JonnyF

The plot thickens. It appears that EU Parliamentarians were colluding with Moroccan spies. https://www.politico.eu/article/mohamed-belahrech-morocco-spy-qatargate-european-union-scandal-corruption/ Looking forward to more news about this as the investigation continues into next year.

Oh look, another UK/Brexit bashing thread. ???? Interestingly, the UK economy grew in October. Meanwhile, the Eurozone is heading into recession. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/11/11/europes-record-inflation-will-peak-at-year-end-but-remain-high-in-2023-says-brussels#:~:text=The eurozone and most EU,European Commission's autumn economic forecast. But let's ignore that and bash the UK. I remain delighted we left. The first couple of years were always going to be tough as we had to get all the trade deals rolled over, plus Covid struck at around the same time (leaving the EU helped greatly with the vaccine rollout let's not forget). Now that's out of the way, watch as the UK goes from strength to strength, as October showed. Not that it was about % points of GDP anyway, it was about getting out of the corrupt, failing federalist project, the European Union. https://www.euronews.com/video/2022/12/25/european-parliaments-former-vice-president-eva-kaili-spends-christmas-in-jail

Well you are aware now. 20. The age is 20. It's in the Wiki article here seeing as you missed it. And if you don't beleive Wiki it's also clear in these 2 articles. https://www.tatnews.org/2022/07/rules-and-regulations-concerning-cannabis-and-hemp-use-in-thailand/#:~:text=Thailand's Ministry of Public Health,have permission from a doctor). https://www.nationthailand.com/in-focus/40016730 So Cannabis is not "for the most part" legally the same as stones or fresh air. It's complete different in fact.

You're not aware of age restrictions? You think 7 year olds can legally buy and use Cannabis in Thailand? ???? I think you're confusing it with stones and fresh air again. I'm not surprised you need lawyers on a daily basis if such basic laws escape your attention (even when the answer was in the link I provided).

A very poorly written UK hit piece by some random publication. Not sure how this qualifies as World News.

So what you really meant, is that it's nothing like a stone or fresh air ????. The plant is fine, but yes there are laws regarding THC content for extracts. I don't believe such laws are in place for stone extract or fresh air extract? There are also age restrictions for Cannabis but not stones or fresh air as far as I am aware. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_Thailand Enjoy that time at the police station with your lawyer. Thai lawyers are great, and really cheap too!! ????

It shouldn't be up to police to interpret laws, but this is Thailand we are talking about so that is the reality. Feel free to argue with them about the exact text of the law while sitting at the police station but a bit of common sense and a knowledge of how Thailand works can avoid all that. No it doesn't have the legal status of a stone. There are different rules surrounding the sale of flower vs extract for example. The levels of THC permitted, where it can be smoked etc. Try sparking up outside the police station on beach road, and when the Police come for you, reassure them it's the same legal status as a stone. Don't forget to report back how that went for you...

I think the law is reasonably clear but leaves enough wiggle room for the police to interpret it in a way to benefit themselves. Common sense would be the best policy. A couple of joints in your own home while not bothering anyone will be fine. Spark up while walking down Pattaya's beach road with a ghetto blaster on your shoulder and your Bob Marley vest on and expect a few hours at the police station and a fine. I purchased some (for medicinal purposes) on Tuesday night from a shop on Sukhumvit 23. They offered me a branded bag to carry it in but I declined and put it in my bag before heading to the bar for a beer. Yes it is legal, but if you flaunt it then expect problems.

Seems she was lying about the whole "lack of protection" thing as well. https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1711944/Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-safety-concerns-Toronto-police-chief No surprise there, already many provable lies from this woman. Once again, it appears "recollections may vary" where Markle is concerned. Yep, you're not wrong there buddy. Especially Markle, the professional whinger, the perpetual victim. Keep up the good work, Police Chief Ramer. Oh, and sorry about Harry, we did our best with him but sadly, a lost cause.

I've provided evidence. 2 provable lies. One exposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and one admitted by the couple themselves. Hard to get more evidence than that. Just because you pretend to ignore it makes no difference to it's existence. I changed my stance on nothing, you're making things up again ????. Anyway, your gaslighing is getting boring. I abhore racism, which is one reason I dislike Harry. I dislike liars, which is one reason I dislike Markle. I have no time for gaslighting either.

I said UK taxpayers money is no longer diverted to the EU. Don't misquote me.

I've posted about 10 links in this thread already. Would you consider suitcases of cash as evidence? How about confessions? https://www.ft.com/content/e3bfd079-5cc7-4f64-9db6-941ca9d5c3d0 https://www.dw.com/en/reports-eu-corruption-scandal-politician-partly-confesses/a-64168454

You have evidence. The wedding story. Ignore the others all you like. One is enough anyway. It's like saying you didn't kill someone because you only fired one shot ???? . They admit their own lies, even if you don't. Here is another provable lie. https://meaww.com/it-wasnt-a-blind-date-prince-harry-meghan-markle-slammed-lying-how-they-first-met Here are 3 provable facts for you. 1. Meghan is a liar - proven 2. Harry embarked on racist behaviour - proven 3. No racism has ever been proved in the Royal Family (except Harry). Why are you so intent on defending liars and racists? Very odd. Strange people to look up to. Do you idolize the proven liar Jussie Smollett as well?

They better have a diving bell. This runs DEEP.

I think Jussie Smollet would be more suitable for Markle. They are equally believable.

Is gaslighting all you have? Here are the 17 provable lies, including the one about getting married before the real wedding. That's just 1 of 17. https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/the-17-lies-piers-morgan-claims-meghan-markle-told-in-oprah-interview/news-story/9882f8f96cad47ad5b9587081245a6b4 Another example, her passport was taken from her (yeah right) yet she went on multiple overseas trips. How about this one, where they even admit their own lie. ???? They tell so many they can't even remember what they said previously. https://meaww.com/it-wasnt-a-blind-date-prince-harry-meghan-markle-slammed-lying-how-they-first-met They certainly learnt from the Oprah interview for the Netflix series. I'll give them that. It's a shame you can't learn something by watching the video of the panel of experts, but it seems you know it all already ????.

Not particularly interesting. A rather boring diversion actually. Those off topic things happened decades ago whereas The Netflix series dropped last week. Presumably you also find it interesting that the war in Ukraine is in the news all the time, whereas the war in Vietnam never seems to be in the news. How weird is THAT!!!??? ???? I mean, it must be racism/ageism/misandry against Putin, that's the only logical explanation I can come up with ????.

The lies in the Oprah interview are provable, I already demonstrated that. Your gaslighting and criticism of the source changes nothing. Yes. claims like "They were out to get us" are really hard to prove, when they won't say who "they" are or how they were out to get them. A smart move, they'd get sued for libel if they named names since it is clearly untrue. They've clearly taken legal advice. Watch the video from the behaviour panel yet? It would really benefit you to do so. There is a portion where they discuss the carefully worded language and complete lack of evidence for anything. Very enlightening from these neutral experts with decades of experience. Sometimes it's better to listen to those with superior knowledge to yourself (although somehow that doesn't really strike me as your style).

Good to see things moving swiftly with the extradition process in this "major" corruption scandal. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/12/20/italian-court-approves-extradition-in-european-parliaments-qatargate-case

And Jenna Coleman. Oooooooweeeeeee. ????

Well, seeing as you don't accept my view on Meghan's behaviour and seem to have a somewhat unusual way of interpreting human behaviour (I mean that in the most polite sense), maybe you could watch the opinions and analysis of 4 independent experts with decades of experience in the field of human behaviour (3 Americans, 1 Brit). Spoiler alert ; They think she is lying/acting/manipulating the same as I do. At least she's learnt to be so consistently vague that her lies are becoming more difficult to prove, unlike the porkies in the Oprah interview.

Well, shooting someone in the head is a mechanism for removing someone. I was referring to direct Democratic processes that involve the citizens of a country/union having a direct say in the election of the most senior politicians. The EU is several steps away from direct Democracy, by design. Hence, the corruption and "selected " officials being removed by other selected officials. A massive stitch up which is starting to unfold. These things take time. The direction of travel is clear. It's a slow burn, but compelling viewing.

Small fry. Try removing the big fish. But yes, I meant removed by direct democratic process. Not removed like Prayut might remove a problematic underlying.

Why would they leave? Hungary has a great deal. They get a shedload of cash but do nothing but complain. They're the Harry and Markle of the EU. I actually hope Hungary stays ????.

Let's see. I'll keep my ear to the ground for you. Glad you appreciate my efforts.