jackspratt

She's smiling in a mugshot . . . what a piece of garbage.

I do hope that they are caught and punished to the maximum

You think that's a smile?

Isn't that from her Thai ID card?

Of course it is - but that idea doesn't fit in with the TV mentality. Far better to be a "mug shot".

What a murderous fibber, I didnt do it but the dog ate my evidence

Fibber? The purpose of a trial is to ascertain whether a person is guilty - in this case of murder or perhaps manslaughter - or whther the person acted in self-defense. The accused has every right to mount a defense and very often people imagine what happened without actually really knowing (they were drunk, traumatised or whatever); I would urge posters here to let justice (what little there is in Thailand) run its course and resort to the insults if the guy is found guilty. None of us are judges or jurors in this case and though we should be able to express reasonable opinions it is not fair on the accused to say that he is guilty, a criminal or whatever without having ascertained the facts. That's what the court will try to do. I don't think it is up to the posters on this board.

There are witnesses to the fight, CCTV of the stealing of the knife, and a witness to the premeditated cowardly murder, no self-defense here mate.

A person can be murdered with 20 witnesses but still have to considered as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, that is a joke, and only serves to line the legal fraternities pockets, but we have to accept this.

But do not try and tell me that I should not condemn this disgrace of a human being until some court tells me I can, he is guilty and deserves the same fate as he brutally meted out to the deceased. He is the lowest of the low.

Fortunately, most legal systems are not based around the usually poorly-considered opinions of uninformed posters on TV.

I am sure all right-thinking people wish it to stay that way.

After all she's been through, she is now paraded in front of a crowd of male photographers to have her injuries stared at and photographed?

Whatever is sick with this country, it doesn't just stop at the people who inflict this pain and injury.

After all she has been through, I imagine that having her injuries photographed and publicised would be the least of her worries.

It would seem there is far greater concern being expressed by westerners on TV with a very contemporary sense of morality.

The girl (from her appearance in the photos) shows no obvious signs of pubescence. Despite their numerous shortcomings, I am confident the Thai police would have handled this differently if that were not the case. I also cannot remember seeing any photos of her face, which would identify her.

I am starting to worry whether I should delete and shred the numerous photos I (and other family members) have of my pre-pubescent children and grand-children, taken in such settings as the bath, and at the beach.

In Windows: control panel: regional settings: location: select UK or US or whatever.

Doesn't work with all sites.

I have Australia selected, and still get the problem with Skyscanner that the OP refers to.

I think that, when going to such places, as long as your clothes are not worn out and you pay attention to personal hygiene, for example the combination of a t-shirt, shorts and flip flops should be fine.

Shorts and flip-flops are fine on the beach. This topic is about meeting government officals.

I think shorts and flip-flops are totally overdressed for the beach, but as JJ suggested, fine for visiting your immigration office, or doing a visa run.

But my opinion is formed by the standards I grew up with in my home country. They are reinforced by what I have observed (in immigration and other government offices) in Thailand, together with a consideration of the climate here.

Just to expand on Maestro's helpful answer, if you leave Thailand and return (e.g. a border run) just before your "must enter before" date, you will be given a further 12 months ie the OA will be effective for (almost) 2 years.

However, during the 2nd 12 month period, you will need a re-entry permit if you wish to leave and return.

Bloody hell the years have certainly taken their toll on The Rocksteady Crew.

Abhisit is beginning to look a lot like Boy George these days - just before his final demise!

Wow - a couple of off-topic, and totally inane responses to an otherwise important issue.

An issue so important to you that you chose not to post your opinion but just post pointing out my inanity which in itself makes your post off-topic.....I think.

What does "otherwise important issue" indicate to you?

Perhaps I should have focused on Abhisit's haircut. That would have really added substance to the thread.

Bloody hell the years have certainly taken their toll on The Rocksteady Crew.

Abhisit is beginning to look a lot like Boy George these days - just before his final demise!

Wow - a couple of off-topic, and totally inane responses to an otherwise important issue.

It was sent to me as an email, so I am unaware of the original source.

I have a little Satnav

I've had it all my life

It's better than the normal ones

My Satnav is my wife

It gives me full instructions

Especially how to drive

"It's 60 miles an hour", it says

"You're doing sixty five"

It tells me when to stop and start

And when to use the brake

And tells me that it's never ever

Safe to overtake

It tells me when a light is red

And when it goes to green

It seems to know instinctively

Just when to intervene

It lists the vehicles just in front

And all those to the rear

And taking this into account

It specifies my gear.

I'm sure no other driver

Has so helpful a device

For when we leave and lock the car

It still gives its advice

It fills me up with counselling

Each journey's pretty fraught

So why don't I exchange it

And get a quieter sort?

Ah well, you see, it cleans the house,

Makes sure I'm properly fed,

It washes all my shirts and things

And - keeps me warm in bed!

Despite all these advantages

And my tendency to scoff,

I do wish that once in a while

I could turn the damned thing off.

//Edit: Unknown author.

Changed offensive word in last line to the more popular version.

One of many many sources on the web: http://www.talktalk....ad.php?t=191647 – Maestro

If that was the case in that particular restaurant then the prudent way to deal with it is to ask the owner/manager to talk to the person. If that person has been allowed to smoke then tough titties to you. I don't see why smokers should have to move and be herded anywhere because you decide to sit near them. YOU have a choice, move.

BTW, I don't smoke but the smokers don't bother me unless there are a lot of them and in a very confined space. I would NEVER go into a place where the management allows smoking and then complain because I don't like it. If they are allowed then it is up to me to move.

Interesting philosophic position - the person following the law should inconvenience himself to accommodate the law-breaker.

A logical extension of that position is anarchy.

A couple of questions for the poster:

1. if it is your first time at a restaurant, how are you to know the management is happy to break the law, and allow smoking?

2. if you are half way through your meal, and a group of smokers turn up at an adjacent table, what should you do? For me, quietly acquiescing and moving to a different table is not an option.

But getting back on topic - the Oz government has made the very sensible decision to allow only 50 death sticks to be imported duty free under passenger concessions. Hopefully in the not too distant future, this will be reduced to 0 - at least for returning natives, who should know the law.

And you definitely can't smoke in restaurants - at least in the state I hail from. Not a decision the restaurant owner needs to ponder - he will be heavily fined, as will the smoker.

Is it open yet. ?????

Have you sent them an email to inquire?

[email protected]

Perhaps you could report back with your answer.

@473geo - where are you? I'm waiting for my answers!

Last sighted at 15.44 today.

Seems the kitchen got too hot.

Oh right,so you just point the finger where it can go, rather than where it should go, demand charges, trials, and 'justice' against one individual only..who according to some is only involved through 'circumstantial' evidence...some admission...as I have said previously Thaksin is a convenient patsy, possibly also for the keyboard warriors who dare not venture further. I take it you haven't heard the old joke, to Auditor, what is 1+1 answer 2, to economist, what is 1+1 answer 2 maybe 2.5, to accountant, what is 1+1 answer, what do you want it to be?

I said none of those things - but a convenient diversion for you to say so, as is the 1+1 red herring.

Let's simplify things - one step at a time.

What is your take on the assets concealment case - seems a simple enough question?

Didn't he thank the government for being kind enough to give him back 30 billion baht? Mustn't have been as serious as they first thought

Do you mean this case?

This is not the first time that Thailand's beleaguered PM has faced judgement from the court, nor may it be the last. In 2001 the court acquitted Thaksin by an even closer 8-7 vote. The charge in that case was concealment of assets.

Or this case?

Thailand's highest court has ruled that ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra concealed his assets while in office and abused his power for personal gain, and ordered the seizure of 46bn baht (£923m) of his £1.5bn in frozen assets.

The supreme court ruled today that "to seize all the money would be unfair since some of it was made before Thaksin became prime minister"

The earlier case.

But really, I am looking for 473's views - which he has studiously avoided thusfar.

Perhaps he is too busy looking for dots.

Oh right,so you just point the finger where it can go, rather than where it should go, demand charges, trials, and 'justice' against one individual only..who according to some is only involved through 'circumstantial' evidence...some admission...as I have said previously Thaksin is a convenient patsy, possibly also for the keyboard warriors who dare not venture further. I take it you haven't heard the old joke, to Auditor, what is 1+1 answer 2, to economist, what is 1+1 answer 2 maybe 2.5, to accountant, what is 1+1 answer, what do you want it to be?

I said none of those things - but a convenient diversion for you to say so, as is the 1+1 red herring.

Let's simplify things - one step at a time.

What is your take on the assets concealment case - seems a simple enough question?

He is so obviously guilty of a major crime, and I am surprised you guys have not picked up on this!! He didn't hire a smart enough accountant.....

How would an accountant (however smart) have provided cover for his (Thaksin's) egregious crimes in relation to the drugs crackdown?

Oh! - unless you mean the clear assets concealment case, where a less corrupt tribunal would have effectively rubbed him out from Thai politics before he really got a toehold.

How would Thai history read now, I wonder.

You know, you guys should really ask yourselves why there has been no progress into the human rights allegations.......

Probably because those questions cannot be asked on this forum, nor any other media in Thailand.

But it does not absolve Thaksin from his (not necessarily sole) complicity. Nor does it explain how a smart accountant would have made any difference to the assets concealment case.

Unless of course you have better information than the rest of us. Please feel free to expand, if that is the case.

He is so obviously guilty of a major crime, and I am surprised you guys have not picked up on this!! He didn't hire a smart enough accountant.....

How would an accountant (however smart) have provided cover for his (Thaksin's) egregious crimes in relation to the drugs crackdown?

Oh! - unless you mean the clear assets concealment case, where a less corrupt tribunal would have effectively rubbed him out from Thai politics before he really got a toehold.

How would Thai history read now, I wonder.

Does anyone with a completely tinted front windscreen have any experience with using (and later removing) the clear stickers used for attaching the license paper (par ra bor) to the windscreen?

ps please note - I am not looking for advice on the pros/cons or legality/illegality of full windscreen tinting.

FACT

• THE PEOPLE VOTE
  

• YINGLUCK WINS THE ELECTION.
  
• YOU DON'T LIKE IT THEN VOTE AND CHANGE IT.
  
• END GAME
  
• CHECK MATE
  
• NEXT!!!
  

The people have voted, so please cease all comment until the next election.

When my GF tells me the family wants to borrow some money, I say to her... 'You mean they want me to give them some money.' She gets kinna sheepish after that, but doesn't deny it.

No Thai I know has ever repaid a debt. 'Can I borrow 1000 baht. I will give back next week/month.' Yeah, right. Not gonna happen (even if they have money to repay).

You know the wrong type of Thais if you really believe that nonsense.

Then it would seem that many of us "know the wrong type of Thais"

Sure does.

Fortunately, many of us (including myself) know the "right type of Thais", and have no problem getting repaid in full, and on time.

But that sort of information isn't generally welcome by a lot of TV'ers, because it doesn't give them a chance to have whinge. They want to be able generalise about the Thais, and how bad/dishonest/feckless they all (yes, all 68 million of them) are.

Does anyone know why you cant purchase alcohol in Thailand to take to Australia? But its Ok in Singapore?

The most likely reason is that airside security at Thailand's airports (eg checks on stock being bought into the D/free shops) is considered inadequate - which is not the case in Singapore.

But you can buy your smokes, perfumes and chocolates and other junk in Thai airports?? No I think its a money grab, sorry for being cynical

If it is a money grab, why don't the Oz authorities ban carry-on duty free booze from all airports - after all, that would mean a lot more money?

It is quite clear that security is an issue at Thailand airports. The very differences you describe between delivery of D/F at Swampy/Phuket and Changi point pretty clearly to security concerns with the former.

Perhaps you should swap your cynicism for same analysis.

Does anyone know why you cant purchase alcohol in Thailand to take to Australia? But its Ok in Singapore?

The most likely reason is that airside security at Thailand's airports (eg checks on stock being bought into the D/free shops) is considered inadequate - which is not the case in Singapore.

went to Australia not long ago , and was told I could not take alcohol back .

Then you were clearly told wrong.