Thailand Dangerous-bbc News Last Night

[Chopper]

I said " No Mum. You're thinking of Ramsgate"

Good one.

You could substitute Ramsgate with most major towns in the UK now with the amount of asylum seekers encroaching on UK territory and burdening the state.

Only trust Fox.

A fair and balanced response. You post we'll decide.

[britmaveric]

Watch various news channels, various papers, and go to various news websites. Then form your own opinion - news is heavily biased these days and the main concern is ratings/political agendas.

[Totster]

I wonder how many Brits were killed in Spain last year ?

totster

[sonthaya]

I can do without BBC, I still remember their reporting after the tsunami where they showed video clips how Phuket was completely wiped out, and it was video from Indonesia but it added sensationalism, but it also hurt the tourist industry badly.

I still feel vey safe in Thailand.

Edited February 22, 2006 by sonthaya

[sabaijai]

But they decided not to mention her murder and others prominently on the FO website to "avoid disproportionate impact" - e-mails from staff reveal.

A reasonable approach, sounds like the FO did the right thing.

[Prakanong2005]

Foreign Office has to deal with all these rapes and Thai police and British relatives, and it rarely comes to acceptable conclusions.

They have enough corpes to send back home as it is with traffic and drinking and sex and suicides. If Thailand gives them extra headache they are well within their rights to say so and declare it dangerous.

I don't see how BBC is at fault here.

We had to report a death of a guy who lived in our house - natural causes and he came to Thailand to expire - and were told at the Embassy they averaged 10-12 a month back in 99.

no idea how this figure relates now

[AmeriThai]

Foreign Office has to deal with all these rapes and Thai police and British relatives, and it rarely comes to acceptable conclusions.

They have enough corpes to send back home as it is with traffic and drinking and sex and suicides. If Thailand gives them extra headache they are well within their rights to say so and declare it dangerous.

I don't see how BBC is at fault here.

The exact same things can also happen in Britain, or anywhere else for that matter. Does that mean staying at home is dangerous? To me, if a place is declared as being dangerous, it would make sense to avoid going to that place thus avoiding the risk of the increased chance of harm.

However, since those things can happen even at home. does that justify the BBC to declare Thaiiland as a dangerous place? Why not also declare home as a dangerous place.

The problem is that it's looking at a single subject, ie, the number of British citizens that have been murdered or raped in Thailand. It does not look at the wider picture, that most British citizens are NOT murdered or raped in Thailand, AND that most have a very good time in Thailand.

I'm not necessarily saying that the BBC is wrong in reporting the unfortunate events that occurred in Thailand. It's just that when any news media covers only one issue, the viewers or readers do not have anything else to balance that information with and can easily conclude that Thailand must be a terribly dangerous place that must be avoided, when in fact it is NOT any more dangerous than anywhere else, even at home.

[kayo]

On the bbc world this morning... Thailand Banning Poultry from EU nations affected by H51 Virus....

Thailand needs to import Gai????

[fanciman]

Regarding alternative sources of news, try Pravda.

It is a surprisingly fun read, and useful if you want a disinct perspective on some news.

I often find that what I believe is newsworthy is not seen in the headlines, therefore one other source I highly recommned is Truth Out.

And, of course, google news.

A year or so ago i wrote to the embassy regarding the numbers of British murders in Thailand. The levels relative to the numbers of visitors and residents did not suggest UK citizens were being singled out, according to the embassy.

[chuchok]

On the bbc world this morning... Thailand Banning Poultry from EU nations affected by H51 Virus....

Thailand needs to import Gai????

[Tippaporn]

Foreign Office has to deal with all these rapes and Thai police and British relatives, and it rarely comes to acceptable conclusions.

They have enough corpes to send back home as it is with traffic and drinking and sex and suicides. If Thailand gives them extra headache they are well within their rights to say so and declare it dangerous.

I don't see how BBC is at fault here.

The exact same things can also happen in Britain, or anywhere else for that matter. Does that mean staying at home is dangerous? To me, if a place is declared as being dangerous, it would make sense to avoid going to that place thus avoiding the risk of the increased chance of harm.

However, since those things can happen even at home. does that justify the BBC to declare Thaiiland as a dangerous place? Why not also declare home as a dangerous place.

The problem is that it's looking at a single subject, ie, the number of British citizens that have been murdered or raped in Thailand. It does not look at the wider picture, that most British citizens are NOT murdered or raped in Thailand, AND that most have a very good time in Thailand.

I'm not necessarily saying that the BBC is wrong in reporting the unfortunate events that occurred in Thailand. It's just that when any news media covers only one issue, the viewers or readers do not have anything else to balance that information with and can easily conclude that Thailand must be a terribly dangerous place that must be avoided, when in fact it is NOT any more dangerous than anywhere else, even at home.

Good point, AmeriThai. Maybe the BBC should compare whether the UK is safer than Thailand for Brits. If not, then they should declare the UK a dangerous place and recommend that people go to Thailand to be safe.

BTW, I've noticed so many members here who keep up with the news, either through broadcasts and/or the paper. I quit reading newspapers and watching it on TV over 25 years ago. Not that I've abstained 100% during that time, but I do tend to avoid it. Unless the news affects me personally I don't see the point. If there's something that's truly newsworthy I catch wind of it from someone or other. But overall I think the news is absolutely depressing; at least about 90% of it. Apart from being depressing it is in many respects so self-serving that I wouldn't even want to trust it. And to top it off there isn't much of anything that's being written about to which I'm going to actively particpate in.

I used to have a job where the commute by train was a good hour. I'd religiously buy the paper in the morning and by the time I got to work I'd read so many stories about murder, rape, political corruption, wars, etc. After a few years I realized that it never changes, other than the times, places, and characters. The stories are always of similar content. So why bother? I'd much rather read an enjoyable book. At least I end up feeling that I've gotten some real pleasure. Just curious as to why others get into it.

Edited February 23, 2006 by Tippaporn

[alexjw]

Yeah, UK not so safe. I was a stdent in Birmingham a couple of years ago. The guys on the estate near my house didn't really like students, but they did enjoy mugging and beating us on numerous occaisions. In fact a couple of Japanese guys who lived a few doors down were beaten badly. One was killed the other left with brain damage. Not saying Thailand is safer, just that these things happen everywhere. Bit over the top declaring Thailand dangerous.

[AmeriThai]

Good point, AmeriThai. Maybe the BBC should compare whether the UK is safer than Thailand for Brits. If not, then they should declare the UK a dangerous place and recommend that people go to Thailand to be safe.

BTW, I've noticed so many members here who keep up with the news, either through broadcasts and/or the paper. I quit reading newspapers and watching it on TV over 25 years ago. Not that I've abstained 100% during that time, but I do tend to avoid it. Unless the news affects me personally I don't see the point. If there's something that's truly newsworthy I catch wind of it from someone or other. But overall I think the news is absolutely depressing; at least about 90% of it. Apart from being depressing it is in many respects so self-serving that I wouldn't even want to trust it. And to top it off there isn't much of anything that's being written about to which I'm going to actively particpate in.

I used to have a job where the commute by train was a good hour. I'd religiously buy the paper in the morning and by the time I got to work I'd read so many stories about murder, rape, political corruption, wars, etc. After a few years I realized that it never changes, other than the times, places, and characters. The stories are always of similar content. So why bother? I'd much rather read an enjoyable book. At least I end up feeling that I've gotten some real pleasure. Just curious as to why others get into it.

Yep. News Headlines = Same old story, just another chapter.

[AmeriThai]

Regarding alternative sources of news, try Pravda.

It is a surprisingly fun read, and useful if you want a disinct perspective on some news.

I often find that what I believe is newsworthy is not seen in the headlines, therefore one other source I highly recommned is Truth Out.

And, of course, google news.

A year or so ago i wrote to the embassy regarding the numbers of British murders in Thailand. The levels relative to the numbers of visitors and residents did not suggest UK citizens were being singled out, according to the embassy.

Eh?

Pravda is Russia's version to the UK's SUN and the US's WEEKLY WORLD NEWS. I love how Pravda features such newsworthy articles like "U.S. scientist says scores of UFOs fly around the Sun".

TRUTH OUT provides a one-sided focus on why everything else is wrong.

Those are reliable sources of news?