PeterRS

So now Russia has gone even further in its actions against the LGBT community. On Thursday a landmark ruling by the country's Supreme Court declared what it terms "the international LGBTQ movement" an extremist movement and banned all its activities in the country.
The landmark ruling on Thursday is set to further erode the rights of Russia’s LGBTQ community, who have faced an intensifying crackdown in recent years, as President Vladimir Putin seeks to shore up his image as defender of traditional moral values against the liberal West . . .
Under Russian legislation, an organisation designated as extremist faces immediate dissolution, and its leaders face charges of up to 10 years in prison, according to the UN Human Rights Chief . . .
In recent years, the Kremlin has introduced or expanded on a raft of anti-LGBTQ laws, a conservative shift that has intensified following the invasion of Ukraine. Presidential elections are due next year, with Putin widely expected to extend his rule.
In July this year, Russia passed a law banning doctors from conducting gender reassignment surgeries, except in cases related to treating congenital physiological anomalies, in children.
In December 2022, Putin signed into law a bill that expanded a ban on so-called LGBTQ “propaganda” in Russia, making it illegal for anyone to promote same-sex relationships or suggest that non-heterosexual orientations are “normal.”
The package of amendments signed by Putin included heavier penalties for anyone promoting “non-traditional sexual relations and/or preferences,” as well as gender transition.
The new law was an extension of legislation introduced in 2013, which banned the dissemination of LGBTQ-related information to minors.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/30/europe/russian-supreme-court-outlaws-the-lgbtq-community-as-extremist/index.html
 
 

The Bangkok go-go bars in the 80s and 90s were certainly very different. On the other hand, the basic premise was always the same. Get the customer to buy drinks at inflated prices and then pay off fees to get as much cash from that as possible.
 I think I'm known on the forum as more skeptical than some as far as the future is concerned. Yes, more and more younger guys will be available to go to the bars in the future. The question for me is more how long will the government continue to tolerate them and permit them to operate. The elite and the army loathe the fact that Bangkok especially has the reputation as the sex capital of Asia. We saw the first major attempts to clamp down on the sex trade in the early 2000s with Thaksin's social order campaigns. SInce then the apps have been doing a good job at weaning some sex tourists away from the bars.
So far, they have survived, although now very few Thai boys work in them - very unlike the 1980s and 90s. But we know the government can, if it wishes, make employment of boys from neighbouring countries even more difficult at the stroke of a pen! We know this is a socially conservative country. I suspect that those many millions who voted for Pita Limjaroenrat's party are like the elite in wishing to see the end of the "sex capital" description. But that is a very personal view.
So generally my view is simple. The government will in future do what it can to drive sex bars off the streets. We have already seen what has happened in Chiang Mai which as a gay destination with gay venues is all but dead, whereas 20 years ago it had a large, thriving and fun gay scene. That may well result in just pushing the businesses underground and out of sight - rather like that which we know already exists for Thais and about which expats and tourists know nothing. Hopefully I am wrong.

Let's not forget it's not only Trump. Politics in the UK has become a cess pit of lying, factions, mismanagement and backstabbing! France is fractionally less so . . . and so on. The idea of public service clearly went out of the window many decades ago. Now it's what's best for me, me, me and my family and friends. Greed has become the currency of politics in many countries.
My own belief is that there are five factors which have led to this situation. One is the extremely limited and often dreadful experience of many who aspire to high office. If Boards of Directors require that the CEOs of major corporations have extensive experience in the companies they will lead, we the public, as the Board of Directors of a country, seem perfectly happy to elect parties with hugely inexperienced leaders that recently in many cases have become jokes. Due diligence in considering those wishing to become parliamentary candidates hardly exists. The electorate increasingly votes for parties and not for individuals who are supposed to represent them.
Secondly, the politics of countries which have just two principal parties liable to gain power - like the USA and the UK - works to the massive advantage of the above. Our politics now is basically reduced to "I'm right" - "No, you're not, you're a lying bastard! I'm right" 
Thirdly, in the USA and UK millions of electors do not even bother to exercise their right to vote. When they do, they are not voting for the most popular choice. They vote for first past the post individuals and parties. Consequently, in the UK at least, the party with the most votes will not always be the party in power. In the 1951 election, the Labour partly won more votes than it had ever gained before. Yet the constituency system meant the Conservative party became the new ruling party. The same 'wrong' party won in 1974. In New Zealand, the elections of 1978 and 1981 returned the party with less total votes.
The first past the post congressional and parliamentary system does not work in favour of electors. Proportional representation is the only fair way of conducting elections, even though the mechanics of organising this may be extremely difficult. But that is no reason for not implenting it.
Finally, something has to be done to persuade more individuals to exercise their right to vote. After all, milions across the world died in movements to ensure all citizens in future have the right to vote. Some countries have introduced compulsory voting - Australia, Austria, Uruguay, Belgium and several others including Thailand mandate this. One argument against compulsory voting seems to be that it impacts on an individual's freedoms. What a load of  nonsense! Freedom comes with responsibility, and is there anything more irresponsible than in deliberately not voting for the individuals who will run your country?

Let's not forget it's not only Trump. Politics in the UK has become a cess pit of lying, factions, mismanagement and backstabbing! France is fractionally less so . . . and so on. The idea of public service clearly went out of the window many decades ago. Now it's what's best for me, me, me and my family and friends. Greed has become the currency of politics in many countries.
My own belief is that there are five factors which have led to this situation. One is the extremely limited and often dreadful experience of many who aspire to high office. If Boards of Directors require that the CEOs of major corporations have extensive experience in the companies they will lead, we the public, as the Board of Directors of a country, seem perfectly happy to elect parties with hugely inexperienced leaders that recently in many cases have become jokes. Due diligence in considering those wishing to become parliamentary candidates hardly exists. The electorate increasingly votes for parties and not for individuals who are supposed to represent them.
Secondly, the politics of countries which have just two principal parties liable to gain power - like the USA and the UK - works to the massive advantage of the above. Our politics now is basically reduced to "I'm right" - "No, you're not, you're a lying bastard! I'm right" 
Thirdly, in the USA and UK millions of electors do not even bother to exercise their right to vote. When they do, they are not voting for the most popular choice. They vote for first past the post individuals and parties. Consequently, in the UK at least, the party with the most votes will not always be the party in power. In the 1951 election, the Labour partly won more votes than it had ever gained before. Yet the constituency system meant the Conservative party became the new ruling party. The same 'wrong' party won in 1974. In New Zealand, the elections of 1978 and 1981 returned the party with less total votes.
The first past the post congressional and parliamentary system does not work in favour of electors. Proportional representation is the only fair way of conducting elections, even though the mechanics of organising this may be extremely difficult. But that is no reason for not implenting it.
Finally, something has to be done to persuade more individuals to exercise their right to vote. After all, milions across the world died in movements to ensure all citizens in future have the right to vote. Some countries have introduced compulsory voting - Australia, Austria, Uruguay, Belgium and several others including Thailand mandate this. One argument against compulsory voting seems to be that it impacts on an individual's freedoms. What a load of  nonsense! Freedom comes with responsibility, and is there anything more irresponsible than in deliberately not voting for the individuals who will run your country?

TotallyOz, I m really curious: 
How can one feel safe after being robbed at gun point 3 times? 
I mean, at the very least u must feel that it can happen again. That's the definition of NOT feeling safe; isnt it?
Furthermore, who's to say that on the 4th time the gun won't go on?
I've been to brazil 3 times and to clmbia - 4. I like them, not only for the sex. 
M quite sure that if I was gun robbed once - I wldnt return )-:

I can't speak for the hetero side of Pattaya, but "hazy" is too kind for the gay side. A new bar called Classic has taken over the former Cupidol premises, and stocked itself with about 15 fem twinks. Not a single customer inside. The mamasan could barely speak four sentencces of English. S/he was unable to understand a word of what I said, and to everything I tried to say (as simply as possible), the response was "What number you like?" I was out of there in ten minutes having performed my charitiable act for the month.
Meanwhile at X-Boys, the off fee has gone up to 800 baht. I thought I had misheard the first time, so I asked a second mamasan and sure enough, she typed "800" on her phone to show me (the music was too loud for speech). At least I made a point to find out - not that I had my eye on any of the boys, all too scrawny and tattooed for my taste. The poor guy to my right later had an argument with the manager over the off fee when he was surprised by the amount being added to his tab. He then said sorry to the boy who had put on his streetclothes, and left the bar alone.
You call that "hazy" or "suicidal"?

my thought  exactly , you beat me to it by  1 minute. I wanted to say ' relative novelty value" also , again relative shortage of travel information.

Could not agree more. I did once meet a lovely looking guy in Hong Kong who eventually came back to my apartment. But he had some form of body odour that was permanent. No idea what causes that. He had tried all manner of colognes and consulted doctors but nothing worked. Very sad for him.

Well, I suppose I could just get used to a regular diet of Beluga caviar, Hokkaido scallops, New Zealand lamb, the London Savoy Hotel chef's beef wellington, pavlova, baklava, the best chocolate mousse with a hint of the best cognac, and creme brulee! Roll on winning the lottery! LOL

Well, I suppose I could just get used to a regular diet of Beluga caviar, Hokkaido scallops, New Zealand lamb, the London Savoy Hotel chef's beef wellington, pavlova, baklava, the best chocolate mousse with a hint of the best cognac, and creme brulee! Roll on winning the lottery! LOL

From Pattaya Mail
Myths about Thai expats and those income tax changes starting very soon
By Barry Kenyon
Most expats in Thailand live on income or capital, or both, built up over many years with tax already paid in the country of passport. They are understandably worried by the imminent change in Thai Revenue practice – it is not a new law passed by parliament – which will potentially tax new and assessable foreign-sourced income beginning in January 2024. Pattaya Mail has received more concerned reader feedback about this issue than any other during 2023. With inauguration day fast approaching, here is our summary for the typical expat who does not indulge in major currency speculation, huge profit-taking from overseas businesses nor off-shore bank accounts hiding their cash.
Has the Thai Revenue clarified the position of typical expats? No. It is commonly assumed that the Revenue is mainly interested in rich Thais and foreigners who have manipulated Thai tax rules in the past to avoid payments from overseas. Typical expats with home-country pensions or social security allowances are not part of this agenda, though in theory they could be caught in the crossfire. Talks are continuing between senior accountancy firms, lobby groups and the Revenue about this and other issues. Don’t expect answers any time soon.
Will my international cash transfers to Thailand from January 1 2024 be reduced on arrival by a Bank of Thailand tax levy? No. There will not be any changes from current practice. You pay tax in arrears in Thailand by registering at the Revenue for a tax identification number and paying tax due, if any, in the next fiscal year. There is no PAYE procedure in Thailand. The misunderstanding that Thailand will tax international transfers as the cash arrives is a widespread misconception
hould I apply for a tax identification number? Not unless you receive an instruction from a government source or the immigration, both very unlikely scenarios. It is almost certain that, at any rate in the early years, tax registration will be voluntary. If you believe you have been taxed already on your cash sent to Thailand, it’s best to do nothing now. There is no need to employ the services of tax accountants if you are a typical expat (unless working here on a work permit which is a separate subject). The tax situation as regards cash sent to Thailand to purchase property is a separate source of ambiguity.
Most countries with expats here have a double taxation treaty with Thailand, so is that relevant? That depends on the exact wording of complex documents which differ substantially one from another. Double taxation treaties are designed to be used only in cases where Thailand and the first country cannot agree on who has the right to tax. If Thai Revenue were to clarify unambiguously that previously taxed income would not be retaxed, the issue would largely die.
If I need to later, how will I prove that my cash transfers to Thailand have already been taxed? This will vary on an individual basis. An expat’s tax return or the response by the internal revenue service of the first country might suffice, or a simple statement on a tax form might be acceptable. Few experts, if any, believe that the Thai Revenue has the staffing or the expertise to deal with more than 300,000 expats who are tax residents because they spend more than 180 days here in a fiscal year. It bears repeating that the registration process will likely be voluntary. The Thai government is looking for the big fish, Thai or foreign, and not the small fry.
What is the Thai government really up to? The new post-coup government simply wants to raise cash, in part to help pay for its populist policies such as the 10,000 baht give away scheme. One can assume that nobody in authority has yet thought seriously about the effects of the change on the expat market here and the potential unpopularity amongst long-term visa holders including one year retirement extensions, Elite and the 10 year Long Term Residence. If you are an expat living in Thailand for at least half the year, without any major financial secrets to keep from Thai Revenue, then it’s best to do nothing until the situation is clearer. That’ll take several months yet. But no point in packing your bags in disgust and leaving for Cambodia. They are a CRS country too.

And that's fair, but you're presenting this to everyone else like they can just go on a cruise and pick up the first cute waiter or cabin steward that catches their eye.

I think CNN summed up his life and work succinctly this morning. To many he was revered; to many others he was reviled.But we should not, I suggest, consider his legacy without recalling that his German Jewish family fled to the USA in 1938 after suffering many humiliations at the hands of the Nazis. Nor that he was very much a product of the Cold War during which he was determined to protect American interests. I have read much about his career, mostly those parts which are more reviled today. 
Of his achievements, there is the ending of the Vietnam War for which he shared the Nobel Peace Prize (although this rather hides his many actions in the pursuit of that war), the major change in policy towards Mao's China, his many attempts to find a solution to the crises in the Middle East, and a gradual detente with the Soviet Union. 
On the negative side of the balance, I suppose the illegal invasion of Cambodia which resulted in the rise of the Khmer Rouge with the estimated murder of between 1.5 and 2 million Cambodians, and engineering the murder of the elected President and the consequent coup in Chile are the ones that first come to mind. To that and other errors of judgement/deliberate policy decisions we have to add his agreement in advance by promising the USA would not interfere in any way when Pakistan invaded East Pakistan, a war that resulted in savage butchery and the consequent genocide of around 3 million Bengalis. As he said to Nixon when the war ended with the establishment of the state of Bangladesh, "Congratulations, Mr. President. You saved West Pakistan," a reference to a possible invasion by India with assistance from China.
The late Christopher Hitchens was no fan of Kissinger. Indeed, one of his books is titled The Trial of Henry Kissinger. As the San Francisco Chronicle reviewer wrote, "he presents damning documentary evidence against Kissinger in case after case." In a two-article piece for The Guardian written in 2001 before some of the documents about Kissinger and the Presidents he worked under were declassified, there is this paragraph about the fact that after leaving office he became a fixture on the lists of those who were desperate to have him as one of their dinner guests -
Everybody "knows", after all, that Kissinger inflicted terror and misery and mass death on that country [Cambodia], and great injury to the United States Constitution at the same time. (Everybody also "knows" that other vulnerable nations can lay claim to the same melancholy and hateful distinction, with incremental or "collateral" damage to American democracy keeping pace.) Yet the pudgy man standing in black tie at the Vogue party is not, surely, the man who ordered and sanctioned the destruction of civilian populations, the assassination of inconvenient politicians, the kidnapping and disappearance of soldiers and journalists and clerics who got in his way? Oh, but he is. It's exactly the same man. 
Later in the article he adds one sentence about Chile -
Kissinger once observed that he saw no reason why a certain country should be allowed to "go Marxist" merely because "its people are irresponsible".
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/feb/24/pinochet.bookextracts
Another expert who knew him and had been curator of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library said this morning, "Kissinger was a much greater hawk than most realised. His major flaw was that he failed to understand the human consequences of his strategic decisions." I wonder if the world will see his like again, a man with such huge influence on the occupants of the White House.

I don't think it was just a case of following rules, it was more of being caught by the massive number of security cameras around the place. Also one guy told me he valued his job and would never break that particular rule. Different rules or different shopping lilnes perhaps.

Even before becoming a Ramada it was a Holiday Inn! I stayed once and discovered it permitted joiners but there was a cashier at the lifts and if you had not pre-booked a twin room, you were charged for an extra person before you could take your boy du jour up to your room. Oddly no-one seemed to mind in those days.
 

Nor would I, even if I had the cash to afford one of the large apartments on The World. Imagine being stuck with the same restaurants, the same basic daily life, nowhere to walk other than around the ship etc. Great for a week or two; then plain boring.

I feel very much the same! I often thought in part it might be due to getting older and having more time to consider the state of the world. And then I thought about my parents and their generation. Their news was based on daily newspapers, radio news bulletins and later shortish television news bulletins. I remember them discussing a few national issues like the colossal mistake when France and Britain invaded Egypt in a vain attempt to re-take the Suez Canal afer Nasser nationalised it. It helped dethrone a UK Prime Minister and probably eventually a government, but that did not seem to matter so much to them. When relatives and their friends came round, I rarely remember national issues being discussed.
I suspect there are are primarily three reasons for the changes since those days. The advance of television and the influence of television news programmes (and the political views of the owners of the stations) on everyone's thinking is onviously one. I can remember the times when the BBC was trusted as almost saintly in the way it reported actual facts. Interviews with politicians were genteel affairs. And if they ever ruffled politicians' feathers, there was hell to pay.
One of the BBC's finest reporters and foreign correspondents was James Mossman. One evening he basically lost his BBC cool. There was a famous iive interview with Prime Minister Harold Wilson. He verbally attacked Wilson over his government's backing for President Johnson's stance on the Vietnam War when this appeared at odds with Wison's own philosophy. When Wilson, as was his habit waffled, Mossman would not let up. He kept on and on at Wilson in a manner we are more used to today. Wilson stormed out of the studio furious and made his anger known to the Director General the following day. Mossman was quickly relegated to hosting a new programme about the arts. 
Unhappy about his demotion and being away from the action of politics and foreign affairs, Mossman went into a depression. As a gay man he had fallen in love with a younger Canadian boyfriend. But he had died in his early 30s of an accidental overdose. Aged 44 Mossman then took his own life. If anyone is interested, there is a fascinating play about Mossman which was premiered at London's National Theatre 15 years ago. Titled The Reporter it was written by Nicholas Wright.
The second reason surely is the freedoms that people in power now have to assert their own views however outlandish, wacky, even untrue they may be. Television has mushroomed to include channels to cater for every taste. I'm not sure to what degree they actually influence the views of most, but they certainly reinforce existing views.
Thirdly social media has become an amazingly popular way to spread nonsense. Of course, much of its content is perfectly acceptable, but increasingly it seems to be what I call unsocial media. I actually fear for our futures when people like Musk, Trump and others increasingly control what they want us to believe.

I have never claimed to be an expert on the bars today - or even the more recent yesteryear. Although oddly I did walk through Patpong 2 six times in the last two evenings since I had to stay in a hotel on Suriwong while work was going on in my apartment! I noted that the Patpong Museum has moved to lower Patong 2 across from Foodand - and mention this only because there was a thread some months ago which I believe indicated the Museum had closed.
My experience goes quite a bit further back. So I am perfectly happy that those who visit the bars nowadays do not agree with me. What I do know perhaps a little more about is the Thai elite. Not that I have ever been acquainted with more than one of them, but i also know quite a few who I call "semi-elite" in that they aspire to move up the social ladder and perhaps gain a Khunying or a Thanphuying title for their good deeds (which many actually get others to do for them!) 
In voicing my thoughts, I can assure you (should you wish such assurance and many will not) that I have aso spoken to good friends in Thailand, some of  whom I have known for four decades, others more recently. They are much more closely connected to higher ups in Thai society than I would ever wish to be. Quite a few are friends with the writer, author and Asian expert, Alex Kerr. Although American, Kerr was born and brought up in Asia, has degrees in Japanese studies from Yale and in Chinese studies from Oxford Universities. With half a lifetime in Japan and half in Thailand, and several major books now published around the world, he has a vast circle of friends, mostly Japanese and Thai and mostly native experts in one or more fields . 
His first book Lost japan won Japan's highest literary award. Kerr is the only foreigner to achieve such a distinction. Afer moving to Bangkok he wrote Bangkok Found. This is no travel guide. More it delves under the surface of Bangkok and Thailand to explain basically what is what and not only why things are what they are but why they are still permitted to be what they are. His chapter on gay and straight nightlife is interesting for it gives a much greater insight into why things like go-go bars exist, why the elite loathe them and why, in Kerr's considered view, they will unlikely enjoy continued success in the longer term.
That book has recently been substantially revised for publication by Penguin in other parts of the world. I have only read the original. For those wishing to explore more of Bangkok and all its glamour, excitement and occasional seediness it's a particularly easy read, but it is difficult not to agree with Kerr's views based on the multitude of those whom he consulted when writing it.

Sorry I just can’t agree with that. As has been stated several times before in this forum, the main reason is the improved economic opportunities for upcountry boys who used to supply most of the gogo bars as a result of Thailand’s considerable economic gains since the 1997 Asian Economic crisis. No longer do most have to work in the rice paddies or do other low paid work in the villages. Escalating rates of HIV and greater emphasis (no more alas) on health education may also have had something to do with it. 
 
I suspect bar owners would prefer more Thais to foreigners, many of whom are here illegally - but that’s just my guess. Another guess is that if there is a major clampdown on undocumented foreigners working in bars, I can’t see more Thai’s jumping in to take their place, even in the case of an economic recession as @reader has suggested. I reckon the apps will have done their job by then and the boys will prefer telephone dates to nightly parading and offs in bars.

I feel very much the same! I often thought in part it might be due to getting older and having more time to consider the state of the world. And then I thought about my parents and their generation. Their news was based on daily newspapers, radio news bulletins and later shortish television news bulletins. I remember them discussing a few national issues like the colossal mistake when France and Britain invaded Egypt in a vain attempt to re-take the Suez Canal afer Nasser nationalised it. It helped dethrone a UK Prime Minister and probably eventually a government, but that did not seem to matter so much to them. When relatives and their friends came round, I rarely remember national issues being discussed.
I suspect there are are primarily three reasons for the changes since those days. The advance of television and the influence of television news programmes (and the political views of the owners of the stations) on everyone's thinking is onviously one. I can remember the times when the BBC was trusted as almost saintly in the way it reported actual facts. Interviews with politicians were genteel affairs. And if they ever ruffled politicians' feathers, there was hell to pay.
One of the BBC's finest reporters and foreign correspondents was James Mossman. One evening he basically lost his BBC cool. There was a famous iive interview with Prime Minister Harold Wilson. He verbally attacked Wilson over his government's backing for President Johnson's stance on the Vietnam War when this appeared at odds with Wison's own philosophy. When Wilson, as was his habit waffled, Mossman would not let up. He kept on and on at Wilson in a manner we are more used to today. Wilson stormed out of the studio furious and made his anger known to the Director General the following day. Mossman was quickly relegated to hosting a new programme about the arts. 
Unhappy about his demotion and being away from the action of politics and foreign affairs, Mossman went into a depression. As a gay man he had fallen in love with a younger Canadian boyfriend. But he had died in his early 30s of an accidental overdose. Aged 44 Mossman then took his own life. If anyone is interested, there is a fascinating play about Mossman which was premiered at London's National Theatre 15 years ago. Titled The Reporter it was written by Nicholas Wright.
The second reason surely is the freedoms that people in power now have to assert their own views however outlandish, wacky, even untrue they may be. Television has mushroomed to include channels to cater for every taste. I'm not sure to what degree they actually influence the views of most, but they certainly reinforce existing views.
Thirdly social media has become an amazingly popular way to spread nonsense. Of course, much of its content is perfectly acceptable, but increasingly it seems to be what I call unsocial media. I actually fear for our futures when people like Musk, Trump and others increasingly control what they want us to believe.

I forgot to add that one of the books that has most affected me during my many decades living in Asia is Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia by renowned British journalist and historian William Shawcross. Shawcross has impeccable credentials apart from the fact that his father Lord Shawcross was the lead British prosecutor at the WWII Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal. I read the original version when it was first published. The 2002 revised edition is fractionally less critical of Kissinger and Nixon but still a masterful piece of reporting and a devastating account of a foreign policy disaster.
Of the revised edition, The Boston Globe wrote, "Remarkable and compelling . . . FIrst and foremost an American political thriller . . . where American officials spied on each other, lied to each other and falsified reports . . . ALL TOO REAL!"
The New York Times wrote, "Sideshow excels . . . it has the sweep and shadows of a spy novel as it portrays the surreal world of power severed from morality."
https://www.amazon.com/Sideshow-Kissinger-Nixon-Destruction-Cambodia/dp/081541224X

I feel very much the same! I often thought in part it might be due to getting older and having more time to consider the state of the world. And then I thought about my parents and their generation. Their news was based on daily newspapers, radio news bulletins and later shortish television news bulletins. I remember them discussing a few national issues like the colossal mistake when France and Britain invaded Egypt in a vain attempt to re-take the Suez Canal afer Nasser nationalised it. It helped dethrone a UK Prime Minister and probably eventually a government, but that did not seem to matter so much to them. When relatives and their friends came round, I rarely remember national issues being discussed.
I suspect there are are primarily three reasons for the changes since those days. The advance of television and the influence of television news programmes (and the political views of the owners of the stations) on everyone's thinking is onviously one. I can remember the times when the BBC was trusted as almost saintly in the way it reported actual facts. Interviews with politicians were genteel affairs. And if they ever ruffled politicians' feathers, there was hell to pay.
One of the BBC's finest reporters and foreign correspondents was James Mossman. One evening he basically lost his BBC cool. There was a famous iive interview with Prime Minister Harold Wilson. He verbally attacked Wilson over his government's backing for President Johnson's stance on the Vietnam War when this appeared at odds with Wison's own philosophy. When Wilson, as was his habit waffled, Mossman would not let up. He kept on and on at Wilson in a manner we are more used to today. Wilson stormed out of the studio furious and made his anger known to the Director General the following day. Mossman was quickly relegated to hosting a new programme about the arts. 
Unhappy about his demotion and being away from the action of politics and foreign affairs, Mossman went into a depression. As a gay man he had fallen in love with a younger Canadian boyfriend. But he had died in his early 30s of an accidental overdose. Aged 44 Mossman then took his own life. If anyone is interested, there is a fascinating play about Mossman which was premiered at London's National Theatre 15 years ago. Titled The Reporter it was written by Nicholas Wright.
The second reason surely is the freedoms that people in power now have to assert their own views however outlandish, wacky, even untrue they may be. Television has mushroomed to include channels to cater for every taste. I'm not sure to what degree they actually influence the views of most, but they certainly reinforce existing views.
Thirdly social media has become an amazingly popular way to spread nonsense. Of course, much of its content is perfectly acceptable, but increasingly it seems to be what I call unsocial media. I actually fear for our futures when people like Musk, Trump and others increasingly control what they want us to believe.

Well, I haven't looked at all of the cases, but in these two defenestration cases, they were obviously not suicide--and it's been made very clear they weren't. No one checks into a hospital to commit suicide by jumping out of a window, for one, and the turning off of the security cameras was the other huge clue that the FSB was responsible. The other (journalist) case is even more clear-cut. Obviously, no one goes grocery shopping, then throws his groceries in the stairway, takes off his shoes, pulls up his sweater and jacket above his shoulders, then crashes through a window in his apartment. Any one of those factors rules out a suicide. The refusal of emergency services to intervene was the icing on the cake. The whole point is that Putin wants to make it as clear as possible that these are NOT suicides. He wants everyone to get the message: if you have the public's ear and you speak against me, I will kill you and laugh in your face about it. The goal is to make it quite obvious that these are not suicides, but will be labeled as such. I'm sure Putin gets a good chuckle after all of these deaths. 

There you go again! You cherry pick from the much longer linked article. Yet you failed (again) to note that the first two possibilities were -
Suicide and Accident - Really
The long arm of the Kremlin 
I am surprised that you did not bother to quote the Suicide and Accident paragraphs, for they possibly could fit your theory. Mind you, that starts with these words -
According to the experts I spoke with, the sheer volume of accidental deaths and suicides so far is enough to mean that this is unlikely to be the true explanation in every case. It’s not impossible, however; sometimes a suicide is just a suicide and an accident is just an accident, no matter how odd . . . 
according to Peter Rutland, a Russia expert and professor of government at Wesleyan University, Russia’s system, and perhaps especially its business community, is under substantial pressure due to the war.
“These are incredibly stressful times, right?” Rutland said. “Business people have seen their chances to visit Europe frozen, their assets frozen, their yachts seized, the value of the shares in their companies.”
Those factors, Rutland told me, could conceivably provoke a spate of suicides.
“If businesspeople had loans that were collateralized with those assets, or which required some kind of business income, which has just disappeared because of the sanctions, you can only imagine that that would drive people to suicide,” he said.
But, the kicker. He then adds -
Of course, that doesn’t account perfectly for the murder-suicides, or the number of fatal accidents. But it’s not impossible that at least some of the deaths are no more than what they seem on the surface.
Some!

Wrong again! The most recent have been in Moscow and prior to that in Venezuela in September this year. Seriously, do facts ever really mean anything to you or do you not realise they can be easily checked most of the time?
And when you make errors - e.g that nonsense about Putin speaking about the freedom of gays to live their lives in Russia when in fact as is totally obvious from the YouTube video his words have nothing to do with Russia since he is just mocking the west(!), you never admit that you are merely spreading Kremlin propaganda. I suppose it takes all sorts!