They all appear to be gazing at something in the sky.

Could it be an orange angry baby blimp?

I used to do a lot of offshore sailing, and floating containers at sea were always a worry.

They often float just below the surface. Hit one at night, doing 5 or 6 knots perhaps, full sail set, and it would simply rip the bottom out of the yacht and you would go down in seconds. If you were below decks in your bunk, no chance.

Certainly around the UK, the Royal Navy sink them.

3 hours ago, vogie said:

And what do you think Tony Benn would think of his son Hilary stance on us remaining in the EU. But you made some good points never the less.

Tony Benn would accept his sons point of view, would argue passionately yet politely against it, and would not hold his son's views against him.

He was a man whose politics I could rarely support, (other than in this particular field, where he was absolutely right) but one whom I respected nonetheless. Peter Shaw was another such.

That is perhaps the problem with this debate over Brexit - the politics of the matter have been personalised to the extent that personal dislikes have taken preference over wider debate, both on TVF and in the wider world.

16 minutes ago, kwilco said:

You aren't and consequently are of no significance to me....I can no more respect anything, you say than a flatearther..

As you don't command any respect, I don't consider it worth correcting predictive text typos...As has been shown you can neither identify them nor understand the corrected form

Somehow I think I can live without your respect.

You do seem to have a most peculiar predictive text program, I have never come across one which manages to mangle both spelling and punctuation in the way yours seems to. Never mind...

18 minutes ago, kwilco said:

 Was going to say 2 years, but in truth it's got to bebe over, 10 and I havent, seen, heard or read a single intelligent comment b a Brexiteers...... QED the above.

What are you trying to say?

The above is completely incoherent and makes absolutely no sense. I will hazard a guess that you think "Brexiteers" (all 17 million or so of us!) should be jailed for treason?

In the "role of honour" for "intelligent comments, your last two offerings are probably rather near if not at the bottom.

"QED" translates as "that which has been proved". In what way have my comments on your suggestion that people be prosecuted for treason proved anything, other perhaps that it is possible to ridicule the ridiculous? You squat in a camp which claims to be better educated, more informed and not fascist, xenophobic or bigoted ( all charges that are regularly levelled at those of us who think that the UK should leave the EU,) yet you spout this incoherent drivel. Frankly, were I a "remainer" I would be embarrassed to share a platform with you.

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

Once Brexit has fallen flat on it's face, I d like to see as many Brexiteers as possible tried and imprisoned for treason.

Fortunately holding contrary views to you, daring to express them and horror of horrors being prepared to vote for those views in a nationwide referendum are a very long way from any definition of treason, apart interestingly from some of the bellowing of the more frothy mouthed Ulster Unionist politicians of the 1970s and 1980s - widely regarded as some of the most inventive bigots of the recent UK political scene!

So wanting Brexit is not treason. Wanting the democratically expressed wish of the British electorate, as stated through a referendum (and let's not forget a subsequent election) overturned could however, at a stretch, be described as something approaching treason.

It's interesting to note that imprisoning (and worse) for treason was a policy of certain states in Europe in the first half of the 20th Century, states from which sprung the concept of "ever closer union".

We can also muse on the presence, amongst the judges of this "ever closer union's" court, which claims supremacy over our own courts, those whose glittering judicial careers began within regimes (of the former Soviet Bloc) which enthusiastically prosecuted political opponents in the way you suggest.

Any way, back to your suggestion about prosecuting "Brexiteers" for treason - sounds like something out of "Pirates of the Caribbean"!

"Mine has been most hard-working post-coup government in Thai history,' PM claims"

Well, it certainly has stuck around longer than most...

26 minutes ago, nontabury said:

I just cannot understand you, a committed Scottish nationalist.

You screamed that Scotland’s entry into the Union hundreds of years ago,was not democratic, as the general public were never given the vote, the same of course could be said of the English at that time. Now in the 21st century the Scots democratically voted to remain inside the U.K , and the the British people as a whole voted to leave the hated E.U. Yet for some perverse narrow minded reason you are against democratic votes.

No, no, no. He is certainly not against democratic votes, as long as the result is the one he wants!

2 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

I have said it before and will say it again; the UK is not ready for Brexit and to undertake such a huge, complicated policy shift with little or no large scale agreement, consensus and/or with a minority, incompetent government is pure madness!

 

Many will condemn my idea, but I recommend that the UK should delay Brexit (5 years? 10 Years? 20 Years?) until it manages to get its act together, have consensus on what it wants, and has a government capable of delivering that.

 

Moving forward under these circumstances is plain stupid.

 

 

Your suggestion falls at two fences. Firstly, whether you like it or not, the expressed view of the UK electorate was to leave the EU. It is incumbent upon the government, any government which may emerge, to carry out that wish; unless there is a clear mandate through a General Election to reverse that decision. The comparatively recent General Election, although it produced this incompetent shambles of a government, did not produce that mandate.

The second fence is that the EU, as an organisation does not stand still, it is evolving, down a path towards "ever closer union". A state which we (the UK) have emphatically rejected, and one on which the electorates of most of the other countries are denied a say.

So we will end up as unwilling members of a Union from which in 5 or 10 years it will be much more difficult to leave. I shudder to consider the cost, in terms of sovereignty  or fiscally, we will have to pay to either remain or subsequently leave.

Finally may I suggest that the very same principle of accepting the wish of an electorate in the face of a desire to maintain a status quo, which we both argue for here in our many discussions on Thai politics, should apply in the UK?

19 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Actually, I'm not the only one that has complained. 

Everyone can talk about what they want as long as it's on topic and within forum rules. Such as calling people names "ghoulish" would not be acceptable under forum rules. So you just stop that now. 

Whilst I tend to agree, (and I am a believer in freedom of speech) there have been times as this amazing and compelling story has reached its climaxes that a certain amount of arguing and frankly "grandstanding" over pendantic points (air/oxygen bottles, nationalities involved, medical decisions etc) have very much got in the way. Many here have been dipping in when able, using TVF  as a news feed. This squabbling has made it more difficult to use for this purpose

We are supposedly mature(very?) people, so a degree of self moderation should be imposed, the moderators should, and rightly  have stepped in when that has failed to happen.

When the rescue is over, then great, we can go back to reasoned debate, and even name calling!

9 minutes ago, tukkytuktuk said:

Just posted on the Thai Navy Seals facebook page.

https://m.facebook.com/ThaiSEAL/

 

What a splendid graphic representation of the spirit of international cooperation which has marked this rescue operation..

10 minutes ago, Oztruckie said:

I'm sure the highly experienced divers know exactly how to go about the rescue operation, without some suit sitting in his plush leather chair talking about something he knows absolutely nothing about. 

This "suit" sitting in his plush leather chair seems to be doing just that - letting the experts on the ground get on with it.

Much to my surprise I must admit - but credit where it is due...

I believe that the remaining discussion centres on the thorny topic of assorted informal charging systems, and measures to ensure that the proceeds "trickle up" through the complex "organ" which are RTP fiscal proceedures...

Streamlining and overhauling the existing structures, to better fit the 21st century, and improve the service to the public is all very creditable, but not without the risk that certain key groups both within the force and outside (Mercedes-benz dealerships, assorted Mia Noi and the like) will suffer. That must be addressed.

3 minutes ago, skippybangkok said:

 

If anyone talks about "oxygen" tanks again I will slit my wrists.

In diving, pure oxygen has only a few specialised use cases


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

It's overwhelmingly clear that everyone knows that they mean air bottles/tanks, whatever.

Now don't slit your wrists. 1) we all know that you are an expert diver, 2) if you end up in hospital as a result then they may have to use oxygen, probably needed elsewhere, to help you breathe!

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Golf carts more like. He doesn't walk. 

I thought I heard that he was in amazing condition for a man of his age.

Mind you, I have also heard the Presidential Doctor has been known to confuse a "frontal lobotomy" with a "bottle in front of me"!