johnnybangkok

Well what is it then? Your original post said 'they were emboldened by the utter lack of consequences for the looters and arsonists. Jan6 would have looked entirely different if BLM'ers went to jail..' now you are accepting that 70 went to prison. You can't have it both ways - there was either no consequences or there was. Which one are you choosing? NB - And none of these BLM rioters who were jailed were subsequently pardoned by presidential order - unlike the Jan 6th rioters.

Wrong. As usual. https://apnews.com/article/death-of-george-floyd-george-floyd-race-and-ethnicity-capitol-siege-racial-injustice-07da2a81193ce26de266881230340f1d 'The AP found that more than 120 defendants across the United States have pleaded guilty or were convicted at trial of federal crimes including rioting, arson and conspiracy. More than 70 defendants sentenced so far have gotten an average of about 27 months behind bars. At least 10 received prison terms of five years or more.'

And why do you care?

Pure imagination to fuel your echo chamber.

And we certainly see through yours. Despite all your protestations, the UK still remains a tolerant place where a person is judged on their character and ability with the VAST majority of Brits thankfully not agreeing to your obviously biased agenda. The idea that an ethnic minority is hired over a white candidate is purely in your right-wing, racist fantasy imagination to fuel some sort of dystopian nightmare that simply doesn't exist. People are idiots irespective of the colour of their skin - something you aptly demonstarte every time you post.

I was wondering how long it would take you to appear with your 'whites are getting victimised' nonsense. From the article - 'The force has stated publicly that early access does not provide an advantage in the application process and is only meant to attract a wider pool of candidates.'

Absolute nonsense. It literally says in the article 'The force, which serves a region where nearly a quarter of the population is from an ethnic minority background, argues that the approach is necessary to better reflect the communities it serves.' Now I'm sure arithmatic isn't your strong point but that leaves 75% that isn't from an ethnic background and nowhere near 'mainly'.

Get a room

Thank you for taking the time to write all of this and I'm sorry it's being completely ignored by Yagoda even though he's the one shouting for solutions. It's perhaps not surprising though that one of the more rabid Trump supporters is shouting for 'alternatives plans to Trump' in a 'do you think you could do better' kind of manner, but when presented with said plans, chooses to completely ignore them. It's like a 10 year old child sticking their fingers in their ears and loudly shouting 'la, la, la, la, la - can't hear you!' I (and many others I'm sure) however appreciate your well thought out and eloquent response.

Ok. One last time for those that are REALLY not getting this despite having it pointed out to them numerous times - it's not about tariffs - it's about trade deficits. Even if Thailand dropped all tariffs on US products tomorrow, that doesn't mean the trade deficit is going to improve. Thai's are not going to simply buy more US products and certainly not to the tune of $45B (the current trade deficit). You need to have a market that wants the product in the first place (big problem) and the product (even without tariffs) still has to be competitively priced against other similar manufacturers who are closer (China for example) and have lower logistic costs. So where are you going to spend all this money (and don't keep saying cars - you need to but a load of cars to make up $45B.) Well Thailand could buy more natural gas from America, but even if Thailand stopped buying all of it's natural gas from other markets and bought it all from America (highly unlikely), this would still only be $11B. That's still $34B to go. You could buy a few fighter jets at between $50- 100M a go, but again, that's an awful lot of fighter jets (over 400). Maybe a few more tractors. Maybe you can buy more copper, Pharmaceutical products, Iron and/or steel or even, electronic equipment (a full list can be seen here - https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/exports/thailand) but it's going to be nigh on impossible for Thailand to make a significant enough dent to 'impress' Trump by buying more American stuff. Yes they may start with removing existing tariffs but that's not what Trump is all about - he wants the US trade deficit down and that can ONLY be done by buying more American products or selling less of your own. So stop with your armchair economics if you think it's because Californian wine has 200% tariffs on it or a Cherokee Jeep is more expensive that a Toyota Landcruiser - it has very little to do with this and everything to do with either buying more American stuff or relocating factories to the US (another unrealistic desire of Trump.) P.S. I also find it horrendous that so many people on this forum are cheering for this idiotic move. Do you even live in Thailand? Do you not understand how bad this will be for many Thai companies and therefore the Thai people?

Ok so I’ll stand slightly corrected in that Raptors are made in Thailand but at over double the price of Rangers, they are not nearly as popular and are predominantly for export. Mustangs are not made in Thailand and at 5.5m for a Mach 1 they are very much a luxury car on par with a Mercedes V class. They are also not left hand drive. Obviously this might sell more if they weren’t subject to Thai tariffs, but the biggest bar to market is they are right hand drive. Change that and they might stand a chance. Not really sure what you are arguing about here. Granted there is no major Thai brand of car but they are Thai cars in as much as they are produced here. As was stated before, no one is saying Thai tariffs aren’t unreasonable but to say that if dropped everyone will rush out and buy a Mustang doesn’t take in the idea of demand, other better priced competitors but most importantly, they are not left hand drive. Most importantly though (and as Ive stated before) Trump is trying to close the trade deficit and you’ll need to sell a helluva lot of mustangs to make a dent in $45b, regardless of dropping tariffs. And even if Thailand dropped all of its tariffs on American goods, there’s no guarantee that Trump will reciprocate (ask Vietnam) or that it will move the trade deficit any closer.

It's one of his favourit subjects - the victimisation of white people in the UK. The report CLEARLY states the true reason behind many of the UK's problems as 'primary drivers of racial disparities are class and geography rather than race itself.' I'm originally from Glasgow and I can assure you 'teenage knife crime and the rape gang' are VERY white there. It's nothing to do with colour and everything to do with a lack of social mobility and simple geography - it's white in Glasgow, it's brown in Leeds and it's black in London. But this doesn't feed into ol' Jonny's agenda and is conveniently ignored.

Another poster who jumps on a thread without having read the previous pages. As both myself and Patong (above) have mentioned numerous times, Toyota, Honda, Mitsubushi, Isuzu, Mazda, Ford, BMW, Mercedes, Tata and Diahatsu all have manufacturing plants in Thailand which is why you see so many Ford Rangers/Everests on the road here and so many of the other brands I've mentioned. If Ford wanted to sell its Mustangs, Raptors etc then they would either have to re-tool their plants in America to manufacture right hand drive (no easy task) or more likely, set up production here in Thailand in their already existing plant in Rayong. So why haven't they then? Well the answer is quite simple - there's obviously no demand. Car manufacturers are in the business of making money so if they thought they could sell Mustangs or Raptors then they would do exactly that. They don't so you have to conclude that far more knowledgeable people than yourself have made the decision they don't think they will sell. Tesla - there are plenty of Tesla's here in Thailand (you should have a look at what all the mummy's at my kids school drive) BUT they are manufactured in China and because they are EV's, they benefit from a FTA (free trade agreement) and a much reduced tax burden. (https://www.nationthailand.com/thailand/general/40036119). However since BYD kicked off operations at its Thai plant last July, with an annual production capacity of 150,000 vehicles and since everyone now thinks Musk has gone mad with his political interference around the world, expect these Tesla sales to drop. Dramatically.

Perhaps you can tell Vietnam who did exactly this but is still facing 46% tariffs - " Vietnam, which deployed a Trump administration charm offensive by slashing levies on imports and vowing to buy more big-ticket US products to protect its trade-reliant economy, failed to avert one of the largest tariffs announced by the White House. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/vietnam-charm-offensive-fails-to-stave-off-46-trump-tariff

At last, someone gets it!

Exactly. They are based in the country they are predominately selling to but have retooling capabilities for export to the US and to Europe. This was set up in advance knowinging they were going to be exporting. If a US manaufacturer wants to sell to Thailand, they will have to retool their plant (if they haven't done so already) but more importantly, they would then have to compete with manufacturuers that already have a Thai base and therefore dramatically less logistic costs. Why buy a Cherokee (even wityhout tariffs) when a locally produced Ford Ranger is 25% cheaper?

You seem to be focusing on one small area but we can take cars as an example of what this is all about. I am not disagreeing that Thailands taxes on imported cars is prohibitively high but it worked for Thailand, with many major car manufacturers having large car plants in Thailand for both the local market and for export. If you have a look around the roads at any time do you think there's a lack of those Ford Rangers on the road? There isn't as they are manufactured here because they need to be (as Patong pointed out) right-hand drive, which of course most American cars aren't and would require a big change in production to become right-hand drives. So even if this tax was dropped tomorrow, do you think there will be a mad rush to buy other American cars? And even if there was, do you think it will make up for the $45B trade deficit? Car manufacturers are not dumb. If they thought they would have a large market in Thailand then they would have already built a plant here hence why Toyota, Honda, Mitsubushi, Isuzu, Mazda, Ford, BMW, Mercedes, Tata and Diahatsu all have manufacturing plants in Thailand. Those that aren't here do not see the demand. Trump is focusing these tariffs on trade deficits NOT who tariffs who and on which items. Even if Thailand dropped ALL tariffs on all American products tomorrow, there still wouldn't be enough demand to close the trade deficit and therefore it's unlikely to have him change his mind. So for all those going on about the tariffs - it's not JUST about tarriffs, it's about trade deficits which are 100 times harder to close. Trump thinks he will force manufacturers to start manufacturing in the USA but that simply isn't going to happen so all that is going to happen is higher prices for American consumers and more misery for countries that he's set tariffs on.

The typical ill-informed rantings of a MAGA fanatic. As I've already pointed out, it's not about tarriffs - it's about trade deficits and even if Thailand dropped all tarriffs on US products tomorrow, that doesn't mean the trade deficit is going to improve. Thai's are not going to simply buy more US products and certainly not to the tune of $45B. You need to have a market that wants the product in the first place (big problem) and the product (even without tarriffs) still has to be competatively priced against other similar manufacturers who are closer (China for example) and have lower logistic costs. A big dent could be made in natural gas, but even if Thailand stopped buying all of it's natural gas from other markets and bought it all from America (highly unlikely), this would still only be $11B. That's still $34B to go which just cannot be made up with buying more US products. So take off you MAGA blinkers for a second, read an article now and again and stop with all this sycophantic nonsense when it comes to this man. Here, I'll start you off; https://www.kcl.ac.uk/trumps-tariffs-what-is-behind-them-and-will-they-work

Do any of you posters here actually live and work in Thailand? 3 pages of people mostly agreeing with all of this with very little regard to how this is going to affect business and therefore people in Thailand. All most of you care about is cheaper American wine and for some bazaar reason, buying Harley's that no one other than Americans buy anyway. The actual reason for all of this is Trump looking at trade deficits (not neccessarily who tariffs US products more) which currently stands at $45B (pocket change for the USA) but since Thailand's main US imports come from mineral fuels, oils, distillation products, machinery, nuclear reactors, boilers, and electrical and electronic equipment the room for increasing buying of these things is limited (it's not just about buying a few more Harley's or a couple more bottles of Jack Daniels). Thailand can however start buying more natural gas from the US as it currently buys this from the Middle- East, more agricultural products and yes, of course it can reduce tarriffs but the reducing of tariffs still doesn't affect the trade inbalance sufficiently enough as people still have to buy the product and there's still a VERY limited market for US products in Thailand and moving production to the US is just not going to happen. Plus there is also no guarantee that even if Thailand does drop tariffs, the US will reciprocate (see someones post about Vietnam earlier). These are worrying times for Thailand which is already trying to cope with high household debt leading to a major decrease in local buying power so before you start slagging off the country you actually live in (if you even do of course) have a thought for how a very low predicted 2025 GDP growth of some 2.3% is now going to take a 1% hit just from these measures alone. How many factories will be forced into closure and the subsequent knock on effect of businesses that supply to these factories. Closures and wide-ranging redundancies are highly likely. But yeah, as long as long as you get a cheaper glass of wine. My own business is intricately linked to Thai business and I am VERY concerned that this will be the final 'straw' for many Thai companies. Worrying times ahead indeed.

Well I appreciate you taking the time to provide more information and before I comment I would like to say I think this woman has been stupid/naive to the extreme to not think this would have implications for her career but I do take point with a few of the things you have said and nothing you have provided proves due process was in fact given. You are assuming this when in fact the article you provided (from a very right wing publication) says 'The pro-Hamas doctor was fired after weeks of pressure from City Councilwoman Inna Vernikov (R-Brooklyn), who pushed for further action after learning that the hateful doc initially only received a slap on the wrist by deleting her social media account.' I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that 'other workplace members said that it did not go far enough and an investigation ensued.' but I can't see that in the article - only the extreme pressure from a Jewish republican councilwoman. My issue with all this is fairness. Would the same treatment be given to a Jewish health professional posting about killing all Palestinians? Someone espousing 'Long live the IDF and long live Israel - the noble resistance and freedom fighters?' As I mentioned before, illegal speech has to 'promote, encourage, or urge anyone to commit a terrorist act or provide instructions on how to commit a terrorist act.' If that's not the case then this law needs to change and despite the wishes of the GOP and many posters on here (and even Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche), to date that has not changed. People are allowed an opinion (whether you like what they are saying or not) and that goes to the heart of free speech and I only see a backward slide with the insistence that any criticism levelled at Israel (or indeed any country/religion/ethnicity) comes with such heavy consequences.

No it's about the law on free speach.

And let me add to this. 'A PSR must be obtained unless the court considers it unnecessary. A defence lawyer can also request a report if they believe there are significant mitigating circumstances.' So if a person is white then thay can absolutely have a PSR. Where it differs now is in the proposal by the Council that a PSR should "normally be considered" if the offender belongs to one, or more, of these groups: • Is at risk of first custodial sentence and/or at risk of a custodial sentence of two years or less • Is a young adult (18-25 years) • Is female • Is from an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority • Is pregnant or post-natal • Is a sole or primary carer for dependent relatives • Has disclosed they are transgender • Has or may have addiction issues • Has or may have a serious chronic medical condition, physical disability, mental ill health, learning disabilities or brain injury • The offender is considered to be a victim of domestic abuse, physical/sexual abuse, violent/threatening behaviour, coercive/controlling behaviour, other abuse, modern slavery, coercion, grooming, intimidation or exploitation. However and very importantly, the council says the list is non-exhaustive and PSR can be necessary if the defendant is not in one of those categories. https://news.sky.com/story/what-are-pre-sentence-reports-and-the-controversial-changes-13322644

Enough of the pearl clutching. If you really can't see the point then there really is no helping you. CLUE:- It's about free speach (or at least it should be), not anti-semitism.

The POINT you so easily dismiss (or just simply don't understand) is that this obviously isn't an issue for whites. They're not the ones getting the $hitty end of the stick. So the correct wording for your statement is 'Pre Sentencing reports were considered ABSOLUTELY necessary for minorities but not AT ALL necessary for non minorities.' Lets put it in terms you might understand. Your suggestion would be like giving every ex-pat in Bangkok an STD test because some ex-pats frequent Nana Plaza. Ridiculous right, but that's your suggestion. Now do you get it?