zaphod reborn

2 hours ago, BobBKK said:

What?  Trump was elected or had you not noticed?  stop deflecting this is not about TRUMP it is about the UNELECTED leader of a Military Junta.

James Clapper, former CIA director:  “To me, it just exceeds logic and credulity that they didn’t affect the election, and it’s my belief they actually turned it.”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/russia-turned-election-for-trump-clapper-believes 

The only deal is that the US agreed to halt joint military exercises in exchange for N. Korea taking possession of 100 empty boxes.

5 hours ago, webfact said:

Prayut . . . is not the legitimate leader of Thailand

And Trump is not the legitimate leader of the U.S.  Tough.  We are stuck with them.

Did Erdogan send absentee ballots to Michael Flynn and Rudy Giuliani?

An "IT Whizz" doesn't come to Pattaya to run a boiler room scam.  Britain, once again, sending its worst to Thailand.  And people wonder why more Brits gets killed in Thailand than any other tourist destination.

In other words, no one bought Trump's victory speech and nomination for a Nobel Peace Prize, so let's float the denuclearization bluff again, because Trump's supporters are just that stupid.

Trump needs a new space agency to chase other worldly conspiracy theories.

5 hours ago, webfact said:

According to an order issued on Monday, U.S. District Judge James Otero decided it was unnecessary to hear arguments on the request by Daniels' lawyer Michael Avenatti to lift a 90-day stay imposed on April 28.

Judge Otero is waiting for Cohen to announce he flipped on Trump and has entered into a plea agreement.  Once Cohen flips, the stay can be lifted because the 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination dissolves.

So Trump, with over a dozen allegations of sexual misconduct made against him, pardoned boxer Jack Johnson, whose first wife committed suicide following incidents of domestic violence and infidelity, at the request of Sylvester Stallone, who has had a rape allegation filed against him.  See a pattern?

2 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

The definition of 'emergency' is accepted.  What rationale excuses employers from paying its employees during said emergency?

That's not the issue.  Employers still pay time and a half for OT.  The issue is whether the employer can require the employee to work the OT.  In normal circumstances, the employee consents to the OT assignment.  In emergencies, employers can require, and could even immediately discharge the employee for refusing to work OT.

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

I wonder what emergencies means?

 

I want more production, or an emergency linked to safety etc?

The LPA suggests that an emergency exists where if the work was not performed on an overtime basis, the employer would suffer substantial damage.  Therefore, fall dead production deadlines and labor shortages could fall under this exception.

Quote

Whereas the description or nature of work requires it to be performed continuously and stoppage may cause damage to the work, or it is emergency work, or other work as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations, an Employer may require an Employee to work overtime as necessary.

It's quite difficult to escape from the tight grip the immigration officers have on the border.  Here's the proof of their commendable efforts from today's news.  http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/two-immigration-officers-face-probe-phra-prommethis-escape/

Yes, only the best from one of the world's highest cuisines.  I wouldn't expect anything better from the denizens of Pattaya.

1 hour ago, Boon Mee said:

A non-starter in that Trump hasn't done anything wrong, why even consider pardoning himself? 

Exactly.  He heads a crime family that does all the dirty work for him.  He had guys like Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Erik Prince, Mike Flynn and Michael Cohen actually do the illegal acts.  Too bad he won't be able to pardon his co-conspirators, because SCOTUS isn't going to allow him to do that.

5 hours ago, robblok said:

No that is totally wrong that they can help themselves to a tennants property.

 

However the change that they can't charge extra for electricity is a bit crazy. Because they had an amount of money they could get for their rooms based on rent and electricity. So they could lower the rent but get it back on electricity and many did so keeping the rent low. Now all of a sudden they can't charge for the electricity and lose out. That is totally unfair they should be allowed to raise the rent then. 

 

I don't own property like that but i see it from a business owners point of view a tenant agrees to the terms and then the state changes it.  Had the property owner known this he would never have kept his rent this low. I dislike the making money on electricity but with it came a lower rent. 

 

 

You don't have a clue what you are talking about, do you?  In pertinent part, for the non-lawyers out there:

Quote

 

Residential lease agreements must not contain:
  * * *
5. Any term allowing the business operator to confiscate the security deposit or advance
rental fee;
* * *
8. Any term allowing the business operator to prevent or obstruct the lessee’s access to
the property to seize or remove the lessee’s belongings if the lessee defaults on rental
fees or other expenses related to the lease of the property;
* * *
11. Any term making the lessee liable for damages incurred due to ordinary wear and tear
from usage of the property’s contents and equipment;
12. Any term making the lessee liable for damage to the property, contents, and
equipment that was not the lessee’s fault and in force majeure situations; and
13. Any term making the lessee liable for defects to the property, contents, and equipment
incurred due to ordinary wear and tear through usage.
Under section 35 quarter of the Consumer Protection Act, a residential lease agreement that
includes any of the prohibited terms above shall be interpreted as not including them.
Any business operator who fails to meet the above requirements may be subject to
imprisonment not exceeding one year and/or a fine not exceeding THB 100,000 (section 57 of
the Consumer Protection Act).

New landlord-tenant code summary