Trip Hop

I could name at least one other place that he's forgotten and this information didn't come from a bar stool in Pattaya either!

Look up the name for someone who collects watches, you will find it is the same. Now do I need to educate you any more?

He may well be one of the better ones and I have no interest in debating whether his family has wealth or not; or where it came from if they have? However, what I will say is that you are wearing extremely rose tinted glasses. I won’t disclose on here exactly how I know but I do. What I will tell you though is that he has been connected to the horologist from a very young age and therefore he was never going to be your average Joe. If you doubt this last bit, just remind yourself which office previously he has always been transferred back to whenever he has been taken off active duty?

I get the impression that you're just out to either up your post score or troll with all your controversial comments. Seems a bit bitter and twisted either way. BTW, UK palliative care is pretty crap if you do manage to get it.

I can accept that I may have confused the two and I'm happy to admit it, as was clearly stated by myself not knowing the finer details in my last post. It's a shame that you haven't acknowledged the same regarding your beliefs as stated? Plenty of information available on the internet and rather petty to make a point of me not supplying a link when it's not really a niche subject. Here goes just to keep you happy though! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32216346#:~:text="Non-dom" describes a,be affected by these factors. Have a nice day!

I don't want to get in a debate about this as I don't know the finer technicalities with regards to terminology/status. However, a quick search of the internet reveals the following: "Non-dom" describes a UK resident whose permanent home - or domicile - for tax purposes is outside the UK. It refers to a person's tax status, and has nothing to do with their nationality, citizenship or resident status - although it can be affected by these factors.

Not always the case. As you say if they are out of the country for a full tax year (April 6th to April 5th the following year) excluding allowable days for visits, you are entitled to file non-dom status and will pay no tax on outside UK income providing you can prove that you are registered for tax in the country that you are based. However, a lot of countries/contracts in the Middle east etc will pay tax free and use this as bait regardless of whether the contract is long enough for you to qualify. This can lead to a rather unpleasant surprise if the UK tax man catches up with you at a later date. I know people that have been caught out this way and I have also turned down contracts myself when the attractive so called tax-free turns out not to be the case.

Looking at the road surface and adjacent bar it certainly looks more like New Plaza than Buakhao.

Have you ever thought about changing your screen name to Save the Brits? 🤣

You should try getting out a bit more to see for yourself instead of relying on what you hear? I would say that over the last 5 years and most probably double that, that there has been a noticeable decrease in the amount of bars owned by Brits. Also, your use of words such as pimp explains a lot about your knowledge. Either that or you're just a troll

I totally agree and would have done exactly the same. It's sad that the Russian has died, he didn't deserve that but it was just bad luck. However, if he hadn't approached the daughter, it would never have happened. In my life I've had one mate do a 5 stretch for a similar situation where a guy attacked him. Another mate died where the situation was the other way around. I bear no malice towards the guy responsible though as it was just bad luck.

Let's turn this around: I have shown you that Section 17 of the Montreal Convention establishes and airline's liability. I have shown you that IATA recognises the Montreal Convention Singapore Airlines are an IATA member coded as SQ Singapore as a country has ratified the Montreal Convention. Can YOU tell me of 5 cases in the last 10 years where an airline (IATA Member & Country Ratification) has won a compensation claim for injury or death where they have failed to establish fault on the part of the passenger? Answering a question with a question and statements such as the first line of your reply posted above are text book examples of deflection. So is your waffling about manufacturers' faults when we are talking airlines and your so called reasons for not just answering my request. Let's be honest, you've already searched for the information that I requested and it can't be found. I already knew this when I asked you but instead of just admitting this, you have continued to deflect. Even if this incident is declared as an Act of God, I do believe that any of the injured passengers that were out of their seats with genuine excuse such as going to the toilet will be compensated by the airline. Based on my former work colleague's experience though, I think that any such ones that were sat in their seats without their belts on or similar will face a much harder time. One of the main considerations for any judge when ruling on liability/extent of liabilty is whether anything could have been done by the claimant to minimise/mitigate the same. For the ones on this flight that were just sat with their belts not fastened, the answer is yes as they could have just simply fastened them as advised during the pre-flight briefing. As previously said, the airline will do as much as it can for precedence not to be set as it will open the floodgates for future claims and cost them and every other airline far more in the future. As for out of court settlements, my former work colleague wasn't looking for a US style payout, just a replacement flight and for them to cover the cost of his treatment plus a couple of hours lost wages for every time he was treated. This didn't amount to a lot and the airline could have quite easily settled this before it even got into the hands of the solicitors but they chose not to and in the end it cost them far more in legal costs etc than if they had. Don't be fooled that Singapore Airlines have far more to lose as most people with an ounce of common sense will see that it couldn't be avoided and will most probably just ensure that in the future their belts are fastened whenever in their seat. Plus the demand for tickets will always be there if the price is right and if this was to happen in the future on any other airline, the way that it will be dealt with would be exactly the same. As said previously, the airlines will stick together as not to open the floodgates and therefore there would be no benefit in boycotting Singapore Airlines as you will get exactly the same with every other one.

Rather than answer my original request for you to name 5 occurrences in the last 10 years of where a passenger has successfully sued an airline for injury, you are still using deflection tactics as a means not to answer this. Most probably because you will really struggle to find such occurrences and just don't want to admit this? You have stated that you don't have the time to search for this information but again you have found the time to search for plenty of other and quote. Strange this? Another simple question for you? Do you know someone on a fairly personal basis, e.g. work colleague, friend etc that has actually tried to put a claim in against an airline for injury? I do and as said, it is far from as straight forward as what you believe and portray, regardless of what you may read and quote. Let's leave it at that as you are far from the Oracle that you think you are. If you contend this, just stop the deflection tactics and answer my original request? I'm an honourable guy, will hold my hands up when wrong and even apologise if you prove so. Let's see if you are cut from the same cloth?

But you have the time to search out details of the Montreal Convention and solicitors who quote the same whilst touting for business? Since when has Boeing been an airline? You're talking about manufacturing faults here which are a totally different issue. It appears that rather than admit that things might not be as straight forward as you claim, you're trying to divert away from my simple request for you to substantiate the same? Even out of court settlements make the news, even though the exact details do not.

You can quote all you like from solicitors' websites as they are just touting for business and will take on any case providing someone else is picking up the bill. The reality is far from this though and if you do not agree, excepting the recent incidents where doors have blown off etc, simply quote me say 5 incidents in the last 10 years whereby passengers have successfully sued an airline for injuries that have occurred on board. Now considering the amount of flights worldwide per day, the subsequent probability of accidents and the amount of information that is stored on the web, this should not be too much of a task if everything is as you say? The bottom line contrary to your beliefs is that an airline will fight tooth and nail incurring financial cost far in excess of settling any individual claim quite simply because if it admits liability and precedence is set, it will open the flood gates to future claims and cost them far more in the long run. Even if someone did win and set precedence, don't be surprised if the airlines as a collective appealed the ruling due to it opening up the possibility of action against all of them, As previously said, quote me 5 incidents where people have successfully sued?

Correct as this could be deemed as an "Act of God", which is the mother of all exclusions and get out of jail card when it comes to liability and insurance payouts. Due to air travel being subject to so many unforeseen risks, with regards to liability it is totally different to say travelling on a bus or train. With the exception of minimum levels of compensation for say death etc caused by a crash or compensation for delays or cancellations, the Montreal Convention and any airline's conditions of carriage are written so that unless you can undoubtedly prove negligence by the carrier, it is very hard to make a successful claim against them. This is why successful claims are very few and far between (even when to the layman they would appear reasonably just) with the last successful one I recall being a passenger who sued for being scalded by hot coffee accidentally tipped into their lap by a stewardess. Apparently this was awarded not on the basis that the stewardess had an accident (as this could occasionally be expected due to human error and/or possible sudden movements of the plane) but on the basis that the airline should have foreseen the possibility and therefore not served the coffee at such a high temperature as to cause injury, Basically when you get on a plane, the airline promises to get you from A to B and will try their utmost not for you to get injured in the process. However they don't guarantee it and if you are injured, it is up to you to prove their negligence. Their conditions of carriage and the Montreal Convention don't even guarantee you a proper seat, i.e. you could end up in a jump seat for the flight and they will just pay you a fixed level of compensation after. However strange this may seem, it's the truth.

I was on a flight about 30 years ago that hit clear air turbulence (or cloud drop as someone called it then) although nothing near to this extent. At the time it was enough to lift me out of my seat although I avoided smashing my head on the overheads. Since then I have always flown with my seatbelt loosely fastened and even on rare occasions when I have been lucky enough to have 3 seats to myself and stretched out a bit, I've always put the middle belt around me just in case. Not only is it good practice, if sleeping it saves the flight attendants waking you up to put your belt on whenever the seatbelt sign comes on. Whilst the airline or its insurers will most probably cover the medical bills out of courtesy, there will be no big payouts for any claims for minor injuries or possible stress caused as it looks like it was totally unforeseeable. Additionally if you read the law/full terms of carriage for any flight, you'd be shocked at how little you are actually covered for?

After riding on the road in various countries for over 40 years I totally agree. When asked by biker mates back home as to what it is like riding in LOS, I always liken it to being similar to one of those old arcade video driving games where you have everything coming at you from all sides. No matter how good you are at reading the road though, you can never prepare for being by some idiot from the rear.

Actually no and I only had the first ones to protect my elderly parents. Considering my late mother had mid/latter stage Alzheimer's at the time, my father was her main carer and made her a promise that he would never have her placed in a care home, I thought it was the responsible thing to do. Why, do you have any problems with this?

So having not had it, you are effectively commenting in ignorance. Not that I believe it is worthy of the mass hysteria but it is far from just a cold as you state and affects different people in different ways. Having had it myself 3 times (the last time being about 6 weeks ago), it has never really hit me that seriously although the last time/variant, I wasn't capable of anything other than sleeping and binge watching Netflix for a week. On the other hand I have a mate who was a strong fit guy in his mid 30s, who spent 7 days in an induced coma during the early infection wave and states that it has affected him long term. Tell him to his face that he's a hypochondriac and he'd drop you where you stood and most probably send you to ICU for a week.

Strange this as a quick search of the internet reveals that whilst drugs like THC and Ketamine can be fairly easily added to a vape, meth & heroin are not really possible due to the high temperatures needed? Easy solution is to legalise and license proper vapes so that they can be controlled and only sold by reputable vendors, then just confiscate the rest. Vapes have been around in the UK for over 10 years and whilst there are some reports of them being laced with THC and Spice, it's not something that has really hit the headlines.

Yes, perhaps she shouldn't be making money out of being an ex drug smuggler but so was Howard Marks, whom if you had met him was one of the most intelligent, intriguing persons that you would ever come across? However, I find it extremely sad that so many here are quick to judge her without no real experience of exactly how bad a drug heroin is, what type of person it can quickly turn you into and what was her life like before she got involved in it? Having known a few addicts myself over the years, the one common reason given for their use is the escapism it provides from various problems previous or current in their life, as well as the physical pain that they go through when trying to withdraw. No one here knows exactly how she first got involved, it may have been just teenage curiosity/foolishness but there again she may have been trying to escape something seriously bad that had happened in her life? The one thing that I can tell you though is that once you are in, it is extremely hard to get out and therefore people should not be so quick to judge? No one here is perfect and we've all made mistakes in life when we were young, it's just that hers as a teenager turned out over time to be a bit more costly than most of ours. Therefore have some compassion as she's done her time and if her book deters just one person from making the same mistake (regardless of whether she is making money out of it or not), it will be worth it!

Just heard on the local grapevine that there is a curfew in Bangkok for next weekend in the expectation of street protests. Before anyone goes on the attack, I can’t vouch for the truth in it nor whether it is related to this? All I can say is that I was just told by a local tourist restaurant owner.

You’ve hit the nail on the head and exactly my take on this as an ex-smoker who only gave it up because of regular drug tests at work that would show that you were stoned possibly 3 weeks ago at the weekend. This could have been so beneficial to many but the photo at the top with the original post just demonstrates the way exactly not to do it. Wouldn’t be surprised if this is Thaksin’s influence?

If he’s an Irani, there’s not many places that he can travel to without a visa, unless he has a 2nd passport? Red notices normally only work when you’re entering a country. Knew someone from the UK who had one on him but was in LOS for years. His solicitor told him just don’t go travelling to any western countries.