Liverpool Lou

Never happened. Maybe the CAAT regulations regarding PRMs are to be thanked for it not, yet, happening?

Really? Who is? Who's going to take responsibility for that in a panicky, emergency siyuation? CAAT regulations require that passengers have to be able to reach and don their life jackets and get to the emergency exit in a reasonable time. If they can't do the latter without their own assistant, i.e. they're travelling alone, or another passenger carrying them, it's not unreasonable for them not to be boarded in view of the risk they may pose to other passengers in an emergency. Unfortunate, but there you go, life isn't always fair.

Guessing it's the same one that was in the press fairly recently on the same subject, Thai VietJet

Hear, hear! Bunch of seven remarkably ugly blokes.

What a complete load of old b0llocks. Once again.

Not a chance, making up ridiculous tales that never happened won't get him in trouble.

And a very generous PEA that did not cut off her, presumably, unpaid supply.

This happened yesterday, as the Thaiger's original report states, it was written on 12th.

Why?

Perhaps it's because that's her occupation?

What about the scamming driver's demand for extra payment for "his time" on an app that allows for cancellations, a risk he accepts by working for the app?

Hi Lou, I missed you. Wish I could reciprocate.

Routine shake-down. ...of those doing something illegal.

That's a matter of opinion!

An over-the-top misinterpretation of what was actually reported. Again. It was a routine checkpoint and it was not reported that he was drug-tested at the roadside, he was found in possession of the pill.

Why is it not the place for normal visitors? Do you anticipate that your friends will be carrying things that they shouldn't be?

Obviously, not. That would be bigamy.

There were reports a day or so ago that he was angry that after they had broken up the victim had asked him to repay the B100k that he had borrowed from her.

"Imply"? Huh?

No, it is not, the love of money is the root of all evil.

..."because we haven't actually got enough evidence against you to even get an arrest warrant issued!", as per the Bangkok Post quoting his lawyers.

He is? How do you know that when even the police in charge of the case could not gather enough evidence to persuade a judge to issue an arrest warrant for him?

Isn't a requirement of a marriage extension that they have to be living together as a married couple?

Doesn't the forum provide those "rubbish emojis" for members to use as a way to express opinions? Note that was a question. And no, the emoji's not from me, as you can see.