OneMoreFarang

Great idea. But that sounds like mission impossible to me. I guess with many of them the police would have to shoot them before they give up their digital life.

Just one of those videos. I watched a couple of them before I decided TOTO is best.

That reminds me of something else that is often sold for 3000B in Thailand. That's more fun - or at least it can be.

Now that might work with Thais.

Really? Like: Don't you know who my father is back in Nigeria. Now you have to be scared. Really?

What did you expect? That they invest it for you can give it back to you with interest? 555

You don't need a big tank. It's more important how the flush mechanism of the toilet works. My TOTO toilet has a 4.8l tank. 100% never any problem.

I don't know if it is true. It seems that many developers built buildings and don't sell all the units. And then they build more buildings and don't sell all of the units. If they wouldn't make money with selling only part of the building, then you would think they wouldn't build more and more of the same. Or not?

And why do you think they care about what is morally right?

The prices are too high to sell everything. But it seems the developers don't have to sell everything. Some time ago I talked at a private party with one of those developers. The cost of building, including the land, was about 1/3 of the selling price. I guess if they sell half, then the developer breaks even.

She can live where she wants to live - with the restrictions from the countries where she wants to live. My point was/is, that from the point of view of the UK government, they want that the pension is spent within the UK.

HomePro starting from 4500 THB https://www.homepro.co.th/c/BAT1109?s=21&size=100&b=toto&cst=0&pmin=&pmax=&q=Toilets&page=1#plist

Why do you expect that it makes sense?

If you want a good whoosh, buy TOTO. Even with a small tank. I have a nice one-piece TOTO. But they are all good.

What do you mean, you cannot go to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. ?

If she can't fly maybe there is a ship to the UK. No problem if it takes a little longer.

There is no reason, or you don't want to see the obvious reason? a) If she spends the money in the UK then this is part of the UK economy. b) If she spends money in Thailand the money is lost for the UK. Why should the UK government support b)?

I don't know if bikes break down more often than cars. A car blocking the road is for sure a bigger problem than a bike. And when a bike breaks down there will be soon after that a car behind the broken-down bike. That car will be the "buffer" to the traffic behind.

I visited a couple of those parks in Thailand. After a couple of years, they are all in unsafe condition. If the parks and the rides in the parks would be properly maintained, then this would cost a lot of money. How many Thais would be prepared to pay 1000B or more per person entrance fee?

And the police could make a lot of money and at the same time make the area safer for everyone...

I think many (most, all) new bikes have the lights on all the time, or automatically switched on. The police could enforce this - if they would want to do it.

I thought foreigners can only get a work permit if they are employed in a Thai company with enough capital, at least 4 Thais for one foreigner, etc. Can anybody get a work permit (and Non-B visa) by just being a shareholder?

I don't live in Pattaya, I live and ride motorcycle in Bangkok. And here are many under and overpasses restricted for bikes. Why? I understand the slow little bikes, especially some sidecar constructions should not use roads with fast traffic. But many bikes are fast enough to easily keep up with the flow. Why should they be excluded? Obviously, there are many bad drivers and riders, and that is a problem. And the police could fine them all every day. Like fine all of they who use mobile phones while the vehicle is moving. Take away the license from drivers and riders who deliberately ignore zebra crossings. Enforce the laws. If the police would do their job, then a lot less accidents would happen and a lot less people would die.

I don't know why you ask me, but let me try: Like anybody else, i.e. zebra crossings, pedestrian bridges, etc. How about: what is easier for a person with a walking stick, walking on a mostly flat surface or walking up country or on the beach with uneven and maybe unsteady ground? I guess walking in the city is easier.

The nuclear reactor technology improved a lot over the years. I would live next to a nuclear power plant, no problem. And obviously the question are what are the alternatives. Look at Germany. Now they don't use the existing power plants anymore, for political reasons, and they use a lot of solar and wind turbines. But the big problem is the Dunkelflaute, it's dark and no wind. And what do they use then? Coal! What a wonderful green solution. Or maybe not?