Trump, the guy you were just talking about:
Thanks for that confirmation that, despite your unbelievable assertions that you weren't referring to Trump in your early posts because you hadn't mentioned his name, you, very obviously, were.
You responded to a nested quote in which neither I nor Tug mentioned Trump.
You're right, Trump was not specifically mentioned because there was no need to when he is regularly and lamely referred to as "the felon", as any regular reader of this esteemed forum will know. No one else is ever referred to by that sad moniker.
If anyone in the Trump administration is on the list it will “prove” them child molesters.
I'm guessing that your use of inverted commas means only in the eyes of irrational, idiot Trump-haters?
It has been reported many times that many people were, offered the use of, and used his plane and never went to the island. Accepting the use of it does not make anyone a paedophile.
"Many of us" are aware? Trump has never hidden that early connection that has been splashed all over the media for years so everyone is likely aware. There has never been any suggestion that Trump attended orgies on the island so your "quite likely" is much more likely complete cobblers.
That’s fine.
But let them explain themselves out in the open.
Why should anyone who is guilty of nothing untoward have to "explain themselves" to the anyone, never mind the world?
Because simply being a client of Epstein, knowing him, having contact with him or using his plane legitimately does not make those people guilty of any impropriety which is what many people who say "Just publish it and let us all see" would immediately claim. Let us all see what?
If the damage was there, and agreed, when taking the rental nothing happens.
If a rental car engine has a problem, the owner has the responsibility, not the renter.
Shouldn't matter much just driving the Tuk Tuk it's just a motorcar if there no Passengers are on board.
"...it's just a motorcar if there no Passengers are on board".
Not if it is registered as a public service vehicle, it isn't; the purpose of the vehicle doesn't change if it is carrying no passengers, the driver is a passenger in the vehicle.
So you are not sure ?
I asked you because you seem very knowledgable about this.
IF you are stating your comment are factual and not just an assumption, I'll take your word for it... you are not known for BS'ing on this forum.
I am 100% sure that to drive a taxi/tuk tuk in Thailand, legally, a public service vehicle licence is required. That is a fact.
I am not sure about the answer to the other hypothetical questions that you asked regarding holidays and private use that I did not comment on.
The hypocritical, selective indignation about police actions here never fails to amaze...if the police are seen to not enforce the law to AN posters satisfaction they are vilified, if they do enforce the law they are vilified just as much! RTP can never win with so many blowhard Asean Now members.
Wouldn't one think that the Taxi driver had a License from his home country ?
Wouldn't one think that his home country licence would not be a Thai public service vehicle licence?!