Jump to content

donnacha

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    1897
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by donnacha

  1. 5 minutes ago, Salerno said:

    I'm saying I've never heard of anything so preposterous and that it certainly sounds like exaggerated BS to claim "What mostly happens these days...". In certain jurisdictions around the world doing so can in fact be illegal without consent including various US States; see https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations (about as romantic as the dumb proposition in the OP).

    If it's so common I'm sure you can provide some links to news articles about it.

    Dude, if you are genuinely unable to believe that young guys in America would use the device that is always in their pocket to give themselves at least some level of protection, then you are so disconnected from modern culture that nothing I can say could help you.

    So, no, I won't do your googling for you.

     

    • Like 2
    • Sad 1
  2. 1 minute ago, Salerno said:

    Of course they do ...

    I clearly don't mean all dates, this would be dates with someone you don't know all that well, and it would be the age group who have grown up using their phones for everything, including getting the dates.

    Are you saying that they don't do this?

    You might not understand how heavily it is drummed into young American men that their life can be flushed down the toilet by one false accusation.

     

    • Like 2
  3. All an app proves is that, at a certain point in the evening, things were consensual. Things can change and, indeed, consent can be retracted the following day. A date could claim she was pressured into it, or that the guy got her drunk. The mere existence of such apps should send guys running, in terror, away from dates and towards Pornhub.

    What mostly happens these days is that young guys set their phone to audio record the entire date.

    Typically, if someone decides to later lie about what happened, they will mischaracterize much of what transpired once you were both alone. You see that in a lot of reports in which, say, a male celebrity dates a female who later claims the entire evening was problematic, and that she repeatedly made it clear that she was uncomfortable, but he pressured her to stay etc, while he remembers a pleasant, consensual evening.

    A good example would be the 2018 sexual misconduct allegation against Aziz Ansari, the first Asian American actor to win Emmys and Golden Globes, that torpedoed his career. It pretty much boiled down to an awkward date with a journalist who expressed her discomfit by giving him repeated blowjobs but, in the Uber on the way home, decided that she regretted it.

    If an accuser makes a sworn statement - or, indeed, writes an article - that contains a load of totally fabricated details, you would simply have to send her side a copy of the recording and they would immediately retract the whole thing, regardless of what the laws regarding concealed recording are in that state.

    Even in cases where the accuser arguably has a case, the overwhelming tendency of humans is to embellish. In particular, women will often claim to have said something that they didn't actually say, but which they feel the guy should have known they felt. Lawyers learn, very early, that if your client gets caught on some small lie, it is almost impossible to salvage the case, even if the fundamentals are true.

     

    • Like 2
  4. It appears that the suggested reductions in the length of quarantine (or, even, the elimination of that requirement) in Thailand will be for people who are vaccinated.

    My understanding is that Ireland is now vaccinating the over-70s. You did not provide your age but, under centralized EU ordering, it may take quite a while for vaccination to become available to you in Ireland, unless you are old, have comorbidities, or are a frontline worker. There are online calculators that provide estimates of when you might expect your first jab. If you are, in fact, over 70 please ignore all the following.

    When I checked an online calculator a few days ago (before Ireland paused the use of AstraZeneca) the estimated date for a first jab of people under 50, and not in a special category, was in November. There is a possibility that your second jab could be up to three months later, as they are prioritizing getting at least one jab for as many people as possible. Any reductions in quarantine will be based upon having received the full course of jabs at least a fortnight before landing in Thailand. Other delays are entirely possible.

    It is also possible that the reduction in quarantine requirements may only be available to people coming from countries that have successfully inoculated at least 70% of their population, or that have achieved much lower infection rates. This year that is likely to be just Israel, the UAE, the UK, the US, and a couple of others but definitely no EU countries.

    As such, it might be worth simply eating the current cost of the 15-night quarantine in Thailand and going as soon as possible. There is a real possibility that an increase in the spread of more infectious variants, or the emergence of vaccine resistant variants, could render the current vaccines irrelevant and rule out any loosening of restrictions. It is even possible (but I would guess not likely) that Thailand could stop even accepting tourists under the quarantine system. Unless you are planning only a short visit, there is a solid argument for getting in under the wire while it is still possible.

    If, however, you decide that you need to get vaccinated before returning, but are determined to get back to your family sooner rather than later, it might be worth considering moving over the UK for a month or so. You are entitled to do so as an Irish citizen (just as UK citizens are entitled to live in Ireland). That may sound like a drastic move but it could get you your full course of vaccination a year earlier than in the EU. It is also likely that any reduction/elimination of the quarantine requirement this year will apply to UK residents (which you will be considered to be if applying from a UK address) and not the EU. 

    The UK has a set date, I seem to remember it being in April, when it is possible to book a room on Airbnb again. You could get a cheap room in some UK cities for around EUR 150 per week. Bear in mind that each country in the UK has a different NHS authority. Vaccination roll-out policies and execution can vary quite a bit. I believe most areas are already doing the 50-54 age group, they will almost certainly be doing the under 50s by April. I would pick a city with relatively low levels of take-up, either because they have not experienced high levels of infection or because the locals are cantankerous and more likely to have anti-vaxx sentiments (Manchester? Scotland?). That will make it far easier to get an appointment quickly. Also consider how convenient that location might be convenient for catching your flight to Thailand.

    Good luck with getting back to your family.

     

  5. 1 minute ago, DJBenz said:

    I'll be fully vaccinated by 7th June, as will my wife and adult son.

    Congratulations.
     

    1 minute ago, DJBenz said:

    I'll be changing them to 2022 or cancelling altogether if there's any form of quarantine in Thailand


    I am certain Thailand will change the quarantine the policy, for vaccinated visitors from those specific countries, during the summer, mainly because most potential bookers for the third and fourth quarters will need that re-assurance reasonably far in advance. I'm not sure exactly when in the summer, but your July date should be fine. I suspect they will be in a position to do it as early as May, but June might be more likely as it allows them to say "from the second half of the year".

    Make sure to get any necessary embassy stuff done in good time, I have a hunch they will be somewhat overwhelmed once the change is announced and everything may take longer than usual.

    I suspect you and your family are going to enjoy an unusually fresh and energetic vibe in Thailand as it opens up once again.
     

    • Confused 1
    • Haha 2
  6. 14 minutes ago, Eindhoven said:

    I don't accept your ''explanation''.

    I do not accept your job application to my judge. I have seen your posts and you are not fit to be anyone's judge.
     

    14 minutes ago, Eindhoven said:

    There are many other posters on this thread but none of them appear to be agreeing with you.

    You virtue signallers post a lot but it is always the same handful of people, always mobbing the wrongthinkers and Liking each others posts.
     

    14 minutes ago, Eindhoven said:

    So how "mainstream" is your position? Seem you are the ONLY one expounding your views; you appear to be on the fringe.

    My "views", that newspapers should avoid censorship except in cases of clear and extreme need (national security, an ongoing criminal investigation etc), would actually be held by the vast majority of the members of this forum. The tiny fraction of members who bother to post comments in no way reflect the politics or opinions of the majority.

    Just a few years ago, freedom of information, freedom of speech, freedom of association, diversity of opinion, freedom of thought, freedom of the press, and being against banning books were all concepts championed by the left. We all presumed that any future authoritarian wave would come from the right, not the left. Something fundamental has broken in Western culture and it does not bode well for the coming decade. 

     

    • Like 1
  7. 13 minutes ago, Eindhoven said:

     

    No one but you cares where he came from. You are simply taking a racist point of view and then doing everything to disguise it as important public information. Balderdash!


    I actually took the time to explain why the omission of key details - the sort of details that would naturally be included in a real conversation between normal, non-racist people - debases the whole point and credibility of the press.

    We all absorb immense amounts of information every day. We use that matrix of information to navigate the world. It is wrong to censor true facts on the basis that other humans cannot be trusted to handle them in a responsible manner. This sort of woke theatre has never stopped a single racist from being a racist, and neither has it made the general public any purer.

     

  8. 1 minute ago, Surelynot said:

    ....and that is relevant how?


    Because you see this incident purely as an opportunity to virtue signal, to "check" other members of this forum, and to gain some sort of form of imagined moral superiority over them.

    Real people got hurt by this situation, the rest of us are interested to hear the full details and, yes, that includes hearing where he came from. As is so often the case with the navel-gazing woke crowd, however, you think it is all about you, you, and you.
     

  9. 5 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

    ...and yet...... "a farang" mentioned in a news report brings on a waling and gnashing of teeth like you have never heard........why do they have to point out he was a farang? Thais/Nigerians/whoever just as bd/are much worse.


    In your virtue signaling frenzy, have you stopped to consider that, over the past 8 months, it is almost certain that many of his victims were people of limited means from poor countries, of many different religions and ethnicities?

     

  10. 20 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

    What planet are you on?.......So whole of the world's media has got together and collapsed in the blink of eye, giving in to some deep-state, wokeist policy to withhold the nationality of a suspect in news reports??? ...555

    This is wonderful.

    First, you are insist that articles should not include the nationality of criminals, because the reading public cannot be trusted.

    Minutes later, you want to pretend that no such trend is occuring in the media, and that I am a "deep-state" conspiracy theorist for suggesting it is.

    This is the same as the idiots who insist that there is no cancel culture, and that anyone who says there is should be canceled.

    I am always in awe when I come across someone who is able to fervently believe two ideas that so completely contradict each other.

     

    • Haha 1
  11. 16 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

    Do you think that, if we knew this guy was a thieving scumbag, we could regard him as......Indian? Pakistani? Bengali?

    Your reformulation of my sentence has no connection to what I asked. It is interesting that, to defend the ridiculous policy of hiding the nationalities of criminals in news articles, you must resort to editing gymnastics.

    At the end of the day, the job of a news story is to convey information. This new woke fetish for hiding certain details is insulting to readers and, ultimately, undermines the purpose and credibility of the press.

    • Like 2
  12. 3 minutes ago, ThaiVisaCentre said:

    He was from Pakistan not like it makes a difference.

    It does not make a difference to me, but I consider nationality a legitimate detail that should not be omitted from news stories. I believe that the public are mature enough to absorb such information without being transformed into racists. 
     

    8 minutes ago, ThaiVisaCentre said:

    Unfortunately we have to change our whole process to take into account that no one can be trusted.

    That would be a smart thing to do even if this unfortunate situation had not occured. Tight processes protect your business, your clients, and your employees. Good luck with it.
     

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...