sambum

What does THIS have to do in any way with the point I was making about who was taking the video?

Indeed, the statement that "Indeed, further criminal charges may be brought." implies that the book is about to be thrown!

"I've only seen video of them restraining the cop,...." And who was taking the video? obviously someone pretty close to the situation who does not appear to be fazed by the fact that a gun is being waved about?

There's obviously 2 sides to every story:- "Top brass have vowed to pursue justice in the case. Indeed, further criminal charges may be brought. Initially, the pair face charges of assault, robbery, obstruction and bribery." Where did the robbery and bribery charges come from? "Two foreigners on motorbikes did not follow the traffic laws, not riding close to the left side of the road and riding at high speed in a community area, according to Chalong police. The police on duty asked for cooperation from them to stop their motorbikes." So how often do you see Thais riding at high speed in a community area or not riding close to the left side of the road? Happens all the time where I live! So if they were riding at high speed, how did the police on duty ask them to stop their motorbikes? "After the police pursuit, the two foreigners were infuriated and allegedly attacked the police while having the incident recorded by the police." What's all that about? Not making excuses for the pair, but who was taking the video while the cop was being attacked? (Obviously not CCTV!) If it was being "recorded by the police", how is it that they didn't step in to help their colleague? It also appears that one of the "farangs" discharges the weapon thereby rendering it pretty harmless. Maybe the officer threatened them with it? However, I am not making excuses for this pair of idiots, and they can rightly expect to be "jumped on from a great height" by the top brass for the assault and restraining of a police officer. I do think that the future looks pretty bleak for them, and their punishment will probably only start with the court case!

I say that I like Thailand better than my own country, and you call it BS? How do you know what I or anybody else thinks of their countries? If you are going to reply to a post make sure that your answer is relevant to the point made or your post may well be considered BS!!!

I think the word "Imported" is a bit of a giveaway!

Thank you for your comprehensive breakdown, and I do not dispute your figures, but the point I was making is that as qualified readers of the English language we do not need to be told 3 times in 3 consecutive sentences what the anticipated number of tourists are going to be - according to Kasikorn Research. Also, I was only pointing out that whenever "guesstimates" are made, the Ministry of Tourism and Sports (TAT) can always be depended on to make sure that their figures are way above anybody else's!

Thailand has a breed-specific ban in place for the import of strong and aggressive dogs to curb dog attacks on the general public and animals. Banned breeds in Thailand are: American Staffordshire Terrier Pit Bull breeds that include American Pit Bull Terrier, American Bully, American Bulldog and Staffordshire Bull Terrier While it is not illegal to own these breeds in Thailand, the import of these breeds is prohibited by law. So, as clear as mud! It would appear that you are not allowed to import these "Devil Dogs", it is OK if you already own one, and apparently they are still being bred here!! Time to ban them OUTRIGHT - too many deadly attacks on people by these "sweet family pets", and how about this for stupidity:- "An unexpected guest was seen yesterday at the Bang Lamung, Pattaya funeral of the victim of a pit bull attack. Giant, the guilty dog, was brought to apologise by his new owner." (From 2021, but still relevant today) Surely, all these countries can't be wrong:- "The countries that have a restriction, a partial or a complete ban on pit bulls are as follows: Argentina, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Switzerland, Australia, Ecuador, Israel, Norway, Taiwan, Austria, Fiji, Italy, Poland, Trinidad and Tobago, Belarus, Finland, Japan, Portugal, Turkey, Belgium, France, Latvia, Puerto Rico, Ukraine, Bermuda, Germany, Lithuania, Romania, the United Arab Emirates, Brazil, Guyana, Liechtenstein, Russia, the United Kingdom, Canada, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, the United States, China, Iceland, Malta, Singapore, Venezuela, Cyprus, India, the Netherlands, and Spain." (Total 49 countries!!!)

Maybe they like Thailand better than their home countries? I do!

".......working illegally, setting up businesses illegally, and overstaying." Surely it's the "criminals and scumbags" that should be targeted - not those wanting to work, and overstayers to my mind do not normally fall into either of those categories.

Do we really need to be told THREE times in as many sentences that " Kasikorn Research predicts 36 million foreign arrivals,..."? And I suppose it is only to be expected that as per usual, the Ministry of Tourism and Sports (TAT) come up with a figure that is 4 million higher! 😁

Going back to pre Covid days, the Government was saying that tourism accounted for a lot less of the GDP (From memory I think they were quoting single figures?) Along comes Covid, and the Government suddenly realises that tourism doesn't just benefit the hoteliers and bar owners - there are a myriad of associated businesses that depend on tourism, and now they are quoting "about 18%" During those Covid days, a lot of businesses - especially the small ones - were kept going by the expats living here, as tourism nosedived, so don't undervalue the contribution that expats make to the economy - even if we are "Aliens"!!!

"Russian Man Found Dead With a Slit Throat at a Cannabis Farm in Phuket, Foul Play Suspected" What a great headline - very profound!

The World "as we know it" in Thailand and the USA has gone mad, with criminals aspiring to be "in charge" of their respective countries!

I think we are using the same hymnbook but different pages! :- "Lèse-majesté refers to defaming the Head of State" which is not exactly the same as "treason" (to advocate for the abolition of the Monarchy)

Yes - you're an "Alien"!

Just Googled it! :- "Before asking why a law exists, you should have asked if such a law exists. Lèse-majesté refers to defaming the Head of State - whether or not they are a Monarch. And guess what, no such law exists in the UK. We're free to say whatever we want against the King, and no one can stop us.Sep 9, 2566 BE"

Correct, and they should be in Government now, but guess what - they don't have tanks and soldiers as back up- nothing to do with their leader owning shares in a defunct company, as has recently, (but purposely too late!) been proved! The last "democratic Government" was obviously acquired illegally by the Army, and this one is not so obviously run by the Army, and they are not going to relinquish power easily. As has been proved already, they will even change the law to suit their own agenda. Why don't they change the numbers of their Senators from 194 to 250 - or even 500, and be done with it?

Absolutely correct! And what kind of a "democratic Government" appoints by its own authority and choosing, 150 Senators that will vote as they are told to on future proposals?

Yes, my op took about 40 minutes - totally painless procedure, and the best money I ever spent. It was like looking at things in a room with a 40 watt bulb and swapping it to a 100 watt bulb!

I had my cataract surgery done at a Private Hospital in Surat Thani, and they gave me the choice of an overnight stay or not. I opted to stay - just in case there were any complications the nurses and doctors were on hand to resolve them, and I had to have a post op check the next morning anyway.

I saw an article on TV a few years ago about an American "redneck" who actually wanted to get MARRIED to his horse - "because they were both so much in love!!" Now THAT is weird!

I would have thought that Business Travellers were also among the travelling "elite"?

But, but, - but you said in an earlier post that I said "there was no-one in danger of dying as you claimed earlier." Bit different to "insinuating that he could have caused someone's death"!

Apparently you don't!