jonclark

1 hour ago, JustinCredible said:

I had to vist my consultant a couple of weeks ago and his first question was to ask why he had not seen me for over one year. I asked if he would prefer the truth or a "porkie pie" and he replied the truth.

I told him that the medication he had been prescibing me was costing 2,300 TB (for 1 month) from the hospital pharmacy when I could buy exactly the same item for 650 TB in most Pharmacies in the city. I had been continuing with the medication and saving a lot of money.

After our consultation he started writing on a slip of paper and then handed it to me. It was a list of medicines that he wanted me to try and he said "I fully understand the problem. Take this into town tomorrow and buy these, then come back and see me in 4 weeks.  The consutation cost me 470 TB but I saved over 3000TB on the medicines.  Nice guy!

So true. Pretty much all medicines are available through local pharmacies. My wife had to get HRT, a 6 month supply was quoted at 20K at a big private hospital (plus other fees). We asked at a local pharmacy - gave them the name of the medicine, went back 4 days later and paid 4'600 baht for a 6 month supply, exactly the same stuff. The pharmacist said he can get most medicines (might be a delay due to ordering times) with a prescription. Only exceptions are some specialist medicines which come from abroad and require additional paperwork.  Most of the meds come from regional distribution centers - hospitals all get priority over pharmacies but supplies are plentiful it seems. 

" But facts appear to show that the Department of Business Development was notified of the change in shareholders on March 21, three days before the election. "

Just because the Department of Business Development was notified of the change, does not mean that was the actual date of the transfer. 

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

Really ? Every time there is an accident you can see the TVF crowd up in arms, screaming for better drivers, better buses, and that boring thing called maintenance , all those things don't come for free.

Don't you think that a better service comes at a higher price ?

 

You really think the extra money from a fare increase will be spent on improving the driving skills of the drivers and maintenance of buses? I admire your optimism.  

This petition will fail for the simple fact the EC (although it is running around like a headless chicken trying to work out how to do its' job), has not actually allocated any seats yet, so any ruling would be presumptive of the EC making the wrong choice. 

Now, there is a completely different argument that says the EC is not competent, but that is a different barrel of fish. 

8 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

 

 

It is the EC's constitutional obligation, however, to enforce the law. It is the EC's duty to check and verify the backgrounds of election candidates and ensure that they are qualified PRIOR to the election. That assures valid election results. Many of proposed major party candidates were known last year that gave the EC plenty of time to correctly qualify or disqualify candidates.

 

 

Really good post and my apologies for editing it. 

Maybe you can help me on this - the OP states the candidate was disqualified by a court on 19th March. But also 'suggests' he contested the election on 24th March, which can only be done realistically if you are on the ballot paper. If he was on the ballot paper and contested the election, following disqualification by a court, the EC is massively at fault for providing ballot paper with a disqualified candidate on, against a court judgement surely?  Do you know if he actually contested the poll on 24th March. 

So the election commission does not know how to allocate seats based on the electoral results -  Basically the EC is not fit for purpose, This is the same as a teacher not being able to give a student a grade based on their test results. Couldn't organize a prayer in a mosque.  

Sorry I am really confused by the first three sentences. 

On the 24th March an allegedly unqualified candidate contested the election in Sakorn Nakorn Province. But on the 19th March the candidate's authority was revoked. 

I am assuming that 'contested' meany he ran in that election on election day given the date of 24th March. If he ran in the election and his authority had been revoked then the EC has some very serious questions to answer as well, how the hell did a person who had been disqualified 6 days earlier still get to run in the election - That in itself is grounds to have the election nullified, as it shows mind blowing incompetence. 

Without wanting to put a downer on the whole story, the headline and the actual detail of the story are two quite widely divergent ideas

"Cannabinoid works for cancer" when compared to  "..its studies had shown a cannabinoid extract could help treat lung cancer ....in mice."  These are very different claims and to interpret or present those claims as cannabinoid being an effective treatment for cancer in the human population is simply wrong (at this stage).  There is literally no details here to explain how cannabinoid gave these results in this experiment, i.e. the biochemical mechanism cannabinoid used to 'attack' the tumor cells.

At this stage stick with smoking a joint, whose therapeutic properties are far better and well known as a treatment for any type of cancer.

2 hours ago, faraday said:

Plus 20% vat & the standing charge.

Correct

I think Thailand VAT is 7% and a monthly standing charge of about 35 Baht 

With the exception of the high UK standing charge i do not think the cost is that much different especially for condo rentals which have jacked up electricity cost per KWh

8 minutes ago, jobsworth said:

what is the price in the uk?

 

In the UK is about 12.5p per KWh (about 5 baht) In Thailand the metered rate is between 2 - 4 baht (raises as usage increases). But most condo's set their own rates at between 6 - 10 baht per KWh. 

"Anucha Sukniran, a cannabinoid medicine user."

When I was growing up I think 'pot-head' was the given term. How times change. 

"A brighter shared future".

Well at least they are honest about it. I just worry what % of the shared future Thailand will be allowed to have. 

I would love to know what the nature of the threat that this small house posed to national security. 

Well that really is very poor planning - TAT is busy promoting Phuket to the global masses and makes Phuket an affordable tourist destination...but the town planners in their wisdom forgot that those tourists and the influx of local workers will all raise the water requirement. I have never seen what happens when a big tourist town runs out of water for showers etc. 

'This is part of Thai charm, which cannot be found anywhere else in the world'

I do so love it when opinion is presented as fact. This must be a computer crime under current legislation - disseminating false information.