James105

Health is directly related to a countries economy, hence the reason that the poorer a country is the lower the life expectancy so the IMF should of course be involved. The economic problems that are being faced today are a direct consequence of just focusing on just the health aspects of covid without considering the economic impact of these policies. There was no balance. Sensible folks predicted that an increase in poverty around the world would send a lot more people into an early grave than covid could ever hope to achieve.

Shame the IMF didn't get involved a bit earlier really when countries were destroying their economies via unnecessary and wholly ineffective lockdowns. Getting involved now that one of these countries is doing something to try and fix this huge mistake is a bit like locking the stable door after the horse bolted about 2.5 years ago.

Weird how people on here think that the £50bn tax cuts are the sole cause of this (even though the idea of tax cuts is to promote growth and it is too early to tell if that will actually happen), and not the additional £200bn of borrowing that is required to help people with their skyrocketing energy bills. The £200bn borrowing is not investing to grow the economy and it's just the kind of borrowing that causes markets to react just like they have done here. I can presume those on the left would prefer the alternative option of letting people freeze to death as they cannot afford their bills so the pound remains a little bit stronger against the $, unlike those nasty tories who only look after the rich folks.

Someone should tell the Pfizer CEO about this as he has become infected for the second time in 6 weeks. Based on your logic this suggests that the people he works with are unvaccinated as otherwise how could this have happened? https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/pfizer-ceo-tests-positive-covid-2022-09-24/

As with any medication, people should not just be told about the benefits, but also the risks associated with a vaccine so they can make an informed decision. Hiding this information or censoring it on social media does not inspire confidence.

You mean their estates make that money... right? The individual people that make up the royal family, as far as I am aware, do not produce or make anything to generate that level of income. That income would probably be higher if we did not have the royal family and the estates were opened up to tourism. I'm sure tours of the inside of Buckingham palace would be a great money spinner for the UK.

And if Charles turns out to be equivalent or worse than any of those you mentioned and brings embarrassment on the UK which then in turn affects tourism? What system or law is there in place to remove him from office?

I have a bugbear about the British monarchy. Normally I don't care about them but since the media has seen fit to ignore every single other important issue going on right now in favour of devoting almost 100% of coverage on a story about a 96 year old dying of natural causes I am struggling not to be irritated by them. In a presidential system if a 96 year old ex-president dies, the country doesn't need to grind to a halt, the football can still go ahead and there isn't 24 hour coverage of the event for 2 weeks straight. Also, if the law of the land states that inheritance tax needs to be paid over a certain amount then the presidents kids would have to pay it, just like everyone else. I just don't get how people can idolise these people. What talent do they even have that earns this idolisation? It's all a bit of a mystery to me. History doesn't go anywhere, it will still be there. Tourists will still come to see the palaces and castles, just as they do in France. I cannot think of a single good reason why the monarchy system should continue.

Indeed, and where did he even find the money to pay for this settlement? He didn't have the money himself so it must have come via the Queen via the grant she receives from the UK treasury, which in turn comes from the taxpayer, which is a particularly nauseating aspect of this whole thing.

How on earth you can imagine that the Royal family is the only thing standing in the way of the UK turning into Russia is quite beyond comprehension for rational thinking people. This must be the power of propaganda in action to be able to think that way, and as I saw from Covid time, some people are highly susceptible to propaganda. You are correct, we do have peoples (elected) representatives which begs the question or why there needs to be an extra (unelected) layer on top of that. If you feel the need to have someone (that you don't know) to idolise and bow your head to there are plenty of options nowadays, from the equally untalented Love island contestants all the way up highly skilled footballers, scientists, musicians or tech moguls.

Sure, we may well have ended up with "President Blair", but he would not have been able to occupy the presidency for 70 years without challenge, nor would his kids automatically inherit the presidency upon his death. Just because the Queen happened to be a good egg is not a reason to continue with a system that should be confined to the medieval period.

In a monarchy you don't get to select the best or the right person for the job. If Andrew was the first born he would now be King and there would be nothing that could be done to prevent that, such is the ridiculous system of a monarchy.

There is a solution to this problem of not wanting cameras shoved in their faces.... abolish the monarchy. This way the only people who get cameras shoved in their faces are those who seek it. Living a life of unearned wealth, status and an adoring public is most definitely a privilege and if I was eligible to apply for a job of a Prince without needing to have any discernible talent (which other than being born into it is the requirement for the current crop of Royals) then I would most certainly do so.

It distracts from more important issues. Since the royal family are just ceremonial figures and are not allowed to do anything of real significance (such as changing laws etc), in order to keep them in the public eye they are reported on incessantly for carrying out the most mundane of tasks that literally any able-bodied human in the UK is capable of doing. Do the French have to put up with news about the Presidents kids, grandkids, wife's cousin half removed from his sisters fiance etc? Probably not as they are as irrelevant to the vast majority of peoples lives much in the same way as most members of the royal family are in the UK. Yet we see our head of states family in the news everywhere in the UK as soon as they are born and throughout their lives, even though the chances of them accomplishing anything significant is no greater than the other 70 million people in the UK.

How many tourists actually got to even see the Queen, even from miles away? They come to see the palaces and castles which do not require a monarchy to be present. One of the most popular tourist destinations in France is still the Palace of Versailles and they haven't had a monarchy since 1792 so the tourist argument for retaining a monarchy is a non-starter. I've always been indifferent to the Royal family, and it grates when they occupy so much of the news agenda - I have no idea (for example) why I am supposed to be interested when someone does something as normal as saying hello to someone or waves out of a window or car which, quite frankly, any human is capable of doing. At least a "president" is selected by the people, which gives them significantly more credibility than an accident of birth. If the monarchy was disbanded there would be nothing stopping King Charles III putting his name forward to be president and if that is what the people wanted then he could become head of state on merit, rather than based on who his mum was.

For the funeral I can understand as this will attract a lot of high profile visitors from around the world and will need a significant police presence, but that is in 10 days time. It's the suggestion that the games would need to be cancelled (as opposed to minute's silence) this weekend that has me a little riled. Normal folks plan (and shell out cash) in advance to travel to games, and the passing of a major celebrity figure (yes, even the Queen) should not be reason enough to cancel them.

Not really. People (who have a lot less money than the royal family) buy tickets/accommodation in advance to travel to sporting events at the weekend and I do not see why they should lose money/lose out because a celebrity figure has passed. The traditional way that respect is paid is a minutes silence (or applause) at the start of games and the wearing of black armbands. I do not see why this should be any different.

Very sad the Queen has died. She was extremely dedicated to the public service role she was born into, and regardless of whether or not she was the best person for the job she did it admirably nonetheless, and even garnered respect and warmth from even those who do not believe that such a monarchy should exist in modern times. Now, I'm hearing some nonsense about the weekends football matches being cancelled over this and this is the part where I start to get a tad irritated. Sporting occasions are a great way for people to come together and celebrate a life well lived (as well as show their respects) and I very much doubt someone who loved a sporting occasion like the Queen would want these events to stop on her behalf so hopefully that will not be the case.

Lot's of double standards in this thread, which I expected to see. Plenty of girls do the groping in this town as well. It's nigh on impossible to walk down certain streets without being sexually assaulted on the way through. It's kind of funny how those that suggest that a women should be able to walk down any street she likes, wearing whatever she wants and should not receive unwanted attention (which she should of course), but if a guy gets unwanted attention then he should know better than to come to pattaya and walk down certain streets. I just hope we are not witnessing the birth of a new scam as collecting 200k from whatever the grope was sounds a lot easier and more profitable than selling sex at 1k a go. I doubt it would be too difficult to engineer an unwanted grope from the average drunken farang, especially if the police are onside (which they will be) by taking a significant chunk of that 200k as well.

It was probably more like a 50 baht bill. If that was me and even if I was 1000% convinced I was in the right, I would have just given her the cash regardless to avoid the inevitable conflict. Some battles might be worth fighting, but a 50 baht bill is definitely not one of them.

Yes, people did vote to control the borders but clearly the Tories have no appetite to do so. Since Labour would encourage even more to come (and have zero solutions for this) who do you recommend people vote for if they want to prevent these illegal immigrants from coming over and potentially dying on this treacherous crossing, whilst allowing organised crime to profit from this at the expense of taxpayers. Or do you believe that anyone who makes it into the UK should simply be allowed to stay there, and when the boats overturn and people die attempting the crossing thats just a bit of collateral damage not worth bothering about?

Reminds me of the time one of my friends got stuck in a public toilet on holiday somewhere. The silly sausage forgot that when she entered the toilet it was a slide door rather than on a hinge and was screaming the building down after 30 minutes of failing to open the door. She was in floods of tears when we "rescued" her by sliding the door open very easily. It took her quite some time to get over the incident, her agitation about the whole thing being prolonged by our mockery of her stupidity which we engaged in for probably a bit longer than we should have.

So you disagree with the lockdown approach and paying people to sit at home doing nothing now? Or would your approach be the labour one which was harder poverty inducing lockdowns for longer which inflict even more long term harm? Thailand has now removed pretty much all lockdown measures. All the alarmists and fear propagandists on here were predicting doom. So what happened? Those that salivated over the covid stats daily have been very quiet lately. Could it be that any human measure to control something like a virus is completely pointless (as most sensible people said) and is really just about authoritarianism and control? And what a cost these measures will have! This is just the beginning. Unfortunately this hubris will cost the kids of today their entire lifetimes to pay back.

Who have proven without doubt their approach was the correct one, as we can see from the financial repercussions being felt from taking the wrong one i.e locking up healthy people who were at next to zero risk from serious illness. Of course if your goal was to put as many people into abject poverty as possible then you would of course think that Sweden took the wrong approach.

Good grief, you people and your labels. It's common sense that paying people to sit at home doing nothing would have massive financial consequences. If "alt-right" means common sensical then yes, they are to blame for not recognising the obvious repercussions. The government could have done with a little more balance in their choice of scientific advisors with some more dissenting voices but they could not introduce lockdowns without overwhelming public support.