Blacked-out danger
Re: "Show your face", (PostBag, Aug 1) & "New road safety shock", (Editorial, June 26).
I am right onside with Diane Archer -- blacked-out windows in cars are only allowed in the rear windows in cars in the UK. In Thailand, having them in the front windows and windscreen is potentially dangerous and unhelpful for creating a courteous, helpful and safer driving experience.
I often wave someone through and have confidence it will have helped since he/she would have seen my gesture. I almost never see any response from the other driver due to their blacked-out windows. Why do the authorities allow this? For what reason? Low-level tinting is fine for glare reduction ... the common extreme of tinting/blacking out is not, and potentially dangerous for road users and police.
Jeremy Newton
Tide is turning
Re: "Column runs wild", (PostBag, Aug 12) & "From ape clans to nations, the battle goes on", (Opinion, Aug 8).
I agree with Frank Scimone's letter published Aug 12, the woke individual Gwynne Dyer is a liberal bore who should be penning his drivel in the likes of other left-wing, liberal woke newspapers.
The world is changing. The indigenous Europeans have had enough. Trouble is, once the Aussies pushed back and then Trump stemmed the tide into America, the only other viable option for all the masses left floundering in their hellhole was Europe. Finally, some northern European countries have belatedly rediscovered their cajones.
Ian Dann
Facing facts
Re: "After firing, faith in US data in doubt", (World, Aug 6).
The quote from Groucho Marx, "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others," could be updated to a potential Trump quote, "If you don't like my statistician's results, I can fire them and get others". He hasn't actually said that, but it might be his thinking. Facts are facts. You can't improve them by getting someone else to announce them, or at least not in a sane world.
Dennis Fitzgerald
Who benefits?
Re: "'Old guard' weighs idea of outsider PM", (Opinion, Aug 9).
In his musings on the old guard and justice under democracy, Chairith Yonpiam raises the possibility that they might actually be considering Prayut Chan-o-cha to take the position of prime minister should the daughter of Thaksin Shinawatra, himself conveniently returned, be found unfit ethically by the Constitutional Court to rule the country after she made an injudicious phone call to Cambodian strongman Hun Sen. Lest we forget, her predecessor Srettha Thavisin was deemed ethically bad because he had appointed someone who had previously served a prison term, for a felony linked with court official bribery.
It is bizarre that anyone could even entertain the possibility of someone who has certainly committed a coup against the people's sovereignty being allowed to serve as prime minister. There appears to be something seriously unethical written into Thai law. Is it ethically fine for one former minister under Gen Prayut to have served a prison term in a foreign land for drug dealing?
The obvious question is: Who does the intrinsic bad ethics benefit? I would hazard a guess that it benefits first, foremost, and solely that sufficiently self-serving old guard Chairith speaks of, whose guiding principle seems to be to follow the supreme example, set over many decades, of piling up the greatest possible sufficiency of seriously extreme wealth.
Felix Qui
