cleopatra2

Saturday at 06:58 AM

24 minutes ago, NoshowJones said:

No one can take any money of your state pension. See the DWP website.

This is incorrect

See section 5

And associated appendix 1

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/benefit-overpayment-recovery-staff-guide/benefit-overpayment-recovery-guide#chapter-5

Saturday at 05:56 AM

7 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

For whatever reason:

I REALLY like to see people saving money on electric power bills, for the life of the appliance, just through doing a few easy calculations.

If one's ACs are ALWAYS ON, as are mine, then these power-bill savings can be significant.

If one can increase efficiency by just 30 percent, then if one's normal power bill for cooling, including the refrigerator(s) and ACs, is Bt.3000 per month, one can save Bt.900 per month. Also, the inverter-AC will provide a more stable room temperature, and will be less noisy, and will provide better dehumidification, as well.

YES, do your own research, because the PURPOSE of this Topic is solely to get someone to THINK about efficiency BEFORE buying an appliance.

What is cost effective for yourself does not equate that it is cost effective for everybody.

Consider if I was purchasing an AC unit for a bedroom that would only operate for 2 hours each night

Should I buy a unit with a lower efficiency rating for 16,000 baht or a more efficient unit costing 42,000 baht.

Let's say ( I have not done the actual maths) that the less efficient unit will cost an extra 2 baht in usage over the more efficient unit. How many nights of usage is required before the additional 26,000 baht purchase price pays for itself.

April 25

33 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Might be 100% better but I'll bet it's still ChatGPT generated as this article is.

True

The question for me is

If The Thaiger now owns this site , why rewrite an article that already exists on Thaiger.

April 25

9 minutes ago, proton said:

Probably more rubbish from the kiddies at the Thaiger 😁

I believe that the Thaiger is the source for this article.

However the Thaiger report is 100% better , provides the correct photograph, explains why the last plane is stored in December, does correctly attribute the ministry of foreign affairs with the statement " no immediate risk to Thai Citizens ...."

April 25

30 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Cheers. So I guess they only noticed their incompetence once it was pointed out to them. It just a full on amateur show from these clowns. I still think the best one yet was the pic of the Indonesean sub that was sadly lost with all hands when the article was about the Chinese sub purchase.

Yes.

However they have still not corrected the factual mistake that it was the Foreign ministry who stated there was no risk to Thai nationals in Israel or Iran.Not the Thai Airways President.

April 25

This supposedly news article is riddled with inconsistencies.

The article states that a photo of the retirement ceremonary was provided. However the photo used is totally different

The article states all the aircraft was put in storage in march , with last one in December.

The article claims Thai Airways President stated that there was no immediate risk to Thai nationals in Israel or Iran. This is factually wrong .it was the Foreign ministry who made this statement.

This is not news but a bastardisation of an article that appears in the Thaiger

April 23

10 hours ago, Tiber said:

The wording (DWP) goes as follows "no legal requirement to uplift State Pension" which follows pension pay-outs from International Pensions will follow too(no uplift)

What it does not say is anybody receiving a unfrozen pension is committing a unlawful act. Any A1 search will reveal statements "not illegal" "not inheriting illegal" " is not illegal" and so on, whichever A1 is used.

The other A! statements "nobody has been sanctioned or punished " "not routinely sanctioned" and so on/.

Write to DWP on these statements for confirmation, they will not respond, even a Freedom of Information request will be ignored

" Prosecution:
Generally, receiving an unfrozen pension in a country where pensions are frozen is not a criminal offense.
However, it can have significant financial implications, especially if you rely on the pension as a primary source of income.
The consequences are more related to financial loss rather than legal prosecution."As of my last knowledge update, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in the UK has not typically prosecuted individuals for receiving an unfrozen Old Age Pension (OAP). However, there have been instances where the DWP identified underpayments and took corrective action. Any administrivia action would be undertaken by Disqualifying procedures (no action)

The analysis does not address the salient issue at hand.

The receiving of an unfrozen pension in pension frozen land is not a criminal offence, However the act of receiving does not automatic confer entitlement or ownership.

As an example consider a person receives a package on behalf of another person. The receiver is not legally entitled to the contents of the package.

Thus the question at hand is not if the pensioner is receiving an unfrozen pension in pension frozen land , but one of legal entitlement.

The failure to inform a change of circumstances resulting in monies paid that the claimant is not entitled to is an offence.

Even without the relevant SS regulations the basic UK unjust enrichment common law would apply allowing the injured party to claim restitution.(UK restitution law).

March 15

20 hours ago, Tiber said:

Gone quiet, equate offering as this (housing benefit etc.) to frozen pension is nonsense You have never understood the meaning of Disqualified Sanction in relation to OAP,( 4 of them)

" It should now be obvious" ( clear as mud) you define disqualifying sanction as "moot" is ridiculous fact is it supersedes anything after 2010 never used (never has/will be) same same potential frozen pensioner sanctions recipients in TH

Happy time for unfrozen bunch £900 quid coming up, no spring in their steps, wallets too heavy.

Gone quiet ?

As far as I am concerned you are either trolling or unable to understand what you read. I am favouring the former.

If people wish to claim the unfrozen pension when not entitled , that is up to the individual and of no concern to me.

I have provided the DWP policy showing that the state pension is not immune to compulsory deductions to repay the overpayments and fines that may be imposed.

The document also provided the legislation that the DWP relies upon when making such decision.

The claim that the State Pension somehow has this magical immunity is so easily disproven.

The State pension is lost if a claiment is imprisoned or placed in remand.

The majority of frozen pensioners are aware that if they return to the UK the pension benefit is uprated to the level as if not frozen.

However once they return to a country that is not uprated the pension reverts back to the original frozen level.

The disqualifying and sanctionable clauses are only applicable to the issue of when a benefit is subject to a penalty of a Benefit Sanction as laid in the Social Security legislations.

As the State Pension is not a Sanctionable Benefit and thus no such penalty is applied , it becomes moot.

March 12

Deleted

March 9

10 hours ago, Tiber said:

Like I pointed out repeatedly, yours is flawed.

Any "over payment " which has never been applied or will, see https://www.gov.uk/benefit-fraud is entirely covered by Disqualifying Sanction regulation, which confirms no stoppage /reduction to SP is possible

No criminal/civil proceedings... by the way how are the fish? lol.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/benefit-overpayment-recovery-staff-guide/benefit-overpayment-recovery-guide#appendix-1

See section 5 , particularly section 5.8, 5.9 and appendix 1

Which state that compulsary deductions can be made against the state pension benefit.

5.9 even provides an example where another benefit overpayment can be recovered from the state pension.

March 8

37 minutes ago, Tiber said:

Benefits that cannot be reduced or stopped

The following benefits cannot be reduced or stopped if you commit benefit fraud: State Pension

Cannot be reduced or stopped

No moot

Like I pointed out .

Your presumption is flawed at a basic level.

The guidance you refer to states

If you are charged with benefit fraud

There is no obligation on behalf of the DWP to commence criminal proceedings, or even make a claim of fraud. There are other possible criminal charges available other than fraud.

The DWP can and are recommended in such cases to use the civil powers available.

In addition the overpayment calculation and recovery are separate from any criminal proceedings.

March 8

15 minutes ago, Tiber said:

You mean of course Pension Credit, or and Disability Pension

https://www.gov.uk/benefit-fraud again. https://www.gov.uk/benefit-fraud

If I may direct you to DWP regulations, and of course directly, repeat directly, relate to State Pension thank you.

If you yourself kindly direct me to anything that directly opposes the DWP statement on State Pension, of course eliminating anything that may blur your statement ie Pension Credit/Disability /sickness/ housing/universal credit it would again be most appreciated would be deeply appreciated Thanking You

A feather in your cap, and I mean it really is, if as you ascertain that DWP regulatory authors are wrongly publishing wrongful content, really a huge thank...thank you

Realisation homes in here!" taking your advice on committing fraud over a few pension quid". as you quote above "Few pension quid?" £900 this up and coming year, I estimate I'm £4000 a year ahead of you

A few camp followers ~~frozen pit wallowers~~, now I see down from 9

You are talking rubbish.

The statements/guidance you are quoting states that the Benefit cannot be reduced. This simply means that the DWP have to credit the claimant , in this case a pensioner with the value of the state pension.

Take note it's states the Benefit. It does not state the claimant must receive the benefit in full.

As an example a person who claims housing benefit may have the benefit paid direct to the council , landlord or to their bank account. Regardless how the housing benefit is paid the claimant is still regarded as receiving the benefit amount.

However let's just assume your position is correct in the case of a charge of benefit fraud on the state pension.

The CPS guidelines on such a situation is that the DWP does not commence criminal charges but use the civils powers available.

Thus the DWP start proceedings to apply a fine for failure to notify a change of circumstances without reasonable excuse.

They then calculate the overpayment and request the repayment. Failure to reach an agreement , the overpayment on accounts legislation allow the DWP to deduct amounts from the state pension to clear any outstanding debt.

It now should be obvious that the DWP has not charged the pensioner with fraud thus the statement)guidance about sanctionable / non sanctionable benefits is moot.

March 8

5 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

He did say he has found a cheaper rental company.

Ok cheers

Missed that

March 8

20 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I doubt very much he would admit to having a bad apple, if he did. It would just be supporting my case.

From his tone in both conversation and emails, my guess is he is used to bulldozing over people.

Can you clarify if you have cancelled the booking.

Your OP is a bit ambiguous

In one paragraph you state that you requested a return of deposit because of wanting to cancel

The next following paragraph the manager refuses even though you would not be picking up the vehicle for another 2 weeks.

The 2nd paragraph can be read as though the booking is still active.

March 8

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

I want a refund because I will have no service for the money, and the company has given me a heap of aggravation with their lax security.

I regard credit cards as instruments of the devil. With a debit card, I can't spend more than I have.

The issue I see is that you entered into an agreement and then terminated that agreement.

Normally in such contracts/agreements contain penalty clauses exist within certain limitations.

The deposit usually is only withheld and released after the rental agreement has been concluded.

Depending upon the agreement and termination it is possible that the company is waiting to deduct any termination penalties before releasing the deposit.

It all depends upon what you agreed to.

March 4

27 minutes ago, riclag said:

The Thai guy admitted to police ,he purposely ran into the motorcycle ,cause he was angry !

The Thai guy was interrogated by the police while The Op’s wife was there according to the Op, she said he was acting like it was no big deal .

The Thai guy used the car as a weapon to gain pay back and left the scene.

.

This is the part that raises a red flag for me.

If this statement is accurate it would invalidate the drivers insurance.

An insurance company will not insure a criminal act.

March 4

27 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

In the original Op, BritMan claimed that the driver who hit him admitted to doing so deliberately and there was a statement to such effect.... Even though BritMan can neither speak or read Thai (in previous threads he's claimed, why would he need to?, he never has any intention of mixing with Thai's).... so I'm wondering how he know what was in the Police Statement made by the Thai Driver...

Yes.

However Britman last update states the police dropped the case.

His wife who is evidently well connected lost interest in going to court after being enthusiastic.

The police officer dealing with the case died unexpectedly.

Whilst I don't dispute the accident occured , some of the other aspects are suspect

March 4

If I recall the original incident as reported by the OP.

He was slowing down approaching red lights when hit in the rear by a vehicle.

This is a big step to make a claim of attempted murder , as opposed to just a traffic accident.

To satisfy the murder claim intent to kill would need to be established.

January 4

48 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Hi Folks,

Someone here has been talking about upgrading an Acer laptop computer.

But, for me, a desktop makes better sense.

I don't walkabout with a laptop.

And, I have a Note4 in case I must communicate while away from home.

I think the Intel Core i5-12600KF Processor is plenty for my needs, and I hate computer gaming. And, I am not into computer assisted design of any kind.

So..... The only questions are....

a. Where to buy this CPU cheapest.

b. If I wanted an ASUS main board, then could I save by buying a combo with this CPU and any reliable main board from ASUS?

c. Are there any special ways to get a Windows OS super cheap here in Thailand? I think I will opt for a Genuine Windows OS, this time, although I have never used Genuine in the past.

Basically, I just intend to build a desktop computer that will take the place of my aging ACER Laptop which I purchased for USD500 in HongKong in 2015.

Any thoughts would be helpful.

I am no longer that much interested in computers as I used to be, either the hardware or the software.

I just want to quickly build a fairly fast computer with 16GBytes of Ram, and a 4TByte HDD, plus install the OS on a 512GByte Samsung SSD.

And, a cheap power supply, of course.

Trying to stay below about USD500.00, which is what I paid for the ACER laptop in 2015.

Normally, in the past, I shopped at JIB.

But, this time, I might not.

Regards,

Gamma

NOTE: It's imperative that I have GPU on the CPU, onboard. I hate GPUs that always seem to overheat and burn up, and I cannot tolerate needless fans inside the computer box, whirring and whirring. SolidState cooling is the ONLY way to go....(for me)....

If you want gpu onboard CPU then you need to avoid the F version of the CPU as these do not have integrated graphics.

December 22, 2023

30 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Most people everywhere are stupid and worthless.

Does that include yourself ?

Joking aside, most people stop learning the language at the basic to low intermediate level. Unfortunately this is less than the standard of a child in the native language. The majority of adults when conversing in their native language with other adults expect the level of conversation to be of an equal standard. An Adult will find the conversation uninteresting if the other adult speaker can only communicate in a child like manner.

December 11, 2023

22 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

The group being non nationals? Don't be absurd.

You think you have the same rights as a Thai in Thailand?

The same rights as a Nigerian in Nigeria?

The same rights as a Korean in Korea?

You are trolling at this point.

British Nationals are being discriminated against.

For examlple , women , young workers , and the disabled are group of workers that are likely to be on the lower end of pay.

December 11, 2023

I really do not understand the purpose of the question.

Whatever checks the Passport Office carry out regarding passing information to other departments is moot.

When a passport is due for renewal then it requires to be renewed. The alternative is either return to the UK or let the passport expire with the consequences of becoming illegal.

What information is shared across departments cannot be mitigated .

December 8, 2023

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

News that the UK Government, signed off by Braverman, has handed another £100,000,000 to Rwanda, for absolutely nothing in return begs a question.

Oh and the running total is now £190,000,000 with another £50,000,000 of UK tax payer money promised to Rwanda next year.

How else should this tax payers’s money have been spent?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/08/tories-rwanda-asylum-deal

In addition for every migrant sent and accepted by Rwanda. The UK has to pay for the migrants upkeep and support for 5 years.

In effect the UK taxpayer is subsidizing the Rwanda government whilst having to accept any vulnerable Rwanda refugees in return.

It is also worth noting back in 2011 the Conservative party entered into a partnership with the Rwanda government.

December 6, 2023

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

The articles in the media on this clearly quote " British citizens or those with settled status looking to bring their family members to UK"

There has also been a quote saying " not retrospective".

The retrospective term is referring to immigrants current visa. Once that visa is required to be renewed then the new income requirement is in play.

I would suspect any current spouse in the UK who could not meet the new financial requirements would have a claim under the right to a family life. This would arise because the immigrant is already in the UK and settled .

December 6, 2023

17 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

So you are saying you believe the unsubstantiated allegations.

I have not seen any reports or comments from any off the main parties involved that dispute/contest the Telegraph report into the existence of the letters or content.

The fact the Palace have said that the King is looking for the source of the leak, supports beyond any credible doubt that the letters do exist.

Profiles

Forums

Downloads

Posts posted by cleopatra2

Benefits that cannot be reduced or stopped