RuamRudy

Not COVID but all the many jabs I need to get to survive in the places my company sends my to work in.

I have I idea about the person behind me but the guy in front looked Thai, maybe mid 40s, balding, if I recall correctly, dressed in a smart sweater.

To be honest, I find it quicker than taxis at rush hour. That was the sole reason. And I travel pretty light.

Thank you very much!

I was the victim of a pickpocket duo on the MRT last week. Although feeling very angry with myself and foolish at falling prey to them, I thought I would describe what happened so others might be more aware. Firstly, although I no longer live in Bangkok, I did for a long time in the past and continue to visit regularly. I thought I was clever enough and street smart enough that I knew how to handle myself. Clearly that's not the case. On the day, I had arrived at Suvarnabhumi around 5pm and took the train to Makasan then the MRT to Silom where I changed to the SkyTrain. I had a carry-on suitcase and my backpack slotted over the handles of my case. As the train pulled into Silom I got up and queued behind a few people to get off. The doors opened and we moved to the exit - the guy in front of me paused as he got off the train, looking a bit confused as to which way to go. I stopped abruptly as he had blocked my exit and I recall someone 'bumping' into me from behind. About 30 minutes later when I arrived at my hotel I realised that my travel wallet, which usually holds my passport, was missing from my backpack. I realised what happened - the first guy created the abrupt halt which gave the guy behind a reason to push into me and dip my backpack. Fortunately, for some miraculous reason my passport was in my shirt pocket. Usually I place it in the wallet for safe keeping but this time I simply didn't. Obviously I am very grateful for that. In fact, all they got was about $100 of unpopular currencies (Kazakh tenge, Scottish pounds and Philippines pesos) but, infuriatingly, also my vaccination passport with details of all my vaccinations. I really wish I hadn't lost that. Anyway, we live and learn so I will definitely be more careful and less blasé in the future. And if you are on public transport, keep your variables safe and watch out for the pickpocket tag team. Oh, and if anyone has an email address for MRT lost and found, it would be much appreciated!

I think you are not a million miles away from the point many others hold - let's see Andrew have his day in court. He should have the same scrutiny as any other alleged sex offender.

The vigour of which I was referring was not that of the police, but of the poster to whom I was responding.

Your desperation to categorise this child as a sex worker is concerning. The Sexual Offences Act is clear that she is not a sex worker. It is also clear that the allegations against Andrew are very serious and should be pursued with the same vigour you expect to be shown to Muslim rape gangs, whose behaviours are no less disgusting.

She was paid to sleep with him. You, yourself, even called her a prostitute. The law in England is clear with regards to prostitution. Under 18s cannot willingly participate in it, either as buyers or sellers. The age of consent has zero relevance here, despite your failure to understand that. A dirty old man allegedly paid for sex with a child (as defined in the Sexual Offences Act). He needs to face the full scrutiny of the law.

If the allegations are correct, she was not in a consensual relationship with Andrew, but was procured for her services. UK law stipulates that while prostitution is not illegal, participants must be over 18. The procurement of minors (as she was, in relation to the Sexual Offences Act, for sex is very much illegal in the UK.

Don't take it up with me, I merely quoted the title of this thread, lifted from the headline of the worst newspaper in the UK.

I don't think that the massage itself is the aspect under scrutiny. It's the suggestion, from various claimants, that Epstein was using underage girls to deliver the massages and more.

Much like the opposing views you had in relation to the allegations made against Huw Edwards and those against Russell Brand? But at least you are now talking about Andrew being an offender. That's progress. Personally, I prefer the innocent until proven guilty approach but I am all in favour of a full and thorough police investigation into the man you consider to be an offender.

"Prince Andrew is reported to police over Epstein files: Calls on both sides of the Atlantic for the Duke of York to face prosecution" This seems very much like the Daily Mail is putting the cart before the horse, or simply lazy, weak journalism. Prior to any prosecution there needs to be a thorough police investigation. This appears not to have yet been done.

Everyone seems to think they are forum police these days... I neither altered nor misquoted you. In fact, you altered my post by highlighting some of the text, which is against your beloved rules but I am not so petty as to get bent out of shape by it. I stand by my post. You initially stated that he had been fully investigated by the police.

I stated thus: To which you replied: It not me who has you confused. You have confused yourself.

Make up your mind. Firstly you said that he had been fully investigated and subsequently exonerated. Now you are acknowledging that he has not complied with requests from the US authorities to provide further information. If he had nothing to hide, why would he not help them to the fullest?

UK authorities protected Prince Andrew from US Epstein investigation, book says "British authorities protected Prince Andrew from US prosecutors investigating his relationship with the financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to a new book by a US attorney who led the investigation in New York."

Oh wow! That's my evening sorted, thank you so much!

I saw Tom Conti perform that play about 25 years ago in the Aberdeen Playhouse; a fantastic piece of writing, magnificently acted out.

2 questions: 1) what is unsubstantiated? 2) Who made you forum police? There's a report button if you feel my post is contrary to the rules.

If he were to be faced with the full scrutiny of the police as if he were a regular person then we could all be satisfied that due process is being served. But he hasn't - and he uses royal privilege to avoid scrutiny, just as his paedophile uncle, Mountbatten, did.

Boringly contemporary but I don't really have any heroes from history. Alive - Nick Cave because I have loved his music since I was a teenager, and his life has gone from extreme to esteemed. Dead - Anthony Bourdain because he seemed such an engaging and interesting man, or maybe Jeffrey Bernard because he lived his entire life like Nick Cave lived his younger days.

I was more in awe of the breathtaking hypocrisy of the man who has taken so much from the country whilst returning so little, trying to show solidarity with those who are struggling to support the most vulnerable in our society.

It would be interesting to know exactly what Charles did to acquire those multitude of stately homes, palaces and vast swathes of land across the UK. I suspect, like his mother before him, he has done diddly squat to acquire them. Had he been taxed like us mere mortals upon inheriting them, it would be a start, but my preference would be to turn them over in their entirety to the people of the UK. Property which can be shown to have been purchased by his family could be kept, Castle Mey, for example, but those which have been passed down from one incumbent to the next by dint of being stolen in bygone times should revert to the people of the UK and all royal ties and obligations be cut.