trompelemonde

James is more likely to turn up as a middle name.

Simply because if he's James, he'd be James VII (and all the English people will be going - when were James II - James VI ?).

No he wouldn't; he'd be James III of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Commonwealth countries which have the monarch as their head of state and James VIII of Scotland.

Some of us English do know our history; maybe some Scots don't!

Of course, whatever names he is given now, he could easily choose another when he becomes king.

Not that I care much but the names Stephen and John will certainly not be chosen for reasons of history.

You mention James and what he would be referred to as, this was also made an issue by some Scots when the present Queen ascended to the throne. The first Elizabeth was never Queen of Scotland (true) and so they wanted Elizabeth II to be Elizabeth I - but in Scotland only. Daft but true.

Isn't Australia the only modern industrailzed country to have experienced 21 consecutive years of economic growth? It has also 'escaped' (if that the right term) the worst ravages of the global economic mess.

I state the above as I cannot understand the negative, moaning comments by some on this thread. Australia must be doing a lot right. Maybe it suceeds despite the best and worst efforts of its politicans?

I can only really see this as a positive change.

I am not one to comment on the US, but in the UK the introduction of DNA testing has proven a lot of convicted people innocent and also shown the indeptitude of the police and the judiciary when the original conviction was made.

Most of the States in the US have capital punishment on the staute book, surely DNA testing would aid in establishing the required 'Ultimate Burden of Proof' in capital offence cases?

They have a right to protest.

However, the choice of Guido Fawkes as an outlet for this is ridiculous and shows their total ignorance of what he did and why he did it. He was a terrorist, a minor player as part of a silly bunch of upper class English RC plotters who who tried to commit regicide and failed.

The suicide rate in Japan is very high, but this is not really that surprising. I'd suggest that it is often seen as an honourable way out in a society for which 'shame' is such a serious issue.

There may also be the fact that the Japanese in taking their cue from Buddhism/Confucism don't stigmatize suicide victims such as they would in, say, a Roman Catholic country.

The suicide rates for the USA seem to correlate with many Western European countries, which is what you might expect.

People who celebrate the death of another human being profane themselves.

I was not a fan of the Baroness, but some basic decency please.

I've never been told to leave a Thai owned shop. The closest I've been was with the legendary owner of 'Mr. Balance' in Panthip Plaza who is so jaw-droppingly obnoxious with his customers that you would really love to thump him in the bracket.

However, myself and a group of others were thrown out of a camera shop in Singapore for the terrible offence of window shopping.

Usually when I've run out Kleenex

British Ambassador to Thailand Mark Kent joined Barrow on his anti-corruption movement on Twitter by tweeting: "UK Bribery Act applies to UK citizens overseas. We encourage any UK citizen who is asked for a bribe to report it."

Report it to whom? The local police? The British embassy in Bangkok?

No. It means reporting it to a police officer in the UK who could refer it to the Crown Prosecution Service in England, Crown Office in Scotland, or the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland, depending on the jurisdiction of the officer to whom you have reported this.

The Act has a near-universal jurisdiction, but is not applicable for people who are not British citizens/ residents in the UK, in relation to bribery committed outside the UK. Hence the police officer, to whom you might report this case, will not take up the matter and (hopefully) politely show you the door.

Your last paragraph is not correct. The UK Bribery Act (2010) does cover acts of bribery comitted outside the UK by UK citizens, corporations etc.

Making facilitation payments is also made illegal by this act. This covers so called 'grease' payments to foreign/public officials and is therefore much stricter than US FCPA legislation.

Who exactly are "Open Society Justice Initiative"?

Who elected them, or are they self-chosen?

Why do they think they have the right to lecture and pontificate about the correct methods of capturing terrorists who murdered thousands of people?

Although I am not a U.S. citizen, I believe the U.S. government had the right and duty to destroy the people responsible, and organisation behind them, by any means possible. If that includes torture, then so what? It would not have been worse than what the people in the Twin Towers and the airplanes suffered.

If other governments had the courage to act as the U.S. did, then this scourge of Islamic terrorism could be contained and reduced much more effectively. Thailand take note of what is happening in the southern provinces!

If you believe that the US Government "had the right and duty to destroy the people responsible" then why didn't they attack Saudi Arabia first instead of Iraq and Afghanistan?

AGW cannot been seen as an isolated ploy.

It's part of the bigger NWO picture.

They are re-arranging everything in our world and the bogus global warming theory is just one of the convenient excuses.

By portraying humans as 'parasites' ,they open the way for the culling of 'useless eaters'.

On a side note...most enviro-loonies I have met seem to have a seething hatred of humanity.

Enviromentalism offers them a 'respectable' fig leaf.

This is straying into David Icke, paranoid, conspiracy theory type guff methinks!!!

Scotlands independence is a highly emotive issue for many - including a lot of people who are not personally involved, but who feel that nationalism or "empire-ism" is a "good thing". Inevitably there are more commentaries than truths, so making a judgement is, to say the least, difficult. Perhaps people need to look at their own motives for believing Scotland should or should not be independent.

Statistics can be used to prove anything. Discovering what makes people want YES or NO is much more interesting.

I'll start the ball rolling by saying that the united kingdom is a politically manufactured anachronism which ignores cultural values and differences. So I will vote YES

It's not politically manufactured, it came about because the King of Sdcotland became the King of England, and the subsequent inheritors wanted to cement that union. The Union came about because two neighbouring and similar countries, having once unified, wanted to cement that union.

SC

Whoa cowboy The union was a convenience to England and certain anglophiles in Scotland after the English had defeated the Scots. There was no wish amongst the Scots at the time to join England, as even a cursory read of history will show you.

And as I've already posted,the English people also did not vote on this union,only the so called elite people in Scotland and England. The exact same can be said when the clans of Scotland came together,only the chieftains decided.

If you look to earlier posts by Gentleman Jim ( post 120 & 122)he explained the evolution of Scotland and in fact most countries in the world far better than I can.

But why did the English want a Union with Scotland in 1707?

(Nobody has explained this)

I think this is an excellent piece of legislation and long overdue, it extends the rights that all other Thai workers have under existing labour laws to maids.

Also, it is a mistake to think that Thai labour laws favour the employer against the employee. They don't, and in my experience here are the most effective and well implemented sets of laws in the land. Be careful with drafing those employment contracts because if a dispute reaches the Thai Labour Courts the employee usually wins!!

RIP Amanda Todd. What a sad story, i hope that the people who bullied her feel the full force of the Canadian justice system. Oh, and the school and teachers as well.

Thailand should abolish the death penalty. It serves no purpose other than revenge which can never be equated with justice. Also:

- The death penalty is never a deterant. Having it or not having on the statute books will not stop people killing each other

- There have been too many people executed who have later been found to be innocent

Thanks, but I don't think that where Steely Dan is coming from - he's talking about a literal interpretation of Jihad, all Muslims want to kill the Infidel, all Muslims are this, all Muslims are that with a very small minority being the exception. Following on your comments on Dhimmi laws, what some people may not like to read as it doesn't reinforce their bigotry (from Wikipedia).

"According to scholars, dhimmis had their rights fully protected in their communities, but as citizens in the Islamic state, had certain restrictions. They were excused or excluded from specific duties assigned to Muslims, and otherwise equal under the laws of property, contract and obligation"

All? Here we go conflating the political ideology of strains of Islam such as Wahhabism with all 1.6 billion Muslims, it is difficult to know how many Muslims subscribe to this ideology, but a recent poll found 40% of British Muslims were in favour of living under Sharia law. You also soft soaped what it meant to be a Dhimmi, Sharia law counts the testimony of women as half that of a man, whereas infidels testimony is inadmissible though the sanctions of Sharia law apply to everyone, check out for what's happening today in Pakistan and Egypt with regard to persecution of minorities and ask yourself whether anyone would willingly submit to this given a choice.

I do agree that any Western country permitting the application of Sharia Law for resident Muslims is wrong and divisive; should not be allowed.

We've done this before, but it is worth repeating again. This is the actual question regarding Sharia law in the UK from the original survey:

(Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/dec/22/1)

That's quite a bit different from the way you are presenting it.

And, for what it's worth, I don't agree with Sharia law in any form in the UK.

Will we ever get peace from this middle of the road American crap soft rock.....it was crap the first time around and it's even worse now!!

What an amazingly narrow-minded and self-important comment.

Why would you get so nasty and critical about something that truly has zero affect on your life?

What a terrible attitude you display. Here is a group of undeniably popular and successful musicians who have such a passion for their life-long commitment to music that they choose to tour as they grow older, but that bothers you so much tat you have to 'crap' all over them. <deleted> amazing. If somebody is forcing you go to the concert or listen to their music, express you irrationally nasty thoughts to that person -- not these innocent artists.

Perhaps a psychologist could help you figure out why you have a need to criticize these people when they have absolutely no influence on your well-being.

They choose to tour as they need the money. I don't have a problem with that, but let's not pretend that they are doing this just because of the music.

(And they suck as well - just my opinion)

Only a fool would disagree with the current Governement being partly responsible for the blame both in 2011 and now, with sadness but a complete lack of surprise, in 2012.

However, all Governements ,both past and present, are equally culpable for the terrible water management and thoughtless destruction of the environment in Thailand over the years.but not of course for natural events outwith their control -such as the unusually high rainfall in 2011.

Remember as well that in 2011 the flooding in Bangkok at least, was exacerbated by the foolish stand-off between the BMA and the Governement, the peak run-off coinciding with very high tides and the poor general understanding of the flood drainage system in the city and its environs.

We had knee high water for almost a month in our street, people I know in Pathum Thani and Bang Yai had it much worse and have had to now either demolish their flood damaged homes or give up and move out to other areas. Hope against hope this doesn't happen again.

Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are both funny Republicans, but they mix it with a lot of sarcasm and political commentary.

People laugh with Rush Limbaugh. People laugh at Ann Coulter. I hope she is all self-parody as nobody can say the dumb things she does and hope to be taken seriously.

no the red shirts here are not communist

you mean besides communist Red Shirt Leaders Thida, Weng, and Surachai?

a few there maybe but not as a 'movement' as well you know - unless you brand Thaksin as a 'communist' too? or the PM? it's absurd

You mean apart from coincidences like both Shinawatras advocating agrarian uprising to destroy elites, their faces superimposed on giant red posters, avoiding democratic debate, ruling with totalitarian practices, their family originating from Mao's China at the time of his greatest popularity, giving communist China the Thai school-tablet budget, avoiding NASA because Beijing doesn't approve, having hordes of followers all dressed in the same red clothes, all waving placards with the dear leaders face on, keeping all the wealth within government while the poor get next to nothing, handing out home addresses of dissenters to angry mobs in the street. You're so right, no similarities between Shinawatra and communist dictatorships at all.

I thought that Thaksin's grandparents originally came over to Thailand from mainland China in the 1860's?

Your other points could be equally applied to most other popular political movements in Thailand whether PTP, UDD, PAD even the BMA. Equating Thaksin with communism is about as the same as equating the PAD with facism - both are off the mark.

How do you get an "elected caretaker government"?

Wiki is your friend.

It doesn't seem to be your friend. All it talks about is how a "caretaker government" is appointed or set up, or is a provisional government when the government is dissolved (ie when an election is called) or collapses.

There is nothing about a "caretaker government" being "elected".

If you are talking about the wiki's reference to Thailand's "elected caretaker government" prior to the coup, that is simply incorrect. The Thaksin caretaker government came about when Thaksin dissolved parliament prior to the 2006 election.

The point is that Wikipedia ('The Free Encyclopedia) being open sourced can be edited by anyone with a computer. If they are wrong then you have recourse to change it - easy !!

They resuscitated him twice, what was the point of that?

I know you are attempting to be sardonic, but that's a tad nasty don't you think?

During an interview with one young Muslim man in Belgium who is campaigning to get Sharia law enacted for all Belgians: He said; "Sharia law is the will of Muhammed, so no one can question it."

Maidu's spin: There are more than a few people like that, who interpret the musings of a dead man and seek to force those ideas on all others in his vicinity. Any of their personal interpretations of the hundreds year old moldy texts is deemed, by those people, to be the ONLY WAY, and all others must adhere to their interpretations, or be physically cowed in to doing so.

It's a bad cycle, and I don't see any reasonable way around it. Like an infection.

Good luck Australia. Most of Europe is already beyond the pale.

The way I look at it is that they are at the equivalent of the western "middle ages", when the inquisition forced everyone to be a Christian. In a thousand years time, they too will have changed.

Sorry, but what is the total percentage (%) of Muslims in Europe now? I am guessing it is around the 5% figure. Sure it will rise, but not to the extent that Europe is 'beyond the pale' to selectively quote the poster above. There have been Muslims in Europe for centuries, look up the history of the Ottoman Empire for examples, it is not a recent thing.

By 'inquisition' I take it that you actually mean 'Spanish Inquisiton'. The Spanish Inquistion was a process instigated by Roman Catholic Spain to convert non-believers such as Jews and the few remaining Muslims as they kicked the rest out after the re-conquest.

No I am not at all. Europe has not exactly been the most tolerant place in even its most recent history. Take the Jews as an example, they have been kicked out of every European country at one time or another, forced to convert or killed en-masse.Same as many other groups who have been a little bit 'different' from the mainstream, even other Christians.

BTW = I deplore the desecration of any place of religious worship wherever it is located and the killing of anyone in the name of religion.

It's ironic that you cite the Jews as an example of past intolerance considering that 70% of the racist attacks on Jews in Europe are committed by Muslims. Indeed the intolerance seems to be a one way street with MP's who take views unpopular with some Muslims being threatened or attacked. Then we have the fact that 40% of British Muslims want Sharia law for Britain, I don't know the percentage in Australia but Sharia law makes all non-Muslims second class citizens and calls directly for violence against gays. Perhaps some introspection is required before whining about the lack of tolerance shown by Countries kind enough to make their health and benefits systems available to immigrants.

And likewise I suggest that you exercise some introspection and restraint yourself with your made up and mis-quoted stats - "40% of British Muslims want Sharia law for Britain" the actual result the poll was actually "40% of British Muslims want Sharia law for British Muslims" - there is quite a difference.

Don't call me a "whinger" either - if you want to discuss something cut the name calling

maidu, having less children is an admirable thing to do, but countries like Germany, France, Australia, UK, US, etc., have birthrates (per couple) of less that 2, but Muslims in those countries have birth rates of 8-10 per couple. It's not difficult to see where it's going, and it will only get worse.

Can you prove to me that Muslim women in the countries you mention have a birth rate of 8-10?

Given the history of Europe and its attitude to other cultures and religions, if I was a Muslim I would want to get the hell out of there.

Are you implying that Muslims are persecuted in Europe with no rights whatsoever? , can you supply proof that they are?. personally I think Europe is bending over backwards to accommodate them , in the UK alone there are over 1,000 mosques which are protected by law, so unlike Christian Churches in some Muslim Countrys which risk being burned to the ground as indeed many are with Christian worshipers murdered ,it is they themselves who choose not to integrate into Western society ,but instead expect the West to Integrate into theirs ,personally and with respect I find your post laughable to the extreme

No I am not at all. Europe has not exactly been the most tolerant place in even its most recent history. Take the Jews as an example, they have been kicked out of every European country at one time or another, forced to convert or killed en-masse.Same as many other groups who have been a little bit 'different' from the mainstream, even other Christians.

BTW = I deplore the desecration of any place of religious worship wherever it is located and the killing of anyone in the name of religion.