Re: Overstay au "paradis"
Posté : mar. 6 sept. 2011 06:43
Pas très clair le monsieur
Whilst one can feel some sympathy for what happened to Mr. Melmblom, as Larry says, “This story is very slanted and one sided”. It would, indeed be interesting to know the other side of the story.
The facility exists for the extension of a visa, if a visitor falls ill in Thailand and requires prolonged medical treatment. It is covered under Police order 777/2551 and the relevant section states: -
2.25 In the case of medical treatment or convalescence or to look after a patient, permission will be granted for a period of not more than 90 days at a time:
(1) Confirmation and request has been made by a physician responsible for the treatment. The Physician must describe the details of treatment and advised that the illness is a barrier for travelling.
(2) In the case of looking after a patient, confirmation and request has been made by the physician responsible for the treatment or by an embassy or consulate.
(3) Patient Carer, except parents, spouse, children, adopted children or children of spouse, shall be granted no more than 1 extra person.
The report states that Mr. Melmblom had been admitted to the Bangkok Hospital in Pattaya from which we would presume that he was treated in the similarly named Bangkok Pattaya Hospital. So, if Mr. Melmblom was unaware of the above regulation then he could have asked and been advised by the hospital’s International Service Centre, which amongst other things provides “Embassy liaison and Immigration Services” as well as having an Immigration Satellite Office in the hospital to deal with visa requirements. Perhaps he did not think or ask to use these facilities?
Finally, as David has asked, why should a person, who, to quote the report, “lived there previously for ten years” go to Soi 9 rather than the Immigration Bureau in Jomtien
Whilst one can feel some sympathy for what happened to Mr. Melmblom, as Larry says, “This story is very slanted and one sided”. It would, indeed be interesting to know the other side of the story.
The facility exists for the extension of a visa, if a visitor falls ill in Thailand and requires prolonged medical treatment. It is covered under Police order 777/2551 and the relevant section states: -
2.25 In the case of medical treatment or convalescence or to look after a patient, permission will be granted for a period of not more than 90 days at a time:
(1) Confirmation and request has been made by a physician responsible for the treatment. The Physician must describe the details of treatment and advised that the illness is a barrier for travelling.
(2) In the case of looking after a patient, confirmation and request has been made by the physician responsible for the treatment or by an embassy or consulate.
(3) Patient Carer, except parents, spouse, children, adopted children or children of spouse, shall be granted no more than 1 extra person.
The report states that Mr. Melmblom had been admitted to the Bangkok Hospital in Pattaya from which we would presume that he was treated in the similarly named Bangkok Pattaya Hospital. So, if Mr. Melmblom was unaware of the above regulation then he could have asked and been advised by the hospital’s International Service Centre, which amongst other things provides “Embassy liaison and Immigration Services” as well as having an Immigration Satellite Office in the hospital to deal with visa requirements. Perhaps he did not think or ask to use these facilities?
Finally, as David has asked, why should a person, who, to quote the report, “lived there previously for ten years” go to Soi 9 rather than the Immigration Bureau in Jomtien