Dr B

In an earlier post on this, the Thai Doctor said that she offered 3 solutions at the time: 1 Both apologise to each other and walk away. 2 Neither apologises to the other and walk away 3 Legal proceedings It was stated that the Swiss aggressor declined to apologise, but still needed an apology from the Doctor. Now he wants to say he tripped, so it was an accident. If he tripped, why was it such a problem to apologise? Only now that he finds out what a mess he has landed himself in he wants to apologise. I am happy to say "Too late. You had your chance to be decent. Now take the consequences".

An alternative interpretation of the same English sentence is that the primary source was mains power, and the uninterruptable power supply and the back up system are the same thing. This seems far more likely.

I actually didn't use the term "embezzlement", since that has a specific legal meaning. I said "stealing". That is a term I would use for paying a senior government official for approving the purchase of hardware at inflated prices, since government funds are public funds. I would also use it for paying an even more senior government official to approve a monopolistic concession, so that he could again overcharge for mobile phones and telecommunications services, all paid for by the Thai people. That is in addition to taking government funds for the awarding of state contracts, of which I had personal experience. Nor do I recall any evidence of his having paid tax on any of that. The abuse of power charges were, rather like Al Capone, all they could get him for as no-one would be a witness to any of the other stuff.

And at 50 years for Bt 418,560, how much would you get for stealing Bt 73 billion from the Thai people?

There is one thing about this, and some similar stories about incidents with Bolt Drivers, that confuses me. Maybe someone on this forum can help? I have used Uber, Bolt and Grab as ride hailing apps in Australia and in Malaysia. In all cases I pay the ride hailing organisation through the app, and no money changes hands with the driver. Why doesn't it work like that here. If the cash is paid to the driver how does the organisation get its share?

Based only on the limited facts available, could there have been a missing conversation between the Brit and the police that went something like this: Brit: Well I 'ad to 'it im 'cos he nicked my 10,000 baht didn 'e. Policeman: Do you have any evidence that he "nicked it"? Brit: Well I 'ad it when I stuffed it in me back pocket just before I left me room at 8pm, and it wasn't there when I got home at 3:30 am, so 'e must 'ave done".

Just for you. If a bottle originally cost Bt 200, it would have sold for Bt 700. With a 40% reduction in price it will sell for Bt 420. The 350% tax and the 40% reduction in final price are from earlier posts and not my figures.

Perhaps you need help with the arithmetic. If the total tax was 250%, then the sale price was 350% of the initial cost. A reduction of 40% of the final price would then be 40% of 350% = 140%. That leaves the final cost at 210% of the initial cost, or a new tax at 110% instead of 250%. Does that sound better?

Immigration would easily look to see if the surnames on the passport were the same or not. If not they would suspect some form of human trafficking. One of my daughters from the UK is divorced with three sons who bear their father's surname. She chose to use both her and her husband's surnames when they were married, and still uses that passport to avoid such issues.

It seems that you, and a certain number of other posters, seem to think that Thaksin is OK. I am one on whose life he did have a negative impact, but I won't go into that now. I note that he has been convicted by a Thai Court of certain crimes, which others suggest were "trumped up". I would therefore remind those who have forgotten, and inform those who never knew of some of the things around his wealth. All of it was acquired, not through normal business acumen, but through corruption. In the end he owned the AIS Corporation but, as Prime Minister, he was not allowed to have shares in any company which was a conflict of interest with his position. This has always been the case and is the basis for the action against Pita. Thaksin took care of this by, reportedly, transferring his shares to his maid and his driver. You can be assured that the "ownership" was nominal, as neither would have been able to dispose of any of them. Not long after they were transferred again, this time to his son and daughter. Even that was obviously nominal, because there was no attempt to cover up his selling of the shares to Singapore (either Singtel or Temasek Holdings) for Bt 73,000,000,000. At the time there had been a restriction on foreign ownership of strategic companies such as a telecommunications giant, which could not exceed 15%. Thaksin then arranged a Cabinet Resolution to change this and increase it to 45%, to cover his planned sale, but he actually forgot that the SET rules state that, if you hold 45% of the shares in a publicly listed company, you must make an offer for all remining shares. Many shareholders took advantage of the high offer price, leading to the foreign owners holding about 75%. More jiggery pokery was then done in terms of nominee companies to make it appear as if Thais were holding the shares which were actually held by Singapore. I have therefore never been particularly bothered about the "trumped up charges", as there should have been many more real charges pressed. If anything, it seems to have been very similar to Al Capone being caught on tax charges.

There are two quite separate issues here: 1 The UK HMPO needs to make sure that the passport, which belongs to the Government, is in the hands of the correct person. 2 All the pages within the passport, since we do not get stamped into and out of UK, are therefore for other countries to use with their entry and exit stamps. Hence, as a PR, when I got a new passport my re-entry permit was not in it. I had to go through Immigration in Thailand to get a new one, and until then had to use both passports. In the same way if you are denied entry to a country I believe that gets stamped in your passport. HMPO may therefore be having a quick look for such things before issuing a new passport.

"Although preliminary investigations indicate that the road conditions were adequate, with a straight path and good surface conditions, the exact cause of the driver losing control remains undetermined. " "Mr. Surapong Piyachot, Deputy Minister of Transport, .... ordered an in-depth investigation into the true cause of the accident, analyzing multiple dimensions and hypotheses, such as whether it was due to vehicle, road conditions, or the lack of warning signs near the large tree." Is the Deputy Minister of Transport suggesting that all large trees off the road need to be fitted with warning signs? Or do they need to be strapped in place to stop them from jumping in front of buses? If that is the best he can do, perhaps suggesting that drivers stay on the road would be more appropriate.

Come on now UjayUjay, it's not 50% of ezzra, it's only 33%, and its not his left leg or his right leg.

Take a close look at the cable wrapped around the motorbike in the OP. If you think that was an internet, i.e. fibre optic cable, then I suggest a trip to Specsavers.

We are all entitled to privacy with regard to our medical records, but it is not uncommon for those in the public eye to have statements made which give a general indication of medical issues, without going into details. This seems to apply to World Leaders for example. Dealing only with facts, I cannot now recall the exact date that he returned to Thailand, but he went into Prison the same day and was transferred by helicopter to the Police Hospital the same night. By 23 September Paetongtarn said that he had had an operation, without giving the date. There was a photograph of him being wheeled in a bed, but no sign of any IV or monitoring would would normally be visible for a patient in an emergency situation. It was reported that he had an MRI, which is normally used to examine tissue other than bone. It is now reported that he had an orthopaedic operation, without giving a date, so maybe the the original one? This does not link to the MI. It is reported that he is, or has been, in NICU, which seems very strange for an orthopaedic operation. A recovery period of approaching 60 days, not knowing the exact operation date, is extremely unusual, even for cardiothoracic surgery. With regard to some of the other issues that have been mentioned, if the over 2,000 killings related to the drug trade were internal to the drugs trade, then they were murders and needed to be investigated as such. I was here at the time and there was no record of any such attempt. As far as his background and corruption are concerned, I do not need to rely upon hearsay or biassed reporting I had first hand experience of it, as well as close secondhand experience, so am speaking from a position of what I consider to be facts.

Two responses gejohesch: 1 You are absolutely correct, and the second "that" should be deleted. The simple test is to delete the text between the commas. 2 I cannot make any meaningful response without seeing examples, but note that quite often, in oral discussion, people speak with poor grammar, in incomplete sentences, etc. Those preparing the transcripts then have to struggle with writing what was said, or what they think the speaker was intending to say.

Well, if you wish to be "absolutely correct", then "would've" is only correct in speech, or in quoted speech inside quotation marks. Also, in your earlier use of "Bard", the software failed to recognise the incorrect "would of", and therefore produced a correction which was gibberish but not English, and you forgot to remove the "rarely" as advised. Incidentally I have no idea why the recommendation to remove "rarely" was made, as the meaning of the sentence would be changed by its removal.

It reminds of the time when Thaksin had just sold the shares in AIS, which he didn't own, to Singapore for Bt 73,000,000,000. He went to Isaan and was photographed giving an old lady Bt 3,000. She was extremely grateful to him for what was four millionths of 1 percent of what he had in his bank.

I am now well over 75, but 6 years ago had triple by pass surgery. I also have high blood pressure. I was in ICU for 5 days and in hospital for another 5. I cannot imagine what sort of surgery or medical condition could require him to be kept in hospital for so long.

Just to get some of the facts straight, this is not a Terminal, it is a Concourse, increasing the number of contact gates. That is why the photograph shows check-in at the existing Terminal, where Check-In, Immigration and Customs will continue to be housed. There never have been buses used to transport passengers to gates. They have been used to transfer passengers from gates to aircraft which were not on a contact gate. With the additional contact gates on the Satellite Concourse that will reduce.

Her father was a kamnan, and then in Government, and her mother worked for a PAO. All positions that have publicly declared salaries, which I do not think are known as generous. How did they amass a wealth of 447 million Baht?

Of course it has everything to do with "stepping off the escalator", which is the normal procedure for which they are designed as noted by many other posters. The combs are there to pick up any dropped rubbish which might jam the mechanism. A flip flop or sandal (slipper) fully loaded with a man's weight is likely to get jammed. If he had already stopped wearing it the combs would have picked it up. The OP said "The 30-year-old man who narrowly escaped injury talked for a while on his mobile phone then walked away unharmed." This, together with the story, strongly suggests that he was on his phone and did not step off.

I agree with much of what you have written in the above and following posts, but does the FMEA have to take account of people flouting the rules? Hand carry = hand carry, regardless of what every else may be doing.

Sorry Barry but the references to people being allowed to check in more than the standard baggage allowance are irrelevant. I agree that "it is common to see suitcases like that carried onto planes, despite the rules", but that doesn't make it OK. My point is that airports, and the equipment in them such as travelators and escalators, are designed and manufactured for a set of rules, as has to be the case. If people flout the rules, there will be consequences. I believe that most of us think that the rules that tell you to remove your shirt before ironing are ridiculous, but if you think that designers and manufacturers have to allow for people breaking the rules that is what you get.

True, but the suitcase should not be there at all. Airports are not designed for it.