MangoKorat

And as several major national retailers in the UK found out recently, technology is not reliable. Gregg's - a confectioners/bakery/sandwich shop with over 2400 stores was hit by a 'glitch' and could not process card payments. Some stores closed, others only accepted cash. Other retailers have reported similar problems recently. I've never known the £ in my pocket to have a 'glitch'. What is it they say? Technology's great, until its not.

A hell of a lot of Thai people don't pay tax at all and good proportion of those should but they get paid in cash so they think they can get away with not declaring it. However, some of them then pay that money into the bank to meet payments on car loans etc. Some just pay it in because nobody checks. My ex 's salary (under the tax threshold) was paid directly into her bank whilst her overtime (every week) and annual bonus was paid in cash - which she then paid into the bank 😁. The strange thing was, this was not a small business, she worked for a major Japanese company - seems they're all at it. It seems that RD checks on ordinary Thai citizens are rare. In the UK 'black money stays black' unless you're stupid because the Tax Authorities can and do regularly carry out checks on people's bank accounts. They can do that without you knowing. However, things seem to be changing in Thailand and the government is looking for additional tax revenue. Should the Thai authorities start checking the bank accounts of its 'ordinary' citizens, which it very well might, I forecast a rapid reversion to using cash.

You sound like an old school user. What you need to understand is that kids these days are not happy unless they are totally off their heads. You want them driving on the same roads as you and your family? But in any case, do you really believe that someone who's not too far gone has the same reaction speed as a sober driver? If you do, you should probably check out the evidence on that - because they are way slower. Having a smoke? Leave the car at home.

UK

All I can tell you is what worked for me - but be warned that not everyone responds so well. Diagnosis March 2015 PSA 189 Gleason 4+3 (7) T3B Tumour 100% of right prostate lobe, 60% of the left. Agressive type Firstly, your doctors need to determine whether or not the tumours have broken out of the capsule. I was told that if they have, no curative treatment is available but various treatments can slow the disease down. Scans revealed that the although cancers had broken through the capsule, it was minor and it was doubtful that any spread had taken place - although 2 lymph nodes close to the prostate were classed as 'slightly abnormal' and 'suspicious'. They were too small to sample. In the UK the NHS has fairly strict 'pathways' (types of treatment), many are only available if your PSA is below 20. For me that left removal of the prostate or Radio Therapy - both combined with hormone therapy. My oncologist told me that the 5 year outcomes for both treatments were broadly the same - the decision was mine. I was not old at the time and I was told that if I had my prostate removed, the chances of any activity between the sheets in the future was just about nil. The chances with radio therapy were a little better. Sorry to raise this issue but its something a lot of men worry about. I opted for Radio Therapy (RT) and began 6 months of Hormone Therapy (HT) beforehand which I was told would give the Radio Therapy a better chance. Due to the high % of tumour and the suspicious lymph nodes I was given the maximum 'safe' dose of RT which was 36 x 10 minute doses @ 70 2Gy over 7 weeks to the 'whole pelvis' beginning February 2016. I was advised to continue the HT for 2 to 3 years after RT. I could write pages on the effects of HT but everybody responds differently to it. I had a very hard time with it - so bad that I gave it up 12 months after RT. All I will say about it is that it 'played with my head', I would look in the mirror and no know who I was. My PSA after HT and on starting the RT had fallen to 8.2. By May 2016 my PSA was down to 0.15 and by April of 2017 it was down to 0.05 where it more or less stayed until September 2019 when it began creeping up again. I was told that should it rise to 2, I would be called in for a PET scan to determine where (if any) the cancer was. My PSA had rsien to 2.22 by January 21 indicating probable 'activity' and I had a PET scan around March I think. The result showed that the 'activity' was still within my prostate and my Oncologist was of the opinion that it wasn't a recurrence, more likely that we just hadn't got it all the first time. However, as I'd already had the maximum safe dose, further RT was out. I could however have Brachytherapy (BT) which is targetted down to millimeters and therefore doesn't risk damaging any nearby tissue. The technology employed to enable this is pretty amazing. The PET scan was used to construct a map of my prostate to identify exactly where the activity was. My Oncologist wanted me to have HT again, before and after the BT but I wasn't at all keen. After careful consideration he agreed that we could go ahead without it. I had 2 doses of BT @ 27 Gy, from memory 2 weeks apart, in October 21. By April 2022 my PSA was down to .70 and has continued to fall ever since. At my last test in February this year it was 0.57. Given my initial diagnosis my Oncologist says my response has been pretty amazing. I'm not sure you can ever say you are 'out of the woods' but I'm in a much better place than I was in 2015 and should the cancer become active once again, there are now other treatment options available to me. You will no doubt be given various options. What I would say to you is, read up all you can, listen carefully to your Oncologist and make your decision. Stay in the driving seat all the time. I'm not criticisng the doctors who've taken care of me, they've done a fantastic job but you have to stay in the driving seat. I was not called in when my PSA rose to 2.22 in January 2022 as I was told I would be - I had to call them. Remember, they are probably dealing with thousands of other patients - only you can raise your profile.

They were not denied DNA, there was none available. There were a lot of reports on that facet of the case but specifically one was written by a woman that was involved with the law in Thailand - I can't remember exactly what or who she was but she stated that she had been told by the police that they'd used up all of the material there was that could be tested. I think she might have been the one who would have tested it. I never believed the reports that claimed the police had lost the DNA material. I'm also pretty sure that the defence lawyer made a complaint that he was unable to test the DNA. That being so, the case would be thrown out of most courts.

Grandma or no grandma she's old enough to be one and that's the point so what's yours? I don't always read 6 pages of posts before commenting.

Far better not to have any at all if you're driving.

Regardless of innocence or guilt, there are very few courts in countries with a fair and just legal system that would have let this case get off first base. Denying the defence the opportunity to have their own DNA testing done would automatically lead to dismissal.

230,000 baht for a 47 year old grandma? The man needs a check up from the neck up.

Another stupid post by a member feeling entitled to make inaccurate racist comments. Ban needed.

A few years ago there was a programme on UK TV regarding the harm or otherwise, that cannabis may cause. Perhaps the most striking statement on that programme came from an A & E doctor who said that 90% of his 'customers' on Friday and Saturday nights had injuries caused in some way from drinking alcohol. Those injuries came in many guises, from cuts and bruises incurred in alcohol induced fights to serious injuries following car crashes involving drunk drivers and women who'd been slapped around by a partner who couldn't take his drink. The doctor stated that only a very small percentage of patients were attending A & E for a reason that could be attributed to using cannabis. However, later in the programme there were discussions with various mental health practitioners who brought up the subject of the rising number of young people under their care who were suffering from mental problems, sometimes serious that they attributed directly to the fairly recent availability of very high THC strains of cannabis. 'When I was a lad' 😁, the usual stuff we'd smoke on a weekend was some fairly mild 'hash' (black morrocan) or for the more adventurous amongst us, 'skunk'. In those days, certainly where I lived, 'skunk' was a term used to cover all types of cannbis bud (although I am aware that there are several strains that use the name). The THC content of the hash I don't know but it varied (probably because its pretty easy to cut) but I'd guess it was around 15% at best. The 'skunk' was around 20%. I was a late starter but I'd guess that my mates probably started smoking weed around 18 years old. Today (and I know this for a fact), it is not uncommon for kids to start using weed as young as 12 or 13. It is not at all uncommon for well grown bud to contain over 30% THC these days. The physcs on the programme were not at all simply anti-cannabis types, they were professional people who were dealing with rising numbers of young people, mostly in their early 20's that were suffering serious mental problems and had been smoking weed since their early teens. They produced convincing evidence that showed that these 'new' high strength strains were the cause and illustrated how cannabis was harmful to developing brains. The link between smoking weed and the above problems was clear and even proponents of cannabis on the programme couldn't argue with it. Some in fact, agreed and stated that measures needed to be explored as to how the use of cannabis by these young kids could be stopped. All in all the programme gave a balanced view of the effects of smoking weed and showed both sides of the story.

Well, firstly I think you mean 'experience' - were you smoking when you wrote that? Secondly you are so, so wrong. I broadly support people being allowed to use cannabis but not if they are driving. Its precisely because I have considerable experience of weed that I know that I, and everyone else I know are in no way fit to drive when they have consumed enough. You seem to forget that a lot of people get so $hitfaced that they can't even walk let alone drive. Been there myself and no way would I get behind the wheel of a car. People may think they are OK to drive when they've had a smoke - most drinkers think the same. I don't know where you're coming from here but if you are saying that its fine to drive after using cannabis, that it just a ridiculous way of thinking.

I am not supporting Srettha in any way but I hope you're not suggesting that someone who's high on weed can negotiate a curve safely?

So, if this is brought in, will it also include those Thai's returning from trips abroad? Or are they immune from 'unwittingly compromising' the well-being of Thai citizens?

I really do not want to continue this any longer as I seem to be just repeating myself constantly. However I find I must as you are making statements that are factually wrong and trying to make me out as a liar. If you had read my posts correctly you would note that in one, I said that marriage is not the only purpose for requiring the visa. I'm not about to share my personal details on here, other than to state that I have held a Multi Entry Non Immigrant O Visa for most of the last 20 years. My visas have been issued by The Royal Thai Consulates at Hull, Savannakhet and Ho Chi Minh and the RTE in London. None of them have ever required their stated financial evidence - even though on some occasions it was sent with the application. So yes, I am not married any more however, I am legally entitled to hold a Multi Entry Non Immigrant O Visa and have indeed held one for most years since 2004. Hopefully you will read my posts fully in future and won't be posting any further factually wrong statements. Unlike those who abuse the visa, I am not and have never been, a liar!

Too late to edit, the above should of course say: Living with Spouse OR family.

I am using the full term for the visa here - simply to be able to reply to you. I will no longer be posting after this. I have made it quite clear what my compaints are about from the start - maybe you haven't read through enough? In addition some of my posts have been removed which may lead to some confusion so I apologise if much of what is below is a repeat of what I have previously posted: The fairly new requirement for having to have 400,000 baht in a Thai bank account has come about because of people using a Multi Entry Non-Immigrant O Visa to avoid having to have the same amount for a 12 month extension and 'seasoning' it for 2 months. In other words they have been using a Multi Entry Non-Immigrant O Visa to live in Thailand when they should have been using a 12 month extension of stay. Its clear to me that the 400,000 requirement is Savannakhet's response to that abuse. The correct methods are: Visting a Thai spouse or Family - Multi Entry Non-Immigrant O Visa Living with spouse of family in Thailand - Extension of stay. Official Thai Immigration policy - told to me by a Captain at Suvarnabhumi is that those entering Thailand for the purpose of visiting a Thai spouse should not be using other visa types or 30 day exempts. The correct method of entry for that purpose is a Non Immigrant O Visa. There is no official requirement to have 400,000 in a Thai bank account for a Multi Entry Non-Immigrant O Visa . I can't remember that exact amount that is required but its not 400,000 and there certainly is no official requirement for the money to be in a Thai account - this visa type is for people who do not live in Thailand. Many embassies or consulates that used to offer Multi Entry Non-Immigrant O Visas often waived the financial requirements - London did. There are people, I'm one of them, who have been using a Multi Entry Non-Immigrant O Visa correctly for many years and have now been put at a disadvantage because of this new requirement. I know of quite a few guys who are married to a Thai woman, some have families with them, who work abroad or offshore and intend joining their wives when they retire. I also know of people who use a Multi Entry Non-Immigrant O Visa to visit their kids in Thailand. It can be difficult for someone not living in Thailand to obtain a Thai bank account and some may not either have the 400,000 required or wish to deposit it in a country where they don't live - why should they? The Thai banking regulations also state that a normal bank account can only be held by someone resident in Thailand. To those who say obtaining an extension is an alternative - for someone using a Multi Entry Non-Immigrant O Visa for its intended purpose, obtaining a 12 month extension may be impossible. The initial application involves firstly obtaining a 90 day Non O and not being able to make the application until 45 days have passed. There is then a potential 30 day wait for the extension to be issued. I don't know of anyone who uses a Multi Entry Non-Immigrant O Visa correctly and is able to take a minimum of 75 days off work and it is very much a minimum - you can't rely on that and I wouldn't risk a flight ticket on it. Even 90 days is risky. As I say, this matter has been brought about by abuse and I think I have every right to complain about it. Why should people who have been complying with the rules for years be put at a disadvantage by those who abuse the system? At the moment, those who report from Savannakhet have posted that they only have to show the money in a Thai account - no seasoning. I have a Thai bank account and can put 400,000 in it simply to obtain the visa but I'd be returning it to the UK with me when I leave. How long before the authorities realise that can be done and add the seasoning requirement of an extension? What about the people who've been using the visa correctly but don't have an account? On this forum we often seem to be discussing how to get around Thai visa requirements. I'd suggest that the vast majority of Multi Entry Non-Immigrant O Visa users never visit this forum. The first they know of this new requirement is when they arrive at Savannakhet to obtain a new visa. In other words, the vast majority of Multi Entry Non-Immigrant O Visa users use their visa for the purpose it is intended. Many simply use Savannakhet because they work abroad or a Multi Entry Non-Immigrant O Visa is no longer available in their home countries.

Yes, I'm aware of that but that's not really the point is it?

Maybe you haven't seen the 'discussion' I've been having on this thread?

Apparently not, its been this way for a few months now.

Showing your age there Charles. What's spot the ball......................555

The RTP's detection/investigation skills know no bounds.

Surprised the police didn't blame him - damned foreigners!!!

He's not wrong. When I opened my Kasikorn account the bank clerk asked me if I was married - I wasn't. He next sentence was "I am 30 and have no boyfriend". I knew right then I was in the right country.