View New Content

Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

groovyc

Member Since 2007-11-25
Offline Last Active 2012-02-14 06:58

Find content

Community Stats

Group Members
Active Posts 199
Profile Views 2,353
Member Title Senior Member
Age Age Unknown
Birthday Birthday Unknown
Gender
Not Telling

Contact Information

1 Neutral

Friends

groovyc hasn't added any friends yet.

Latest Visitors

Will27
2011-08-07
FarangBuddha
2010-10-03
Maestro
2010-08-11
Slip
2010-08-06
thaiphoon
2010-05-20

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Returning Thaksin's Passport 'Would Be Illegal'

2011-12-07 10:13:50

whybother, on 2011-12-07 09:33:20, said:

Soutpeel, on 2011-12-07 08:36:02, said:

whybother, on 2011-12-07 08:27:26, said:

hearditallbefore, on 2011-12-07 08:11:57, said:

Taking Taksin's passport was "Illegal"

and he will eventually have it returned, just a matter of time, and life will go on. Go hide and watch.

There was nothing illegal about it. A government can cancel a passport.

And conversely they can reinstate it as well, if there was nothing illegal in the previous goverment revoking it, there is nothing to stop the current goverment reinstating it....
give it to him back by all means, it still doesnt make the fugitive status and prison sentence go away... :rolleyes:

and obviously as a condition of getting his PP back, has to make full disclouse of how many different passports he actually has as well as giving up those citizenships

Just because it was legal to revoke it does not automatically mean that it is legal to issue a new one. Other laws, as implied in the OP, may make issuing the passport to Thaksin illegal.

Hahaha, classic bickering on TV by people who don't have a clue what they're talking about. at least some have the decency to admit that though. Keep up the entertainment.

In Topic: Transit Visa

2011-11-13 21:03:47

Mario2008, on 2011-11-13 15:10:16, said:

I think technically you are not in transit. But immigration rarely checks tickets and it could be that your destination is in a neighbouring country, where you will travel to by land transport.

The airline might want to see your ticket, but I see no problems with that. I meant to say that if you have a visa, you don't need proof of onward travel, which you have in any case.

Ok, I get the point. I got a "dummy" ticket handy just in case. Thanks a lot for your help!

In Topic: Transit Visa

2011-11-13 10:19:02

Thanks a lot for the quick reply!

>1. Proof of onward travel is required for entry into Thailand, not a return ticket to the point of origin.
I was worried I might be required to travel to any place other than the port of origin, since i had a Transit Visa.
(It's also cheaper than a tourist visa)
Do you mean "not necessarily a return ticket"? Would a return ticket do?

>2. With a valid visa it is not required.
So what you mean is it might be required at check-in?

I'm travelling on a Sri Lnakan passport.

In Topic: Tourist Visa Expiring, But Stuck In Flood, What To Do?

2011-11-07 11:39:35

Mario2008, on 2011-10-29 08:30:26, said:

PattayaPhom, on 2011-10-28 17:27:17, said:

Even after the airport closures of 2008 they were still charging overstay at the airport once it was open so doubtful any lenancy will be shown for a few drops of rain...surely there must be a way to get to the airport and fly out and back

Not if you could show that you had a flight out of the country during the time the airport was closed. They wanted proof and if you had it no overstay was charged.

Interesting. However, it should be pointed out that this does not cover all genuine cases. One could planning to fly out without buying a ticket before the airport was closed.

In Topic: Chalerm Slams Abhisit Govt For Pardon Plea Delay

2011-09-08 14:11:12

May I take the liberty to slightly deviate from the topic:

Can anyone tell me (Don't get me wrong, I am not challenging here, just curious!) what stops the current government from
prosecuting everyone related to the 2006 coup (which is clearly treason) and invalidate everything that happened under
the military regime until the following election? Surely a court has to decide on the latter, but they even have the mandate to
make some new laws - albeit retrospectively - if needed!
Okay, one answer is that this may not be conducive towards "reconciliation". Anything other than that?
Again, I am not trying to pick a fight here, so serious replies only please!