Chelseafan

4 hours ago, Traubert said:

Hurrah!!!

 

Godwin's Law in only post #6.

 

Chapeau comrade. ????

 

 

Shouldn't the thread be shut down ? ????

7 hours ago, Victornoir said:

46/43 it is a small majority, still within the margin of error.
It should be noted that Boris's shattering statements have their effect on both the pound and the unit.

????

Not only that, the sample was small at just over 1000 people. Huge margin of error.

I would think you can use the Thai booths. Usually there is someone coordinating "traffic flow" so if in doubt ask them

5 hours ago, bluesofa said:

From the UK highway code page below, you can see the stopping distance increases from 73 metres at 96km/hr, to 96 metres at 112 km/hr.

 

(click to enlarge)

 

Theres a couple of points here.

The braking distances were set in the 1960/70's where cars were god-damned awful. Technology has come a long way since. Secondly, there is no way anyone is going to leave a 96m gap on the M1 driving at 70mph as cars will fill that gap up very quickly leading you to have to brake to let them in. I don't disagree with the information, its just not practical in today's age with more cars on the road.

5 hours ago, FarFlungFalang said:

You must know where the nest is because you seem to be in it with the rest of us.Speed kills. lt's definately a major contributing factor to the death toll.If you only reduced the speed at which people travel to 50 kph the death toll is reduced it's a fact.I'm not talking about reducing the speed limit but the actual speed.Idiocy is people who say speed doesn't contribute to the death toll and does in fact kill.

Please explain to me then why the Autobahn is one of the safest road systems in Europe with around 1.6 deaths per 1billion of KM traveled? I'll tell you why, the drivers are better taught, have better awareness, look after their cars (including brakes), follow the rules of the road and don't tailgate or make sudden unexpected maneuvers.

I agree that crashing at 150kph will have more than an impact than crashing at 30kph but I bet you the majority of collisions in Thailand are alcohol/drug/phone induced or through very poor driving skills including sudden braking, not indicating, not looking etc.

3 hours ago, Chiang Mai Bill said:

Speed plus idiotic driving does though!

You don't need speed to kill someone using a car.

3 hours ago, BobbyL said:

Lucky Somchai. 

 

Disgraceful sentence. 

Lucky Wealthy Somchai

4 hours ago, lungbing said:

Homosexuality was not illegal.   Acting upon it was. He was not prosecuted for being homosexual but for indecent assault.

You're splitting hairs and knew perfectly well what I meant and if we're playing that game, he wasn't prosecuted for indecent assault, he was prosecuted for gross indecency.

22 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

I would love to think we have "moved on" and were more accepting, but some recent incidents of homophobic violence against both women and men who are same sex attracted, seems mean we are a long way from acceptance of diversity.

The legal prosecutions may have been removed, but there appears to be a new lack of acceptance in some circles.

I disagree with you. I think on the whole we are more accepting. If you go back 60 years being seen in the same circles of someone who was gay would alienate you from society, not so much these days.

You are always going to get homphobes in life, for these people there is no hope and frankly they are a waste of oxygen.

4 hours ago, stevenl said:

Agree, we should not judge with todays' values.

 

But even at the values of the 50's his persecution was harsh.

Not at the time. Homosexuality was illegal.

I do think that given what he did that the government should have given him more lee-way but again I'm basing that on my thinking of today.

There were a lot of things that we, as a country got wrong, the way we treated people of colour, sexism, equal pay etc but we've moved on and cannot retrospectively change them. Thankfully we are more progressive and if Turing were alive today no-one would bat an eyelid of his sexual orientation.

3 hours ago, Xaos said:

Brits still thinks european immigrants will be gone after brexit. 

No we don't. YOU may think that.

It's been plainly stated that they "may" have to register free of charge.

2 hours ago, BobBKK said:

No because there are 100s of such cases and to do so would set a precedent. But he was a great man and deserves recognition and honours and how GB treated him is contemptible.

I'm not defending the actions of those at the time but it's very easy to judge history with todays values. My parents raised me to accept all people of all faiths and sexual orientations mainly due to the more liberal times we live in but I try to imagine being raised 60 or 70 years ago in a more disciplined time where homosexuality was seen as an abomination and wonder if my view would be different. 

5 minutes ago, PoorSucker said:

Any currency is accepted as is travelers checks. 

Yes but I don't want to be carrying money. Period.

I transfer spending money to an account in Thailand which my Thai friend opened for me (in her name), obviously I do not want to be showing this to the IO as it could lead to all sorts of questions.

16 minutes ago, brucegoniners said:

My question is, how did they know these people didn't have money? Did they rummage through their pockets?

 

This country is getting more and more unfriendly to visitors. If they think the Thai economy is bad now it's only going to get worse if they treat tourists like this.

I suppose they asked them to show funds and they couldn't.

Reading the between the lines (as you have to do with Thais sometimes all the time) I think that they were refused as they were planning to work in Thailand. If that's the case then this is a non-event, having said that, I'm travelling in a few weeks and am nervous that I wont be able to show 20,000 other than bank statements. Looks like I am going to have to change money before I travel which is a pain in the backside. Rules are rules I suppose.

5 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

The reason given to the press is "no insurance".

 

The reason stamped in the passport is "no means of supporting oneself".

 

The real reason stated to the denied traveller is repeat visits.

 

Why the subterfuge and the lies? I bet all those Chinese don't have travel insurance. Why such continual lying? What are they really up to?

 

The article didn't say anything about the traveller being denied about repeat visits. You are reading between the lines, perhaps correctly.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you but Thailand has always been like this. Why be direct and state the truth when it's easier to hide behind rules and regulations.

2 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

That website is an unofficial, private website with no connection whatsoever to any embassy of the Kingdom of Thailand or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who oversee all of Thailand's embassies and consulates.

Maybe so but that website was at the top of the search list and would have at least gotten the traveler to investigate further if in doubt.

3 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

The overwhelming majority of these people denied for "no money" as you put it under section 12 (2) or (9) have means to support their stay. However, Immigration is denying them entry for other reasons, usually repeat visits, and then twisting the law and twisting the story to the press on this occasion to portray a different picture. 

 

Immigration should just state that they are arbitrarily denying passengers entry for repeat visits. It is mystifying why they publicly give one reason but inform passengers of a different reason.

My point was about insurance. Not about whether they can fund their stay.