Dr B

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.

I must first say that I feel very sorry for this lady, who has suffered a horrendous accident. Having said that, I would like to point out something that none of the KWs seem to have noticed, and to which even the media have paid little attention. Please look at the two photographs from The Mail article. The first shows one side of her "suitcase" with the wheels damaged, and the second allows a check of the scale against the very unfortunate woman's leg. That is a suitcase, so why is she in possession of it at that location in the airport. Not just Don Muang, but airports all over the world, are not designed for passengers to take suitcases onto aircraft. The concept is that passengers arrive at Departure Level, go to check in, and deposit their luggage. Thereafter (1) the luggage is transported by a baggage handling system, in which at the end of a conveyor, the luggage tumbles onto the next conveyor. This is happening all the time in airports around the world, works well, and is fine for bags, but not for people. As a result (2) the people only have "hand carry" luggage, which the airlines prescribe to generally be less than 7 kg, and within a set of dimensions so that it can fit within the overhead lockers. This also means that, when using escalators or travelators, you can step off at the end, carrying your hand baggage. This is what they are designed for, and the "scrapers" at the ends which seem to be a yellow plastic in this case, are there to prevent small items of rubbish from getting taken round into the mechanism and jamming it. They are not designed to scrape luggage or passengers off the travelator or escalator. It is easy to note that in both airports and supermarkets, where trolleys are used to carry loads on travelators, the trolleys always have quite large wheels, at least 75 mm in diameter, so that they can easily negotiate the ends of travelators. But also note that, in Airports, the luggage trolleys do not get past check-in, and the smaller hand carry luggage trolleys are normally banned from travelators. What has happened is that there is a growing number of passengers who do not want to check-in luggage, probably considering that it "wastes their time". We have all seen them struggling down the aisles of aircraft with too many and too large bags, and so heavy that they cannot even lift them into a locker without help. Airports are not designed for this. Obviously one cannot tell the weight of a suitcase from a photograph, but I would venture to suggest that the one in this case weighed well over 7 kg. Luggage manufacturers encourage this behaviour, fitting their suitcases with wheels, but generally very small ones. So I suspect from all the information available that the passenger was travelling on the travelator standing just behind her suitcase. At the end the small wheels, under heavy load, got jammed at the "scraper" for reasons which I do not know without mechanical examination, where the travelator starts to drop down. This would stop the progress of the suitcase, so the travelator would push the passenger into the suitcase causing her to fall over. The travelators are not designed for passengers lying on the floor, and it is likely that there was already some opening up of the scrapers caused by the wheels. That would allow the end of her jeans to get trapped into the same area, which would quickly pull the leg and foot in with it. There may be a need for changes in the future, but they will not come quickly. For now, to stay safe, simply follow the rules. Check in your suitcases, have only regulation hand carry on bags in terms of weight and size, and step off travelators and escalators carrying your bags as you do so. I did note that there was some reposting of information about a similar incident a few years ago involving a white Croc sandal. The wearer advised that he had managed to get his foot out of the sandal and was very lucky to avoid injury. However he also mentioned that he was "stepping off the travelator" at the time, and I have to doubt this. I do not believe it could have happened if he had stepped off. It is more likely that, perhaps because he was on his phone or otherwise distracted, he did not step off and was relying on the scarpers to transfer his body weight from the travelator to solid ground, for which they were not designed.

It is absolutely true. It was a British system called SCOOT. There were multiple sensors in the road surfaces, so that the system could measure traffic flows and also know how long queues were. The problem is that roads are complex networks, and optimising the flow through a complex network is way beyond the human brain. The system at the time, and presumably still now though I have not lived in Bangkok since 2006, was that policemen sat in small air conditioned huts at each intersection and spoke on radios to their colleagues on adjacent intersections. The idea of having to move out of their air conditioned boxes and actually do some traffic policing was just too much, so they cut the cables. Millions of baht wasted.

Not a bad analogy at all tomacht8, and actually a very good response to the previous comment from Purdey, who must have only read about 10% of the information on this issue. Might I just add to your analogy by suggesting that the father didn't actually leave the engine-less car to anyone, it was just part of his estate. One child was appointed BY THE COURT to be the executor of the estate. As the executor he has a duty to maximise the return on the unallocated assets of the estate and distribute it between the beneficiaries. Trouble is, it just isn't that easy to sell an engineless car sitting in your back garden.