mokwit

Strange answer. Of course that is what I did. I just asked if someone had copies as I prefer to do them in advance rather than at the time.

At CW a few days ago for one year extension: New form consenting to Imm doing data searches on you. New version of: Acknowledgement of Penalties Acknowledgement of terms and conditions I forgot to ask so if anyone has new versions please post.

Thai Rath i saying building A it is safe and people have returned. https://www.thairath.co.th/news/politic/2850300

B is now evacuated according to Thai PBS news, so maybe unlikely Immigration will be open tomorrow. Buildings evacuated at 11am today, per Thai PBS: 1. Gov. Complex A & B 2. Ratchada Criminal Court 3. Royal Thai Army HQ 4. Chula Hospital building 5. Revenue Department (Soi Ari) 6. Social Security Office (Din Daeng) 7. Stock Exchange of Thailand 8. Gov Housing Bank (Rama 9)

https://www-amarintv-com.translate.goog/news/crime/510398?_x_tr_sl=th&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc Government Complex Building A orders immediate evacuation of residents after finding abnormalities in the building; building shaking, ceiling falling, while a famous page posts images of separation at the walkway balcony At 10:30 a.m. on March 31st at Government Complex Building A, Chaeng Watthana Road, Bangkok, reporters reported that at 9:20 a.m. while working in the press room at the Ministry of Justice on the 2nd floor, Gate 3, they were notified by officers from the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) and the building’s security guards, including the building’s cleaning staff, to evacuate Building A for their own safety. Initial reports indicated that Building A on the Constitutional Court and Central Bankruptcy Court side was shaking, but the reporters themselves did not feel any tremors. However, the reporters also received a report from security officers that a group of officers inspecting the building reported that Zones S1, 2, 3, and 4 were swaying on the 7th floor, while technicians S2 and S3 reported that the floor had sunk and that the ceiling of the civil servants’ rooms had fallen to the ground. SO: Do we have any info on Building B where Immigration is located. Can't help but feel tyhis will aslo be evacuated.

Thanks. being a bit pedantic here, but for the sake of clarity, you really mean "Apartment office", no? An apartment owner that owns all the units can do TM30 for all, whereas in law, a condo has individual owners and each individual owner has to do a TM30 for their tenants, the Juristic Person cannot, as it is not the owner.

Just coming back to this, are CW now demanding a fresh TM30 for each extension or do you just do that anyway?

If you look at the bottom of the TM7 it says: 'must attend in person' 'With the exception of handicapped patients or those with disabilities' So, it seems there is some provision for someone to attend on your behalf in the regulations. Of course what we don't know is their definition of handicapped or disabilities is, and what proof they require of this. I note this exception appeared on the revised form shortly after someone was pushed through immigration on a hospital bed complete with drip.

Is this just for first time 1 year extension or are they requiring this for all 1 year extensions all of a sudden? Previously on extension renewal I have just supplied hand drawn map and TM30. Had rental agreement and owner docs with me but never asked for, and I didn't volounteer them.

If you are trying to link this to Truss and the BoE stepping in, that is not major factor to what is happening today. markets are FORWARD LOOKING, any market professional; will tell you that. You think it is static just as Labour think the economy is static. With regard to your other "point" about BoE selling. Yes the BoE may step into the market to buy or sell, but it cannot sell Gilts held to maturity by institutions. It can't sell bonds it doesn't own because it already sold them, unless it bought them back from the market. Nothing to sink in, stop trying to pretend you have superior knowledge when you don't know what you are talking about.

Somebody posted a picture of her at PMQT before she escaped to put one over the Chinese negotiators (joke). looking very haggard with a thousand yard stare.

You have not addressed this' From P38 The conviction ratio ranged from 62% for Black defendants to 83% for White defendants. This is likely to be related to the offences for which people from different ethnic backgrounds were prosecuted: image offences, which were more likely to be the reason for White defendants to be prosecuted, were more likely than most other child sexual abuse offences to result in a conviction We are talking about sexual assaults/grooming not all sexual offences including image offenses. Was Huw Edwards convicted of sexual assault/ grooming? from P35, and I think I can spot an error that makes me wonder about the whole reports accuracy. Total child sexual abuse image prosecutions 3,305 2,983 90% Sexual grooming 638 647 101% You either you/they aren't capable of interpreting data or are being deliberately dishonest with an agenda on the assumption you can mislead. Who funds csacentre? Looks to me that they sell courses: https://www.csacentre.org.uk/courses/

I think the opposite applies as it seems we have made no progress in this matter.

This is absolute numbers not per capita. You have cherry picked a paragraph that you think suits your agenda. For some reason you didn't cut and paste this from the article: "Some studies suggest an over-representation of Black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations." I have previously tried to get across to you the importance of looking at this based on per capita not absolute numbers but you refuse to acknowledge this either because it is against your agenda, or because you are too limited to grasp this concept (it is a university education level thing). The reason I say per capita is because I was formally taught to interpret data as a Science undergraduate and in a finance qualification. So: you are hardly qualified/to be trusted to make a judgement on whether an article is balanced. The BBC is regarded by many/mostas having a pro immigration stance and to downplay grooming crimes. I repeat things like this have to be looked on a per capita basis i.e percent of rapes vs percent of population. Quoting the number of rapes in absolute terms will almost certainly show the highest ethnic group will commit the highest number of low incidence crimes through sheer weight of numbers in the population. Quoting on an absolute basis is a statistically unsound political strategy used to distort the data for the purpose of deflecting criticism of the number of per capita rapes committed by certain immigrant groups. Lumping all 'Asians' together would distort the per capita number form a particular group of interest (Pakistani and Bangladeshi) as it would also include for example Chinese who might (almost certainly) have a much lower per capita offence rate. This is likely done deliberately to avoid showing the data in it's true light. Similarly black, doesn't distinguish between long established Afro Caribbean from a similar culture and more recent immigrants from third world African countries where a rape culture is prevalent in some.

Things like this have to be looked on a per capita basis i.e percent of rapes vs percent of population. Quoting the number of rapes in absolute terms will almost certainly show the (just still) highest ethnic group will commit the highest number of low incidence crimes through sheer weight of numbers in the population. Quoting on an absolute basis is a statistically unsound political strategy used to distort the data for the purpose of deflecting criticism of the number of per capita rapes committed by certain immigrant groups.

I would have thought the helicopter was "bought as seen", caveat emptor seems to apply in UK law. Why didn't they check for the purported non implementation in the spec when buying? If the company had said it was implemented but wasn't, that would be an altogether different case, but it is not the case.

The question is what does China get in return?. China only acts in it's own interest. (Disclosure: I thought of this all by myself so don't have a link to post). I'm sure the Chinese negotiators were no match for someone of Rachel Reeves calibre [sarcasm]. I found a link from a "credible" source that details some of the other concerns 🤣 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rachel-reeves-economy-crisis-china-b2677818.html

He's probably looking for a link to post for this.

Perhaps this is exactly what the market is scared of and why the risk premium to in invest in Gilts has increased. Who knows best, People who run billions of dollars or Rachel Reeves? I don't have a link, as the above is my own thoughts. You do understand how that works? Perhaps not.

Something about this character doesn't add up, as many are noticing.

You may never have actually formally declared it, but It is quite obvious from you arrogance and sneering disdain for the opinions of others that don't match your own, that like all Lefties you think you are intellectually superior with no evidence to support this. Let's face it, you are incapable of arguing a point and just post links.

You were previously telling us how positive Labours economic policy was and how it would be good for the country, and how those who said it would cause economic disaster were wrong, so I assumed you understood it, but now it seems you were parroting Labour party sources. Considering the flack Reeves is getting on this thread I thought you might welcome the opportunity to go through Labours economic policy line by line and show how it couldn't possibly be causing the calamity in the markets we are seeing, Instead of doing that you posted a link to a reporter quoting fund managers giving their view on the causes. So you were positive on Labours policy even though you didn't understand it, and others who were telling you it would cause the calamity we are seeing now were wrong according to you, but rather than defend your position yourself, you posted a link to a source that seems to mention anything but Reeves incompetence as the possible real cause, or even a factor, preferring to focus on concurrent global factors as the cause, rather than disastrous policies. FT ceased to be a credible source a long time ago BTW. It became highly politicised to the point where it is referred to as The Financial Guardian, and this went into overdrive with the exit of Pearson as a shareholder. I should know, I read it since the '80's. Same with Reuters. I had Reuters news on my desk for decades.

I think she meant his money via his son Alex,

Andrew Jackson sleeps soundly in his grave now.

You posted a link to an article you don't understand, thinking because it was the FT it was "credible". You won't make money in the markets following what the FT says. The people they quote are people who come to the phone. it is very rare that someone who is regarded as really having a clue goes public. FFS you have no idea about financial markets. Nobody who who actually deals in the market pays attention to what journalists say, and as I said there are multiple takes in the market. I have given mine, what's yours? It's not what market participants are saying that is important, it is what they are DOING. That said, it's not to say I have never had my eyes opened by what a journalist or someone he quotes has said and changed my view as a result. But the idea that there is a credible source that explains the markets is just naivety. What is your take? Which of the views expressed in the article do you think is the explanation? they could ALL be wrong.