How to stay for 2-3 months?
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
Latest posts...
-
1
Report Pattaya's Sanctuary of Truth Claims World Record Crown
Any pics of the certificate ? WBR has not updated the website yet. -
14
THAILAND LIVE Thailand Live Tuesday 13 May 2025
Son Rescues Elderly Mother from House Blaze Sparked by Faulty TV in Lampang Picture courtesy of Kaoded. A dramatic rescue unfolded in Lampang Province on the morning of 12 Nay, after a house fire broke out due to an electrical fault, leaving a mother and son injured by burns and smoke inhalation. Full story:https://aseannow.com/topic/1360488-son-rescues-elderly-mother-from-house-blaze-sparked-by-faulty-tv-in-lampang/ -
0
Starmer: Migrants Face 10-Year Wait for Citizenship Without 'Real Contribution'
Migrants Face 10-Year Wait for Citizenship Without ‘Real Contribution’ Under Starmer’s Immigration Reform Migrants could face a wait of up to 10 years before becoming eligible for British citizenship unless they can prove a “real and lasting contribution” to the UK, under new immigration reforms set to be unveiled by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. In a long-anticipated immigration white paper, Starmer will announce the end of the current automatic right to apply for indefinite leave to remain and citizenship after five years. The new system will replace it with a more selective approach aimed at reducing net migration and rewarding those who contribute economically or through public service. Only migrants who can demonstrate meaningful contributions—such as paying taxes, working in the NHS or other public services, or performing exceptional voluntary work—will be allowed to apply for permanent residency earlier than the 10-year mark. Indefinite leave to remain grants access to welfare, free healthcare, full civic rights including voting, and the right to a British passport. The changes reflect similar reforms in Denmark and are part of a broader effort to bring net migration down from 728,000, the figure recorded in the year to June 2023. The move also seeks to counter rising pressure from Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party, which capitalized on public frustration over immigration in recent local elections. Tougher Language and Skill Requirements The white paper also raises English language standards for skilled foreign workers. While current requirements are equivalent to GCSE level, new applicants must meet A-level (B2) proficiency, demonstrating the ability to communicate “fluently and spontaneously” across social, academic, and professional settings. This standard will apply not only to workers but also to foreign students and anyone seeking permanent residency or citizenship. Dependents of migrants will now need to pass a basic A1-level English test to enter the UK and progress to A2 after two years if they wish to extend their stay. Care Worker Recruitment Curtailed From later this year, care homes will be barred from hiring directly from overseas. Instead, they must recruit from a pool of around 40,000 foreign nationals already in the UK on expired or cancelled care visas, or hire British staff. “They are here and care companies should be recruiting from that pool of people, rather than recruiting from abroad,” said Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. “We are closing recruitment from abroad.” Cooper emphasized that the government will also work on long-term strategies to build the domestic workforce and introduce a new fair pay agreement for care staff. However, the move drew criticism from care sector leaders. “International recruitment wasn’t a silver bullet, but it was a lifeline,” said Martin Green OBE, chief executive of Care England. “Taking it away now, with no warning, no funding, and no alternative, is not just short-sighted – it’s cruel.” The number of care and health visas issued has already dropped from 151,500 in the year to January 2024 to 28,700 a year later. Criminal Offences and Deportation New measures will require all crimes committed by foreign nationals to be reported to the Home Office—not just those resulting in prison sentences of over a year. This increases the likelihood of deportation for lower-level offences and could affect migrants who failed to disclose prior overseas convictions. Other Reforms The graduate visa route will be tightened. Currently, foreign students may remain in the UK for up to two years after graduation without needing a job. Under the new rules, they must secure graduate-level employment to remain. Labour’s plan also reintroduces graduate-level qualification requirements for skilled worker visas. Lower-skilled workers may still enter the UK through a points-based system but only in government-designated critical sectors like IT, engineering, and construction, and on a temporary basis. Despite the changes, Labour will not set a numerical migration cap. “We’ve had many targets, promises from Conservative governments in the past, all of which have been broken,” said Cooper. “That’s why we’re not taking that… specific-target approach.” However, the Conservatives plan to challenge Labour’s position. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: “Keir Starmer pretends to be tough… Now he says that immigrants who make no contribution should still be allowed to stay.” Press release Prime Minister unveils new plan to end years of uncontrolled migration Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-05-13 -
0
Teen Footballer Cleared in Transgender Comment Case Seeks Apology from FA
Teen Footballer Cleared in Transgender Comment Case Seeks Apology from FA Cerys Vaughan, an 18-year-old amateur footballer, is calling on the Football Association (FA) to apologise after being cleared of misconduct charges related to a question she asked a transgender opponent during a match last year. Vaughan, who was 17 at the time, was initially punished by the FA for improper conduct after she inquired if a rival player was a man during a pre-season friendly. Her comments led to a disciplinary hearing, during which she was handed a six-match ban—four of which were suspended—and ordered to complete an equality and diversity course. The incident, which took place in Lancashire in July 2024, quickly escalated after Vaughan approached the referee for clarification about her opponent’s eligibility. “Just before the game kicked off I saw that one of the players [was] what I thought was a man, so I went and I asked, ‘Are you a man?’” Vaughan told BBC Sport. Upon learning the player was transgender, she says she asked the referee whether the player was allowed to participate. “I assumed it would be a women’s game, and that’s why I was confused because I thought they’d brought a mixed team with them,” she explained. Following the match, Vaughan was reported by a member of the opposition team through the anti-discrimination body Kick It Out, and the case was brought before her local county FA. She was charged with “using abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting words or behaviour,” and the charge was aggravated due to a reference to gender reassignment. Allegedly, Vaughan said, “that’s a man,” “are you a man,” and “don’t come here again,” or similar phrases—claims she has denied. Vaughan insisted she never intended to be offensive, and said she simply wanted to understand if the game was being played within FA rules. “I didn’t think I’d done anything wrong,” she said. “I was shocked that they would report me but at that point I wasn’t worried because I thought the FA would have some common sense and not go through with it.” However, the disciplinary commission ruled that her behavior was more than a simple query, calling it “a continual action.” Public support began to grow after her story reached Parliament in November, when former FA chairman Lord Triesman criticised the handling of the case and said Vaughan “seems to me to have been treated in a shabby way.” Protests outside Wembley and backing from the Free Speech Union followed. In February 2025, an FA appeal board overturned the ruling, stating Vaughan had not received a fair hearing. The board found that her ability to give full evidence had been restricted, saying, “maybe for the best of intentions, it led the Commission to truncate her evidence… That was unfair to Cerys.” The appeal also found flaws in the reasoning behind the original ruling and concluded her explanation had not been adequately considered. “Since Cerys did not receive a fair hearing, the correct approach is to remit this case to a differently constituted commission,” the board stated. However, the case was later dropped after the complainant withdrew. Vaughan, who says she is currently being assessed for possible autism, believes the ordeal was unnecessary. “It was stressful. It’s definitely impacted my normal life a lot,” she said. “In the end it was pointless, and there was no reason for the FA to put me through all this. They said I wasn’t guilty anymore and they dropped my charges and cleared my record.” Now that the FA has introduced a new policy banning transgender women from playing in women’s matches, effective from June 1, Vaughan feels vindicated. “They’ve basically admitted that I was right in what I did,” she said. “If the new ruling was in place when I asked the original question I never would have been punished for anything. I’d like the FA to apologise for the way that they treated me… it was a very long, drawn-out case and there was no reason for it to be.” The FA said the case is now closed, citing the withdrawal of the complainant and the need to respect confidential details. But for Vaughan, the experience leaves a lasting impact. While she says she has no sympathy for transgender women now excluded by the new rule, campaigners like Natalie Washington of Football v Transphobia argue it’s a disproportionate response that marginalises a small and vulnerable group. “It is a de facto ban for transgender women from football more generally,” Washington said. Vaughan disagrees, citing concerns about fairness and safety. “I don’t think the women’s game has to be inclusive. It should be women only,” she said. “With the height advantage, the difference in bone density, that’s there from the beginning, and I think it’s unfair… I’m at a greater risk of injury, and if you’ve gone through male puberty you’ll always have the biological advantage.” Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-05-13 -
0
Breaking the Silence: Former UK Special Forces Reveal Allegations of War Crimes
In an unprecedented move, former members of the United Kingdom's elite Special Forces have publicly come forward to describe harrowing accounts of alleged war crimes committed by their colleagues in Iraq and Afghanistan. Speaking to BBC Panorama, these veterans recounted chilling experiences that paint a deeply troubling picture of routine extrajudicial killings carried out under the cover of darkness and silence. One former SAS operative recalled a particularly disturbing event in Afghanistan: "They handcuffed a young boy and shot him. He was clearly a child, not even close to fighting age." According to this veteran, the killing of detainees had become disturbingly commonplace. “They'd search someone, handcuff them, then shoot them,” he said. Afterwards, operatives would remove the plastic handcuffs and stage the scene by “planting a pistol” on the body to justify the shooting. These testimonies, now emerging more than a decade after the alleged crimes took place, extend far beyond the timeframe of the three years currently under investigation by a UK public inquiry. For the first time, the Special Boat Service (SBS), the Royal Navy's elite regiment, is also implicated in similar allegations, including the execution of unarmed and wounded individuals. A former SBS member described some troops as having developed a “mob mentality,” and described their actions as “barbaric.” He added, “I saw the quietest guys switch, show serious psychopathic traits. They were lawless. They felt untouchable.” Deployed to safeguard British forces from Taliban threats, these units operated in deadly environments where 457 UK troops lost their lives and thousands more were injured. Yet, within these war zones, the former special forces members claim rules were routinely ignored. “If a target had popped up on the list two or three times before, then we'd go in with the intention of killing them, there was no attempt to capture them,” said one SAS veteran. “Often the squadron would just go and kill all the men they found there.” One SAS witness described how killing became “an addictive thing to do” and claimed some operatives were “intoxicated by that feeling” while operating in Afghanistan. “There were lots of psychotic murderers,” he stated, adding that “on some operations, the troop would go into guesthouse-type buildings and kill everyone there. They'd go in and shoot everyone sleeping there, on entry. It's not justified, killing people in their sleep.” Eyewitnesses also detailed how wounded individuals were deliberately executed, in clear violation of international law. In one instance, during an SBS operation, a medic was attending to a wounded person when “one of our blokes came up to him. There was a bang. He'd been shot in the head at point-blank range,” a veteran said. “These are not mercy killings. It's murder.” The testimony included claims that junior team members were explicitly told by senior operatives to kill detainees. Phrases like “he's not coming back to base with us” or “you make sure he doesn't come off target” were used as coded instructions. These detainees had surrendered, were unarmed, and often handcuffed—protections afforded to them under British and international law. The BBC also obtained new video evidence and accounts of an SAS operator allegedly executing numerous individuals during a six-month tour. One former colleague described him as “notorious in the squadron, he genuinely seemed like a psychopath.” In one incident, this operator reportedly slit the throat of an injured Afghan man. “He wanted to, you know, blood his knife,” a witness recounted. According to the veterans, the chain of command within UK Special Forces was aware of the killings. “I'm not taking away from personal responsibility, but everyone knew,” said one. “There was implicit approval for what was happening.” To avoid scrutiny, operatives reportedly planted fake weapons—known as “drop weapons”—next to bodies and falsified reports. “The reports were a fiction,” said one former SAS operator. Another added, “We understood how to write up serious incident reviews so they wouldn't trigger a referral to the military police.” Former Afghan officials, including President Hamid Karzai, reportedly raised their concerns repeatedly with British authorities. “He consistently, repeatedly mentioned this issue,” said Dr. Rangin Dadfar Spanta, former Afghan national security adviser. Gen Douglas Lute, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, stated, “There was no senior Western diplomat or military leader who would have missed the fact that this was a major irritant for him.” Lord David Cameron, Prime Minister during the period now under scrutiny, was reportedly informed of these issues. A spokesperson for Cameron told the BBC that “to the best of Lord Cameron's recollection” the concerns were about NATO forces in general and not specific to UK Special Forces. The spokesperson also emphasized that “any suggestion that Lord Cameron colluded in covering up allegations of serious criminal wrongdoing is total nonsense.” Bruce Houlder KC, former director of service prosecutions, stated his hope that the inquiry will determine how much Cameron knew. “You need to know how far the rot went up,” he said. While the UK lacks parliamentary oversight for its Special Forces, unlike the U.S. and France, ultimate strategic responsibility rests with the Prime Minister, Defence Secretary, and Head of Special Forces. As the public inquiry unfolds, these testimonies may be key to uncovering the full extent of alleged criminality within Britain’s most secretive military units. Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-05-13 -
0
“Kicked Out for Serving”: A Trans Navy Commander Faces the Fallout of Trump’s Ban
“Kicked Out for Serving”: A Trans Navy Commander Faces the Fallout of Trump’s Ban Commander Emily Shilling, a decorated U.S. Navy officer with nearly 20 years of service and over 60 combat missions to her name, is now at the heart of a legal battle challenging the Trump administration’s ban on transgender individuals in the military. This week, her future — and that of thousands of others — was thrown into uncertainty after the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in favor of allowing the policy to proceed, effectively removing protections that had allowed transgender troops to continue serving. Though the decision is not final, it permits the administration to enforce the ban while legal challenges continue in lower courts. The Defense Department estimates that 4,240 service members — about 0.2 percent of the armed forces — have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, while advocacy groups put the broader number of trans individuals in service closer to 15,000. Many of them now face dismissal, halted careers, and unresolved futures. “I’m being kicked out,” Shilling told Women Rule. “I will follow what I’m being told. But it’s also my duty to challenge anything that I feel is an unlawful order… So I am performing my duty. I am challenging something that I believe to be an unlawful order, and we’ll let the courts decide.” The policy, originally introduced during Trump’s first term and reinstated by executive order on his inauguration day, argues that gender dysphoria is incompatible with military service. That stance has been widely condemned by civil rights groups and challenged in court. For those like Shilling, the decision not only disrupts their careers but casts doubt on their ability to serve with dignity and equality. Shilling said the ruling offers no clarity. “We were hoping that the Supreme Court would… make a decision that was kind of final. That way we can all just move on with our lives… Instead, we got kind of a non-answer, and we got the protections that we did have stripped away from us.” She described how the ban has already derailed careers, including those of colleagues who lost command opportunities, leaving their futures irreparably damaged. Despite the legal uncertainty, Shilling remains committed to the fight. “This fight right now is purely legal,” she said, expressing hope that future administrations or Congress might restore rights and codify protections into law. In the meantime, her life remains in limbo. “Do I have a job? Do I not? Am I going to continue with the Navy? Am I not? It’s a hard place to live in.” While Shilling acknowledges her own relative financial stability thanks to her partner — also a senior military officer — she worries for other trans service members without that safety net. “They’re going to be hurting like so many Americans are right now,” she said. Asked about the broader impact of the policy on young transgender people considering military service, Shilling didn’t hesitate. “It’s devastating,” she said. “Are they going to want to work or serve for an organization that doesn’t reflect those values?” Once an enthusiastic recruiter for the Navy, she now finds herself unable to recommend military service in good conscience. Shilling resisted speculating on Trump’s motives but pointed to a larger pattern. “There’s always some population that is vilified… And every single time, we have been shown that it’s just not the case.” She recalled the panic surrounding the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and how, in time, the military proved resilient. “It’s going to be the same thing with trans individuals. It’s just going to take time for the world to catch up.” For Shilling, transitioning was transformative — personally and professionally. “Before I came out, I was a 36-year-old white man… and I didn’t think racism existed. I didn’t think sexism existed. I didn’t see any of them because I never experienced them,” she explained. Coming out as transgender exposed her to discrimination firsthand and helped her become a more empathetic and effective leader. “I’m now showing up to work completely authentic… and that is true leadership.” Reflecting on her nearly two decades of service, Shilling’s love for the military remains undiminished. “People always say, ‘Thank you for your service,’ and all I can ever say back is, ‘No, thank you to the service for letting me serve.’” But now, she watches with heartbreak as that opportunity is taken away. “It was the honor of a lifetime to serve in the U.S. Navy, and I just hope that they live up to the sacrifice that we’ve made.” Adapted by ASEAN Now from Politico 2025-05-13
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
.thumb.jpeg.d2d19a66404642fd9ff62d6262fd153e.jpeg)
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