Liverpool Lou

Currency exchanges?

So what if that recommendation isn't being followed? Did you not notice that at least one of them was happy to pose for photos that would identify him?

on an Unionpay branded debit card. Wouldn't the tourists need a local bank account for that and why "UnionPay", in particular?

"Why would anyone put all their valuables in a small box..." They didn't, they put the cash in "safes" for which, this century, almost none have keys.

Why, what did those tourists do to deserve that ridiculously unfair suggestion of treatment? Are you responsible for your government's unilateral actions?

Likely there was method in his/her madness.

No, they would not have to prove how much cash they brought with them. They would only have to prove the loss of the amount that they would be trying to claim from their insurer and that would, usually, be very limited on most travel policies.

Sounds like insurance scam. What thief would not take it all! No it doesn't. Most travel insurance policies impose low limits (a few hundred) for stolen cash claims unless there was a special endorsement to the policy. "What thief would not take it all!" The thief who didn't want to be caught, perhaps, and thought that it may not have been noticed then maybe went back later for further 'withdrawals'.

Unbelievable that some people condone theft from visitors to Thailand.

All those "rocking up" immediately get put to the back of the queue for the benefit of normal applicants who just "go" there.

Complete tosh, VAT is not payable on finance companies' interest rates.

From the OP, "Adam's family have raised £20,000 to pay for treatment...". There's no suggestion that paying the bill was a problem.

How does it work exactly? It doesn't, it was a proposal that was never implemented.

Of course, they will if there is a reason, they're businesses, not charities, but statistics show that 90%-ish of all insurance claims are accepted and paid out, if they weren't there wouldn't be an insurance industry.

Perhaps they're not "Laughing" at his misfortune as much as laughing at the content of some of the inane posts.

Yes, you are. Er, no. We're both right (or wrong) depending on which definition is used and it has to be borne in mind that there is no definitive definition.

Yeah, and you might also be wrong. I'm not wrong.

I had a small package from Japan intercepted by Customs (using Japan post and Thailand Post here) and had duty charged a few weeks ago. Just luck of the draw.

Could you post this "fine print" that your policy allegedly used or are you just referring to the policy conditions that are printed in normal print?

Actually, the report, of which you are keen to throw at others, also states "in the room". If you're so keen to belittle others for not reading the link, then at least don't misquote that very link to suit yourself. I'm not "belittling" anyone, neither am I "throwing " anything at others, I'm simply pointing out facts as opposed to the falsehoods that some posters were promulgating. The point is that he was sleeping/resting in his/a room, not at work as was being wrongly suggested.

"After the crime!" He can't be arrested before he's committed the crime! "...dubious history or psychosis, petty crime or serious crime ... drinking, drugging and so on". No mention of any of those problems anywhere, you can't just make up your own idea of what he could have done!

Rude? How, exactly?

How could a proposal that was never implemented have "gone into deep pockets"?

He could not hide in a temple, he was defrocked and arrested.

Not an ideal situation, of course, but I'd guess that it is a room provided as a home for her by her mother while she was working abroad to support her as her ordained father probably couldn't.