airconsult

Personally, I don't mind negotiating a fare beforehand. Was always so here before the arrival of the meters. A fare to downtown Sukhumvhit is about £8 or $13. Just spent $100 (Bt3000) for a taxi ride to the airport back home, over a similar distance, to catch a flight to Swampy. About 7 times the price. Some of you guys on TV really are kineaw's

Personally I don't mind if when you arrived at the airport it was mandatory to have "TOURIST" stamped right on your forehead so all the taxi drivers knew it was ok to break the law and rip you off.

Me - living here - with all my thai friends - well, we'll just enjoy laughing at you all the more.

Get a life. I hope next time you land at wherever you live they charge you 1000usd for your taxi ride.

I dont understand why aircraft Black boxes dont have GPS enabled and a backup battery that can keep it working for a few weeks afterwards.

Surely in this day and age?

This is my question too. Please we are in XXI. century and this would be not a big deal, I guess. But the saving is big lord ....

I don't want to delve into all the technical details of exactly what emergency systems there are and how they signal.

However - let's just say that normal GPS is line-of-sight only (so not effective under water), and in fact it is very, very hard to push any type of signal under water except acoustic and extremely long wave - and the BB is equipped with an acoustic "pinger" for this purpose.

I ignore TAT's figures too.

2013 AoT BKK figures - 53 million (roughly rounded)

2014 AoT BKK figures - 33 million (roughly rounded)

That's getting close to a 40% reduction - IF it was international, then AoT's revenue dropped by 14 billion THB.

And - interestingly - I was in Ho Chi Minh a few weeks ago - packed full of russian tour groups......

The fact is that due to the problems of travel insurance with Martial law - many tour companies from europe and elsewhere are simply avoiding Thailand.

Well in my opinion going down the road to a coal fired power station facility with all its claimed drawbacks real or otherwise is a darn sight safer than a nuclear powered facility.

When one view the casual way in which the Thais and Thai business in general view safety matters and environmental issues coal is definitely better than a nuclear fuel.

Nuclear, NO just look at Chernobyl and fukushima, coal fired power plants, well not a good option either, just look at China, (pun intended) they have a great wall apparently, but no ones seen it for a few years due to smog,,,,,,,,,

With all the sun light here why not fix the power grid and have solar pumped back into the grid by those who install solar panels,

Tidal power, Geothermal power, radiant power, (Nikola Tesla had a few good idea's I heard), Biomass, there's a few choices here,

Got a magic new way to store the power?

As an example - NYC uses 11,000Mwh every day - consider night - solar is automatically at 50% of rated capacity (for the entire day - less really, but just as an quick and dirty point)

Ok - so if we take this careful consideration - http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/fission.html

We can see that the 20 kiloton hiroshima explosion was effectively 3,000Mwh - so to power NYC at night would require energy equivalent to 2 hiroshima bombs.

I leave it up to you to research energy density in hydro storage - but from the above - batteries is not the answer.

EDIT - I should also point out that EGAT did build a test solar plant in phuket - the cost of production works out to 12thb per Kwh (4 times more expensive than coal and gas) - highly inappropriate for a developing country with a large income gap. (you can google for their presentation on it from back when they wanted to build a production nuclear plant - the test nuclear plant has been running happily for years near Don Muang)

Renewable energy is now the darling in the west , this guy is out of step with the world opinion of coal , even atmosphere filthy China is dropping coal , the best example is the US, their system handles up to 75% of total load with renewable energy, , Germany hope to be completely renewable in 30 years, so their energy Minister stated the other day.

I think lots of 'developing' countries rather spent money on cheap, well proven systems than on newfangled Western stuff which in many cases need an appropriate infrastructure as well.

BTW the 75% renewable in the USA seems a bit high especially since extraction of oil and gas (some through the controversial fracking method) has seen a real boom over the last few years.

I also question the part about Germany - considering they are building 7 new coal plants (or has one already opened?)

PCAD and grenade launchers..... hmm....

...

Regarding whether Thaksin's quote was interesting, I can't say if it's interesting without knowing what the quote is. Why won't you share it with us?

...

Only the first few lines. follow this link for the PDF file http://www.sathukit.com/edu-policy-en.pdf

"Policies of Ministry of Education

Prof. Dr. Suchart Thada-Thamrongvech

Minister of Education

25 January 2012

Philosophy

Police Lieutenant Colonel Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra has said about ... ..."

As I wrote the interesting part is that the quote is from a well known criminal fugitive and comes from an MoE handpicked by PM Yingluck.

why not include the actual quote which - maybe - the Minister found to be applicable to education?

“Education will lead to the building of people’s vigour.

Vigorous and knowledgeable people are powerful capital to fight

with poverty.” “Emphases must be on distribution of benefits with equity,

and on regards of people with difficulties, in order to provide quality

education for everyone.” “Education is an important key, a starting

element that is necessary in making poverty become past.”

Instead of even looking into the ravings of a criminal fugitive, let's consider the situation where a Minister of Education in his policy statements write to base that policy on education on the philosophy provided (in whole or part) by a criminal fugitive.

What next? Maybe you telling me history teaches us to listen to criminals ? Democratically of course.

Galileo?

Nelson Mandela?

Ghandhi?

Not that I'm comparing Thaksin to them - just idly thinking about your generalisation on philosophy/ideas by a criminal fugitive?

Exceptions perhaps?

Thinking about it - George Washington fits in there too from the English point of view at the time.

I guess that's the rub - it all depends on point of view.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

What is the land tax? Is it the tax paid at the land office when land is transferred or is it a new tax paid annually on land?

Land tax is tax paid annually, you would pay a stamp duty when transferring land.

As I understand it - you pay land tax on developed, utilised land annually - if you demolish all structures and the land is not in use - you apply that it is tax-exempt.

Perhaps more accurately - they are removing the tax-exempt status of unused land - that will encourage people to put it into use again. ie. the vacant/demolished lots in the cbd in bkk. Currently landowners frequently demolish - leave the rubble - don't pay tax, and wait until the land value is higher before redeveloping or selling.

.....and naturally stopping her appearance will encourage everyone there in "goodthink"

Didn't they miss an opportunity? They could have collected everyone who welcomed her and taken them away for more reconciliation lessons.

(Bit one-sided this reconciliation thing isn't it?)

(innocent of criticising the NCPO - because they didn't do it)

Any reason only 41 out of 250 turned up?

I like to support civil and human rights but IMHO these "returning Jihadists" should be shot on sight.

I think incarcerated on Rockall until the war is over...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall

Oh, oh.... is it time for a quote?

"The more you tighten your grip......."

you can fill in the rest.... (but please don't wear the earmuffs while doing)

Why is it in these threads that I see people saying again and again that "the DNA test result will prove/disprove it"?

It's a lot more complicated than that - forensic DNA testing is a complicated and demanding exercise, open to errors at every stage. To start with - back in 2007, none of the 6 DNA testing labs in BKK were internationally certified for forensic DNA work. (Mahidol University study)

http://www.forensic.sc.mahidol.ac.th/proceeding/49_Samart.pdf

While I certainly hope that has been fixed, even if it has there's immense hurdles to verify the validity - mistakes in process, contamination, misfiling and interpretation happen all the time in the UK, US, Aust, NZ (see second link from law commission review Aust).

http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/44-criminal-proceedings/reliability-dna-evidence

I don't know whether they have caught the right guys or not - that's up to the court to determine - but I think people should be aware of the possible problems involved.

Also - different statistical methods of presentation show different probabilities. eg. If a lab says it is a 99.99% match - that is 1 in 100,000 only - again I hope lawyers and the court pay attention to these tricks. (That's why proximity and opportunity must be shown as well)

Not that I'm suspicious but - where's the 700,000? Held for safe-keeping?

What 700,000B? Maybe you mean the 700k that was offered as a bribe and refused by the police. The 700k that the police don't have because they wouldn't accept the bribe.

And maybe kept as evidence? Remember they said they would charge him over attempted bribery as well....

Neither article, the original; or posted version, mentions charges of attempted bribery (nor mentions if money was seized).

From the original arrest article - they said they would charge him with bribery as well - so if they had it - it's evidence now. (or was)

"During questioning Mr. Tsirp is alleged to have offered officers 700,000 Baht in cash to secure his release. The alleged bribe was not accepted and it was decided to charge him with attempting to bribe a Royal Thai Police Officer and Visa Overstay."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/765348-wanted-russian-attempts-to-bribe-pattaya-immigration-police/

Not that I'm suspicious but - where's the 700,000? Held for safe-keeping?

What 700,000B? Maybe you mean the 700k that was offered as a bribe and refused by the police. The 700k that the police don't have because they wouldn't accept the bribe.

And maybe kept as evidence? Remember they said they would charge him over attempted bribery as well....

And of course this has no affect on tour groups during the high season (travel insurance).

I'm still betting that large investments like VW are struggling with their lawyers right now to go ahead. After all - corporate legal isn't very prone to optimism or future promises.

Can someone with knowledge of these matters explain to me what was the difference in this attempt to amend the constitution in comparison to the many other times Governments have amended it?

Are there certain matters in the constitution which are sacrosanct which simply cannot be changed? and other which can?

Well.... it seems to be that the court ruled that changing the senate from half-appointed to fully elected - and removing the restrictions on relatives serving - violated the restriction on changes which would threaten the democratic system with HM as head.

That seems a pretty fine line to draw - I'm not sure what the NACC expected MP's to do? Consult with the court before considering any amendment?

Since it could always have been struck down by an appeal to the court later, I think it's a bit odd to accuse them of a crime simply for voting on it. It brings up the supposition that when something is clearly in the interest of the country, if the opposition vote against it you can change them with malfeasance in office and have them impeached.

EDIT - if you were *really* suspicious you might wonder whether the old system where the judges were appointed by the senate - and conversely the appointed senators were appointed (partially) by judges might have encouraged a bit too much friendliness between judges and appointed senators.

I wonder what happened with Judge Visanu Krue-ngam who was former deputy prime minister and cabinet secretary-general in the Thaksin Shinawatra government and had been appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Administrative Court, effective from Oct 1, 2011. Judge Visanu's appointment was announced in a royal command, countersigned by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

Sorry Rubl, I guess I should have been clearer - I was referring to the Constitutional court - since the NACC recommendation was based on a ruling from there - not the Supreme Administrative court - while the SAC presents 2 candidates, and the SCJ presents 3 candidates and the Senate selects 4 - the SCJ and SAC candidates must be approved by the Senate before being presented to HM for approval.

At least that was the 2007 system - note that in the Constitutional court process the PM and lower house is not involved at all - you talked about the SAC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Court_of_Thailand#2007_Constitution

Can someone with knowledge of these matters explain to me what was the difference in this attempt to amend the constitution in comparison to the many other times Governments have amended it?

Are there certain matters in the constitution which are sacrosanct which simply cannot be changed? and other which can?

Well.... it seems to be that the court ruled that changing the senate from half-appointed to fully elected - and removing the restrictions on relatives serving - violated the restriction on changes which would threaten the democratic system with HM as head.

That seems a pretty fine line to draw - I'm not sure what the NACC expected MP's to do? Consult with the court before considering any amendment?

Since it could always have been struck down by an appeal to the court later, I think it's a bit odd to accuse them of a crime simply for voting on it. It brings up the supposition that when something is clearly in the interest of the country, if the opposition vote against it you can change them with malfeasance in office and have them impeached.

EDIT - if you were *really* suspicious you might wonder whether the old system where the judges were appointed by the senate - and conversely the appointed senators were appointed (partially) by judges might have encouraged a bit too much friendliness between judges and appointed senators.

Ah okay thanks. But was the Senate under the 97 constitution all elected? So who and at what point was it then amended to 50/50 elected/appointed? Is this not a similar situation?

It was changed in 2007 to 50/50 - but then again, the court was ruling based on their interpretation of that constitution of course, not the 1997.

I'm not sure if the restriction on family members was there in 1997 - I suspect not - but then again considering family loyalties here, perhaps that would have been a good piece to keep, just restoring 100% elected.

All water under the bridge now - I think it will probably end up senate appointed 70% and lower house 50% now. After all, elections only cause disruption and strife as we have been shown...... (readers should study sarcasm if they can't interpret for themselves)

Can someone with knowledge of these matters explain to me what was the difference in this attempt to amend the constitution in comparison to the many other times Governments have amended it?

Are there certain matters in the constitution which are sacrosanct which simply cannot be changed? and other which can?

Well.... it seems to be that the court ruled that changing the senate from half-appointed to fully elected - and removing the restrictions on relatives serving - violated the restriction on changes which would threaten the democratic system with HM as head.

That seems a pretty fine line to draw - I'm not sure what the NACC expected MP's to do? Consult with the court before considering any amendment?

Since it could always have been struck down by an appeal to the court later, I think it's a bit odd to accuse them of a crime simply for voting on it. It brings up the supposition that when something is clearly in the interest of the country, if the opposition vote against it you can change them with malfeasance in office and have them impeached.

EDIT - if you were *really* suspicious you might wonder whether the old system where the judges were appointed by the senate - and conversely the appointed senators were appointed (partially) by judges might have encouraged a bit too much friendliness between judges and appointed senators.

"Pheu Thai's most popular policies were the rice-pledging scheme and the increase in minimum wages. I refused to propose such policies, because I believe they would bring damage to the country."

No - he shouldn't stand down - he's like any politician - he moved to increase the minimum wage one month before the elections in 2011.

But of course he assumes we all have goldfish memories....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-26/thailand-s-abhisit-wants-to-increase-minimum-wage-in-2011.html