Chelseafan

12 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Are you dreaming? Officials from the land department being prosecuted? Very amusing. 

I know, I know, I had a hard day and need to release some of my sarcastic wit ????

4 hours ago, ourmanflint said:

There is some truth in that, but it is 90% govt policy that is at fault. Current second wave was entirely avoidable, but business pressures from pubs and universities especially made things a lot worse than they should have been

I'd say its 10% Government, 90% GP but each to their own.

We had to get businesses and schools back open, it was bankrupting an already bankrupt economy. There is no easy answer to this other than total lockdown for a extended amount of time. Do we really want another run on toilet paper!!

3 hours ago, mrfill said:

That would be the usual way a totally useless government excuses itself from its blundering and incompetence. Not our fault guvnor, its all your fault is their mantra.

Remember, the chief advisor to Boris suggested that a 60 mile drive to a beauty spot (which happens to have large GSK offices) is OK to test ones eyesight for a (illegal) 240 mile journey. But it wasn't his fault, it was the rest of the public for not following the rules.

One swallow does not make a summer.

I don't blame the GP, we're all tired of Covid but if we keep breaking the rules then its just going to go on for longer and probably with more lockdowns in place.

2 hours ago, sawadee1947 said:

No! 

It's the government inability to tackle this pandemic. A poor communication, irratic changes of handling, poor Management. 

The trust in this so called government is gone. 

It's similar to Donald's, but not America first but Boris friends first. 

It's time Starmer will have the say. 

In what way has the communication been poor ? Granted the Government has changed tactics but they've always been upfront and informative.

Walking in my local supermarket the other day and a good amount of people not social distancing or wearing masks. What part of it do they not understand !?

Whilst I acknowledge the Government hasn't always got it right, this is a once in a generation event for which none of us were prepared for.

I wish people would stop bashing the Government and take accountibility for their own actions.

48 minutes ago, Kerryd said:

Good news though !

At least 4 property sites are still listing condos for sale in that project ! Not one of them mentions anything about the project being "delayed" or cancelled. 

I'm kind of curious what they would say if someone made an enquiry.........

Wouldn't that be a great story for the Pataya Mail ????

1 hour ago, johng said:

The other day on a  Thai news TV channel they said there where only 800,000 unemployed the highest figure for a decade ! I don't know where these "incredible" figures come from but

maybe they borrowed TAT's calculator ?

Why would you think that figure is wrong? I actually believe its higher.

4 hours ago, plentyofnuttin said:

So how do you reconcile that conclusion with the USA's high ranking in tolerance?

I would question who was asked, what questions were asked, how the questions were asked, the validity of the poll, the sample size and a host of other factors.

7 hours ago, RocketDog said:

Sound reasoning for the most part. Note however that all your recommendations place a burden of refugee management, repatriation, investigation of credentials, temporary housing, and Healthcare, etc. squarely on the taxpayers of the host country. The more applicants the higher the cost. So for the sake of argument if a country considered the cases of 100,000 applicants but finally accepted none of them there would still be a considerable bill to pay. Every applicant accepted puts a further burden on the host. 

 

But let's not lose sight of the fact that we are discussing immigration and not migration but you use the terms synonymously. Immigrants want to enter a new country for a reason and often have skills or funds to offer. Migrants/refugees just want to leave their own country and go anywhere else, most often with nothing to offer the host country but hungry mouths. When thousands or tens of thousands suddenly arrive at the borders en mass there is simply no system in place to handle that. Criteria can be established for immigration and that's how it currently works. Gobs of desperate people climbing border fences is not immigration, it's an invitation to violence and bloodshed. 

 

In the end being charitable to too many refugees degrades the life of the citizens and taxpayers of the host country. Generally these citizens have full responsibility to pay the bills but little input into the acceptance process devised by their government. That is truly the crux of the problem. 

 

We will see this problem play out regularly in the coming decades as climate change, starvation, thirst, and war make more of the globe uninhabitable. This virus is just a preview. 

 

I predict that many countries will simply close their borders entirely and the more generous countries will be flooded with refugees until their citizenry revolts. Each sovereign nation can choose to manage the problem or be managed by the problem. Life is not fair and nature not kind. It's the classic lifeboat conundrum in game theory. 

Agreed and in the case of Syria, ONE MAN has caused this. ONE MAN!!

3 hours ago, plentyofnuttin said:

Lebanon remains the country hosting the largest number of refugees per capita, with Government estimate of 1.5 billion Syrian refugees, some 20,000 refugees of other origins, in addition to the Palestine refugees under UNRWA's mandate.

https://reporting.unhcr.org/lebanon#:~:text=Lebanon remains the country hosting,Palestine refugees under UNRWA's mandate.

 Iraq – As of December 2019, Iraq hosts 245,810 Syrian refugees, primarily in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, and 1.4 million internally displaced Iraqis.^[141] As of September 2019, Turkey hosts 3.66 million registered Syrian refugees, compared to 2.73 million in September 2016.^[3]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War#:~:text=Turkey – As of September 2019,provided over %248%2C000%2C000%2C000 in aid.

 

 

1.5 billion ? Are you sure ? Thats about a fifth of the worlds population....

What about UAE, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Bahrain....

15 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

Sorry, but I cannot see any of those sectors benefiting much from an incoming 40 tourists a day.

 

Putting it into perspective, with 40 tourists arrival a day, there would be a need for a maximum of about 13 taxis all day at the airport if each did 3 fares. 

14 taxis ????

7 minutes ago, Nout said:

Send them to Saudi and Kuwait.

Amazing how little the middle eastern countries assist their own.

I wonder if he will do the jail time...

6 hours ago, cmarshall said:

Uh-oh  The UK is in big trouble now since the Johnson government is far too incompetent to be able to manage exponential growth of the virus.  

The people are too stupid and incompetent to follow basic advice. Got to take responsibility for their own actions.

5 hours ago, trainman34014 said:

You know as well as i do that the 'attitude' in this country is to get away with everything bad until it slaps them in the face !

 

And when they've been slapped in the face, the law taps them on the bum!

Not that I really care and contrary to what the Daily Mail will tell you most of us are not imperalistic  however I do note that  the Barbados govenor was appointed by the Queen and not by the people. I also think that if the people are allowed to vote in a free and fair referendum most wouldn't care and those that do would vote to remain. Could be wrong of course but it would just show how out of touch Sandra is with the people and is probably doing this for ratings in the current anti-colonial climate.

28 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

Every foreigner need to be tested before departure, so how can there be high or low risk countries?? If you don't test negative you won't get on the plane. It's really simple. That's what you should think about when reading the article. This is just another insurance scam when we know that every tourist can get a much cheaper insurance at home. 

Strangely enough, I've made that same point before on a seperate post.

But yes, defintely a scam

4 hours ago, scorecard said:

Wow, please share the name of the ins. company, thanks.

Just do a search on a very popular website