Liverpool Lou

No, the reason he wants to use an agent is none of anyone's business, public forum, or not. He only asked for a recommendation, not an inquisition.

It's not very handy these days, either!

O'Sheas, Royal Oak, Soi 33/1; Sportsman, Soi 13; Mandarin Oriental; Peninsular.

got the link then? How difficult is it to google "hop on hop off tuk tuk Bangkok"?

How about convenience and not having to deal with any possible bureaucracy, nor explain anything to snarky AN members who think that it is, somehow, their business?

Convenience, perhaps?

They're only making a complaint, (not demanding his extradition!) that doesn't take any extraterritorial power. You think that just sending a letter of complaint to wherever Vorayuth and Yingluck are would have any effect?

The senator in question is not involved in the proposed government complaint, she has specifically stated that.

There was an incident in Greenland, also? Where was that reported?

You're an AN poster, of course you can't be expected to comment rationally with the knowledge that she has specifically stated that she will not be taking any action against him.

Why? What has his family and the security of their assets got to do with this?

Surely, she is entitled to a holiday break during her tenure as a Senator?

Not long, but running the plate does not mean that the driver will be at the address to which the vehicle is registered.

The majority of the Thai armed forces are not conscripts.

I think that, as foreigners in the position to buy cars here comprise maybe only 5% of the population, the likelihood that they represent an above average percentage of EV buyers is a very odd suggestion. I'd suggest that, statistically, foreigners could represent, probably, no more than 5% of "early adopters".

Probably not having the right license to carry tourists. Probably best if you read the article!

"^^ Drinking?". No. Read the article in full properly.

Why did you not read the report in full?

no point you keep asking the same question Apart from my being able to ask anything I want here without the benefit of your august opinion as to whether my query had a point, I did not ask the same question. He was suggesting/asking if it was a fraudulent site, I asked him what made him suggest that...two very different questions.

The sh*t grammar Re-reading it, yes, I see the massively grave and oh, so, confusing grammatical error of simply using the word "received" instead of "receive". I also see the irony of a grammar complainant posting "The sh*t grammar" as though that was a grammatical sentence.

Actually the OP completely fails to discuss the tricky issue of savings - how defined and whether taxable. Yes, I am well aware of that. I did not suggest that it did make any other definitions. Actually.

it was a question, the poster said it was a fake website I know it was, that's why I asked that poster why he suggested a fraudulent website. It clearly wasn't judging from the OP's lack of such a suggestion. Perhaps you have something that suggests that it may be a fraud?

Jackpot of ฿0 ???????? For the punter in the OP, sure, but not if someone else bought those tickets with the winning number, as the OP also stated.

The tickets are duplicated by the GLO, that's why some winners get multiple jackpots...that's how this woman was able to "buy" five tickets with the same number.

Yes, it is perfectly clear, what part of it do you not understand?