richard_smith237

Too many sicko's have been too busy after wetting themselves a little in excitement after identifying some irony.... A tragic loss of two generations.... I'm wondering why CCTV footage was not presented with the article (if it was available) - which would clear up if the deceased pulled out across a car without looking, or if they car just rear-ended them at speed while driving recklessly..... Both are possibilities here IMO.

No it doesn't only affect people who are dependent on alcohol - thats a puritanical myth spread from the virtue signalling soap boxers... ... its the same folk who will argue... "if you can't go without booze for a day you have an alcohol dependency issue".... The reality for many is somewhat different - we don't want the calendars to ensure we don't get caught out.... we just live a normal life, some days having a beer with dinner or mates, some days not... ...... then we decided to go out for dinner with mates only to find this 'booze ban' which then becomes an irritant.... as its nice to have wine with a nice meal or wash spicy Thai food down with a beer..... The 2-5 selling ban rule is just as ridiculous. I can't say the rule has ever affected me 'greatly'.... but its irritated me at times because its caused inconvenience or an irritation at having to scupper plans.... IF I were a tourist, had spent plenty of money on flights to Greece or Vietnam etc - stepped of the plane, showered up and got ready to go out for dinner only to be told... sorry no wine / beer... I'd be pretty dumbfounded, and I think its a fair point to understand that any tourist arriving in Thailand would feel the same under similar circumstances.

Without any shadow of a doubt 'Political alliances'. Read other articles and we receive a complete different rhetoric - the truth is all the numbers are projections based and not based on any fact. We have some anecdote that family X is unaffected, that family Y had to move to a state-school thats outside of their catchment area, that family Z remains at their private school with state fees paid because their children can't be placed.... The reality is that no one truly knows - but another reality is that this government is undertaking a nationwide 'experiment' that could detrimentally impact the next generation the nations brightest prospects.

Which is of course the correct thing to do. However, I'd still offer caution to any motorcyclist stopping first at a Pedestrian Crossing, with lights and particularly one which is not traffic light controlled..... ... The risk of getting yourself killed here when on a motorcycle giving way at a pedestrian crossing is elevated IMO... So I can certainly understand the sentiment of many.

'..and the PENALTY is aggravated assault..' Really ? In the UK, aggravated assault falls under different categories of assault depending on the circumstances. The penalties can be severe, depending on the level of harm caused and intent.... But you knew that already I guess.....

Fair enough I do give Malcy quite a bit of stick - its because of his comments... Openly admitting to drink driving, not caring if he hits someone, stating how tough he is, that he'd have beaten guys up so they don't get back up etc.... He lies, misquotes, makes up stories.... and With such a vacuum of redeeming features its difficult not to call him out.... thats my bad for just not ignoring an fool.

Thats just life... some buy better cars etc... But... its a different model to education.... Private Schools ease the burden on state-schools. If private schools stopped this year, the state school system would collapse. Of course, that won't happen.... and I get your point about 'privilege' but this is not a simple business model as can be compared to other businesses.... Its yet to be full established how the numbers play out - but there may not be enough places in state schools... The state school system becomes more stretched, and those private schools which do survive become more 'elite'.... This policy creates a greater divide.

I did... then you defended him ye daftie...

I think you are correct and the better plan would have been to prostrate the body on the row of seats cover it up and move all those in close contact into other seats premium eco, business, or even first for the duration of the flight. I'm not sure that would work.... Apparently they tried to get the body into a more private business class seat... (area) but could get the deceased through... so they had to use the Eco Seat... Assuming it was the 'exit row seats' the arm rests would not have raised.... Assuming they couldn't get the body bast the 'bulkhead' into the business class area... I doubt they'd have been able to get the body into a 'normal' eco seat with raised armrests... Its seems the crew did the best they could in a poor situation.

That was ironic that one. Thats not even my comment you've quoted.... Of course you are a boomer, you can't even use the internet properly !!

he got up You'd have killed him with a single punch you are such a tough guy....

I think its a solid reason for private schools not to charge 20% VAT... Most of the private schools in Europe don't charge VAT... Give parents and children the best advantages..... this isn't the way to do it.

Some yes... some no... Some are impossible to get into, with Exams and interviews etc...

He's a delusional liar...

So pathetic... 'made you tough'.... Boomers always come out with that rubbish... Certainly made you delusional.

Just not in the same threads I guess.....

Aligning yourself with Malcy eh... No imagination.... Private Schools don't make people soft... thats just a daft comment and usually one thats motivated for other reasons...

Malcy going for Grade A1 dumb comment of the day again - thats quite a trophy cabinet you are filling... Approximately 70% of Englands Rugby Team come from Private Schools - Bunch of softies eh ?... .... meanwhile while there's you... Hardman keyboard warrior stating you'd have beaten the Brit in Phuket far harder than that bouncer did.... ... Typical of Tough-man boomer stuck behind keyboard completely out of touch with this generation and any other...

You are right, the devil is most definitely in the details... They're schools... not businesses.... and any loss of a school has wider implications - taking a 'simple business approach' to such establishments highlights naivety and a complete lack of understanding of the issue created by this Labor Government.

Its more complex that this simplified approach... the relationships between state schools and private schools is far more intertwined... The detrimental impact of the 'compulsory school system' is as it becomes overloaded.... ... a 'shut down school' does not bring in the extra 20% VAT, so the students have to go somewhere..... and that is at extra cost to the government. This is more myopic elitist rubbish from the Labor Government.... while on the surface it seems unfair that some children have greater advantage at Private Schools; which is why this policy was able to gain traction in the first place, Private Schooling eases the burden on State / Comprehensive schools and resoruces. People can afford it ?? sure, the very wealthy can... But there are borer-line 'payers' who've sacrificed other things so that they can afford the private school and the 20% is the tipping point. So, what happens... The Private schools open up more spaces to overseas students which is great for the government, bringing in overseas money.... Or, they can't get the students and they have to close... The winner ???? the mediocrity and 'great leveller' - students who would otherwise excel in Private schools and held back, students who would do better in State Schools suffer a lack of resources... There is the Grammar Option of course - and competition for that is now perhaps the top 5 or 10% of British Students.... so impossible for many to get into... This government seems to be doing its utmost to drive the UK backwards.

Not really.... I don't think thats 'real' - not in my experience anyway... Rules that appear unnecessary get up peoples noses... So... for those of us who might 'pop away for a weekend' and relax... only to find out when we get there that we can't have a bottle of wine with dinner get irritated by what seems 'petty and unnecessary rules'... (yes, I know that shows some religeos insensitivity - but thats the way it is). So... we have to look ahead, then search if 'going away on xxx weekend' involves dry days... Otherwise we have to act like children and 'smuggle our own G&T or Wine into a restaurant etc'... Can't go a day without a beer you say ????... I haven't had a beer since Sunday, just because I didn't feel like one thats all... But when I do 'feel like a beer' I don't want silly rules to generate a minor element of frustration. In truth the 'non-beer days' don't bother me too much, its easy enough not to have a beer or plan around it... But for those travelling from overseas I can see why this would be more of an annoyance and authorities are quite right to try and deal with this in the interests of tourism. Even sillier than that is the 2-5 ban on selling booze..... It catches me out so often... I nip into a supermakert (Tops / BigC, Villa etc) to pick up some items.... I might have friends popping around that evening etc and need a little stock up... etc... But no, I can't by the beer, I can't buy the Gin etc... so I have to get what I want, then head back out later after 5pm when its peak-traffic.... Its just an irritant... ... Plan the day before !!!... Sure - but it doesn't always work out like that.

Exactly, because he wanted to fight! Agreed - the Brit was an utter idiot and 'created the escalation' when he could have walked in the opposite direction. BUT... Those suggesting the Security Guard was defending himself are also wrong - the security guard was not only happy for the situation to escalate, it appears he actively encouraged it and lured the Brit into the ally before sucker punching him.

He 'wasn't solitary' he was with three other bouncers - and I'm sure there were more out of shot. If you look at the video taken from the alley, after the Brit has been grounded, there are 7 security guards (by my count). If you watch the whole video, it tells a more complete story. 1) 3x Brits try and get access to a club - they are too drunk and security refuses them. 2) Brits should have just moved on - 1 of them is an idiot and doesn't want to move on. 3) Idiot Brit starts an argument with one of the security guards. 4) Both security guard and Brit become agitated. 5) Security guard swings at Brit but appears to miss (2:33 mark on the vid) 6) Brit tries to retaliate and is held back by one of the other Brits (in the light blue shirt). 7) While the Brit being held back (arms held) the Security guard sucker punches the Brit (2:50 mark). 8) Brit in light blue shirt continues to try to restrain his idiot mate. 9) It takes a short while for things to de-escalate before the Brits appear to make the decision to move along (3:33 mark in the vid). From here on in - this is where I think most people have it wrong because they only saw the 'latter part of the video' not the full clip. 10) The security guard takes off his uniform (3:24) 11) The security guard follows the Brits into the road (3:32) 11) The security guard walks into the alley, says something to the Brit (3:52) 12) The security guard waves to the Brit numerous times to follow him into the alley (3:54) 13) The Brit is stupid enough to follow him 14) The Brit walks after / up to the Security guard in a very aggressive manner 15) The Security Guard Sucker Punches him to the head and drops the Brit. \ From the 3:24 mark in the Video - the Security Guard appears to plan his attack by encouraging to get the Brits off the street into an alley so he can attack them - the Brit guy stupidly obliges. The Security was not not walking away to take a break and have some noodles - he planned to assault the Brit who was stupid enough to follow him. Once the Altercation had moved to the alley, the security guard was not defending himself, he was instigating further altercation and escalating to extreme violence - which is where consequences could have been far serious (potentially deadly as we have seen before). Agreed - the Brit is an unhinged idiot and should never have behaving like this. If he can't handle his drink, he should not be drinking. The Security guard was a thug looking for a violent outcome instead of trying to escalate. Also note: Contrary to reports - no security guard was kicked at... No security guard was kicked in the testicles (as claimed by the security guard). Watch the full video and see what you think once the 'anti-brit' bias on this forum is removed. IMO - the Brit guy was clearly a drunk idiot looking for a fight. IMO - the Security was also a thug and once triggered was also looking for a fight. Full video here:

I completely agree here - The Brit was extremely stupid to follow the Security Guard into the alley.... The security guard was clearly planning a 'sucker punch' to deal with the Brit and the Brit walked face first into it and never knew what hit him. Perhaps... People who get this angry while drunk should not be drinking... But then again, people working as security guards should not get prepared to resort to assault so readily.

Up to the victim to press charges, and I believe he declined, everybody waied, apologized and went home. As 'assault' is a criminal charge - its not up to the victim to make the decision. But ultimately, yes... apologies all round... Hopefully the foolish Brit learns his lesson, hopefully the security guard learn a better way to de-escalate a situation.