deejai33

Ask the FAA, their SAIB said the locking feature was disengaged on some planes. I tried to look at switch specs and instructions too out of curiosity. An indian newspaper said the switch was honeywell type 4TL837-3D. I googled that, but I didn't get very far except to see that many varieties of locking positions were sold as options. But you had to order just one option, rather then buy a multiple option one and configure it yourself. Maybe in 2018 it was possible to select the purchase of a disengaged option or one you could choose the locking position yourself. But thats just guessing on my part. The SAIB needs to explain more details of what disengaged means. It would be nice to see a video of a disengaged switch in operation and see how easy or not it would be to flip the switch down. We've seen a lot of videos of non-disengaged switches and they seem suitably resilient to accidental movement.

Lots of articles on web about how safe the locking mechanism is when installed correctly. But : The Air India Crash prelim report says on page 6: "The FAA issued Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) No. NM-18-33 on December 17, 2018, regarding the potential disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature. This SAIB was issued based on reports from operators of Model 737 airplanes that the fuel control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged. " The FAA think the switch can have the locking mechanism disabled. Ethidad and other airlines are checking their switches. They must also believe its possible to disable/disengage the locking mechanism.

Yes, I can see that. Maybe you're prohibited from touching or fiddling with the wreckage incase evidence it altered. At some point they will know. Being pedantic, the Indian authorities have asked for all plane switches to be checked by next week, and you could say the crashed plane should be checked by then too. But that is pedantic.

I suggest you read the preliminary crash report, 15 pages. It refers to a manufacturing issue affecting an unspecified number of planes. A fully documented issue where switch was wrongly configured without the locking mechanism. You are correct that the designers intended to safeguard against accidentally bumping a switch. But in the manufacturing process this design feature was disengaged in an unspecified number of planes. We have not been told yet if the crashed plane had a disengaged locking mechanism. Ethidad, air india and korean air are checking this locking mechanism on their planes to see if disabled.

I see your point, but its not very convincing when they could look at the switches and tell us for sure if the safety locking mechanism was enabled. No guessing or implying. We want to know was the locking mechanism disengaged or not. We don't need to guess or imply such a key fact about the state of the switches. The investigators must know by now surely.

I agree with you that we need to know if the locking mechanism on the fuel switches was operational or faulty. Its such an obvious fact that is key to the investigation. If the locking mechanism was not engaged, then the switches could much more easily flip to down by accidentally knocking an object on them. The accident report refers to an advisory notice about possible deactivation of locking mechanism. So a very, very obvious question is was the locking mechanism deactivated ? As you say, the investgators have the switches, and photos of them. So surely they can tell if the locking mechanism is active. The report could have a simple statement such as 'the locking mechanism was engaged and working'. The report doesnt have that simple statement. Why ? Its such a key fact.

It's my interpretation of the Paw/162 clarification. See attached image. Was from Mazar's apparently. Posted in the main thread on this tax issue. It's only my interprettation. Do you think I'm a bit too hopeful, mistaken ? It talks of rules on income from foreign sources and assets not apply to pre-2024 income. In the bitcoin case, those assets existed pre-2024. Similar to cash you had in a bank pre-2024. I'm hoping that makes both the cash and bitcoins not liable to tax when transferred. Maybe there's a gain made when converting bitcoins, and that occurs post 1-1-2024. Is that what you think about ? Similar to interest earned in 2024 on pre-2024 money. I think the interest would be taxable. Is one option to change the bitcoins to cash before 2024, and next day change the cash back to bitcoin ? So the gain was clearly made in 2023. I'm no expert.

My reading of the announcements by RD is that any type of money, pension, savings etc, that exists in a foreign account before 1st jan 2024 is untaxable. A pension deposit from 2022 ( last year) would be untaxable. As would pension deposited in december 2023. Its jan 2024 income that matters now. To prove its pre-2024 income you simply have to keep a separate account with 2024 money in it. And never 'pollute' it with new 2024 money. Now we know, we can do that fairly easily, unless you need to try and open completely new bank accounts.

I think this November 23rd clarification, or ruling will make quite a few expats happier. Money you've saved, had invested for a long period, or simply had before end of 2023 will not be taxed when remitted to thailand. That suits me, as I have sufficient assets that clearly fit that criteria and its proveable. I'm alright jack ! 555. I just need to show I'm only remitting pre-2024 money to thailand. Maybe setup new account for 2024+ new money. However, I can see that another group of expats who are not flush with savings/assets will not be re-assured. Expats who mostly rely on income arising in 2024 will not be assisted by this ruling. They will still have to rely on DTAs etc. Thailand wants to now consider if your new income made in 2024 and remitted is taxable. OK, up to them, we know now. That a pretty good clarification. Forget about pre-2024, thailand is looking at 2024 income. You are fully aware if this now !

Seems like there's 2 x 2 minute silences. Both at 11:00. One in saturday, 1 on sunday. I only knew about the sunday, poppy day one. (My father worked at the Poppy factory in Richmond). https://www.britishlegion.org.uk/stories/two-minute-silence He was stationed in Egypt, never saw fighting. He hated arabs and jews. Haha. An anti-semite, anti-muslim for sure. 555. Probably common in his era.

Thanks for your reply. Must be your full time job to read and post on this forum ! Shame you did not have much to add. You accuse me of lying about what my friend told me about their experience at the recent march. Up to you. Seems an odd tactic of yours. And you say the Guardian article is 'lame'. No specific point objected to, no detailed, reasoned argument. Just one word 'lame'. Why bother posting that ? JohnnyF does make a detailed response, which is useful. Good to further the discussion. I have responded to his post. And ofcourse, in any march of diverse people, there will be some who will be more extreme. Attract media attention, but the low levels of arrests show that most protesters were peaceful and not extremists.

Thanks. The article you quote proves my point. "Ofcourse, in the abstract, the chant could mean all sorts of things". It depends on what other words you say with it. There's no 'genocidal intent' contained in the phrase 'river to the sea'. Why does the article say the labour MP, Andy McDonald, was disingenous for using the phrase ? He was clearly using it to call for israel and palestine to live in peace in that region. He was not calling for genocide of israel ! Not disingenuous. Do you think a labour MP would call for genocide ?

I have friends who went on last saturdays march. They saw little evidence of hate. Organisers would stop it. Ceasefire now was the main chant. The 'river-to-sea' phrase on its own is simply a way to imprecisely reference a geographical area known to many as Palestine. As in 'british mandate for Palestine', 1923. Any political, or anti-semitic meaning only arises when extra words are added to the phrase. I'm sure this has been debated here and elsewhere. See guardian article if the issue is not clear to you: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/31/from-the-river-to-the-sea-where-does-the-slogan-come-from-and-what-does-it-mean-israel-palestine It says, its used by all sides to reference Palestine. For example: The context and the intent is key. The founding charter of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party trolls: “Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.” Or 'Palestine will be free from river to sea, free of war, hate, etc.

Sunday then ? Ok ? Its a weekly protest by those who want less civilians to die. Every saturday.

Yes. Rememberance day is Sunday in the UK. Armistice day is saturday, ceremonies at 11 am. The march on saturday doesn't start till after 11am. And avoids going near the Cenotaph. Armistice day reminds UK of the day a major war ended. The protests want a current war to end. Both about ending fighting. I don't understand why UK PM says the march is disrespectful. Its as if he thinks it obvious. Its not to me.

Ok. I agree I do not know what is taught in Israels schools about zionist movement and founding is israel. I agree I do not know, my level of knowledge is low. I dont live in israel. So, can you help me and tell me what is taught to israeli kids on this? Maybe I can google it.

I was surprised the US is not in the ICC. I read that the US reason is their constitution does not allow it. Something to do with giving another body juristruction over a US resident. Maybe they will fix that. I doubt the US is keen on being seen in a group containing russia, china, north korea etc.

Ok. Sorry. Hard to be organized and find an appropriate thread. Easier just to respond posts that crop up, some of which are about causes and past events. Maybe this board needs a 'move post' button, so we can keep sub topics structured.

You are correct, yes. I do see the zionist movement of 1890's as a colonial style project. A variation as the driving forces were not a single nation, seeking to gain new territory. But a religious themed group from multiple nations trying to make a nation. Quite different, but with the single 'target' area -palestine. Which had a significant, 'native', population already. I would be interested to hear what the israeli view of that was. How they interpret that era. You suggest they do not use the word colonise. Presumably they focus on the creation of a safe space for jews. But it was a safe space where there were already mainly another people, their homeland. I would be interested to know what is taught in schools. I can image my interpretation is taught in Palestinian and arab country's schools. Its easy to teach the idea that a strong foreign group came and pushed us out ! Might not be quite how it was ofcourse. Regarding apologizing. Yes, palestinians need to apologize too and examine how their poor decisions and lack of leadership have contributed. I don't know how guilt and reconcilliation is handled by the arab world. Maybe its all about revenge, endless war !

You are correct, I do treat the UN and ICC as important international bodies. I do expect objectivity from them and fairness. The veto powers for selected nations affects its decisions adversly. I think you are saying that is a mistake to have trust in UN, ICC. Oh well.

Yes, you are missing context. 7th october did not occur in a vacuum.

Yes, in the past colonialist had a free hand. Powerful armies. Conquer who you fancy. Some colonies did fail too ofcourse. But in the 20th century, an internationally agreed rules structure emerged. League of Nations, UN, Geneva convention, etc. Human rights declarations. War crimes, ICC more recently. Its ceased to be so easy for a country to go and colonise somewhere. And native populations fought back. The zionist movements attempt to colonise Palestine came at a time when the idea of international rules appeared. Israel needs to review its past and get real about its obligations to the people of Palestine it has affected by its creation.

Its in the Guardian too. Haven't seen it mentioned on BBC site, maybe it is. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/31/un-official-resigns-israel-hamas-war-palestine-new-york

If Israel does not co-operate with the ICC, Israel loses credibility in the view of the world. Their choice.

Related to discussion about root cause of the conflict. Colonists have apoligized in recent years about what happened in the past as a way to improve relations and move on.