rockingrobin

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

Yes, this May .

I dont know whether it is her or not and Im terrible at recognising peoples faces, I just wondered whether anyone has better facial reconsigning abilities than I do

Any more pictures

9 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Just because its on facebook does not make it true

2 minutes ago, bannork said:

Yes, perhaps she exaggerated the depth she had dived to to impress her friends and mother back in Russia.

Or perhaps the Koh Tao mafia hacked into both her Facebook and What's App accounts and posted all this stuff to fool Thai visa sleuths. 

 

 

 

 

Why did the police decide to search shallow waters 4 to 5 meters deep, 

13 minutes ago, bannork said:

I'm afraid rockinrobin is wrong about her diving experience. According to her mother she had 4 years experience diving in Russia.

Not in the sea

From the article you posted earlier 

But all her experience was in swimming pools – she had no experience of diving in the sea

28 minutes ago, bannork said:

According to Valentina's mother , her daughter had been learning to dive for 4 years- always in swimming pools which is not surprising as she lived in Russia. The reference to wanting to beat her personal record of 22 metres came from her own Facebook post..

https://www.sweet3mango.com/2017/03/13/mother-missing-russian-tourist-arrives-koh-tao-admits-never-dived-sea/

Just because its on facebook does not make it true

4 minutes ago, bobrussell said:

But people with communicable diseases are generally excluded from paying anyway.

The list (if interested) is:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/238/schedule/1/made

 

There is no requirement for registration or credit card!

Is this not a catch 22, how would that person know without visiting an nhs service and risking a charge.

9 minutes ago, rasg said:

Just because the NHS guidelines require them to do it, doesn’t mean that they do it.

 

True about GPs but I paid my GP £10 for a letter from our doctor for my wife to use for FLR.

 

What about the women who come here specifically to have their babies and never pay for the treatment?

It is law, the guidelines are to help them apply the law

1 hour ago, bobrussell said:

I struggle to find a really fair system that covers NHS costs etc without some form of surcharge.

The visa fees are astronomical for the individual and any profit should be ploughed back into the system. I have never seen figures for the real cost to the NHS of non-EU spouses but I suspect by the time my wife has seen the GP a couple of times and had the basic MOT services a payment of £600 a year would be in favour of the NHS.

If the spouse pays tax and NI then the argument that they should pay a zero or reduced surcharge would seem fair. They have not, however provided the historical payments that UK residents have. Many pay tax/NI for years without using the NHS!

I would love to find any BUPA insurance that is £80 a year. Generally that would cover a monthly direct debit for a youngster. BUPA does not provide 24/7 care nor GP services. £600 is therefore pretty good value especially when pre-existing conditions are covered which is not the case with insurance.

As with everything immigration related, there is going to be a fairer way of doing things but the reality is that there is going to be little sympathy for settlement applicants or their families. The UK is a low wage economy, in part because of the availability of cheap labour and this has caused fundamental resentment that politicians cannot ignore.

 

The NHS is meant to be a merit good

Persons who are liable for the NHS charging will simply not visit or seek medical help when they are sick. This in itself poses a risk to the general population, as poeple with communicable diseases will be in contact with  the general public and transmitting the diseases

42 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

“The initial investigation suggested no clues of an attack or murder,” said Surat Thani provincial police chief Apichart Boonsriroj. “Her latest communications via social media indicated she wanted to free dive deeper than 22.3 metres without an assistant or equipment.” 

 

Novozhenova mentioned on Whatsapp that she had consulted a psychiatrist on February 3 because she feared something but could not indicate the cause. The psychiatrist advised her to enrol in long-term therapy.

-----

 

That settles it, was definitely the 'death island mafia' who dunnit!

The article is nonsense and at best incomplete.

' Novozhenova is 1.7 metres tall and a passionate swimmer who often brought a purple towel or coat with her while diving or snorkelling, police said' 

Where did this info come from? How many times is often, considering she arrived 7th , touring Bangkok 8th , pictures of Khao Tao 10th, repaired telephone and took pictures on 11th, last known communication on 13th mentioning diving, somehow we are supposed to believe that without any former experience she managers a succesfully dive to 22m, 

The Whats app communication only as 3 explanations

Not encypted

Came from a third party

Fabricated

With missing cctv footage of her arrival , a diving buddy who supposedly teamed up with her and then leaves the country , I think it is suspicious, 

2 hours ago, bannork said:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/national/30308024

What is not clear regarding the WhatsApp message , was the security encryption enabled

3 hours ago, Dave67 said:

Heard this tonight from a member of Conservative party who strangly enough posts on the same West Ham Forum as me. I think he is a volunteer for campaigns ect and hears all the latest rumours. Apparenty May wants to go but they won't let her go as they have no viable replacement for her and it would probably mean another election what could be won by Labour. If you noticed she did not sign DUP deal, the chief whip did, this is so when she goes there will be no need to strike a new deal with DUP and leave the Tories with a slim majority.

 

Seems to make sense , because May if she had any decency would have resigned by now. As Osbourne called her dead Woman walking

I see David Davis saying the reason for the poor election result was due to a poorly run campaign , even though he was one of the main protagonists calling for the early election

1 hour ago, Eff1n2ret said:

I guess the government will find it quite easy to argue that whatever arrangements they make with the EU do not affect arrangements they have anywhere else in the world. I don't think the matter of uprating pensions for UK residents in the EU will feature much in Brexit negotiations. They don't need the permission of the EU to pay pensions to UK citizens there, any more than they really do to pay us here in Thailand. That's what is so stupid about those "reciprocal agreements".

Of course, there is the matter of pension rights acquired by EU citizens who retire from the UK to their own country - in that case, the EU should be very keen to make an agreement; whether they call it a "reciprocal agreement" or something else is unlikely to assist our cause very much, I fear.

That is not my thoughts.

At present pensions are uprated in the EU due to agreements with the EU which will come to an end on Brexit, depending upon negotations.

The mere fact that the government have stated it is the UK's intention to maintain this uprating suggests that either a deal will be completed or the UK will have to change the existing laws/regulations , as reaching a number of reciprocal arrangements with the individual countries is not feasable given the timescale this would require

2 hours ago, evadgib said:

1bn quid for DUP yet 'we're skint' re global parity & how about this gem from the PM yesterday....?

 

“Finally, the UK will continue to export and uprate the UK State Pension and provide associated healthcare cover within the EU. We will continue to protect the export of other benefits and associated healthcare cover, where the individual is in receipt of those benefits on the specified cut-off date. And subject to negotiations we want to continue participating in the European Health Insurance Card scheme, so that UK card holders could continue to benefit from free or reduced cost healthcare while on a temporary stay in the EU and vice versa for EU card holders visiting the UK”.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-commons-statement-on-european-council-26-june-2017

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-publishes-proposals-on-rights-of-eu-citizens

 

I guess the best we can do is hope the DUP are sympathetic and use their pressure accordingly.

Apologies for going off topic,

Does the statement regarding uprating of pensions , mean that the government is intent on reaching a deal. Otherwise under UK present laws I cannot see how it is lawfull, without a reciprocal social security agreement the statuary instrument/regulation preventing pension uprating will need to be either abolished or amended

1 hour ago, JAG said:

Maybe you would, but let's not forget that the results of the general election show, whether reckoned by parliamentary seats or the popular vote, rather more - considerably more - of the British people would rather have that Tory bitch and her Tory pals in No.10 than Corbyn.

By popular vote there was a 2.3% difference , approx 800,000, hardly considerably more

11 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Notice any similarities in what I wrote? Your arguments must be flawed too!

 

  15 hours ago, nauseus said:

You are right, it is not up for debate. But you are wrong, constitutionally, as the referendum result was a valid mandate given to the government, by the people, to give notice under Article 50. The mandate was frustrated by several interventions, including that of R. Miller, with the apparent aim of delaying and possibly voiding it. The Supreme Court did not question the validity of the referendum itself but it did rule that an act of parliament was necessary to enable the actual triggering of Article 50. After more dithering by the Lords, the bill was passed and this actually removes any question of legitimacy. Gina Miller has unwittingly shot herself in the foot! 

 

The government and parliament had a constitutional duty to honour the referendum result and they know that. That is why, despite all of the interference, the democratic majority vote has been respected. 

It is about context

Your claim about the Supreme Court did not question the validity of the referendum  is irrelevent because it was not asked to do so. This does not confer a constitional mandate.

With the advisory nature of the referendum then it can only be a considered political mandate

11 minutes ago, evadgib said:

PM Commons statement on European Council: 26 June 2017

Did you read the paragraph of maintaining the pension uprating

1 hour ago, goldenbrwn1 said:

The money is going to be spent on the NHS in NI which is part of the UK. I really dont see what the problem is. She needed the votes to get her majority....it's a no brainer. Nothing about same sex marriage or gay rights just money that will be spent on a part of the UK's National Health Service. Which will be helping everyone in NI be it DUP supporters , Shinn Feinn or whoever. And yes the government isn't a great one at the moment but I really think it would be a lot worse under Corbyn.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think its a case of a bad deal is better than a no deal.

I note quite a large chunk of the money is going to be spent in the first 2 years, expect the DUP to come bacjk for some more.

Not all the money is going to the NHS, I see that the york road interchange , Belfast, is also getting funds

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

You are right, it is not up for debate. But you are wrong, constitutionally, as the referendum result was a valid mandate given to the government, by the people, to give notice under Article 50. The mandate was frustrated by several interventions, including that of R. Miller, with the apparent aim of delaying and possibly voiding it. The Supreme Court did not question the validity of the referendum itself but it did rule that an act of parliament was necessary to enable the actual triggering of Article 50. After more dithering by the Lords, the bill was passed and this actually removes any question of legitimacy. Gina Miller has unwittingly shot herself in the foot! 

 

The government and parliament had a constitutional duty to honour the referendum result and they know that. That is why, despite all of the interference, the democratic majority vote has been respected. 

The arguments presented are flawed.

How does an advisory referendum become a constitional mandate , given thar the people are not sovereign. The only reasonable conclusion is that it gave a political mandate.

The court case was not about the referendum, but the use of the RP  and thus did not need to make a decision pn such.

4 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Agree entirely with the first 2 paras - but you can't expect people of any nation to embrace those from poorer countries entering their country and reducing salaries as companies take advantage of the cheap labour - particularly when it reflects up the 'scale'!

The Bitish had no problems in the past embracing nationals from poor countries, instead of inviting them the British enslaved them

10 minutes ago, rixalex said:

The decision to have a referendum itself was one that was made by MPs in parliament. MPs, working as you say with their team of experts and with the best interests of the nation in mind, voted in favour of having a referendum. They shouldn't have done that if they planned on ignoring the vote, or suddenly moving the goalposts on what constitutes a win and what doesn't after the vote.

 

When the referendum act was going through parliament, the gov , in the form of D.Liddington, told MPs the referendum was advisory

12 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

Thanks, makes tedious reading, but essentially says much the same as the UK proposal.

There are some trap doors that the EU likes to see in case they screw up.

The jurisdiction of the ECJ is one, and actual dates to go with time spans is another, and I expect there are more if you examine it carefully.

 

Why haven't we seen this in the British Press? I guess because it isn't controversial enough, and is actually a very small indicator the EU will play ball.

I have not seen the UK proposal, understand it is going to the EU on monday.

3 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Some great points sandyf.

 

Trade in the future will depend on the trading partners and the WTO only becomes involved if both partners are already "signed up" with the WTO ..  UK currently trades with other EU countries based on the EU agreements, but the question I pose is, will trade between UK and - for example - Spain - revert to the prior WTO agreement that existed between them before the EU's own agreements were rubber-stamped by the WTO?  Another possibility would be to take the trade element of the terms of the EU agreements between UK pre-brexit and an individual EM member country and apply them via WTO. Being a pre-existing agreement, the WTO would have little input and the process would be much more speedy.  Yes - it's a biut simplistic, but the current thinking amongst the best Westminster minds is so muddled as to be unfathomable. People are only slowly coming to understand that Brexit ia a blank piece of paper and a gtreat opportunity to rewrite UK's place as a trading partner with it's european neighbours, Such a freedom is truly frightening for both politicians and Beaurocrats of all political hues, so they frantically scrable throug the exist paperwork and try to patch it up - not having the vision to create something new and better..  UK voted for Brexit at the referendum, but then voted for a truly pathetic bunch of mindless sheep to implement it.

 

The DUP find themselves almost on the same side as Sinn Fein now, both talking to both sides of the house in attempts to get the "bet deal" for their angles in NI.  TM has no idea what she has bitten off with the DUP, and they are currently masking their agenda behind the financing of infrastructure, but the reality is they will be going for support beyond re-establishing rule from Stormont. 

 

Immigration is starting to take a back seat now as people realise that the issue is already governable with current rules.  The fly-in-the-ointment is the link between freedom of movement of immigrants from EU and freedom of trade between EU countries.  That issue will easily be resolved when MP's wake up and realise that UK just tore up the old agreement - it no longer applies and they need to apply their own currently existing immigration laws.

 

The WTO - EU schedueles are not that simple and in some cases discriminatory. Take for example the EU position on the protection to citrus industry, at present can the UK realistically adopt the EU 's position considering no such industry in the UK.

A bigger factor is the EU 's position on agriculture protection it negotiated with the WTO , a far more generous amount than what Russia managed, will the UK be adopting the same as an independant nation without opening a dispute

2 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

The EU have given assurances to UK citizens living in europe.The EU proposals are far more detailed and superior from a citizens prospective than what the UK have so far provided.

51 minutes ago, OJAS said:

What is your evidence for this statement?

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/position-paper-essential-principles-citizens-rights_en

I will attempt to find the communication that was produced in aprill from the EU on citizens

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

Which club would we wish to join that Argentina is a member of. And don't make me laugh by referring to the WTO (as if Argentina will stop us trading through that organisation ). Just more remainer scaremongering.

The issue is not about the WTO, 

The UK is going to adopt the existing schedueles (affiliated to EU), but have not mentioned how they intend to deal with the quota's. Is the UKs intention to take a percentage of the existing EU quota, seems the easiest route, or negotiate seperate ones.

If they take part of the existing EU quotas , the third party country may not be happy with this arrangement and feel that they are being disadvantaged.

2 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Whilst I agree with you that a deal will be done, comparing the Thai luxury car market to the UK one is about as apples and oranges as it gets. And my point still stands that the UK market is a huge one for German exporters, which is the main reason why a deal will be done.

The economies of scale put the UK at a disadvantage

18 hours ago, jesimps said:

The EU, especially Grupenfuhrer Merkel, keep picking over TM's citizenship offer, but have.still not given any assurances about Brits living in the EU countries.

TM tried to sort this out with the fat frau just after the Brexit vote but was dismissed out of hand.

I'd like to see a positive outcome from these talks but it seems impossible to negotiate with these EU types.

I dread it but in the end I think we'll just have to walk. That's if parliament oks it.

 

The EU have given assurances to UK citizens living in europe.The EU proposals are far more detailed and superior from a citizens prospective than what the UK have so far provided.