Liverpool Lou

In your opinion. Obviously...but factually, by definition, also.

Another one inflicted with being terminally literal. Terminally accurate, to be precise.

no because unlike dear leader daddy is not a serial liar What?

He said that he won't, but then, he is a liar.

Which goons were charged with insurrection?

...and a man wanting a penis is a homosexual.

The Supreme Court didn't exactly say that. The court said it did not recognise Thammanat's conviction because the verdict was delivered in Australia, a foreign country. "The verdict of any state only has effect in that state," the court said. That offender was not indicted, nor convicted, in Thailand, Shinawatra has been indicted here, and his case will be heard in Thailand, there's a big difference. The Thai court's verdict is what will count.

Yeah, right. But I suppose THB is much more convenient than dollars.

Cheese...such a signature romantic thing.

No, those three are too busy on this forum to get involved in that sort of caper.

What have you got to offer him?

And how did they know who he was ? Maybe the Russian, who apparently wants to return to Thailand and has to take responsibility, asked the lawyer to got to the police on his behalf.

He's not here so cannot be deported.

Err Just how did they contact him ? Did the cop have him on speed dial ? Via his lawyer.

No, you got it wrong. Try reading the OP, it is very clearly explained.

He certainly wasn't appearing in court, he was representing the Russian, in his absence, to acknowledge the charges at the police station.

You're happy that you've made no false guesses. I'm "happy" that you cannot back up your claims with any specifics about "the rich who consistently pay little or no tax".

In addition to my previous reply - and before you ask, you can either check this out yourself of regard me as a liar - I don't really care which. I work, I have more to do with my time than pamper to your wishes: "...check this out yourself of regard me as a liar..." I'll go with the latter option that you offered as you cannot justify your claim. If you had any actual evidence you'd have presented it as doing so would take far less time than your farcical back and forth that you now claim that you have no time for. But that suits me.

Why should I back up my claim - simply because you want me to? Why? For credibility, of course. If you could, you would and, as you made the claim originally, the onus is on you to justify it.

And your experience of probably less than one hour in the airport is objectively indicative of what?

Who's fretting about it when they've just announced that, by choice, it will not be implemented.

How is that any of your business?

"...stop this ridiculous tax". There is no such "ridiculous tax" and there never has been one to stop.

It was never law and it's implementation was never announced to anyone, never mind the world. It was always just a proposal.

So what? The OP is about Thailand's 7-11s, approximately half of which are private franchised businesses, that, along with almost all similar private businesses, do not offer public toilet facilities.