MangoKorat

Being a bit of a techno-phobe, I find all this quite funny. The more we become reliant on all this c r a p, the more vulnerable we become. Imagine this happening in the very near future where we are told there will be driverless cars and AI will be running everything - total chaos. Should be interesting though. This latest 'crash' is hot on the heels of another IT failure that lead to several UK retailers being unable to process card or phone payments. Good news for me on my daily visit to Greggs for my bacon sandwich & coffee that I purchase with good old fashioned cash in this so called 'cashless society' - no queue! Quite a lot of those 'cashless' people went hungry that day.

I think you may be being a little optimistic in thinking that Thailand is likely to attract many more remote workers. Thailand is just one destination for such people - there are plenty of others. Besides, up until recently, to the best of my knowledge, Thailand has never cracked down on any foreigners spending money. Apart from those in business in Thailand, foreigner's money has been largely ignored. Many of us have been bringing relatively large amounts in regularly and never been questioned. The recent changes in the taxation rules seem to be going to change all that and as a result, many expats are considering leaving for at least half the year. Probably an 'own goal' in terms of actual tax revenue. The doubling of the entry duration from 30 to 60 days and the inclusion of many more countries with that entry criteria is clearly aimed at tourists but for the reasons I stated in my previous post, all its likely to do is make things easier for the border runners. There have been several news reports on here where the fact that tourists are not spending as much despite overall numbers increasing has been brought up. I wish them well in their efforts but I can't see much changing.

I refuse to believe that any mother having a normal and correctly functioning mind could/would ever murder their children.

The doctors may or may not declare her as insane. The definition of criminal insanity is very different in all parts of the world. A simple definition of criminal responsibility does not in fact mean that a person is sane. A court may determine that even a mentally ill person has criminal responsibility - judges can only act within the definitions they are given and not all cases fit such definitions. That does not mean that a person is sane, only that in the courts opinion, they have criminal responsibility for their actions. I repeat my earlier statement, do you actually believe that a sane mother could kill a 7 year old?

I would suggest that that woman's beliefs are also insane as are her actions - even if she was not declared so. The line between evil and insanity is very thin and often blurred. Just ask yourself, could you kill your child? Thousands of people are convicted of crimes every year - minor and otherwise. If you talk to the professionals, they will tell you that many of those people are either insane or do not have the same mental capacity as the rest of us. I know a young man who has a severe form of Autism. Speaking to him you would think he is quite normal but in fact he has a total lack of empathy and often hurts those around him (mentally) without any knowledge that his behaviour is not normal. He would not be classified as insane but sometimes his actions, his words and his overall behaviour are simply inexplicable. I know him very well, he's my grandson. I doubt my grandson would ever be a killer - I'm just pointing out that insantity takes on many forms.

You actually believe that a mother who was sane would kill a 7 year old? Sad, very sad.

I don't know where you are from but in the UK all people accused of crimes, even those who are mentally ill, have to go through the court system first. Only a judge can rule that their crime is due to insanity. Such cases are ALWAYS dealt with by the courts in the first instance - so, YES, she most certainly would be in court.

The sad thing is that we have to share this planet with people like you two. I seem to remember that Hitler wanted to exterminate those with mental illness.

The more I read Asean Now, the less my failth in my fellow man. Prior to the advent of social media I had no idea so many brainless, shallow minded people existed.

Thank you doctor.................

Unfortunately the child can't receive your sympathy. How many 'sane' mothers do you know that would kill their child? Mental illness is a reality whether you believe it or not - your comments are shameful.

I don't know what all the fuss is about. These are very likely to be temporary measures introduced because the nation's economy is having a hard time. As soon as things improve or they realise that this has made no difference, it will be gone. Nice if it becomes permanent but I doubt it. However, I doubt these measures will make much difference. The people that are able to spend months effectively 'living in Thailand' are already doing so - this just makes it easier for them. Its 'regular' tourists they are targetting - how many people can suddenly increase their annual holiday to 60 days plus? The problem is that the 'tourist spend' is down. We have seen the reports of record numbers of tourists - the problem is that they are not spending as much as they used to. I thought the 'penny had dropped' with them a few months back and that they'd finally realised that although tourist numbers had increased, people had less money to spend because the airlines were ripping them off - trying to recoup covid losses. Remember a while ago they said they were going to call the major airlines in and tell them that if they didn't reduce flight prices, they would open new slots at Suvarnabhumi that would introduce more competition? Never heard another thing about it. They're a bit like some Thai women, they think foreigners, especially westerners have unlimited cash. The fact is that people, individuals or families set budgets for the total spend on their annual holiday. If the cost of flights increases, they have less to spend on everything else. There's no money tree at the bottom of the garden but as many of us know, telling a Thai female that is a complete waste of breath. For a while the mega high flight prices meant that people were selecting cheaper destinations closer to home. Flight prices began to reduce and that was reflected by an increase in tourist numbers but the flights are still much more expensive than they were previously and very little of that is due to increased fuel prices. I hate to be the bearer of sad tidings to the Thai government but there aren't any countries where the 'streets are paved with gold'. The entire world is facing a 'cost of living crisis' - its not something that's only affecting Thailand. Higher flight prices + increased living costs = lower holiday spend - its pretty basic maths. They may increase the numbers of backpackers/gap year students with these measures but I can't see them saving Thailand's economy.

Well he could and that might also test his ex's intentions because she will probably know that she can't try to get it back or any other type of skullduggery. I believe such a transfer can be made but as far as I know, once its in a minor's name, until the age or majority, a court order has to be obtained to sell it or for any other type of transaction regarding the land.

This may or may not be of use to you and of course, the law could have changed but........... Many years ago my ex (UK woman) wanted to move to the USA with her boyfriend, taking our son with her. I knew that if she did, I would probably never see my son again so I sought legal advice. I was told that my ex wife couldn't take my son to live in any other country without my agreement. I told her I wouldn't agree to it and the upshot was that her boyfriend emigrated without her. Quite how I could have stopped her simply getting on to a plane and leaving without my knowledge - I know not but to actually emigrate, she needed my agreement. My guess would be that in such a case, if she had taken him, she would have been ordered to return him - but that's USA/UK. In Thai law, custody defaults to the mother providing she is of good character. I wouldn't hold my breath in thinking that a Thai court would order your ex to return your child is she took him/her. As far as they're concerned, the child is Thai. You are right to do this all formally - relationships change. And you're right to contact a Thai lawyer and seek advice - the Thai family courts are actually pretty good if you're reasonable. However, on your property issue, there is no way you can ensure your ex puts the house in your child's name in the future. However, what you can do, providing the local land office is one that will accept a foreign mortgage is take place a legal charge on the property in the form of a mortgage registered on the title. You will need to get the registered owner's (your ex?) agreement to do that. On the basis that she agrees - no money changes hands but a charge is registered on the title as if you had given your ex a loan - secured on the house. She cannot then sell it unless she clears the mortgage which of course you'll remove when she transfers it to your child. The first step is to get a Thai lawyer to ask your land office if they accept foreign mortgages - some do, some don't. Getting your ex to agree to a mortgage could be the most difficult part but if she won't - that may indicate that she has no intention of transfering the house to your child.

It certainly is - outside the geological world, a lesser known fact is that the whole Donbas region contains large quantities of 'rare earth metals'. I don't think that escaped Putin.

What? In Thailand? Never!! I don't believe a word of it.

Seems the usual Flat Earth Society members are still active.

I think they forgot to add the second paragraph. It should read: In a statement released by Thailand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the nation expressed its profound shock and sorrow over the attack which led to the tragic loss of lives and numerous injuries. We will take this matter up with Mr. Putin during his next visit when he comes to renew the contract for the (sanction busting) oil he is selling us so cheaply. Your money could possibly have paid for the missile that hit the hospital Thailand!!!

Why? Would you prefer it went on everywhere or be focused on a few locations? Men have been paying for sex for literally thousands of years - you think that's going to stop? The Russian Mafia members and drug dealers need to live somewhere between prison sentences. You say 'this' place is disgusting which sort of indicates that you live there - if you think its disgusting, its a big country, nobody's forcing you to live there. Don't tell me you moved in when it was a sleepy little fishing village and look what's happened. I'm not so keen on the place these days so I rarely go but as for a place to have a bloody good night out? Banging!!! (literally 😁).

Stupid b7tch. Pattaya was built on its nightlife. It would still be a fishing village without it.

I sincerely hope the taxi has good insurance. I was hit by one 13 years ago and believe it or not, he only had 3rd class insurance. Anywhere else and they'd have to have full insurance including public liability - the full works.

He's going to find it very difficult to exlplain how a heart attack caused him to do that.

I'm happy with the Bell. I once said I'd never have a modular helmet but that was back in the days when they looked hideous, as if you'd bought an aftermarket bolt on full face conversion - they are much better now. I really appreciate being able to raise the front for a better view during low speed touring + you get a lot more cooling wind in that you do by just raising the visor.

Yes I had a HJC helmet fairly recently, it was the most comfortable helmet I've ever had - expensive though as I bought it in the UK and it had a 'Marvel' branding. Sadly it was stolen when my house was broken into and my insurers did not consider it to be a form of personal clothing or a personal item.

Yes, you are almost certainly correct. Remembering some of his other posts, I guess I should have realised that he's just one of those sad people who deals with their personal problems by posting deliberately controversial content online. Its genuinely sad that such people can't find better ways to spend their time and make positive contributions to society. He may find it funny to (successfully) wind people up in the way he does but in reality its probably a sign of mental illness - perhaps his way of dealing with an inferiority complex? Maybe people don't talk to him in real life so he feeds off online replies? Who knows but he clearly has some kind of a problem. The internet brings us many benefits but a downside of it is that its also shows you other sides of your fellow man that may not be apparent in normal personal interactions. Another problem is that it provides a platform for all kinds of mentally ill people, even total lunatics, where they can invent personas in order to try and deal with their inadequacies. We don't have to be part of their 'self therapy', thankfully we have an 'ignore' button here - something I'll be using more often rather than falling for the bait.