venturalaw

Corruption.

"Did I do anything wrong? Have I done any damage or wasn't the situation already bad when I took over?" Prayut said."

​Sounds eerily familiar. Wonder if he's going to blame it all on Bush.

2 nigerians are to be charged,what about the 2million thai women that have done the same scam.

Usually the female Thai scam employs quid pro quo, although the services she/they render rarely equals the inevitable financial loss.

I don't think that many of the readers see the significance of this. Instead of sweeping it under the already lumpy carpet, they are actually investigating what has been happening.

Without being too optimistic, for me anyway, it is a step in the right direction. There will be quite a few people panicking about this.

Get rid of the inactive posts and enforce the full force of the law, they might be on the path to making a difference.......................

The question is how much bribe money will the guilty officers pay to get out from under this and where will their next assignment be?

As was mentioned earlier, next comes the Dress Code. The citizenry are to become mindless robots all dancing in unison to the same drum beat. No individuality and therefore much easier to control. Punish achievement. Government domination.

What a shame for Thailand.

Thank you for this link. It looks like a really complicated process!

It seems as though even good quality 'aliens' are not really welcome here.

"It seems as though even good quality 'aliens' are not really welcome here."

You think?

What is the rough count of Thai sex workers in Betong? Most of their tourist revenue is from sex trade for sure. Are they counting the sex trade money?

Betong may or may not have sex trade during Pretty Yingluck time as PM.

But under Gen Prayuth, anything illegal has been stop.

Including sex trade, as Thailand is a Buddhist countries.

What ever trade the Islamic people offer I will not comment, but Thais will not deviate from Buddhist teaching on sex trade.

BTW, the first thing you notice in Betong is a large statue of Buddha. No statue of prophet Mohammad can be seen anywhere in town AT ALL.

"What ever trade the Islamic people offer I will not comment, but Thais will not deviate from Buddhist teaching on sex trade."

I've been reading and posting on ThaiVisa for more than 10 years. This is absolutely the funniest statement I have ever read. Thanks.

No kidding, all she has is a big (artificial?) rack, the rest is rather naff.

I think some have become clearly spoiled here in the Land of Smiles - myself included.

I have a friend who lived next door (not in Thailand) to an owner of a dog that would bark all day long. The neighbor worked a night shift and slept during the day. My friend recorded the dog barking and put loud speakers up in his windows facing the neighbor's bedroom and played the recording of the neighbor's dog during the day. The neighbor was at my friend's door when he came home from work complaining about my friend's dog. My friend told him that he didn't have a dog - that it was his (the neighbor's dog). Problem solved. Wish it could be so easy here.

Wierd story:

...The neighbor had a dog that barked all day.

...The neighbor slept all day.

Why didn't his barking dog disturb him, yet the recording did?

?

I dont get it.

Sorry for the confusion. The neighbor's dog barked all night while the neighbor was at work (he worked a night-shift). My friend, who works days and was trying to sleep at night, recorded the dog barking one night, then played the recording during the day through speakers pointed at the neighbors bedroom while the night-shift working neighbor was trying to sleep.

Why does it take someone doing a documentary and a downgrade by the US before things finally start to get done. There are hundreds more all over the tourist destinations and beyond. You have made a tiny, tiny dent in the problem and have a long, long way to go so get moving.

Not a tiny dent, rather a tiny temporary dent. In Chiang Mai the children are out selling flowers, then after some 'crackdown', they are replaced by adults for a few months. And then like everything else in this country, the adjustment is for show and in no time the children are out selling flowers again.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Purchased from the family, sick, just sick. The family and the guy involved. $51 for a child ! How could they? I bet the family buffalo is still at home !

"How could they?"

How else is the father's alcohol, smoking and gambling habits be supported? Where are your values? As you said, it's really SICK!

I didn't quote the article in its entirety because we are not allowed to per TV rules. However, you can pick those parts that favor your position. The article points out that its conclusion generally goes against the position of its authors. You chose to cherry-pick part of a single paragraph that states the authors' position ignoring the concluding sentence in said paragraph, and the article's conclusion to wit: "But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.

Not only is the D.C. gun ban ill-conceived on constitutional grounds, it fails to live up to its purpose. If the astronomical murder rate in the nation's capitol, in comparison to cities where gun ownership is permitted, didn't already make that fact clear, this study out of Harvard should."

Throughout the years I practiced and since I often encounter individuals who lash out. Frequently they were law school dropouts who seek to elevate their self-loathed insecurity by attempting to prove an unsupported position. Good luck to you.

really? No effect hey?

Law school drop out. Funny...

Comparing the U.S. to Australia is comparing apples to oranges. Australian citizens do not (and never did) have a constitutional right to own firearms — even before the 1997 buyback program, handgun ownership in Australia was restricted to certain groups, such as those needing weapons for occupational reasons, members of approved sporting clubs, hunters, and collectors. Moreover, the 1997 buyback program did not take away all the guns owned by these groups; only some types of firearms (primarily semi-automatic and pump-action weapons) were banned. And even with the ban in effect, those who could demonstrate a legitimate need to possess prohibited categories of firearms could petition for exemptions from the law. Bottom line - there is no comparison.

That is a great point you make. Can you please expound on why looser gun laws, such as concealed carry, will help to lower this gang-on-gang gun violence.

Gun Rights advocates state that an armed society is a polite society and when everyone is armed then gun violence actually drops; however, by your own figures above, 80% of gun homicides are gang related and typically gangmembers are armed.

Also, it was my understanding that Concealed Carry permits were only issued to persons who could pass a thorough background check, and felons were not allowed to own guns. So, how will making concealed carry permits available to a user group responsible for 80% of gun homicides make a difference?

Thanks in advance for your explanation.

You're welcome. Concealed carry permits are not for those who engaged in felonious conduct. Concealed carry permits are for those who are law abiding - for protection. I'm just guessing here but I imagine that gang members do not go through the process of purchasing firearms legally. To do so would lead to their being tracked - which would prove to frusterate their freedom to carry on nefarious activities.

Yeah, OK, so Chicago has this problem where armed gang members are shooting other armed gang members. And you state above that none of these armed gang members will likely qualify for CC permits. So how are less restrictive gun laws going to cut down on armed gang members shooting other armed gang members? And lets focus on Chicago specifically since that is the location you brought up initially. Not Houston. Thanks again.

I brought up Houston to compare cities with similar demographics but which differ significantly regarding firearm purchasing restrictions. The looser restrictions allow law abiding citizens to protect themselves against the gang members. More importantly however, criminals are less likely to seek to commit crimes in areas where it is more likely for citizens to be armed. That's why many violent crimes occur in 'gun free zones'.

You seem to have trouble making logical cause/effect conclusions to i formation you read so I attempted to use a different topic in the hopes of helping you to understand the shortcoming of your argument.

Unfortunately, you were not successful in grasping that either.

The point I was making is that you see aggressive mosquito control efforts in locales that have serious problems with mosquitoes and or mosquito-borne illnesses. Such aggressive control measures do not result in the dense populations, they are a result of the dense populations.

Strict gun laws in urban areas with high gun crime rates are a reaction to the high gun crime rates, they don 't cause the high rates.

I have also provided you an example of why concealed carry will not curtail gun violence in Chicago.

Perhaps you could expound on your thought process by describing how you think it will help the type of gun violence occurring in Chicago.

I already posted a recent study (which you excised when initially quoting my post) that addressed the issue (not your senseless comparison regarding pest control, but rather the topic of this thread). Since you appear to believe that it's all about density of population, a contrast to Chicago is Houston which is very similar to Chicago in terms of socioeconomic (of or pertaining to, or signifying the combination or interaction of social and economic factors) such as population, density, and segregation. Houston, like Chicago, is a major center for illegal activities such as drug trade and human trafficking. However, Houston has a murder rate two-thirds that of Chicago. The citizenry of Houston are well armed.

Yeah, it seems that the analogy I used has still really got you confused. I wasn't trying to say gang members in Chicago have malaria. Tell you what, don't you stress about that topic and instead break it down for me how looser gun control is going to lower gun violence in Chicago. Please don't just provide a study as your entire argument without also explaining how it applies to Chicago, please tell me in your words how less restrictive gun laws in Chicago are going to cut down on the 80% of gun homicides in Chicago that are gang related? Those were the statistics you provided, correct? That is your premise, correct?

Gang members have malaria? Where did you come up with that? Oh, I see - you were being sarcastic. To answer your question I refer you to my last post. Now try to understand without lashing out. The Harvard study I cited (the one you failed to include when quoting my initial post) does address this issue quite well (for clarification, not your pest control issue, but the gun control issue which is the topic of this thread).

Chicago has some of the strictest gun control policies in the nation

Which are all absolutely pointless when you can drive out of state and pick up a veritable arsenal.

For gun control to be effective it would need to be nationwide.

Perhaps nationwide 'gun control' (assuming you mean in addition to those laws already in existence) would be effective if the perpetrators of most of the murders by guns, for instance gang members, purchased firearms legally. 80% of gun homicides are gang-related. According to the CDC, gang homicides accounted for roughly 8,900 of the 11,100 gun murders in both 2010 and 2011.

That is a great point you make. Can you please expound on why looser gun laws, such as concealed carry, will help to lower this gang-on-gang gun violence.

Gun Rights advocates state that an armed society is a polite society and when everyone is armed then gun violence actually drops; however, by your own figures above, 80% of gun homicides are gang related and typically gangmembers are armed.

Also, it was my understanding that Concealed Carry permits were only issued to persons who could pass a thorough background check, and felons were not allowed to own guns. So, how will making concealed carry permits available to a user group responsible for 80% of gun homicides make a difference?

Thanks in advance for your explanation.

You're welcome. Concealed carry permits are not for those who engaged in felonious conduct. Concealed carry permits are for those who are law abiding - for protection. I'm just guessing here but I imagine that gang members do not go through the process of purchasing firearms legally. To do so would lead to their being tracked - which would prove to frusterate their freedom to carry on nefarious activities.

It's been proven over and over. The cities/nations with the most stringent gun control laws have the highest rates of murder by guns. The answer is to deal with the mentally ill, not gun owners. Period.

Yep, and the tropical countries have the most aggressive mosquito control efforts, which must be the reason that malaria is so common in these countries.

I am going to take a wild guess you do not live in Chicago.

I was visiting my daughter and her family in Chicago. A friend of theirs is a Hispanic 30-year old father of two boys. His household includes himself, his mother, his wife and their two sons. There had been a shooting a few doors down from his house over the weekend and he said it was quite common in his neighborhood of Pilsen. He was asked why he doesn't carry a gun. He laughed and said, "The shootings are gang related. The neighborhood is full of teenage and 20-something year old gangbangers. He said if he were to shoot one of these guys that would be placing a death warrant on himself and his entire family and it would take only days to be carried out.

So you go ahead and parrot the naive claims of a correlation between gun violence and strict concealed carry laws. But wahatever you do don't actually make your suggestions to the people who actually live with the violence daily. I wouldn't want you to be faced with reality.

Chicago has some of the strictest gun control policies in the nation and, as you described, lawlessness. However, for some reason you believe it is comparable with the mosquito control efforts in tropical countries. Let me assure you one has nothing at all to do with the other. Just think about it for a while. Although I may be 'naive' I have faith that you too will eventually arrive at the same conclusion.

You seem to have trouble making logical cause/effect conclusions to i formation you read so I attempted to use a different topic in the hopes of helping you to understand the shortcoming of your argument.

Unfortunately, you were not successful in grasping that either.

The point I was making is that you see aggressive mosquito control efforts in locales that have serious problems with mosquitoes and or mosquito-borne illnesses. Such aggressive control measures do not result in the dense populations, they are a result of the dense populations.

Strict gun laws in urban areas with high gun crime rates are a reaction to the high gun crime rates, they don 't cause the high rates.

I have also provided you an example of why concealed carry will not curtail gun violence in Chicago.

Perhaps you could expound on your thought process by describing how you think it will help the type of gun violence occurring in Chicago.

I already posted a recent study (which you excised when initially quoting my post) that addressed the issue (not your senseless comparison regarding pest control, but rather the topic of this thread). Since you appear to believe that it's all about density of population, a contrast to Chicago is Houston which is very similar to Chicago in terms of socioeconomic (of or pertaining to, or signifying the combination or interaction of social and economic factors) such as population, density, and segregation. Houston, like Chicago, is a major center for illegal activities such as drug trade and human trafficking. However, Houston has a murder rate two-thirds that of Chicago. The citizenry of Houston are well armed.

Chicago has some of the strictest gun control policies in the nation

Which are all absolutely pointless when you can drive out of state and pick up a veritable arsenal.

For gun control to be effective it would need to be nationwide.

Perhaps nationwide 'gun control' (assuming you mean in addition to those laws already in existence) would be effective if the perpetrators of most of the murders by guns, for instance gang members, purchased firearms legally. 80% of gun homicides are gang-related. According to the CDC, gang homicides accounted for roughly 8,900 of the 11,100 gun murders in both 2010 and 2011.

It's been proven over and over. The cities/nations with the most stringent gun control laws have the highest rates of murder by guns. The answer is to deal with the mentally ill, not gun owners. Period.

Yep, and the tropical countries have the most aggressive mosquito control efforts, which must be the reason that malaria is so common in these countries.

I am going to take a wild guess you do not live in Chicago.

I was visiting my daughter and her family in Chicago. A friend of theirs is a Hispanic 30-year old father of two boys. His household includes himself, his mother, his wife and their two sons. There had been a shooting a few doors down from his house over the weekend and he said it was quite common in his neighborhood of Pilsen. He was asked why he doesn't carry a gun. He laughed and said, "The shootings are gang related. The neighborhood is full of teenage and 20-something year old gangbangers. He said if he were to shoot one of these guys that would be placing a death warrant on himself and his entire family and it would take only days to be carried out.

So you go ahead and parrot the naive claims of a correlation between gun violence and strict concealed carry laws. But wahatever you do don't actually make your suggestions to the people who actually live with the violence daily. I wouldn't want you to be faced with reality.

Chicago has some of the strictest gun control policies in the nation and, as you described, lawlessness. However, for some reason you believe it is comparable with the mosquito control efforts in tropical countries. Let me assure you one has nothing at all to do with the other. Just think about it for a while. Although I may be 'naive' I have faith that you too will eventually arrive at the same conclusion.