Nisa

If you don't stay on Sukhimvit you'll save a lot and still can have a pool and gym and be close to the MRT. If you stay on Sukhimvit then would imagine living costs are not going to be much different than the UK except it is cheaper to get around if you don't have a car.

You might also try to find his home phone number on the net based on his address in the US and call there as they are probably in contact with him. He may be really screwed right now without his ATM or credit card. If you need help PM. If you need help tracking his home down in the US or calling, let me know, I am currently in the US.

Have you also considered checking with the police to see if he maybe reported it stolen? I think that is the first place somebody goes to search for a missing wallet and not the embassy or Thaivisa ... probably also the place most people go to try to return a found wallet.

Regardless, great of you to make an effort to help this person out but when you take a responsibility like this you really need to see it through as quickly as possible or hand it off to the police or embassy because if the guy is hurting without this, those are the places he is likely to go first and coming on to Thaivisa is probably the last thing on his mind right now.

Good Luck and am guessing the guy will be hugely relieved if you get him his wallet back before he gives up and cancels all his cards.

Sad ... too many lives on all sides lost.

Considering this matter is about temple, a so-called house of God, although I doubt if God would be allowed in there without a permit, or by having to prove his allegiance to one side or the other, perhaps he could show his hand, create an earthquake in the area and demolish the building completely?

I`m sure that would solve the problem.

Which God are you talking about? Although it originally started out as as a Hindu Temple around the 9th Century, most of it and what still remains was built around the 11th century in the name of Buddhism which doesn't have a God.

A great laugh for the morning. To the best of my knowledge, every street vendor pays off the police to operate. It would be a bit unseemly for the police to collect money from a vendor one day, and then give them the boot the next day. There must be some sort of compromise available. I sort of like street vendors, but it is damned annoying to have to walk in the street because the sidewalk is jammed with vendors...

That is actually a myth. The only ones that need to pay off the police are the ones doing something illegal. They pay a license fee that allow them to operate in a certain area.

Really? Well you must not spend a lot of time on Sukhumvit. The B.i.B. must be collecting license fees weekly - I have been able to record/film them for a documentary on more than one occasion with in a month.

You do realize that Sukhumvit vendors make up a very tiny percentage of the street vendors in Thailand but it is where you will probably find the highest concentration of ones selling illegal goods and am guessing that Sukimvit is also probably one of the most restrictive areas when it comes to areas to be able to sell legally.

But I am curious ... How much were the vendors paying the police? What quotes did you get from the officers being handed bribes or extortion money without concern out in the open? How do you know the vendors were operating legally?

And of course .... any promo clips on youtube we can check out for your upcoming documentary?

The US represented Cambodia in the ICJ in 1962 and Britain represented the Thai side.

Cambodia became an independent nation in 1953.

Suggest some reading up on history of the region is urgently needed.

What do you mean they were represented by other countries? Do you mean because they had lawyers assisting them from different countries? If that is the case then both sides were represented by the US.

I mean they were represented by former government officials from Britain and the US, and not by France, as the other poster incinuated.

Funnily enough, the Thais accused the US judge presiding of having a bias, as the Cambodian legal team also had an American representative.

Got it. I just wasn't sure if there was some protocol at the ICJ of having another country represent you.

Although I have no bases to believe anything bias or unfair happened, I did notice that there were actually a couple French on the Cambodian team. This of course is meaningless because each side should be represented by people who are biased for them and only the judges should be unbiased.

Just out of curiosity, I did look up the judges. Below are those that decided the case which ended in a 9-3 victory for Cambodia. The three in red sided with Thailand.

President: Winiarski (Poland); Vice-President: Alfaro (Panama);

Judges: Basdevant (France), Badawi (Egypt), Moreno Quintana (Argintina), Wellington Koo (China), Sir Percy Spender (Australia), Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice (UK), Koretsky (USSR), Tanaka (Japan), Bustamante y Rivero (Peru), Morelli (Italy)

I'd like to believe a fair decision was made but have no idea what the politics of the day were and how much they may have played into any decision.

http://www.worldcourts.com/icj/eng/decisions/1962.06.15_preah_vihear.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judges_of_the_International_Court_of_Justice

Let me see....a German disagreeing with a French map 50 years ago?

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

Nice to see you did not miss the opportunity of a cheap shot against the "Hun".

We all know that the British and French were extremely good at "drawing lines on maps" without ever having been on site - just look at the borders of many African states and the resulting continuous problems with ethnic minorities. Professor Ackermann was at the Temple and did a survey. His statement is well founded and cannot be dismissed easily. But as a German and arguing "pro-Thai" he cannot expect a fair treatment in this forum.

Not even Cambodia is contesting this man's findings, which are irrelevant. But before anyone makes more silly comments after a completely irrelevant to the case article in The Nation, please read the 1962 ICJ ruling, and understand why the temple was awarded to Cambodia. I will also give you the most likely outcome in current case.

It was my understanding what really hurt Thailand was that they not only didn't dispute a 1907 map, drawn up by the French, but they also used and distributed the map. The map showed the temple in Cambodia despite an agreement years earlier that it would remain in Thailand.

Is this about right?

I'd be curious to know but not so curious to want to read the entire court decision which is a very lengthy document but did find a link if anybody else is interested ... http://www.worldcourts.com/icj/eng/decisions/1962.06.15_preah_vihear.htm

The US represented Cambodia in the ICJ in 1962 and Britain represented the Thai side.

Cambodia became an independent nation in 1953.

Suggest some reading up on history of the region is urgently needed.

What do you mean they were represented by other countries? Do you mean because they had lawyers assisting them from different countries? If that is the case then both sides were represented by the US.

one can assume the Chinese probably mix more even if you consider the number of farang sex tourists mixing with bar girls.

Yet again you assume wrong.

Asian sex-tourists outnumbered 'farang' sex-tourists years ago and their numbers continue to grow.

Asian sex-tourism is growing at an exponential rate across the border in Cambodia also, they now outnumber 'farang' sex-tourist by some margin I believe.

Single males from China cannot find enough single women in their own country and there is a surplus here. They have been wife shopping in Thailand for decades.

Just the other day a top Chinese official on a business trip in Thailand was caught visiting brothels and gambling dens.

Wait until the casinos open in Thailand, then you will get a taste of what the PRC are like, or better yet, speak to a Hong Kong Chinese or Singaporean Chinese and ask their opinion.

So, I actually assumed 100% right according to you but as usual you love to try and argue with me even when proving me right and even when you quote me using a partial statement / sentence.

Do you mean Chinese people or do you mean tourists?

some tourist can be very rude and bad mouthing people. like talking bad about the local people. i have seen such people here to. but i don't think they are Chinese.

Agree with you so many tourists are bad mannered, I visit Koh Lhan frequently--difficult to know the difference between Chinese Taiwanese and Korean unless you speak their language, The Chinese stand out more as their clothes-particulally the mid age bracket are somewat old fashioned and the Chinse DO tend to argue about deck chair prices and goods more than the more well behaved Kor/Taiwan tourists.

Another feature with the Chinese is they spend Little on every day shopping, As Nisa and other google fanatics/TAT figures show what they pay for their holiday rather than what they spend locally. BUT I agree it goes into the Treasury--good---

An item on Thai T.V. said that tourism is Thailands biggest earner ????? figures give us 8% but we are overwealmed with tourists at the minute. We have to believe what we can, rather than google up TAT or a.n. other. seeing is the best guide to how many tourists are here. What they spend is very dubious, I never see Chinese spend big ammounts---it all goes on their ?? day package.

Reports say Chinese spend more than the average tourist. maybe not in beer bar but in other places.

Agree again BUT it is calculated on their package, via operaters etc, air all inc hotel food, what others experience here is their LOCAL spending that differs from Westerners who spend money directly into pockets of -girls boys, venders beach chairs, drinks---whole lotta differences in style. Most westerners mix with Thai people, rarely Chinese they stick to tours together,

I add they are certainly good for tourism as is anyone who arrives here as they all contribute. Sometimes the wrong angle is taken when posters speak a little about them mixing--but its true.

Reports and stats do not and can not give individual spending other than package--different to westerners cause we know what average they may spend locally-or we have a better Idea, when they open their wallets.

It is calculated on the same things it is calculated on for any other tourist from any other country and I don't believe it includes airfare and if it did then you have to give the Chinese even more credit for their spending since they probably have a lower flight costs than most coming here. But again, I don't believe daily spending includes airfare as it would make the numbers non-comparable and make countries like China and other close countries appear to spend less.

No matter how determined you may be to belittle the Chinese spending habits it is all money being pumped into the economy and for the good of the people of Thailand. The value of buying from the old lady selling noodles on the street to going to a restaurant that employees people and pays taxes is very disputable. As for mixing ... that just makes no sense. Tourists go to tourists spots and given the number of Thai citizens who are Thai-Chinese one can assume the Chinese probably mix more even if you consider the number of farang sex tourists mixing with bar girls and boys. There is also a very large number of Chinese living and working in Thailand.

Bottom line it is what it is and Chinese are not the top spenders individually but they are good spenders and they currently are the leading country visiting Thailand and in fact they are currently the most sought after market for most countries in the world looking to tap into more tourist dollars.

As for other posts about them being rude ... I guess much of that depends on how culturally aware you are towards others. Just about any poll I have read about international tourists always rate Americans and numerous European countries well ahead of the Chinese when it comes to rude and disliked tourists but even this is probably mostly based on different cultures.

The "elephant expert" is claimed to "believe" many things but I missed anything about any proof or where he is getting all these "beliefs"

In 1962 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Netherlands, awarded ownership of Preah Vihear Temple to Cambodia by a 9 to 3 vote, stating that the 1907 map clearly showed Preah Vihear as being in Cambodia. The court only ruled that the temple belong to Cambodia, and did not rule on the surrounding adjacent lands....

The ownership dispute reappeared in recent years after Cambodia submitted an application to UNESCO requesting that Preah Vihear be designated as a World Heritage site .... Cambodia withdrew the application, and in 2008, after winning support from Thailand, submitted a modified map requesting the designation only for the temple but not the surrounding land.

Although this is more recent history, it is interesting to see just how far back this has gone on ... See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Thai_border_dispute#Background

If they just moved a few on, making a bit more space I would be happy. I would wager that many around silom and Sukhumvit are illegal simply because of where they are.

No idea how they figure out where it is legal and would tend to agree with you about Silom and Sukimvit except with Silom there are official government signs and advertising about the Silom street market. So, would guess at least part of Silom road is legal during some hours.

I am sure there is some paper somewhere that the BMA drew up 30 years ago zoning it. Which of course makes little allowance for the fact that the commuting population today is probably 10 times higher.

That and the fact politician and other officials probably don't get out and walk too much and the people that do just accept how insane it is to walk in some areas. Pedestrians are third class citizens in Thailand behind vehicles and motorbikes which use the sidewalks too. You even see little ramps on the sidewalks, not big for wheelchairs, that are to allow motorbikes to get on the sidewalk easy. It really is sad too. How often do you see a wheelchair bound person in Bangkok? It would be near impossible for them to get around. Then if the government wants to add traffic lights they use huge i-beams on each side of the road and surround them with a concrete wall that takes up 90% of the sidewalk ... forget about them even getting rid of the banks of huge phone booths blocking sidewalks that rarely get used. So, you have to wonder if there is any thought at all put into pedestrian traffic where they allow street vendors ... of course unless it effects the area around their offices, homes and other places they may actually walk.

If they just moved a few on, making a bit more space I would be happy. I would wager that many around silom and Sukhumvit are illegal simply because of where they are.

No idea how they figure out where it is legal and would tend to agree with you about Silom and Sukimvit except with Silom there are official government signs and advertising about the Silom street market. So, would guess at least part of Silom road is legal during some hours ... on the other hand there are vendors without question there selling illegal goods too but at least with the Video folks they do seem very concerned with the police and don't actually keep any illegal copies at the stand.

Legal vendors pay the BMA. Illegal vendors pay the BiB. Legal businesses pay taxes to the State, casinos, brothels, and other illegal businesses pay the BiB. If someone is selling porn, bootleg DVDs, counterfeit Viagra and Gucci, or operating a mobile bar, they are illegal and must pay the BiB. All those food stalls and souvenir shops selling local product are legal and have a license from the BMA. These are two distinct groups sharing the same area. I think many here are mixing the two.

Logic and reality may be lost on some who easily believe anything negative and jump on any chance to feel superior even if it means coming off a bit foolish and not stopping to think 5 meters from a Pedestrian Walkway probably is referring to street cross walks and not a sidewalk.

The only ones that need to pay off the police are the ones doing something illegal. They pay a license fee that allow them to operate in a certain area.

It's not a myth. In fact many stalls are erected illegally and have to pay the Police. My ex had a stall selling womens' clothing on Sukhumvit near Soi Nana and all the vendors paid money to the Police to operate on their patch.

There's no 'license fee', it's a bribe or tea money so the Police turn a blind eye. The Police also act as 'protection' in case something happens. Much like a organised crime racket back home.

In other words ... as I said ... the ones who are doing something illegal need to pay. If they are not paying for a street vendor license then they are without doubt operating illegally. And if as you say all the vendors pay along Soi Nana then it is illegal to sell in that area and why they pay.

Not to split hairs, but that would suggest 100% in many areas are illegal, so by definition ALL pay, in certain areas?

Of course they do if they are in an area that is not legal to be. It is not splitting hairs at all unless we want to define Street Vendors as to mean Street Vendors only in Tourist Areas. I have never seen a map of where they can and cannot operate but would imagine in tourist areas it is more limited. However this is only a small fraction of street vendors in Bangkok with most others serving people in local areas who rarely venture to malls or supermarkets and depend on these vendors. I can only guess but would imagine Sukimvit and Silom roads have limited areas and hours where street vendors can legally sell.

A great laugh for the morning. To the best of my knowledge, every street vendor pays off the police to operate. It would be a bit unseemly for the police to collect money from a vendor one day, and then give them the boot the next day. There must be some sort of compromise available. I sort of like street vendors, but it is damned annoying to have to walk in the street because the sidewalk is jammed with vendors...

That is actually a myth. The only ones that need to pay off the police are the ones doing something illegal. They pay a license fee that allow them to operate in a certain area.

It's not a myth. In fact many stalls are erected illegally and have to pay the Police. My ex had a stall selling womens' clothing on Sukhumvit near Soi Nana and all the vendors paid money to the Police to operate on their patch.

There's no 'license fee', it's a bribe or tea money so the Police turn a blind eye. The Police also act as 'protection' in case something happens. Much like a organised crime racket back home.

In other words ... as I said ... the ones who are doing something illegal need to pay. If they are not paying for a street vendor license then they are without doubt operating illegally. And if as you say all the vendors pay along Soi Nana then it is illegal to sell in that area and why they pay.

I truly like the concept of street vendors as it is what makes the old Asia character (plus it's convenient). I esp like food street vendors. However, if only the Thais had any foresight and planning, then the walkways would be far larger (like in Cambodia, Vietnam, etc) and everyone would be just fine. Problem is also that there is already little space, and Thais have a natural propensity of constrict space as much as possible. They can't stand an open space and must put something there.

It isn't only the street vendors but the stores and homes along the Sois and even some of the larger streets build out onto the sidewalk as if it is theirs. I can't speak for everywhere but would assume it is probably the similar laws in most places such as in the the US in terms of the area in front of your shop or home (sidewalk or just adjacent to the street) is often yours but that really means you are simply responsible for maintaining it but you can't build on it or obstruct it. When you walk down some of the sois that don't have sidewalks take a closer look and you can see the area where there should be a sidewalk but people have built walls or even extended their shop or home. The line is often easy to see because it is different construction and there will always be a couple property owners who didn't build out and you get a very short distance for walking. Now add some street vendors and it is not only a nightmare for walking but also driving on the small sois. I think my biggest complaint of Bangkok and most of Thailand is the lack of concern for pedestrian traffic. Not only does the government not enforce keeping sidewalks clear but they often are big offenders of using up side walk space. The vendors themselves don't bother me and I think it would be sad to see them go but then again in places like Sukumvit they could limit vendors to one side of a particular sidewalk and not have bottlenecks of pedestrians where there is only one walking lane with vendors on each side of you.

How 7-11 let these scabby vendors block their entrances is also a mystery.

Sometimes you have to step over dogs just to get in and in doing so fear getting bitten.

I don't know about you, but I NEVER have to worry about being bitten by dogs asleep outside 7/11... perhaps that dog is a good judge of character.

In all fairness, some of those dogs selling various meats on a stick out of their cart can be pretty vicious.

A great laugh for the morning. To the best of my knowledge, every street vendor pays off the police to operate. It would be a bit unseemly for the police to collect money from a vendor one day, and then give them the boot the next day. There must be some sort of compromise available. I sort of like street vendors, but it is damned annoying to have to walk in the street because the sidewalk is jammed with vendors...

That is actually a myth. The only ones that need to pay off the police are the ones doing something illegal. They pay a license fee that allow them to operate in a certain area.

You need to get out on the town more....

I know MANY street vendors and none of them pay the police because they are all legal .. which doesn't take much. However it does cost more to get a license to sell in areas like Sukhumvit but the only people they need to pay is the government for the license to be there ... that and often an agreement with the store they me be in front of but there is no reason to pay the police off if they are not doing anything wrong. But you are welcome to believe what you want.

A great laugh for the morning. To the best of my knowledge, every street vendor pays off the police to operate. It would be a bit unseemly for the police to collect money from a vendor one day, and then give them the boot the next day. There must be some sort of compromise available. I sort of like street vendors, but it is damned annoying to have to walk in the street because the sidewalk is jammed with vendors...

That is actually a myth. The only ones that need to pay off the police are the ones doing something illegal. They pay a license fee that allow them to operate in a certain area.

While the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) officially allows

vendors to operate in some areas, they still need to be at least 10

metres away from bus stops and at least five metres from pedestrian

walkways.

Suk soi 7 to 13

Walkway = Pedestrian Street Crossing and not sidewalk.

Keep in mind they are street vendors which generally means they sell to people walking down the street (sidewalk).

I seem to recall they originally estimated that it would take 6-years before they would see a profit.

All countries track this kind of data and it is done through surveys. I've actually been hit up by folks doing the surveys at the airport but blew them off because they looked like they had a lot of questions on the form. It is estimates and regardless if the total is off 10 or 20% off it still is good for comparing information since the data is collected the same way for each group / country..

Ok thanks for that , I was wondering how ,as I don't even know myself what my average daily holiday spend is !

I kick myself in the butt every time I think about not answering the survey. I was in Chiang Mai airport around New Years just this past year when the women approached me. I was so not in the mood but really would have loved to know what and how they ask.

The more I think about it I am not sure how accurate the numbers are but as I said they are good for comparison because all the errors are pretty much a wash for the different countries and total average. Where I have issues with the number is if it is a couple (say husband and wife) or even if they bring a child along. The numbers seem okay for a single person but my guess is they really wouldn't be that different for a husband and wife even if they had a child. I question if they ask both the husband and wife separately or if they ask one of them for the total and divide it by two or even three if they have a child.

Edit: I can tell you the first question was something to do with where I live or come from. That is how I avoided the whole thing by saying I am from Bangkok. If it matters (they may switch up) it was in the departure area and not the arrival area. Also, this is not the reason I know it is done through surveys. I actually read a more detailed report once and it explained it was done through surveys. I believe it said they do them at the airports and hotels and would guess they are not backpacker hotels..