rexall

2 hours ago, watcharacters said:

 

Some folks on TVF certainly complain about that.  And as far as the video is concerned, who can say the foreigner wasn't paying back a loan to the lady.

PROOF?    

 

Who can say?  The BiB can say . . . if they choose to.

5 hours ago, ThomasThBKK said:

Let us know where those excellent tour guides are on Samui.

Last time i hired an official taxi there they wanted 100 USD for the ride.



Sent from my LYA-L29 using Tapatalk
 

That's insane!  I had no idea. No wonder the local tour operators are pissed! And as soon as the tourists get educated as to what constitutes realistic taxi faires, they are gong to feel ripped off and feel pissed too!

Geezus, am I ever in the wrong business!  Oh, wait a minute. I'm retired, so I am not in any business.  Oh, well. <deleted> it!

5 hours ago, darksidedog said:

And do they have proof that the foreigner doesn't have a legitimate business and work permit?

Not all foreigners are illegal, so to throw the open accusation out there is wrong.

 

Rightfully or wrongfully, foreigners are not allowed to work in tourism or hospitality or transport. He could not have had a work permit or a business to do that work. So, unless the exchange of money was non-commercial, the falang was breaking the law 

Quote

We have consulted the Public Health Ministry’s permanent secretary, public prosecutors and police. The use of violence inside hospitals is a crime,” Medical Council’s secretary-general Ittaporn Kanacharoen said yesterday.

Take it outside, boys!

2 hours ago, malibukid said:

i will and i will call it Freedonia

49 minutes ago, dutchweller said:

Typical over the top reaction from Thailand 

Always the same over the top with the small fish just to show face.

Never with the real issues/threats that take more effort or are backed by their own..

Yes, but it is ironic, ain't it?  "Face" is indeed one of the driving forces of Thai (and other Asian) societies. But the gov's is remarkably tone deaf as to what seems a loss of face in the West, such as witless posturing and over-use of force against little guys.

54 minutes ago, AntipodeanThai said:

Its simple really.

If you want to live in Thailand obey their rules, as frustrating as they may be at times.

It's their country their heritage, their culture, their way of life not a Johnny come lately foreigners, we must think it beautiful otherwise we wouldn't be here; if not go!

Simple really!

Not really!

1 hour ago, seajae said:

everyone seems to be forgetting he would have to enter as a tourist everytime he comes to shore, it is outside international borders so he is no longer in Thailand when staying on it, visa or not. Whether or not any of what is happening in regard to the building is legal doesnt matter if he is still coming into Thailands waters or ports he needs a visa to do so, if he doesnt have one/get one then he is entering illegally. The building is a whole other question, when you read the articles on it the builders are saying it is to alienate the thai govt so they cannot supposedly do anything to you a\nd calling the pm a dictator, seems they are getting very political with it which is probably what is pi** them off but it still comes back to the legality of him entering Thailand everytime he wants to, he cant have it both ways, if he has no visa and been black banned he cannot enter  at all, and if he did have a visa he would need multiple re entries as well, the immigration bit is a big problem for them, hiding out in Thailand is just a bad idea as it will put him in jail when caught

 

Are there any yacht people online who regularly travel in and out beyond the 12 mile limit?  What do you do (or what are you supposed to do) about your visa, TM30, et al.

1 hour ago, herwin1234 said:

This is Thailand, a real country, not Disneyland.  Imagine if a tourist from Ghana comes to your country, and with a local paid girlfriend do the same in your own homecountry? The utter disrespect.

And now running and hiding??? 

All the posters who are living in Thailand and as usual are slamming Thailand with their cynical comments about Thai authorities, plz if you dont like it here, why are you here?time to go back perhaps.

 

I don't like it in most places, so really there is no places else for me to go. 

3 hours ago, ezzra said:

Just one question... What was he thinking? establishing a domicile outside the territorial waters of Thailand? over the past 100 years, this country went out ot wars for much less than that, and as long he plan to reach "his home" from Thai territory, he will have problems...

On one level, his project could, and probably should be written off as the antics of an eccentric. On the other hand, with China building actual islands in disputed waters in the South China Sea, maybe the reaction of the gov is not nearly as comic and paranoid as it might at first seem.

Sorry. That many people trying to occupy the same space at once is hardly "fun."  More like the 9th Circle of Hell in my opinion. 

It is a perverse, fatalistic, mis-interpretation of Buddhism: If it is my day to die, there is nothing I can do about it, so might as well have sanook mak-mak! And if it isn't my day to die, it doesn't matter, and I can do whatever the <deleted> I want!

4 hours ago, Mitkof Island said:

agree ! Their country their rules. Don,t like it leave. More room for me.

If the OP is serious in defense of "Their country, their rules" at least he states it in a more honest way.

4 hours ago, nchuckle said:

Is that your mantra for Bahrain also and it’s stoning to death of gays rules? See how quickly your argument unwinds?

It is not an argument. It is a catchy slogan which "seems" to resonate with ominous import, but is in fact is empty of meaning. I guess if you were silly enough to attempt mind reading (Who moi?), the direct English translation seems to be that one should never discuss, compare, analyze, speculate abut and--gawf forbid--criticize rules of a country that one is not a citizen of. 

Like so many things, it is all about "face."  Can't post pics of lewd and licentious festival because then people might get the idea that Thailand has lewd and licentious festivals. And we couldn't have that, could we?  It is hardly ever about the thing itself, but rather "What would people think???" The sad irony is that for modern, "progressive,"  people, suppression of free expression represents a much greater stain and loss of face the knowledge that Thailand has these stupid "Spring Break" blowouts every year.

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

Their country, their rules.

Overly obvious. Would you mind expanding on that just a bit and explain what you mean, what point you are trying to make?

...

deemed against society’s good morality.

As a society--religious or secular--becomes more rigid and oppressive, Orwellian language like this is used to brainwash and  enforce compliance.  Morality is not a thing that one can be against as the quote suggests.  What do such statements even mean? Obviously, the direct, non-fuzzy translation is: "against the law" which puts the credit or blame squarely where it belongs, on the lawmakers, not on some weird abstraction "good morality."

5 minutes ago, shy coconut said:

Retired usually means you have stopped working, so in a way he does have more time available

to sort out his immigration matters.

What if he prefers to use his time doing other things he finds more meaningful? "Retired" doesn't mean "dead" and it certainly doesn't mean his time is not as valuable as someone who is employed. In fact, "retired" usually describes an older person entering the final stage in life, every day getting day sliding a little further down that greased tube toward oblivion! As such, his time becomes even more precious than some young puppy who has "all the time in the world" ahead. Hardly worth frittering away that precious time worrying about paperwork, standing on line, jumping though silly hoops!
 

32 minutes ago, shackleton said:

Nothing is going to change for the better on the Financial requirements side of the yearly retirement visas  

Wishful thinking of some here on Thai Visa forum 

. . . and maybe they will get worse. That is a more likely scenario based on the clear and obvious trends over the past ten years. What if they raise the B800K to a million? That will eliminate another layer of retirees. Then all the snooty ones who have B1,000,000 will gloat and scold the B800K guys for not being sufficiently prepared, tell them to  just like-it-or-lump it, to stop complaining and go home!  Now, there may be some--relatively few I think--who are so well-off that they can cope with any changes the gov seeks to impose. Good for them!  I don't begrudge them one satang. But I hope they could develop some tact and diplomacy and sensitivity and a little (that dreaded "C" word) compassion for those less well-off.  

41 minutes ago, aripengu said:

Did they ask you to go show your balance on a certain date? Will it take as long as an extension to process? Will you need another letter from the bank?  As for today, nobody has been able to explain to me how they will implement the new rules regarding the 800k, not even CM immigration. 

Why not just keep the B800K offshore, maybe in an account that pays better interest, and have a standing order to transfer B65K monthly?  That would, of course, incur some fees, but to some, might be worth avoiding the confusion and hassle of two interviews at Imm to prove the B800K before and after.

1 hour ago, luckyluke said:

The Austrian Consulate in Pattaya which, next to their citizens, is also dealing with Belgians, Dutch, French, German citizens has changed the lay out of their L.o.I..

 

They put now :

" it is hereby certified". 

 

They still do the same control as before : checking if the amounts paid by the Office of Pensions appeared on a bank account in homeland. 

 

It seems they are convinced that there are more honest people than not, and that the honest ones shouldn't be the dupe of the wrongdoers. 

 

Besides one should be very "cool" to go to the Consulate in person with fake documents ( the risk to be caught) when for +/- 15000 Thb everything can be fixed by an agent. 

 

Also not sure what Immigration can do, legally, to an Embassy/Consulate when eventually they should find out that the documents, "certified" by an Embassy/Consulate, appear to be falsified. 

The affidavit from the U.S. Embassy stated in part ". . . I receive a monthly income of $______________ from sources in the United States . . ."  It doesn't say anything about a retirement, a pension or Social Security income. It doesn't specify the source at all. I am assuming that this was hunky-dory and complied with Thai Imm requirements and expectations all along.  No? Personally, I had always understood the requirement as offshore income, not specifically retirement or pension income.  No?

Also, as the eligible age is 50, very few younger than 60 or 65 are going to have Social Security income or a pension.  Maybe a few who took an early retirement buyout from their employer. Maybe a few on Social Security Disability who are nonetheless still able enough to get a soapy massage in Pattaya!    But like so many things, it is incoherent and just doesn't add up.

Sigh!

1 hour ago, JTXR said:

He said:

 

"We don't know exactly what's going on and how this will impact things. (But) while I think there may be changes within the immigration apparatus especially on a paradigm level and maybe policy level (in the future) some things in respect to retirement visa police remain immutable (unchanging)". 

 

"....changes within the immigration apparatus especially on a paradigm level..." !?!?!

 

Golly.  Aren't we educated?  I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole any lawyer who needs to talk like that.

Word salad! 

1 hour ago, MadMuhammad said:

You’re retired. Don’t face enough time on your hands to spare a few ours 4 times a year? 

Are you saying this his time is less valuable because he is retired?  

2 hours ago, fforest1 said:

Why did this lawyer get a full page write up on his opinion?

 

When has a private lawyer ever gotten a full page write up on Thai Visa? No one has ever that I remember.......

Who decided his opinion needs to be punished?

And Why?

 

Folks this article would not have been published if there were serious cracks appearing in the kick the farang out of Thailand movement......Some hardliner is scared or this propaganda would not have been published....

 

Just about every thing Mr lawyer said will not happen could very well happen.....

He just states his opinion that it is not "logical to assume that the transfer will change these regulations." Fine. He is entitled to his opinion. But he does not bother to explain how he arrived at his conclusion.