sidneybear

Seems the rules might have changed. I started paying in 2012, but could only pay six years back at that time. I've been paying class 3 ever since, and worked a few years in the UK prior to emigrating. I'll get 32/35ths of a full pension at 67 years old, so I might give them a call to see if it's possible to top up the missing 3 years.

No, I don't collect paperwork from friends who were ripped off by insurance companies in the past, just to give to anonymous people like you on Internet forums. Nor am I prepared to allow you to peruse private correspondence of my own, for a reasonable claim that I had to fight for payment of, simply because the company was trying to avoid payment. I really hope that this kind of thing doesn't happen to you, but it might. Since I'm reluctant to post private correspondence, I think we'll have to agree to disagree, and I don't care what you think anyway "Big Star".... Wow. *giggle*

I'm Thai mate, so your post is a tad off piste - the correct possessive pronoun in your post should be 'your' rather than 'their'. I've never felt like dust under anyone's feet either, but I appreciate your concern. Human rights in the dump that's the West? Poverty, depression and repression more like. You've been watching too much CNN.

Observations, actually. Insurance companies can be shysters, just like other businesses that might shirk their responsibilities. Sometimes it's a battle to get them to pay. You probably work for one, or haven't had a bad experience, yet.

Well it's not a myth. Sure, they usually pay out, but I can think of several cases of insurance companies trying to wriggle out of paying legitimate claims that happened to me and people I know.

Hmmm.... you'd need to be a fan of outdoor action to make that work.

Insurance companies usually trawl small print to wriggle out of paying. He probably didn't have a licence either.

Night time is the most dangerous time too. It's when traffic is moving and lots of drunk and stoned people behind the wheel.

Do they have back seats?

That's the most likely outcome.

Traditional Songran is rather charming and definitely cultural. Modern songkran is nothing more than a moronic water fight.

So what if he is or he isn't? It's his right to support whomever he wants to support. I'll be voting for Prayuth. At least he has conservative values, supports Thai traditions, and opposes those who want Thailand to become like the ghastly western world. This coming from an ex-Thaksin supporter, before I realised the error of my ways.

Depends whether you call buying votes en masse democracy. Looking at places like the US or Britain, there's not much evidence of democracy in the western world either: just two big parties and nothing changes.

Such is the the binary nature of debate these days.

I'm also thinking that it might not really be 'her' condo.

It depends on the character of the girl. Some get hardened into bar life quickly and enjoy it, sporting tatts, boozing, juggling farang donors with aplomb, doing drugs and the like. Others see it as a necessity, to support family, etc, and revert to their prior selves if they see an exit route. Generally, the longer they're in it, the more they see it as the real world.

It's illegal? Who would have thought.

Fulsome and happy people generally don't go around attacking groups of happy people, simply because of what they believe in, so I'm saying you're contradicting yourself.

I'm no fan of the church either - it's corrupt in many ways and has become stuffed with people who aren't religious at all. The current Archbishop of Canterbury is a good example: he's just a politician who preaches wokery and most Christians I know don't like him one bit, and ignore him at the parish level. The same can also be said for Pope Francis. That said, Christianity as a belief is quite separate from the current church bureacrats, and those who follow Christianity seem to lead wholesome and happy lives, just as genuine Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and Jews do. Now you're being unpleasant because you've run out of rational arguments. In none of my above posts did I say I'm a Christian myself, but I am tolerant of Christians, and I applaud them for finding happiness, in the same way I applaud other groups who do likewise. Quite unlike you, in fact. You seem rather envious of them, or you wouldn't be making such an issue out of nothing.

People were alive before scientific methods were developed, as you must know.

Again, it's unfair, and even bigoted, to tarnish millions of Christians over the actions of a small minority of criminals. As for science, anything that hasn't been proven empirically is up for debate, and its theories are often debunked. Science hasn't yet found answers to the most fundamental questions, and makes lots of about turns. It's overrated in many ways as an answer to everything, when at its outer reaches (like why were here) it's just a bunch of academics debating differing nebulous hypotheses in the hope that they'll keep getting funded.

Religion brings joy and happiness to a great many people. Take Thailand, for example: it certainly isn't a theocracy, and people are free to believe in what they want to believe. That said, religion is a thread that runs through Thai society, bringing joy and encouraging people to do the right thing. Not everyone succeeds, of course, but the genuinely Buddhist Thais I've met are delightful and decent people, whom I could trust with my life. Now if you think that's a 'scourge', then that's your prerogative. But (genuinely) religious people do seem to have a certain contentment, one that isn't derived from reliance on scientific explanations for everything.

I don't want to see a theocracy, far from it. My point is that your attack on the ten commandments in favour of "counselors" is misguided. There's nothing wrong with living a wholesome life, and Christianity in no way prevents that from happening. Indeed, Christianity was a founding philosophy of the giants of the past, upon whose shoulders we sit. Fact is, Christianity has done a lot of good in the world. As for those phoney priests who commit sexual offences, they are just evil people pretending to be religious. It's unfair to say that such behaviour is a Christian trait, when it's actually a criminal trait.

In what ways? There's nothing particularly destructive about the ten commandments, or their equivalents in all the main religions. It's hard to follow them, but those who do are honest, decent and are of no threat to society. Non-religious people (who don't really exist because people have to believe in something) would do well to follow the ones that forbid murder, theft, envy, shagging your neighbour's wife, etc. "Counselors", on the other hand, preaching this or that woke gospel, haven't seemed to have improved society at all, despite getting paid handsomely to talk a lot of pernicious nonsense.

Shish! What an idiot. He should be put in a mental hospital to chilli out for a while.