sambum

"Mummy, I don't want to go"!

The "damn" conditions shouldn't exist!

"Pattaya — An Indian man agreed to pay a Thai dance teacher 200,000 baht over an inappropriate touch on Pattaya Walking Street" "to which the victim agreed." Says it all!

If you paid for a car through a dealer, and they didn't suppy it, you'd expect your money back. This situation stinks.

..................'you get what you pay for' ................. But he hasn't got what he paid for , has he?

He's paid for his 10 weeks party with hard earned cash, and paid for his flight with the same cash. He deserves a refund, and compensation - not scornful comments like this. (P.S. I have seen much less newsworthy posts on here and in some Western tabloids!)

On Walking Street" of all places! And to enjoy the "vibe"? "Heat" and "kitchen" springs to mind!

But, but, but he's been given attitude adjustment training instead of an inactive post! I agree with you however - he should be banned to set an example that such behaviour will not be tolerated from someone who is providing a service to that most precious of commodities - TOURISTS!

So if she had meant to take up with another Thai that would have been all right - but the lowest of the low - a farang - too much to bear? I think too much loss of face! And the old,old excuse:- "It was the booze," he said. Next idea pinched from the West :- "I need help"!

Not because he "had been drinking" then? He was there with a bottle in his hand? Must be a different video

"..........he ordered a crime crackdown from 24th to 31st August." What about the rest of the year?

"I've seen a drunk falang on a motor powered vehicle about every week for the last six years." It obviously concerns you, but have you reported this fact to the RTP? And have you followed it up by asking what is being done about it?

Also let's not forget that they are also called "Aliens"in the Immigration Rules and Regs!

I wonder if his nationality would have been mentioned if he was Thai? It is also reported that locals said that "he was a habitual drunkard who would drive in the wrong lane and that local people were fed up with his behavior." So why didn't they report it to the police? Or maybe the police were too busy to investigate? ???? P.S. In many cases it would merely have said "Drunk" foreigner......." but Brits are always named as such. However, I am not defending his atrocious behaviour in any way - he deserves the maximum penalty possible for this crime, which hopefully he will get in this country - in some countries the "bleeding hearts" would be saying that obviously he needs help!!!

Agreed - also 3 on a bike?:- "The maximum number of people riding a motorcycle must not go over two (2) persons per motorcycle. If the motorcycle was not designed for two (2) persons or is not equipped with footpegs and a seat for the back rider (pillion), it shall be also considered as overloading"

It's taken you 3 days to come up with that pearl of wisdom - OK you've been away for the weekend! Just to recap:- "2 men on a motorbike at 1am carrying beers. I'd place my bets that they were drinking." My post was made to point out that your post was merely an assumption which was utterly pointless. You assumed that because they were in possession of drink at 1 am in the morning they had been drinking/were drunk, and were therefore the ones to blame for the accident. We now know that this was not the case,(CCTV) so if anybody's post was pointless, it was yours!

I hear that ex (?) Prime Minister Prayut has apologised to Ayutthaya residents because they were reportedly upset at failing to see him in person during his recent inspection trip. He does seem to have a rather high opinion of himself, doesn't he?

".................sorry to the country bumpkins that this week’s column is almost completely about the land of the living" Did you write that on purpose?

"Why not explain yourself properly?" I thought I had by being pedantic ("nit picking") i.e. ".............1 am carrying beers" Wrong - the beers were under the seat of the bike! "...........they were drinking" Wrong, they were on a motor bike following a garbage truck! If you interpret my post in the way that it was intended, you will see that I am in agreement with you. The fact that they had beers under the seat of the bike does not mean that they had been drinking - possibly they had, and the beers were a "carry out" (as I mentioned in another post) but the fact that they were in possession of beer (not "carrying" it) doesn't prove or disprove that they had been drinking earlier. And the above logic also applies to "........ they were drinking" To paraphrase, the fact that they had beers under the seat of the motorbike proves only that they were in possession of beer at 1 am - not that they were drunk, or had been drinking earlier, or were even drinking "at the time" That statement implies that they were drinking while riding the motor bike, when the accident happened, which is obviously not the case!

".............1 am carrying beers" Wrong - the beers were under the seat of the bike! "...........they were drinking" Wrong, they were on a motor bike following a garbage truck! OK - call me pedant if you must!

Thereby implying that they had been drinking, and hey ho, next thing it's gospel - they were drunk! (as can be seen from a few of the posts on here)

Come on, have you never heard of "carry out"? Having a few drinks, then getting one or two to take home with you?

Correct, I just thought it strange that in a country that drives "on the left" would have a website regarding traffic rules showing traffic obviously driving "on the right"! Ah - I forgot - TIT!

Something wrong with the graphics on the website refered to above:- (https://traffic-rules.com/en/thailand/traffic-

"............we've said it 1 million times............. Who's counting?