Liverpool Lou

My guess is that you wouldn't be in a position to use his project regardless of how it was worded, you just wanted to have a go at him. But, as you said, that's just you.

He made no reference to you, or your business.

What you are talking about is cobblers, in the case of the OP.

What exactly is illegal about getting tourist visas issued officially?

Which "long term visas"?

I thought the topic was about some local guy throwing a tantrum in a Lotus supermarket.... is that rational and original? The topic is, the comments, frequently, are not.

That's quite a recommendation!

The eyes and ears are connected.

Hear, hear! Par for the course...sadly.

Typical hackneyed comment from some AN posters after a lifetime of reading other members overdone posts.

It is irrelevant but it's not difficult to inadvertently scan an item more than once. She corrected her mistake and apologised.

Over a free bag? No, it was not over a free bag, you need to read the OP in full.

No, she made a public statement because of the bad publicity the video generated for her business.

Perhaps the "looser" [sic] lives there because it is a family business.

Is he a doctor? As much as anyone here is, yes!

And the cure for your question, sorry, the answer, would be to read the OP in full.

Perfectly normal, the same happened to me at Camillian after a ruptured appendix except that the appendectomy incision was closed and a second small incision for a catheter was made nearby to drain anything noxious. And, much to the relief of everyone here, I survived.

They are.

In this case there has been nothing to suggest that the reported circumstances were not accurate so that is all that both of us have to go on, your speculation that is was misreported is irrelevant without something empirical to back it up.

I don't need to post anything to justify what is well known and backed by the government. It's a fact, it is not something that may, or may not be, in force. You're the only one who is suggesting that the bank may renege on it's commitment to protect depositors so how about you backing that up with something empirical?

That is true but, in this case, entry was made using a foreign passport. You cannot switch to using your expired Thai passport in the middle of your stay. You probably think that is stupid (and I do not disagree) but that is the reality. The OP did not say that they have already entered. My point to him was that they can enter on their old Thai passports, stay as long as they want to and, obviously, not need any visas or exemptions. That is the easiest and most obvious way for a Thai to enter and stay in Thailand. "You cannot switch to using your expired Thai passport in the middle of your stay. You probably think that is stupid (and I do not disagree) but that is the reality". I did not suggest that switching passports was an option or that i denies its reality so I don't know why you posted that. I also don't know why you then added what "I probably think" was that "it was stupid"! How could you ever know what I think?

Exactly, that's why the bank states specifically that all its depositors have 100% protection.

I'm not sure that's entirely true... The current 1 million deposit protection per bank provided for under Thai law pertains to Thai commercial banks, and GSB is not considered one of those It is entirely true, that's why I posted it. GSB provides 100% depositor protection, it is not limited to B1m as all other Thai banks under the DPA are.

You better get on it and tell them, then, as you seem so concerned that Thai banks follow the rules.

They are Thai nationals (regardless of their expired passports) so they do not need to enter their own country visa exempt or with any type of visa, they can enter on their old passports and stay as long as they desire...they are Thais.