Liverpool Lou

That's what the OP is doing, I think. If she was here she'd be aware of the Covid regulations already, surely?

The rules regarding mask-wearing here have been widely publicised in the press and the media, i.e. masks are compulsory for everyone in public. Offenders face a first time fine of B1000. Google will provide all the information that you require. I don't believe that medical exemptions have been catered for in Thailand's mask requirements.

Unfortunately, face shields are not classed as face masks so to comply with Thailand's current regulations I believe a mask would still have to be worn also.

That door with the obscured glass looks like a door to a lobby, a lift lobby, maybe?

Which teenager are you referring to whose case has "been going on for years"? What case is that?

Headline writer's clickbaity cynicism, the AG did not say that in the copy..

It just shows how imaginative the journalist was composing is headline, the police were not quoted as saying that in the body copy.

It's what the police were actually reported as saying in the actual article that counts, not the journalist's clickbait headline. The article, with the quote from the police, does not report the police as saying "yet".

Not so far, it isn't, unless you can back up your claim.

That's a statement that was not made by the police in the article, whoever decided on the headline made up that little word "yet". Nowhere in the body of the OP, or the body of the link, was the word "yet" used by the authorities in the context that the OP's headline suggests.

No, they're not, there all in custody, they're not running free! The prosecutors office is not one person so making a decision to indict in 14 days is not unreasonable and that's all they have to decide, whether there's enough evidence to justify proceeding to court with the case. They are not ruling on the guilt or otherwise of the accused.

Shouldn't the congratulations for that achievement go to the father? The poster has nothing to do with his father's longevity!

I agree with your sentiments in your other posts but those you refer to here are daft if they chose to disregard that they are only here temporarily, 12 months, when making the decision to have wives, homes and children. It should be easier for those but it isn't and the rules were there before they made their life decisions and agreed to abide by them.

I dont know Exactly.

Call time on all dogs, except working dogs, now! That, or ban them all from public places which are only treated by their owners as dogs' bogs.

Much better to wait until the three of them attack a child. eh?

Can't be too hard? Let's have the solution, then. If these hadn't been removed already, where would you suggest that the poisoned meat is left and how would unintended victims be kept away from it? Maybe a "Rottweilers only" sign?

The basis for having alcohol was to be served with your meal as far as I was aware . As far as I was aware, the basis for a restaurant to be permitted to serve alcohol now, legally, was to be a licenced restaurant, that's all.

You know that any question a bit tricky has a big risk to be replied by "Cannot" and then you can never go back to that same personn even if you prove her wrong. Thanks for your interest anyway You know that, regardless of what the opinions of members of the forum are regarding your question, it's the banks' answer that matters? You cannot respond to your banks' decision with "but an anonymous stranger with no banking connection whose answer was what I wanted to hear said that's not what he thinks". Sorry that I couldn't give the response that you wanted to hear.

Perhaps he meant the "man made" trials? He's fallen for all the climate change/end of the planet b_ollocks, more likely.

Is there a requirement that restaurants have to serve food in order to comply with the relaxed regulations? I realise that restaurants will want to sell food also but I haven't seen that emphasised anywhere by the powers that be.

Frankly I think the best way is to ask Kasikornbank. Yes, it's odd how so many OPs ask questions here that can easily be answered by their just asking the people who are actually in the position to give a definitive, accurate answer!

You've already had that confirmation from Kasikorn, surely? A fund transfer from one Thai bank to another, within Thailand, does not constitute funds coming from abroad to your SCB account so how could SCB provide that certification?

Yes, they can. Which Thailand are you talking about? There are millions of migrant workers employed legally in Thailand.

What are you talking about? At the time you wrote that comment the alcohol ban in restaurants had been lifted in many places so it is, clearly, not considered to be deadly behaviour!