not a simple rubber stamp job; and UKVI will carry out checks, which could include an unannounced visit to your business premises. see Sponsorship: guidance for employers and educators Do any of your companies employ translators or teachers? Do any of your companies have any roles which they cannot fill from within the UK or EEA? Do any of your companies have any roles which can only be filled by a Thai person? It seems to me that your intention is to create a false role in one of your companies for this person when in fact they will be employed in your private household in a totally different, domestic role; in other words; to commit immigration fraud. Very dangerous ground for both you and the person you import. To be honest, I'm not sure exactly what offence(s) you, they and your company would be charged with; but the penalties could be severe. Possible imprisonment for you, imprisonment followed by deportation and a permanent ban from the UK for them, large fines for your company. See Appendix B - IMMIGRATION OFFENCES. The purpose of this forum is to offer advice to those with genuine questions about immigration and visa matters; not to aid those who intend to commit fraud.
  9. Will her letter be written in English or Thai? I ask because there is a chance that the visa office will phone her and ask her about it. If it's written in English they will expect to talk to her in English. Is her English up to it? If it's written in Thai, then they will be happy to speak to her in Thai. So maybe better to have her letter written in Thai? If you do that, you will also need to enclose an English translation which contains:  confirmation from the translator that it is an accurate translation of the original document  the date of the translation  the translator's full name and signature  the translator's contact details You should do this for all documents in Thai; although anecdotal evidence suggest that in visit visa applications they are not too worried about official documents which do not have a translation. It may seem a bit daft writing a letter in English, having it translated into Thai for her to sign and then getting a certified translation of that; but, unless she is confident enough about her English to be interviewed on the phone about her letter's contents in English, it's better to be safe than sorry imho.
  10. We can discuss them via PM if you wish.
  11. VFS should not remove documents from an application, they are supposed to forward everything submitted by the applicant. But in every case of them doing so I have heard about they have returned said documents to the applicant saying that they are not required. Unfortunately, most applicants believe them rather than standing their ground and insisting the documents be forwarded with the application. But to see what was submitted, you need to see what was returned; and to do that you need to get them back from the visa shop. To be honest, the fact that you refer to them as a 'visa shop' rather than a 'visa agent' causes me concern. How well do you know them? Were they recommended to you by someone you trust? There are many visa agencies in Thailand, and both their competence and honesty range from excellent to non existent. Some even claim membership of impressive sounding regulatory organisations which in fact do not exist! Being owned by a Brit is no guarantee of their competence or honesty; indeed there is one notorious visa agency owned by a Brit who say they can get you an easy visa which is neither! Unfortunately, Thailand's draconian defamation laws and hence the forum rules prevent me from naming them.
  12. If she is in the UK with a visit visa, then she is not a resident. If the Burma and New Zealand embassies allowed her to apply for a visa in the UK while here as a visitor, then that's great to hear; although I am surprised. Under the EU freedom of movement directive, qualifying family members of an EEA national can apply for a Schengen visa anywhere, resident or not; provided they will be travelling with or to join their EEA national family member. The status of unmarried partners is not specifically defined in the directive, but most do accept them as qualifying family members if they meet the definition of unmarried partner under that state's own legislation. So while some Schengen states may recognise your partner as a qualifying family member, others may not. British citizens and their non EEA national family members are still covered by the directive, but what the position will be post Brexit has yet to be agreed.
  13. Obviously, if a particular runner or result receives a lot of bets then the bookmaker will shorten the odds; they do, after all, want to pay out as little as possible. So the staring price may be shorter than the odds when the customer placed their bet; but they could also be longer. Most bookmakers offer their customers the option of taking the odds at the time they place their bet or the starting price. Some offer a 'best odds' option which, if taken, means the customer receives the better of the two. But odds are mainly about probability, and the more probable the bookmaker's odds setters, or traders, believe that a particular result will happen, the shorter, or worse to the customer, the odds on that result. But then, I work in a bookies, so what do I know?
  14. Why would seeking advice here jeopardise an application? Remember, she must deal with all the reasons given in the refusal, or she will simply be refused again.
  15. And of course it would be in the interest of the Tories to suggest it is a tight race - so there's no complacency. Those odds do not suggest a tight race; far from it! According to OddsChecker, the current best odds available on a Conservative win are 1/16, while those on a Labour win are 14/1. The worst odds currently available are 1/25 on the Conservatives, 8/1 on Labour. N.B. For the uninitiated, the better the odds, the more you win (the figure on the left) compared to your stake (the figure on the right). For example; 1/16 means that if bet £16 you win £1; 14/1 means that if you bet £1 you win £14. So the worse the odds, the more likely it is that the bookmakers think that selection will win.