.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
SheungWan
-
Posts
10,836 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by SheungWan
-
-
10 hours ago, vogie said:
Most of remainers (although they are all Brexiteers now) swear by the Guardian, it is their paper of choice, it tells them what they want to hear especially from that nutcase Owen Jones.
"The Guardian moved in September 2005 to what is described as a 'Berliner' format, slightly larger than a compact. Its Sunday stablemate The Observer followed suit. Both The Guardian and The Observer now use the tabloid format, having done so since January 2018.[1] Despite these format changes, these newspapers are all still considered 'broadsheets'."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom
Hard Brexiteers making things up again. Guardian readership a small percentage of Remainers, not that any facts are allowed to ever take precedence over a Brexiteer imagination. About as useless as imagining that Hard Brexiteers are on board for a softer Brexit completion. And as for the dreadful thought of what the Brexiteer nuts read. Ho hum.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, overherebc said:
If pensioners were given a million pounds and came to live in Thailand within a year they would be married to some impoverished farmers daughter, be a father at 70, probably not their offspring, and walking the streets in Pattaya looking for a bar with balloons outside. ????????.
5 hours ago, talahtnut said:There are some things money can't change.
Except having a good time.
-
On 1/20/2020 at 5:21 AM, vogie said:
Sorry got a little side tracked, welcome back by the way.
This piece is written by the Guardians economics editor Larry Elliott, you may be more sympathetic to this broadsheet, and if you won't believe The Guardian, who will you believe.
"Don’t be fooled – the EU is no defender of workers’ rights
The Delors message was instantly popular. Ron Todd, the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union summed up the prevailing mood when he said “the only game in town is in a town called Brussels”. Judging by the debate over the Brexit withdrawal bill, that sentiment remains powerful 31 years on. All week Labour MPs have been lining up to say that only by staying closely aligned with the EU can the socially progressive rights that Brussels has delivered be protected. There is one problem with this idea: it is complete nonsense."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/24/eu-workers-rights-capital-multinationals
The Guardian is not a broadsheet and newspapers are not to be blindly 'believed', though some Hard Brexiteer readers of the Express and nutty websites consume their information that way.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
6 hours ago, codebunny said:Nothing to do with Labour wrecking the economy and creating a debt bubble and cost-of-living crisis then?
Labour is responsible for causing austerity, because after they've finished running up the national credit card, and the public start feeling the costs without the benefit, the Tories are brought in to clean up the mess and take the blame for Labour's incompetence. It happened in the 1970s, and again in the 2010s. The post 70s clean up resulted in a lot of working-class people getting very cheap council houses, and the rationale was that maintaining them was too expensive, and that people who owned them would feel incentivised to maintain them; the market moved in to create new models.
The maths is the same: if you reduce the number of immigrants you don't need more houses.
People who say it's the right number of extra people and the wrong number of houses seem to miss the fact that maybe it's the wrong number of extra people and the right number of houses.
Any real socialist would not advocate exploiting cheaper immigrant labour to keep local wages down and local unemployment up, and put pressure on local housing and services to keep local cost-of-living up. Essentially it's adding extra people to tax and fund not inceasing the economic activity of local people. A state's first duty is to the people already from it, not people from elsewhere.
If and when there are similar immigrant labour rules as apply in many countries, not just Australia, then the salaries for these jobs that locals allegedly don't want to do, will rise, as they meet the realities of the cost of living for average working people. Land prices doubled under new Labour, as immigration was increased to historically unprecedented levels, and land prices feed into the cost of everything. Interest rates kept abnormally low to prevent a housing crash relying on a constant stream of exploited immigrant Labour may suit bourgeoise Labour-voters, but it undermines social mobility for the working classes, and it is this economic reality that has precipitated Brexit.
It is in fact, not the immigrants who are blamed but the economic illiteracy of the Labour party and the remain-supporting factions who have distorted public discourse in desperate attempts to retain their economic advantage bought at the cost of working-class people who used to vote Labour.
Until Labour and remainers understand the plight of local working-class people in the UK, they seem very unlikely to be regarded as competent or trustworthy to form a government that serves the interests of working-class people. An economic correction is likely and due, and for many working-class people it will be welcome; for the Labour and remain-supporting bourgeousie, not so much.
Rubbish maths likely purloined from some rubbish website. If there is one thing Hard Brexiteers do not understand it is economics, but then their contempt for education shouldn't surprise us with the follow on lack of understanding that the generation of wealth is the key to any economy. What we know for sure is that there is an economic demand for labour which cannot be filled by locals (and by the way, when Hard Brexiteers talk about local labour they are rarely including those who are black). Unskilled labour as with skilled labour generates a demand met by immigration. who on earth is going to claim that there is a local demand to do the unskilled jobs in either hospitals, hotels or fields. Nobody. Its just the usual hard-right racist ranting masquerading as something else we see on this thread.
-
1
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
Good to see the Hard Brexiteer tribe frothing away at mention of their favourite subject, immigration. Brexit Party lives!
-
2
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, ThaiFelix said:
No they couldn't. They were done. Absolutely nowhere to go on this one without being a laughing stock.
The USA continued lying when they were the laughing stock in the Gulf Of Tonkin incident, the supposed WMD's that Saddam purportedly held in numbers, that Iraq was harbouring Al Qaeda in Iraq etc etc etc. Do you want me to go on? Iran seems to have much more pride than that.
At least the Iranian people are having none of it and calling on the streets for the Government to resign,
Over one million Iranians attended the assassinated general's funeral...were they there to cheer his death? In contrast "up to 3,000 protesters" marched against their government leaders over the shooting down of the Ukranian civilian jet. While I admit there are those opposed to their government in Iran, just like anywhere, "up to 3,000" in oppostion is a very very small number compared to the "over 1 million" that attended Soleimani's funeral in support.
while some of our friendly forum L eft-wing friends continue to line up with the Mad Mullahs and pretend the Iranian Opposition doesn't exist. Getting fleas from sleeping with dogs.
As this appears only to be defeatist vitriol and a personal attack I shall not entertain it.
Looks like the Mad Mullahs friends gone into overdrive. At least we now see them for what they are. And this is what happens when the Left goes unhinged. Lining up with nasty terrorists. As if we are surprised.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, ThaiFelix said:They indeed did have a choice, they could have continued lying just as Trump continues to do even though those around him are admitting now there were no plans to blow up US embassies.
"They could have continued lying......" (!) No they couldn't. They were done. Absolutely nowhere to go on this one without being a laughing stock. But what a pathetic attempt this is to continue excusing the regime. At least the Iranian people are having none of it and calling on the streets for the Government to resign, while some of our friendly forum Left-wing friends continue to line up with the Mad Mullahs and pretend the Iranian Opposition doesn't exist. Getting fleas from sleeping with dogs.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2 hours ago, spidermike007 said:
This was obviously a hugely embarrassing and tragic error. But one has to ask why, in light of the attacks taking place at the time, was this plane even granted permission to fly?
It is emerging that warnings were made to cancel all civilian flights, but that this advice was ignored.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Kinnock said:
Apart from Russia selling the missile system to Iran, and presumably also helping with maintenance and spare parts?
1 hour ago, stevenl said:Might as well start about the US delivered F14's then.
Hello! Its deflection time.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, ThaiFelix said:
They admitted it didnt they. They took responsibility. Very unlike some other country that has a reputation for denial even when the evidence/or lack of, is right in its face ie WMDs, imminent threats etc etc
After lying their heads off, the evidence stuffed them. Next, hold on to black box and bulldoze the site.
-
2
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Basil B said:
Clearly they never understood the instructions, I find it hard to comprehend how you can mistake a cruse missile with a 737. 737 is a lot larger (about 80tons compared to the cruse missile typically 1.5tons), in the climb probably less than 300mph (500Km/h) where as a Cruse Missile probably 500mph (800km/h)
Clearly phooey. PS It was night time.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, The Theory said:
3 days deny, deny and lie over something that they already knew has happened by their own air defense. They tried hard to cover it up by keeping the black box.
If it was their own domestic flight, they would cover it up by lie and they wouldn't tell the truth to the people.Exactly.
-
1
-
1
-
-
49 minutes ago, Basil B said:
The issue is Supper Powers supplying some of the most sophisticated military hardware to be operated by conscripted radicalised hot heads...
So now we have someone who thinks army personnel aren't issued with instructions when to fire missiles. More attempts at whitewashing our Iranian Mullah friends.
-
1
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
5 hours ago, ThaiFelix said:Have you never denied something only to discover later you were wrong and ADMIT it.
You mean like have I shot down a civilian aircraft and lied my head off until caught bang to rights?
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
21 minutes ago, ThaiFelix said:
And I am totally amazed with some TVF posters, especially the above writer, who seem totally ignorant of the mass slaughter of innocents carried out by the US or its proxies in many places such as South America, Asia, and the Middle East CONSTANTLY during the last 7 decades or so!! Remember, according to your leaders and their propaganda, American interests always come first.
I am totally not amazed by the 'whataboutism' crowd jumping in to explain the Iranian regime actions away.
-
2
-
-
31 minutes ago, ThaiFelix said:
There is also the very likely possibility that Iran wanted the absolute truth before the US or CIA Dept of Dirty Underhanded Tricks stuck its nose in and interfered with the wreckage/black box etc. Iran would certainly want to check out the black box itself rather than any other country due again to possible USA interference as it does in just about anything else these days. I am sure that Donald would probably apply sanctions to anybody who didnt agree with their conclusion of the reason for the downing (even without evidence as per usual!)
is that why they lied up until today denying that it had anything to do with being shot down?
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Opl said:
Iran’s airspace was a war zone. Iran just fired two dozen ballistic missiles a few hours earlier against US bases in Iraq, retaliation from the US was expected. Iranian anti-aircraft defense was on high alert, anti-aircraft defense systems, which must intercept targets flying at high speed or at low altitude, require rapid décisions, an operator can easily make a mistake , especially when the alert is at it's highest, why was'nt this flight cancelled?
You mean so that they could have fired at the next flight?
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Max69xl said:
"I would bite the bullet and get a one-year permission to stay."
Just out of curiosity, do you meet the requirements for an 90 days Non-immigrant O Visa followed by a 1 year extension? The only way to get a 1 year visa from day one would be an O-A Visa based on retirement.
I have had an O-A visa before in past years and had actually started the process again last year but abandoned that process as it appeared too much hassle with the insurance requirements. Do I meet the requirements for an extension? Well, I would probably go the agent route if I wanted that extension. It is not something I am planning this year, but some guys will no doubt be rolling up with their O visas to extend to permission to stay and doing the agency route.
-
5 hours ago, DrJack54 said:
This is very similar to your other thread. I'm thinking you wish to use a non o based on retirement giving you 90 (cannot be extended) followed by visa exempt entry via air. Then extend giving 30+30.
Then I imagine do 2 more VE via border and extend each. Further 120 days. Giving 9 months all up. Yes possible. Or you could just get an METV.
Others might try pushing the boat out with 3 border runs, each followed by extensions, but I don't think immigration would take too kindly to this and anyway it is not going to be me putting it to the test. It will be interesting hearing any reports in the future though. As for right now, I still prefer the single O over METV, for reasons I have given elsewhere. If the METV fits the requirements of others then fine. Also, if I really was wanting to spend 9 months continuous in LOS, then I think I would bite the bullet and get a one-year permission to stay.
-
3 hours ago, jacko45k said:
O-Visa or an Extension?
So do you plan to re-enter Thailand at a land crossing, or fly out and back in (and have a flight out within 30 days)?
If you do get back in, a 30 day extension should not be a problem.
90 day O visa followed by fly out and back. Expect then to get 30 day visa exempt but fly back out again after a further 60 days assuming extension is possible.
-
9 hours ago, jacko45k said:
3) If one is planning to stay over 30 days, get a tourist visa.
Since the 60 day period would be following the expiry of an O visa, then that option not appropriate.
-
The London Embassy webpage states that those entering Thailand on a 30-day visa-exempt entry must show onward travel within those 30 days. Assuming that one may be considering a 30 day extension thus giving a 60 day total (confirm can do?), then is the appropriate course of action to still have an exit flight within the original 30 days which can then be cancelled in favour of the later flight towards the end of the 60 day period?
http://www.thaiembassy.org/london/en/services/7742/84451-Tourist-Visa.html
(PS I am not looking for the discussion to stray into alternative visa options)
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, Matzzon said:No, it does not. Gold is the most secure investment that regular people can engage in.
A disaster if the timing is wrong.
-
5
-
1
-
24 minutes ago, Matzzon said:
Because it´s one of the most sure investments people have made through history.
Depends on time and circumstances and choices.
-
1
-
UK PM Johnson to impose new restrictions on low-skilled migrants post-Brexit: Telegraph
in World News
Posted
Hard Brexiteers too lazy to come up with any figures, approximate or otherwise. That's why they make things up. As for not understanding the difference between Hard and Soft Brexit, well that has always been key to the Hard Brexiteer fantasies. So let's make it very simple for them. Hard Brexit on January 31 would have been exiting the EU without an exit agreement and no transitional arrangements. Not going to happen. Boris sold that one prior to the Election. Sorry chaps.