-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
.thumb.jpeg.d2d19a66404642fd9ff62d6262fd153e.jpeg)
-
4
-
5
-
-
-
Latest posts...
-
0
Leaving an inheritance to my Thai GIRLFRIEND.
Hi folks, I wonder if anyone has any knowledge of the following: My family back in the UK are well taken care of and are aware that I wish that any assets remaining in Thailand after my death are to become the inheritance of my girlfriend --- they are quite content with this and will inherit much from my UK investments. For various reasons, I do NOT wish to remarry and, it would only serve to muddy the water further regarding inheritance. My girlfriend is quite content to receive the cash in my Bangkok bank account which usually contains somewhere between 900-1,400,000 baht, which I use for day-to-day banking and to satisfy immigration when renewing my annual extension of stay. I have contacted Bangkok bank and here I paraphrase their response: Even with a notarized will they require several other documents prior to releasing funds to any beneficiary. Moreover, the aforementioned documents have to first be sent to my embassy for "scrutiny." I suspect that this point means they will want to contact the authorities in the UK in order to check for any other beneficiaries, adding more delay and expense. Basically, it gets very messy and complex. I don't really want to join an account with my girlfriend since, I am aware that immigration will insist on doubling the required account balance which isn't the best option from an investment point of view. Would making my girlfriend a "signatory" to the account resolve this issue, or, upon my demise, would BBL still insist on all of the aforementioned rigmarole? I'm sure that some members would have heard of similar occurrences, but not personal experience obviously --- or they would be dead! Thanks in advance to any and all suggestions. -
34
Report Cannabis Clash: Thai Health Minister Falls Ill as Protesters Demand Reform
You've never in your life been hammered? Not even once? That's pretty unusual, but good for you if that's the case. Besides which my comment was specifically aimed at Toby1947 who claimed weed smokers are 'brain dead idiots' although with 1947 in his username I should have just ignored his opinion on weed. If he was born in 1947 he's part of the brainwashed geriatric generation who think weed is bad. Personally, when I was a social drinker I was smashed most nights. I never get violent though, I was always a very happy, social drunk! -
8
Community American Tourist Assaulted by Bar Owner for Filming Venue
Well done to the owner! -
2
Report Thai Firm Hit with ฿21M Google Cloud Bill After Bitcoin Mining Hack
Without knowing what exactly happened, you're jumping the gun. There's also personal responsibility that could have played a role here. -
454
Will there ever be a safe vaccine?
Of which you have verifiable proof of course, right ??? Perhaps AN ought to issue a formal internal directive prohibiting the publication of unfounded nonsense by conspiracy cranks and armchair experts. In a way, they already have - by creating the 'Off the Beaten Path' section, they’ve neatly cordoned off a space where people like yourself can air unverifiable, often baseless opinions under the guise of alternative insight. It’s a clever way to spotlight fringe commentary without contaminating the main discourse, fitting in well with conspiracy theories such as the Moonlandings, TwinTowers, FlatEarth, CancerCure Suppression, Aliens-pyramids.... etc etc.. you're in good company !!!! ------- Of course: There is no public evidence that the BBC ever issued an internal directive that explicitly said: “Do not hold debate with any anti-COVID people, whether they are right or not” However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many mainstream media outlets adopted editorial guidelines that prioritised public health messaging and scientific consensus. This often meant limiting airtime for views deemed to be misinformation or outside the scientific mainstream - including certain forms of vaccine scepticism, lockdown opposition, or alternative treatments. Critics saw this as censorship or bias; many media outlets saw this as responsible journalism during a public health crisis. Some relevant facts specifically on the BBC's outlook: - In 2020, the BBC reaffirmed its commitment to avoid giving “false balance” to fringe views, particularly on climate change, and applied similar logic during the pandemic. - BBC Editorial Guidelines do allow for excluding certain viewpoints if they’re considered to lack sufficient evidence or credibility. - Internal guidance likely emphasised reliance on official sources like the NHS, WHO, and UK government briefings. - BBC Verify (launched later), aimed to fight disinformation, reinforcing that approach. Too long for you to read: heres a TLDR Summary: There’s no evidence or indication of a documented directive that the BBC and other responsible media outlets actively avoided giving a platform to people challenging the mainstream COVID narrative - regardless of whether some later turned out to have valid concerns. It was more policy by well established editorial culture than a smoking-gun memo-that never existed... -
8
Community American Tourist Assaulted by Bar Owner for Filming Venue
How odd.....I was just about to stick my neck and say no way he got punched just for taking a quick video around the bar.- 1
-
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now