RichardL

26 minutes ago, Dukeleto said:

Ahhh yes that would be the logical solution but the real drive behind this is the rich Thai elite families who own or have major shares in the big hotels and don’t want the competition. It’s really that simple.

 

Are the sort of people who'd normally book into those large and expensive hotels going to be people who use AirBnB?

1 hour ago, Humpy said:

Can somebody please produce a simple map of where this fire started.......... in relation to Happy-a GoGo !!?

It was here...

https://www.google.com/maps/@12.9245299,100.8722034,3a,75y,304.33h,91.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8SkJ8Tebtc0K-JwFCK0bBg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Perhaps they could take the opportunity to change the name of the stadium to something befitting an English club.

as opposed to being named after an Englishman, you mean?

Rumours suggest the takeover isn't by the Red Bull guy, but are a but thin apart from that.

I does seem like people living in Thailand have a much more negative view of the place than people outside the country.

Thailand is a pretty easy country to be a tourist in, and that counts for a lot. While there might be corruption etc, I don't think it's generally viewed as something that will impact toursits at all.

Myanmar, on the other hand, is known for its oppressive regime, and doesn't have the same tourist-friendly image.

The "authentic" angle is perhaps overplayed. The only people who enjoy roughing it a backpackers, as they also like to spend as little money as possible. More affluent tourists, on the whole, aren't going to find that appealing. They might like the genuine grit on their day trips out, but will want to be able to come back to rooms with en suite, a/c, maybe a pool etc in the evenings.

The sex tourism angle must put some off Thailand - but I don't think it's that many. As long as you don't go to Pattaya, it's pretty easy to avoid. It's not as if anyone is going to stumble into a Patpong bar by mistake.

Certainly another country opening up will be a threat to Thailand, but I'd still wonder how many first time visitors to the region don't go to Thailand. I'd wager even those who go to Vietnam or Cambodia either have been to Thailand before, or combine their trip with a visit to Thailand.

one government official alleged that these animals were killed to provide elephant meat and sexual organs for consumption at wildlife "bush-meat" restaurants on Phuket, for visiting foreign tourists

It seems like a deliberately made-up claim, for whatever reason

The reason is rudimentary and common place.

It displaces the blame onto foreigners as the reason for the killing of elephants... instead of on the locals.

.

It takes two to tango, so let's not absolve the foreigners altogether. It's the same as attacking prostitutes and letting the users go free. Tourists can not use the "I didn't know" argument forever and about everything.

That's like blaming the pie shop customers for Sweeney Todd's murders.

Tourists would never suspect young elephants are being captured this way. Why would they?

You can criticise Thais, but many states in the USA don't have seatbelt laws and the residents feel safer that way. Thousands have even had airbags deactivated after scare stories about children being injured by airbags (which were the result of not wearing seatbelts or child seats being fitted incorrectly).

It's all about perceived danger. In fact I've seen western families ride around on scooters with their helmetless kids stood up at the front. They'd never do that in their homeland, but partly that's because they are not allowed to. I would bet if western driving rules were relaxed to Thai levels, you'd see a massive spike in road deaths in Europe/USA too.

People can't be relied upon to do the safe thing by choice, as often what they want to do they regard as bending the rules, rather than breaking them, and don't regard it as unsafe.

Of course if the two to a scooter rule was properly imposed, it would present something of a problem for Thai families where the scooter is the only transport they have. One of the things that struck me about Thailand is that there are no small cars anywhere. You go from scooter to Toyota Corolla, with nothing at all inbetween.

I doubt the police will want standing back because its easier for them with all seaters.

don't see that as much of an argument to be honest, most of the police's work is usually crowd control outside the ground. it works just fine in other countries so i don't see why it shouldn't work in england if correctly managed.

what's wrong with the way it is now Stevie?

Looks to me that Serie A has standing areas and what a mess.

Serie A doesn't have standing areas. It has seated areas that people stand up in, and a clueless police force who have not idea about crowd control - i.e. they have two modes: a) do nothing and ) b charge in cracking heads.

Loads of countries have standing areas now, even in newer stadiums. Hell, you can even go up to Leo Stadium in Pathum Thani and stand on one of the highest terraces in football.

As for "what's wrong with it now?", football was just a lot more fun when there were terraces. The atmosphere was a lot better as well.

I've never got the "i prefer to sit" arguement. Nobody is saying standing will be compulsory. It just offers a choice.

It'll also improve the lot of those who prefer to sit, as they'll no longer be surrounded by people who keep standing up.

But if they happen to come from over the border in Isaan, and are 'lured' (or sold) to Pattaya, that's different?

Seizing the passport of a Thai in Thailand wouldn't really be a major hurdle to escaping.

While there must be murky back street brothels somewhere in Pattaya, the girls who work in the bars there are in no way imprisoned, except perhaps through economics. The western view is always to assume nobody would ever do that job unless they are a drug addict or a sex slave being held against their will. That's not even true in the west.

Many are trapped and are drug addicts, even those that work in the bars catering to Westerners.

It's somewhere in the middle.

That they are not being somehow forced to sell themselves (by economics or other factors) is the myth perpetrated by Westerners (myself included in naive days), to make ourselves feel better about engaging in the same immorality as the Thais.

How can people who live outside the clubs leave the bars every night be trapped?

Drug addiction also takes a pretty crippling toll on one's health and looks. It also gives them an outlook on life squarely fixated with getting the money for the next fix by any means possible. Guys who pick up cheap girls while kerb crawling (or in some dodgy back-street club) aren't going to be so fussy, but a drug-addict dancer or beer bar girl would never get picked, and the high chance of her stealing from the customers would be bad for business.

I'm sure the number doing it because they just love it as a job is tiny, but doing something because it's the only way of earning such a wage isn't the same as being trapped. To imply it is is actually pretty disrespectful to those in Thailand (and around the world) who genuinely are forced into it.

If anyone's interested I was able to take in four games while in Thailand recently and this was my take on Thai football

http://stadiumsandcities.wordpress.com/

I went to Sriracha 1 Osotspa 1, BEC Tero Sasana 2 Sisaket 1 (cup), Bangkok Glass 2 BEC Tero Sasana 0 and Thai Port 1 Chiangrai 1.

Good to see a sprinkling of foreign fans at the games too, although most were at Thai Port.

But if they happen to come from over the border in Isaan, and are 'lured' (or sold) to Pattaya, that's different?

Seizing the passport of a Thai in Thailand wouldn't really be a major hurdle to escaping.

While there must be murky back street brothels somewhere in Pattaya, the girls who work in the bars there are in no way imprisoned, except perhaps through economics. The western view is always to assume nobody would ever do that job unless they are a drug addict or a sex slave being held against their will. That's not even true in the west.

It makes you wonder how much of the worlds tourism industry is propped up by airlines offering very low airfares to entice people to fly. Sooner or later these airlines will go bust and will probably be bailed out again and again and again.How can an airline offer rtn airfares for 550 euros europe -bkk-euro. they must be losing a chunk of money.

if airlines charged full economy fares the tourism industry would collapse.

The actual cost of flight is cheaper than you'd think with a full plane, especially with those people at the front paying very high prices.

Around half of the cost of any long haul flight, often more, is tax. I believe they can cut taxes, as well as make savings of econony, by having planes operate out of regional hubs. That's why the cheap fares are almost never direct flights.

The very cheap fares are unusually either promotional rates, or last minute rates when they want to fill up the plane. They certainly aren't typical.

Can happen anywhere....once upon a time not so many weeks ago......

These are flash flood's not prolonged and inundation that we are seeing in Thailand,you are wrong,when was the last time London showed signs of this type of flooding,it hasn't due to the fact that the govt has invested money in the Thames barrier,the govt of Thailand does not invest money in problems such as this per se

The Thames Barrier offers no protection at all against floodwater from inland. It's just to stop the odd exceptionally high tidal surge. If England was hit by such a proportionally high rainfall, London would flood badly.

The big difference is that the waters run much faster and even bad floods only last about a week. If that was the case in Thailand then the waters would not have accumulated so badly.

There not a great deal anyone can do about that though. All that can be done is get the drainage system up to the drainage level quoted last month (around 450 million cubic m per day) instead of the figure of about 300 million, which seems to be the actual level now. Shipping out another 150 million a day would have made a considerable difference.

How many countries that have moved their capitals have seen the new capital become much more than administritive centre?

I fail to see how declaring Chiang Mai, for example, the new capital would see business relocate their operations there. Bangkok is the commercial hub, and it'll take more than moving government a few hundred miles away to change that.

There's something I find about the airport being officially declared safe more frightening than not being told anything.

I'm arriving on the 30th and to be frank, I've no idea what to expect. I read reports that make me think thinks are on the brink or easing, and on the brink of getting much worse, seemingly every day.

I'm lucky in a sense that after avoiding the place in two previous trip to Thailand, I'm spending several days in Pattaya before arriving in Bangkok. I do have the option of booking an extra 5 nights there if the worst comes to the worst, but I want to come to Bangkok unless it's foolhardy to do so. At the moment, I'm just not able to make that judgement.

I don't really have the option of re-arranging, as it's only the last 5 nights of a 3 and a half week trip that have a problem. I can fully understand someone faced with the option of arriving at the start of December, not knowing what state the place will be, or maybe putting things off until January, would opt for postponing.

OK, I've been to Bangkok before. I've been to Ayutthaya and Lop Buri before. I've even been to the flooded temple at Laksi, and there are no sights I'm desperate to see, but it would still cloud my overall trip if I had to avoid the city. For someone who has never been before, it could ruin their trip.

Really, if you knew someone had the option of postponing their trip for a month or two, why would anyone suggest they don't do so?

In the article it mentions that the water from the taps in the airport stank, well upon talking to one of the guys here at the office who lives in Pathumthani, he mentioned that 3 days before the floods came the tap water started to stink as well. Maybe Swampy will be affected by the floods, maybe not.

I believe the airport has its own drainage system, independent from the city's sewers, so no water can enter than way.

I wouldn't expect it to have it's own water supply though, so that would be from the city.

guilty until proven innocent, I'm afraid. A guy who kills someone for damaging his "toy collection", gets stuck in the "oddball with no hope of getting a proper girlfriend" pigeonhole fairly easily.

I don't think it really was about the toy collection at all. The woman was leaving him and taking their only child back to Thailand. The morning of her murder their fight started about why he hadn't gotten their child a passport yet so the mother could get out of the country. The Daily Mail doesn't even mention that he even HAD a child

The "toy collection" bit was the Mail's "angle" on the story. As the press often do, they search for the "weirdo" angle, and hang everything off that. Label his wife a "thai bride" add that just adds to his wierdness.

Not in Phuket itself, but if you have the time then a day drip round the adjacent Phang Nga Bay is terrific.

ps do not hire a jet ski. It probably would be OK, but some jet ski operators are known to claim tourists have damaged the jet skis, when really the damage is old.

I think the "thai wife" thing is much less pronounced for younger guys. A 30 year old guy with a wife from Thailand (unless he's ugly) will be assumed to have found his wife in the normal way, through living there.

The guy in the star wars murder story was a 30 year old who met his wife when he was 20, and Daily Mail still used the 'bride' angle reporting the story

guilty until proven innocent, I'm afraid. A guy who kills someone for damaging his "toy collection", gets stuck in the "oddball with no hope of getting a proper girlfriend" pigeonhole fairly easily.

I see Richard you are new to Thai Visa,would that be new to Thailand as well?

I don't live in Thailand, no, but I'm not sure how living in Thailand would give anyone a better understanding of British attitudes.

There is a deep suspicion towards anyone here who has a foreign wife from a poor country, be it Thailand, Russia, the Philipines...wherever. If that man has never lived in the country, yet has seeming met a woman ready to commit to him and move to a foreign country after meeting him on holiday......it just doesn't ring true. If the guy looks like someone who'd have trouble finding a partner here, even more so.

As for the term "mail order brides", no, it doesn't mean people here believe you can literally order a bride from a catalogue. It's just a reflection of the "business transaction" nature of such marriages arranged by marriage agencies.

Take this clip from Louis Theroux visiting a client from a Thai marriage agency.

Now, she definitely seems happy and willing to marry a guy just 3 hours after meeting him, and she's no young golddigger either, but there's an unmistakeable whiff of desperation on both sides. Maybe both are still happily married now, but there definitely feels like there's something not quite right there.

I've no doubt any guy married to someone from Thailand would find the whole Thai bride thing grating. When I was in Chiang Mai last, I get chatting to a bar owner about this issue, and he was saying how annoyed he was that he'd hear people referring to his wife as his Thai wife rather than just his wife, but he was also of the opinion that too many guys left their brains on the plane when they arrived in the country.

He was also of the opinion though that if people in the UK had such a problem, that was their problem, not his. His home was Thailand now, and the prejudice of people 6000 miles away didn't matter.

edit: One of the problems with draining the water from as far as Ayutthaya is that the slope from the gulf to Ayuttaya is about 1cm for every km. Which is, essentially, flat. There are rises and falls in the land between Bangkok and Ayuttaya, but all that means is that the water will pool, and will still drain very slowly.

I thought Ayutthaya was 8m high, not 1m. Either way, it's not much of a slope.

The water levels there are supposed to be dropping. Does anyone know how far south dropping water levels have been reported? That should give some indication when a point will be reached when more water is going out than coming in.

Richard, here in Bang Yai say 20 km above BKK the water has been dropping since 3 days around 2 cm per day. Still a lot of cm to go. It went something like 7 days of rising, then a 5 days stable levels and then it started to drop.

So I wonder how long until the lower water levels reach Pathum Thani at least. I'm no expert (but nor do the experts seem to be) but I'd have thought once water there starts going down, then we are at the beginning of the end of the crisis.

edit: One of the problems with draining the water from as far as Ayutthaya is that the slope from the gulf to Ayuttaya is about 1cm for every km. Which is, essentially, flat. There are rises and falls in the land between Bangkok and Ayuttaya, but all that means is that the water will pool, and will still drain very slowly.

I thought Ayutthaya was 8m high, not 1m. Either way, it's not much of a slope.

The water levels there are supposed to be dropping. Does anyone know how far south dropping water levels have been reported? That should give some indication when a point will be reached when more water is going out than coming in.

Not sure if your suffering from a case of buyer remorse or what - but referring to women from Thailand who are married as 'Thai Brides' is insulting and perpetuates a long held but ignorant stereotype of Asian women, and in particular Thai women, as being something different than an ordinary English Bride.

Again, this has backwards thinking.

It's not stereotyping Thai or Asian women. The context of Here's Dave and his "Thai bride" is actually exactly the same as Here's Dave and his "wife", meaning it's not a proper marriage as she only married him for economic reasons, and she'd never be with him otherwise. The comments tend to particularly pointed when the guy is old grey and fat, and his wife is an attractive woman 20 years younger.

It's not that the bride from Thailand isn't as good as an English bride, it's that the man isn't considered a proper husband. The stigma is on him, not her.

If people see the marriage is genuine then they drop the "Thai bride" bit.

Disagree...in the West people do look down on Thai Wives, but they also look down on the husband. To those who look down : they can kiss my hairy behind.

They are pitied, but not looked down upon as such. They are viewed as being seen by the husband as a commodity that can be bought.

It's not assumed they are all ex-prostitutes either. It's more likely to be assumed they joined a marriage agency where they could be introduced to comparatively wealthy men from the west. The bargirl stereotype is more likely to be a girl who pretends to be in love with a guy via email, while fleecing him for money.

I think the "thai wife" thing is much less pronounced for younger guys. A 30 year old guy with a wife from Thailand (unless he's ugly) will be assumed to have found his wife in the normal way, through living there.

The 50+ guy who goes over to Thailand for two weeks and comes back engaged to a 29 year old, rather less so.

Not sure if your suffering from a case of buyer remorse or what - but referring to women from Thailand who are married as 'Thai Brides' is insulting and perpetuates a long held but ignorant stereotype of Asian women, and in particular Thai women, as being something different than an ordinary English Bride.

Again, this has backwards thinking.

It's not stereotyping Thai or Asian women. The context of Here's Dave and his "Thai bride" is actually exactly the same as Here's Dave and his "wife", meaning it's not a proper marriage as she only married him for economic reasons, and she'd never be with him otherwise. The comments tend to particularly pointed when the guy is old grey and fat, and his wife is an attractive woman 20 years younger.

It's not that the bride from Thailand isn't as good as an English bride, it's that the man isn't considered a proper husband. The stigma is on him, not her.

If people see the marriage is genuine then they drop the "Thai bride" bit.

It's really a slur on the husband - the implication being that she only married him to escape poverty in Thailand. Men with "Thai brides" are rarely respected unless it's shown theirs is a genuine marriage. It's always assumed it's not.

"Tourism Image" is not really being affected, it is more "Short term Tourism Prospects". The "Tourism Image" of this country has been declining for a while now. very few people return for 2nd or 3rd holidays as most are put off by the treatment they receive. The "Tourism Image" needs to be addressed from a young age - students need to be taught respect for other nations and instructed on how to treat foreigners in general. I remember that we used to receive "culture classes" at school that taught us how to respect other nations. God help me if I ever said, "Hello Chinky" or "Look there's a Chinaman" to a Thai tourist that visited - my mother would have slapped me.

Strange. I've known quite a few people who've taken trips to Thailand, and none of them have come back complaining about the locals. Quite the opposite in fact. The friendliness and openness of the Thai people is typically regarded as one of the better points of the country. And no, it's not just "friendly" girls in certain kinds of bars either. People everywhere say hello and want to chat.

People might not come back 2 or 3 times because for most tourists Thailand is a long way away, and people don't typically visit any long-haul destination 2 or 3 times.

For me, this is will be my 3rd trip, but I'm also combining it with visits to Singapore and Cambodia (and anyone thinking flood info in Thailand is hard to find should try getting it for Cambodia).

That said, the news coverage here of the floods is not very good. I think in the UK we are really used to floods that overwhelm an area for a few days, then recede. The news channels don't have the patience to cover a two-month story, so they wait for what looks like key moments, then milk it. The coverage certainly has given the impression that almost the whole city is under water.

That said, even looking at various news sources every day, it is very hard to get any kind on consensus of what is happening, and what is likely to happen. I'm due in to Bangkok of the 30th of November, and I just don't know what to expect. I can read one report saying things will be getting better in a few days time, then read reports saying it's all going to get worse, all on the same day.

At the moment I'm about 70/30 in thinking it'll be OK.