sambum

It is a "well known fact" that these Pit Bull/Bully varieties have one thing in common, which has been noted on here MANY times before - and the word is ***UNPREDICTABLE*** No matter how well trained these dogs are, they can turn in an instant - hence so many owners getting attacked by their own "pets". So I feel that your statement that "99% of the time there is negative behaviour by dogs it is the owners or the person's being attacked fault" is not even any where near 99% true - especially with the breeds mentioned above. This subject has been covered on here many times before, and I am tired of reading statements like yours, only to be followed days later by another report of somebody being mauled/killed by these dogs that "have never bitten anybody before"

Why mention the UK in particular? I think you should have compared it to the USA who are past masters in legal claims for trivialities. I recall an incident a few years back where a bus was involved in an accident in New York. Apparently (and I am not 100% sure of the numbers!) about 30 people made claims for injuries sustained - mostly whiplash, but when the case came to court, it transpired that there were only a dozen or so people on the bus, the rest being bystanders who jumped on and feigned injuries! Apparently, not an isolated incident! By the way, to get back on topic, "The dogs had never attacked before." Oh, that's all right then, is it? I suppose they also promised never to do it again? Are they going to the temple to apologise to the corpse?

And here we go again! Just WHEN will Thailand do something about these killers?

Didn't I hear a rumour that he had a lot of money invested in the "ganqa" business?

OK - last words from me on the subject as you are being so disagreeable:- I did NOT say you were English, I said that you were using "poor English" (No full stops, and also your spelling isn't brilliant (exageration?) And doctor's writing is renowned for being fairly unintelligible, but as English is not your native language, you're forgiven! And I am not insulting you, I am just not wanting to get into stupid disagreements about "not totally true" or "totally untrue" - I did try to bring it to a halt by saying it was all getting "a bit pedantic", but you immediately insulted ME, by saying "Yes, you are".? As I said before - good night!

40 years as a doctor, and "seeing thousands of lives ruined ...." (Slight exaggeration, perhaps?) you still differentiate between drugs AND alcohol - I thought they were both drugs? And I have never heard a doctor use the terminology "druggie", or use the words "Best is not to drink alcohol or take drugs". (Poor English) - Just sayin'! Anyway, I (and probably a few others) are getting tired of this "repartee" - I tried to tactfully draw it to a close earlier but your doctor's skin is obviously not made for compromise, so I bid you good day and enjoy the rest of your drug free and alcohol free evening. Bye!

Nothing to do with you, I suppose? You can get on to your back foot again now!

It was on here (AN)a couple of weeks ago that Phuket was at "saturation point" with tourists, and they were going to try to reduce the numbers somehow.

I can read quite well thank you - I don't need you to tell me to! And I think you are really nit picking a bit with your "not totally true" and "totally untrue" comment. Nobody said it was "totally untrue" except you just now. The point being made is that for the most part, people who use cannabis as a recreational drug rather than alcohol are less likely to become violent and beat people up "like drunk football supporters", but you have to say "not totally true" and then go on a "rant" about the negative effects of cannabis? Who is saying that it is totally true - not the poster, because the way I read it, he has already made the point already by the use of the word "usually". It's all getting a bit pedantic, don't you think?

I think it goes a bit deeper than that. He seems to think like a lot of Thais that Thailand is the centre of the Universe, and Thais are the master race - obviously you can see where that leaves "farangs"

But if he was PM, you can guarantee that he would try to make life as awkward as he could - he doesn't care about TAT figures/stats. That is one of the conundrums about living in Thailand - one part of the Government wants as many tourists as it can cram on to the beaches, and the other says there are too many! But that is for another post - this one is trying to make sense of how such a buffoon could even be considered for such a position

I concur! The king of turnarounds who seems to make a habit of shooting his mouth off, and making decisions before engaging his brain resulting in him being a human hub of uncertainty - not the ideal man to have as PM of a country.

He doesn't like farangs!!!

Point taken, which is one reason why I put the word "addicted" in the same sentence as I put "junkie"! For the most part junkies are addicted to heroin, and other "hard" drugs, but not cannabis. As for the other comments in my post regarding the comments by "AnotherOneHere" I stand by every one of them - injecting cannabis? And inject it in the shop where you bought it? Total nonsense from an uneducated bigot.

Pathetic comment! Just shows how little knowledge some people have of Cannabis!:- 1. According to Google, a definition of "junkie" is " a person who is addicted to narcotics and especially to heroin. One does not get "addicted" to cannabis. 2. You do NOT inject cannabis! You can EAT it, in for instance, a "cookie", but under normal circumstances you would SMOKE it. 3. It is illegal to partake of cannabis in the shop where you bought it - in the same way as it is probably illegal to drink alcohol in Macro or Tesco. "AnotherOneHere"? Sounds about right - Go get some drugs education before you start spouting nonsense!

I concur! More U turns than an RSM on a parade ground! Businessman he may be, but politician he is not, and loses his cool at the drop of a hat.

"Life is short please behave yourselves n be good boys and girls 🤣🤣😂" "And you take care of yourselves out there on the street"

".......Thailand's lax immigration policies" Not if you are a bona fide "good guy" wanting to make an annual extension by means of marriage to a Thai national, when the object seems to be to make things as difficult as possible. But of course, I am not included in TAT's figures, and therefore do not affect their tourist figures statistics.

I pay 1990 baht per year to extend my Visa based on Marriage to a Thai National, and the same price applies to my to neighbour who has an extension based on Retirement. 6770 baht per month totals 81,240 baht per year which I do not find "quite reasonable"!!! But it depends on how much you are prepared to pay to avoid all the hoops that Immigration make you jump through every year I suppose

One of my pet hates - standing in a queue at a Supermarket checkout while a customer waves his phone at some sign and waiting for what seems 5 minutes while the system checks and double checks the transaction. And if it doesn't work - OH deary me, what do we do now? I know, I'll go to the ATM and get some cash! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Did you not notice that TAT are involved in the disputed figures? Of course you did! Whenever TAT are involved with figures - take with a dose of abundant reservation:- "Furthermore, Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) officials visited Cha-am Beach, reporting higher activity levels than suggested by viral posts." "Similarly, at Amphawa Floating Market, TAT representatives observed a steady flow of Thai and international visitors enjoying the market's offerings."

TAT are involved with disputing the figures. WHAT A SURPRISE! (NOT!)

Guess that's an intentional typo!

Hub of turnarounds and bums on seats