Si Thea01

5 hours ago, simple1 said:

I see you have completely ignored the statements by those responsibly for Oz national security. Don't hate Hanson, but IMO she is a complete waste of space for the future of Australia.

 

In the past you have posted very bigoted hateful commentary, so no more response to your hypocrisy and baiting - bye

 

It was deliberately ignored because what they stated is irrelevant, they are out to destroy her, just like they tried in the past.  She even went to gaol but was later exonerated.  As for your last sentence, well what can one say except you are very scant with the truth but than most on here know that. 

2 minutes ago, simple1 said:

I recall a number of your very vitriolic posts - so....pot, kettle, black

The burqa dear boy, the burqa, is the topic. Not what you think you recall, so please stay on course.  

7 minutes ago, simple1 said:

I have kept an eye on Hanson's comments, she is rude, crude and vile. Her manifesto, IMO, makes no sense whatsoever regards the future stability & prosperity for Australia. I am an Australian citizen & support the head of Oz domestic security and the AG, who both clearly stated on the public record Hanson's views / actions are unhelpful. If you place more faith in Hanson, one wonders about you...

I have not placed my faith in anyone, just tired of people coming on here venting their hatred instead of sticking to the topic.  if you are an Aussie then maybe you should learn the old adage of a fair go for everyone or is it difficult to discuss someone with the adjectives being thrown about.

What is wrong with her bringing the attention to a garment that is demeaning to the women who wear it and prevents identification. Your remarks about the guy and woman wearing the burqa in an armed hold up is  clear indication that it should be banned in public

You do not have to wonder about me nor direct your demeaning remarks toward someone who challenges you.  And note, I am able to reply without resorting to the same. 

19 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Guess what, the guy wasn't a Muslim. Could just as easily worn a balaclava. Hanson's is purely a far right populist, other minorities which she identified in the past were also red meat for her demographic. It's all about her trying to obtain some influence / money, she's a deceitful, spiteful, nasty individual, nothing about what's good for Australia, only about her.

I see you have an intimate knowledge of her character or is this comment just a leftover from what is being said of others.  Can't you say something without be rude, crude, vile and absolutely irrelevant.  This is about her wearing a burqa, not how much you hate her.  Are you even an Aussie? but no wonder there are divides, you are doing a great job of it. 

The male version of Merkel. Reap what you sow.  What a clown, my sympathies to the Canadians. 

I just recently moved to a new mo ban and the amount of dogs are unbelievable, some homes with at least 4, others with 6 or more but at least they are locked up, with the exception of one, who tried to attack me whilst I was walking my German Shepherd.

Not a wise move, my boy put himself between me and the mongrel, took him down once by the throat, he got up came back for seconds and he was taken down, again by the throat and was given a good licking.  I'd say he was sore for quite some time after and haven't seen it since.

Maybe you need a bigger dog, one that is not fearful so you don't have to use the inhumane tactics that some are suggesting.  I know it can be frustrating but if this avenue is not open to you, then speak to the village head, who will normally put an end to it.

On 8/21/2017 at 5:35 AM, over it said:

Sounds like the captain is up to his neck in it. So, seemingly, a good girl is dead and a typical Thai male is the culprit. Maybe Thai women should wake up about Thai men. They leave a lot... to be desired.                                                                 

You are correct and if you got out and about and talk to the educated ones you will find that many are waking up, some a little late after being treated like a second rate person but they are waking up, believe me. It is a shame that it is not being felt across the board but given time it may well happen more and more.

Given the circumstances, as brief as they are, it does not look good and there may well be a very sad ending to this scenario, although one hopes not.  Given there is allegedly an outstanding debt, her car has been resold on three separate occasions and she has supposedly abandoned her child, it smell to high heaven.  Most of us know how Thai women care for their children so if she is found alive, I for one will be surprised.  I really hope that I am wrong.  

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

I'd bet that the insurance guy quietly took care of the bail bond during the time it took to establish that the scooter was at fault.  Since they do it every day, it may have been as simple as a nod to the cops that you've got cover.  You (and your wife) may not have even had to know everything that was going on in the background from a legal standpoint.  That's what the 200,000 bail bond clause is for.  (Edit:  and keeping in mind that's just my guess, I'm happy to hear that it can be that seamless should I be in an accident with good insurance.  I had visions of a day or 2 in the hoosegow while the insurance company came up with the dough.)

 

Related to the accident under discussion here, it seems that one linked article has the police charging the guy, and another article indicating that they're contemplating charges.  In either case, it makes sense to do something that would keep the guy from scooting toward the nearest international airport while they're investigating.  

 

Just because he was in the correct lane doesn't mean he wasn't drunk, or speeding, or  pulling out into traffic, or any of a dozen scenarios that need to be determined before he's allowed to leave the country.  It may be days before any blood work comes in on him and the deceased, and CCTV footage is viewed and any witness statements.

 

I don't know why you are suggesting that things were maybe happening in the background.  I would take your money if you insist on betting. 5555.   My wife is very well educated, a teacher, and is not a dummy and as I also speak Thai (and have 30 years law enforcement experience) so I think I am aware of what was needed to be asked, as she would be.

Admittedly my experience is not in Thailand but the questions asked are on similar grounds  So with my wife and I speaking with the representative, I think we had a fairly good idea what was happening in the background, and of course we would have to know what the legalities were, the insurer is acting on her behalf, not the victim.  My wife provided a statement,  was never charged, no arrest warrant issued, therefore no need for a bail bond. It was just a matter of the family trying to get money from her and the insurer.

Just a little more information. The motorcyclist did not die at the scene and it was deemed at the beginning that he was at fault, however, when he passed away two days later, it was the police and the victim's family who started to seek compensation, not change their initial findings.  I stayed away, as you would be well aware, that if a Thai sees a Farang involved, they see dollar signs. 

Both my wife and the insurance rep politely told them to go and jump and after 4 days the doctor who performed the autopsy, came and provided evidence, which stopped the family and police dead in their tracks.  For a start, at 7.00am, when the crash occurred, he was totally blotto, and the injuries sustained were consistent with the description of the crash that my wife provided.

In addition, he was not wearing  a helmet, no road tax had been paid and we later found that the victim and his family were friends with one of the investigating police. My wife gave the family some money toward the funeral but it was only a minimal amount, whilst they got absolutely noting from the insurer.  As for myself, and your worries about spending time in the hoosegow, if you have first class insurance, get a good rep to assist and if you can speak some Thai and fully cooperate, not be a SA, then you will find things can be reasonable but given where we are, who knows for sure.

Yes, I noticed the discrepancy in the versions presented, who would know what is happening given the standard of news reporting here.  As the story is lacking in detail there may be many reasons, why or if the Russian was or is to be charged, even if he was in the correct lane.  And of course he should not be allowed to go anywhere until the matter is fully investigated by, I hope, competent officers. (Please no SA remarks)

If they have substantial proof that he is at fault and is or will be charged as directed, they can give him bail but hold his passport until the matter is brought before a court.  Without a passport his flight risk is greatly reduced, if not nullified.  The best thing for the Rusky to do is, if he has 1st class insurance insurance, is let the rep do the talking, not sign anything nor make any admissions.  I know the legal system here leaves a lot to be desired but all he can do now is go with the flow.  If no insurance, then he could be in the deep end.

16 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Whenever there is an Road Traffic Accident which involves a death it is normal procedure in Thailand to automatically charge the surviving driver with 'Reckless Driving Causing Death'...  

 

Thats why it's important to drive here with 1st Class insurance with a 200,000 baht bail bond. These charges are often later dropped when it is proven the driver is not at fault. 

 

That said, it would be extremely concerning for someone in such a situation, I'm sure many BiB have profited from such concern in the past. 

I don't know it that is correct or not where you indicate that it is normal procedure to automatically charge the surviving driver, as my wife, who is Thai, was involved in a fatality early last year, and this did not occur.  Admittedly, she had first class insurance and the assistance of an insurance company representative, who acted on her behalf and the insurer, with it being established that the motorcyclist was at fault.

On 8/18/2017 at 5:30 PM, andersonat said:

 

 - Is a road "a public place" ?

In Australia, yes it is.

3 hours ago, wvavin said:

What a waste that the pick up driver is not dead. This means our roads are still not safe when he is back.

In all my life and with 30 years in law enforcement you comment has to be the most tasteless I have ever come across.  Can only come from a troll, not a civilised human being.

28 minutes ago, simple1 said:

I am not providing misinformation on her current national support - do your research. Oh and in the fairly recent WA State elections she received what - about 4% of direct votes, a significant decline. Hanson 'telling like it is" only because you agree with her lunacy, others do not.

So it's a lunacy to believe that the burqa should be removed under all circumstances where identification and facial recognition is required?  If that's lunacy, than Que Sera, Sera.   If it's banned, it's banned, if not, than it's neither here nor there, they can wear what they want but let's just hope we do not experience that what is now happening in many other countries.  As for the decline, do some checking yourself and don't just resort to WA, do it nationally.  Oh, by the way, the percentage was 4.3 and they came in fourth behind the Labor, the Libs and the Greens.

2 hours ago, farcanell said:

I dunno.... it seems her popularity is actually increasing.... she's our own liddle Donald, but funnier, and far less dangerous, unless your a fish... she cooks up a great fish fry

 

hansons popularity, in part, is that she says the things needing saying... like hey ,its not ok to get about in an unidentifiable costume.... and she has a valid point.

 

everyone in parliament was probably thinking.... don't panic, it's only Pauline in a burka.... lol... but what if it wasn't?  What if it was a real nut job with a bomb entering parliament?... what the hell was someone doing in the Australian House of Parliament, completely unidentifiable?... that point she made... that hole needs plugging... because that's just not on

 

then let that trickle down to everywhere

Why is it that some just tell plain porkies in an attempt to deride another.  Her popularity is far from declining, as you have rightly pointed out.  Certain groups with specific agendas are starting to do to Hanson what the nutters are doing elsewhere.  What are they afraid of when someone speaks and tells it like it really is.  It all started with the burqa now the thread has progressed to the hate school of thought, just getting a little off track I would say and even then they cannot get the facts right.

I am neither here nor there with Hanson but I do respect her for having the courage to tell it like it is.  I am just sitting here on the sidelines, laughing at those who are getting their knickers in a knot and seeing their blood pressure rise with every little bit of vitriol and bile they put out in their attempts to degrade someone that they clearly have an unmitigated hatred for.  Some should really look in the mirror and maybe then they will realise who is being divisive but I doubt it.    

2 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

Pauline Hanson is not only islamophobic but a Xenophobe as well. Any immigrant communities in Australia her and her ilk rag.

Once New Zealand and Australia were friends and Allies. people like Hanson and even the current Government and the Australian policies since 2001 have driven a deep divide between Our Peoples. The best thing Australia could do would be to drown Hanson and her cronies. The Woman is a vile hateful Racist 

Oh for goodness sake, I thought this was about the burqa being banned, not what one's opinion of another is or that Australia and New Zealand were once friends and allies.  I didn't know were were at war with each other or that there is a deep divide, I'd love you to highlight that aspect.

So there is such a divide that neither country has any travel restrictions between them and we welcome all and sundry from the Land of the long white cloud.  Many have come here and given great contributions to our country so I just wonder what you agenda is here.  The only vile thing I can see is the comments which appear to come from someone who themselves may well fit the category that they are putting another into.

54 minutes ago, simple1 said:

As you say in the past. To repeat, current is the requirement to prove identity upon lawful request e.g. immigration control, drivers license etc etc At this stage the non PC Federal government see no reasonable need to 'ban the burka'. Does anyone seriously believe banning the burka will stop Islamist terror attacks; I agree with the AG, with Hanson it's all about vilification and divisiveness.

Who really cares if it is banned or not, I certainly don't.  Just as long as they comply with a lawful request, which some of them seem to have trouble in doing.  The AG is an absolute goose, I suggest you check  back on some of his statements and tell me whether you think he is in the same category as you are confining Hanson to.

And please, stop with the vilification and divisiveness rhetoric, this is just all PC nonsense that is being sprouted in an effort to shut down free speech and stifle any type of debate.  If anyone wants to openly criticise anyone, then they should be allowed to, providing it is not hateful and spiteful but the way things are now anyone who is offended can sue just because they say their feelings are hurt. It's about time the children within the adults, grew up.

17 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Everyone must provide proof of identity when lawfully requested, no exceptions, including Hanson. There are attempts of criminal non compliance / false claims across all groups, not just Muslim heritage people.

They do now, it has been brought into law, they did not at the time of the incidents I quoted.  And of course there are false claims across all nationalities but I am talking about the wearing of the  burqa and the need for its removal under certain circumstances not people's heritage and those who wear the burqa, who are mainly Muslim and who fall back on the falsehood of it being a religious garment therefore, cannot remove it under any circumstance. That's all, nothing more, nothing less.  Just watch how someone else is treated f they fail to comply with a request to remove a helmet or other items that hides their identity.

7 hours ago, spiderorchid said:

Pauline Hansen is of the extreme right, but she is nearly always wrong.  If you ban the burqa, do you also ban judges wigs, hoodies and nuns formal head wear and so on.  I doubt the wearing of head dress is outdated, scarves seem to be making a fashion comeback.

 

In that Australia is arguably the most multi ethnic country in the world, in that it is mostly harmonious, in that multi ethnicity has improved the economy and especially the food habits from the former British stodge, Australia has developed rapidly since WW11 when people eager to make a new life chose Australia. The fact that now, some seem to wear oppressive head wear does not bother me . Each to his own, Aust is a free country and people are free to wear what ever  hairstyle, head gear and rings in noses and ears that they want. Australia is not a fascist country although some seek to change that.

 

I am not buying into the political aspect, everyone is free to express their opinion without others bagging them. However, I have to disagree with your comparing apples with oranges. The comparisons offered by you do not hide the persons identity so to suggest that should be banned is a little over the top.  If people want to wear the burqa, that is their right but I do object when the women refuse to remove them when required for security or identification reasons and site religious reasons for that refusal.

As I previously stated it is not a religious requirement to wear them, it is a cultural and is mainly enforced by the wearer's husband or partner, with some women saying that they have elected to wear them and have not been forced by anyone.  Listen to what their husbands have to say and you will understand that their reasons for wearing them is as I have outlined.

There has been cases in Australia where the courts have been shown disrespect by a wearer who has refused to take the burqa off. In one incident policemen have allowed the wearer to wear it when signing legal documents, only to have those documents later disallowed in court because he could not identify the alleged offender as the one who signed the document despite it later being proven that the woman was a liar.

In addition, a policeman, (NSW Highway Patrol) almost lost his job by the absolute liars proffered by the wearer, who alleged the officer forcibly removed her burqa.  Thank God for an in car cam that saved the officer's career and proved the woman was an out an out liar.   Yes people are free to wear what they want, but they must also adhere to to rules which govern the majority, and not use BS to hold out and do want they because they want to buck the system.  The minorities have too much to say when they feel they are above the law that governs the rest of us.

I find it difficult to understand why people indicate that the Burqa is  religious garment.  It is not, it is, if anything, a cultural garment that subjugates the women who wear it.  So, are those who are criticizing Hanson OK with the subjugation of women. Sounds like it.  it is also interesting to see who the misogynists are, and boy are there some on here. 

It's not over yet, rumour has it that the building will sue for defamation.

4 hours ago, straylight said:

The VSC - 6000 is no longer sold and is replaced with the 8000 series. Should probably consider before proudly showing off advanced technology that no one is impressed with yesterdays newspaper.

Have you got this in the right thread?  I thought this was about Iranians with fake passports, maybe a small error?

9 hours ago, mark01 said:

Suggest they leave this to real investigators. i.e not Thai.

Ah Sherlock, I'll recommend you straight away, that is if you're not Thai, biased or bigoted.

Oh no, cameras more intelligent than the locals, cannot be.  

17 hours ago, British Bulldog said:

Confusing headlines; "4 killed 7 injured" .... I count 4 people in the sedan killed plus Somchai and 6 passengers = 11 ... what a waste of lives ! Bad enough seeing young people die from road accidents but a 73 year old who must have dodged one or two accidents in Thailand during his life, only to have it ended in a stupid car crash ...

Confusing post.  The headlines and story content seen correct, four killed, seven injured, not confusing.  Your total is correct but I don't think it states that all eleven were killed, so how is the headline confusing or am I confused?   Just asking to alleviate the confusion.    

14 hours ago, giddyup said:

I would imagine that's just to spread the ashes, there would be actual cremation costs on top of that.

And don't forget the cost of hiring the vessel, sailors and light refreshments.  I'd say one would have to be sitting down when they received the itemised account. 

33 minutes ago, Tony125 said:

Your jesting right ? The statute of limitations on prosecuting him run out in Sept so if he is not found by then he's home free.

Not quite correct, the statute of limitations for the most serious offence, Dangerous Driving Occasioning Death,  if I remember rightly, does not expire for another 8 years, 2025, which, given the BS about not being able to find him, will see him get off Scott free if they  keep up with the crap that is now being proffered.