Chelseafan

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.

3 hours ago, darksidedog said:

. As for being denied for no insurance, I wasn't aware that had become mandatory yet.

I suppose in the eyes of the IO, if you have no money then how are you going to pay the hospital bills if things go wrong.

Call me a cynic but there's just no way that the Thai Government would execute a Chinese citizen, confession or not.

17 hours ago, Matzzon said:

Dismissal, is the hard punishment? I thought it was against the law to engage in smuggling.

The law ? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

6 hours ago, stephen tracy said:

What? Less corruption? Prayuth wrote the playbook on corruption. This is why he has openly threatened anyone that questions his enormous wealth. 

I know that, you know that but the perception to the average Somchai is somewhat different. Besides, they don't really care about top-level politicians, it's the local police that they get annoyed about. They are the ones they have to interact with on a day to day basis.

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Deranged Thai roti seller hacks man's neck with a machete. Claims it's because the victim swore too much in English, neither's native language, whilst buying rotis from him and his wife.

 

And you believe him!

Absolutely. If what the son said was  true he would no doubt be swearing in his own language.

Why swear in English unless he was provoking the Thai?

Something smells fishy

11 hours ago, nickstav said:

Thailand's people need to look at what's going on in Hong Kong. Freedom is never given, you need to fight for it. 

The average Thai doesn't care. I've spoken to quite a few people and they preferred the military controlled government. As they see it there was less corruption and if the police didn't sort out your problem, the army certainly did.

Even the missus, who is better educated about politics than most likes Prayut.

On 7/23/2019 at 5:11 AM, Nigel Garvie said:

Ah, but that's the whole point, Boris does spout continuous crap, just how far down the reality denial road do you have to travel not to see that. He will be chosen by less that .002% of the population, and it is pretty apparent that a significant majority of the population think he is just a huge embarrassment. For many posters here the issue has turned into "Brexit at any price", if they had to accept Satan as PM in order to achieve their aims they would do so. This obsession has become so all consuming, that nothing else matters. "To hell with the Union, the economy, the evidence, the NHS, our international status, just give us our Brexit" 

Countries all over the world are laughing at us because we really think that we are taking back control, meanwhile Putin and Trump are rubbing their hands with glee. 

Whilst I appreciate some people vote based on the leader of the party, I would hope that most vote on the policies of the party.

19 hours ago, NCC1701A said:

So does this mean Thais consider tourists to be human beings now?

Yes. Go to get them back somehow.... ????