Disclaimer: By posting on this web site it is accepted that you have agreed to our Terms. Please DO NOT publish copyrighted material/pictures without the owner’s permission, you are liable for any costs incurred.


Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 193
  1. #61
    Moderator joebloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    23,162
    Rep Power
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by yellowcloud View Post
    What about people who have already applied for a spouse or fiance visa and are waiting for an Answer? As my Fiance applied for her Fiance visa this week!
    your visaa app should be done under the old rules, so the changes should not effect apps already being processed.
    http://www.filipinouk.com/forum/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=870&dateline=1270312908


  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    G.B. (IOM)
    Posts
    8,776
    Rep Power
    0
    Have been trawling elsewhere to find out more about this.......

    From a document commenting on Damian Green speech.


    ‘We are keen to learn from practice in other European countries. An example is the attachment requirement in Denmark, which requires a couple’s combined attachment to Denmark to be greater than that to any other country. It is argued that this promotes effective integration and provides a further test of the genuineness of a relationship.

    ‘To meet the attachment requirement, the sponsor of a marriage visa must have resided legally in Denmark for at least 15 years and the applicant must have visited the country at least twice.

    ‘Such an attachment requirement in the UK would have a big impact. Many family migrants have never visited the UK before they apply for a visa to come here as a spouse or partner.’

    It is interesting to note that these comments were made the day before Denmark voted out the right-leaning government responsible for introducing policies such as these.


    http://lifeintheuk.net/index.php/new...r_integration/


  3. #63
    Moderator joebloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    23,162
    Rep Power
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by yellowcloud View Post
    I dont see how as the legal Aid thresehold is £7,000 not £25,000?
    Legal Help if you have income

    If your gross monthly income is over £2,657 you won’t get Legal Help. ‘Gross income’ means before tax and national insurance are taken off and it excludes certain social security benefits. If you have more than four children, this limit goes up by £222 for the fifth and each additional child. You have to include your partner’s income unless your partner is the person who you are in dispute with.

    If your gross monthly income is £2,657 or less, your solicitor or adviser will then check out what is your disposable income. ‘Disposable income’ is the amount of income you have left after deductions have been made for national insurance, child support and tax. Also, if you have a partner who isn't earning or if you have children, a certain amount of your income won't be taken into account. If your partner is earning, their income will be taken into account, unless your partner is the person who you are in dispute with.

    To qualify for Legal Help, your disposable monthly income can’t be more than £733. If you are within this limit, you don’t have to pay anything towards Legal Help.
    Legal Help if you have capital

    If you have disposable capital (savings) of over £8,000, you won't get Legal Help. Disposable capital includes:

    money in the bank
    valuable items
    the value of your home (if you own it). This depends on how much the property is worth and how much your mortgage is.

    You have to include your partner's capital unless your partner is the person who you are in dispute with.

    If you’re getting Income Support, income-related Employment and Support Allowance, income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance or the guarantee credit part of Pension Credit, you’ll automatically get Legal Help regardless of the value of your home or of any other capital you have.


    What are the financial conditions for Legal Representation
    Legal Representation if you are getting benefits

    You will get Legal Representation if you or your partner receive:

    income support
    income-related Employment and Support Allowance
    income-based Jobseeker's Allowance
    guarantee credit part of Pension Credit.

    You can also get Legal Representation for an asylum and immigration case if you get government asylum support.

    If you don't get any of these benefits your income and capital will be looked at to see if you can get Legal Representation.
    Legal Representation if you have income

    If your gross monthly income is over £2,657, you will not get Legal Representation. 'Gross income' means your income before tax and national insurance have been deducted. If you have a partner, your partner's income will also be taken into account except if your partner is the person you are in dispute with.

    If your gross monthly income is £2,657 or less, your disposable income will be assessed. 'Disposable income' is the amount that you have after deductions have been made for national insurance, tax, housing costs and certain other necessary expenses. If you have a partner who isn't earning or if you have children, a certain amount of your income won't be taken into account. If your partner is earning, their income will be taken into account except if they are the person you are in dispute with.

    If you have a monthly disposable income of £733 or less, you will qualify for Legal Representation. However, if your monthly disposable income is over £315, you will have to pay a monthly contribution. This has to be paid for as long as you're getting Legal Representation. The amount of the contribution depends on your income.

    http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/englan...egal_costs.htm
    http://www.filipinouk.com/forum/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=870&dateline=1270312908


  4. #64
    Moderator joebloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    23,162
    Rep Power
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by yellowcloud View Post
    What you need to pray for is that there is a transitional arrangement rather than it being retrospective.
    even more court cases if they tried that, they lost cases for doing that in the past, i cant see them trying that,
    http://www.filipinouk.com/forum/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=870&dateline=1270312908


  5. #65
    Moderator joebloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    23,162
    Rep Power
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by lastlid View Post
    Have been trawling elsewhere to find out more about this.......

    From a document commenting on Damian Green speech.


    ‘We are keen to learn from practice in other European countries. An example is the attachment requirement in Denmark, which requires a couple’s combined attachment to Denmark to be greater than that to any other country. It is argued that this promotes effective integration and provides a further test of the genuineness of a relationship.

    ‘To meet the attachment requirement, the sponsor of a marriage visa must have resided legally in Denmark for at least 15 years and the applicant must have visited the country at least twice.

    ‘Such an attachment requirement in the UK would have a big impact. Many family migrants have never visited the UK before they apply for a visa to come here as a spouse or partner.’

    It is interesting to note that these comments were made the day before Denmark voted out the right-leaning government responsible for introducing policies such as these.


    http://lifeintheuk.net/index.php/new...r_integration/
    two-thirds of people surveyed who were granted a marriage visa in 2009 had never visited the UK before deciding to move here permanently how many people were refused a visit visa for their g/f or fiancee, or even spouse how would they get to the UK ? back of a lorry

    To meet the attachment requirement, the sponsor of a marriage visa must have resided legally in Denmark for at least 15 years and the applicant must have visited the country at least twice. so those people who have paid for citizenship can't bring their wife or kids to the UK in many cases for another 10yrs

    http://www.filipinouk.com/forum/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=870&dateline=1270312908


  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    G.B. (IOM)
    Posts
    8,776
    Rep Power
    0
    I am trying to understand what this attachment requirement referred to in the Guardian article in your post is all about. I guess all will be revealed in the fullness of time.


  7. #67
    Moderator joebloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    23,162
    Rep Power
    150
    another forum i use is for medical students/ IMG's (the only reason is because my misses is one ) and most are from Pakistan. March last year those taking PLAB1 (one exam you need to pass to start the process of registration with the GMC) caused uproar, GMC changed the exam format (more SBA questions than EMQ - most people would say that SBA take longer to answer) so only 21.% passed the exam, a massive drop from the usual 40-60% pass rate.

    many of those who failed will not going to take this lying down, they started to arrange protests, met in groups in the UK and Pakistan, went to, wrote to the GMC, Mp's to complain, found a well known Pakistani barrister who said they could challenge the GMC with a judicial review, but as the exam was every couple of months, the protesters started to drift away and prepare for the next exam. but they left their mark, a lesson GMC will not forget . http://www.gmc-uk.org/5___PLAB_Part_...f_42527354.pdf

    my point is if people did this for one exam, what would and should people do, if your family is torn apart, protest, until you get what you want.
    http://www.filipinouk.com/forum/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=870&dateline=1270312908


  8. #68
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Ilkeston, Derby
    Posts
    242
    Rep Power
    0
    OMG...my daughter & I lodged our VISA application yesterday..are we going to be affected by this....oh no..that's a lot of money...hu hu hu...hope this will not push through...


  9. #69
    Respected Member andy222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    West Midlands and Butuan
    Posts
    6,440
    Rep Power
    150
    You wont be affected marie the changes have not come in yet. As for me it looks like buying a nice house in the phils and visiting 3 times a year.


  10. #70
    Moderator joebloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    23,162
    Rep Power
    150
    it should not effect you now Marie, but will your partner need to be earning the minimum amount so you can apply for ILR in 2yrs time, who knows, i cant see the gov being able to deport people if they say you need to be earning a minimum income to apply for ilr, especially if you have kids, and virtually no chance if them kids are British.
    http://www.filipinouk.com/forum/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=870&dateline=1270312908


  11. #71
    Moderator joebloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    23,162
    Rep Power
    150
    as i posted b4 this is not primary or secondary legislation, so it doesn't need approval by parliament.

    people should have protested before, maybe its not too late, anyway maybe common sense will prevail

    http://www.tmay.co.uk/contact
    http://www.filipinouk.com/forum/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=870&dateline=1270312908


  12. #72
    Respected Member andy222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    West Midlands and Butuan
    Posts
    6,440
    Rep Power
    150
    Thanks for the encouragment Joe but I have given up mate. This government will do what they want to do end of story. The fact is it wont stop the indians and pakistanis coming here. I.E the new law which has just come out to stop forced marriages. They are the ones they are targeting everybody knows that. But what the government forget is these people are some of the richest people in our country and money gets you everything.


  13. #73
    Respected Member dontpushme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    near Tesco and a chippy
    Posts
    395
    Rep Power
    74
    It sounds like many people here are upset by the article. Maybe I just don't get this whole issue and why people are so upset, but I definitely understand and can sympathise with the people who are for the change in requirements. After all, if someone can't afford to support himself and a spouse/family/dependent in the UK, why put the cost of their day-to-day expenses on the taxpayers' shoulders? It wouldn't be fair at all to expect taxpayers to give a monthly paycheck to someone who can then decide to bring in more people since he doesn't have to work harder to support more people anyway.

    Personally, I prefer how things are done here in the Philippines, where people live by the strength of their backs and we don't have people popping out 7 babies and living in £1M homes that the taxpayers have to pay for. It's just logical, isn't it? If one can't support his family in one country, he should move to a country where his money goes a longer way.

    I really don't think this change in requirements will affect too much the people who are able to support themselves without dipping into public funds. Besides, it's not as if the law will actually prevent anyone from building futures together. All this means is that folks will have to find alternatives, like moving to their spouse's country instead. Feelings of entitlement aside, each person has a choice of where they want to live, and if they can't afford to live in a certain country, it's not everyone else's responsibility to make it so they can.

    As for the language issue, it's also just common sense to ensure that one's spouse/dependent can get around in the UK without too much trouble, isn't it? When my Matt and I had just started letting people know that we were a couple, one of the most common questions he was asked was, "How do you understand each other?". It was insulting to have people automatically assume that my being a Filipina meant that I'd have bad grammar and a thick accent, but I'll admit that those questions were fair. It's only in your spouse's best interests that he/she take up English classes before moving to the UK.


  14. #74
    Respected Member Iani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sunny Yorkshire, ey oop
    Posts
    1,378
    Rep Power
    109
    First of all, am I missing something here?

    This hasn't been announced by the government yet, none of these MP's who have been briefed have quoted - it is a news story in one paper.
    It's also a rehash of previous stories/leaks, that something might happen to the immigration rules about this time - and yes, JCWI has indeed sent papers to MP's giving examples of how people may be hit by these proposals, this is also now quite old news.

    I just wondered if I'm missing something, because as far as I can see, this is being treated as an official government statement, when in fact, it only seems to be newspaper presumptions.


  15. #75
    Trusted Member Rosie1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,500
    Rep Power
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by grahamw48 View Post
    This has NOTHING to do with British citizens wishing to bring Filipinos into this country.

    It has EVERYTHING to do with gormless people being taken in by refugees, illegal immigrants and asylum seekers, as well as certain Indian sub-continent immigrant communities (who DON'T integrate) bringing in grandmas, cousins, wives, etc etc by the dozen. Hence the new language and integration requirements.

    This is GROSSLY unfair and is discriminating against honest law-abiding British citizens....born and bred here, who have forged genuine relationships.

    If they want to discriminate, then pick on the 'British' people who's families have been in this country no more than 50 years and owe no allegiance to us or our culture and way of life...as is clearly evidenced by their refusal to integrate and accept our Western values.
    Great post, I totally agree with you ..........!


  16. #76
    Moderator joebloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    23,162
    Rep Power
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by dontpushme View Post
    It sounds like many people here are upset by the article. Maybe I just don't get this whole issue and why people are so upset, but I definitely understand and can sympathise with the people who are for the change in requirements. After all, if someone can't afford to support himself and a spouse/family/dependent in the UK, why put the cost of their day-to-day expenses on the taxpayers' shoulders? It wouldn't be fair at all to expect taxpayers to give a monthly paycheck to someone who can then decide to bring in more people since he doesn't have to work harder to support more people anyway.
    i dont think you do see the whole issue,
    maybe you are not aware, your wife is not entitled to claim benefits in her own right til she has at least ILR.so tell me why or how you think the tax payer is paying for their day to day expenses then, when she is not entitled and can not claim any benefits in her own name ???

    now if your talking about benefits in joint names? then as a British citizen by law your entitled to claim what ever benefits YOUR eligible to claim, and may get more of a benefit because you have a partner, it doesn't matter if the partner is British, European or from Timbuktu.

    most filipinos do not want to, or will not claim benefits, they would rather work and earn their money than be dependent on benefits.

    so because someone is earning less than what the minimum income figure is people assume they will claim benefits, which is utter it doesn't take in account the partner working or the potential income of the partner.
    http://www.filipinouk.com/forum/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=870&dateline=1270312908


  17. #77
    Moderator joebloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    23,162
    Rep Power
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by Iani View Post
    First of all, am I missing something here?

    This hasn't been announced by the government yet, none of these MP's who have been briefed have quoted - it is a news story in one paper.
    It's also a rehash of previous stories/leaks, that something might happen to the immigration rules about this time - and yes, JCWI has indeed sent papers to MP's giving examples of how people may be hit by these proposals, this is also now quite old news.

    I just wondered if I'm missing something, because as far as I can see, this is being treated as an official government statement, when in fact, it only seems to be newspaper presumptions.
    Reflecting our approach to spouses and
    partners, we have asked the independent
    Migration Advisory Committee for advice
    on a new minimum income threshold for
    sponsors of dependants for maintenance
    and accommodation. We have also asked
    the Migration Advisory Committee for
    advice as to how the minimum income
    threshold should take account of the
    number and age of dependants sponsored


    http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/si...df?view=Binary


    and

    http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publica...94?view=Binary

    not just presumptions/leaks all the facts are above, the gov has made announcements on forced marriages, MAC has made it's recommendations, its just a matter if, and more likely - when it goes thru with it and what the figure is.
    http://www.filipinouk.com/forum/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=870&dateline=1270312908


  18. #78
    Trusted Member stevewool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    derbyshire
    Posts
    18,980
    Rep Power
    150
    sorry lads and lasses its beyong me, like i said before, me and Emma are the lucky ones,


  19. #79
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    G.B. (IOM)
    Posts
    8,776
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Iani View Post
    First of all, am I missing something here?

    This hasn't been announced by the government yet, none of these MP's who have been briefed have quoted - it is a news story in one paper.
    It's also a rehash of previous stories/leaks, that something might happen to the immigration rules about this time - and yes, JCWI has indeed sent papers to MP's giving examples of how people may be hit by these proposals, this is also now quite old news.

    I just wondered if I'm missing something, because as far as I can see, this is being treated as an official government statement, when in fact, it only seems to be newspaper presumptions.
    I know what you mean, but it seems that it is heading inexorably towards what was first proposed wayback last year. I hope though that what they actually do, if they do introduce this kind of thing, is to introduce the thresholds etc at a lower level. A watered down version of what's in the Guardian article. That way far less applicants / forum members will be adversely affected and hopefully for our sake our ILR doesnt become a "nightmare" of hurdles and fees.


  20. #80
    Respected Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    192
    Rep Power
    47
    If you have disposable capital (savings) of over £8,000, you won't get Legal Help. Disposable capital includes:

    If you’re getting Income Support, income-related Employment and Support Allowance, income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance or the guarantee credit part of Pension Credit, you’ll automatically get Legal Help regardless of the value of your home or of any other capital you have.
    Now this is something very important to me, as I had £8,100 in capital ie savings, Shares. I was on Employment and Support Allowance and was told that I did not qualify for legal aid and had to pay a small fortune for legal help.

    Is there a document online or anywhere that says that even if you have capital more than £8,000 if you are in receipt of benefits you’ll automatically get free Legal Help?


  21. #81
    Respected Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    192
    Rep Power
    47
    We are keen to learn from practice in other European countries. An example is the attachment requirement in Denmark, which requires a couple’s combined attachment to Denmark to be greater than that to any other country. It is argued that this promotes effective integration and provides a further test of the genuineness of a relationship.
    What I can not understand is why did the Danish people not challenge their new Immigration rules, especially challenge them under the Human rights act?

    joblogss - your visaa app should be done under the old rules, so the changes should not effect apps already being processed.
    Thats good to know, the worry for us is that once she has her FIance Visa and we get married here in the UK, then right after we get married and apply for FLR if we will have to meet the new requirements and we will be split up right after we have just got married :(


  22. #82
    Moderator joebloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    23,162
    Rep Power
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by yellowcloud View Post
    Now this is something very important to me, as I had £8,100 in capital ie savings, Shares. I was on Employment and Support Allowance and was told that I did not qualify for legal aid and had to pay a small fortune for legal help.

    Is there a document online or anywhere that says that even if you have capital more than £8,000 if you are in receipt of benefits you’ll automatically get free Legal Help?
    have you tired the online calculator ?
    http://legalaidcalculator.justice.go...execution=e1s1

    i know people who owned property and got legal aid, i think part of it might be to do with how the solicitor fills in the paper work
    http://www.filipinouk.com/forum/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=870&dateline=1270312908


  23. #83
    Moderator joebloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    23,162
    Rep Power
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by yellowcloud View Post
    Thats good to know, the worry for us is that once she has her FIance Visa and we get married here in the UK, then right after we get married and apply for FLR if we will have to meet the new requirements and we will be split up right after we have just got married :(
    there was some rumor about that, and i'm sure those on tier2 visa's need to be on a certain minimum wage when they come to apply for ILR,

    but i really cant see the gov deporting anyone, they can hardly deport illegal immigrants never mind those married to Brits. there has to be a transition period.
    http://www.filipinouk.com/forum/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=870&dateline=1270312908


  24. #84
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Southern England
    Posts
    5,102
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by dontpushme View Post
    It sounds like many people here are upset by the article. Maybe I just don't get this whole issue and why people are so upset, but I definitely understand and can sympathise with the people who are for the change in requirements. After all, if someone can't afford to support himself and a spouse/family/dependent in the UK, why put the cost of their day-to-day expenses on the taxpayers' shoulders? It wouldn't be fair at all to expect taxpayers to give a monthly paycheck to someone who can then decide to bring in more people since he doesn't have to work harder to support more people anyway.

    Personally, I prefer how things are done here in the Philippines, where people live by the strength of their backs and we don't have people popping out 7 babies and living in £1M homes that the taxpayers have to pay for. It's just logical, isn't it? If one can't support his family in one country, he should move to a country where his money goes a longer way.

    I really don't think this change in requirements will affect too much the people who are able to support themselves without dipping into public funds. Besides, it's not as if the law will actually prevent anyone from building futures together. All this means is that folks will have to find alternatives, like moving to their spouse's country instead. Feelings of entitlement aside, each person has a choice of where they want to live, and if they can't afford to live in a certain country, it's not everyone else's responsibility to make it so they can.

    As for the language issue, it's also just common sense to ensure that one's spouse/dependent can get around in the UK without too much trouble, isn't it? When my Matt and I had just started letting people know that we were a couple, one of the most common questions he was asked was, "How do you understand each other?". It was insulting to have people automatically assume that my being a Filipina meant that I'd have bad grammar and a thick accent, but I'll admit that those questions were fair. It's only in your spouse's best interests that he/she take up English classes before moving to the UK.
    A very good post ..a rep on its way....unfortunately many have been claiming benefits for years for this that and the other and actually think its a God given right.

    Where's I was brought up to expect nothing from nobody....if I cant get, its my problem, my fault, not the goverment.

    Even so, the sliding kiddie scale needs some explaining on what the reasons are for these extortionate amounts.

    Joe has already reeled off a list of benefits including free solicitors etc....surely isn't this the reason why this base amount is supposedly being brought in.


  25. #85
    Respected Member Iani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sunny Yorkshire, ey oop
    Posts
    1,378
    Rep Power
    109
    Regarding legal aid, they take into account property you own, and if that capital in the property is more than £8000, then this is classed as savings and you are not eligible.
    Bearing in mind, if you have a mortgage, then it is extremely unlikely that your capital in that property will be less than £8000 - banks don't do 100% mortgages.

    Regarding this whole story though, it seems to me that people are perhaps jumping the gun a bit. This seems to be the Guardian saying an announcement is imminent, because at a guess, one of their reporters has found that files have been sent to MPs about a possible impact, and they've literally made up the rest (about it being this coming week).

    From what I can see, there's no change from last week or the week before. The government, and subsequently UKBA think there has to be changes, they have had a consultation, there have been leaks (you have to wonder why - leaks seldom happen for no reason) that they may set an income threshold at 26K, that there may be further changes - but in reality, they might announce next week, they might announce next month......or next year.........and the income threshold could be 26K, could be 15K could be 30K - they just aren't saying.

    As for me, if anyone's familiar with my feelings on the whole thing (I did a thread not too long ago), you'll know the impact it's having on my health.

    So - do I now split up with my fiance over this? Spare her any future hurt? If I'd known this vile government would do this, I would never have gone near her and never let any feelings take over.
    Upset? That isn't the half of it!


  26. #86
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    G.B. (IOM)
    Posts
    8,776
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gWaPito View Post
    A very good post ..a rep on its way....unfortunately many have been claiming benefits for years for this that and the other and actually think its a God given right.

    Where's I was brought up to expect nothing from nobody....if I cant get, its my problem, my fault, not the goverment.

    Even so, the sliding kiddie scale needs some explaining on what the reasons are for these extortionate amounts.

    Joe has already reeled off a list of benefits including free solicitors etc....surely isn't this the reason why this base amount is supposedly being brought in.
    This base amount happens to be the ceiling for 2/3rd of the population. Not a small sum per annum.


  27. #87
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Southern England
    Posts
    5,102
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by lastlid View Post
    This base amount happens to be the ceiling for 2/3rd of the population. Not a small sum per annum.
    I wasn't meaning that....my meaning of base amount was to do with the minimum starting amount required to stand any chance of getting your partner here....if kids are involved, that 26k minimum, multiplies...hence the woman given as an example in joe's initial post, earning 31k with 2 kids would of fallen short of the financial requirements to get her non euro husband to uk


  28. #88
    Respected Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    141
    Rep Power
    48
    Just listening to some of your comments here, i dont know if yous are tory boys or toffs.. but to think 26k is an ok limit to introduce is just ridiculous! i work as a full time carer with people with alzeimhers and dementia and the nurses i work along with dont even earn 26k a year.. maybe people in london are living differently from other ecomonic areas within the uk but its just totally nonesense! REALLY guys come on, that is a very high threshold, in reality it doesnt even make sense..


  29. #89
    Respected Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    192
    Rep Power
    47
    have you tired the online calculator ?
    http://legalaidcalculator.justice.go...execution=e1s1

    i know people who owned property and got legal aid, i think part of it might be to do with how the solicitor fills in the paper work
    Thank you! I can not believe I paid £1,000 to a lawyer when two solicitors told me I was not entilited to LEgal aid and that calculator just told me that I WAS entitled to it :(


  30. #90
    Moderator joebloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    23,162
    Rep Power
    150
    The letter from Mrs May to Nick Clegg, which has been seen by The Sunday Telegraph,.....
    However, they are expected to fought hard by Mr Clegg and other Liberal Democrat ministers, escalating still further the tensions between the two Coalition partners that have risen dramatically since last week's controversial Budget.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...crackdown.html

    maybe with all the U turns, and problems the Tories will face with this, maybe the will use the lower figure or scrap the whole idea.

    but the £12.5k increase per child is and why bring kids into it if they are British , what have kids got to do with your spouse getting recourse to public funds?
    http://www.filipinouk.com/forum/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=870&dateline=1270312908


Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 28th March 2014, 09:25
  2. Family split apart by immigration rules
    By joebloggs in forum News UK
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 3rd February 2014, 20:52
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 17th September 2013, 20:49
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 9th July 2012, 16:20

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Filipino Forum : Philippine Forum