johnnybangkok

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?

And we have a winner ladies and gentlemen! Despite me clearly stating 'And before anyone thinks I'm a fan of Hamas and that I think this woman wasn't just stipid for doing what she did, think again. I'm just more of a fan of TRUE free speach and fairness across the board' - that's exactly the route you decided to take. It would be pathetic if it wasn't so predictable.

Ok great. All of which sounds terribly reasonable so I suppose you have evidence for all of this (especially the bit where was warned after having done it before)? I’d appreciate a few non-biased links that back up your assertions. I’m not in the “believing anything someone types as gospel” mood today. And If she was so guilty of all this, why did it require the pressure of a GOP councillor to get her sacked? Such obviously radical behaviour would usually only require a verbal warning, followed by a written warning and then dismissal. If egregious enough, you could sack her straight away under employment terms for “immediate dismissal “ which easily cover the things you are saying. Im not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying I need more than just your word for it.

You just go ahead and support anti- free speech and just hope it doesn’t affect you one day. Like most on here.

Someone get fairer treatment doesn't mean others get less. It's not pie. And if my point is only 'alleged' then why all the hullabaloo? Did you think the 2017 Lammy Review or the more recent review by the Sentencing Council (made up of some of the top judges in the UK) where just a bit bored and under-worked so decided to committ months and years to making all of this up? As usual, that echo chamber you so willfully inhabit doesn't allow you to see anything other than your own, myopic viewpoint.

No it's not. It could just be as easily construed as free speach. From A.I. 'In the U.S., verbally supporting a designated foreign terrorist organization can be illegal under certain circumstances, specifically when the speech constitutes "material support" or is used to incite or facilitate terrorist acts, as outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A and § 2339B. The term "material support or resources" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339B and includes things like funds, training, safehouses, weapons, false documentation, and communications. Free Speech Considerations: The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can outlaw material support to terrorist organizations, even in the form of speech, when that speech is not independent of the terrorist organization and is coordinated with them. Examples of Illegal Speech: Counsel, promotes, encourages, or urges anyone to commit a terrorist act. Provides instructions on how to commit a terrorist act. Now the only part she could be accused of providing material support for would be to 'Praise anyone for committing a terrorist act' but there also has to be 'a substantial risk that such praise may lead another person to commit a terrorist act.' None of which has been proven. And it wasn't just ' a hospital decision', it came after heavy pressure from City Councilwoman Inna Vernikov, a Brooklyn Republican. If you want to have it your way then the US should start arresting anyone that espouses any support for white nationalism, supports the KKK, Aryan Nations or similar organisations that are categorised as domestic terrorism. And before anyone thinks I'm a fan of Hamas and that I think this woman wasn't just stipid for doing what she did, think again. I'm just more of a fan of TRUE free speach and fairness across the board.

Fine. Great. If that's the case then absolutely. There should be a complete focus on fairness and equality and that includes women. If they've done the crime then they absolutely should get equitable sentencing to men. That's my whole point. The law should be blind to ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and of course gender. If there's bias then it needs to stop but you have to work out HOW the bias is there and come up with a system that prevents it.

Well then it's needed then unless you think it's acceptable that ethnics minorities are treated demonstartingly worse than whites (don't bother answering - I'll guess your response). If the system was even throughout then there would be no need for a report but as my previous post pointed out 'ethnic minority defendants were between 4% and 28% more likely to be remanded in custody and to have a consistently higher average custodial sentence length than white defendants.' And from the link you priovided - 'The Council, made up of some of the most senior legal figures in England and Wales, was adamant that the guidelines would have helped address disparities between how different ethnicities are treated in the justice system.' - but of course politicians have yet again got involved in matters that they are NOT experts in, pandering to people such as yourself who only see it as somehow being anti-white (a familiar drum you keep beating). The UK justice system is rightly held in high esteem throughout the world so if there IS disparity then it MUST be addressed. Everyone should be given a fair hearing REGARDLESS of ethnic background and if getting '.... extra information before deciding how to punish offenders from certain minority groups' is the answer, then so be it.

Yeah who needs people with different opinions to the powers that be. Whilst we are at it, let's deport the atheists, the flat earthers, the moon-landing deniers and the anti-vaxers. It's a VERY slippery slope to have people ostracised for their opinion. Christ, even the KKK are still allowed to talk in the US. https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-kkk-today/

As usual, you don't tell the whole story. It's got nothing to do with '2 tier sentencing' unless of course you are refering to how ethnic minority groups are treated WORSE than others in the UK legal system' 'The 2017 Lammy Review in the UK presented evidence of stark ethnic inequalities at all stages of the CJS. From the point of arrest, through prosecution to custodial remand, sentencing and imprisonment, ethnic minority groups were shown to be both disproportionately represented and to experience disproportionately worse outcomes. The most recent Ministry of Justice report (2021) shows that ethnic minority defendants were between 4% and 28% more likely to be remanded in custody and to have a consistently higher average custodial sentence length (ACSL), than White defendants.' https://www.adruk.org/fileadmin/uploads/adruk/Documents/Ethnic-inequalites-in-criminal-justice-system.pdf

He was added to the group by mistake. All the rage these days I hear 😂

Or an obvious right wing loony who takes small, isolated incidents as indicative of the whole of the UK to feed even more into his already warped cognitive bias. “Steel boot on the throat” - do you even hear yourself?

I wouldn’t hold your breath Myanmar junta continues air strikes after devastating earthquake https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy7x7r8m3xlo

And just as an interesting aside - IF Greenland was ever 'for sale' (big if of course), Britain gets first dibs:- 'The United Kingdom would have "first dibs" on Greenland, before the U.S, according to Greenland's last Danish minister. Tom Høyem, Copenhagen's last permanent representative in Greenland, said Trump would have to get approval to buy the island from U.K. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer—because of an agreement made in 1917. Høyem told The Sunday Times: "If Trump tried to buy Greenland, he would have to ask London first. The United Kingdom demanded in 1917 that if Greenland were to be sold then the U.K. should have the first right to buy it." https://www.newsweek.com/united-kingdom-first-dibs-greenland-donald-trump-2021505 Obviously us Brits have a little more sense that to ever do this but it would be hilarious if we did.

Being British, I have more than just a rough grasp of the English language and you never use 'nice one' when refering to something like an earthquake. Just apologise and stop talking nonsense.