sambum

"So why is it on this forum we can not use the headline "Brit assaults taxi driver" Normally they would, but in this case it's a tuk tuk driver - maybe not part of the same mafia family?

You saw what on the Thai news? That he was charged? Everything on your posts screams out "TROLL" so you are going on my "ignore" list - I have given you the benefit of the doubt on previous occasion, but not any more. You won't be winding ME up any more!

"He is obviously a Brit. And obviously in the wrong. Short changed the taxi driver and then physically assaulted him." I will agree with your first point about being a Brit, and physically assaulted him with a slap, but that is all. How do you know he tried to short change the "taxi" driver, and not the other way round? Why did the tuk tuk driver not show the Brit the note that he paid the fare with? And I think you will find that in most cases when a Brit is involved, they are called a Brit in the headline, other nationalities for the most part are called foreigners in the headline, and their nationality disclosed in the ensuing text - as well you know.

As another poster has already pointed out, the "beer swizzling foreign tourist" appears to be asking the tuk tuk driver to show him the note that he paid him with - which the driver refuses to do. And the fact that he declined to go to the police station impies to me that he suspects that the police would be more inclined to believe the tuk tuk driver than him - after all, it does appear to be the "slag a foreigner" season at the moment! Not condoning the violence, but it was hardly a "Mike Tyson special" - more of a slap to show his frustration at being scammed. However, it does appear from a later post that he is being charged for assault. I wonder what happened the numerous other times when Thai taxi/tuk tuk drivers have ganged up on and assaulted tourists in disputes over fares?

Obviously one more moron who doesn't believe that tuk tuk drivers have a reputation for trying to scam their customers?

The amount is irrelevant - if the fare was 400 baht and 1000 baht was given over, the customer is entitled to his change! It's a scam! And the fact that the baht bus/tuk tuk driver "makes a pittance" and his passenger "can afford to fly to Thailand 3 times a year" is also irrelevant. It's a scam! The passenger appears to be asking the tuk tuk driver to show him the note that he paid him with, and the driver didn't, so yes, it's still a scam! (In the video - after the tourist departed the scene, it appars to me that the driver appears to be "smirking" Anybody else see it that way?)

How do you know that the "British dolt doesn't know the difference between a 100 and 1000 baht note"? How do you know that he didn't hand over 1000 baht and not 100 baht? How do you know that the driver wasn't trying the old 1000 baht/100 baht trick?

And if he did hand over 500 or 1000 baht for the 400 baht trip?

So you're suggesting the tuk tuk driver should be deported?

Once again thank you - but do you know when the "freezing" of annual pension increments for ex pats was introduced?

Thank you for that - it states that the inception of the Basic Pension was in 1948, , but I was looking for something that specifically mentions the fact that pensions for ex pats were frozen. Somebody else mentioned 1946, but I find that doubtful if, as you pointed out, the Pension Scheme didn't start until 1948!

Where did you get that date from? I've been trawling many sites, and can't seem to get anyone to tie it down to a particular time or ruling. The best I have come up with is "70 years" or "more than 70 years" Thanks in advance!

Yes, not much to report on "foreigners behaving badly" at that time - slow news day? Almost as newsworthy as this from the local newspaper in my old hometown in the UK:- "Two teenagers were witnessed throwing eggs at a property on Gote Road. Whilst doing so, they caused some disruption to traffic travelling in and out of Cockermouth, along this route. The teenagers have been described as wearing hoods up covering their faces, black padded jackets and one had a white hoody on."

So, you are saying that I falsified my figures? Calling me a liar? OK - here is the Header page and date of the UK Government Hansard, and all text up to the relevant figures that I quoted previously from the statement. (I have underlined the figures in question.) If you have any trouble in reconciling them, I suggest you take it up with the Minister for Immigration, Mr Robert Jenrick the MP responsible for the statement:-. Hansard UK Parliament Hansard Commons Chamber Illegal Migration Bill: Economic Impact Assessment Illegal Migration Bill: Economic Impact Assessment Volume 735: debated on Tuesday 27 June 2023 JUN 27 2023 Download text Back to top Previous debate Next debate Column 149is located here 12.38pm Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) Sharethis specific contribution (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the publication of the impact assessment on the Illegal Migration Bill. The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick) Sharethis specific contribution The Illegal Migration Bill is critical to stopping the boats. Its intent is clear: if someone comes to the UK illegally, they should be detained and swiftly returned to their home country if safe, or relocated to a safe third country such as Rwanda. The impact assessment published yesterday makes clear that inaction is simply not an option. The volumes and costs associated with illegal migration have risen exponentially, driven by small boat arrivals. Unless we act decisively to stop the boats, the cost to the taxpayer and the damage to society will continue to grow. The asylum system currently costs £3.6 billion a year and £6 million a day in hotel accommodation, but that is not the true cost of doing nothing. As this impact assessment shows, the cost of accommodating illegal migrants has increased dramatically since 2020. If these trends continued, the Home Office would be spending over £11 billion a year, or £32 million a day, on asylum support by the end of 2026. In such a scenario, the Bill would only need to deliver a 2% deterrence in arrivals to enable cost savings.

Erm? They haven't implemented it yet! :- "Thailand's Customs Department will start charging Value-Added Tax (VAT) on all imported postal goods next month."

Oh,give over trolling!!!

Irrelevant.

From a UK Parliament Hansard article regarding The Illegal Migration Bill - essentially not taking into account the legal migrants:- "The Illegal Migration Bill is critical to stopping the boats. ...........................The asylum system currently costs £3.6 billion a year and £6 million a day in hotel accommodation, but that is not the true cost of doing nothing. As this impact assessment shows, the cost of accommodating illegal migrants has increased dramatically since 2020. If these trends continued, the Home Office would be spending over £11 billion a year, or £32 million a day, on asylum support by the end of 2026. In such a scenario, the Bill would only need to deliver a 2% deterrence in arrivals to enable cost savings."

I think you should have gone to Specsavers - "Dinsdale" made the point you are referring to - NOT ME!

Then why are they coming to the UK in their boatloads for "a better way of life"? :- "Thousands of migrants rescued in Channel, crossings to UK at second-highest on record By Emma Wallis Published on : 2023/12/04 Latest update : 2023/12/05 Thousands of migrants have arrived in Britain after crossing the Channel in small boats in the last seven days. Over the weekend, French authorities also rescued over 200 migrants off the coast of Calais. Crossings have hit the second-highest level on record. Migrant crossings in the Channel over the last few days have increased once more. According to data from the British government, 1,264 migrants reached the English coast after crossing the Channel in small boats between November 26 and December 2."

I think that "back then", in the days before the internet and "hand held computers", most pensioners would probably get their information "passed down" by the guy sitting at the next seat in the bar/working mans club! I can just see John Smith getting an envelope full of what he would consider "gobbledegook", showing it to a mate, and asking "What do you think this lot means?" And his mate replying, "Oh, nowt to worry about - it's just them telling you when your pension starts - everybody gets one of them!"

In some parts, bikes have got to be parked closely together otherwise you wouldn't be able to get parked in the same town that you were visiting!

"You could be making a turn, be delayed in clearing the opposite lane,....." If you were delayed in clearing the opposite lane, surely you shouldn't be turning anyway? The car is at fault for not indicating his intention to turn. If he had indicated, the motor bike rider may have slowed down, or at the least, have been aware of the car drivers intentions.

Luxury car - no signal to indicate that he was turning. Motorbike appeared to be going fast, but the rider wasn't thrown very far, and didn't appear to be seriously injured. However, the thing that is apparent from the clip is that the couple seemed more concerned about their car than the motorcyclist! Didn't even give him a glance!