new2here

From the OP, 

“... Bt20 for every bag that exceed 26 inches in width, height or length.“

So long as it IS in fact any bag where >>one or more<< sides exceed 26in, then that to me seem fair as to the definition of “baggage” as opposed to a hand-carried item such as personal bag, back/computer pack, etc. that could reasonably fit in the passenger compartment.

What i did not see is any language addressing weight of said items- in other words is there a charge for an item whose individual weight exceeds X pounds/kilos?   i would have thought that along with addressing the definition of baggage as to its size, there would have also been some language to address weight.

i tend to agree that her petition should be given more time... not because i disagree with the death penalty; i do agree with it and my feelings to uphold and honor the trial courts findings...  rather given the enormity of the death penalty, i want to be as absolutely sure as can be that all  /any outstanding questions about a persons guilt are addressed before enforcement. 

having flown several airlines - including KE, NH and BR (two of which offer IAH service) during these C-19 times, O honestly can’t really say that one or more is materially better, or worse, than the others...  i DO think that a fair percentage of the whole safety-protocols falls to the individual passengers (ie do you wear a mask?, do you avoid crowding? etc) and isn’t really something the individual airlines have massive controls over... 

As such, i don’t know that I’d call either QR, BR, NH much better .. or worse... than others - with respect to C19 protocols.  Right now as the whole airport and onboard C19 protocols are getting to be more consistent, I would be comfortable with any of them. 

i agree that it was, at minimum, not the best idea to be at the protest site with his young daughter (note that i am assuming here that he knew in advance there was a protest going on and then purposefully chose to attend or be in the immediate proximity) ... so i think the foreigner “owns” that part of it.

... and the thai national “owns” the assault... while i get it that he appears to have been “egged on” (based on the reporting) and perhaps even verbally challenged, at the end of the day, that doesn’t then permit assault on another

So, in this case, it sounds to me like the RTP has correctly applied the law to the matter at hand... again, i think the foreigner isn’t totally blameless per se..: but i can’t then say that what he did (based only on what’s reported) justifies the assault.

2 hours ago, bodga said:

why all this  stupid nonsense, why not ANY  police  station, same if  you have an accident  must report to the nearest  police station...........duh why, unless someone is  injured no need for  Police in many countries.

i agree ... unless the issue was such that a physical officer from a specific police office/unit was on scene and some form of an investigation took place (ie a crash or injuries) then i see no reason why a basic fines couldn’t be payable at any police station nationwide.

the time is a bit tricky, but what you have is three parts...

part 1: the time from which you actually arrive at the ASQ to the next midnight (23:59). that’s commonly called “day zero” 

part 2: 14 *consecutive* 24 hour periods starting from 00:01 (after day zero) until 23:59 at the end of the 14th period... these days are the “14” that most people talk about 

part 3: the time from 00:01 (after the end of the 14th 24hr period) to whatever time the ASQ will permit you to physically leave.  commonly you can’t leave at literally 00:01, but it’s usually somewhere around 06:00 or so in the morning ... these hours would be called “day 15”

so.. you have part 1 (day zero), part 2 (the 14 consecutive days which form the bulk of your stay), and part 3 (from midnight to whenever you can actually leave)...  add it all up and you’ll get either 15 or 16 “days” and that’s why you’ll see the number 15 and 16 as opposed to 14. 

i think that the use of a properly recognized, licensed hospital, for testing (assuming the process is done correctly, the sample handled in line with protocol and such) is a very good thing for both the state as well as the accused.

I do think that having properly trained field officers would help massively to identify quickly, those who are suspected of impairment... but if you’re going to move the matter to a formal criminal issue, then I think the state really has to make sure the evidentiary collection, analysis and retention is both reliable but also independently verifiable.

the part about nutritious meals and extending the eating time i thought was odd - as it doesn’t seem to really “fit” the current situation.

Sure it will receive points from the students (10 minutes more free time) and the parents will probably also like some parts too (ie nutritious meals) ... but i’m not really seeing how that ties into the current issue as a meaningful step forward.

1 hour ago, Geoffggi said:

This should also apply to Thai teachers .................LOL

i’ll bet it’s both, Thai as well as foreign, as the same entity handles the licensing for both of these groups (where licensing is mandatory based on the institution).

With the “temporary” it should be easier to insure compliance as the letter, when issued, is school-specific.. so Krusapah should know who is currently licensed to be a what schools and for how long.... Permanent (5yr) is harder as they are not tied to any one school. So you’d need to do a hard check on those people - which on a numerical basis, is probably the vast majority of all in-class instructional staff.

i find it interesting that there was some mention (by a parent?) of what i believe to be the Krusapah policy of multiple 2yr temporary or waivers... i wonder if this might drive a movement to put in place a hard cap of say a total of 2 such licenses (ie four years in total)?

i myself am not so sure that teaching while on said waiver is somehow indicative of being sub-standard in terms of teaching skills per se— but i do cede that from a parental optics basis, having a large number of staff teaching while on waivers might give the perception (recognizing that perception and reality are not always similar) of a sub-par educational experience/product being delivered.

i found that each hotel really is different... some were very responsive to LINE messages, other were more FB oriented and a few were email-only.  As far as paying for it, i found that nearly all wanted *at least* partial (like 50%) as a deposit before they’d issue you the letter you’d need to show the embassy for the CoE... others wanted 100% right up front... most took a credit card, some would also do bank transfer as well.. the thing that i think is/was critical is making sure you knew/know that particular ASQs change/cancellation policy as it can vary between hotels.  

I have no idea if this report is true or not... but what strikes me here is the timing... given that pretty much everything today is or quickly becomes politicized - and after that, it tend to be polarizing; the timing of this news, to me, seems questionable... 

To me, so long as he followed the tax law - whatever it is/was, then that’s fine... sure, hearing that he *may* have paid little to no income taxes gives off a negative vibe, i can’t besmirch anyone who takes full, legal, advantage of the tax law to minimize their liability... 

my experience is the same as @blackcab in that both BBL and Kbank (the two banks i have wholly unsecured credit cards with and started out with) both wanted to see a minimum of 6 consecutive months of proven salary, deposited into my thai bank account, before they’d consider my application.  

i do now have a Thai-issued Amex and a also a First Choice (a part of Krungsri) and those two didn’t ask for 6mos.. Amex essentially used my US card history together with my Thai NCB report and First Choice only wanted 3 months at that time, but by then i had already built up a fairly decent NCB report which i suspect played a part in my approval.

does anyone know or is there an example online to what level of proficiency must the applicant display with reference to their Thai language skills?

one of the parts that adds costs to theses kind of structures is all the various rules and regulations regarding security of these kinds of facilities.. the DoS’ OBO has all kinds of regulations that must be added to any build awards - which invariably add to costs above what a more traditional “civilian” structures might have.

yes,  but the asq may want to open to check, but i’ve not heard reports from asqs that this kind of non-food shipment isn’t allowed... it’s when you get into the whole “food” category where things tend to get a bit more random with some asqs being largely ok and others not so much so. 

i did my asq back in july and at that time i got a few shipments - be that thai post from friends, one lazada and a few food panda (these were not fresh food, but items from the nearby tesco that FP can deliver from).  Each delivery was recorded abs checked - they brought up the boxes and asked me to open it so they could see inside.

i have voted republican in the past; but in the past few electoral cycles i’ve found it harder to consistently do so... but that said.. my thought is a bad “past practice” was apparently set by the earlier handling of Garland... i do get or understand the logic as to not doing an appointment close to an election... but for me at least, i tend to see it a bit more simplistically.. i don’t support purposefully delaying, nor expediting an appointment... they happen when they happen and who ever is in control of the senate at that time gets to handle it.. that’s just how the ball bounces..  

i also don’t support ideas like trying to expand/dilute the court by adding  additional justices- as that to me just opens the door to the “other side” just trying to circumvent what the side who has/had the power, to do... i tend not to want to “tinker” too much with how the court operates and its overall structure.

13 hours ago, johng said:

How about being able to name and shame shoddy business without fear of a defamation lawsuit ?

i agree.. i would think that (and recognize that this is thailand and they have their own laws etc etc) that so long as formal charges are brought, then it should be fair game for public disclosure and open discussion... that to me seem fair and balanced, as i do think the accused should have some form of protection from as-of-yet unproven allegations.

i believe that Makro accepts the Citibank Makro co-branded credit card (note that my experience and observation is that other Citibank Thai and foreign issued Citibank cards aren’t accepted- only the Thai-issued Citi Makro card)

As far as Tesco & Big C goes... i have always used both my Thai-bank and foreign bank issued Visa & MC cards at both — but i seem to recall Amex was problematic; but i tend not to use my amex cards as they have FTFs (i have a few of their non AF-bearing cards and not the higher level cards, thus the FTF is applied)

8 hours ago, NightSky said:

It is if you're dishonest

I agree.. the only problem is that there’s little to no disincentive if you will to not being dishonest.. that’s why i support mandatory minimum penalties with “aggravators” such as proven dishonesty, that bump up the penalties... so if you did it, the penalty is X, but if you lied about it, the punishment goes up to 1.5x or the like... otherwise, it’s kind of like a taking a bet based on your lie, but knowing that the losses are the same as to admitting truthfully guilt at the onset.