Celer et Audax

it is the creepy, sex offender who would wouldn't shy away from pretending to be Trans to his advantage. No one can honestly think that it would never happen.

How real of a risk is it, sex offenders taking advantage of the situation? Is it worth finding out? How many assaults would be ok? Maybe if were someone else's wife/daughter/girlfriend, that would be worth the risk? As a man, I couldn't care less if I was followed into a public toilet late at night by a trans-man (sorry, don't know the proper terms). But I can understand a young woman or teenage girl feeling uncomfortable if she were followed in by a trans-woman.

Great points raised in this post.

Of course no one could reasonably think that it won't happen. In fact, to deny that the number of horrifically violent sexual assaults in women's bathrooms will increase is patently absurd.

Some, however, are more than willing to throw caution to the wind in order to further their political agenda that will allow special rights and privileges to an insignificant minority.

Best question in the post above: How many assaults would be ok?

Is there a number or is it simply unlimited?

There are no verifiable accounts of Trans people assaulting women or girls in female toilets. You have provided no examples in any link or video. This is a non issue because there is absolutely no evidence of what you claim. People in law enforcement, in the legal profession, in LGBT activism all acknowledge that this is not an issue. It is not happening.

Your insistence that there is a link between Trans people and sexual assaults on women and children is off topic. It has been ruled off topic. It has been rejected by everyone.

The number of assaults by Trans people? Zero. None. Zilch. Nada.

Correct, however the debate I believe and I stand to be corrected is not about any link between sexual assaults commuted by "transgender people" but actually about whether "Men" should be allowed access to ladies toilets and changing rooms

Ergo would this allow heterosexual male sexual predators easier access to these facilities by simply claiming to be "Transgender" and by wearing a dress?

The 2nd reading which was supposed to be on the 4th of March was postponed until the 11th March will now be read on the 22nd of April! I should try this when paying my bills!

I wonder if the EU have a hand in this delay?

So anyone know how it went ?

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Next reading not until the 22nd April, keep calm and carry on!

The day before St Georges Day how quaint

There's a rat in my kitchen, what am I gonna do ....

Get rid of her and get a new one.

Not a UB40 fan then lol

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TUNEIN RADIO AND TUNEIN RADIO PRO?

Whether you want to hear music, sports, news or current events, TuneIn Radio offers over 100,000 real radio stations, for you to choose from, all for free.

In addition to the same great TuneIn Radio experience, TuneIn Radio Pro lets you record what you are listening to for a one-time price of $9.99 and does not have banner ads.

Please note that the selection of radio stations is exactly the same whether you're using the TuneIn Radio or TuneIn Radio Pro.

http://help.tunein.com/customer/portal/articles/913969-what-s-the-difference-between-tunein-radio-and-tunein-radio-pro-

Tunein pro allows you to record(save) to your device either your phone or PC to listen to when you have no internet access

I record a number of my favourite radio programs so I can enjoy them when flying back to the uk for example

I await the hundreds of thousands of Muslim protesters taking to the streets condemning this outrage.

Don't hold your breath!!!

The cause is not yet clear.

I will pre-empt and bet my mortgage that it was NOT a gas leak.

Unfortunately I'm sure we will find that this was carried out by followers of the religion of peace

In an article that has just appeared in the Daily Express tonight for us, about who is eligible to vote in the EU referendum it is is claimed that, voters in Cyprus and Malta will all have a vote, as will Gibraltar. Also residents in the UK from over 54 Commonwealth countries will also be eligible, inc Pakistan and Nigeria, Australia and Canada.

The same goes for Irish residents in the UK, how has that been allowed?

It's the same people as vote in parliamentary elections. The right to vote is based on being, or having been, a Commonwealth citizen resident in the UK. The UK has chosen to ignore the fact that the Republic of Ireland has left the Commonwealth, and has not really come to terms with the existence of the border.

I lived in the ROI for 12 years before moving to Thailand and the same voting rights were accorded to me as a British Citizen that are given to Irish citizens living in the UK which are as follows

Local elections and any elections or referendums relating to Europe but doesn't include voting in a general election

One question to those who know more about this than me,

Britain exits. will Scotland exit with them? or other UK members? What will this do to the UK?

I think you're confusing England with Britain. Great Britain is comprised of England, Wales and Scotland.

erm ... not to forget our Northern Irish friends ?

NI is not a part of Great Britain!!! But is part of the UK as in "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"

Major thai banks have London branches at least Bangkokbank and SCM do.........

You and your wife with passbook and passport could visit.....

The Bangkok bank in London does not offer a retail banking service. Never heard of the SCM bank .............

But you can transfer money from a uk bank account for onward transfer to your Bangkok Bank account in Thailand

I know I do it regularly

It wasn't a"Gun" it was a loaded weapon that was within reach of a small child!!

What was she thinking?

I'm pretty certain that even if compulsory health insurance were introduced for all foreign visitors, and that's no small undertaking in itself, the picture concerning foreigners running up hospital bills and not paying, wont change that much. There will always be a percentage of the visiting population that uses fraudulent certificates/policies and or doesn't renew their policy once in country. Perhaps the costs we're seeing currently are as good as they'll ever get, part of the cost of doing business and an overhead that simply has to be absorbed. As Sheryl has pointed out, the logistics associated with all of this are horrendous.

Another viewpoint is, who are the worst offenders, which nationalities? My guess is that Burmese, Cambodians and Laotians represent the largest percentage of foreign nationalities resident in Thailand, after that it's likely to be the Chinese. Those are people that will be working in Thailand earning small amounts of money, trying to impose health insurance on them is almost impossible. This forum is more concerned about the impact of this on westerners I would guess and they I would imagine are way down the list of financial culprits and also as a percentage of total foreigners in country. So, which nut are they trying to crack and what is its shape and size.

Burmese, Cambodians and Laotians who are working legally in Thailand have health care covered/provided.

How exactly did theses unaccompanied vulnerable children mange to travel all the way through a number of "safe" countries to arrive at Calais

Just a thought

emilymat, on 22 Feb 2016 - 13:26, said:

SgtRock, on 22 Feb 2016 - 10:53, said:

cumgranosalum, on 22 Feb 2016 - 09:07, said:cumgranosalum, on 22 Feb 2016 - 09:07, said:

If UK leaves the EU within months Scotland will leave the union. England (maybe Wales) will then have to renegotiate 40 years of laws and treaties to maintain any semblance of trade with europe. People with property in Europe will have to renegotiate both the ownership and their rights of residence. Those with jobs in Europe will have to get new visas.....those who rely on Europe for food and wine will have to wait for taxes and duties to be re-allotted, those with foreign cars will find they all have import duties. the NHS will be completely dismantled all labour laws will be re-written to the advantage of employers and the UK diet will consist of boiled mutton and turnips.

Sturgeon made this claim yesterday.

You might want to check out the comments sections in the Scottish press. She has made a grave error in judgement.

The vast majority of commentators disagree with her claims that Scotland should be a part of the EU in the event of a Brexit.

I watched her interview on the Andrew Marr programme yesterday. She said she believes a Brexit by the UK as a whole, with Scotland voting to stay, would trigger a referendum. There's nothing new here as this is a mantra the SNP have been running since they lost the referendum. It raises some interesting issues though.

If you're Scottish and believe in independence then do you vote to exit the EU to 'trigger' the referendum ?

But.....If too many Scots did that then Scotland would vote to leave the EU, and the UK might vote to stay!.

How hard does Nicola S campaign for a 'remain' vote, given she says she is passionate about not leaving?.

Essentially, as with Boris, this forthcoming referendum is not about what's best for Britain, but what is best for internal political futures.

One thing I can agree with Nigel F about, is that we wouldn't be having this referendum if it were not for the percieved threat of UKIP in the couple of years run up to last years general election

Agreed.

The SNP want Independence from the rest of the UK. That has always been the case and it will not change. I cannot understand the SNP logic in being Independent from the rest of the UK but remain in the EU. Being a member of the EU in no way means being Independent, it means the exact opposite.

The comments sections in the Scottish Press clearly show that people do not agree with her assertion that the Public in Scotland wish to remain in the EU. It is not just one newspaper, it is all of the ones I read the article on.

Roughly 55% against 45% voted to remain in the UK. I believe that this figure would have been reversed if the SNP were also advocating being free of the EU.

For sure, it is always politics first and the public far behind. That is never going to change until the whole political system is scrapped and thought out again. Farage and UKIP certainly had their part to play in bringing about this referendum. I really think the real reason it was offered was because Cameron never thought for one second that he would have won the GE outright. He probably thought the best he would have got would have been another coalition and that was his get out of jail free card for calling it off.

It is being reported in some of the press that his much vaunted benefits deal is going to be taken to the EU Courts, as it is possibly illegal.

You should also have a read at some of the analysis and observations in the EU Press over this '' Deal ''

I posted some of them in this thread.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/896734-camerons-eu-reform-deal-gets-mixed-reactions-from-britons/

Wanting to leave the UK but remain in Europe is entirely consistent.

Many Scots can not abide Westminster attitudes and the social injustice this inculcates.

I might just buy a place in Edinburgh if an independent Scotland is part of the EU and the Little Englanders are out

There you go the phrase "Little Englanders" sums you up perfectly I take it therefore you are a "Little Scotlander" then?

Just remember you not the only one to love your country

Where is Swanage?

Having a British passport and living in Chiang Mai would mean 2 trips to Bangkok to replace it if my passport got lost, damaged or stolen.

I carry my Thai driving license and a copy of my passport. I prefer to take my chances that this will suffice because the consequences of anything happening to my original passport are too high. It`s not rocket science to understand that most foreigners are afraid to carry their passports for the same reasons, but on the other hand most tourists will not hold Thai driving licenses and the police are within their rights to demand a show of passports.

You would have enjoyed 4 overnight bus rides then. You need your passport to get on a plane here. Thais need their national ID card.

I have flown many domestic flights with only my Thai drivers licence as ID.

Celer et Audax, on 07 Feb 2016 - 14:43, said:

SgtRock, on 08 Jan 2016 - 16:32, said:

evadgib, on 08 Jan 2016 - 16:28, said:
evadgib, on 08 Jan 2016 - 16:28, said:evadgib, on 08 Jan 2016 - 16:28, said:


If ever there was a wrong thread I think you just found it:


Mike Jackson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I remember him very well from the Falklands in 82.

He wore a green beret in those days.

I doubt it very much that you remembered him from the Falklands in 1982 as the 2 battalions that were there were 2 and 3 para and Mike Jackson was 1 para
Second point no para would wear a green beret!!
you can see from the picture that even as chief of the general staff he still wears his maroon para beret of his parent regiment!!

Mike Jackson was seconded to the MOD as a Staff Officer from 82 - 84. I can confirm that during this time he wore a green Beret.

Ok fair comment but unusual that an officer on a staff posting didn't retain the beret from his parent regiment
What colour green was it?
Light green= I Corp
Mid green = Royal Marines
Dark green = RGJ

Celer et Audax, on 07 Feb 2016 - 14:43, said:

SgtRock, on 08 Jan 2016 - 16:32, said:

evadgib, on 08 Jan 2016 - 16:28, said:

evadgib, on 08 Jan 2016 - 16:28, said:evadgib, on 08 Jan 2016 - 16:28, said:

If ever there was a wrong thread I think you just found it:

Mike Jackson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I remember him very well from the Falklands in 82.

He wore a green beret in those days.

I doubt it very much that you remembered him from the Falklands in 1982 as the 2 battalions that were there were 2 and 3 para and Mike Jackson was 1 para

Second point no para would wear a green beret!!

you can see from the picture that even as chief of the general staff he still wears his maroon para beret of his parent regiment!!

Mike Jackson was seconded to the MOD as a Staff Officer from 82 - 84. I can confirm that during this time he wore a green Beret.

Ok fair comment but unusual that an officer on a staff posting didn't retain the beret from his parent regiment

What colour green was it?

Light green= I Corp

Mid green = Royal Marines

Dark green = RGJ

evadgib, on 08 Jan 2016 - 16:28, said:evadgib, on 08 Jan 2016 - 16:28, said:

SgtRock, on 08 Jan 2016 - 14:21, said:SgtRock, on 08 Jan 2016 - 14:21, said:

Take it up with those that made the decision to send them.

Now do a Michael Jackson and beat it. You are boring me sh!tless.

If ever there was a wrong thread I think you just found it:

Mike Jackson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I remember him very well from the Falklands in 82.

He wore a green beret in those days.

I doubt it very much that you remembered him from the Falklands in 1982 as the 2 battalions that were there were 2 and 3 para and Mike Jackson was 1 para

Second point no para would wear a green beret!!

you can see from the picture that even as chief of the general staff he still wears his maroon para beret of his parent regiment!!

I trust that we can now see a long serious of posts, apologising for the erroneous, libilous and defamatory claims of murdering, child killing Soldiers.

I will look for that around the same time that I see UK soldiers apologise for killing Iraqi people.

Remind me, what justification did any UK soldier have for being in Iraq? What justification did they have for killing Iraqi people?

The fact that this military adventure by soldiers of a country with absolutely no business being there involved alleged war crimes, misdeeds and criminal acts of torture is grossly shameful to humanity. And to top it off, no strategic objective was ever gained by these armed foreigners. This violent adventurism just further destabilised an already fragile region. And these people now have the hide to lash out and abuse anyone who calls for some measure of accountability.

Perhaps if you want justification you should ask Bush,Rumsey and their poodle Blair!!

I wasn't in the British army

Don't worry, most posting here would assume an 1157 inspection was a battlefield tour of Agincourt (1415-near enough innit?) & an MOD 90 was a tank!

thaibeachlovers, on 08 Jan 2016 - 10:55, said:thaibeachlovers, on 08 Jan 2016 - 10:55, said:thaibeachlovers, on 08 Jan 2016 - 10:55, said:thaibeachlovers, on 08 Jan 2016 - 10:55, said:

SgtRock, on 08 Jan 2016 - 08:33, said:SgtRock, on 08 Jan 2016 - 08:33, said:SgtRock, on 08 Jan 2016 - 08:33, said:SgtRock, on 08 Jan 2016 - 08:33, said:

For the benefit of the uneducated and the troglodytes that actually liked your posts on this thread, it is YOU that doesn’t get it.

This is all about public funding to the tune of £ 5 million a year that is now being cut off. The reason it is being cut off is because the whole thing is a farce.

A 5 year inquiry that has produced a single Soldier being fined the huge sum of £ 3000. Read about it here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10517784/Iraq-abuse-investigation-just-one-soldier-fined-in-three-years.html

The only other case that has made it to court was thrown out of court and legal proceeding launched against the Law Firm.

Read about it here.

QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote

Lawyers who wasted millions of public money pursuing false claims that British troops murdered and tortured Iraqi detainees should now face disciplinary action, senior Government figures have suggested.

Ministers condemned the “shameful” conduct of solicitors who brought the claims, which were yesterday dismissed as “deliberate lies” by a £31million, five year inquiry.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11300398/Al-Sweady-lawyers-should-now-face-disciplinary-action.html

Case against the Law Firm involved is now gathering pace.

QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote

The prominent London law firm Leigh Day has been referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) to answer complaints about its handling of legal challenges brought by Iraqi detainees against the Ministry of Defence.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/05/law-firm-leigh-day-solicitors-disciplinary-tribunal-al-sweady-inquiry

I trust that we can now see a long serious of posts, apologising for the erroneous, libilous and defamatory claims of murdering, child killing Soldiers.

Shouldn't your username be STAFFSgt Rock, going by your avatar?

There are no Staff Sgts in the Infantry, it would be Colour Sgt. I could have used WO11 but not sure how many people would have understood it.

Although I did think that you were going to be the 1st to issue a public apology.

Well said Colour!! But WO2 would have worked for me

What an offensive, trite, simplistic comment. It is the comment either of a simpleton or an unthinking ideologue. I guess at least people who speak in aphorisms do not have to expend any energy on thought.

British and American forces killing Iraqi people have not contributed to my freedoms one jot. In no manner at all. For no-one in any region of the world. In fact, it has made the world less safe, brought misery and death to hundreds of thousands and is facilitating the dominance of the security-industrial complex that will trample on freedoms for the next and future generations.

Spare us the grade school history lessons. You are just feeding the power grab by people who have no interest in protecting anyone's freedoms at the expense of their power or financial benefit. Such mindlessness is tragic.

Can you remove your blinkers?

And how do you know that the killing of Iraqi people (particularly the criminal Isil) has not contributed to your freedom? Who went to help the Yazidi peoples, the "security-industrial complex" you have such a problem about?

What was the financial or power benefit from doing that?

Yes, unfortunately there are always collateral damage in any war, to all sides.

And you are sounding like the propaganda machine spokesperson of conspiracy theorists with your "security-industrial complex" fears. And who will protect you in the event of a real threat to you and your lifestyle?

So spare me your return comments, I have no further interest in them - you are entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine. Try and have a nice day.

Don't have the courage of your convictions to stand by your insults I see. Pepper me with questions and then tell me I can't reply to your post. Well, since this is not a conversation but a series of public posts, then what attracts your interest is of no concern to anyone. You have zero authority to determine what anyone posts.

How do I know that killing Iraqi people has not contributed to my freedoms? Quite simple. ISIS did not exist before 20 March 2003, the date when US led forces attacked that country on the basis of untruths, deceptions and public manipulation by the US regime. The group that seems to send you into hysterical fear was a creation of abominable decisions taken by the US occupying forces after the collapse of the Iraqi regime, specifically the 'de-bathifisation' of the civil service and the disbanding of the Iraqi armed forces.

Iraq under Saddam did not threaten my freedoms. Iraq under Saddam did not threaten your freedoms. Iraq under Saddam threaten no one in the West. The military adventurism of the neocons under GW was unjustifiable but they just steamrolled over everyone. Their unilateralism compounded by incompetence in administration and refusal to work with other countries created the mess in Iraq.

For the security industrial complex, I guess you just slept through the whole past decade and the Wikileaks and Snowden stuff. The 34th President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower was the one who coined the phrase military-industrial complex. You clearly cannot comprehend its insidious reality and try to pass it off as a joke. The 34th President of the United States was no joke.

I work in conflict states. I confront security issues and real threats every day I work on missions in these countries. Do you? Or are you just spreading your fear exacerbated by right wing intolerance and a sophomoric understanding of international affairs? The conduct of war is governed by the Geneva Conventions. US unilateralism, assisted by the UK and a few other nations bullied into compliance change the international legal basis for conflicts at their whim. It is very clear what constitutes a war crime. Passing it off as collateral damage is unacceptable. All accusations of war crimes must be investigated and if found to be substantiated prosecuted and punished.

These are not matters of opinion. These are matters of Law. They are matters of Morality and Ethics. They are matters Right and Wrong. We do not agree to disagree. You have no choice but to accept the Law.

Who's Law? Who's Morality and Ethics? Who's matters of Right and Wrong? The whole world does not subscribe to them!! How do you know ISIS did not exist before 20 March 2003? Do you think the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and other "terrorist organizations" have no choice but to accept the Law. They do, but it is there Law, not yours!

I repeat, take your blinkers off!

You are acting like some schoolyard, know it all, religious bully. Or perhaps you're just being an ostrich? Or got your head up your own fundamental? I DO HAVE A CHOICE AND I WILL DISAGREE WITH YOU.

For a start, British soldiers have to obey the law, and that law does not allow them to go around willy nilly torturing and murdering non combatants, it doesn't even allow them to torture and murder combatants. The rules of engagement are there for a reason.

It's irrelevant what the enemy does, or if they do or don't obey the law.

If you don't understand that you have never been in the armed forces.

Examples of War crimes carried out by British soldiers in Iraq where the alleged perpetrators have been found guilty of same and convicted in a court of law!

Links please

Thanks

Of course murder should be investigated, and if found guilty, every single criminal should be sentenced to the full degree of the law.

It doesn't work that way.

My nephew was in a convoy attacked by a trigger happy Tankbuster pilot in 1991 after the ceasefire. Nine Scottish soldiers including his best friend were blown to bits.

The UK courts ruled unlawful killing but the US government refused to name the pilot, the case is still open and the families are still looking for justice.

For this reason the pilot of the A10 was at best grossly negligent and worst guilty of a more serious offence

Perhaps PIL should be pursuing him instead!!!

I am not sure if all UK born are so arrogant. You (UK) reject a mother with a little child, just escaped bombs and terror in Syria? You don't want to give asylum in your wealthy country? Not giving shelter, food and education for at least 3 years? You do not want to share with them? But you agree to let them die outside in front of your border like beggars?

You are the most worst evil in Europe. But enjoy your day far away from poverty and death!

Besides at the moment the UK is full!!!

They are talking about Poms hey? It sure looks that they are not the smartest sheep in the Paddock,,

they already proved that when they voted in fascist Cameron and his crew with a majority

From a country who voted in a Welsh immigrant whose accent must be forced, followed by a former Catholic priest. And now have a plank who dreams of being "president".

Cameron is no more a fascist than Obama, Hollande, or Mutti Merkel. Owned by the banks, big business and extremely rich - for sure, just as they all are.