PeterRS

On a day when the ghastly murder of movie director Rob Reiner and his wife appears to have been a result of extreme anger on the part of one of their sons, we are reminded that anger in whatever form can have consequences. In the Reiner’s case, it certainly appears to have been the result of their son's many years of substance abuse, perhaps – although this is only being hinted at and may not be fact - a misunderstanding on the part of the boy’s parents on how to deal with such very substantial on-going substance abuse, and a steady build-up of anger. We know that anger can be exhibited in many forms. Sometimes in an outright explosion of sorts. Sometimes it is bottled up only to show its ugly face in a seemingly inexplicable outburst at a later time. Frequently it is related in some way to mental health issues. Today in Britain another form of anger is being faced. It was meant to be a day of joy. Vast numbers had poured on to the streets of Liverpool on 26 May to celebrate their football team winning England’s Premier League. Streets were all but closed as the team atop their double-decker bus slowly made their way through the city centre. One car driver, Paul Doyle aged 54, became increasingly angry that the crowds meant he could not get to his destination. His anger mounted. As it did so, he took action. Shouting “Fucking hell. Move!” he continued on his way, driving right into the crowd. In his seven-minute rampage he injured 134 people, many severely, before the police could finally stop him and drag him away. Mercifully no one was killed. Having pleaded guilty, he is due to be sentenced today. The prosecutor, after outlining the suffering he had caused and referring to police dashcam footage, told the Court he was a man "whose anger had completely taken hold of him." I suspect that from time to time we all lose our tempers - with the honorable exception of our mild-mannered @vinapu - but never with such disastrous consequences. Some are more prone to anger than others. Some go to therapy to find some help. Some even enrol in classes to treat issues of anger, helping us accept those things which annoy us but will always be part of our lives and how best to deal with them. Like it or not we all have to deal with them. During my career I quite frequently wanted to scream at idiotic government personnel and civil servants who knew far less about a subject than I, the professional hired to advise them. I can recall two instances where I did let down my guard and let the madness take over. Perhaps surprisingly each had the desired effect. One delighted me; the other depressed me. The longer I lived in Asia, the more I came to realise that there can be other ways to achieve one’s objectives, more subtle ways that usually take longer but without the other party actually understanding I had won the day. I often think that annoyance, anger and other negative issues have increased very significantly as a result of social media. When we are in a pub along with other people there, few of us would scream at someone, “You’re just a fucking ignorant bastard!” As the result, at the least that would be likely to have a drink poured over us. On social media, there are no such consequences. A round of name-calling, perhaps with, depending on the circumstances, one banning the other. So, effectively what in a ‘live’ situation could have quite serious consequences, is dismissed with virtually none. What’s the point of being angry when you can make the other just disappear? Yet the anger seems to get worse. It’s basically why I call it unsocial media. On this Board we see some of this, but not nearly as much as in some other chat Boards. My discussions with @Moses no doubt fall into this category. There is much we dislike in each other’s commentaries, but if we were meeting in somewhere like the lovely circular bar atop the Swissotel in Moscow with its cute waiters and bar tenders, I suspect we would both be considerably more diplomatic, even though we would still never agree. So I suppose the point of this post is to pose the question: do little things annoy you and how do you cope with the resultant anger!

In theory you may be right. In practice, nothing ever works that way! You have to accept that this is the tiniest of a tiny fraction of the world's border disputes. And given how large many of the others are, not one nation is going to do anything to help Cambodia and Thailand sort out their little mess. Examples: 1. India/Pakistan: the state of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh is claimed by both countries. A UN-mandated ceasefire to demilitarise the region was technically put into effect in 1949. Neither party agrees to it and three further wars have broken out. There remains no solution. 2. India/China: two large and several smaller parts of the border are claimed by both countries. A border war took place in 1962. Since then there have been two more wars and regular skirmishes and deaths on both sides. There remains no solution. 3. Morocco/Algeria: folowing years of fighting, the long 1,427 kms border region was closed to all traffic and personnel in 1994. 4. The Spratley Islands: these islands are claimed by China, Vietnam, The Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Taiwan. The primary reason is the reserves of oil and gas believed to be below the surface. The basis of claims is complicated, but China has musled in and started to build miltary bases. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not cover the sovereignty of disputed territories, and so this stand-off with occasional skirmishes will certainly continue for quite some time. I could cite dozens more. Many, as with Thailand/Cambodia, are the result of ineffective and disputed effects of colonialism.

I cannot believe the dissolution of parliament sets the stage for a military coup. The snake Anutin might then find himself very quickly out of a job and he has been angling after that top job for many years. I suspect it is more likely that Anutin wants a larger majority to consolidate his Premiership and hopes he will get one. How absolutely correct! @vinapu hits the nail on the head again.

It was me. I have no idea nor interest in what Lavrov and Milliband said.

Occasionally they also shared boys! I recall meetng one in Phuket who was taking time off from his usual Chiang Mai bar. I really enjoyed the one just off Rama IV. The boys really danced, really used the (dancing) poles and always seemed to be enjoying themselves.

And using "darling" in posts is even worse than "dear". Quit it!

It is now certain it was an act against people practising their Jewish religion. However, no matter how awful this tragedy, I find the comments of Benjamin Netanyahu nauseating. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said he had written to his Australian counterpart, Anthony Albanese, in August, warning that the government’s decision to recognise a Palestinian state “pours fuel on the antisemitic fire … emboldens those who menace Australian Jews and encourages the Jew hatred now stalking your streets . . . Your government did nothing to stop the spread of antisemitism in Australia. You did nothing to curb the cancer cells that were growing inside your country. You took no action. You let the disease spread and the result is the horrific attacks on Jews we saw today.” Thus spake the criminal who is guilty of the murder of more than 70,000 Palestinians in Gaza, the majority women and children. International journalists aiming to clarify the numbers are blocked by Israel from entering Gaza.

But as a member pointed out above. the ICJ has been involved - twice! Once in 1962 and again in 2013. It has clearly stated that the temple and its immediate vicinity belongs to Cambodia and has instructed Thailand to withdraw troops. The ruling was based on maps drawn up by the French and approved by Thailand in 1904. That Thailand has not followed the ICJ ruling for more than 60 years has clearly had almost zero effect on other ICJ members! https://www.icj-cij.org/case/45

The writing is contained in a part of the Board which I think many members unwittingly never read. It is contained in the "Guidelines" section which you can see along the top. One section is headed "Covenant". In there you see the words - "Personal information that can be used to identify a member, a user, or a go-go boy or bar boy, whether or not a Gay Thailand member, shall not be permitted. No member shall publish or cause to be published such personal information." Thus, strictly adhering to that wording, identifying individuals who work in bars by a number or a description can - at least in theory - result in being banned from posting for a period of time. As I stated in my earlier post, I believe these Guidelines were written at least a couple of decades ago. In other words, almost certainly before the age of personal phones and social media. It might be a good idea if they were rewritten and updated - but that has to be an issue for the Board owner. I was not in fact referring to the Escort Review section which is hidden from public view as there are rarely any posts made in that forum. My remarks were a result of quite a number of members in many more general posts understandably wishing to know the name/number of a masseur, gogo boy or contact from social media who has given either particularly good or particularly bad service. Responses often give some information which might - I stress only "might" - go against the Covenant. Perhaps some of us can write to the Board owner to suggest the Covenant is changed and brought up to date. PS: Apolgies to @spoon - I edited the penultimate paragraph about the Escort section being open only to members after his post was made.

We have all become too used to gun massacres in the United States. Indeed there was one on Rhode Island just two days ago. In the Sydney attack, more than one shooter was involved. It also took place near to where a bunch of Australians were celebrating theJewish holiday of Hanukah. Initial reports indicate ten have been killed including one of the gunmen and 18 are in hospital. More are being treated by paramedics at the scene. It is likely that more would have been killed had not one individual tackled a gunman. The attached Guardian article has two videos: of two of the gunmen and the hero tackling one. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2025/dec/14/nsw-police-responding-to-reports-of-shooting-at-sydneys-bondi-beach-follow-latest

I really do believe that is a load of nonsense. The dispute has been going on since the 1950s and never expanded outside the two countries. Neither country has been particularly affected in that time - apart from occasional flare-ups of violence and sadly some casualties - and so nothing is likely to change in terms of other countries in future. This is nothing like the 1969 border dispute between China and the Soviet Union in 1969 which seriously threatened to go nuclear.

I would like to agree, but do not. If a Board that is completely open for all to see (with the exception of one or more types of thread), young children could open it. If that child then sees a post with a naked man with an erection, that - at least a far as I can see - could lead to some sort of activity by the authorities against the Board if a parent decided to report it. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope so.

Well, Infantino's arse-licking of Trump is paying off. Four days ago Federal prosecutors moved to drop charges against certain FIFA officials for corruption. It would end years of investigation! https://www.cbsnews.com/news/doj-moves-drop-charges-hernan-lopez-fox-full-play-group-soccer-corruption-case/

There is clearly some confusion between what some members believe should be possible and what is stated in the Board Covenant - basically its rules. These state - Personal information that can be used to identify a member, a user, or a go-go boy or bar boy, whether or not a Gay Thailand member, shall not be permitted. No member shall publish or cause to be published such personal information. A violation of the Covenant shall be cause for immediate termination of Forum privileges. SInce the Covenant also includes a prohibition about nudity in threads which can also result in banning for at least a period and this is frequently not observed, my view is that the Covenant was probably written at least a couple of decades ago and really needs to be updated. I would urge the Aministrator to review and update it.

There is no similarity. The Russian-Ukrainians who brought down MH17 were using high range surface-to-air missiles. No such missles are used in the Thai-Cambodian conflict. MH17 was at 33,000 ft when the missile reached it and exploded beside it. Cambodia does indeed have missiles that can reach that height but they require ground equipment in place to fire them. No such equipment exists nor do they have the need to use them in what is an ultra low level Thai border regional conflict. Further, checks on Flight Radar make it clear no aircraft flies anywhere near that border dispute region. The Russian-Ukrainians had imported the delivery system from Russia the day of the crash and returned it immediately after the crash. Those who fired the missile also believed they were shooting down a Ukrainian Air Force transport plane. ICAO in April had already issued a warning to commercial carriers about flying over south-eastern Ukraine. Minutes after the accident, Ukraine closed all its air space to commercial carriers.

Very true. But you surely cannot seriously believe that any airline - or even privately owned plane - would ever consider a take-off or landing near a conflict zone? Cabin briefing: "Ladies and Gentlemen, now that you know about seat belts and emergency exits, let me just remind you that you may see the occasional rocket passing by the windows. No need to worry. This aircraft is fully insured!" FYI the nearest functional airport is Ubon Ratchanthani - 100 kms away. No aircraft is going to approach or depart from that airport anywhere near the disputed border area. On the Camobdian side there is one airport relatively close but it does not have a commercial licence.

Dear @vinapu, you have an overactive imagination. Do you seriously expect any airline to fly anywhere near to that skirmish? And do you seriously believe either party has the rocket power to down a plane - as happened with the MH flight over the Ukraine? And do you further believe that even if one of their nationals is killed, that will mobilise that country to join this little skirmish between two relatively insignificant countries? Not in the slightest, is my view.

The web has many indices. Factual figures illustrate that over the 60 years from 1965 and today £100 then is now the equivalent of £2,474.45. That accounts for average inflation at 5.34% per annum. Considering that actual inflation in 1975 was 25% and the average actual total for the 1970s more than 13% per annum, my earlier figures were an underestimate. We are too used to the low inflation following the 2008 financial crisis and it tends to skew our perception. £1 in 1965 is worth just over 4 pence today. My starting salary was £19.90 per week. The equivalent now would be roughly £500 per week - and that's pretty much about average in my line of work. https://www.in2013dollars.com/uk/inflation/1965?amount=100

Nice idea, but I regret my view is it will never happen. Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, other ASEAN countries and bigger players like China, Japan and South Korea have not the slightest interest in stopping what is a minute border skirmish between two nations who have had decades to sort it out themselves. All these nations have far more to concern themselves with.

It has been so for decades since the days of its President Joao Havelange in the mid-1970s. From being a worldwide event to be celebrated by the ordinary man in the street who loved the game, the arrival of money - vast sums of it - corrupted both FIFA and the World Cup. He resigned as President in 1998. A Swiss Prosecutor's Report (the HQ of FIFA is based in Switzerland) found that during his time at FIFA Hevelange and his son-in-law had syphoned off 41 million Swiss francs in bribes related to the awarding of World Cup marketing rights. By Havelange's time, big sporting corporations and others appealing to a mass market had realised the marketing potential of the World Cup. It then became a monster fund raising outfit where it had to turn down more sponsors that it could ultimately be seen to accept. That money and the profits from the World Cups were supposed to go to the development of soccer around the world. Some did, but a lot went to individual's pockets. Sepp Blatter was elected President after Havelange but only because he had courted the African and Asian delegates on the Executive Committee, non-entities as far as the European and South American delegates were concerned. He promised more exposure for their Federations. And at least he fulfilled that promise. The 2002 World Cup went to Asia for the first time with matches in Japan and Korea. He steered it to South Africa, again the first time on that continent, in 2010. By then, though, power and cash had long gone to his head. When he was twice re-elected, it was all but known he had bought off the opposition. One had been Michel Platini, a distinguished and highlly respected former footballer who headed UEFA. It was widely assumed he would win. Then he withdrew his candidacy. Later it was discovered Blatter had paid him US$1 million - "for services rendered"! Both claimed it was for genuine advice. Then tor the first time ever in 2010 he announced the next two World Cups at the same time. 2018 would go to Russia and 2022 to Qatar. The soccer world was aghast. Less about Russia and far more about Qatar. Qatar was not a footballing nation. It had hardly any stadia (and about 8 are required for World Cups). Worse, the World Cup had always been held in the west's summer months when most western countries have a long break. The heat in Qatar would, according to Blatter and the Qatari authorities, be minimised by special cooliing systems spraying water on to the fans. It was of course nonsense, and the dates ultimately had to be moved to November. Qatar ended up having import immigrant labour to build eight special stadia. The country promised they would be fully utilised after the Cup. Another broken promise. Most remain unused, just sitting gathering desert dust and are effectively white elephants. But Blatter's corruption really came to the fore with a company named ISL. Since around 1990 FIFA had engaged ISL to manage its highly lucrative corporate sponsorship deals and the sale of worldwide TV rights. Inevitably it is a long murky story, the essence of which is that ISL was managed by none other then Blatter's nephew. Worse, he had little marketing knowledge. In 2001 ISL filed for bankruptcy. A later Swiss investigation found that ISL had paid out hundreds of millions of Euros in bribes and was left with €150 million in debt. FIFA then took it over and put - surprise, surprise - Sepp Blater in charge. It doesn't end there! At the end of May 2015, seven FIFA officials were arrested outside a hotel in Zurich and US authorities charged a further 39 football officials with bribery. Swiss officials also stated they had opened investigations into the award of the World Cups to Russia and Qatar. The Swiss Attorney General's Office stated executives were being questioned on suspicion of "criminal mismanagement" and money laundering. FIFA's North American regional body known as CONCACAF was discovered not to have paid taxes for several years. Its former Sevrtary General Chuck Blazer was then found to be an FBI informant who had worn a wire in discussions with other Executive Committee members. FIFA then was a den of thieves. Under Infantino, it seems to be as bad, if not worse. https://yle.fi/a/3-8540226

And that is never going to happen. A tiny border skirmish that has been going on since the 1950s? I can just see the reaction of Iceland's people after its PM declares, "We have to get involved to stop this"!

I was too hasty. Fighting has once again restarted.

One of the expensive seated tickets for the 1966 World Cup Final in England (where stadia also had much cheaper standing areas) cost of all £3.15. In tody's money that is probably around £500-£600. In those days the highest weekly wage for a soccer player in England was typically £100. Today Erling Haaland who plays for Manchester City earns £525,000 per week.

I was merely making a simple point. No need to blow it up into something which it is not.

Trump is now claiming that he has got both sides once again to suspend hostilities. Maybe for two weeks, I guess. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd0kkyx3vvxo