richard_smith237

Completely incorrect. Just like the skin requires SunBlock to prevent exposure to UVA/UVB rays which cause skin cancer. Sunglasses protect the eyes from blocking UVA/UVB rays giving protection from Cataracts, Macular degeneration, Photokeratitis and Ocular Melanoma.... Its far healthier to wear sunglasses when outdoors than not to.

Just my golf clubs. I can miss a ball from three feet away, imagine the damage I could do to someone’s shins....

Why carry a wallet full of cards around? I decide in the morning which cards I need (typically only one card). FAR FAR lighter than a phone. . So you don't carry a phone around with you anyway ?

Two really surprising points from this story... The first (as highlighted in the story) is how the occupants of the car remained relatively unhurt... The second, even more unbelievable... is how 'brake failure' has not been claimed (and reported)...

The sheer hubris of those pushing these 'announcements' is staggering... In a city where only 71% of motorcyclists bother to wear helmets... I kind of marvel at the fantasy that ‘pet chipping’ could ever be enforced. The idea itself has merit - but execution? Predictably nonexistent. Most pet owners won’t know these rules exist, and even fewer will care.... Compliance, as always, is optional.... A few token announcements, ignored by the masses, and yet the powers that be believe that a statement alone equals progress... The delusion of assuming awareness is transformation is still staggering, even after decades of reading such announcements...

I’ve often thought we could judge the true measure of a nation’s character by observing how its people use the roads. On reflection, though, I’m not sure how realistic that is. Thailand is undeniably a polite, welcoming, and socially forgiving culture - yet something curious seems to happen once people get behind the wheel or on a motorcycle. On bikes, there’s a complete disregard for personal safety; in cars, it’s as though a switch is flicked - what I half-jokingly call the “F-you switch”... It’s astonishing to watch the transformation: a nation of relaxed, non-confrontational people suddenly becomes a nation of drivers seemingly determined not to yield an inch, reluctant to brake, jumping lights, refusing to give way... ... Of course, this isn’t malice - it feels more like a subconscious habit, a learned behaviour that everyone copies without much thought. Nothing personal, no hostility - simply the way the driving culture has evolved. As outsiders, we tend to interpret these behaviours as reflections of national character, but really, they’re not. Driving habits are just that - habits. They’re cultural quirks, not moral measures. Much like in many other countries, including our own, it’s less about who people are and more about how they’ve learned to drive. Just like anywhere in the world, aggressive drivers are more common in urban areas than in rural ones. It’s a simple consequence of more vehicles, more obstacles, and more people constantly getting in the way - much like trying to navigate a crowded street on foot. The difference, of course, is that behind the wheel, people are isolated and can more easily forget their own humanity, allowing frustration to creep in. Still, credit where it’s due: if the true measure of a nation could be seen in its driving, Thailand would stand out for tolerance and patience. Or perhaps it’s simply an acute awareness of how quickly a situation can spiral if frustration is openly displayed.

Of course they are... No Thai has ever shot their neighbour for being too loud.... That said, personally, I find Thai's remarkably patient on the roads, especially given the style of driving here and the monumental degrees of utter fukwittery that can unfold in front of us... I’m also grateful that incessant horn-blaring isn’t ingrained as a driving habit... (i.e. Indonesia - esp Jakarta) That said, to claim that in all other regions of Thailand the Thais are universally courteous and respectful is an oversimplification - a flawed generalisation at best - read and watch the Thai news and you would quickly recognise the craziness and zero-to-crazy trigger finger reactions on the roads and elsewhere without the assistance of foreigner influence in areas well outside of areas populated by westerners... I don’t disagree that Pattaya may be worse, as it undeniably seems to disproportionately attract a certain number of unhinged foreigners who seem to struggle with basic social behaviour. However, it also draws in a particular type of Thai who is equally predisposed to such conduct. In that sense, perhaps it’s the worst of both worlds - and that combination has coloured your outlook... ...and thus, trying to shoehorn in a dose of ‘foreigner-bashing’ rooted in prejudice against Pattaya Westerners feels like quite a stretch when I read it.... ... that said, this thread is also clearly a Thai-bash... Compliments to the Thai's for not being aggressive drivers in most cases, even more so given the craziness that can unfold on the roads.

What the heck were you doing there? Complaining about the Tutsi on the local CentralAfricaNow forum under the pseudonym Bob Ilunga...

You think you made people nervous wearing Sunglasses ???? Were you wearing anything else ???

At such minor levels, there is no real need for a warning. Issuing alerts for events that people are unlikely to even notice serves little practical purpose. Earthquakes of this magnitude occur frequently. If every tremor within a certain radius of Thailand triggered a warning, the system would sound continuously and soon be ignored entirely. The true value of a warning system lies in tsunami risk management. A major offshore quake along the Sunda megathrust near Aceh, capable of triggering a life-threatening tsunami, could provide hours of notice, time that can genuinely save lives. It’s also important to note that, given the speed at which seismic waves travel, any significant quake capable of impacting Thailand - such as along the Sunda Fault in Myanmar - is so close that there is effectively no time to react. For reference, the March 28 Mandalay quake produced the following wave arrivals to Bangkok: - P wave (Compressional body wave, fastest) Speed ~8.1 km/s >>126–171 seconds - S wave (Shear body wave, moves only through solids) Speed ~4.5 km/s >> 228 seconds - Love wave (Horizontally polarised surface wave, side-to-side motion) Speed ~3.5–4.0 km/s >> ~256–293 seconds - Rayleigh wave (Surface wave with rolling elliptical motion, vertical & horizontal) Speed ~3.0 km/s >> ~342 seconds Given these extremely short “warnings,” the information is largely for situational awareness rather than actionable evacuation. Remaining inside structurally sound buildings is typically the safest course, as such constructions are proven to withstand localised quakes of roughly MV 6.0 equivalence ( which was the localised equivalent in BKK from the March 28 quake). A higher-energy quake would need to exceed MV 7.7 along the Andaman or Sunda Fault lines to pose a serious risk to Bangkok. The largest recorded quake that epicentre in Thailand was in Chiang Rai with recorded MV 6.1 on May 5, 2014 along the Phayao Fault system which is a minor-to-moderate regional fault, its highly unlikely that anything greater than this would occur). In such cases, there would still be insufficient time to evacuate high-rise buildings safely; the primary hazards would be falling glass and cladding rather than structural failure. In short (TLDR) - The warning system is not really useful for earth quakes due to the speed at which they 'arrive' - the only use for quakes is for 'on-time information' so people don't panic (if thats possible). In the event of a major quake, its best to remain in the buildings due to risk of falling debris & such advice really 'should' be circulated by authorities. Thailands warning system would (if working) come into its own when there is a high risk of Tsunami.

Similar differences existed in reporting of the March 28th Quake (Mandalay). Thailand’s meteorological authority reported it as an MV 8.2 quake, whereas its was reported as MB 7.7 by the USGS.

Fair point - I stand corrected that the youngster might have been travelling alone. However, as pointed out by NanLeaw - IF the parent was not sat next to the 15 year old, or, if the parent was asleep... the comment "Where the f*** was the accompanying parent?" is somewhat moot. The surprise here is that the charges and penalties were not more harsh. Also, if there isn't already, there should be an 'international no fly list' where such characters are banned from travelling on any airline. In fact, I would have though there is a system whereby airlines can share this information to protect other passengers.

That’s your shining epiphany… “how to get away with it?" If there were ever a comment to parade just how warped and hollow someone’s moral compass is, this is the one... [Mod's note: personal comment on a fellow forum member removed.]

Indeed - meanwhile in Australia a man has been sentenced to chemical castration... This is the only appropriate response IMO, along with a prison sentence. The man has simply been let free - which IMO is wrong on many levels.

She was 15 yrs old - she doesn't 'need' an accompanying parent. It is actually quite common for children to travel alone under an airline’s Unaccompanied Minor (UM) service. Most major airlines require children between the ages of 5 and 11 travelling alone to use this service. Under the programme, airline staff escort the child through the airport, assist with boarding and disembarkation, and a designated flight attendant provides supervision during the flight. For children aged 12 to 14, the service is generally optional, depending on the airline and the parent’s preference. From 15 years onwards, most airlines consider passengers old enough to travel independently, and the UM service is typically not available. Thus: Your 'outrage' at absent parents is rather out of place.

They should have left it there for the tide to deal with...

Better to let the beer turn into 10... While this is an interesting discussion – especially for those able to approach it without being carried away by emotion – the realities of this issue are so layered and multifaceted that no single exchange can do them justice. To properly grapple with it would take pages upon pages, and days upon days, of argument and counter-argument. The lines between truth, propaganda, selective memory, and outright fabrication have been blurred and perpetuated across every medium – from state propaganda to mass media, from academic studies to the echo chambers of social media. Every assertion can be challenged with another set of “facts,” and every narrative has its mirror image. This makes it not just a political debate but an almost impossible exercise in disentangling competing histories and contested truths.

A woman called Pattarapha is a repeat customer who regularly orders the 'special dish' with the higher end crab meat (reported as the VVIP Omelette dish) at 4000 baht... This was not explained to 'Peachii and her friend Martha who accompanied Pattarapha to Jai Fai - 'Peachii' an 'apparent' influencer, then turned to social media to complain without any inquiry... All of this 'storm in a teacup' is about a person crying-out for 'internet fame'... The practice off the VVIP Omelette is certainly odd, nevertheless, its not something the 'repeat customer' Pattarapha had issue with in the past, only the 'guests' accompanying her took issue.

Outstanding response providing additional perspective to my comments which in retrospect contained bias while I attempted to present the reality ignored by many that Palestinians are not wholly innocent in this mess. Here is my response: Lebanon: Agree: Sectarian tensions and the confessional system were indeed already fragile before the PLO’s arrival. The Maronite–Muslim divide, Cold War rivalries, Syrian involvement, and later the Israeli invasion all played major roles. To say the civil war was caused by Palestinians is an oversimplification. Contradiction (slightly): While not the root cause, the militarisation of Palestinian factions and their autonomy in southern Lebanon did exacerbate pre-existing tensions and provided local actors with both a rallying point and a pretext for violence. So, they were a major accelerant, even if not the fundamental cause. Jordan: Agree: The monarchy faced deep East Bank–Palestinian tensions long before Black September. Hussein’s crackdown was as much about consolidating Hashemite rule as dealing with Palestinian armed groups. Contradiction (partly): Palestinian armed factions in Jordan weren’t just passive victims – they did operate with a degree of impunity, at times directly challenging state authority (roadblocks, quasi-state behaviour). That certainly contributed to the escalation, even if Hussein used it to his advantage. Palestinian Rights: Agree: Palestinians in Lebanon and Jordan were denied rights, and the camp system in Lebanon was especially oppressive. Expecting them to remain apolitical under those conditions is indeed unrealistic. Contradiction (nuance): Some host states’ restrictions were not only punitive but also deliberate attempts to avoid permanent settlement, in the belief this would undermine the Palestinian cause for return. While this doesn’t excuse the harshness, it means the motive was more complex than just discrimination. Militancy and Resistance: Agree: Armed resistance as a reaction to statelessness is a global pattern (Ireland, Algeria, South Africa etc.). To treat Palestinians as uniquely destabilising is ahistorical. Contradiction (important caveat): Unlike some of those other struggles, Palestinian factions often operated outside their homeland (in Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait). This created a dynamic where they destabilised host countries, which understandably bred resentment. False Dichotomy on Israel: Agree: The “eradicate Israel or live under Israeli control” framing is indeed a false dichotomy. The two-state solution has long been the consensus, and the PLO did formally recognise Israel in 1993. Israeli settlement policy has possibly eroded viability as much as Palestinian rejectionism. Contradiction (slight): Not all Palestinian factions accepted Oslo or the two-state framework – Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and others openly reject Israel’s existence. So while the PLO position is often cited, Palestinian politics have always been divided. Highlighting Militancy vs Israeli Actions: Agree: It is selective to spotlight Palestinian militancy while ignoring Sabra and Shatila, repeated Israeli invasions, and systemic denial of Palestinian rights. Power asymmetry matters here. Contradiction (small qualification): Some Palestinian groups did deliberately target civilians (airline hijackings, school and bus attacks), which is not merely “survival strategy” but intentional terror tactics. That distinction matters when weighing historical narratives. Causality and Blame: Agree: Palestinian armed conflict in host states was a symptom of dispossession. Using this as proof against Palestinian statehood is indeed like blaming the refugee for the fire. Contradiction (caveat): While dispossession explains militancy, it doesn’t absolve armed factions of agency. Their decisions had real and often disastrous consequences for host populations – so they can’t be painted only as victims of circumstance. It is also important to recognise that perspectives on these events vary enormously, and each side tends to emphasise the facts that best fit its own narrative. In such a highly complex and emotive history, no single-page summary can capture the full reality. Every claim can be contested with further detail, context, or counterexamples, which is precisely why the debate over Palestinians, host states, and Israel remains so enduring and polarised.

All part of the 'contagion effect' of reporting... When the escalator / travelator at the Airport chewed up a womans leg, every single escalator / travelator at malfunction, no matter how small, across the nation managed to reach the media. Its the same with the earth quakes after the March 28 quake.

Yep.. I am serious... I know a Thai chef and food critic who once visited the restaurant. I argued that the Crab Omelette was ridiculously expensive, while he insisted that the crab meat came from the “best part of the crab” – the claws – and was inherently costly. He estimated, several years ago, that the omelette contained around 800 baht worth of crab meat alone. My wife has eaten there and said the omelette was great but arguably over-priced, though it wasn't 4000 baht... she also found the staff to be unpleasant, arrogant, and rude and vowed never to return. Still, if someone sees the price and orders, they can hardly complain. Earlier reports suggest the omelette is listed on the menu at anywhere from 1,500 to 4,000 baht, with customers given the option to choose which price to go for. My suspicion is that, in the case of the recent complaint, the diner was presented with a choice, answered without fully paying attention, and then experienced bill shock. Personally, I still think the place is far too expensive for what it offers, which is why I’ve never been. But the notion of arresting an 82-year-old over the prices in her restaurant seems like the kind of knee-jerk reaction only Thai authorities could produce.

Right next to a footbridge as well... I can't see how this could be anything other than the old fella's own fault...

Its what Mike Tyson wears...

No you can't... Not with high quality crab-meat... This is also ridiculous - Yes, the price was excessive, but surely thats up to the establishment... There is no way an 82 year old is ever being sent to jail because of the pricing in her restaurant - the headline itself is such a stretch. What of the markup on Wine in may other restaurants, often more than 2-3x the cost, but in some cases far more than that - so are those owners susceptible to investigation ? Next time I'm charged 4000 baht for a 1000 baht bottle of wine, or even 1500 baht for a 500 baht bottle of wine, should we create a social media scene ?

Israel has no control over the Rafah Crossing. The restrictions on Palestinians leaving or re-entering Gaza through that gateway are set by Egypt and, on the Gaza side, Hamas. As you rightly point out: Egypt’s reluctance to open the crossing fully is not arbitrary. Cairo views Hamas as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, a movement it has long considered a direct threat to its own regime. Allowing large numbers of Gazans into Sinai risks importing Hamas fighters and networks, potentially turning Egyptian territory into a new staging ground for attacks on Israel or even destabilising Egypt itself, and we have seen what has occurred in both Lebanon and Jordan. Additionally, the fear is not unfounded. The Sinai Peninsula has already been plagued by jihadist insurgencies, some with suspected links to Gaza smuggling tunnels. Egypt has spent years trying to stamp out militancy there, at great cost. Opening Rafah without restrictions would risk inflaming a volatile region on its own doorstep. History also weighs heavily. Egypt fought four wars with Israel - in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973.... and the memory of the Six-Day War of 1967, when Israel decisively defeated Egypt (and its allies) in less than a week, still lingers. Cairo has no appetite for being dragged into another conflict with Israel, directly or indirectly, especially on behalf of Hamas. Its strategy since the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty has been clear: keep the peace, avoid entanglement, and secure its own borders first. Thus... while many in the West simplistically ask why Palestinians cannot just cross into Egypt, the reality is that Egypt has powerful strategic, security, and political reasons to keep Rafah tightly controlled. It does not want Gaza’s problems becoming Egypt’s problems - and certainly not at the cost of reigniting a war with Israel... This stance is held by all of 'Palestines' neighbours... So the question lingers: if Egypt does not want Gaza’s Palestinians, and Jordan, Lebanon, and other Arab states are equally reluctant, then who does? No Arab state is volunteering to absorb them permanently. Lebanon has kept Palestinians in refugee camps for decades without granting full rights. Jordan, though it absorbed many, violently crushed Palestinian militancy in Black September (1970–71). The reality is stark: no one else wants them. That raises a difficult, even uncomfortable question: if their supposed “home” is so widely rejected by their neighbours, is it really their home at all? The debate, of course, is highly emotive and steeped in history. Advocates speak of Palestine as an eternal homeland, yet it is worth noting that the word “Palestine” does not appear in the Qur’an. By contrast, The name "Israel" (إسرائيل) does appear repeatedly in the Qur’an - as the name of Prophet Jacob and his descendants, the Children of Israel. The land of Israel - its people, its prophets, Jerusalem itself - is also referenced repeatedly in Jewish scripture and appears in the Bible as the land of the Israelites, long before the term “Palestine” was ever used. Historically, the earliest mentions are of Israel, Judea, and the Jewish kingdoms, centuries before the Roman Empire renamed the region “Syria Palaestina” in the 2nd century AD, in an attempt to erase Jewish identity after the Bar Kokhba revolt. To be clear, today’s conflict is not a straightforward religious war - it is primarily a turf war, one of land and sovereignty. Yet the historical record matters, because it underlines that both peoples have lived on this strip of land for millennia, but the Jewish connection is traceable far earlier in recorded history than the concept of “Palestine” itself.