Oxx

No longer available at the airport (Suvarnabhumi).

I'd assumed that the legislation granting immunity from prosecution for those behind the vaccination decisions was to cover the disastrous procurement process. Now I realise it was also to cover the disastrous decisions, not backed by science, that they were going to make going forward.

A frozen version is available (though at the moment out of stock) https://britishop.com/product/aloo-gobi-british-indian-curries-to-go/ Also sometimes stocked by Villa Market, I believe.

I suspect it's not long term, and that the coffee business here is really hurting. Another niche coffee supplier here has been bombarding me with emails of the 2-for-1 type for a couple of months. Previously, emails from them were very few and far between. I'm an existing customer.

Neither two Sinovac nor two Thai AstraZeneca is acceptable for reentry as a vaccinated person. The current rules only cover people vaccinated in Europe and the US of A.

It is utterly irrational. Thailand has a slightly larger population than the UK, but: UK had 32,651 new cases yesterday; Thailand 14,555. UK has total of 7,371,301 cases; Thailand 1,448,792. UK has had 134,983 deaths; Thailand 15,124. On top of that, researchers reported that in Bangkok 99.7% of residents wore masks correctly, and only 0.02% did not wear masks, whilst in the UK people have largely abandoned mark wearing yet gather in large crowds. In short, Thailand is doing far better than the UK in managing the virus situation. If double-vaccinated people visiting the UK from Thailand are considered too dangerous, then logic would only dictate that the UK government should ban all people living in the UK from going abroad. Utterly irrational. Edit: Add sources https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://thethaiger.com/news/bangkok/study-shows-99-7-of-bangkok-wearing-masks-properly

Don't forget that even if you're non-resident you will still be subject to UK income tax on income arising in the UK from your ongoing employment.

I'd rather not name the hospital because of the defamation laws in Thailand. However, it was arranged through Intervac.

I was due for my second jab of AstraZeneca this afternoon in Bangkok, precisely 12 weeks after the first jab. The hospital has just 'phoned me to delay the appointment for a couple of weeks. That means it'll be more than 12 weeks between the jabs, so they won't be accepted for reentry into Thailand. What a fiasco! I guess they're not getting the quantities of the vaccine they need.

Wealthy people don't like being told what to do with their money. Being ordered to buy significant amounts of Thai government bonds (with their pathetic yield) is offensive, as is the requirement to buy insurance. The rich don't need insurance; they can pay out of their own pockets. This is another case of the government imposing pointless conditions, leading to a scheme that will fail - very much like the scheme for foreigners to visit Thailand under Covid.

Again you are wrong. If you acquire a domicile of choice (and that involves far more than just living in another country), then for taxation purposes you will still be considered UK domiciled for a further three years. In other words (and putting this a bit simplistically), leave the UK, sever virtually all connections with the UK, prove that you have no intention of ever returning to the UK, and then wait a further three years. Only the will you be considered non-domiciled. And even then the tax man may well challenge that when you die. And whether you put anything in your will about domicile is utterly irrelevant.

It's extremely difficult to establish a domicile of choice. It most certainly doesn't happen after 3 years of being away from the UK, and often doesn't happen if one's been away 20 or more years. It depends upon how completely one's severed one's ties to the UK and establishing that one is not ever going to return to the UK to live. Under normal circumstances, domicile is only determined after one's death.

I suspect that's possibly out of date. More recent notifications have dropped Suvarnabhumi Airport as a place to get the certificate.

You're forgetting that AstraZeneca is working on a non-for-profit basis.

That chart was dated August. There's an updated version which I've seen, but can't find again. I believe it said that Moderna for December was down to 2 million doses.

Wasn't there supposed to be a yellow booklet as proof of vaccination for international travel, only issued in four locations, IIRC? Or is the app. now going to provide the necessary proof?

According to the Civil & Commercial Code, Section 990: "The holder of a check (sic.) must present it for payment to the banker within one month after the date of issue if it is payable in the same town where it is issued, or within three months if it is payable elsewhere" https://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/civil-and-commercial-code-checks-section-987-1000/

Apparently, they're now available in "green". https://www.bioplasticsmagazine.com/en/news/meldungen/20210902-Iconic-Aeron-Chair-now-made-with-recycled-ocean-plastic.php (That said, I'd never want one. I really don't like arms on my desk chairs. And it was really a challenge to find such an armless chair in Thailand.)

Uh, not quite as good as that. The-newspaper-that-dare-not-speak-its-name today reports, it's going to be only 1.9 million doses of Moderna arriving in the last quarter of this year, according to the GPO.

Video converted to .mp4 snake.mp4

True. However, in many cases the pension holder nominates who will receive any death benefits. This is not binding upon the trustees. So, for example, if someone nominates their wife, then divorces and lives for many years with a partner (not married), the Trustees may be permitted (within the scheme rules) to deem the partner the beneficiary, deeming her to be more deserving than the ex-wife.

However, the pension trustees often have a large degree of discretion when it comes to deciding who gets the payout, even if the deceased has already named a beneficiary. If not already named, she could write to the trustees, explaining her circumstances. The first thing to do is to try to discover what company and personal pension schemes the individual was enrolled in. As others have said, she'll get nothing from the State.

This is totally, 100% wrong. Generally speaking, the property owner would need to register with HMRC as a Non-resident Landlord, and the income would be taxable.

It would appear that she's unaware of "deferred payment agreements". These are offered by every council in England & Wales. (Don't know about other parts of the UK.) The individual doesn't pay for care at the time it's incurred, but pays when the home is eventually sold, or from her estate when she dies. Effectively it's a loan from the council, and attracts interest. There may also be an arrangement fee.

It's now been almost a month. Does the British Consular Team plan on continue to ignore this simple question?