GroveHillWanderer

This is a link to the Sun article about this. It contains more details and has CCTV video of the altercation. Brit couple's legal nightmare https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/33737639/brit-couple-retired-thailand-beaten-neighbours-prison

That headline is a tad misleading. Although there was not unanimity on a final communiqué, the EU did agree to continue to provide funding to Ukraine. Here's an extract from an announcement made by the Council of Europe after the meeting. Ukraine https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/03/06/european-council-ukraine/ Also don't forget that two days earlier, Ursula von der Leyen announced a fund of $840 billion to allow EU members to increase their defence spending. And as she pointed out, that would among other things, mean that: As Trump halts aid to Ukraine, EU unveils $840 billion defense investment "ReArm Europe" plan https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-russia-war-trump-eu-defense-investment-rearm-europe-plan/

It's not the cave where the remains were found. The picture shows the Phraya Nakhon cave. The remains were found in the Din cave, as stated in the article below. Thailand’s oldest human skeleton discovered in Prachuap Khiri Khan https://www.nationthailand.com/blogs/news/general/40046675

Generally speaking, a country exists when it is recognised as a country by others. Ukraine is currently recognised by, and has diplomatic relations with 182 of the 193 member countries of the United Nations. For me, that's a big enough consensus to say that Ukraine is indeed, a country. Notable exceptions (that don't recognise Ukraine) are Russia, North Korea and Syria. So if anyone wants to side with them then fine, that's your prerogative. I'll stick with the overwhelming majority of the world's countries that do believe Ukraine is a country.

Elon Musk has said on more than one occasion, that he considers Social Security to be not just a Ponzi scheme, but the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time. Given Musk's commitment to cutting a trillion dollars from US government spending, if I were a US citizen receiving Social Security payments that would not exactly fill me with confidence that he is not going to look at it for potential cuts. Musk Once Again Calls Social Security 'The Biggest Ponzi Scheme Of All Time,' Struggles To Explain To Joe Rogan Why https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-once-again-calls-010040388.html

Not so, at least in terms of Article 5, the mutual defence provision of the treaty. Collective defence and Article 5 https://www.nato.int/cps/bu/natohq/topics_110496.htm In fact, as explained in that link, this wording was drawn up specifically at the request of the US, so as to avoid the situation where the US would be obliged to become involved in an Article 5 operation if they didn't want to be

Not necessarily true. Some rich people are the stingiest so-and-so's you could wish to meet.

Aaaaand relax .... https://twitter.com/x/status/1894139589763186772 Read the full update: https://go.nasa.gov/3I0ZA7K

The trouble with that is that Trump promised to reduce prices "on day one". So people have a right to be disappointed when he doesn't do what he said he would. Trump backtracks on one of his signature day one promises https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/us/donald-trump-backtracks-on-one-of-his-signature-day-one-promises-heres-what-it-is-as-many-ask-whats-going-on/articleshow/118485039.cms

Just to note that that post of mine was from two years ago. Two years later, still had no repair bills (touch wood) and still entirely happy with my purchase. In fact, if anything the car is running smoother now than it ever did. Several people who've travelled in it over the years have remarked on how the engine seems to sound quieter now than it used to before, which is something I thought I'd noticed too.

Not sure either of you are quite taking on board what is meant by 'generous' in this context. As used here, it carries the secondary meaning of the word, indicated in the dictionary entry below, of: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/generous

I'm looking at Section 42 (27) of the code, which states as follows: "Section 42 - The assessable income of the following categories shall be exempt for the purpose of income tax calculation: [...] (27) Income derived from maintenance and support or gifts from ascendants, descendants or spouse, but only for the portion not exceeding twenty million Baht throughout the tax year." Does this really mean that if my wife gifts me an amount of money that doesn't exceed 20 million Baht, it's exempt from tax, as far as my tax return is concerned? That seems like an incredibly generous exemption, considering the other amounts involved, such as anything over 120,000 being assessable.

Sounds as if the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is not best pleased with Trump and Hegseth's unilateral declarations about Ukraine. A state of emergency would give Scholz the ability to massively increase support to Ukraine. Scholz proposes declaring state of emergency in Germany due to war in Ukraine https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/scholz-proposes-declaring-state-of-emergency-in-germany-due-to-war-in-ukraine/ar-AA1z1Pte Sweden has also countered the US position, stating that there is no reason why Ukraine can't become a NATO member in future. Ukraine's future NATO membership not off the table, Sweden says https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraines-future-nato-membership-not-off-table-sweden-says-2025-02-13/

Do you have links to any reliable source or evidence that supports this screed? If not then the claims it contains are totally baseless and as such, worthless.

Yes, the initial choice is for employment income. It hadn't occurred to me that it would include pension income. However my UK pension is less than the full amount due to lack of NI contributions when I was first living abroad and was still young and foolish (I moved overseas aged 18). I didn't realise I could make voluntary contributions until I was older so with the allowable deductions, including being over 65 I don't have any assessable income, by my calculations. So I guess no need to file?

I'm trying to do the online filing but after clicking on the button for P90/91, I get a page where I have to specify what kind of income I'm entering. None of the categories I can choose, seem applicable for entering pension income remitted from abroad. There is one category that looks like it might be the one to use (Assessable income ...) but it has no option to click on, like the others do. Any advice on how to proceed?

Try sticking to the issues under discussion which I responded to, not some other extraneous issues. @SunnyinBangrakasked what offences Trump was found guilty of, I answered by specifying what those offences were. Then you (and he) said the offences were misdemeanors and the statute of limitations on them had expired. I provided evidence that the offences charged were in fact, class E felonies and pointed out that the statute of limitations had not expired. I didn't make any claims about the issues underlying the charges, nor about the judge being right. My only interest and involvement in this was to respond to issues related to the nature of the charges. Pointing out what offences Trump was found guilty of is neither left nor right-leaning, it's simply a question of being objectively accurate.

Incorrect. Falsifying business records may be a misdemeanor but falsifying business records in the first degree is a felony. And the statute of limitations for these offences had clearly not expired, otherwise he couldn't have been found guilty of them. I'm not sure whether you were not paying attention when he was found guilty or didn't read any of the many articles that reported on the verdict being read out in court, but here's just one, as an example. What was Trump convicted of? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-charges-conviction-guilty-verdict/ Just to confirm that these were felony offences, see the extracts below from a legal article explaining the statute. NY Penal Law § 170.10: Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree https://criminaldefense.1800nynylaw.com/ny-penal-law-170-10-falsifying-business-records-in-first-degree.html

Yes, they are wrong. No, Chelsea Clinton didn't receive $84M from USAID https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/chelsea-clinton-84-million-usaid/

You're seriously posting a link to an article that says USAID and the Clintons were part of the Pizzagate child sex trafficking scheme? The same Pizzagate child sex trafficking scheme that is an absolute and total fantasy?

Indeed. The Thai Examiner is one outlet stating that. 4 Israelis given the boot from Thailand after bullying antics at the local hospital in Pai, Mae Hong Son https://www.thaiexaminer.com/thai-news-foreigners/2025/02/06/4-israelis-given-the-boot-from-thailand-after-bullying-antics-at-the-local-hospital-in-pai-mae-hong-son/

Do you know how to read? The CPS information quoted is perfectly clear - being released on bail does not mean there is no evidence against a person. Also, as @Briggsy pointed out, if the police have no evidence against someone, they are "released with no further action" (NFA) - they are not released on bail. As the article below from a UK legal firm states: https://mjrsolicitors.co.uk/services/defence-and-criminal-law/no-further-action/ By contrast, if you are released on bail, it means, "the police will continue investigating your case and assessing any evidence that has been collected." https://www.jdspicer.co.uk/site/blog/crime-fraud/what-happens-when-bail-ends

Being released on bail doesn't mean, "they have nothing on him." It just means they aren't ready to charge him yet. According to the Crown Prosecution Service website, bail can be granted under 3 sets of circumstances: "1. Where there is as yet insufficient evidence to charge a suspect and they are released pending further investigation. 2. Where the police consider that there is sufficient evidence to charge, but the matter must be referred to the CPS for a charging decision. 3. Where it is no longer necessary to detain a suspect to secure or preserve evidence or obtain it by questioning, yet the police are not in a position to charge." https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/bail

It's not known how she was killed - the original autopsy couldn't establish a cause of death. However, according to a BBC article, "A cold case review was started in 2016 and scientific advances meant police were able to piece together a more detailed picture of who she was and concluded she had been killed." And her parents were concerned - they were the ones that initially reported her missing (something which her husband never did). I'm not sure what you mean about his family visiting or calling them - his family didn't know she was missing as he told everyone (including their children) that she'd returned to Thailand.

Although obviously done tongue-in-cheek, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert had a skit that showed the absurdity of Trump's suggestion. It posited that (since such things are apparently OK) the Palestinians should just announce they're going to take ownership of Mar-a-Lago and force the occupants to relocate elsewhere.