Jump to content

Three CNN employees have been fired for returning to work, as they were not vaccinated against Covid-19


Andrew Reeve
 Share

Recommended Posts

1248372627_Thaigernews.jpg.dd4979ee4539b832c3264e6c7876b1fd.jpg

In a business memo, the CEO of CNN has stated that there is a "zero tolerance policy" for staff returning to work without having been inoculated with a Covid-19 vaccine.

CNN has fired three employees who came to work without being vaccinated against Covid-19, as per the company policy.

In a memo sent Thursday, the media company's president, Jeff Zucker, informed employees of the termination and reminded them that immunizations were required whether they reported to the office or worked in the field with other employees.

“Let me be clear – we have a zero tolerance policy on this,” wrote Zucker, WarnerMedia's chairman of news and sports.

 

The Associated Press got the document after CNN media reporter Oliver Darcy initially tweeted its contents. CNN did not provide any information about the layoffs or where the employees were stationed.

The majority of CNN's offices are already open on a volunteer basis, and Zucker claims that more than a third of the news workforce has returned. According to him, proof of vaccination has been left to the honor system, but that could alter in the coming weeks.

 

When people aren't eating, drinking, or in an enclosed private place, CNN's chief executive said masks will be required in Atlanta, Washington, and Los Angeles headquarters. Even in offices where wearing a mask is not required, he advises people to do what they feel comfortable with "without fear of punishment or condemnation from coworkers."

The CNN letter also stated that a scheduled company-wide return to work on September 7th will be postponed until at least early to mid-October. Because of the increase in Covid cases, other media businesses have made similar decisions; the Associated Press informed employees on Thursday that a return date of September 13 had been postponed.

Source:  The Guardian

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just the beginning. Corporate liability concerns will drive vaccine passports and mandates. Democratic governments can't because, "mah libertah". But, "Oh, you aren't vaccinated? I'm afraid you'll have to work, shop, dine elsewhere. Have a nice day.", that's perfectly permissible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can jack off in front of co-workers,

You can help coverup your brothers criminal sexual harassment and nursing home deaths,

You can lie on air,

And you won’t get fired! Refuse a vaccine you gone. That’s the standard

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, 9S_ said:

You can jack off in front of co-workers,

You can help coverup your brothers criminal sexual harassment and nursing home deaths,

You can lie on air,

And you won’t get fired! Refuse a vaccine you gone. That’s the standard

"I see trees of green
Red roses too
I see them bloom
For me and you
And I think to myself
What a wonderful world"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got vaccinated to be able to travel.  I took the risk, albeit small.  It does annoy me that others refuse to vaccinate.  Some countries are reluctant to issue "Covid passports".  I don't feel it discriminates  against people who refuse the vaccine.  I just don't want to be anywhere near them.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, 9S_ said:

You can jack off in front of co-workers,

You can help coverup your brothers criminal sexual harassment and nursing home deaths,

You can lie on air,

And you won’t get fired! Refuse a vaccine you gone. That’s the standard

Welcome to the Brave New World.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bushav8r said:

I got vaccinated to be able to travel.  I took the risk, albeit small.  It does annoy me that others refuse to vaccinate.  Some countries are reluctant to issue "Covid passports".  I don't feel it discriminates  against people who refuse the vaccine.  I just don't want to be anywhere near them.

Your risk may be small depending upon the vaccine you took.  I do hope you know, that taking any of the vaccines, does not guarantee that you will not only contract the virus, but also shed the virus to vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.  

You should look up the definition of a leaky vaccine or non-sterile vaccine.  That is what you took.  You may feel free to stay away from anyone you want, but you or government have no right to dictate what DRUG/POISON anyone puts in their body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, OneAngryJew said:

You may feel free to stay away from anyone you want, but you or government have no right to dictate what DRUG/POISON anyone puts in their body.

Actually, they do. (The gov't that is.)

Think about it. Who gives you your "rights" ? (Hint - it's not "god".)

Your government determines what "rights" you have (or don't) and usually, when you read the fine print, you'll find they can modify or even cancel those rights under certain circumstances.

For example. People in Canada were whining that having to wear a mask and things like "social distancing" were a violation of their Charter rights.

Everyone jumps up and quotes paragraph 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms where it outlines the "freedom of speech", "freedom of religion", "freedom of peaceful assembly" (etc, etc) while (conveniently) ignoring paragraph 1, which has a single sentence. Especially the end of that sentence which states:
"...subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

In other words, the organization that gives you your rights has the ability to decide not only what those "rights" are but can change them or even take them away if they want (especially if they can justify such action).

And examples of that happen around the world all the time, especially when democratic governments get overthrown (by socialists or fundamentalists or in a military coup for example) and people suddenly find their "rights" have been suspended or outright cancelled.

Some people also like to "make up" rights and then pretend that they are written in stone and no one can stop them from doing (whatever).

Like - "oh I have the "right" to walk up to you and blow a cloud of marijuana smoke in your face and there's nothing you can do about it because smoking pot is legal now".

Or "I have the right to ignore traffic laws and regulations if they are inconvenient to me". I have the "right" to not pay taxes if I don't feel like it. I have the "right" to lie about someone to get them into trouble. I have the "right" to park my truck where it blocks your driveway. (And so on.)

Those people often find out that the "rights" they give themselves mean absolutely squat when they face the gov't that actually decides what they can and can't do.

One thing people often forget about as well. You having a "right" does not mean you can infringe on the rights of others.
Example. You may have the right (or "freedom") to chose whatever religion you want. That does not give you the right/freedom to force that choice onto me (or my children).

Just like you may have the right to vote for whomever you want. That doesn't give you the right to tell me who I can, or can't, vote for.

Just like, when there's an infectious virus spreading around the country, you do not have the "right" to put other people at danger or infect them because you don't think you should have to wear a mask or practise social distancing or get vaccinated.

Kind of like how some countries have laws that state if you are HIV positive (for example) you have to inform your partner - before having sex (protected or otherwise).

Been a lot of stories over the years of (usually) men being arrested for having sex with (usually) women without telling them they had HIV.
Some gov'ts made that a crime.

Which means, in those countries at least, you do not have the "right" to knowingly spread an infectious disease, especially to unsuspecting people.

Kind of like people who may know they are "covid-19 positive" and go to work (or elsewhere) and spread the virus around (because they think they have a "right" to do so).

And you can bet there haven't been many court cases about such matters because they (lawyers/prosecutors/etc) know that when it comes down to the brass tacks, the "greater good" is going to outweigh the "individual" every time.

I seriously doubt any court would decide that 2-3 individuals have the "right" to put the health and safety of hundreds (thousands) of other people at risk by deciding they should be allowed to go to work without being vaccinated.

Even look around here. The gov't has decided that you will wear masks in public for example. You don't have a "right" to not wear a mask in those places, which you will find out if (when) you are arrested and charged and fined.

Right now, you have the "right" to drink alcohol - at home. If you decide you have the "right" to sit down in front of the nearest 7-11 and start drinking, you are likely to find that your "right" to do so exists only in your head.

"Rights" are a tricky thing. Too many people assume they literally have the right to do whatever they want because they live in a "free" society, without having a clue what that really means.

Nothing is ever really "free". Just like "free speech" isn't really "free". 

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kerryd said:

Actually, they do. (The gov't that is.)

Think about it. Who gives you your "rights" ? (Hint - it's not "god".)

Your government determines what "rights" you have (or don't) and usually, when you read the fine print, you'll find they can modify or even cancel those rights under certain circumstances.

For example. People in Canada were whining that having to wear a mask and things like "social distancing" were a violation of their Charter rights.

Everyone jumps up and quotes paragraph 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms where it outlines the "freedom of speech", "freedom of religion", "freedom of peaceful assembly" (etc, etc) while (conveniently) ignoring paragraph 1, which has a single sentence. Especially the end of that sentence which states:
"...subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

In other words, the organization that gives you your rights has the ability to decide not only what those "rights" are but can change them or even take them away if they want (especially if they can justify such action).

And examples of that happen around the world all the time, especially when democratic governments get overthrown (by socialists or fundamentalists or in a military coup for example) and people suddenly find their "rights" have been suspended or outright cancelled.

Some people also like to "make up" rights and then pretend that they are written in stone and no one can stop them from doing (whatever).

Like - "oh I have the "right" to walk up to you and blow a cloud of marijuana smoke in your face and there's nothing you can do about it because smoking pot is legal now".

Or "I have the right to ignore traffic laws and regulations if they are inconvenient to me". I have the "right" to not pay taxes if I don't feel like it. I have the "right" to lie about someone to get them into trouble. I have the "right" to park my truck where it blocks your driveway. (And so on.)

Those people often find out that the "rights" they give themselves mean absolutely squat when they face the gov't that actually decides what they can and can't do.

One thing people often forget about as well. You having a "right" does not mean you can infringe on the rights of others.
Example. You may have the right (or "freedom") to chose whatever religion you want. That does not give you the right/freedom to force that choice onto me (or my children).

Just like you may have the right to vote for whomever you want. That doesn't give you the right to tell me who I can, or can't, vote for.

Just like, when there's an infectious virus spreading around the country, you do not have the "right" to put other people at danger or infect them because you don't think you should have to wear a mask or practise social distancing or get vaccinated.

Kind of like how some countries have laws that state if you are HIV positive (for example) you have to inform your partner - before having sex (protected or otherwise).

Been a lot of stories over the years of (usually) men being arrested for having sex with (usually) women without telling them they had HIV.
Some gov'ts made that a crime.

Which means, in those countries at least, you do not have the "right" to knowingly spread an infectious disease, especially to unsuspecting people.

Kind of like people who may know they are "covid-19 positive" and go to work (or elsewhere) and spread the virus around (because they think they have a "right" to do so).

And you can bet there haven't been many court cases about such matters because they (lawyers/prosecutors/etc) know that when it comes down to the brass tacks, the "greater good" is going to outweigh the "individual" every time.

I seriously doubt any court would decide that 2-3 individuals have the "right" to put the health and safety of hundreds (thousands) of other people at risk by deciding they should be allowed to go to work without being vaccinated.

Even look around here. The gov't has decided that you will wear masks in public for example. You don't have a "right" to not wear a mask in those places, which you will find out if (when) you are arrested and charged and fined.

Right now, you have the "right" to drink alcohol - at home. If you decide you have the "right" to sit down in front of the nearest 7-11 and start drinking, you are likely to find that your "right" to do so exists only in your head.

"Rights" are a tricky thing. Too many people assume they literally have the right to do whatever they want because they live in a "free" society, without having a clue what that really means.

Nothing is ever really "free". Just like "free speech" isn't really "free". 

 

Which government are you using as your example?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kerryd said:

Actually, they do. (The gov't that is.)

Think about it. Who gives you your "rights" ? (Hint - it's not "god".)
 

You are 100 percent wrong. Well, it depends on the government.  In the USA most people are under the impression that government gives you rights.  Untrue.

Should you wish to challenge my statement, that would make an interesting discussion.  Do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm "100% wrong" - except when I'm right ? Lol.

I'm curious as to who you think actually gives "rights" to American citizens if you think it's not the government.

(Keeping in mind of course that the US Constitution and the subsequent Bill of Rights were drafted by men representing the government.)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, kerryd said:

So I'm "100% wrong" - except when I'm right ? Lol.

I'm curious as to who you think actually gives "rights" to American citizens if you think it's not the government.

(Keeping in mind of course that the US Constitution and the subsequent Bill of Rights were drafted by men representing the government.)

In the USA you are 100 percent wrong.  I'm not sure about England, but that pesky Magna Carta comes to mind.  You still haven't specified.  Just like vaccines, you can't make blanket statements about all governments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, OneAngryJew said:

You are 100 percent wrong. Well, it depends on the government.  In the USA most people are under the impression that government gives you rights.  Untrue.

Should you wish to challenge my statement, that would make an interesting discussion.  Do you?

Government doesn't GIVE rights, they choose how to restrict us and our rights.

Government (the word) derives from latin and means "mind control"

Edited by Ubon2530
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOl - and "who" made the Magna Carta ?

("Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin for "Great Charter of Freedoms"), commonly called Magna Carta (also Magna Charta; "Great Charter"),[a] is a royal charter[4][5] of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215.)

(Which would have been the "government" of the time. Yes, a "monarchy" is considered to be a form of government.)

And you never said "who" gives people their "rights" in the USA.

And my statements apply to all governments anyways. It doesn't matter if they are democratic, communist, theocratic or some kind of dictatorship - they decide what rights their citizens will or won't have.

And if those citizens don't like it, they may have the right to protest and speak out against their gov't. Unless of course that gov't decides otherwise.

And on occasion, if other countries decide they don't like how a certain gov't is treating it's own citizens and abusing their "rights", they may take action.
In other cases, they may just turn a blind eye.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And no, "government" doesn't mean "mind control".

Here's an explanation:
"The English word gets to us by a 3-step translation from Greek to Latin to French. The Greek original is κυβερνάω, “”kybernαο,” which was then Latinized as gubernο and passed from Latin into French as governer."

Note that in old French "mente" meant "mind" but they never used "governmente".

In English, they used the old Latin "mentum" which means the means or result of an action.
That got shortened to "ment" over time.

So "Government" would mean the "means or result of being governed".

One can also look at words like retirement, abandonment, concealment, procurement, compliment. None of which have to do with the "mind" despite all ending in "ment".
 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, kerryd said:

And no, "government" doesn't mean "mind control".

Here's an explanation:
"The English word gets to us by a 3-step translation from Greek to Latin to French. The Greek original is κυβερνάω, “”kybernαο,” which was then Latinized as gubernο and passed from Latin into French as governer."

Yes, you're correct. I probably shouldn't rely on my fading memories from school and just google these things first! Thanks

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, OneAngryJew said:

Your risk may be small depending upon the vaccine you took.  I do hope you know, that taking any of the vaccines, does not guarantee that you will not only contract the virus, but also shed the virus to vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.  

You should look up the definition of a leaky vaccine or non-sterile vaccine.  That is what you took.  You may feel free to stay away from anyone you want, but you or government have no right to dictate what DRUG/POISON anyone puts in their body.

No one dictated anything to me.  I took the vaccine of my own free will. I looked up leaky.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bushav8r said:

No one dictated anything to me.  I took the vaccine of my own free will. I looked up leaky.  

Ditto - same with my wife - and all the people we know here.  I am old enough to remember Polio vaccines.  Thanks goodness this 'freedom of rights' crap was not such an issue back then.  I wonder how they would react if stuck in a village with Ebola rampant and they cannot leave and have only two solutions. Take a vaccine, or wait and see if they are one of the 40% who will die of the infection.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AussieBob said:

Ditto - same with my wife - and all the people we know here.  I am old enough to remember Polio vaccines.  Thanks goodness this 'freedom of rights' crap was not such an issue back then.  I wonder how they would react if stuck in a village with Ebola rampant and they cannot leave and have only two solutions. Take a vaccine, or wait and see if they are one of the 40% who will die of the infection.  

Polio was terrible and thank goodness for those vaccines. A friend of mine has suffered from a deformity of the arm but was one of those kids in the the States who was born in the late fifties to parents who thought that they too would deprive their kids of the vaccine. Bible bashers also and he has always accepted it of course but never accepted the stupidity of his parents . See him once in a while as he has lived in Thailand for years. Whilst every adult has the choice to decide of their own free will, it should be a crime for them to deprive their children of a covid vaccine once one is developed perfectly safe for children of all ages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, gummy said:

Polio was terrible and thank goodness for those vaccines. A friend of mine has suffered from a deformity of the arm but was one of those kids in the the States who was born in the late fifties to parents who thought that they too would deprive their kids of the vaccine. Bible bashers also and he has always accepted it of course but never accepted the stupidity of his parents . See him once in a while as he has lived in Thailand for years. Whilst every adult has the choice to decide of their own free will, it should be a crime for them to deprive their children of a covid vaccine once one is developed perfectly safe for children of all ages.

It was because of those back then who refused to have their children vaccinated, that some Governments and Organisations mandated that if a child was not vaccinated against Polio, then they could not participate in any activities near/with other vaccinated children. That forced a lot of the naysayers to relent and resulted in the eradication of Polio - but some still refused to have their kids vaccinated so they were excluded - unless/until they had caught Polio and recovered. That is what I find most annoying about it - the few that demand their rights not to have it because it will risk themselves, but then also demand their rights to participate in activities and thereby increase the risk to everyone else who has taken the risk and got the vaccine.  If anyone decides they will not take the vaccine, that is their right - as long as they also understand that we who took the risk and got the vaccine, also have rights. Most antivaxxers do accept that - but the nutters want it both ways. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, AussieBob said:

It was because of those back then who refused to have their children vaccinated, that some Governments and Organisations mandated that if a child was not vaccinated against Polio, then they could not participate in any activities near/with other vaccinated children. That forced a lot of the naysayers to relent and resulted in the eradication of Polio - but some still refused to have their kids vaccinated so they were excluded - unless/until they had caught Polio and recovered. That is what I find most annoying about it - the few that demand their rights not to have it because it will risk themselves, but then also demand their rights to participate in activities and thereby increase the risk to everyone else who has taken the risk and got the vaccine.  If anyone decides they will not take the vaccine, that is their right - as long as they also understand that we who took the risk and got the vaccine, also have rights. Most antivaxxers do accept that - but the nutters want it both ways. 

It seems you STILL believe that the covid-vaccinated cannot spread the virus, while it has now been confirmed by the CDC that the infected vaccinated and unvaccinated are equally infectuous.  But with the important difference that in the vaccinated their symptoms are suppressed, and instead of isolating themselves at first sign of symptoms (like the unvaccinated will do), it are actually the infected vaccinated that are becoming unwitting super-spreaders.  Let that sink in...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

It seems you STILL believe that the covid-vaccinated cannot spread the virus, while it has now been confirmed by the CDC that the infected vaccinated and unvaccinated are equally infectuous.  But with the important difference that in the vaccinated their symptoms are suppressed, and instead of isolating themselves at first sign of symptoms (like the unvaccinated will do), it are actually the infected vaccinated that are becoming unwitting super-spreaders.  Let that sink in...

 

Of course vaccinated people can contract Covid - and spread the virus. The whole point of vaccinations is to limit the affects of the virus so life can go on. Whilst viral loads are similar I dispute your inference that the vaccinated and unvaccinated equally spread the virus.

 

 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/breakthrough-covid-infections-show-the-unvaccinated-are-now-putting-the-vaccinated-at-risk

Edited by Chaimai
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, kerryd said:

Actually, they do. (The gov't that is.)

Think about it. Who gives you your "rights" ? (Hint - it's not "god".)

Your government determines what "rights" you have (or don't) and usually, when you read the fine print, you'll find they can modify or even cancel those rights under certain circumstances.

For example. People in Canada were whining that having to wear a mask and things like "social distancing" were a violation of their Charter rights.

Everyone jumps up and quotes paragraph 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms where it outlines the "freedom of speech", "freedom of religion", "freedom of peaceful assembly" (etc, etc) while (conveniently) ignoring paragraph 1, which has a single sentence. Especially the end of that sentence which states:
"...subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

In other words, the organization that gives you your rights has the ability to decide not only what those "rights" are but can change them or even take them away if they want (especially if they can justify such action).

And examples of that happen around the world all the time, especially when democratic governments get overthrown (by socialists or fundamentalists or in a military coup for example) and people suddenly find their "rights" have been suspended or outright cancelled.

Some people also like to "make up" rights and then pretend that they are written in stone and no one can stop them from doing (whatever).

Like - "oh I have the "right" to walk up to you and blow a cloud of marijuana smoke in your face and there's nothing you can do about it because smoking pot is legal now".

Or "I have the right to ignore traffic laws and regulations if they are inconvenient to me". I have the "right" to not pay taxes if I don't feel like it. I have the "right" to lie about someone to get them into trouble. I have the "right" to park my truck where it blocks your driveway. (And so on.)

Those people often find out that the "rights" they give themselves mean absolutely squat when they face the gov't that actually decides what they can and can't do.

One thing people often forget about as well. You having a "right" does not mean you can infringe on the rights of others.
Example. You may have the right (or "freedom") to chose whatever religion you want. That does not give you the right/freedom to force that choice onto me (or my children).

Just like you may have the right to vote for whomever you want. That doesn't give you the right to tell me who I can, or can't, vote for.

Just like, when there's an infectious virus spreading around the country, you do not have the "right" to put other people at danger or infect them because you don't think you should have to wear a mask or practise social distancing or get vaccinated.

Kind of like how some countries have laws that state if you are HIV positive (for example) you have to inform your partner - before having sex (protected or otherwise).

Been a lot of stories over the years of (usually) men being arrested for having sex with (usually) women without telling them they had HIV.
Some gov'ts made that a crime.

Which means, in those countries at least, you do not have the "right" to knowingly spread an infectious disease, especially to unsuspecting people.

Kind of like people who may know they are "covid-19 positive" and go to work (or elsewhere) and spread the virus around (because they think they have a "right" to do so).

And you can bet there haven't been many court cases about such matters because they (lawyers/prosecutors/etc) know that when it comes down to the brass tacks, the "greater good" is going to outweigh the "individual" every time.

I seriously doubt any court would decide that 2-3 individuals have the "right" to put the health and safety of hundreds (thousands) of other people at risk by deciding they should be allowed to go to work without being vaccinated.

Even look around here. The gov't has decided that you will wear masks in public for example. You don't have a "right" to not wear a mask in those places, which you will find out if (when) you are arrested and charged and fined.

Right now, you have the "right" to drink alcohol - at home. If you decide you have the "right" to sit down in front of the nearest 7-11 and start drinking, you are likely to find that your "right" to do so exists only in your head.

"Rights" are a tricky thing. Too many people assume they literally have the right to do whatever they want because they live in a "free" society, without having a clue what that really means.

Nothing is ever really "free". Just like "free speech" isn't really "free". 

 

Thai friends have said as much in far simpler terms.  You are free to do anything you want as long as it doesn't adversely affect anyone else. Seems  a good way to live ones life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Chaimai said:

Of course vaccinated people can contract Covid - and spread the virus. The whole point of vaccinations is to limit the affects of the virus so life can go on. Whilst viral loads are similar I dispute your inference that the vaccinated and unvaccinated equally spread the virus.

 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/breakthrough-covid-infections-show-the-unvaccinated-are-now-putting-the-vaccinated-at-risk

You confirm that viral loads are similar, so please explain why infectuousness would then be different between vaccinated and unvaccinated people that are infected. 

Note that the risk of spreading by an infected vaccinated person is now higher, since the vaccine suppresses their symptoms making them unwitting super-spreaders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Join Thaiger Talk Today!

    Sign up in 30 seconds and join the discussion on everything Thailand!

  • Latest Posts

    1. 4

      News Forum - Thailand’s Tourism Authority reminds visitors of current anti-smoking laws

    2. 25

      News Forum - Thai police admit extorting money from Taiwanese actress

    3. 0

      News Forum - Haze Pollution Forces School Closures in Bangkok

    4. 25

      News Forum - Thai police admit extorting money from Taiwanese actress

    5. 2

      News Forum - Police bust Belarusian man in Phuket for allegedly stealing cash and crypto from Russians

  • New Topics

  • Tell a friend

    Love Thaiger Talk? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By posting on Thaiger Talk you agree to the Terms of Use