James105

Where are these numbers coming from? Were all 6000 of them civilians? Not a single terrorist amongst them? Does that number include the 1000/800/500 claimed by Hamas in the hospital own goal that produced a crater the size of a pothole that could never have claimed anywhere close to that many lives. Do you ever question the numbers you propagate on behalf of Hamas?

Can you name any right wing person that is openly supporting Hamas? I'm not aware of any at all. Lot's of left leaning people do seem to support Hamas though, Jeremy Corbyn once describing them as his friends being quite a prominent example. Keir Starmer was trending on twitter yesterday also as he supports Isreal but many Labour supporters want him gone for doing so. The right wing have adopted their usual position of opposing terrorism and I cannot see anything that is different to that so looking forward to the links you will supply that confirms what you are saying here.

I have no idea. I've largely ignored anything that happens in the middle east but when Hamas committed the atrocities that they did they vetoed any kind of bargaining power as animals like this should never get their way, otherwise where does it end? Murderous terrorists such as these need to be eradicated, not appeased. The current and only peaceful resolution to this should be to encourage Hamas terrorists to surrender to some kind of international body to face justice, return all the innocent civilian hostages that they abducted and install a non terrorist leader/group in Palestine to negotiate the future of Isreal/Palestine. I see no other solution to this.

Who "owned" the land before Isreal then as I thought it was the Ottoman empire? Are the Ottomans wanting it back? If they were to "give back" the land where do you propose the 10 million Jewish people relocate to? Is there another Jewish state I am unaware of that Jews can call their home and have a place of refuge when they are once again inevitably persecuted?

One thing that is obvious to me is that if Hamas/Palestine wanted Isreal end to this then they all they have to do is surrender all their terrorists to an international body to face justice for the atrocities they committed and return the innocent civilian hostages they are holding (and probably torturing) alive. That would be a good starting point to negotiate peace I think and I also think that then the world would unite and ensure all the innocents in Palestine are given aid and support to rebuild their country.

Isreal has the military capability to raze Gaza to the ground. If they are who you say they are why do they not choose to do this and instead make every effort to warn the civilian population of the military targets (located in civilian buildings) of where they intend to strike. This warning costs them the element of surprise as the Hamas terrorists also receive this warning and can (and do) move their rockets to another location. Seems terribly inefficient to me and if the goal of Israel was to kill innocents, then why on earth would they take such efforts to avoid doing so? Imagine if Hamas had the same capability. You think they would not have used it to wipe Israel off the map already? Actually maybe they wouldn't as that would remove the opportunity to mutilate and torture their victims before they killed them. I think the reason that a lot of people are siding with Isreal is that Hamas sent in their troops to mutilate, torture, behead and kill as many innocent Israeli's (without warning) as they could, and feel that an action such as this cannot go unanswered as otherwise it will embolden the terrorists to do it again. Do you have a better answer than Israel to the kind of response required to the kind of murderous brutality that occurred on their territory? If so, what is it?

I just order mine from Lazada now as have given up on physical opticians other than for an eye test, and the overseas online stores take weeks/months to deliver. This store is reliable and has a pretty wide range and they get delivered in a couple of days from Bangkok so no customs involved https://www.lazada.co.th/shop/pixel-eyes/?spm=a2o4m.pdp_revamp.seller.1.35431a7dRITlfI&itemId=3826226157&channelSource=pdp

Baht buses are part of the problem on that road, stopping whenever someone pushes the button so someone can get off and they can collect their 10bt every 50-100m causing the traffic to back up even more, or attempt risky manoeuvres to get past. Maybe they should invent the 'bus stop' over here so there are 3 or 4 designated stopping zones for them, preferably where they can pull over a bit and let other traffic get past whilst they collect their 10bt coins.

If Gaza is a "concentration camp" how is it that they have the freedom able to procreate so much?

Actually I'm reminded of a recent trip to 7/11 where I didn't have enough cash to pay for what I bought, the 2 cash machines nearby were out of action and ended having to (embarrassingly) have things taken out of the bag as I didn't have enough cash money to pay for it and they would not take any kind of bank QR payment, not my Thai bank card or any other of my cards. Gotta agree with the OP here. Paying for things in 7/11 is annoying and everything always seems to add up to something + 1 or 2 bahts so you end up with annoying coins in your change.

1. You are victim blaming here. 2. The second photo shows they were on a very straight road. 3. It's (normally) safer to ride in a group as they would be a lot more visible than a solo rider. 4. If someone is incapable of seeing 6 cyclists in a group on a road they are either too drunk or too blind to be driving so it's not the cyclists that should not have been using the road.

I used to cycle 5 miles to work and back every single day in the chaos of London roads and traffic, which feels infinitely safer than even considering riding a bicycle on Thai roads. There just doesn't seem to be much respect for life here on the roads as drink driving is normalised and there is not much consequence for doing so. Until there are genuine consequences for drink driving over here this is just another very sad but very repeatable story.

This is a personal opinion, but I do feel that if a country wants me to pay tax like a local then a minimum requirement for me would be to allow me to "officially" work in that country and buy land in that country to live on, and not make me pay for a very expensive "tourist" visa that does not allow me to do either of those things. I'm not after a vote or anything, but if someone wants to take away some of my hard earned cash that was earned way before I moved over here without anything in return is not okay with me.

That is quite the important omission. I even read the linked article and am none the wiser about how you ascertained this was for the existing law and not the new one.

Ok so now I am confused... reading this nothing has changed? I can still bring in income to Thailand that I received from overseas that has been in a UK bank account for 1+ years without paying tax on it?

Here is some perspective on how little (whatever the UK does) in this regard actually matters: The UK could go back to the stone age, ban all cars/planes/factories, reduce life expectancy to 30 years old and it still wouldn't make hardly any difference. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions#co2-emissions-by-region

The problem is that many presume (as I do) that the onus of "proving" those savings have been taxed will be on the individual. I just use a single personal UK bank account for example, and have funds in there that have and have not been taxed. I have no idea how I could "prove" that one specific £ has been taxed versus one that has not been. My experience of dealing with Thai bureaucracy so far has been quite confounding and that is for simple tasks like buying a motor vehicle, extending my visa, changing address etc, so adding something as complex as tax into this mixture is quite a chilling prospect.

I'm 99.99% sure I am getting caught up in this as since I am no longer a UK tax resident and get income in the form of royalties for work I published years ago, I am not paying personal tax on this income as I use the loophole of only bringing in income earned overseas from prior years, and I have been in Thailand for over 3 years now so would be considered a tax resident. I send myself 100k-200k a month for living expenses and whether the announcement was confusing or not, I am in no doubt this will become taxable from next year. I do pay corporation tax via my UK Ltd so not completely avoiding tax before anyone gets uppity about what I am doing here. This will leave me with 2 choices: 1. Suck it up and pay - I can afford it. 2. Leave the country and go elsewhere. Option 2 is the most likely outcome and when my lease is up next February I will probably take the opportunity to relocate and explore another part of the world. Hopefully the Phillipines has sorted out their internet by now :)

I personally would have preferred to see the government sticking by the democratic principle that someone is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and if the government was inclined to write letters to private companies then perhaps the letter should have gone to YouTube reminding them of that fact, and not to those platforms that were abiding by that principle. Obviously some people prefer the Salem witch trial approach where merely the accusation itself is enough to prove someones guilt (depending on the political views they have of course), but somewhat controversially I still prefer the "innocent until proven guilty" approach to justice because it feels a little bit fairer.

So what have YouTube done that stops him from doing that? All they have done is ensure YouTube can still make money from his content, but Russell Brand cannot. If he wants to upload a video then he still can. I didn't realise that people can make accusations (anonymously) and the accused is not allowed to refute them. Is defending yourself from (possibly false) allegations "interfering with justice?" then?

That is not really the point though is it? The UK government are leaning on platforms where he makes money to try and cut off the way he makes money. It's difficult not to come to the conclusion that they are attempting to silence him, not for what he has alleged to have done, but for what he is saying as there is no precedent for this Orwellian over reach by the UK government. Did they write to Man Utd to encourage them to stop paying Mason Greenwood after allegations came out about him for example? Of course not. If Brand has committed these crimes then he should face justice in a court of law and be given every opportunity to present his case and defend himself. If convicted and found guilty then he should he face punishment for his alleged crimes, not just on the basis of anonymous accusations that have neither been tested or proven in court. It baffles me that someones life can be so easily destroyed in this way and how so many people agree with this (lack of due) process.

Utterly chilling behaviour from a UK member of parliament: And an excellent response from Rumble: Well done Rumble for upholding the values of democracy and what underpins it (a right to a fair trial and innocent until proven guilty etc), and what absolutely appalling behaviour from an MP.

Well, there is the case of 'Cardi B' who admitted to "inviting men to a hotel before drugging and robbing them" https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-47718477 She has 19m subscribers on her YouTube channel and despite admitting these offences, she faces no sanctions from YouTube. Then you have the case of Russell Brand, who has been convicted of no crime, vehemently denies the offences and YouTube have immediately cut him off from earning on that platform without due process or seeing if there is any substance to these claims following a police investigation and a court hearing. What conclusion are people supposed to reach from this then as you can hardly claim that Cardi B has been held accountable for her actions?

Is this a "tell people you can't afford an iPhone without telling people you can't afford an iPhone" kind of statement? An iPhone alone will not do much different from an Android phone, but as someone who uses many apple gadgets (computer, watch, TV, phone, iPad) they all play very nicely with each other and feel like an extension of one another. Want to use the high quality camera from your phone as your "webcam", go ahead as it seamlessly uses it. Want to use the iPad as a second screen for the computer, no problems. Left your phone elsewhere in the house and want to pick up that call on the computer, no problems. My gf uses an android phone and an iPad and even getting photos from one to another is a traumatic experience for her. Switching to the best and most expensive Android phone available would be a huge downgrade, for me at least.

So they want to ban the thing that is nowhere near as bad as tobacco but "leads to tobacco" instead of just... banning tobacco? There is some serious mental gymnastics going on here to try and justify this, as well as no doubt significant "donations" from the tobacco industry who are threatened by a healthier alternative to tobacco smoking and no doubt are very happy with this policy.