halloween

On 12/16/2017 at 9:11 PM, sceadugenga said:

Residency for tax purposes is not necessarily the same as residency for Centrelink purposes.

Different government departments do it differently.

 

https://www.elodge.com.au/etax-au/am-i-an-australian-resident-for-tax-purposes/#.WjTxEHkxX3g

Its about time somebody challenged this. How do different government depts get to decide, to their own benefit, who is a resident and who is not to the extent that we lose out under conflicting rulings.

AFAIK under common law you only get one bite of the cherry.

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

I don't have that kind of credential like you. The issue is the EHIA that failed to convinced academics and locals the impact for the ecosystem, surrounding environment and people's livelihood. Locals complained that were no proper public participation and yet it was approved. That was the discontent and they tried to convey this to the junta PM but was heavily handled and arrested. Coal mines had their fair share of disaster in Thailand that caused damages to the environment and respiratory diseases. Maybe the coal technology has improved but the concerns of the local people are real and should be addressed. Good sense that the junta PM has put the project on hold. 

The locals have concerned, mostly based on false information. I repeat, what YOUR interest other than political slagging?

Just now, Eric Loh said:

Predictably coming to the defence of the junta. To hell with the fishermen, farmers and peasants. Disregard their concerns and livelihood as long as it don't affect the life style of the generals. 

As a resident of southern Thailand, I have a personal interest in a reliable electricity supply, and with a 20 yearbackground in coal-fired electricity generation and supply, I recognise the bloated claims of environmental damage which you support without any evidence. What's your interest?

4 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

The academics are not fishermen that are affected. They are not stakeholders and will not suffer when the environment and pollution manifest. 

No they are not; neither are you. Do you have any data to support the claims of catastrophic environmental damage? Or do you blindly accept it because it suits your anti-junta bias?

At the same time 43 academics have sent a letter to the PM supporting the proposed Songkhla power station, claiming it would not have a negative environmental impact (source BP) despite the wildly exaggerated claims of protesters. Of course these engineering field academics are far less informed than the protesters (satire).

Jack Reacher fans?

30 minutes ago, Dave67 said:

They never opened up on civilians with M16s though did they

No, their preferred weapons were AK47s, M79 grenades, RPGs and IEDs. Though they were allegedly aimed only at the military, the unavoidable collateral damage on bystanders also included a few children, and though denied, apparently a few of their own supporters.

Oh, and airport fuel tanks, hotels, a temple (deliberately targeted) and other sites of strategic importance.

6 minutes ago, Nurseynutcase said:

Sorry to disillusion you, however it was the Labour government that opened the doors to unlimited immigration not the Tory party.

 

However, having said that, there are home-grown nutters (as i like to call them) in every society.  Just think of how many atrocities are caused in the U.S> by such nutters.  Also the attacks in London in 2007 (I think) on the tube and a bus were carried out by home-grown nutters.

 

Thankfully this plot was foiled otherwise the backlash implications would have been horrendous.

Re those 'home grown nutters' involved in the 2007 attacks, do you think you would have to delve more than one generation to find immigrants?

23 minutes ago, brucec64 said:

But you have to admire the tenacity. Halloween has manage to work "criminal", "Thaksin", or "fugitive" into 215 posts this year alone! That's almost one a day...

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/search/?&q="criminal" Thaksin  fugitive&author=halloween&search_and_or=or&updated_after=year&sortby=newest

Actually 215/342 is much closer to half, but about your usual standard of accuracy.

7 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Dusit Poll, the research arm of Suan Dusit Rajabhat University, said that the recent bombing at Phramongkutklao Hospital was linked to politics. http://www.the9thfloor.com/phuket-culinary-news/content/33996

Army Chief Links Hospital Bombing to Recent Bangkok Attacks

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/crimecourtscalamity/2017/05/22/explosion-reported-bangkoks-phramongkutklao-hospital/

Army chief Chalermchai Sittisart said in a televised interview that the explosion was likely carried out by “people opposed to the junta.” http://time.com/4787951/thailand-bangkok-bombing-junta-hospital/

I'd say the Army was ramping up the rhetoric to find a political target to justify its full menu of pre-military trial interrogations. Lone wolf Watana had to be a disappointment that even the military couldn't claim credit.

What are your links supposed to prove? The first announces that 3/4 of people believe the bombings are politically motivated (true), the others that the government believes the same (also true). Where is the ramped up rhetoric, or any proof that interrogation of the suspect was in any way heavy handed?

Lone wolf Watana is a red sympathiser, just like the others that consider violence is an acceptable form of political expression. You might also note another finding of the dusit poll you quoted "while 67.76% said their criticism might stem from the fact that the military junta outperformed after three years in power. "

5 hours ago, madusa said:

You are right I think. The simple question is did that cop stole the ticket? If not then it belongs to the cop. If you dropped the ticket on the street and I picked it up then it belongs to me because the lottery office cannot be involved in who is the rightful owner. Not even in saying who bought which ticket, the vendor can only sell the ticket they can't go around saying anything else otherwise you could sue the lottery company.

I think the law is clear, the person holding the winning ticket is the rightful owner not unless you can prove he or she stole it from you.

If I dropped my phone/camera/wallet and you picked it up, does it belong to you? If some days later, the BIB investigation led them to you and they found that item in your possession, would they congratulate you on your luck, or take a rather different attitude?

10 hours ago, zaphod reborn said:

I don't think anyone knows what you are talking about.  If you mean the following, you are assuming that DSI competently chose 300 possible locals based on some kind of nexus to the crime scene, and not just the usual random people to make it look like they did their phony-baloney jobs.  If you think that, you are a Thailand noobie, and probably should excuse yourself from further comments on thaivisa, unless they are hopeless noob questions.

 

 

So when you have no defence for a clearly inaccurate statement, go for personal attack?

11 minutes ago, jayboy said:

there is no public evidence of her alleged lack of rectitude

So what do you call allowing a fugitive criminal billionaire access to cabinet meetings and allowing him to set policy? have you never heard of insider trading?

Does the fact that he transferred millions of baht to her before her taking office make it more acceptable?

My comparison is of a DPM who has a watch he could not afford from his earnings, with a PM, with similar value of bling, far in excess of her earnings. If this watch was a gift by  somebody seeking political favours it would reek of corruption, but apparently that standard doesn't apply when you're elected.

Interesting to know if the 2 named are immigrants or the offspring of same. I would assume their grievance wasn't brexit.

6 hours ago, webfact said:

The former minister said the only people who needed weapons and bought many of them were “those in high positions with low moral standards in Thailand”, apparently referring to the military regime.

Jakrapob should be more specific lest readers think he was talking about his employers.

On 11/30/2017 at 8:43 PM, zaphod reborn said:

Maybe if DSI didn't restrict its search for suspects to Japanese nationals who visited the Sukothai area in the last 10 years, they might actually stumble upon a useful lead . . . but, that might be a Thai citizen which would adversely impact the Japanese tourism market.  So much easier to blame a Japanese national for this horrendous crime.

 

http://www.samuitimes.com/japanese-ambassador-raises-concerns-safety-japanese-tourist-conclusion-2007-murder-japanese-tourist/

 

Murder weapon a bush knife, possible robbery motive - it doesn't sound like a crime that another Japanese national would have perpetrated.

Maybe if you read the first sentence of the OP, you might not leap to the conclusion that a Thai was involved based on speculation about the weapon used.

1 hour ago, aonangkrabi said:

Who is here the badly informed person Mr. Halloween? If the earth is to survive, coal is the first fossil fuel to be discarded.

You have won that award with your Chicken Little response.

14 minutes ago, candide said:

Interesting philosophical question, but it is not about governments "in general" (if I dare say), but about the failure of this particular autocratic and self-appointed government.

This particular government apparently rejects the uninformed/ill-informed opinion of villagers fed BS by those with their own agenda, preferring the input of those with expertise in the field of supplying reliable 24/7 energy to the people of southern Thailand. should they be more like Yingluk and continue with a disastrous policy because it is popular (at least with those whose perception was that they were benefiting)?

2 minutes ago, Chris Lawrence said:

What or who shaped opinion?

Those with a green agenda that oppose the coal-fired power station, and are prepared to incite health and environmental fears far in excess of reality..

Should governments take into account uninformed/misinformed opinion because it is widely held?

4 hours ago, Srikcir said:

And your link is how old?

False.

The date was given 1/12/17.

As an electrical engineer with over 20 years in generation and system control, I await your link.

5 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Not an electrician nor power expert but what comes to mind immediately are "cold sinks" and "grounding mechanisms." If not done correctly without fail might cause grid damage.

I call that a cold sink. You refer to new technology developed by Telsa, not yet in operation and appears untried in a grid setting. There's risk and not sure if economically viable for a private enterprise without complete pass-through of purchase and O&M to the ratepayer.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-07/what-is-tesla-big-sa-battery-and-how-will-it-work/8688992

With regard to the "Green Light" windfarm, are there provisions for negative energy? That would be the responsibility of the government. However, if the output of the windfarm was in fact substantially overstated (ie., technical incompetence, inflated for government subsidies), the occurrence of negative energy might never be an issue.

Your 5 month old link is OLD news http://utilitiesretail.energy-business-review.com/news/teslas-100mw129mwh-lithium-ion-battery-commissioned-in-south-australia-011217-5991516

And while the battery might prove a very limited storage for oversupply, there is NO way to "dump energy".

Just how much red KoolAid do you have to swallow before you believe Ko Tee is a peace-loving democracy activist who would never have weapons in his possession?

19 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Yes - one of the options I mentioned: energy source shutdown

 

But consider this wind farm is a private enterprise and not state-owned. It needs sustained, predictable revenues that generate profits to O&M, a timely return of invested capital and a reasonable return on invested capital (ie., profit margin).

 

If the State controls energy generation with the ability to unilaterally shutdown an energy project for whatever reason (extreme-breach pricing agreement to favor State; don't assume the State to have a purely technical interest), the project investors assume greater risk for the success of their investment. Under such State authority, I doubt there will be privately funded wind energy projects, or frankly, any energy project in the State.

 

Of course the State and investors might negotiate in the energy pricing agreement for such State authority for unilateral shutdowns due to surplus energy production. But I'd expect substantial compensation would accrue to the project owners to keep them "financially whole" during the shutdown that may cost more than simply dumping energy or paying a negative price to the consumers.

 

Why should anyone enter into a contract buy more than they require, especially when that excess can cause damage to billions worth of infrastructure? South Australia has just commissioned a 10MWh battery which will be used for assisting fluctuation control as well as night storage - it will be interesting to see what working life it manages.

How do you "dump energy'?

23 hours ago, greenchair said:

I think you'll find it was sold after the accident and and "recently destroyed" with the ownership papers . after Jomsap filed her case. This is why suriya first took the second owner to the police. 

Then he discovered that in fact sap was the owner of the truck at the time of the accident. It is commonly reported knowledge by police and media that the truck was sold after the crash, so unless you disagree with the police, no conspiracy theories there. 

Try reading a bit more widely. the first person he took to police was Sert, Sap's brother. the car was sold well before the incident.