mfd101

Winner takes all, and gets to redefine the meanings of words [cf Usofa]

The Republic of I seems to have been doing very well for itself over the last 3 or 4 decades - economically & culturally, advancing robustly into the C21st - no doubt aided by EU funds.

Would be hard to say the same of the Ulsterpersons and their antiquated obsessions.

So no letup on exchange rates ...

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Based on what? 

Um, irony?

1 hour ago, Kiwiken said:

We had riots over a rugby tour during the apartheid era in South Africa. You would find NZ opinion pretty polarised on some subjects I believe moving Our Embassy would be one of them.

As always, the world is waiting breathlessly for NZ's decision.

Looks interesting. Are they going to set up also for INWARDS international transfers (ie TO Thailand)?

In any case, as the modern world slowly impinges more and more on ALL areas of life in Thailand, slowly slowly reluctantly step by painful step the country moves forward. As a healthy 69-year-old I'm wondering how long I can hold on till death do us part ...

1 minute ago, mommysboy said:

His view of them: “I believe those who promised what will never be delivered will have much to answer for. They persuaded a deceived population to vote to be weaker and poorer. That will never be forgotten -- nor forgiven.”

 

Sir John Major

Coming from him, that's pretty good.

3 minutes ago, Oxx said:

 

So what, then, is their purpose?

 

Of course, the Queen is far from powerless.  She can prorogue and summon Parliament.  She can refuse asset to bills.  She can appoint and remove Ministers. She appoints the Prime Minister.  She can declare war on foreign countries.  She can create peers at whim.  She can similarly issue and withdraw passports.  She can requisition ships.  She owns all swans on The Thames, along with sturgeons, whales, and dolphins around the UK.  She is exempt from Freedom Of Information requests so is completely unaccountable to the British people.  She can fire the entire Australian government.  And however heinous her crimes, she is totally immune from prosecution.

 

 

She can do all that ONLY on the advice of her PM. ie It's the PM that makes the decisions, not her.

39 minutes ago, Basil B said:

The UK is a Democratic country where it is the elected who govern, The monarch and her family have very little power.

Ever heard of irony?

Would be luvly to have a little airport here in Surin, a nice little domestic one.

Just sayin'.

Basically a matter of cost, I think. If everyone has black or white or silver (and, let's face it, most 4-wheel vehicles here are one or the other of those 3), then it's cheaper to produce.

Ask for a different colour (we got a red new Mazda 3 sporty model 2 years ago) and you pay more. Take it or leave it.

58 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Got it. Just another dishonest politician.

It's called democracy. Every issue requires a slightly different coalition so the matter can be moved forward. Politicians - and even in autocracies - spend 90% of their time forming & reforming coalitions for issues of the day - immigration, abortion, industrial relations, road transport and on and on and on.

"A deep and special partnership". Yes that's what we want. That's why we keep calling them names like any nincompoop child would when losing out on the village playground ...

The one thing that's clear from all this is that, whatever the outcomes - and even if the Brits do actually change their collective minds & stay in, it will be DECADES before any European government again trusts or otherwise relies on the Brits for ANYTHING.

Personally I believe in giving the guy a fair-go. Which is after all what everyone on this site wants for themselves.

We should judge him on the RESULTS in, say, two years time. Given the size of the endemic problems of this country, any time scale shorter than that is not a fair-go.

Perhaps you Brits could get him on Twitter & ask him to overrule not just the Ambassador but even the Vice-Consul!

20 minutes ago, OJAS said:

Indeed. But it still doesn't stop them behaving like morons IMHO, as in this particular instance!

In most countries' foreign affairs organisations, the diplomats and the consular (administrative) staff are 2 quite separate career streams, the former senior & prestigious, the latter decidedly not. With all that that implies ...

35 minutes ago, Pattaya46 said:

Seriously !!

You send such a long email to your Embassy and you expect an answer ??

Too long for me to read it, and they will think exactly the same 

I think you'll find the more senior bureaucrats have had enough education to cope.

7 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Sorry, what is 'the latter'? I would think that actually validating income statements (whatever that means in practice) requires additional resources, not the continuation of the status quo.

As in any normal sentence of the English language, the words 'the latter' refer back to what was mostly recently mentioned, namely - in this instance - 'customers'.

4 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

I don't think this is about cost cutting. I do think it is about checking now for financial documentation. Oath mode not cutting it.

The vice-consul made it perfectly clear in her radio interview the other day that this whole thing was started by a visit from the auditors/inspectors from FCO. They said, that to save resources, the consulate should cease doing for customers what the latter can do by other means. Everything goes from there.

24 minutes ago, David Walden said:

My post was in relation to my to my own personal experience on getting a retirement visa in my home country Thai Embassy Canberra.  It is accepted in Australia by the Embassy because the statement forms part of a signed stat dec which is part of the application.  If you make a false declaration with a JP in Australia for any reason you can go to gaol for up to 4 years,   An Australian stat dec in Thailand isn't worth the paper it is written on.  There is a difference.  I think the same applies in the UK  and the B/E Embassy in Bangkok is really UK soil.  

The Commonwealth of Australia statdec form says [and I haven't got a State or Territories one so don't know what THEY say]: "A person who intentionally makes a false statement in a statutory declaration is guilty of an offence, the punishment for which is imprisonment for a term of 4 years ... ". Nothing there about 'up to 4'. I'm not sure what leeway if any a magistrate might have in that regard.

I also note that, contrary to what you imply, a statdec taken out on Australian territory - ie embassy or consulate - has the same force as if it were taken out in Australia itself. What the Thais might make of that is one for them, and probably remains as much a mystery to them as it is to us.