James105

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.

Sure, VHS came afterwards and was cheaper, more widely available and offered longer recording (goes for more miles) so won in the end. The same will apply to EV when they achieve the same as your comparison when they offer better value and are more convenient than petrol cars, which will happen one day probably in the next couple of decades. Right now they do not, and that is even with the propaganda style marketing and subsidies of various agenda driven governments. If they had to compete fairly (as VHS did) with no subsidies hardly anyone would buy them, apart from of course rich virtue signalling celebrities who think they are doing their bit to "save the planet" despite excessive use of private jets. I'm sure when the betamax owners of the past came to the logical conclusion that VHS offered better value and convenience they went out and bought a VHS, as will happen naturally when EV tech is at least as convenient and offers the same value as the petrol car.

The future is a big place and when the technology has improved enough to be a better value prospect (without subsidies) in comparison to their equivalent petrol cars then they will be viable, but not in the next 5-10 years which I suspect is the time period Trump is talking about.

I can formulate a theory as to why this is a uniquely American problem that does not occur in other similar countries that have banned easy access to guns. My theory is that if you have less guns and make it difficult to obtain them then the opportunistic 17-25 year old nutcases (that every similar country has) that fantasise about committing school massacres find it way too difficult and inconvenient to arrange and therefore do not carry out school massacres and go play Grand Theft Auto instead or something.

Cars probably do kill more people than guns but since the primary purpose of a car is transport and not killing humans no-one is asking for them to be banned. Also, it is not easy to drive a car inside a school building to carry out a massacre as it clearly is with a semi automatic rifle. Even then the car is more regulated than a gun as far as I know. Do you even need the equivalent amount of training and proof of competence in it's safe use to use and own a gun in the USA as you do with a car?

This is the equivalent of a very slow and very expensive death sentence. Once the appeals have run their course what is the actual point of keeping this person alive at the expense of the taxpayer if there is zero intention to rehabilitate them and reintegrate them into society?

I suspect the point was that we have millions of years before that happens again. I also suspect that considering the technological progress we have made in the last 50 years, and on the basis that progress does not cease for the next several hundred thousand years, science may well have a solution to deal with this that was not available 485 million years ago. Not something to lose any sleep over today, that is for sure. Cleaner air is a good thing and it looks like we are heading that way regardless, but let's not pretend that humans can control climate change just yet, no more than we can control a virus. I remain befuddled why so many people are convinced by the narrative that this is some kind of emergency considering the timescales at play here.

A somewhat blinkered view no? Who is funding the 'research' that you are committed to believing or do you just assume they are the good guys as you have bought into another fear narrative and they are here to save the day? After the covid era I am not prepared to believe either side as it is as clear as day that everyone is in it for their own gain, especially the 'good guys'. I'll just carry on living as normal life as I choose, including the most efficient transport (in terms of time / convenience) for whatever journey I need to make, or holiday I wish to go on. If battery tech improves enough to make electric cars the more practical choice then I will buy one when that is the case and not before. People are being manipulated on both sides here, probably for financial gain. There is neither an apocalypse coming anytime soon, nor is 'nothing' happening as climate change has always been occurring since forever on this planet. Improving air quality is something we should strive for, but not at the expense of going back to pre-industrial eras of poverty and low life expectancy whilst the richest and those in power carry on doing as they please. Over time there will be tech solutions for the air quality issues that even China may adopt rather than using coal. That day is probably decades away, but still probably millions of years before an actual apocalypse.

It's hosted in California. Doubt the Thai morality police will have much influence shutting it down, especially if the police say where they are from e.g ISP: I understand you want this website taken down for morality reasons. Can you just confirm where you are from again? Bib: Bangkok, Thailand: ISP: LOL