PeeJayEm

Difficult to know what to make of this. On one hand there's no indication he had a prescription for cannabis and so was attempting to break the law in seeking it for fun use and getting onto any altercation with a dispensary is totally dumb and arrest is entirely defensible. The car but of the story is very odd - on one hand he says he had the owner's permission to drive it but then, because he was drugged at the time wasn't aware of anything. None of this seems to hold water and looks like typical Daily Mail rabble-rousing. Then his Mum's bit on the GFM page further embroiders the tale of woe with your even mentioning the original altercation he started with the dispensary which cause the original address. On the other hand, IF his story of captivity is true at all (and how can it be if, as he says, he was hallucinating) the Police concerned ought to be in big trouble. in my view - based on what is reported - this little angel is not telling the entire story and giving it plenty of "poor me".

USA, Canada and Australia repeatedly offered asylum for these people but Thailand refuses that and sent them to hell instead.

He is also lying. USA, Canada and Australia repeatedly offered asylum for these people but Thailand refuses that and sent them to hell instead.

He is lying - USA, Canada and Australia repeatedly offered asylum for these people but Thailand refuses that and sent them to hell instead.

Utter lies - USA, Canada and Australia repeatedly offered asylum for thee people. Thailand has sinned badly.

The lad clearly has some psychological developmental issues, may well be at risk of his life and needs clinical help - not public judgement and trolling by a load of ageing cretins.

Poor Thailand? It's what happen when human values are thrown out of the window purely for self-interest.

Another case of people neglecting proper insurance and then expecting the public to cough up...... quote from Daily Mail.... <<< John said: 'We have two insurance policies. One was for like 134 days, which covered us for India. And of course, we came over to Thailand. 'What they're saying, because we were in India and then went to Thailand, we're not covered on the insurance policy. 'The [other] they're saying you get 31 days of cover, which is free, but because we left the UK on November 2, that cover ran out on December 2. We were thinking that would cover us for Thailand, but it didn't.' >>> Idiotic - making assumptions instead of reading the policies. (The first was for India only and the other appears to be their U.K. health insurance which gives 31 days instead of the 134++ days they spent away. Basic wilful ignorance.)

If it really was a safety issue, since much is made of safety in their statements, should not the aircraft have landed at the nearest airport which would seem to have been Songkla instead of the long leg back to Bangkok?

Why not double or triple the road tolls for the period to cover the cost of the free public transport? That would also be dealing with the issue at source instead of the via via idea of moving out of their cars onto public transport. Middle class Somchai going to want to be without his luxury travel.

You're confusing sex with gender.

You are wrong. There is nothing more to British citizenship than a passport and it cannot "be taken away at anytime".

She

Read before you comment and with your attitude I hope you get to experience it sometime yourself.

Guilty until proven innocent apparently.