Dene16

22 hours ago, webfact said:

Somkid said that Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha should not neglect the fact that senators had too much power and could choose a premier twice -- a period of eight years.

Wasn't that the point when he appointed 250 senators ( 3 months before the start of the election), so that he would maintain control even if he lost the election?

Please correct me if i am wrong but i'm sure the prime minister is not necessary the leader of the winning party after an election, but is voted by the senate.

5 hours ago, webfact said:

Thai PM vows justice over dropping of Red Bull heir hit-and-run case

When he finds out who did not provide him with his cut, justice will definitely be served

4 hours ago, webfact said:

Thailand drops charges against Red Bull heir in deadly hit-and-run

Wow! just another reason Thailand will forever be seen as a dictatorship with no sensible legal system allowing corruption to continue unabated.

This is a sad day in Thailand's history

2 hours ago, Grumpy John said:

How does a Thai get the rebate?   I saw mention of a web site to register but the wife says she cannot find it. 

Google 40% thai rebate and it will say that the list of hotels that offer this can be found at the coconuts website click on the link to go there and you will find another link to go to the place you are looking for

2 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

As far as I understand it, Thai civil law doesn't involve binding precedent rulings.

You are totally correct unless previously made in the supreme court and then some credence will be given to the ruling but still not binding.

Thailand has a civil law system but influenced by common law, apparently?

Unfortunately this is not the supreme court, however, this must still give us all hope that the 'tide is changing' as they say

1 minute ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

I didn't think Thailand recognized the notion of common law marriage.

I didn't think they did either.

Even in the UK where everyone thinks there is such a thing it is not legally excepted/ no such thing in the eyes of the law

Each partner has to prove that that they are both named on utility bills etc  and prove that they have contributed equability to the house or car beyond all possible doubt.

7 hours ago, Badbanker said:

This is not a legal precedent, as there have been many cases in the past, in which the court has found that the person who invested the money to purchase the assets while in a relationship, retains the right to use the asset or to liquidate them and retrieve the money.

No but there is a strong probability that it will now. You obviously have little knowledge of the legal system in which case law is used extensively to make judicial decisions.

This is a landmark case, maybe, Thailand is coming of age in this department. 

People have walked away in the past because of the advice and beliefs given by patrons of this forum (not necessarily incorrect at that time)

This hopefully is the turning point where the saying don't invest in Thailand what you are not prepared to throw away becomes debatable.

4 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

Size means nothing if you don't know what you're doing.

Sorry but size is everything. If you do not know what you are doing with it she certainly will. Spend spend spend

We are talking about wallets aren't we?

4 hours ago, bkk6060 said:

So, is there some issue with this for future reference for me so I can be correct in my comments. 

He probably means he is British but meaning English. 

There is a lot of controversy, especially with brexit, over our nationality with nearly all of Scotland, Northern Ireland, and a considerable portion of Wales wishing to stay within Europe partly because of the subsidiaries they will lose on coming out

Both Northern Ireland and Wales are a cost to the British taxpayer while Scotland believe they can survive on their North Sea reserves and be better off (won't last for ever) 

If that is their choice, like britmantoo, they can **** off, have their independence and i am happy to call myself English

20 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Did you by any chance apply at the Phuket or Phang Nga IO for your O-A retirement extension?

Firstly thank you for the relevant information looks like i will try to keep the OA extension just change the reason.

Secondly, no, i did not apply at any of the above offices it was chong chom  immigration 

They could see that my stay was only for 1 month after this date and that i had a return ticket

I always have insurance for the time i am there but this is normally 3 or 4 months worth from an  independent source

25 minutes ago, BritTim said:

With a multiple entry Non O visa, you certainly do need to leave after 90 days unless you get an extension of your permission to stay.

Thank you. The Australian that lived by me (now returned to Australia) was on this for many many years. In fact he claimed that everyone he knew was on also on it. 

8 minutes ago, spornb said:

Clarification would be appreciated

you will need to state what visa your extension is based upon

Drjack54 got there before me

I had no problem renewing my OA extension based on retirement in January of this year(no insurance required). This post has now raised doubt that my next extension could be problematic. 

Question: can i change the reason for extension to marriage on my OA extension so that the insurance is not required, i could also go down the dependant route as i have a child

I don't really want to go down the non o visa route as this requires leaving the country every 3 months (only normally here for 3 months at a time but there may come a time when things change) Not married yet but will deal with that when necessary

I did my extension of stay in January of this year (800k in bank method) no mention of insurance was mentioned or asked by immigration. Am i missing something or has everything changed in the last couple of months? 

Just now, bodga said:

Because  having it  on your hands never  happens  right? The  main transportation method.

read the post correctly.

Always has to be some smart ass with a pointless  statement.

My point was obvious (but not for some) that the wearing of masks (if everyone was to wear one) will stop/slow the spread of the virus. All the people standing outside the shops are not shaking your hand, are they!

I don't dispute your statement but have also been told by numerous medical staff that you cannot wash your hands enough in a day to combat the virus (would have to be every 20 minutes was quoted to me) but anything is better than nothing

The fact that it is the main transportation method can also be argued. i quote

The virus that causes COVID-19 is mainly transmitted through droplets generated when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or speaks. 

If someone then touches an infected surface, of course they then can then become infected

Its called stopping it at the root cause 

1 hour ago, andy72 said:

UK the viral numbers speak for themselves
they are still mulling over if the public should be made to wear a mask

I am in the UK. People are out and about no masks whatsoever (maybe 5% at most)  I know a number of people at the hospital including nurses and admin staff who inform me that the social distancing is virtually useless if people are not wearing a mask (people standing outside shops in queues 150 metres long  where even a slight wind blowing  will send any virus half the length of the queue . Masks are there to protect others from you, therefore all have to wear one in  order for it be of use.

If infected, by the time you realise it, you will have infected multiple other people simply because you are not wearing a mask. When these imbeciles have infected their parents, grandparents etc (high risk of death) maybe they will have a different outlook.

If everyone were to wear a mask the virus cannot spread buts its everyone or nothing

If you look at the countries that already were prevalent in the wearing of masks and therefore the population immediately used masks on a virtual 100% basis their death rate and exposure were minute in relation to other countries

23 hours ago, EricTh said:

the chances of Thai girl marrying a much older men for love and not money is near zero.

Do you take pleasure in crushing the hopes and dreams of these forum patrons

Anyway mines different.

4 hours ago, Enzian said:

People unable to even leave their villages. So I would argue that measures are being taken.

just outside of Surin checkpoints on all roads leading from villages with everyone being checked for temperature before they are able to leave or enter. this hasn been in operation for a number of days now

No local shops have or are selling alcohol due to risk of huge fine if caught

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

Was a 9 or 10 when first hired, but like most women in LTRs, 3-5 years and they aren't.

Haha i know what you mean

16 hours ago, kiever said:

no never i would do it for a girl in my home country.. but in my home country i would never have a girl at less than half age of mine.

If you had a girl, more than half your age in your country what would you think if she asked for loads of jewellery?

Thais do have an expectation and obsession with gold. BUT Listen to what she is saying ( my friends boyfriends buy for them why not you)   

Give her what she wants and as long as your money continues to flow she may stay with you but don't hold your breath.

A case in my village recently where a farang just got married built a very nice house (in the village) and brand new car. 9 months later, according to her, he apparently, left her. ( she has never lived in the house and stays in the city

She already has a condo in Pattaya ( how she got that no one will tell me or knows)

She is extremely attractive,I call her the black widow. 

Most relationships i have seen here are genuine with the ages about 15 years difference but if you believe she fancies you with a huge age gap then you are deluded

On 3/14/2020 at 9:00 AM, stephenterry said:

I would reason it's inconceivable that Thailand has such a published low Covid 19 infection rate

I completely concur with your assessment. With over 25% of its tourists coming from china and the fact that for someone to have a fever is not classed as abnormal especially in children.

I have always said that the children here have to spend 10% of there youth in a sick state until they get the immunities necessary to combat the various viruses that often occur here.

The times i have heard 'oh he has fever'

They all share the same cup and glass when drinking, whether it be water or whiskey and

share the same spoon when eating

The place is a viruses heaven in the making