Katoom

Somehow, that baby just did not look Thai to me. Blonde hair? I hope it has no further complications.

I am impressed with the start that Joko Widodo has made to his Presidency. Hopefully with the drop in the price of oil his policy of getting rid of the fuel subsidy will be effective and he can invest in better healthcare and education while also bringing down borrowing.

I think this kind of action will only strengthen his hand at home in the fight against corruption with much popular support. He really does look like being a man of the people, at last. Good luck to him.

Take a step back and indulge yourself, just for a moment, in the memory of what people suffered and sacrificed on that day and the following days.

What came afterwards was entirely separate from that which the OP is conveying.

Edit for typo...

I can think of so many reasons for this preference to be so very wrong, especially in a cave environment where light may well be at a premium just as a starting point. However, I do not claim to be a tech diver, just Royal Navy BR's trained, gas and air and all of my gas diving was blacked out. People really do seem to play with their own lives just for thrills these days although there are many other things still left unknown in this case.

Again, sorry for their loss.

And I can think of many reasons for this preference to be right.

What is your point, except boasting?

That. I gather a confirmation of prior knowledge and experience is anathema to you as a qualified response?

I knew of the guys and their habits. They were e.g. diving with self built rebreathers.

Wow, thank you.

I hope that some things can be learnt from this.

For Tec diving solo diving is trained for and really common, quite often preferred over the buddy system.

I can think of so many reasons for this preference to be so very wrong, especially in a cave environment where light may well be at a premium just as a starting point. However, I do not claim to be a tech diver, just Royal Navy BR's trained, gas and air and all of my gas diving was blacked out. People really do seem to play with their own lives just for thrills these days although there are many other things still left unknown in this case.

Again, sorry for their loss.

And I can think of many reasons for this preference to be right.

What is your point, except boasting?

That. I gather a confirmation of prior knowledge and experience is anathema to you as a qualified response?

For Tec diving solo diving is trained for and really common, quite often preferred over the buddy system.

I can think of so many reasons for this preference to be so very wrong, especially in a cave environment where light may well be at a premium just as a starting point. However, I do not claim to be a tech diver, just Royal Navy BR's trained, gas and air and all of my gas diving was blacked out. People really do seem to play with their own lives just for thrills these days although there are many other things still left unknown in this case.

Again, sorry for their loss.

Cave diving is one of the most dangerous sports going.

I do not know how accurate the report is but if they were experienced divers they would have stayed together, not one continue with the dive while his biddy fixed a problem.

They should, in all honesty Geordie, be buddy lined up so there are so many things wrong from the very beginning.

I have hundreds of hours on Drager rebreathers and would never venture below 6 meters more than twice on one dive. The second time below that limit line is dive aborted immediately. Although my use was totally different to theirs but deep diving on pure oxygen, if that was indeed the case, is not something that I would recommend.

Sorry for their loss.

I am sure I am.

I should have added that the group you refer to more than likely originally travelled from China to Macau and then to BKK and were on the original return route, i.e. the relevant travel permit. Criminal element the couple surely are not but do conform to your 'noisy and daft' observation. I do agree the constant seat changing on boarding is an annoyance but so to the obsessive belts off and standing in the isles immediately after landing while not forgetting the inability to recognise a line or queue anywhere be it shop checkout, bus, train or taxi rank.

I wouldn't be so sure.

Macau and Hong Kong are Special Administrative Regions (SARs). They have special visa requirements for mainland Chinese travellers. The visa issued is known as a "two-way permit" or "exit-entry permit" (EEP), and allows the holder to enter either Hong Kong or Macau.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_China_Exit-Entry_Permit_for_Travelling_to_and_from_Hong_Kong_and_Macau#cite_note-1

http://www.fsm.gov.mo/psp/eng/EDoN.html

"Hong Kong SAR grants a stay of seven days to mainland Chinese who use their People's Republic of China passport in transit through Hong Kong to and from overseas. "

I am guessing that mainland people passing through Macau have similar requirements in terms of documentation, although it may be that if they do not exit the airport no EEP is required.

An EEP is issued to people who 'regularly' enter and exit HK or Macau for work, business or education and is facilitated by individual immigration lines and automated entry gates such as those used for residents of either HK or Macau. i.e. it is a card and used similarly to that of a HKID card.

Otherwise, you have confirmed what I had originally posted save you have omitted that the traveller has also a travel permit issued from the Chinese Govt.

Ah, you are quite correct, Katoom, in that Chinese nationals with passport do not need a visa

when transiting HK/Macau. According to this Chinese embassy in Latvia(!) website, anyway. So apologies

to you, and I stand corrected.

(1) Chinese passport holders who are in transit through Hong Kong from another country, region or territory may

be granted a stay of 7 days without the prior need to obtain an entry permit, with the condition of possession

of valid Chinese passport and confirmed onward air tickets for the overseas journey. If Chinese passport holders

will go for mainland China or Macau via Hong Kong, onward air tickets are not compulsory.

Chinese passport holders who are transit through Hong Kong from mainland China to another country, region

or territory may be granted a stay of 7 day without the prior need to obtain an entry permit with the

condition of possession of valid visa for the destination and confirmed onward air tickets for the overseas

journey.

http://lv.china-embassy.org/eng/lsyw/t927842.htm

Thank you DeepInTheForrest...

Err, I would suggest that as they are already in BKK then the PRC Nationals already have a travel permit and of course can enter Macau that is in itself an autonomous region of the PRC. No?

You could be right but I think they need an entry permit for Macau . I would also hazard a guess to say that these crews were not normal tourists but again Macau is full of hard looking mobsters and they might well like their jollies in Bangkok with 30 + dolly birds in tow . I too have experience with the normal tourists every weekend on the Macau to HK ferry and they are at worst noisy and daft. No disrespect intended. Getting violent and threatining flight attendants is the entitiled behaviour of a criminal element.

I am sure I am.

I should have added that the group you refer to more than likely originally travelled from China to Macau and then to BKK and were on the original return route, i.e. the relevant travel permit. Criminal element the couple surely are not but do conform to your 'noisy and daft' observation. I do agree the constant seat changing on boarding is an annoyance but so to the obsessive belts off and standing in the isles immediately after landing while not forgetting the inability to recognise a line or queue anywhere be it shop checkout, bus, train or taxi rank.

I wouldn't be so sure.

Macau and Hong Kong are Special Administrative Regions (SARs). They have special visa requirements for mainland Chinese travellers. The visa issued is known as a "two-way permit" or "exit-entry permit" (EEP), and allows the holder to enter either Hong Kong or Macau.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_China_Exit-Entry_Permit_for_Travelling_to_and_from_Hong_Kong_and_Macau#cite_note-1

http://www.fsm.gov.mo/psp/eng/EDoN.html

"Hong Kong SAR grants a stay of seven days to mainland Chinese who use their People's Republic of China passport in transit through Hong Kong to and from overseas. "

I am guessing that mainland people passing through Macau have similar requirements in terms of documentation, although it may be that if they do not exit the airport no EEP is required.

An EEP is issued to people who 'regularly' enter and exit HK or Macau for work, business or education and is facilitated by individual immigration lines and automated entry gates such as those used for residents of either HK or Macau. i.e. it is a card and used similarly to that of a HKID card.

Otherwise, you have confirmed what I had originally posted save you have omitted that the traveller has also a travel permit issued from the Chinese Govt.

Sorry but IMO there is nothing wrong with riding an elephant as long as the animal is properly cared for which means it is at much less risk of death, disease and harm than in the wild.

I rather think that that is exactly what they are saying. You may care to read the OP once more.

I have had to put up with this behaviour on airasia Bangkok to Macau . The route to Macau from Thailand seems to allow PRC Chinese a way to bypass visa requirements that are in place on the land crossings or flights from China . Anyway , they are nuts . The redeye monday morning express was always full of crew cutted mobsters who were escorting large groups of young women . Noisy morons delaying the take off by fighting over who sits where on an airasia flight is a nightmare , as if it wasn't bad enough .

Err, I would suggest that as they are already in BKK then the PRC Nationals already have a travel permit and of course can enter Macau that is in itself an autonomous region of the PRC. No?

You could be right but I think they need an entry permit for Macau . I would also hazard a guess to say that these crews were not normal tourists but again Macau is full of hard looking mobsters and they might well like their jollies in Bangkok with 30 + dolly birds in tow . I too have experience with the normal tourists every weekend on the Macau to HK ferry and they are at worst noisy and daft. No disrespect intended. Getting violent and threatining flight attendants is the entitiled behaviour of a criminal element.

I am sure I am.

I should have added that the group you refer to more than likely originally travelled from China to Macau and then to BKK and were on the original return route, i.e. the relevant travel permit. Criminal element the couple surely are not but do conform to your 'noisy and daft' observation. I do agree the constant seat changing on boarding is an annoyance but so to the obsessive belts off and standing in the isles immediately after landing while not forgetting the inability to recognise a line or queue anywhere be it shop checkout, bus, train or taxi rank.

I have had to put up with this behaviour on airasia Bangkok to Macau . The route to Macau from Thailand seems to allow PRC Chinese a way to bypass visa requirements that are in place on the land crossings or flights from China . Anyway , they are nuts . The redeye monday morning express was always full of crew cutted mobsters who were escorting large groups of young women . Noisy morons delaying the take off by fighting over who sits where on an airasia flight is a nightmare , as if it wasn't bad enough .

Err, I would suggest that as they are already in BKK then the PRC Nationals already have a travel permit and of course can enter Macau that is in itself an autonomous region of the PRC. No?

So what I get from the Post #1090 was that -- if he were in charge -- things would have been done differently. Whether people who are innocent have been set-up remains to be seen. In some countries even if persons are in fact guilty they have been pronounced 'not guilty' because of a bungled investigation. Maybe that will be the net result in Thailand but that will be the decision of a judge or judge panel which is different than convincing a jury that the evidence and witnesses presented by the prosecution are not credible.

You rather skim the surface here and leave out much that is relevant to the post and to the probable courses that any Judge or Judges Panel could choose to take.

I wonder why?

Just watched a program on Koh Tao in Australia and Thailand was dragged through the pig pen and came out smelling worse than the excrement.

Do you have the name of this program and the channel it may have been shown on please?

Wow, just wow...

The only possible excluded people and or news agencies would be from the UK.

So still nobody speaking?

Not one German, Italian, Spanish, French, Israeli.... American, Russian, Irish... Nobody.

I do not know where you get the time, to scour all press from these countries is impressive. Maybe they have spoken and it has been reported to the police? we don't know. Because it has not been reported does not make it untrue and again because it has been reported does not make it true. It is uncommon but not unheard of for a particular countries press to be interested in another countries citizens murdered in a third country by persons unknown and then even more uncommon for them to pay for this information. If it did happen this information would then be passed on to police and Soutpeel amongst others has told you why it would not be divulged.

BTW as far as I have been able to determine, since there will be no judicial action in the UK, there is no sub judice reasons that could be applied here

Honestly, are you for real?

So are we all agreeing that another weapon was used on David?

There has been much discussion of the murder weapon on these threads, which I have joined in with. I've probably written 40 paragraphs on that topic. That's not to say all I've opined is gospel, but there are some aspects of the wounds which indicate the police are off base - judging from what the cops have announced thus far. Police seemed to start out their investigation ok, by claiming the hoe had none of David's blood on it. Besides Hannah's blood, the hoe seems to have revealed nothing else of value; no fingerprints, no other peoples' DNA (it's probably indicative of sloppy forensics). However, it's revealing what the hoe discounts: Although it's very unlikely the hoe was used to wound David, the hoe was used (a hoe-like device) in the reenactment of the crime on the beach. Another reason the hoe was v. unlikely used on David (despite Thai investigators saying it was): the wounds on David don't correspond to the hoe being the weapon. A hoe has two basic faces if used as a weapon: its blade and its back/blunt end. The blunt end is much better at smashing things (like big dirt clods or a skull). The blade on an old dirty hoe like that is dull (I've dealt with dozens of hoes in Thailand, over the years, no pun intended). Even the sharp end of a hoe would not cause the same-sized clean knife wounds as shown on David.

The most likely weapon used on David was a small punch blade - held in a fist. Most of David's wounds were on the right side of his neck. If he was facing the attacker, the attacker would have had to have been left-handed. Nomsod is apparently left-handed (according to people who know him personally). Not sure about his uncle, Mon, who should also still be a suspect. Who would own a punch-blade type weapon like that? There's a photo of Sean (same day or days before the crime?) in a Ko Tao shop which appears to show him wearing one in a little black pouch. That's the type of photo that gets revealed online, rather than by police work, so JDinasia would dismiss that photo as 'conspiracy theory' and therefore zero value in this case. There's is more on this topic, but I'm tired of typing.

The phone issue has been dealt with.

That HANNAH'S friends have not made any statement...

You are avoiding my rebuttal to your assertion that they have free speech in the following;

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/774320-police-coy-over-new-probe-into-koh-tao-murders/?p=8645781

Would you care to comment with reference to you assertion above?

Murder occurred in Thailand.

Look at the memorandum regarding murder Manslaughter and Infanticide of citizens abroad.

Irrelevant.

UK law is irrelevant?

UK Inquest. Irrelevant where the murder occurred.

Still no response from jdinasia...

The phone issue has been dealt with.

That HANNAH'S friends have not made any statement...

You are avoiding my rebuttal to your assertion that they have free speech in the following;

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/774320-police-coy-over-new-probe-into-koh-tao-murders/?p=8645781

Would you care to comment with reference to you assertion above?

Murder occurred in Thailand.

Look at the memorandum regarding murder Manslaughter and Infanticide of citizens abroad.

Irrelevant.

The phone issue has been dealt with.

That HANNAH'S friends have not made any statement...

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/774320-police-coy-over-new-probe-into-koh-tao-murders/?p=8645781

Would you care to comment with reference to you assertion above?

We all understand that, we would just like to know when would we expect the UK police to disclose what they saw, or believed to be true, as of yet not a peep off them, Maybe it was just a holiday for them who knows, until they tell us different, all still stands the same in my eyes

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/774320-police-coy-over-new-probe-into-koh-tao-murders/page-18#entry8645781