paulbj2

I flew Oman Air on a recent visit to London. They are absolutely fine as airlines go. Personally, I would avoid the 787 Dreamliner at any price as in my experience the noise levels in them were unbearable. On the London - Muscat leg of the journey, we flew in an Airbus A333 (A330 300) which was a bit quieter and the noise it did produce was in a less irritating spectrum. If there is any way to arrange it, get a flight in an A380 the double decker giant. They are fantastic aircraft and whisper quiet.

1 hour ago, yogi100 said:

 

Why be selective when quoting my post. What about the part where I say it's a gateway drug. Here are my actual words  "And it DOES often lead the user on to harder drugs which often prove to be impossible to get off of and leads those who partake into a life of crime that inflicts misery upon the victims and themselves."

 

Four of my boyhood pals are dead from drug overdoses and one had his life ruined till he turned it around. You'll never have heard of them so it's pointless telling you their names. they started off on puff. But I still know one of their brothers.

 

I could introduce you if you like then you can tell him yourself my comments are 'laughable' but be a bit diplomatic about it!

 

He still lives in the UK in Kent, If you want to meet him I'll see if I can arrange it. Ask him what he thinks of drugs, and the vermin who sold them to his brother. These five boys all started off with a bit of puff, went on to speed and coke then got on heroin.

 

I also knew two other individuals of a younger generation who were sons of my friends who have died from heroin  overdoses. I remember them regularly smoking puff till they wanted something with a bit more buzz.

 

I omitted mentioning the addicts' families. They are usually devastated. But some undoubtedly say 'Good riddance'. I did once hear a cousin say 'Thank <deleted> that thieving junkie bastard's gone' but  naturally it was said out of earshot of the parents

 

Some of your friends are dead from drugs as well but you'll deny it because doing so suits your argument. They'll also have started off with puff.

 

But bear in mind I'm not a doctor like your family member but I'm sure she will agree that most heroin addicts start off with puff. Which is what I said in my post and which you have chosen to ignore.

 

Two other pals of mine died of drink but not until they were older in their 50s and 60s. The booze they died of was purchased legally. Cannabis is illegal but I can guarantee I can obtain some within an hour in London. Police have just arrested over 100 people in London for drug possession but that's no problem! At this Notting Hill Drug Taking Jamboree four people were stabbed.

 

Many people die at a young age from drugs who in all likelihood started off on marijuana. You'll have heard of some of 'em.

 

Brian Jones (Rolling Stones)

Amy Winehouse

Elvis Presley

Whitney Houston

Marilyn Munroe

Michael Jackson

Prince

Phillip Seymour Hoffmann

Heath Ledger

 

These are off the top of my head. There's loads more of less well known ones on the internet. Now you tell me some who died of drink at similar young ages off the top of your head!

Well let's see now, off the top of my head I can think of at least three friends of mine who have died of alcohol but the most recent one whose cremation I attended less than a year ago died of lung cancer, brought on by being a chain smoker.  I am having a hard time thinking of anyone that I know who died of illicit drugs. Get up to date, the largest cause of deaths by overdose in the US at least, is now prescription drugs not illegals at all. The introduction route to those has nothing whatever to do with cannabis; it has everything to do with GPs being pressured into prescribing extremely strong tranquillisers or painkillers. 

Sure many of us can cite personal experience of friends and acquaintances who have suffered due to drug addiction (I have friends who have walked that path but so far all have survived and thankfully all are off heroin) but let's look dispassionately at the facts. The results of decriminalisation in Portugal have been 100% positive in all the reports I have read (as I used to work for the EU, that is quite a few). The Netherlands where there are cannabis cafés on just about every street corner has one of the LOWEST rates of drug addiction in western Europe. Deaths due to so called legal highs that are cannabis "substitutes" are mounting in the UK where in the past they would have been smoking cannabis which never killed anyone directly. 

Amy Winehouse died of drink. Elvis Presley died of a heart attack; no trace of any illicit drugs were found in his system but he had taken a significant overdose of codeine although that was not implicated as a cause of death (he did have a massively enlarged heart and emphysema which is enough to kill anyone as overweight as he was at his death namely 159Kg or 350lbs for the unmetricated). Marilyn Monroe died of a barbiturate overdose although no one has offered up a convincing explanation how it got into her system but it wasn't by mouth, that much we know. Michael Jackson died of an overdose of Propofol , a prescription drug administered by a an incompetent and highly negligent doctor (my professional contact said that Propofol should only be administered under the supervision of an anaesthetist and only in a hospital setting as it can inhibit respiratory effort necessitating ventilation as was the case with MJ). Most of the people (not all) you cite in your list died of prescription medication; nothing illegal!

If you go down the "ban it if it kills or maims people" route then you would ban driving as, until recently, more people died on the roads in Britain every year than of illicit drugs! Sure there are personal horror stories but if you look at the bigger picture and ask the question what is the best way to reduce death and social damage from illicit drugs; what is the best way to prevent harm to our population, based on the evidence available, the answer is NOT "the war on drugs", it is not prosecution. Since the 1960s, as you rightly say, the use of cannabis (and all other illicit drugs) has expanded enormously. During the whole of that time, it has been unlawful. Has that acted as any kind of deterrent - clearly not!

The experiences in Portugal, in the Netherlands and in the states in the US where cannabis has been quasi-legalised all overwhelmingly point to a huge reduction in societal harm by legalising. That's the hard evidence; you don't like it - there's nothing I can do! The primary reason that governments resist legalisation or decriminalisation is that they fear the electoral impact or because they cling to "common sense" conclusions that fly in the face of the evidence or expert opinion (like the fiasco over Prof. Nott). 

On 28/08/2016 at 10:10 AM, yogi100 said:

Britain as well as other countries has seen it's standards drop and its society has been on a downward spiral ever since marijuana was introduced and has been more or less accepted. All drugs should be outlawed like they used to be when we lived in a world based on morals, decency and the possession of a work ethic. Much more severe sentencing should be introduced to discourage the use of any drugs.

 

We've always had drunken violence but not the lazy, shiftless behaviour exhibited by those that inhabit the dream world associated with marijuana. And it DOES often lead the user on to harder drugs which often prove to be impossible to get off of and leads those who partake into a life of crime that inflicts misery upon the victims and themselves.

Totally laughable comment. Ask any doctor who has worked in A+E or acute medicine what drug does the most damage in society and they won't answer cannabis, that's for sure! (S)he will say alcohol without the shadow of a doubt. Oddly enough I had this conversation with a member of my family who was until recently an acute medicine consultant in a large northern hospital in the UK. Guess what, the bulk his patients were suffering one effect or the other of that appalling drug, that social scourge, alcohol!

Yours is a typical comment from a kneejerk conservative. Countries like the Netherlands where cannabis has been effectively decriminalised if not completely legalised (yes, I have lived there) since the 1960s don't have any problem with it. It doesn't lead to any other, "harder"drugs (perhaps because the sale of cannabis is segregated from the sale of any other drugs), it doesn't lead to lack of motivation, it doesn't lead to violence, it doesn't lead to anti-social behaviour and driving whilst stoned whilst not desirable or advisable, is less dangerous than driving whilst drunk.

Portugal has completely decriminalised the possession of all intoxicant drugs and has seen a massive reduction in all aspects of social harm from formerly "illegal" drugs. Even the quasi-fascist political right wing in Portugal have publicly admitted they were totally wrong when they predicted massive social damage from decriminalisation and they have now gone on record as saying that if they came into government they would not reverse this policy.

Try using evidence to shape your opinions rather purveying right wing twaddle!  

On 28/08/2016 at 10:10 AM, yogi100 said:

Britain as well as other countries has seen it's standards drop and its society has been on a downward spiral ever since marijuana was introduced and has been more or less accepted. All drugs should be outlawed like they used to be when we lived in a world based on morals, decency and the possession of a work ethic. Much more severe sentencing should be introduced to discourage the use of any drugs.

 

We've always had drunken violence but not the lazy, shiftless behaviour exhibited by those that inhabit the dream world associated with marijuana. And it DOES often lead the user on to harder drugs which often prove to be impossible to get off of and leads those who partake into a life of crime that inflicts misery upon the victims and themselves.

Totally laughable comment. Ask any doctor who has worked in A+E or acute medicine what drug does the most damage in society and they won't answer cannabis, that's for sure! (S)he will say alcohol without the shadow of a doubt. Oddly enough I had this conversation with a member of my family who was until recently an acute medicine consultant in a large northern hospital in the UK. Guess what, the bulk his patients were suffering one effect or the other of that appalling drug, that social scourge, alcohol!

Yours is a typical comment from a kneejerk conservative. Countries like the Netherlands where cannabis has been effectively decriminalised if not completely legalised (yes, I have lived there) since the 1960s don't have any problem with it. It doesn't lead to any other, "harder"drugs (perhaps because the sale of cannabis is segregated from the sale of any other drugs), it doesn't lead to lack of motivation, it doesn't lead to violence, it doesn't lead to anti-social behaviour and driving whilst stoned whilst not desirable or advisable, is less dangerous than driving whilst drunk.

Portugal has completely decriminalised the possession of all intoxicant drugs and has seen a massive reduction in all aspects of social harm from formerly "illegal" drugs. Even the quasi-fascist political right wing in Portugal have publicly admitted they were totally wrong when they predicted massive social damage from decriminalisation and they have now gone on record as saying that if they came into government they would not reverse this policy.

Try using evidence to shape your opinions rather purveying right wing twaddle!  

This sort of behaviour is not as rare as you might, at first, think. I don't know whether it is still happening today but certainly a while back in South Africa such acts were not unknown after some local "traditional medicine practitioner" announced that a man who had AIDS could be cured if he had sex with a child. The consequences of that statement in a country ravaged by AIDS where knowledge of "real medicine" is sketchy and where, at the time, treatment for AIDS with proper medication was hard to come by, are easy to imagine.

Britain's NHS does it all the time. It an't known as the World's favourite health service for nothing.

There was a case fairly recently where a Nigerian woman having triplets (ectopic) had treatment worth £140,000 on the NHS, then swanned-off back to Lagos without paying a penny!

Maybe this be a lesson to people trying to save a few ££££'s by not having travel insurance.

Why should Thailand have to "foot this bill" ?

Interesting; if you were the Nigerian woman and a doctor in your home country told you that you had ectopic triplets. You didn't have the money for the treatment needed to save your life, What would you do? Sit there and wait to die in unspeakable agony or borrow the money from friends and family for a ticket to London where it is well know that they treat first and ask questions later.

I know what I'd do!

Incidentally, the reason that people go to London rather than going to Paris, Brussels, Berlin of any of the other Western European capitals is not because they would be refused treatment in those other capital cities; emergency treatment is provided regardless of ability to pay in all western European countries, but because, for better of for worse, English is the most popular 2nd language in Nigeria and many other African countries and therefore at least they will be able to converse with the medical staff in a language they can understand, It's quite important that (perhaps you recall; we were their colonial masters for quite a few years). People from ex-French colonies tend to do same except of course, they go to Paris not London.

It may seem a huge sum of money to us mere mortals living on a pension but for an organisation like the NHS whose budget for 2015/16 is £116.4 billion (that's £116,400,000,000) £65 million is a drop in the ocean; 0.0558% of the annual budget, in fact

The simple answer to this and a range of other issues in the benighted UK is a properly implemented Identity database. The Blair/Brown labour government started down this road at a cost of £ billions and even reached the stage of issuing the first few ID cards to, I think, airport staff. It became a very unpopular idea when the ship of fools that was the Gordon Brown premiership decided that they would be obligatory and that they would cost £50. Obligatory, no problem; but £50 BIG problem. If only they had just bitten the bullet and said they would be free! Unsurprisingly, the incoming Tory government of David Cameron cancelled the nearly completed project at a cost of £ billions to the taxpayer.

If a system of photo ID cards were implemented, a persons entitlement to NHS treatment could be checked with the card (via the central database that sits behind any such system) and anyone without a card would automatically be entitled to emergency treatment only.

It presents zero technical challenge to do this along with 100s of other useful services. Moving house: then change your address on the ID card database and everyone who sends you a bill is automatically updated without you having to contact every damned one of them. Most countries in Europe already have a system like this and they work really well. Why not the British!

£65 million, but that's the ones they have billed...

My guess is that 65m could be many times that, that money could be used by the the NHS to help NI contributors abroad.

If a system of photo ID cards were implemented, a persons entitlement to NHS treatment could be checked with the card (via the central database that sits behind any such system) and anyone without a card would automatically be entitled to emergency treatment only.

We do not need cards any more, bio-metrics on a national database, photo up on a screen or fingerprint scanner.

All very well, but other countries that have ID cards allow their use in place of a passport (inside the EU, for example). Having such a database is one thing, but allowing other countries to access it for ID purposes is a very different matter. The technology exists, for sure, but it might a technological leap too far for the average person in the street. Start off with a plastic card with a photo on it and when folk are used to that, ramp up the sophistication if people will accept it without getting too paranoid.

Their entitlement to healthcare and indeed access to their healthcare records could be controlled by the card, their driving licence details, details of their passport(if any), their university transcript along with other official qualifications, their NI contribution records and so on. The list is endless.

Britain's NHS does it all the time. It an't known as the World's favourite health service for nothing.

There was a case fairly recently where a Nigerian woman having triplets (ectopic) had treatment worth £140,000 on the NHS, then swanned-off back to Lagos without paying a penny!

Maybe this be a lesson to people trying to save a few ££££'s by not having travel insurance.

Why should Thailand have to "foot this bill" ?

British taxpayers are stupid for paying foreigner's medical bills. They should have kicked said person onto the streets.

While everyone in a genuine emergency should be treated first THEN asked to pay later, no one and especially not a foreigner (except in exceptional cases) should be discharged without payment.

There are some astoundingly stupid people on this forum. If a patient admitted to a UK hospital, is not entitled to free treatment but falls ill or is involved in an accident in the UK and has to be treated at the NHS's expense, how is refusing to discharge them going to help the NHS in any way. One of the biggest problems the NHS faces is a shortage of beds due in part to the fact that they cannot discharge patients until there is somewhere for them to go. In the case of the elderly, this can mean they cannot be discharged until some nursing home or sheltered accommodation can be arranged. There is a shortage of that so it can take some time. These patients are called "bed-blockers" and they are an increasing problem for the overstretched NHS. You think it's going to help to create a few more "bed-blockers" held in hospital captivity until they pay their bill; how exactly are you going to stop them just walking out the door, chain them to their bed!

Britain's NHS does it all the time. It an't known as the World's favourite health service for nothing.

There was a case fairly recently where a Nigerian woman having triplets (ectopic) had treatment worth £140,000 on the NHS, then swanned-off back to Lagos without paying a penny!

Maybe this be a lesson to people trying to save a few ££££'s by not having travel insurance.

Why should Thailand have to "foot this bill" ?

The NHS primarily treats sick people - and then gives them the bill...from time to time they don't pay, but at least they are alive. Many tourists in Britain owe their lives to the NHS.

"Elsewhere, staff are still trying to bill a mother who flew in to have triplets and racked up total costs of almost £320,000.

Figures show NHS hospitals are currently owed about £65million from foreign patients. This is thought to be an underestimate as most are never identified.

The details have only been revealed by using the Freedom of Information Act to put questions to all 160 NHS hospital trusts".

It may seem a huge sum of money to us mere mortals living on a pension but for an organisation like the NHS whose budget for 2015/16 is £116.4 billion (that's £116,400,000,000) £65 million is a drop in the ocean; 0.0558% of the annual budget, in fact

The simple answer to this and a range of other issues in the benighted UK is a properly implemented Identity database. The Blair/Brown labour government started down this road at a cost of £ billions and even reached the stage of issuing the first few ID cards to, I think, airport staff. It became a very unpopular idea when the ship of fools that was the Gordon Brown premiership decided that they would be obligatory and that they would cost £50. Obligatory, no problem; but £50 BIG problem. If only they had just bitten the bullet and said they would be free! Unsurprisingly, the incoming Tory government of David Cameron cancelled the nearly completed project at a cost of £ billions to the taxpayer.

If a system of photo ID cards were implemented, a persons entitlement to NHS treatment could be checked with the card (via the central database that sits behind any such system) and anyone without a card would automatically be entitled to emergency treatment only.

It presents zero technical challenge to do this along with 100s of other useful services. Moving house: then change your address on the ID card database and everyone who sends you a bill is automatically updated without you having to contact every damned one of them. Most countries in Europe already have a system like this and they work really well. Why not the British!

As I understand it, so long as one can prove 3 months of residency (utility bill etc), former Brit expats can use the service on their return.

Expats from UK, who paid in N.I. for years, who return home for a holiday, are liable for all medical costs, I believe ?

So medical insurance would have to be purchased by them, despite the thousands paid in over their working lives.

I have not been back for well over a decade, so how can I prove 3 months residency ?

When there, I paid my full dues, which is a hell of a lot more than certain people receiving treatment there now ever will pay.

I needed to see a GP when I was back in the UK on holiday recently. As I am a Luxembourg resident with Social Security card from that country, I presented the card at the GPs surgery expecting them to have me fill in a form or take down the number on the card or photocopy it or something, but no. They said "no don't bother with the card, we'll take your word for it". Silly so-and-sos, if they had recorded details of my cover, they could claim back the cost of my consultation from the Luxembourg health care system but they couldn't be arsed. More fool them! Everyone in Britain complains the NHS is underfunded but they don't even claim the payments they are entitled to!

Britain's NHS does it all the time. It an't known as the World's favourite health service for nothing.

There was a case fairly recently where a Nigerian woman having triplets (ectopic) had treatment worth £140,000 on the NHS, then swanned-off back to Lagos without paying a penny!

Maybe this be a lesson to people trying to save a few ££££'s by not having travel insurance.

Why should Thailand have to "foot this bill" ?

The NHS primarily treats sick people - and then gives them the bill...from time to time they don't pay, but at least they are alive. Many tourists in Britain owe their lives to the NHS.

Yes, I understand that the NHS in the UK will provide life saving emergency treatment to anyone who needs it regardless of their right to receive free treatment under the NHS or of their financial status. This is the case in all civilized countries and that is also as it should be. Belgium, where I have lived in the past, even has a national fund specifically to pay the bills for emergency treatment of those unfortunate enough to fall ill whilst uninsured in their territory. The general principle being "save the patient first; worry about the bill later"

The NHS in the UK, and the equivalent in most other countries, will however not provide routine, non-emergency, treatment unless the patient is entitled to such treatment under the NHS system or has the ability to pay for it themselves.

This is all exactly as it should be.

Expats from UK, who paid in N.I. for years, who return home for a holiday, are liable for all medical costs, I believe ?

So medical insurance would have to be purchased by them, despite the thousands paid in over their working lives.

I believe there is an exception for Brits who receive a UK state pension but I could be wrong about that. Thankfully, it won't affect me as I am covered by Luxembourg state healthcare scheme and that will pay the bill whether or not the EU reciprocal arrangements cease when we leave the EU.

My brother is a doctor who has worked for the NHS all his life and is now retired. Due to a serious long term medical condition that nearly killed him, he cannot get any kind of private medical insurance so he is now confined holidaying in countries with which the UK has reciprocal medical arrangements (the EU countries and a few others)

Thailand does have government health insurance arrangements for people who actually live and work here. Why not extend that to tourists who don't have their own insurance for x Baht a day. Anyone entering the country without proof of medical insurance simply pays at the airport on a per day basis for the duration of their holiday. OK, it'll only pay for relatively cheap government hospitals not 5 star private clinics but it fixes the problem to everyone's satisfaction. Another advantage is that state healthcare providers don't reject claims from people who got injured whilst drunk or doing dangerous pursuits excluded from the policy or had accidents on motorbikes that they didn't have a specific license to ride in the way that many insurers do.

Countries that have a healthcare system predicated on the "government acts as private healthcare insurer" paradigm, usually cover their subscribers all over the world anyway. That is the case with Luxembourg, where I am resident. I needed hospital treatment a couple of times when visiting Thailand. I paid the bills out my own funds (not a huge sum of money) and submitted the bills to the "Caisse de Maladie", the department who deal with healthcare, when I returned home to Luxembourg. No problem, the full amount I had paid in Thailand was refunded a month or so later. People who are in such a system only need extra insurance when visiting countries where the healthcare is ludicrously expensive such as the US as the Luxembourg national insurer will only pay up to the maximum fee applicable for the same treatment in Luxembourg. A colleague of mine had the misfortune to have appendicitis, a burst appendix and peritonitis that nearly killed her, whilst holidaying with her family in the US. The state healthcare provider in Luxembourg picked up the bill for about 30% of the cost and the free travel insurance that came with her car insurance picked up the bill for the rest.

Alternatively, perhaps the British NHS would like to pick up the bill for its citizens in the same way that Luxembourg does.

Hi Everyone

I'm a UK passport holder, 66 YOA and retired.

Has anyone tried to get a non-immigrant 3 month visa based on retirement in either Hanoi or HCM city recently?

I have to go there for other reasons but I have been advised to try to get a Non-Immigrant visa whilst I am there.

Has anyone in similar circumstances done this...do you know what paperwork they will ask for?

Anyone have any idea which consulate is likely to be less "demanding"?

Cheers

Paul BJ

My guess is that is the fruiting body of some kind of fungus.

Fungi generally go about their business pretty discretely until they are put under some kind of stress; most commonly that is by being deprived of moisture. Logically, the fact that you have been absent for most of the time just recently suggests that there is a plumbing leak perhaps from a waste pipe which has been out of use whilst you have been away and the sudden cessation of the availability of moisture has caused the fungus to go into fruiting mode.

The first thing you need to do is find that leak! Once you have deprived it of a supply of water, most fungi will die back. The exception to that rule is the dry rot fungus, Serpula Lacrymans or a related fungi of the same family, which can actually transport water from one location to another using a mycelial structure called rhizomorphs which are delicate spiders web like fronds that can penetrate behind plaster can pass through brickwork and generally get into places where you wouldn't expect them to get. They move moisture from areas where it is abundant to dry areas of the structure allowing the fungus to attack dry timber. The type of Serpula that is found in northern Europe doesn't thrive in the sorts of temperatures prevalent in the tropics but there may be genotypes around that do.

If it is a Serpula style fungus, the one thing you cannot afford to do is nothing! It will cheerfully munch its way through all the timber in a dwelling without you noticing until stuff starts collapsing.

The easiest and probably safest chemical to use against any fungal infestation is boric acid. Despite its name it's actually pretty innocuous stuff to handle, it doesn't burn the skin even in a saturated solution; amongst other things, it is used in a very weak solution as an antiseptic eye bath. It also kills cockroaches and ants.

A strong solution of boric acid or its salt, common borax, will give any fungus a really hard time. However, if the attack does turn out to be serpula or a close relative and the owners are not prepared to spend the money treating it properly or want to hold you responsible for causing it, I would move...pretty fast! The spores of these fungi can provoke some quite nasty reactions in people (I have a massive sneezing fit if I enter a building where the spores are present) and the fungus itself can cause structural collapse in wooden buildings; the cost to treat it properly and replace all the affected woodwork can be very high!

There is a dog repellent spray available, I can't remember the name of it right now. It's based on essential oils and harmless to the dog. It temporarily overwhelms their sense of smell which causes them either to stop or turn and run. It even stops trained attack dogs used by the military to guard their bases! It is also issued to some postal workers, meter readers and other folk who have to enter homes and are frequently attacked by territorial dogs.

There is no local brand, only imported Clexane.

Sold in packs of two.

Does need to be stored at about 25 C. Brief exposure to temps not over 30 C. are ok.

Where is it sold, I need some too.

So far a few answers, but none at the OP, about the Brexiters telling lies.

Probably the most famous untruth is the 350,000,000 pound per week UK payment to the EU which was painted on the side of Boris's Brexit Battle Bus.

brexit bus.jpg

The sum Britain saves by not having to make payments to the EU will be mostly or completely swallowed up by the 1000s of civil servants that Britain will have to employ and train to do the work the EU currently does on our behalf. The European Aviation safety Agency, the European Medicines agency, the European Trademarks Agency, to name but a few. There are lots and lots!

To sum the situation up, the British government (this or any other one) and the British civil service, between them, couldn't organize an orgy in Pattaya!

Still sure you want the British civil servce running all the is safety related stuff:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/19/costly-trail-british-government-it-disasters-universal-credit

If the UK votes for Brexit, I shall move back to Luxembourg where I am currently resident, apply for Luxembourgish citizenship and, assuming I get it, my British passport can go down the toilet to be washed away by all the bullshit from the Brexit camp.

To leave the EU, to me, would be an act of treason to all our friends and allies in the EU who have put up with our non-stop moaning about it since the day we joined. If Brexit is the decision then I hope the EU screws Britain over in every possible way it can and there will be plenty of ways...trust me, I used to work there!

Luxembourg City, Frankfurt and Paris all want a piece of the action currently enjoyed by the City of London; with a free hand and no veto from the UK they can make life very, very difficult for the City and very easy for the European capitals who want that business. Go ahead leave! Bear in mind that if the UK wants to continue selling into Europe, they still have to meet all the current European standards and any new ones that the EU drams up but the UK gets no say in what they might be.

Oh and by the way, once the UK has left, you can employ and train 1000s or maybe 10s of 1000s more civil servants to take over all the administrative jobs that are currently done by EU agencies like EASA, the European Aviation Safety Agency who look after pilot training standards, aircraft type licensing, Europe wide air traffic control issues, the European airline blacklist and a host of other rather important safety related jobs, the European Medicines Agency who look after drug licensing in the EU, the European Chemicals Agency who look after chemical safety, the European Maritime Safety Agency the list is endless. I guess Britain can make use of some of the 100s of British EU civil servants who will presumably lose their jobs once Britain leaves as they will no longer meet one criterion for employment in the EU civil service; namely that an EU civil servant shall be a citizen of a member country. At least if they were previously EU civil servants they will be competent and highly trained unlike their British counterparts; am I being unfair to the British civil service? No I am emphatically not! The British civil service seem to be incompetent to run even the smallest project ( http://tartley.com/?p=229 ) as if the disaster that was the ID Database project wasn't bad enough, there was the much vaunted CSA the child support agency that made millions of people's lives a complete misery and completely failed to achieve any of its goals; some might say, failed to achieve anything at all! Then there was tax credits system which failed to pay people who needed and were entitled to money but paid out £ billions to fraudsters instead. However, the the daddy of them all has to be the NHS IT project which has so far cost the British taxpayer £10 billion, yes that's right TEN THOUSAND MILLION POUNDS Sterling and it is a complete, total failure. The last estimate I read from the government's own auditors said that around 60% of the government's projects were in danger of failure. The British civil service is one of the least competent in the entire western world and the Brexiters want it to take on roles like aviation safety and medicine safety...really???

Both sides have bullshit diarrhoea but the bullshit streaming out of the Brexit campaign is much more copious and malodorous than that from the remain camp, in my opinion.

My history is similar to yours but a longer duration. I entered June 2015 on a 30 day visa exemption , I extended this by thirty days , I then got a double entry tourist visa from Savannakhet and extended both of these by thirty days , next I went to Singapore for a few days holiday and re-entered on a visa exemption , I was not asked for an outbound ticket , I extended this also by thirty days. I then went to Penang for an SETV which was also extended by thirty days and I am currently on my second SETV from Penang.

Based on your history, it sounds like I am pretty safe!

Current age? You asked about obtaining O-A.

As soon as you qualify for non imm O-A or O that would be your best option.

Ideally, I guess I would apply for the O-A visa in London. However, I don't know how demanding London is and, it could get complicated as I am resident in Luxembourg and my bank is in Luxembourg so all my paperwork will be in French. The other alternative would be to apply at the embassy that serves Luxembourg but that is Brussels, there being no Thai embassy in Lux.

Getting certified translations done, if any are needed, would cost me a fortune so that's something I would like to avoid.

The easiest option is probably to get another tourist visa and convert that to a non-immigrant visa when I get back in hence the question.

Current age? You asked about obtaining O-A.

As soon as you qualify for non imm O-A or O that would be your best option.

65 so no problem qualifying for a retirement visa