jayboy

He's a gifted entrepreneur and highly intelligent = and like many such people he wasn't "academic" and didn't go to university.But he went to a famous and expensive fashionable school where he got all the basics..Above all he had extremely supportive parents not in the financial sense but more giving encouragement and all their attention.That class - upper middle class - expect their children to strive and achieve.

David Beckham is an interesting example in the sense of being a highly successful man from working class origins, inked up, yet fully embraced by upper class society.Good looks and presentation helps.There aren't many like him. He may be uneducated but I don't think he's other than upper class now. Richard Branson isn't uneducated.He comes from a wealthy background and was educated at Stowe, a famous public school.

Sure you are.

Because, unlike you it seems, I am very familiar with educated upper middle/upper class attitudes.

Why? I wouldn't use the word 'judge' but class is a key identifier.

You wouldn't choose them on the basis of tattoos obviously or even exclude them if one surprisingly turned up.But the vast majority of doctors, lawyers don't have them.

Don't know about the US. In the UK most professional footballers are inked.In fact never seen one that isn't. Many musicians also. Classy actors not so much.Tom Hardy is one of the few. Upper and upper middle class.Hardly at all.

Considered by who? Inked up losers? The best and brightest of young people, the ones that are going places in life, tend not to have tattoos

Oh dear

It's primarily a class matter.Both in the West and Thailand the upper/upper middle class tend not to have them.The situation is slightly different with the under 30's but not that much.Most people don't want a tattooed accountant/lawyer/doctor working for them.Prostitutes and soldiers/sailors have always had tattoos.Here in Thailand most of the young Western male visitors are from the lower classes, and thus have plenty of ink.

What a strange post.I take an interest in immigration matters and on a forum like this there is the opportunity to exchange views with others.Holders of PR are constantly expressing criticism of its shortcomings and creakiness.Nobody thinks it will bring the system crashing down.

And extremely revealing - far more so than he knows - of his priorities and requirements.Not the type perhaps the BOI officials had in mind when dreaming up the wealthy profile.

Tell that to the Brits, Aussies and other soldiers who lost their lives or limbs in Afghanistan supporting America after the USA was attacked on 9/11.

I would have thought the glaring flaw is that the target was 1,000,000 (in all categories) whereas the actual achievement is 6,000, and that of that number most are "wealthy pensioners" who are not actually wealthy by any international standard.

Of course, if any is due.

It's BOI's problem because they wanted to attract a large number of very wealthy residents and they have failed on both counts -so far.As for the individuals who got LTR, they should be congratulated for spotting an excellent opportunity.It's not their fault (or problem) the scheme doesn't make sense.

Why should you? It's not the concern of those who astutely achieved the attractive LTR package for "wealthy pensioners" when most - judging by the evidence on this forum - were not really wealthy at all.It's the BOI and government departments who might be concerned at the flawed strategy they put in place, and pitching the financial qualification too low. I haven't seen or heard anyone detracting the LTR.It's only of theoretical interest to me anyway since I have PR.

Actually my Thai source (not BOI but close to it) thought the opposite might be part of the problem.In other words there are too many low net worth people who qualify - thus destroying exclusivity and driving the genuinely wealthy away.While I agree the barriers to entry are oddly low I don't feel this accounts for the scheme's recruitment failure.I think it has more to do with poor market research in the first place.There aren't enough of the high rollers to go round and Thailand is not seen as a prime destination by them anyway.

I understand from a usually reliable Thai source that the LTR has had seriously disappointing numbers.He thought that only about 6,000 LTR visas in all categories have been granted compared with the target of one million.I would be interested to understand why this scheme is so under performing in take up.

Golf courses, water parks and high rise projects don't cut it.There is no high culture at all.The whole place is built on unsophisticated sex business and the fact that there are some other leisure facilities doesn't really alter the picture.I fully accept that yuppy Bangkok Thais often visit as a weekend excursion.But I was referring mainly to the expatriate population which is almost completely comprised in class terms of C1,C2 and DE. If there was no sex business, Pattaya would wither on the vine.

Pattaya ha always been a draw Only by the deluded.It's a resort built on prostitution.Take that element away and it could become an attractive resort town for Bangkok residents and some foreign tourists. It could also shake off its low class image since its entire British expatriate population speak like Dan about Thailand.

The staggeringly ignorant comments continue.The Livingstone brothers are not non-doms.The speculation is that they left because of this government's changes to inheritance tax relief but there are probably many other reasons.

He's got himself confused and has been inattentive in his googling, mixing up a mid scale Scottish buy to let outfit with the massive Livingstone Brothers commercial empire,He should make a grovelling apology but of course he won't.He also priggishly implies that the gaming industry is somehow tainted - which of course it isn't if properly regulated. The bigger issue is that this fellow can't accept that an exodus of wealthy talented entrepreneurs and businessmen from the UK has any adverse effect.It's what dickheads like Clive Lewis and Richard Burgon say.It's not at all what Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves believe - and we can expect movement on this front.

You are correct.The state pension is not meant to be the sole source of funding except for the unfortunate, deprived and - it has to be said -the irresponsible feckless. Nobody solely reliant on the UK state pension should consider retiring in Thailand.Only the foolish would question this. The rules, unfair as they may seem, have been very clear for decades on the matter of zero annual uplift. There is no chance whatsoever of the UK government changing its policy on the uplift question. One can sympathize with British pensioners in this predicament.Many have Thai families and a return to the UK is not a realistic proposition.I wish them well.Many of us have made big mistakes in life but we must manage the consequences as best we can, hopefully without whining self pity.

I have yet to see prose processed by an AI model that is other than slop.