-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
.thumb.jpeg.d2d19a66404642fd9ff62d6262fd153e.jpeg)
-
5
-
-
Latest posts...
-
1
US Targets Thai Products for Stringent Origin Verification Amid Trade Concerns
Gotta watch dem chinese carefully. They will transship shipments in a blink of an eye to circumvent customs and tariffs... -
0
Crime 79-Year-Old Father-in-Law Kills Son-in-Law in Dispute Over Family Property
Picture courtesy of Komchadluek. A tragic incident unfolded early this morning in the Pak Tho district of Ratchaburi, where a 79-year-old man shot and killed his 72-year-old son-in-law following a heated argument. The victim, identified as Mr. Natt, was found dead with a gunshot wound to the head outside a house in the village of Yang Hak. Police were alerted to the scene at approximately 08:00 on 28 April and arrived to find the victim’s body, wearing a blue T-shirt, grey trousers, and boots. His assailant, later identified as 79-year-old Mr. Boonmee, was waiting for police at the scene and was found holding a shotgun, which he had used in the attack. He was immediately taken into custody. According to the victim’s wife, she and her husband had been helping her father at his farm earlier in the day, spraying pesticides on crops. She explained that after the work, she and her husband were preparing to go to the hospital. However, her father, known for his fiery temper, followed them home on his motorcycle. Upon arriving at the house, a confrontation ensued between her husband and father, during which a gunshot was fired. The wife rushed outside to find her father holding the shotgun, who then stated, “Your husband is dead.” In shock and grief, she immediately called the police. The motive behind the shooting is believed to be rooted in family tensions. The wife noted that her father had always been protective of his property and was suspicious of anyone attempting to claim it. This behaviour, coupled with long-standing marital disputes between her parents, may have contributed to the build-up of stress that led to the tragic event. The wife’s mother had reportedly moved out of the family home due to constant arguments with her husband, adding to the strain in the household. Nopparat Jan Sam Ang, an assistant village headman, confirmed that after the shooting, Mr. Boonmee returned to the farm to collect agricultural tools before returning to the house, where he did not attempt to flee. Upon the arrival of the police, he was promptly apprehended and taken for questioning. Investigators believe that the shooting stemmed from a combination of property-related concerns and the elderly man’s accumulated stress. Adapted by Asean Now from Khomchadluek 2025-04-29. -
89
Crime Jealous New Foreign Boyfriend Stabs Russian in Pattaya
Wow, you sound like a super angry abuser. I’m sure they won’t be coming to you for any favors. -
24
BBC Contributor in Gaza Sparks Outrage ‘We’ll burn Jews like Hitler did’
Problem is your knwledge of British political history is sadly lacking. Even before the Balfour Declaration, the Labour Party was calling for the establishment of Israel. It was the Conservative Party in the 1920s that adopted the most strident anti-Zionist position. The Labour Party back then had competing Pro-Zionist and Pro-Arab factions. Some in the Fabian society looked at it from a class warfare point of view, and perceived the Arabs as the poor. However, it was Nye Bevin and Michael Foot who in the 1950s established the Labour Party as the most pro-Isreali Party in British politics; remember, this was at a time when many in the British public were still rather ambivalent towards the new country, given the role some of its leadership had in the murder of British soldiers. Michael Foot went so far to say in Parliament to say: The shift occurred in the wake of the 6-day war. You can see that thr switch occurred because of Cold War politics, and a new faction, that included Corbyn and Ken Livingstone, took a more Anti-American view, which meant Pro-Soviet, with the Soviets supporting the Arabs. Until then, the Tories were quite a Israel-sceptic party. The Labour Party had been the natural home of the British Jewish community. With the rise the Anti-Zionist Left, Thatcher saw this as an opportunity to reshape Conservative policy into one that is basically Zionist in nature. Blair and Kinnock notably tried to tone down the voice of that hard left faction; surely your remember the prominance of Gerald Kaufman. But in the wake of the banking crisis, the UK lost its collective mind, with 40% of the vote in the general election going to Corbyn, and 51% of the vote in the Referendum pushing for Brexit. The Conservative Party has nothing to be proud of in its history. Just before the First World War, leading Tories formed the nominally anti-corruption National League for Clean Government, which sounded find until some of them started ranting about "Jewish Plutocracy". After WW1, a successor group emerged, called the Die hards, who were anti-Bolshevik and pushed "Jewish Conspiracy" theories. In the 1920s, immigratipn control occupied the minds of some Tory MPs, leading some of them to complain about posters written in Yiddish appearing in Stepney. All of this intensified throughout the 1920s and 30s. And of course, we all know Lord Halifax's sympathies towards Hitler. Even post war, in the 1945 election, some Conservative Associations were deliberately not choosing Jewish candidates. Even Edward Heath, when Prime Minister, lauched an investigation to "evaluate Zionist influence in the US and Europe". It is completely incorrect to suggest that anti-Semitism is the natural position of the Left, and, by dint, that the Right is pro-Zionist. Both sides have opposing factions, who's dominance and influence shifts with time. And we are stll suffering from the madness of the Banking Crisis in our political landscape, which in many ways has been left "non-British" (we are not a people given to extremism, ever since our blood letting in the Civil War and subsequent Regicide). -
1
Root canal prices in Thailand (and comparisons)
Thailand used to be very economical to get dental work done. Unfortunately, the prices are close to most industrialized countries now. A good Japanese friend just had a crown done in Japan. He told me it was cheaper to do it there than Thailand. Thailand is losing a lot of medical tourism to Turkey and India....... -
0
Russia Dismisses Trump’s Ukraine Peace Plan Offers 3 Day Ceasefire
Russia has firmly rejected a peace proposal put forward by US President Donald Trump aimed at ending the war in Ukraine, citing the plan’s failure to recognize territory seized by Russian forces. Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, said the proposal also fell short of Moscow’s broader demands, including the removal of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and limits on the size of Ukraine’s military. The rejection came as Russian President Vladimir Putin offered a 72-hour ceasefire next month to mark the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War in Europe. The White House stated that President Trump, who is eager to secure a deal this week, wanted to see a “permanent ceasefire” but was growing “increasingly frustrated” with the leaders of both Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine responded to Putin’s offer by proposing a month-long ceasefire to create space for negotiating a longer-lasting peace. Lavrov's remarks, delivered in an interview with Brazil’s O Globo newspaper and later republished by Russia’s foreign ministry, represent a hardening of the Kremlin’s stance. Lavrov insisted that the "international recognition" of Russia’s sovereignty over Crimea and the partially occupied regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia was “imperative.” He added, “Demilitarising and de-Nazifying Ukraine is also on the agenda, along with lifting sanctions, withdrawing lawsuits and cancelling arrest warrants, as well as returning Russian assets subjected to the so-called freeze in the West.” Lavrov further demanded “solid security guarantees ... in order to shield it from any threats emanating from hostile activities by Nato [and] the European Union.” These sweeping demands starkly contrast with the proposal recently discussed with Ukrainian officials in Paris and refined at another meeting in London. That seven-point agreement would hand Russia de-facto control over large parts of Ukraine and recognize its hold over Crimea, but Trump reportedly warned that Russia could not insist on limiting Ukraine’s armed forces or its defense industry as a condition for peace. European powers, led by Britain and France, are working on post-war security guarantees for Ukraine, believing that strengthening Ukraine’s military is essential to prevent future Russian aggression. A previous attempt to broker peace early in the war collapsed largely because it significantly restricted Kyiv’s military capabilities. On Monday, Putin announced a unilateral ceasefire from May 8 to May 11, aligned with Russia’s Victory Day celebrations commemorating the Soviet Union’s defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945. “All hostilities will be suspended during this period,” the Kremlin said in a statement. “Russia believes that the Ukrainian side should follow this example.” Putin added that he was willing to engage in peace talks, provided they addressed the “root causes” of his invasion. His latest offer came after Trump questioned whether Putin was “tapping me along” in a social media post following a meeting with Zelensky at the Vatican on Saturday. Putin had previously offered a similar Easter truce when Trump last pressed him on his commitment to ending the war. Responding to the Kremlin’s announcement, Ukraine’s foreign minister, Andrii Sybiha, said, “If Russia truly wants peace, it must cease fire immediately. Why wait until May 8? If the fire can be ceased now and since any date for 30 days – so it is real, not just for a parade. Ukraine is ready to support a lasting, durable, and full ceasefire. And this is what we are constantly proposing, for at least 30 days.” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, emphasized President Trump’s intentions, telling reporters, “The president has made clear he wants to see a permanent ceasefire first, to stop the killing, stop the bloodshed. While he remains optimistic he can strike a deal, he also is being realistic as well. Both leaders need to come to the table to negotiate their way out of this.” Adpated by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-04-29
-
-
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