chickenslegs

Tried Friendship today, No Guinness or Murphy's. The search goes on.

Suggestion for off-duty attire for senior police officers...

Thanks for the replies so far.

Definitely no Guinness or Murphy's cans in Foodland today. Staff say mai mee long time.

I will check out Friendship - I haven't been there in months.

Anyone know where I can buy cans of Draught Guinness or Murphy's in or near Pattaya.

The lucky visitor was pleasantly surprised to receive two economy-class return air tickets from his/her international port of origin to Thailand

Is he one of the gender reassignment tourists we hear about?

With 10m baht, I could finally marry my girlfriend, who I love more than anything. I've been wondering for a long time how I'll be able to afford her dowry. She is from a really good family.

No I didn't notice and I passed by today?

Can you see it from sukhumvit road?

Ditto.

I drive past there at least 10 times every week. Never seen a Jumbo Jet.

On the southbound side of Sukhumvit road, just south of Ambassador City, there is an "military surplus" style place - but nothing as large as a 747.

Da Nang has a fantastic beach and the girls look really cute in their pyjamas.

the ministry is setting suggested prices at Bt7 for a small bottle of drinking water [500-600 millilitres], or Bt10 for a chilled bottle, and Bt14 for a 1.5-litre bottle,

Violators will be subject to a maximum Bt140,000 fine and/or seven years in jail under the Prices of Goods and Services Act.

This link may be helpful.

http://es.vfsglobal.co.uk/Manchester/all_about_visa.html

There is a "Contact Us" link about half way down the page on the left.

Or, for London, the Midlands, south of England and Wales: http://www.exteriores.gob.es/Consulados/LONDRES/en/Consulado/Pages/Demarcacion.aspx

Or, for Scotland and the North of England: http://www.exteriores.gob.es/Consulados/EDIMBURGO/en/InformacionParaExtranjeros/Pages/VisadosUniformeSchengen.aspx

How long did it take Firefighters to swing into action ?

They brought two hoses - in case they got a hole in one.

Zink was pronounced dead at 7:41 p.m.

And the world became a slightly better place.

I'm sure I read somewhere that motorcycles are allowed on the footpath in some circumstances.

Those dropped kerbs at junctions are not for wheelchairs!

Turn right at the top of Pattaya Tai. Ford dealership is about 2km on the left (past Makro, which is on the right).

Not sure if the aluminium shop is still there though.

(Don't take Pattaya Klang - you won't be able to turn right onto Suk due to the roadworks).

I have only seen the expensive multiple travel adapters here. I expect it will be quite easy to find a cheaper adapter when you get to KL.

Also, if you are staying in a hotel, most have a two-pin shaver point in the bathroom.

i hope we have no frang scout masters looking for a job here

i remember what they were like when i was a kid

Is it a painful memory?

GOLDBUGGY,

You misunderstand me.

We all have 50% of our mother's DNA and 50% of our father's DNA. If you take a sample from each parent and compare it to a DNA sample from the scene of a crime it will be apparent whether or not the child of those parents could be a possible match.

I am not suggesting that the child will have identical DNA to that of either parent.

If that is true what you say, then there is also 50% of the Father's DNA, and 50% of the Mother's DNA that the accused doesn't have. So how do you scene that from the Parents to get the exact match with the accused?

I am sorry but I don't buy this. Your Theory and Revolutionary Idea may makes sense to you but not to me. I have never heard of anyone accused of Murder at a Murder Trial by using only the Parents DNA as Evidence, and I doubt you have either.

Let me try again.

50% from the mother + 50% from the father = 100%. The child does not have any DNA except that provided by the parents.

You said that the UK police could not dispute the DNA match without obtaining DNA from the accused.

Here is what I am saying- If the UK police have 'foreign' DNA samples taken from the deceased AND they have DNA samples from each biological parent of the accused they can carry out a comparison.

If the 'foreign' sample does not match to 50% of the mother AND 50% of the father then the 'foreign' sample can not be from their son.

If the 'foreign' sample does match to 50% of the father AND 50% of the mother then the 'foreign' sample MUST be from their son.

That IS evidence. It is 100% certain.

Of course you have never heard of an accused being convicted on the evidence of parents DNA. A DNA sample would always be taken from the accused - but in this case many people are suggesting that the sample from the accused has been tampered with. I am suggesting that there is a way to corroborate the DNA sample without access to the accused.

(In this context 'foreign' means not belonging to the deceased)

Your statements show you do not work in DNA testing, I do. You are correct, a person only gets DNA from their mother and father,.and although it is usually 50:50, it can be slightly different through correction mechanisms in early embryo.

Furthermore they are using a set of paternity linkage markers which are repeat sequences, and the number of repeats can change between generations.

So a little less than a 100% match can still mean a high probability it is their son, and a 100% match is not 100% certain, but again just a very high probability it is their son.

Add into the mix that the parents claiming to be the biological parents may not be (especially the father).

This type of DNA testing is about probability, not about certainty

I stand corrected, thank you for your explanation.

Sorry to disagree but there would be a third possibility: it's not their son. That is why DNA evidence must be from the accused. Not 100% certain.

That is why I stated "biological parents".

It's an academic discussion anyway. The accused are still available to provide DNA samples and the defense team should be allowed to take them for comparison. I would be very surprised if they haven't already done so, covertly.

No 2 DNA's Match! Not Now! Not Ever!

You can match DNA of a child to a Parent as in many ways they are close. But being close only counts when you are throwing Horse Shoes or Grenades. Being close doesn't count as Evidence in a Court of Law.

If what you said was true then many DNA Matches they have matched for Crimes could actually be the Father, or Mother, or even a Twin Brother.

GOLDBUGGY,

You misunderstand me.

We all have 50% of our mother's DNA and 50% of our father's DNA. If you take a sample from each parent and compare it to a DNA sample from the scene of a crime it will be apparent whether or not the child of those parents could be a possible match.

I am not suggesting that the child will have identical DNA to that of either parent.

If that is true what you say, then there is also 50% of the Father's DNA, and 50% of the Mother's DNA that the accused doesn't have. So how do you scene that from the Parents to get the exact match with the accused?

I am sorry but I don't buy this. Your Theory and Revolutionary Idea may makes sense to you but not to me. I have never heard of anyone accused of Murder at a Murder Trial by using only the Parents DNA as Evidence, and I doubt you have either.

Let me try again.

50% from the mother + 50% from the father = 100%. The child does not have any DNA except that provided by the parents.

You said that the UK police could not dispute the DNA match without obtaining DNA from the accused.

Here is what I am saying- If the UK police have 'foreign' DNA samples taken from the deceased AND they have DNA samples from each biological parent of the accused they can carry out a comparison.

If the 'foreign' sample does not match to 50% of the mother AND 50% of the father then the 'foreign' sample can not be from their son.

If the 'foreign' sample does match to 50% of the father AND 50% of the mother then the 'foreign' sample MUST be from their son.

That IS evidence. It is 100% certain.

Of course you have never heard of an accused being convicted on the evidence of parents DNA. A DNA sample would always be taken from the accused - but in this case many people are suggesting that the sample from the accused has been tampered with. I am suggesting that there is a way to corroborate the DNA sample without access to the accused.

(In this context 'foreign' means not belonging to the deceased)

A quick google check reveals that the name Houlihan is a corruption of "Holland" (or vice-versa).

https://books.google.co.th/books?id=mZt3oGtk1KgC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=Houlihan+family+holland&source=bl&ots=os-xyqQsvr&sig=gFFG3k-rr9jqy3DKtdK2oFlOwjQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RledVZ6dLYiGuASy0ITQDA&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Houlihan%20family%20holland&f=false

Anyway, RIP David Houlihan. You were much too young to die.

No 2 DNA's Match! Not Now! Not Ever!

You can match DNA of a child to a Parent as in many ways they are close. But being close only counts when you are throwing Horse Shoes or Grenades. Being close doesn't count as Evidence in a Court of Law.

If what you said was true then many DNA Matches they have matched for Crimes could actually be the Father, or Mother, or even a Twin Brother.

GOLDBUGGY,

You misunderstand me.

We all have 50% of our mother's DNA and 50% of our father's DNA. If you take a sample from each parent and compare it to a DNA sample from the scene of a crime it will be apparent whether or not the child of those parents could be a possible match.

I am not suggesting that the child will have identical DNA to that of either parent.

I understand your point. To me if you have 2 exact DNA Samples, and there is a discrepancy in these samples, then obviously someone made a mistake. In this case I would call for new testing under the watchful eye of a Neutral Party. You can't release everyone from Prison just because somewhere along the line, through millions of DNA testing, based on someone made a mistake somewhere.

But lets talk about these "Discrepancies" with this DNA. What are they? The UK Investigative Team where allowed into Thailand to observe only! They were not allowed to take evidence home, or DNA Samples of the accused. So how can there be a discrepancy in the DNA of the Cigarette Butt, when they don't have the accused DNA to compare?

This news was brought forward be the Defense Team. Like most of the Media we have been reading this past few months. Is it not their job to cause confusion? Because with confusion you also cause doubt. As far as I can see they have done a good job with the media and both of these. So we will see what really unfolds in this trial.

The victims' bodies were sent back to UK before the B2 were arrested. I would imagine that the British would have examined the bodies for foreign DNA.

It is a simple matter for the defense team to collect DNA from the B2 (presumably during one of many visits) and to have their DNA compared against whatever foreign DNA was collected from the victims' bodies.

Thus assuming that foreign DNA was recovered and none of it matched the suspects' DNA, that could be considered a discrepancy.

I agree! But as you pointed out correctly, they need to get DNA Sample from the accused before they can do this and make a comparison. This is exactly my point to .

So how can you have a "Discrepancy" now between the UK DNA Collected , and the Thai DNA Collected, when they don't have the B2 Sample yet to compare?

For the purposes of proving that the DNA samples were or were not a match to the B2 it would not be necessary to obtain DNA samples from them directly.

We all carry the DNA of our parents. Samples obtained from the parents would be sufficient.

I am not suggesting that this has happened.

Candidate for the "worst headline of the year"....

I can't see anything wrong with it.