kwilco

This problem will occur over and over again – it is inevitable and Thailand needs to address it – just stating the “bleedin’ obvious” achieves nothing. Thailand gets up to 20% of GDP from tourism and they have a duty to their customers….both to inform and care for them. The Thai health service is nowhere near as good as people think and ethically it is highly questionable. They need to take a leaf out of western healthcare in these circumstances… If an uninsured foreigner has serious injuries from a motorcycle crash in the UK, they will still receive medical treatment regardless of their insurance status. The UK National Health Service (NHS), will provide free healthcare to anyone who needs it, including visitors to the country. Subsequently, the injured person can be liable for the cost of the medical treatment they received. If they cannot afford to pay for their treatment, they may be asked to sign a form agreeing to pay the cost of the treatment at a later date or the hospital may try to recover the cost from their travel insurance if they have one. In addition to medical costs, the foreigner may face legal consequences for driving without insurance. As in Thailand, in the UK, it is illegal to drive a vehicle without insurance, and if caught, the person may face penalties such as fines, points on their driving license, or even a driving ban. They may also be liable for any damage caused to other vehicles or property as a result of the accident. The difference is that the UK is capable of chasing up and enforcing these things – it seems in Thailand the solution is to moan at the victim and family and then let them die from sub-par treatment

so what do you suggest? - leave him to die?

So what do you suggest?

So if you have "no sympathy" for him he should receive no medical treatment and die?

so you suggest the person is left to die?

How many more this year before people realise there is a serious problem. It's no good for the "told-you-so" brigade bemoaning a lack of insurance. Thailand has a responsibility for the safety of visitors and there needs to be a system in place to deal with people with no i=or insufficient insurance - this WILL happen again and again. Hospitals need to know they will get paid and then either the victims, their families or a fund needs to be brought in to finance this. THe first thing is to sae lives - not keep people in stasis until the money turns up.

That's why I didn't like living on an island.

Whether or this "tax" is implemented, it shows that Thailand has a reputation for sticking little fees and taxes on things wherever it can. THis is not a good image.

....and you point is what? I suppose make them legal and then we know what we're taking.

so yyou really have no idea what's going on, do you? Are you sure you didn't even drink?

THe problem with illegalizing drugs is there is no quality control or content assurance. Then if/when someone gets a bad pill, they don't do anything straight away because it IS illegal and they don't want trouble - by the time it gets out of control it is often too late.

there was a time when the majority of EU members were monarchies. In Europe now still quite a few survive, but without the pomp and circumstance of the UK. European constitutional monarchies. Andorra, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden ...all are democratic states where the monarch has a limited, largely, or entirely ceremonial role. the most powerful heads of state in Europe are not monarchs.

"As a state occasion, King Charles's coronation is paid for with public funds. This is different to a royal wedding, which is a personal family moment with some public elements to it, so the cost is split between private funds and public money." - https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a43773972/king-charles-coronation-cost/

Overall there has been a sea-change in attitude to the Monarchy since 1953. There were only a few minor protests. Now what you see is the tip of the iceberg. Whereas in 1953 the entire country was pretty much pro-monarchy, now there are many who although not actively out on the streets seriously believe in a republic. On top of that there is a great swathe or people who think that the role of the monarchy needs serious reviewing and cutting back. There are also people who just don't give a dam anymore either way and see it as an inconvenient piece of frippery. Monarchists are increasingly on the back foot and like most people without a real argument in their favour they resort to cliché and nationalism to justify their stance Tropes like “tradition” are invoked “A thousand years of history” – (ignores the reality) “It’s what England does best (they ignore Scotland Wales, Ireland etc.) “They braved the rain” “Proud to be British” “Part of the history” “Westminster Abbey” None of this has anything to do with being a modern democracy. I would say that whether through politics or just indifference the monarchy needs to seriously review their position.

QED! What does that even mean?? - How does it alter the veracity of any argument? Please explain what you think and agenda is and what you think mine is and how it affects the discussion in any way. my "agenda is

It's actually a compliment!

error

show me - its my words - I'm always amused that if I use some of my own writings people think i've cut and pasted it from somewhere else. However rather than go for the messenger, how about presenting a counter argument - I guess you can't

The Crown is institution of the British monarchy and represents the reigning monarch. The cost of the Crown is funded through the UK government's Sovereign Grant, which covers the costs of the official duties of the monarch, including the maintenance of the royal residences, travel, and salaries for the staff of the royal household. In the financial year 2021-2022, the Sovereign Grant amounted to £85.9 million. This is a significant reduction from the previous year, which was £87.5 million, due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the royal household's activities. It's worth noting that this figure doesn't include the additional costs of providing security for members of the royal family, which are covered separately by the government. It's also worth mentioning that the UK monarchy is estimated to bring in significant revenue through tourism and other sources, and the cost of the Crown is subject to ongoing debate and scrutiny. Security doubled the real cost of this coronation - none of this is paid by the King

James 1 was King of England and Scotland - to begin with she was Queen of Scotland England and Ireland after the act of Union under Anne- and George 1 was the first to be crowned King of Great Britain. Read my post....looks like you've had to Google everything - you should learn how to research rather than search and read the statement you are referring to properly.

So you've finally realised what nonsense you were talking - but still no point to it? I think a few Scots, and Welsh, even Irish will be feeling a bit left out by you.

BTW - have you any idea what jingoistic point you are trying to make???

No - the British government pays - the Crown estate does NOT. this is not the same as the weddings or funerals.

Henry VIIII was King of ENGLAND - the The first king of Great Britain was King George I, who reigned from 1714 to 1727.

I have 2 history degrees and I'm not an anti-monarchist. you have displayed absolutely no indication at all they you know what history is. Unlike some who blindly slaver and droll over an ill-conceived delusion of what the monarchy actually is, I KNOW what it is, I know what the constitution is and know what it involves and what part in a democracy it plays. People who don't present one of the biggest current threats to British society.