Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 7:50:52 GMT 7
As I said - the so-called "Royal Sergeant Major," would be embarrassed to hear his failure son ramble such crap I will be in Tropical Berts in Pattaya next week, as mentioned before I am not an ex army type, but I will make sure to ask the Pattaya legends such as MC, what is this rank/grade you refer to, if i am chased out the door I will hold you responsible. Invite The Isaan Refugee to come down so that he can tell all the ex-serviceman about how his Daddy won the war. You'll need to pay for his flight, hotel, and all his drinks though cos he's a real beggar. Catch it on Youtube and you'll make a fortune as the video goes viral. Worthless old man embarrasses his Dad's memory. |
|
smokie36
Vigilante
Posts: 15,810 
Likes: 9,200
Member is Online
|
Post by smokie36 on Feb 24, 2017 9:20:11 GMT 7
The refugee is asking if he can wear his TPV uniform.
Oh and he says book two rooms and make sure the flights are business class....something about bringing his son Brigadier General Somchai to witness his proud moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fletchsmile on Feb 24, 2017 12:52:40 GMT 7
Apologies for being on topic but I'm catching up on my reading.  I believe the UK average wage is around 26,500, so 18,800 is significantly below that anyway. Main thing as I see it, is to set it at a level where everyone else is not paying for their benefits to support their wife and kids. Already enough freeloaders. If you want to marry a foreigner and have kids / support theirs, then either make sure you can afford it or go and live in their country. Only 3 things I'd say in support. 1) would be a bit unfair to apply retrospectively, so make it from the date legislation was passed. 2) They need to get the right income level and link it to levels at which benefits could be claimed, so needs minimum level to be above that. 3) Probably should take into account other income that would prevent or reduce benefits Otherwise, it's their responsibility. Why should other people have to pay for it? Enough freeloaders already in UK both foreign and British |
|
me
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 6,342
Likes: 3,980
|
Post by me on Feb 24, 2017 13:17:20 GMT 7
Apologies for being on topic but I'm catching up on my reading. I believe the UK average wage is around 26,500, so 18,800 is significantly below that anyway. Main thing as I see it, is to set it at a level where everyone else is not paying for their benefits to support their wife and kids. Already enough freeloaders. If you want to marry a foreigner and have kids / support theirs, then either make sure you can afford it or go and live in their country. Only 3 things I'd say in support. 1) would be a bit unfair to apply retrospectively, so make it from the date legislation was passed. 2) They need to get the right income level and link it to levels at which benefits could be claimed, so needs minimum level to be above that. 3) Probably should take into account other income that would prevent or reduce benefits Otherwise, it's their responsibility. Why should other people have to pay for it? Enough freeloaders already in UK both foreign and British So someone who left the UK many years ago under the old policy, worked overseas....and quite posibly paid UK tax and got married overseas and has children is now faced with the fact that if he decides or has to due to changes in his host country must return to the UK without his wife and possibly children if he wants to. |
|
chiangmai
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 6,568
Likes: 5,693
|
Post by chiangmai on Feb 24, 2017 13:21:55 GMT 7
Apologies for being on topic but I'm catching up on my reading. I believe the UK average wage is around 26,500, so 18,800 is significantly below that anyway. Main thing as I see it, is to set it at a level where everyone else is not paying for their benefits to support their wife and kids. Already enough freeloaders. If you want to marry a foreigner and have kids / support theirs, then either make sure you can afford it or go and live in their country. Only 3 things I'd say in support. 1) would be a bit unfair to apply retrospectively, so make it from the date legislation was passed. 2) They need to get the right income level and link it to levels at which benefits could be claimed, so needs minimum level to be above that. 3) Probably should take into account other income that would prevent or reduce benefits Otherwise, it's their responsibility. Why should other people have to pay for it? Enough freeloaders already in UK both foreign and British So someone who left the UK many years ago under the old policy, worked overseas....and quite posibly paid UK tax and got married overseas and has children is now faced with the fact that if he decides or has to due to changes in his host country must return to the UK without his wife and possibly children if he wants to. I believe that there's a minimum savings level in lieu of salary and as I recall it's GBP 67k. It's not unreasonable to think that a person who has done as you said, moved overseas and married etc. has savings at that level ore greater, especially if they've owned property which has been sold in preparation for the move. |
|
|
|
Post by Fletchsmile on Feb 24, 2017 13:34:22 GMT 7
Apologies for being on topic but I'm catching up on my reading. I believe the UK average wage is around 26,500, so 18,800 is significantly below that anyway. Main thing as I see it, is to set it at a level where everyone else is not paying for their benefits to support their wife and kids. Already enough freeloaders. If you want to marry a foreigner and have kids / support theirs, then either make sure you can afford it or go and live in their country. Only 3 things I'd say in support. 1) would be a bit unfair to apply retrospectively, so make it from the date legislation was passed. 2) They need to get the right income level and link it to levels at which benefits could be claimed, so needs minimum level to be above that. 3) Probably should take into account other income that would prevent or reduce benefits Otherwise, it's their responsibility. Why should other people have to pay for it? Enough freeloaders already in UK both foreign and British So someone who left the UK many years ago under the old policy, worked overseas....and quite posibly paid UK tax and got married overseas and has children is now faced with the fact that if he decides or has to due to changes in his host country must return to the UK without his wife and possibly children if he wants to. There's always exceptions, but generally yes. The flaw in your logic: If they left the UK many years ago and they've been living overseas for significant periods as you say, they wouldn't have been paying much UK tax if any. So for many years they would have been contributing nothing or next to nothing to the UK. Now they want something, in this case probably handouts, they go back and expect other people to pay for it. Most likely it would be their decision to move back to the UK as they see it as financially advantageous to do so. What the UK needs to do is to make it less financially advantageous to do so and less freely give handouts. Very few people actually have to leave the country - they might be the exceptions mentioned - so it comes down to choices. People should take more responsibility for their lives and move society more away from the entitlement and benefit culture now embedded and bankrupting the UK. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 14:16:01 GMT 7
Apologies for being on topic but I'm catching up on my reading. I believe the UK average wage is around 26,500, so 18,800 is significantly below that anyway. Main thing as I see it, is to set it at a level where everyone else is not paying for their benefits to support their wife and kids. Already enough freeloaders. If you want to marry a foreigner and have kids / support theirs, then either make sure you can afford it or go and live in their country. Only 3 things I'd say in support. 1) would be a bit unfair to apply retrospectively, so make it from the date legislation was passed. 2) They need to get the right income level and link it to levels at which benefits could be claimed, so needs minimum level to be above that. 3) Probably should take into account other income that would prevent or reduce benefits Otherwise, it's their responsibility. Why should other people have to pay for it? Enough freeloaders already in UK both foreign and British So someone who left the UK many years ago under the old policy, worked overseas....and quite posibly paid UK tax and got married overseas and has children is now faced with the fact that if he decides or has to due to changes in his host country must return to the UK without his wife and possibly children if he wants to. Yes. Tough, huh? Since when did the UK government offer automatic immigration officer status to every citizen? The answer is NEVER. Absurd that any UK national can assume they have the right to marry overseas without thought to the financial consequences. Way too much wailing from the typical useless cant brigade that believes their passport entitles them to marry some Thai skank with three somchai cast-offs and import them all onto the UK benefit system. Think about it. |
|
me
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 6,342
Likes: 3,980
|
Post by me on Feb 24, 2017 14:34:06 GMT 7
his legislation came into force on 1 January 1915 as 4&5 Geo. c.17.[3] British subject status was acquired as follows:
birth within His Majesty's dominions
naturalisation in the United Kingdom or a part of His Majesty's dominions which had adopted Imperial naturalisation criteria
descent through the legitimate male line (child born outside His Majesty's dominions to a British subject father). This was limited to one generation although further legislation in 1922 allowed subsequent generations born overseas to be registered as British subjects within one year of birth.
foreign women who married British subject men
former British subjects who had lost British subject status on marriage or through a parent's loss of status could resume it in specific circumstances (e.g. if a woman became widowed, or children immediately upon turning 21).
|
|
me
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 6,342
Likes: 3,980
|
Post by me on Feb 24, 2017 14:35:11 GMT 7
his legislation came into force on 1 January 1915 as 4&5 Geo. c.17.[3] British subject status was acquired as follows: birth within His Majesty's dominions naturalisation in the United Kingdom or a part of His Majesty's dominions which had adopted Imperial naturalisation criteria descent through the legitimate male line (child born outside His Majesty's dominions to a British subject father). This was limited to one generation although further legislation in 1922 allowed subsequent generations born overseas to be registered as British subjects within one year of birth. foreign women who married British subject men former British subjects who had lost British subject status on marriage or through a parent's loss of status could resume it in specific circumstances (e.g. if a woman became widowed, or children immediately upon turning 21). So after 1915 if not before. Until I believe 1971 and I believe changed partially because of the pending entry into the EU |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 16:51:23 GMT 7
his legislation came into force on 1 January 1915 as 4&5 Geo. c.17.[3] British subject status was acquired as follows: birth within His Majesty's dominions naturalisation in the United Kingdom or a part of His Majesty's dominions which had adopted Imperial naturalisation criteria descent through the legitimate male line (child born outside His Majesty's dominions to a British subject father). This was limited to one generation although further legislation in 1922 allowed subsequent generations born overseas to be registered as British subjects within one year of birth. foreign women who married British subject men former British subjects who had lost British subject status on marriage or through a parent's loss of status could resume it in specific circumstances (e.g. if a woman became widowed, or children immediately upon turning 21). Never been a fan of the male line rule, not fair on women. Anyway, the 1915 rule predated mass international tourism. No one could have thought people would bring back wives from holiday. |
|
onionluke
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
I escaped from the dark and dingy orlop only to be captured by cattle rustlers and now
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 717
|
Post by onionluke on Feb 24, 2017 20:41:46 GMT 7
What a bunch of I'm alright Jack <c**ts> you lot sound like . The 18300 is only one requirement of many .
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Feb 25, 2017 6:51:41 GMT 7
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 10:07:36 GMT 7
What a bunch of I'm alright Jack <c**ts> you lot sound like . The 18300 is only one requirement of many . People need to live with the consequences of their decisions. Immigration rules to the UK are a government responsibility, not the gift of individuals. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 10:15:07 GMT 7
You'd think it was rocket science -
Can you support your foreign spouse without recourse to the benefits system? Yes or no?
Do you have a pension big enough to qualify for £18,600 income? Yes or no?
If you are still working age, can you return to the UK in advance of your family and gain a job that qualifies the income level? Yes or no?
Both my father and myself moved overseas in advance of our families. We both sent our families back in advance of our repatriation. We didn't rock up skint at Glasgow airport with our British born families.
I would like to see an explanation from someone as to why they think they can turn up skint in the UK with a foreign family and expect the taxpayer to fund them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 10:21:08 GMT 7
Check out the £14,000 a year income level comment, with the engineer husband. A prime example of delusion. Her entire case is based upon her husband walking into an engineering job in the UK. Really? Wrong on so many levels. |
|
