StGeorge

To detract from one danger, by comparing to another danger, is the ploy of morons.

I had a similar situation in the 80s at work. I asked for specialist protective gear before i handled a PCB ( Polychlorinated biphenyl) product. I was offered surgical gloves. I refused and was threatened with the sack. My manager called in the company health & safety rep. He saw my M/bike and said i had more chance of dying on the roads than getting cancererous infection from PCB, and that there were ongoing tests to determine long term exposure to PCBs.

I replied it was my choice to ride a bike, but the company was forcing me to use the PCB, and the same tests determined eventually the Asbestos was a danger. 

My manager turned to my supervisor, and said "get him everything he wants".

Maybe Thailand should be making more of an effort to bring road accidents down, inline with the effort they have put into saving their tourist industry.

1 hour ago, Vacuum said:

 

Hmm, why are the rear lights red then, shouldnt they also look yellow?

 

For all those who say it is not a new car as it doesnt have a red plate, here you go. And you can see the scratch which is mmore a nuisance than a "concern".

The Lady in question CANNOT DRIVE, and she saved a long time to buy it for her husband. She is just miffed the crash took the gloss off her present abit.

Mr Paul is still in hospital and has a broken arm by all accounts, but is otherwise ok. Unfortunately, he was going to France yesterday, probably why he had been drinking.

I do hope the stupid comments now cease, as it really was a minor story, misreported, and has caused distress to both parties for its innuendos.

A

5 hours ago, hellohello123 said:

She clearly does not know that in the USA people can sue for very minor things for millions of dollars,

 

imagine her priorities change if some lawyer said she can sue someone for the damages to her car and life

Dont worry, she knows her rights, and she recognises slanderous reporting also.

The Frenchmans insurance has slagged of this report, and her insurance are not happy a highly inaccurate report could of had an influence on any future claims. 

They are weighing up their options and the Frenchmans wife is backing them.

And for those suggesting illegally parked etc. 

No it isnt. And its a private access road with a tree lined island divide between the in and out lanes, usually called an avenue i believe.

6 hours ago, Emdog said:

Never buy a black car. Barely visible at night and a heat sink in the daytime. Oh, and smallest fleck of dirt shows up, moreso than white cars.

Yellow is said to be the safest color as far as visibility goes.

I suppose if blind drunk color doesn't matter much at night, however

Or you can cover it in a bright yellow cover and park it under lights, as was the case with this accident. 

1 hour ago, Ctkong said:

 We do not know the circumstances the lady blurt out. Could be stressed by what to say when hubby came back. Or maybe hubby told her not to park the new car by the roadside but she knew better. 

She cannot drive, she bought as a present for her husband.

He was 1st Responder and helped save the guy with my wife and he also immediately phoned ambulance.

The report is b o l l o c k s as she was not stressed at all about the car. 

Minor scratches, its insured.

THE REPORTERS SHOULD BE ASHAMED.

Here is a pic, without flash, of the so called poorly lit road he had to travel on, with the highly visable car which was hit.

What an absolute crock of shit this news report is, and shame on all those slagging off the car owner, without being there or knowing the full facts.

The car owner and her husband were the 1st responders, and helped save him from drowning in his own blood. The husband called the ambulance immediately. The car was an afterthought, and in fact she said it was only a scratch and was not bothered with others concerns as its insured.

The so called witness was in bed and nowhere near the accident, and has been berated by the Thais present including the Frenchmans wife, for saying he is bad sighted and wasnt drunk. The lighting in the area is ok, and large trucks and dustcarts get by easily.

<deleted> shit reporting of FAKE NEWS by lying <deleted>, does not help relations or weed out the genuine stories of bad people.

I suggest Thai Visa delete this thread, as the car owners are not happy being slandered. 

It always amazes me that when people like Jingthing talk strongly about a certain subject, that they fail to do adequate research into the subject. With the advent of the internet, there really are no excuses for being ill-informed before posting.

Some have tried to post a history of the Falklands here with some large blanks and errors, so here is my researched pennyworth from various websites, which give the definitive history which has also been agreed by Argentinian historians who are not interested in politics it seems. My apologies for its length:

The islands first appear on European maps in the early-sixteenth century. This suggests that Spanish explorers may have spotted them. John Strong, an Englishman, is the first European known to have actually landed, in 1690. The first European settlement of the islands was by France in 1764. A British settlement was established separately the next year. The islands appear to have been uninhabited at this time, but archaeology shows some previous human activity. Spain purchased France’s rights in the islands in 1767. On 22 January 1771 Britain and Spain signed an agreement where both nations rights were reserved. After this agreement Britain voluntarily abandoned its colony physically (not politically) in 1774, but left a plaque asserting its sovereignty. Spain ruled the islands from Buenos Aires (now the capital of Argentina) without opposition until 1811. Spain then withdrew, leaving the islands uninhabited, but still claimed (none of Spains territories were relinquished in terms of sovereignty until 1836). A significant reason for the dispute is that Britain and Spain simultaneously held claims to sovereignty over the islands from 1767 and as respected in the 1771 agreement. Argentina gained it's independence unilaterally from Spain in 1816 and today claims to have asserted its sovereignty over the Falklands from that very year, organising some settlement of the islands in the 1820s. The first ship sent by the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata was led by a Yankee Privateer (Pirate) named Jewett. The sealers basically ignored him as his crew were in a poor state and no threat. He arrived on October 1820 but due to illness was replaced by another Yankee Privateer (Pirate) named Mason who left in April 1821 and left nothing behind. Both these men had licence from the United Province to attack Spanish ships. This says to me that at that point, the claim of the United Province on the Falklands was illegal even by Spanish historical claims. The fact Mason then sailed to Europe and attacked Portugese ships resulted in his capture and imprisonment for 2yrs as a Pirate. Here’s a Portugese note on him:

Case of the Heroina: The Commander, it appeared in evidence, was a
North American of the name of William Robert Mason, and his commission was
dated in April, 1820, authorising him only to molest Spanish vessels,
enjoining, and imposing on him the obligation to avoid every abuse of his
trust, and all irregularities on the high seas which might implicate the Buenos
Ayres flag. In his cruize he was directed to overhaul every vessel, both armed
and traders navigating under the Spanish flag, and examine their commissions
and papers to see if they were legal, and the use made of them, and also to
punish all excesses committed against neutral and friendly vessels. The Heroina
was fitted out and commissioned as a vessel belonging to the Government of
Buenos Ayres. On examination, however, 45 men, composing the crew,
spontaneously confessed, that this corvette pursued a system of piracy, robbing
all the vessels they could.

In January 1829, Luis Vernet realises that Britain claim sovereignty, and so submits a land grant to the British Consul, requesting British approval.
Now why would he do that if the United Province had a legit claim? Maybe because he was a businessman before he was an Argentinian, and was after exploiting the fisheries off the Falklands rather than being another Columbus. After receiving assurances from the British minister chargé d'affaires, Sir Woodbine Parish, Vernet provided regular reports to the British on the progress of his enterprise. Things changed however, and Vernet then proceeded to seize any ships coming to the Falklands including the USA. In 1831, Luis Vernet seized three US vessels (Breakwater, Superior and Harriet) hunting seals in Falklands waters, confiscating their catch and arresting their crews. Vernet returned to the
mainland, bringing senior officers of the US vessels to stand trial for violating restrictions on seal hunting. The US consul protested violently against the seizure of US ships and the USS Lexington sailed to the Falklands. The log of the Lexington reports only the destruction of arms and a powder store, though in his families claim against the US government for compensation (rejected by the US government of President Cleveland in 1885) Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed. The Islands were declared free from all government, the seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy and taken to Montevideo.
This latter incident finally convinced the British Foreign Office to reassert its sovereignty claim over the islands. Throughout much of 1832, the United Provinces did not have a government representative in the islands. The Buenos Aires government commissioned Major Esteban Mestivier as the new governor of the islands, to set up a penal colony, but when he arrived at the settlement on 15 November 1832 his soldiers mutinied and killed him. The mutiny was put down by Lieutenant Colonel José María Pinedo, commander of the United Provinces schooner Sarandí, with aid from a French ship Jean-Jacques, which had arrived by chance, and by some loyal gauchos. Order was restored just before the British arrived. Under the command of Captain John James Onslow, the brig-sloop HMS Clio, previously stationed at Rio de Janeiro, reached Port Egmont on 20 December 1832. It was later joined by HMS Tyne. Their first actions were to repair the fort at Port Egmont and affix a notice of possession. Onslow arrived at Puerto Louis on 2 January 1833. Pinedo sent an officer to the British ship, where he was requested to replace the Argentine flag with the British one, and leave the location.

On January 5th, Pinedo evacuates the garrison together with two of Vernet’s settlers, Joaquin Acuña and Matthew González, and their wives. Onslow persuades some twenty-four of Vernet’s settlers to remain and appoints William Dickson, an Irishman and Vernet’s storeman, as the British Representative on the Islands.The Brits re-assert British Sovereignity plaques that were illegally removed. The islands have remained in British control ever since.

Conclusion: The Brits only reasserted control after River-Plate representatives used the islands to attack other nations shipping in an act of piracy.

I hope this helps to educate people as to the reasons behind the so called expulsion/annexation/invasion of the Brits in 1833 as portrayed by the Argentinians.

Jingthing claims that the UK should negotiate with the Argentinians so as to settle the issue. Here is evidence that such talks have been tried within the last 100yrs to no avail:

Argentina saw an opportunity to push its case for gaining sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and raised the issue in the United Nations, after joining the UN in 1945. Following the Argentine claim, the United Kingdom offered to take the dispute over the Falkland Island Dependencies to mediation at the International Court of Justice in the Hague (1947, 1948 and 1955). On each occasion Argentina declined.

In 1964, the United Nations passed a resolution calling on the UK and Argentina to proceed with negotiations on finding a peaceful solution to the sovereignty question which would be "bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands.

I think the recent referendum asserts the Falklanders rights as per the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution
1514 (XV).

The Argentinian claim is based on an ancient Roman Law…. Uti possidetis juris which is a principle of international law that states that newly formed sovereign states should have the same borders that they had before their independence.

Well on behalf of the Falklanders, I reject that claim as it has subsequently been usurped by the British claim of the Roman Law…. Uti possidetis (Latin for "as you possess") which is a principle in international law that territory and other property remains with its possessor at the end of a conflict.

Yo Argentina…. on 14 June 1982 Argentine forces surrendered and control of the islands returned to the UK…. Uti possidetis…

Nuff said.