rexall

9 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

Thanks. So many bad reviews. These reviews could easily have been deleted if it was obvious it was just a disgruntled guest. 
 

Yes, Thai law. You must respect these laws even if they are harsh. Thai law is very serious. Especially when dealing with people who don’t have the means to pay their way out. But If you’re rich, it suddenly becomes that they’re not so serious. Just buy your way out.

 

What wonderful justice. 
 

 

Thailand prides itself on being independent and maintaining the integrity of it's culture and values.  That's fine, as far as it goes. The problem is if you are operating in globalization and doing business with an international clientele, you may not always get to do exactly as you like. That is even more true in a depressed industry in a depressed economy. Life is like that sometimes.

3 minutes ago, Kaopad999 said:

No one is saying that it's fair that the red bull son got away with what he did, and i'm sure most people here will agree with that . But, it's also not fair to go out your way to damage the good reputation of a business using multiple fake accounts,  just because you couldn't get your own way. It's childish, extremely disrespectful, and potentially very damaging to someones livelihood.  I would have taken exactly the same steps if it were my business. 

"and potentially very damaging to someones livelihood. "

That sounds good, and it is an interesting theory (or excuse), but I wonder how real it is. What is this "damage," exactly?  Were not the resort as well as other readers free to post corrections, rebuttals, and share their own positive experiences? Are readers really so stupid as to be swayed by negative comments that obviously have no merit and are coming from a disgruntled guest?

As I said in other posts, my guess is that in the end, this is not gong to go well for the resort, no matter how indignant an damaged they believe themselves to be.  

3 minutes ago, johnmcc6 said:

A friend of mine along with several other expat unit owners complained by letter to management about burned out lights in corridors and dirty elevators. They got sued for defamation implying the manager was incompetent. End result. They each had to pay the offended manager 5000 baht to make it go away. Plus some legal fees. Thailand is not like where you came from.

It is all about "face."  It has nothing to do with whether the manager was actually incompetent or not, but that the unit owners said he was incompetent, and because of that, he might be perceived as incompetent.  It is all about appearances, and truth slides down the hierarchy of values somewhere at the bottom just about dinosaur poop! 

14 hours ago, Damual Travesty said:

Well, this is going to really help kick off the rapid return of tourists to Thailand.

The guy's first and only mistake was being ignorant of the defamation laws in Thailand. He was being a jerk, but that is really beside the point.

I am no lawyer, but I believe that in the U.S. defamation is determined based upon the accuracy of the statements, not whether or not the guy is a jerk and being unreasonable or even vindictive. Being vindictive may be nasty and unpleasant, but it is not illegal, and not  a valid basis for a lawsuit.  

If Thailand, the resort and the guy can't find a way to "kiss and make up," when he returns to the U.S., they will learn the real meaning of the word "vindictive."  If his complaint about the corkage fee was transparently stupid, adding being arrested, threatened with imprisonment, fine and lawsuit will be seen sympathetically, at least in America.  He can spend his days posting and posting and posting "American Jailed for Leaving Negative Review About Thailand Resort!"

It may be a nice, satisfying wet dream for the resort to imagine that they can flex their muscles and exact revenge for the guys behavior based on their economic ability to prosecute a lawsuit. However, that may prove to be naive and counter-productive. 

It will be interesting if this experiences is shocking enough so that he decides to leave well enough alone, or if it inspires even greater levels of vindictiveness. 

1 hour ago, GAZZPA said:

As I said, i understand that. you may know a few but you are still there and Pattaya is dying so there is nowhere near enough of you to support a cities economy. It has not grown and thrived as "Snoozeville by the sea" for old duffers, it has been a party city for decades. 

My first visit was was on holiday in 1994.  Wow!  26 years ago!  Certainly, the major attraction--or one of the major attractions--was the girls and the bars. But there were rather few of them. I would walk from Pattaya to Jomtien and there was nothing along the road. Lots of empty space in Jomtien. Very sleepy.  Very nice, actually, even with many fewer amenities that made made life easy and nice for expats. The only way to communicate overseas was to visit a little shop that would send a fax for $10.  No Big C yet in Pattaya.  When I moved there 5 years later, there was more, but it was still sleepy.  Not so by the time I left and moved upcountry in 2004.  

2 hours ago, epicking said:

Landlords dont help much.
My Girlfriend has a Massage clinic with her sister. They made a deal with him of 70% rent until January, 21 on the condition that they closed and not did business or stayed there.
He just called the other day and said no-more. Either pay full rent now or get out.

Why on earth would an owner do that unless he expected that he could find a new, full-paying tenant, or if he  had some other plans for the property?  Makes no sense.

8 minutes ago, Madeline Thompson said:

It6 fee

 

it feels like a tragedy to me, too.  I've been to Pattaya numerous times, love the beaches, have no problem with Walking Street and its brand of exuberance, and generally felt quite safe and happy there.  The destruction of this city seems a deliberate political move.  All the baubles are being given to Phuket (or were - that appears to be a fantasy too). The issue is: if anyone wants to come to Thailand, and are willing to quarantine for 14 days - what is the problem?  It is the same 'marking system' if you want, that all Thai people have to adhere to, and in the world at large. Those who are willing will become longer-stay tourists - no point otherwise - and that will revitalize a country that has been very much alive until the advent of this pandemic, which has skewered common sense in Thailand.  A couple of cases and the government flies into a destructive panic. We have to live with this 'event' rather than taking the easy route,  destroying the lives of thousands of Thai people to save a few lives and - and more importantly - allowing the authorities to  'look good' to the rest of the world. Absolute foolishness.

The Chinese tourists were Thailand's wet dream!  They arrive in groups, stay in the same hotel, travel in the same coach, stopping to spend money here and there. In a week or two they go home. Minimal contamination of or interaction with the Thai culture. No chance of them hanging around or wanting to live here. The only thing more sexy would be to find some diabolical way to get the  money without having to have the tourists!

3 hours ago, kingstonkid said:

 <snip>

 

The only way they can resurrect  Walking Street is with a complete face lift and change to business that are family friendly they need to find a way to attract Thai's.

 

People keep saying things like this, but what exactly does it mean? What are these "family friendly" businesses?

9 hours ago, RandolphGB said:

There are lots in Pattaya, including many bar owners on certain Sois, who deserve this. Others less so.  

"Deservedness" is a weird, medieval, Biblical concept. Bad things happen to "good people" and good things happen to "bad people." <deleted> just happens. We try to cope the best we can.

3 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

It is not needed to survive , but surely can help to find out about what is really needed to survive ...

I rest my case.

44 minutes ago, Proboscis said:

And some people find food addictive too.

The word "addiction" is not very helpful, and the traditional distinction between so called "physical" and "mental" addiction is misleading.  More importantly, it is utterly meaningless to someone who has a serious problem with pot:  Yeah, we know  you have f***ed up your personal, professional and academic life with this chemical ... but thank gawd, it's not physically addictive like heroin!"

As to the spurious comparison to "food addiction."  Last time I checked, we need food to survive, which means that even people with "food addictions" must find some way to live with food while managing their compulsions. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have never heard that we need marijuana to survive.

12 minutes ago, whaleboneman said:

Excellent! I nominate for post of the year.

This may 

12 minutes ago, whaleboneman said:

Excellent! I nominate for post of the year.

This may be true for some people who smoke, perhaps most.  However, it is too general to be useful.  In some cases, marijuana causes rather than subdues aggression.  In the meantime Aldous Huxley ("Brave New World") had a few things to say about drugging a population in order to keep them pliable under control.
https://bit.ly/32FxmKU

8 minutes ago, whaleboneman said:

They have problems alright. Finding good quality supply is often difficult. And in many states they still have to worry about the cops. 

The rooms of Marijuana Anonymous and similar organizations are full of people who might not think your clever quip is so funny.

12 hours ago, FarFlungFalang said:

Having it in oil form makes it easier to take orally.In the 70's there was lots of oil around,it was a bit thicker then and we called it hash oil and we smoked it then.Apparently there's something about the process of burning it which increases the effect hence making it more efficient though it may also make getting lung cancer more efficient,although my cousin died of lung cancer at the age of 41 and she never smoked anything.

I only tried it one time, in the early 1970s.  I had had a lot of experiences with drugs in those days, but had never see "has oil" before. I was trying to impress people with my vast experiences. Took a hit. Fell on the bed, missed Christmas dinner.  Spent most of the evening spinning around in that alcoholic way, but with a psychedelic twist.  Yuck!  

39 minutes ago, stouricks said:

It cost me over 7000 Bht for tests/examinations to be able to apply to Pacific Cross last year, and because it was one of their 'cheaper' policies, it was not refundable. They would exclude ANY prostate cover and one year for high BP, even though I did not have at 71 yrs old. Needless to say I refused, lost the 7000 but at least I knew I was OK. 

Eventually settled with Cigna Close Care @ £3230 a year for up to Bht 12M cover. I made 2 claims totalling Bht 40k, out patient only so they would not pay for the meds I took home. 

Since then I have talked with my local University Hospital who tell me they will look after me whenever needed, for a reasonable price.

Thanks for you story Stouricks. Many things to think about. The agent I spoke with also said mandatory physical paid out of pocket. However, company will reimburse up to 10% of the premium of policy. Now, you have got me thinking.  Will they reimburse even if I am rejected or I choose not to go ahead with the policy?  It's on my list of Q's.

3 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

I presume your request for info has nothing to do with the thai IO-approved health-insurance which is now mandatory for retirees applying for a 1-year extension of stay from their original Non Imm O-A Visa.

But that you are looking for REAL health-insurance that will meet your actual needs in case of catastrophic illness/accident.

@Sheryl for sure would be able to give you some good advice on the latter.

Well, none of the available coverage will do what you are describing.  But, yes, my preference is something more along those likes than meeting the bare IO requirements.  I am on an "O" visa anyway.  The one thing the agent told me was that new regs that if you leave and re-enter LOS on a retirement extension,  the new Covid-19 provisions require you to demonstrate USD100,000 in coverage.  Can anyone confirm that is the case?

Hi all.  My BUPA is expiring soon (Sounds dirty, don't it? ???? ) and I am considering changing to Pacific Cross.  I am not crazy about BUPA for a number of reasons, but I have been with them for 10 years, and making a change, particularly at age 70  is a big consideration.
 

Any of yooz guys been with them or have any experience with or info you can share?
 

Thanks, lah!

8 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

If the Thai government shuts down all those places will they pay the wages for the staff for the next months? And will they support the owners to pay the rent?

And just in case the government does not support them: Will they work as freelancers on the streets?

 With a two week incubation period, and crowded Pattaya bars, who in their right mind would hook up with a hooker or other casual sex partner.  I am not squeamish nor paranoid, but just the thought of it gives me the heebie-jeebies! ????

23 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

I think your getting a little ahead of yourself, most people know that a pension is predominantly a payment received from a government. Superannuation on the other hand is contribution made to your super fund over the years by your employer or yourself is self employed, therefore is you decide to take as an income stream, it is an income stream, not really a pension albeit it is it paid to you like a pension, therefore I would refer to him as a retiree if he has an income stream.

 

To add to the above, take me for an example, I retired at 55 and I live of my life savings, from dividends and bank interest, which get paid to me every 6 months, e.g. both from dividends and bank savings, does that make me a pensioner as these funds are paid to me from an income stream, e.g. every 6 months, NO and that is the end of the story, i.e. a pensioner is someone who receives money from the government, either fortnightly or monthly.

 

No doubt you will care to differ.

In the U.S. many people receive pensions from a former employer, assuming they are "vested" and the company has not gone broke. It used to be the rule rather than the exception for those who spend the majority of their career with one employer to receive a pension, separate from and in addition to Social Security retirement benefits or any other income sources or assets.

8 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

Why do these people insist on overstaying knowing very well that the long arm of the law will eventually catch up with them? I can’t imagine that it would be a comfortable existence, having to look over your shoulder all the time. 
Could it be that they are fugitives from their own country? If so, then Thai immigration is doing everyone a big favor by rounding them up. 

What do you mean "them." The presence of someone "wandering about" is not reasonable cause to suspect that a crime has been committed. What does that even mean? As if most Thails go about their activities with purposeful vigor!