PeeJayEm

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.

I can hardly believe the idiocy in which this is written. I hope the writer does not have a driving license. - Blaming a road death on a pedestrian and presuming rights of way for motor vehicles over the rights of life of pedestrians.

Sympathy with you mate. You did what you could. Reality is that the only person who can fix it is the individual themself. The same happens in alcoholism too - it's just more insipid and slower in killing people.

My goodness - why not check before posting random suppositions. They have their own Turkic language which has Arabic script. There are reports of them being tortured into learning Chinese. So, no, not a dialect any more than English is a Chinese dialect.

Not a simple single issue or solution. Severe flooding in Thailand is caused by a combination of natural, environmental, and human factors: 1. Monsoon Rains: Thailand experiences heavy rainfall during the monsoon season, typically between May and October. This prolonged rainfall can lead to river overflow, flash floods, and the saturation of soil, which contributes to flooding. 2. Tropical Storms and Typhoons: Occasionally, tropical storms or typhoons pass through Thailand or nearby regions, intensifying rainfall. These storms can bring sudden, intense rainfall, which overwhelms rivers and drainage systems. 3. Geography and River Systems: Thailand’s geography, with low-lying areas and a network of rivers such as the Chao Phraya, Mekong, and Mun rivers, makes it vulnerable to flooding. These rivers can easily overflow during heavy rainfall, inundating surrounding areas. 4. Deforestation and Land Use Changes: Deforestation and land clearing for agriculture, urbanization, and industrial activities reduce the land’s natural water absorption capacity. The removal of trees and vegetation increases surface runoff, leading to faster accumulation of water in rivers and floodplains. 5. Urbanization and Poor Drainage Systems: Rapid urban development, especially in cities like Bangkok, has reduced green spaces and disrupted natural water flow. Increased impermeable surfaces (like concrete) prevent water from seeping into the ground, and aging or inadequate drainage systems struggle to cope with the large volumes of water. 6. Climate Change: Climate change has intensified rainfall patterns, leading to more frequent and severe rainfall events. Rising sea levels also contribute to coastal flooding, especially in low-lying coastal areas and regions around river deltas. 7. Dam Mismanagement and Water Release: Thailand has several dams to control water supply and prevent drought, but during heavy rainfall, the controlled release of water from dams can lead to downstream flooding. Mismanagement or uncoordinated water release, especially during peak rainy seasons, can exacerbate flood risks. 8. Subsidence: Ground subsidence, particularly in Bangkok, where over-extraction of groundwater has caused the ground to sink, worsens flooding. Subsidence makes it difficult for water to drain and increases the impact of rising sea levels and coastal flooding. Each of these factors can act alone or in combination, often resulting in prolonged, severe flooding that affects homes, infrastructure, and agriculture, especially in central and northeastern Thailand.

I'm a veteran big bike rider and a car driver. So neutral and looking at both sides. The car probably didn't see the bike, only glancing in the door mirror for a second while the bike approached in the blind spot. The bike rider seems to be in the habit of riding down the white line between lanes in slowish moving traffic. If he does that regularly - as I suspect - then he's doubly exposing himself to this sort of thing from both lanes and should expect this to happen sooner or later. Basic bike riding intelligence is that you need to keep visible and occupy a clearly visible space and presence in the traffic - which means riding in the middle of a lane and behaving as if you are a car - keeping your rightful space. Filtering carefully between lanes is fine when traffic is stopped or start/stop queuing - but riding like this down a white line is asking for an accident. In the end, when you are dead it doesn't matter who was right or wrong. He had it coming. Both the rider and the car contributed to the accident. Regarding the car not stopping - the driver may simply not have been aware of what happened - they would not have felt or heard anything - just a nudge puts a bike off the road. Then if any of us had been the driver - what would we have done to safely stop? It requires a quick and accurate risk assessment - stop in the middle lane of moving traffic causing another, now two-lane, blockage and walk back in the moving traffic? On balance, and more than a few seconds to think about it, I think pull into the right lane and stop there - blocking only the one lane and being able safely to walk back beside the central reserve wall. But how many of us would get that right in two or three seconds .

Barking at the moon. It's been this way for 70 years and isn't going to change.

Here it is: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01457/SN01457.pdf

If if if. Ofcourse if. But utterly irrelevant. The government doesn't pay in contravention of the statutes on the basis of ifs. Ofcourse it's fine if people return to reside in U.K. They'll then be contributing to the economy, if not by paying income tax, at least by spending and paying VAT and increasing circulation in the economy. Not idiotic at all. What you're looking for is a U.K. sized pension in Thailand sized price environment, without contributing anything to the U.K. current account to pay for it. Quite self-centred and greedy really.

Rubbish - it's been that way for good reason for 70 years. People now complaining knew exactly what they would be getting when they made their decision. Their lack of planning is not a justification for me paying more tax to fund their idiocy and poor decision-making.

Rubbish - it's been that way for good reason for 70 years. People now complaining knew exactly what they would be getting when they made their decision. Their lack of planning is not a justification for me paying more tax to fund their idiocy and poor decision-making.

Rubbish - it's been that way for good reason for 70 years. People now complaining knew exactly what they would be getting when they made their decision. Their lack of planning is not a justification for me paying more tax to fund their idiocy and poor decision-making.

Rubbish - it's been that way for good reason for 70 years. People now complaining knew exactly what they would be getting when they made their decision. Their lack of planning is not a justification for me paying more tax to fund their idiocy and poor decision-making.

No mention of what Jessica and her partner are going to do in Thailand by way of earning a wage and thereby contributing to the economy. No mention of work permits. No mention of health insurance. And by her self description as struggling in the U.K. she's short of income. I can see the Crowd Fund Me call coming as soon as any need medical care or need an air fare back to the safety of the U.K. However, this link gives a bit more info on how Jessica might be able to survive. Perhaps even merits a LTR visa in the digital nomad category (or whatever the term is). https://www.linkedin.com/in/jessica-ward-41a25761?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app

1946

This is simply racist. The policy of only uprating U.K. state pensions in countries with which the U.K. has a reciprocal social security agreement has been in place for 70 years unaffected by the recent increase in immigrants, illegal or otherwise.

That's an unsupportable accusation. The "freeze" is not pro-actively operated as such. Uprating only exists for expats in countries which have a reciprocal Social Security agreement with the U.K. Expats emigrating to countries that don't have such reciprocal arrangements would know that before making their decision to emigrate (it's been like this for over 70 years). So why all the hew and cry now? Inflation was much much worse in the 80s anyway and things rolled on just the same.

The "freeze" is not pro-actively operated as such. Uprating only exists for expats in countries which have a reciprocal Social Security agreement with the U.K. Expats emigrating to countries that don't have such reciprocal arrangements would know that before making their decision to emigrate (it's been like this for over 70 years). So why all the hew and cry now?

No. It was over 70 years ago.