Pattszero

It's a bit ironic to see people slating the life out of Thai law and demanding European companies boycott Thai products.

People that support the Thai economy by living there.

It's a mixed up world that we live in, to be sure.

Most people I know can afford business class but choose not to pay the money. I know someone that recently flew business class UK to BKK for £1200 - I think it was China Southern or some such company.

So there's a question - economy £600 or business class £1200 - would you pay the £600 extra?

Or do you just enjoy moaning about economy even though you could have paid your way out of it?

".well-wishers crowded round him, some weeping,offering roses and calling his name" - Idiots. Still trying to curry favor with this crook. Beggars belief!

Most likely paid them to weep. Just like he paid them to vote for him.

And what is this deal with surrendering to anyone but the Phuket police. Very strange indeed.

They own the Phuket police - I'm happier that the Navy has them.

http://www.matribunal.com/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2957428/Sharia-law-courts-operating-in-Britain.html

Quote from second article - "The government has quietly sanctioned that their rulings are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. Previously, the rulings were not binding and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims."

Sorry didn't see your post - crossover -

Ruling must comply to the procedures of the UK 1996 Arbitration Act

No problem -

Hence why I said "tribunal," and not court.

http://www.matribunal.com/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2957428/Sharia-law-courts-operating-in-Britain.html

Quote from second article - "The government has quietly sanctioned that their rulings are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. Previously, the rulings were not binding and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims."

I haven't read all the replies - Sharia tribunals are already part of the legal framework in the UK.

No, they are not. As I said above, like Beth Din, they are voluntary and their rulings are not legally enforceable.

Did you note the word, tribunal?

But what are approximate boundaries of the Jihadists " expectations " when living in another country? We never hear about exactly what they are demanding ?

They, particularly the radicals, want to establish a Muslim-like community. They are fixated on themselves being right about everything, so therefore everyone who thinks differently is wrong or worse (heretical, heathen, atheist, demonic, ....whatever). The moderates may be decent, but they're totally cowed by the shrill activists - particularly the ones brandishing weapons and continually shouting 'Allah Akbar' and preceding and ending each sentence they utter with 'God willing.'

For example surely they realise introducing Sharia law would be out of the question in the UK (or indeed any other non-Moslem country).

Pardon me for calling you naive, but it's very much NOT out of the question. Granted, it's too early now to force Sharia on GB, but concerted efforts will inevitably happen - between 15 and 40 years from now. It doesn't take a majority of the populace to ram through such legislation. When has a Muslim country ever given a hoot for democracy? In Egypt, there's some backlash against radicalization, but that's because the Egyptians are familiar with religious radicals and know they have to deal with them harshly, to have any affect. British authorities, on the other hand, are inclined to try dialog and reason. Indeed, most Bobbies still don't carry guns. They're going to get some 'wake up calls' when heavily armed baddies shouting 'Allah Akbar' start stirring up trouble.

I haven't read all the replies - Sharia tribunals are already part of the legal framework in the UK.

^^ My point is Jihad has been going on for hundreds of years and would be going on regardless of the actions of Bush/Blair etc. It's simply Islamic extremism.

The ambassador answered us that [their right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

The above passage is not a reference to a declaration by al Qaeda or some Iranian fatwa. They are the words of Thomas Jefferson, then the U.S. ambassador to France, reporting to Secretary of State John Jay a conversation he'd had with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, Tripoli's envoy to London, in 1786 -- more than two and a quarter centuries ago.

That is before al Qaeda and the Taliban, before the creation of Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict, before Khomeini, before Saudi Arabia, before drones, before most Americans even knew what jihad or Islam was, and, most importantly, well before the United States had engaged in a single military incursion overseas or even had an established foreign policy.

So tell me about the multiple Jihadist activities in the UK between the mid-60's and the start of the Iraq War.

Like the Iranian Embassy siege?

Are you serious?

Is that the best you can do?

Unbelievable.

^^ My point is Jihad has been going on for hundreds of years and would be going on regardless of the actions of Bush/Blair etc. It's simply Islamic extremism.

The ambassador answered us that [their right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

The above passage is not a reference to a declaration by al Qaeda or some Iranian fatwa. They are the words of Thomas Jefferson, then the U.S. ambassador to France, reporting to Secretary of State John Jay a conversation he'd had with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, Tripoli's envoy to London, in 1786 -- more than two and a quarter centuries ago.

That is before al Qaeda and the Taliban, before the creation of Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict, before Khomeini, before Saudi Arabia, before drones, before most Americans even knew what jihad or Islam was, and, most importantly, well before the United States had engaged in a single military incursion overseas or even had an established foreign policy.

So tell me about the multiple Jihadist activities in the UK between the mid-60's and the start of the Iraq War.

Brian, ............I'm really hurt.......

Surly your used to banter between --Scots & English,

.

.

A while back I was watching Frankie Boyle talk on TV........ "In Scotland we have mixed feelings

.about Global warming, because

. We will get to sit on the mountains

. & watch the English Drown"......................

.

Anyway its not Idiot.......its eed-ject.... Jimmy

That reminds me - I need to go outside and leave my diesel engine's running all night.

Just as a side issue - a friend of mine is going through a twelve week lung washing treatment to remove asbestos particles ( as I understand it ) - I thought he was for the steak pie before he was diagnosed - and even now, every day after the treatment you'd be a kind man to shoot him.

I hope your friend isn't paying for that as it is total nonsense.

It's on the NHS - I'll let them know you say it's nonsense.

Just as a side issue - a friend of mine is going through a twelve week lung washing treatment to remove asbestos particles ( as I understand it ) - I thought he was for the steak pie before he was diagnosed - and even now, every day after the treatment you'd be a kind man to shoot him.

Only an idiot believes that democracy is important. It's an irrelevance - and far too many in the west have fallen for the lie.

What makes it even more shameful is that most westerners have convinced themselves they live in democracies - an idiotic stance, embarrassing to behold.

The only thing that matters in any society is the rule of law.

if that is your definition of idiot, then call me 'stu-peey'

and proud of it.

I'll take democracy over the alternative any day of the week.

You've never lived in a democracy.

What is the proof of your assertion? Or is this just a meaningless or idiotic statement comment?

It's a statement of fact - tell which democracy you have lived in.

The democracy lie is the greatest lie told to the masses.

Be careful of not making an idiot of yourself by replying something like the UK, or the USA - which are not democracies, and never have been.

No more Chang wife beater shirts?

Hopefully - that would make it worth it.

Retirement Visa

do they retire in thailand? in my village nobody has enough money to do it, also the government give 500 baths a mounth to old people only

now tell me:

1)in europe who can retire at 50?

2) who has enough money to retire defenitly at 50?

3) do you really think that a real rich person who has enough money will honestly retire in thailand ?

4)what is the concept of retired in thailand? only the fact that you can show 800 000 baths in a bank and you are over 50 ?

to me the visas in thailand should be revoqued to give them a new name more in accordance with the reality

also people who are married with a thai person should have a status and a real visa to stay here and work too..like every where in the world....not this stupid non immigrant visa....who doesnt mean anything. of course we are immigrant.

when you leave your own country to go to live in an another one , then you become an immigrant....only in thailand this doesnt mean the same.

Of course there are people from Europe that can retire when they are 50-55 years old. When you apply for the non O based on retirement in my home country, then you have to show proof and papers that you actually are retired.

I became a retired soldier aged 41 years old with a pension. I could live in the UK on it, but it would be a miserable existence, or I could (and do) live here with a great big cheshire cat smile on my face and count my blessings. Thank you Buddha :-)

Talk about contradicting yourself on the same thread - so tell me - who can legally retire in the UK at 35?

one assumes my dear little timmy, you have statisical data to prove your assertion that a so called "freelancer" (which BTW in the Thai context is a polite term for a whore) earns 10 to 20 times an average Thai worker ? or as always are just pulling various "statistics" out your bottom ?

So freelancers are just a bunch of unclean whores? Ok

I have absolutely no idea, my dear Timwin, but seeing as "freelancer" is being thrown about so much on TV so much, I just thought I should point out for those who may not live in Thailand and reading this thread that the term "freelancer" has a completely different connotation in Thailand, ie it typically refers to a lady/or gentleman of the night, who sells sexual favours in exchange for money, I am not completely familar with all things "freelancer", but it seems you are, so let me ask you the question are they selling sexual favours in exchange for cash ?

Based on what you read on here large numbers of digital nomands will do just about anything to stay in in Thailand, but think seeling themselves are rent boys is a little extreme...

maybe this is why the Thai authorities are resisting handing out "freelance" visa's as they believe, they would get gangs of "professsionals" turning up Thailand, going into competition with the local adult entertainment "business".

also one suspects an "unclean" whore in most cases is a lot "cleaner" than a non whore, given the nature of the business they are in...

I think we will leave this here, as dont want to resurect your fixation with old white men again...

Troll post.

Accoring to ther article she got immunity for prosecution if she returned the kids. This bit made me smile" The British Embassy, despite huge pressure, appears to have done absolutely nothing to help. " Surprising

It had nothing to do with the British Embassy.

The OP is wrong - the minimum pensionable age in the UK is thirty-five.

It boils down to

"We're not interested in pursuing tourists that work online.

We are interested in pursuing people that attempt to live in Thailand on continuous tourist and visa-exempt entries."

Simple - and common sense.

This Betty McKenzie schtick is laughable - her actions were foolish, and Thailand is still paying the price to this very day. It was merely the fact that the State Department professionals were overrun that Thailand managed to squeak out of a rightful reckoning.

She saved millions of Thais from starvation. Check the initial demands for rice and the actual rice paid. What State Department professionals were overrun? Check rightful reckoning with the terms of the Atlantic Charter.

No I don't actually expect you to actually read anything to educate yourself about the happenings of WWII. Stereotypic myths are much easier to learn and talk about.

But I'll make it easy for you. 1. How much rice was the initial demand from Thailand as war reparations? 2. How much was actually paid?

Below are some points of the Atlantic Charter.

1. no territorial gains sought by the United States or the United Kingdom;

2. territorial adjustments must be in accord with wishes of the people;

3. the right to self-determination of peoples;

4. trade barriers lowered.

http://www.atlanticcharter.ca/backgroundinfo.php

No, I don't think the Betty McKenzie thing is laughable. She saved Thailand from the same fate as Germany after WW I that led to the fascism of WW II.

Quote from Betty, "Well then we did save Thailand, but in many other ways we violated our statement that America would help people that would fight for their own freedom, because we went right in after the war and helped the French take back what was still Indochina in their terms, and helped the Dutch take back Indonesia, and so on and so on. And so we violated everything we'd said again there."

http://home.comcast.net/~dmckroot/thailand.htm

It is good people now realize what actually happened during and after WW II with the Atlantic Charter and Breton Woods and Betty McKenzie. WW II was more than a war against fascism it was a war against enslaving people regardless of who was the master.

Parts of the war we are still fighting.

Here we go again with the same dribbling garbage. When you were posting under the name KerryK you posted the same laughable claim. Thailand was an enemy state - the UK required rice for starving parts of India and Burma. The UK requested a requisition from the Thai stock to feed it's citizens.

Thailand had the largest stock of rice of any country in the world. It could easily have spared the requisite amount. There was no shortage or starvation in Thailand - and the other Thai crops were untouched. The notion that Thailand was on the edge of famine is an out and out lie.

The problem with guys like you - no matter when you post under your KerryK, Chiang Mai Kelly, or current guise - is that you can't help go back over the same old schtick time and time again. Don't post your poisonous lies on here and expect to go unchallenged

Seems to me there are some key words in the Chiang Mai article...

Not working for a Thai employer ... and... "nomad"

If you live in Thailand all or most of the time, you're not a nomad. So anything relating to a hypothetical digital nomad doesn't apply to you. If you are one of those people who is fortunate to be able to work digitally, and you in fact move around a lot, I suspect Thailand is not interested in trying to track and regulate your work -- provided you are not working for a thai employer and your work does not involve Thai commerce.

If you live in Thailand full time or most of the time, and are either self-employed or employed by a Thai company and your work is done online, you may well be subject to work permit requirements.

Seems to me the "nomad" part of "digital nomad" is pretty essential to understanding what the statement is about.

Nomads don't need to be on the move all of the time. Even traditional nomads would settle down by the oasis for the winter. Nomads in Thailand are now limited as to how many tourist visas they can get - so by definition, can't put down roots.

No roots? - nomad.

>Thats from the horses mouth, but in direct contradiction of every other immigration and labor office spokesperson or official statement.

No doubt it will soon be corrected in another statement saying that technically this kind of working is actually not allowed.

What they're really want to say is that this rule is not being enforced, and they are trying to rid the country of criminals and those working in jobs that Thai's could do.

If you're a digital nomad (or a millionaire playboy) it's interesting to know what the immigration and police departments deem worthy of enforcement.

The sanctimonious old codgers will continue to shout (where their ailing lungs allow) about their strict interpretation of the law and resentfully wish for the days of the 1900's when they were the only white man in town, and treated like the rare birds that they know themselves to be.

I do respectfully and humble; while doing so genuily, dare to ask an exact definition of a digital nomad?

Is it some random snipets of code who wander in the network, the so called 'angels' back in the 70' (term used in some Phd thesis at that time)?????

Or is a 'catch-all' word, used to easily define a group of human being unable to find a decent employment in their own country (too many candidates, so only the top best are selected) or in this country (too many candidates, even with top best out, so only the very best can compete)?

I do understand people such as Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckenberg or Bill Gates can, is they so choose, became digital nomads and earn billions a day working remotly; what I do not grasp is the same naming being used by Joe Smith, Mr Allcome, or a noboddy who barely get enought to buy a Chang in 7/11?

You may, if you please, P.M. and decline your qualities on the related field. Being who I am, with the qualifications I have, I rarely got any trouble to land a decent job with decent salary (6 digits a bare minimum in tbh) in the related field. Most of the so called digital nomad, SEO expert, coding guru, or whatever name; are usualy OR incompetent (at best not at the level they claim) OR lazy (unable to provide the amount of work a decent employer expect from employees) OR total fraud (sometimes the 3 at the same time).

LAst, being an old codger myself (or about, I prefer to define myself as old french fart), I found both pathetic and humoristic kids trying to explain me what life is about (they certainly did not pee where I did, and will never do so) , while on the same time trying to explain me what my work is about (digital nomad is anathema to most the specialities they claim to master). There are works that can be done remote (Sun promoted it, I believe Apple did it also at one time); but there are others that are not possible, depending too much of the local conditions of the network (and that is starter , easy to understand by layman people; obviously there is more to say about it, but it will become too much tech blahblah for that place).

So, in Thailand, the real Digital Nomad must be very very little, I would guess less than a hundred; and yes Immigration will turn a blind eye on them, because they make LOT of money to come here (and I do know it well, having the firt experience in 2003/2005 in Lopburi); here we are talking about well over 6 digits a month on a regulary basis. All the others, fighting to get a living at best in Thai standard (mean earning about 20 000) have no right , legaly AND moraly to claim for anything but the same as everyone. They get a visa allowing to do so, if there is not, then they shall move on; if they are high end residents I am quite sure LOT OF COUNTRIES will accept them .... In fact I do not even understand while they are still here, other expats do not love them, locals do not provide them with legal documentation, police want to expel them. Why are they still here??????????????

You don't know what you are talking about.

This Betty McKenzie schtick is laughable - her actions were foolish, and Thailand is still paying the price to this very day. It was merely the fact that the State Department professionals were overrun that Thailand managed to squeak out of a rightful reckoning.