SweatiePie

..............I have yet to see a cashier check bounce in LOS. .........

With all due respect, that hardly means that it does not happen - how many assassinations, murders, drive-by shootings, bank robberies, rapes, etc, have you seen here? Does that mean that there aren't any?

While cashiers cheques are guaranteed by the issuing bank there can be a number of reasons why they may not be honoured - the first and the most common is that they are forgeries. This does happen, and the purchased item (for example a car) is then immediately re-sold and legal ownership transferred, leaving the original owner facing an expensive and protracted court case to regain his property or his money.

Accepting a cashier's cheque from someone you don't know is hardly a good idea, in any country.

Encashment of a cashiers cheque is not technically proof of payment for a specific purchase, it is simply proof that a payment for a certain amount has been made for an unspecified reason. Proof of payment is usually in the form of a receipt (witnessed if necessary). Most car dealers in Thailand will insist on this as a matter of routine.

.........If the car seller can provide 3 witnesses he has not recieved payment even though car has been delivered and transfered, buyer needs to provide proof of payment .........

Where did you get that from? Its impossible for someone to "witness" something that they didn't see happen, so all the car seller's 3 witnesses could witness was that they did not witness anything. Meaningless. You are 100% correct, though, that the buyer needs to be able to provide proof of payment, although this would usually be as the result of a civil (private) prosecution.

to all posters about wills . please advise if i am correct

i am married and own my own truck i also have to keep visa money in a thai bank plus i have other accounts mine, i pay my pensions into . I want to make a will leaving all monies to my youngest son , was thinking once done I would inform my hon consul, The truck can stay, as well as the house i have a lease on,[ownership in the wife's name, of course,] i think how ever it might be possible to change ownership details in the blue book as though it was sold. but visa rules and ownership come into play sorrry to have wandered off motor forum with which i am impressed thanks Riley 76

I am not quite sure I understand what you are asking, but whatever it is you are not correct.

1. If you have "pensions" you do not "have to keep visa money in a thai bank".

2. You can leave anything you own to anyone you like. If you want to leave "all monies" to your youngest son then you need to make your will very specific, including who controls these "monies" if he is not old enough to do so for himself. The house is already your wife's property and any property not included in the will (truck, etc) will be divided according to Thai intestacy law.

3. "Visa rules", whatever you are referring to, have little to do with wills and inheritance.

See a lawyer, and make sure you make your will clear - excluding your wife and other children from any inheritance, for example, could lead to the will being challenged in court unless it is specific. Ignore any advice given in this particular thread as, apart from that given by KBB and MRO, most of it is totally incorrect.

That wasn't very helpful. I guess someone is having a bad day.

Anyone else have any knowledge on this?

Someone certainly is.

The point on bouncing cheques being a criminal offence in Thailand and not a civil offence is that if the cheque bounces (quite possible for a number of reasons) then the police can and will take action, whereas in countries where it is a civil offence a civil suit has to be filed - not the same thing at all, and one reason why cheques can be more acceptable here.

Its "up to the farang and you", beause there are advantages and disadvantages, particularly for him. You have the car and car docs, he has a piece of paper; if its not crossed he can cash it as kbb says, but he then ends up "carrying a bunch of cash", not you; if he loses an uncrossed cheque its still relatively easy for someone else to cash it, whereas if its a crossed cheque it can take a few days (officially up to a month) for the cheque to clear and him to have his money; the cheque can bounce. It really is up to the two of you to agree on what is acceptable for both of you.

Sorry if that's all a bit beyond you.

.... if I or my wife passes with a co-ownership there is nothing to be determined the car just reverts over to the surviving spouse/owner.. If as you say there is very little difference between here and the west on such matters then this is by the far easiest way to handle it.....

I didn't say that - what I said was that there is little difference with the administration of wills. Up to you.

...

Up to the "farang" and you. Bouncing cheques is a criminal offence here, not a civil offence as in most Western countries.

For anyone thinking of buying plates as an investment rather than just their own use, or even just for their own use, you can get much better deals buying at auctions (as well as a free lunch and snacks!) than from dealers - often some 25 - 50% less. Its also worth bearing in mind that the letters can also have considerable meaning for Thais, and that our lucky numbers may not be the same as yours: 666 isn't the devil's number to us (4 is), nor is 13 (except that it adds up to 4) and 8 (particularly for Thai Chinese) or 9 are better than 1.

"Too much money" - come on, they're still a lot cheaper than they would be in the West. I couldn't help feeling that some of the signs at the last auction I went to recently (2 farangs, one spent over a million for two plates) were a bit over the top, though : Better to lose money than lose face !

I don't claim to be an "expert" - merely a lawyer and member of the Thai Bar Association (and that's probably not the same bar most here frequent).

Patronus: Yes, I do think that anything to do with foreigners dying and foreigners inheriting in Thailand " would involve an emabassy AND the Thai courts". In practice its a very simple process, similar to probate, and has nothing whatever to do with "the Poo Yai Ban" (although I am sure most would be quite happy to take your money!).

prakhonchai nick: were the mother, daughter or grandparent you referred to farangs? (A rhetorical question)

Warpspeed: I told you so! This is a change of ownership, whether you appreciate that or not. Cost of a will? Around 1,500 to 3,000 baht each at most lawyers, in English with a Thai translation; most will take under an hour for the two of you. How does that compare with "bringing the car back down for another unnecessary inspection and repaying the same fees we also have to go by and get a confirmation of address letter either from the Embassy or from Immigration if they'll be so kind and present these along with our passports"? (Another rhetorical question)

You should be aware that if your numbers have not been registered on a car for three years your ownership is automatically cancelled - the DLT often forget to warn buyers of this. Presumably your numbers are not on your car, Snowflake, if your avatar is yours, as they can only be registered to 4 door pick-ups?

Not an expert ...........

Obviously not!

The system of wills is similar here to most Western countries except that here instead of obtaining probate, approving a will and the naming of the executor/administrator is done by the local court. You would, therefore, need a copy of the court's approval to have car ownership transferred.

Having a will in a foreign language is not "just another reason for the authorities to put obstacles in your way", as the armchair experts often tell you; all that is needed is a certified translation. Having a will exclusively in Thai, on the other hand, can delay the process considerably if it is shown that the originator could not read sufficient Thai to understand what they were signing and any objections are made.

Intestate? Thai courts invariably accede to your Embassy's directions, so this is unlikely to be the problem it has been made out to be.

Joint Ownership? Possible, but by the time you have obtained and paid for your proof of address letters, changed the registered owner and paid the transfer tax at the DLT, you could have each made a will, prepared by a lawyer, several times over. Pointless, as half the car would still be subject to the provisions of the will on the death of one joint owner.

Keep it simple - make your wills.

No film, no matter its content, should be banned. No censorship is endorsed legally and the 'censorship' has not been passed into law unless this has happened underground some time in the past few years. I would love someone to post me the article in law and the act it falls under and when it was passed with the wording.

Film censorship was passed into law in Thailand under the Thai Film Act of 1930, with censorship being the responsibility of the Royal Thai Police. This was highly controversial and was replaced by the equally controversial Film and Video Act of 2007, which introduced the ratings system and is controlled by the Ministry of Culture with a board including representatives from the police, schools, Buddhists and the medical profession.

You may not agree with it, but just because you are unaware of the law does not mean that it does not exist - ignorance is no defence.

]

I don't think a lot of time or much coherent thought went into this article. Maybe a little more information about the author and his years of experience in Thailand would put it in some meaningful context, but as it stands it's just random, aimless musings.

To be fair I would imagine that a reasonable amount of thought went into the article but most of it was based on pre-concieved bias by a foreigner with an axe to grind and a magazine to promote.

His article makes little sense, as it contradicts itself throughout and says little that is constructive for or about Thais in any way.

First he says "how Thai society tolerates gay people" and how "verbal abuse of gay people in public places here is rife", but that the "perpetrators of this frightening aggression are never Thai"; then from that he somehow deduces that "Thai society is less accepting of homosexuality than Europeans are" when the opposite is clearly the case. If the "perpetrators" are farangs, never Thais, then obviously it is the European society that is less accepting of homosexuality, not Thai society.

Agreed, there is no civil partnership here, but that is because Thai "society", even Thai gay society, does not see it as the priority that European society does. Its absence is not an indicator of prejudice, but of its comparative importance - after all, registered marriage here is of considerably less importance here than in many European countries and "common law" marriages are recognised in all levels of Thai society. the author has made the all too common mistake, possibly deliberately, of confusing legislation with society.

"verbal abuse of gay people in public places here is rife". Rife, as in common, widespread, etc? Absolute rubbish. It happens, occasionally, as does abuse of any minority by the bigoted, but to say that it is "rife" is simply absurd.

"Thai families are not generally accepting of gay children." Untrue, and a ridiculous generalisation; some families do not accept gay children, but most do.

"Many bars frequented by gay Thai men will not advertise themselves as being gay establishments because gay professionals would never patronise them, fearful of becoming 'known'." Untrue, and a complete mis-reading of the situation. Many of these bars do not "advertise themselves as being gay establishments" because they do not want to be confused with the type of commercial gay bars with which the author of the article is far more familiar. Nothing more.

As I have said before, in other sub-forums, our "gay issues" are not the same as Western gay issues. We do not want your gay rights, we want ours and they are often the opposite of yours. A good recent example was the issue of gay rights in the military: you want the right for gays to serve in the military - we want the right for gays not to serve in the military! Your "struggle" is the opposite of ours.

More information on James Barnes and his publishing career, Suradit? Look no further than Pattaya Times for some interesting details.

Unfortunately, but in rather typical Pattaya fashion, the change in dates was not widely publicised and most people would expect a 2010 festival to be held in 2010, not 2011! Most local websites, even the PBTA, still show the original dates.

A number of disappointed visitors, many from Bangkok, have already had a wasted journey as have local visitors and groups, such as the Pattaya Photographic Society who visited in some numbers yesterday only to be met by a bemused security guard and a deserted field.

Yet again Pattaya has succeeded in shooting itself squarely in the foot.

To confuse things even further while the English translation of the German original talks specifically about "male prostitutes", the Italian version just talks about prostitutes. As i don't speak German I have no idea what the original German said, nor does it really matter as the church's position remains unchanged.

I read German (among some other languages). If you have a link to the original text, please send it. I always prefer to read the original texts of anything (currently struggling with Chinese...).

Be aware that I am only marginally interested in anything Catholic, but it appears to be fun to get to the bottom of what he said.

On a side note, didn't previous popes write in Latin rather than their native language?

You can get a copy here (sorry!).

Evidently he had referred specifically to male prostitutes but now he has apparently widened his view to include all prostitutes. Even more bizarre!

Latin? It was an interview in the form of a book, not an encyclical.

You mean if condoms prevent procreation that's bad, but if they prevent recreation that's OK? My philosophy is the opposite.

Not quite. What the Pope apparently means is that using condoms is "OK" if one participant is a prostitute but "bad" otherwise. Ipsi dixit

(Latine dictum sit altum videtur)

OK, let's answer your question as it was asked and end this nonsense.

1. That she is pregnant is irrelevant as far as being allowed to marry without her parent's consent is concerned, whoever the father may or may not be.

2. The only way she can marry below the legal age of consent (20) without her parents' permission is to apply to a district court to be emancipated from her parents (once legally married, at any age, she is automatically emancipated here, but that is irrelevant in this case as it would require her parents' consent). Few courts anywhere in the world would support such an application under these circumstances (however you dress it up, according to you she left home at 16 to become a prostitute, was a very successful one, and does not want to go home to parents who hold a respected position in their local community) and no Thai court would do so.

3. If she had a passport there would be no need for her to go as far afield as Barbados to marry, as she could do so (aged 18) in many SEA countries (Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia). Such a marriage, however, would not be valid in Thailand as it would be contrary to Thai law because it would be made without her parents' permission.

4. From what you have posted here you clearly admit having sex with her when she was under the legal age (18), and it is possible that she may also have become pregnant when under 18. If so, and if you intend making a point of being the father, you need to get a new lawyer - there is no "taking the 5th" here and you would be admitting guilt to an offence which would at best result in your deportation.

5. According to what you say she was evidently working of her own free will, unfettered and unsupervised, making a lot of money, for a considerable time, and she chose to send some of that money to her parents. Her parents stand to gain nothing by having her brought home - the only way they could send her "back to work" against her will would be to a closed Thai brothel where she would make 200 baht a time and stand no chance whatsoever of meeting a rich, old farang.

Far from knowing too much about Thailand, this is a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing; according to you her father is a poo yai ban, not Newin Chidchob, and while 200,000 baht may get him a lot of leverage with the local police it would get him little nationwide. If his "wealth" is based on the big house in the village his elder daughter inherited from her old farang husband he is very small fry indeed. Get your paranoia and your imagination under control and read what others such as GeriatricKid (did I really write that??) have said, then get on with whatever you are leaving yourself of your life.

.... If a straight male prostitute happens to be Catholic, he is not committing a sin any more by using a condom.

He never was "committing a sin ... by using a condom" if he was having sex with a man; if he is having sex with a woman the position (no pun intended) is now unclear, at best. The Catholic church's ban on birth control was because it prevented procreation - nothing to do with recreation - so it is unlikely that even the Pope would be so illogical as to condone condom use by a male prostitute with a female client but not a male client with a female prostitute. Not impossible, but unlikely.

As isanbirder also said, nothing has changed and the Pope hasn't given ground at all. If anything (and if he was referring to male prostitutes who have sex with men, as seems most likely) his "concession" on these grounds to stop the spread of HIV simply indicates his lack of understanding of the problem, since most cases of HIV (particularly in Africa) are not from MSM but from straight sex.

As isanbirder said in his original post, the whole thing's "bizarre".

The Pope says that condom use is permissible in certain cases, but that this does not include married couples; he cites (apparently) male prostitutes as an example, but while the gay lobby has concluded that he is talking about male gay prostitutes (or at least those catering to gay males, regardless of their own sexual preference) he could just as easily be talking about male prostitutes catering to straight women - or not, depending on how you interpret what he said.

To confuse things even further while the English translation of the German original talks specifically about "male prostitutes", the Italian version just talks about prostitutes. As i don't speak German I have no idea what the original German said, nor does it really matter as the church's position remains unchanged.

Although it is often blamed for the Catholic Church's view, Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae was at least aimed specifically at married couples, assuming naively that sexual relations only took place in marriage; John Paul II's encyclical Veritatis Splendor was far more specific, instructing that no artificial contraception was permitted under any circumstances. Until a Pope comes out with a new encyclical formally changing the Catholic church's teaching on contraception they will still deliberately condemn countless thousands of men, women and children to an unnecessary and unpleasant early death, and nothing will change that.

An eminently sensible and unusually rational move.

If you avoid the Tatchell rhetoric and read what the amendment actually said it was simply broadening the scope of the amendment in what is a totally ineffective, non-binding and widely ignored resolution.

What I find particularly interesting here, though, is Suradit's insertion of the word "Islamic" ('"......the vast majority of countries in support were [Islamic] African or Arabic countries") when this is not in either of his references and when the countries which voted for the amendment are in fact almost exactly equally split between Islamic and Christian. Maybe "fundamentalist" would have been a better description.

I think that THB 10'000 is too much for a driver without diploma, living in Isaan. Above figures are for drivers in the Bangkok area. I would offer THB 6'000 plus health insurance (about THB 10'000- 15'000 a year).

If your mother's safety and well-being is scarcely worth $200 a month to you, then I hope she isn't thinking about leaving you too much in her will.

6,000 baht a month for a full time driver is barely above the legal minimum wage for anywhere in Thailand and, as MikeyIdea pointed out, there is a world of difference between a job with a limited future and one with long-term security (pension/lump sum on retirement, maternity leave, sick leave, health care, etc). Pay the minimum and that is what you will get (and what you would deserve).

The best advice so far, by far, is again MikeyIdea's: if you've got a suitable person in mind already to look after your mother then pay her what she's asking (or more, if you are giving her the extra responsibility of driving) and teach her to drive properly, and it'll save you money and worry.

And as TransAm asked, where in Isaan? If its in an urban area (and while it may surprise some members, Isaan is not all rural villages which would be highly unlikely to be suitable for an "elderly" western lady), then you should expect to pay urban rates.

.........One need only look at the current abortion fiasco to understand what happens when political or personal views interfere with decisions that should be focused on health.

Which particular "current abortion fiasco" are you talking about, GK?

Abortions in registered clinics have been legal in Thailand under Section 305 of the Thai Criminal Code for over four years and none of the many abortions carried out in those clinics have been challenged legally or ethically. The only problem is that far too few Thais are aware of the current legal position so many still risk using illegal and dangerous back street "clinics" unnecessarily. Again, it all boils down to education rather than legislation.

Everyone is equal in the eye's of the religious one, Buddha, Jesus, the good allah etc etc, so whats the problem ,...........

I think you need to read your Bible and your Koran a little more closely. Even the most liberal translations/interpretations make it clear beyond any doubt that men and women, just for starters, are far from equal.

There are two different things:

1. Cultural acceptance by the population.

Thailand is a leading country in this respect. However, the legal situation is such that a same-sex relationship is not recognised, and there is no attempt yet to change that.

I won't comment on the cultural acceptance of homosexuality in the outbacks of the UK.

2. Legal acceptance by the authorities.

In many Western countries, the legal system allows same-sex relationships, even to the legal level (won't use the word marriage here, as some people might get offended), but the local people might get offended (oops, are you mnoticing something?). The politicians are ahead in their developement, but they haven't gotten around to educating the populace yet.

What do I value as more important? - Cultural acceptance. Others may see that differently, though.

Agreed yet again, Tom.

There are many different ways to skin a cat.

The West seems to see legislation as the answer to everything, with more and more laws controlling everything we do until freedom of choice is so limited that the only way to avoid doing nothing wrong is to do nothing at all.

The East is rather more laisssez-faire, leaving it up to individuals how they get along. If some people don't like others because of their race, religion, sexual preference, etc, then so be it: as long as they don't specifically target those people as distinct from sideline them, then that's fair. If you don't like someone, for whatever reason, it is unreasonable to be forced to employ them, for example.

Neither way is perfect. While you can tell people how to behave you can't tell people how to think, and in some cases western legislation has had a backlash against the very people it was designed to protect - some police forces in both the UK and the USA have reported considerably more violent crimes against gays after "hate crime" legislation than there was before. On the other hand everyone should be entitled to basic civil rights - the question, though, is what those basic rights are and when do they start affecting other people's basic rights.

The answer in the long term, East or West, must be education - if that is best coming before or after legislation is debatable.

1. You know one now. I believe that some gay people have chosen to be gay, while others were born that way. I know quite a few other gay men who feel the same. And I know several men who have long led a straight life, but at some point in their lives lived a gay life.

How very curious. You appear to be saying that, all other things being equal (which they seldom are), not only do some gay men choose to be straight but some straight men also choose to be gay.

Your second point is one which no-one has disagreed with, and which has already been commented on. Many gay men suppress their gay inclinations due to outside pressure and have a "normal" family life; some do so all their life while others at some point decide to make their feelings public. Nothing new there.

As for your first point, you seem to be looking at gay and straight as being black or white, with people being either 100% gay or 100% straight - comparatively few people are, as has been discussed on other threads here at some length before, so any such choice is not about being "gay or straight" but about which lifestyle you choose to follow. For those who are 100% or predominantly straight (at one end of the Hirschfield or Kinsey scales) this is never a choice they have to make - they are heterosexual and lead a heterosexual lifestyle (wife and family, etc) although, as you rightly say, a proportion may "dabble" occasionally with sex with men to satisfy the "gay" part of their make up. For those who are 100% or predominantly gay (at the other end of the scales) their only choice is whether to succumb to outside pressure to conform or whether to be "out" and to follow a "gay" lifestyle (b/f, male partner(s), etc); as homosexuality is increasingly accepted so they have less and less need to make a conscious choice. Those who are more to the middle of the two (the middle being bisexual) have a similar but conscious choice: conform, conform outwardly but "dabble", or be seen to be gay.

You are confusing sexual desire, which you have no choice over as it is believed to be the results of a range of factors such as genes, uterine development and hormones (and arguably environment), and sexual preference or sexual orientation, which is the result depending on how much you suppress those natural desires, with sexual identity which is how you choose to think of yourself and to appear to others (even though this identity may not be reflected in your sexual activity).

Basically, you can choose your sexual identity, but acording to all major medical, psychological, pediatric and psychiatric opinion nobody can choose or change their natural sexual desires.

I should add that this fixation with sexual orientation is very much a Western concept - and phetaroi, if you are so sure that you made a conscious choice to be gay (rather than just to follow a gay lifestyle) why not check your natural preference by using penile photoplethysmography, or maybe an electromyographic anal probe? Don't enjoy yourself too much ......

Where was it mentioned that it was pornographic......, and if so, how do YOU know ?

And, if the sentence in the OP article says: "The Board of Censors has banned the gay-themed Thai film "Insects in the Backyard".....

one may -also- assume that it was the Board of Censors who said it was Gay-themed.

Not that it matters because it was silly in the first place to call the movie (no one here on TV has seen, most likely) "Gay-themed"

I don't "KNOW" since I have not seen the film, as I have already explained, but the OP from The Nation wrote that " The film has explicit scenes involving masturbation and teenagers in school uniforms engaging in various sexual acts with clients." which sounds reasonably pornograhic to me.

Your assumption is hardly rational; the article is very clear what the Board said: ' “The film’s content goes against public order or morality,” the board said yesterday.'

At least we agree that The Nation was "silly", which is something.

........ I stopped once, and they wanted to use my car to bring some victims into a hospital. I refused ......

Why did you stop but refuse to help?

....... Obviously, this comment/review was written BEFORE the hypocritical Thai Censors, stupidly talking about a "Gay-themed" film, BANNED the movie...

Thai Hypocracy at it's finest.

LaoPo

The "Thai Censors" DID NOT talk about a "'Gay-themed' film". The Nation did, taking its lead from the film's director Tanwarin.

They DID NOT ban it because it was a "'Gay-themed' film". They have NEVER said there was anything wrong with this film, or any other, having a "gay theme". They banned it because it was pornographic. That may not suit Tanwarin's agenda, or yours, but that happens to be the case.