richard_smith237

OK - so you can't handle the discussion.... ... the result of marijuana abuse perhaps... IF you think that someone driving while high (on Marijuana) is safe - then you are a fool.... and a dangerous fool if you also drive while high... As much of a dangerous fool as someone who drives while drunk. IF you believe that the 'calming' influence of marijuana is so effective it stops people from doing 'dumb shyit' then that also highlights your intellectual dwarfism.

The laws are against driving 'under the influence' which means under the influence of Alcohol, amphetamine, Marijuana etc etc... The difference is that while tools in the UK are used such as 'Drugwipe' made by Securetec and is used to screen for Cannabis, Cocaine, Ecstasy, Ketamine, Benzodiazepines, Methadone, Morphine or opiates.... those same tests are not utilised in Thailand at the roadside where the only road side test that exit is for alcohol (breathalysers) - unless the police also want to test for Amphetamine (peeing in a cup type test). Thus, in Thailand the Police don't test drivers for Marijuana - that requires either a urine and / or blood test back at the station. I do use Marijuana, perhaps a couple of times per week and enjoy doing so... I'd never drive having consumed Marijuana - but if I did drive while very high, its very probable I'd crash as impairment is extremely obvious IMO. I think it is perfectly feasible that this guy did not have a drink and was high on Marijuana... I also believe its perfectly feasible that he was drunk and was also high on Marijuana... none of us can know for sure... ... There seem to be some on here who are overly defensive of Marijuana and stating that this 'could not happen' while some one is under the influence of 'only' marijuana - which IMO is a ridiculous thing to suggest... people do stupid stuff while perfectly sober, its not as if marijuana suddenly makes people law abiding citizens !!!

... and if / when the Police do catch someone, actually go through the process of prosecuting them rather than accepting the bribe and allowing the very same driver they've caught for being drunk then continue to drive and go and kill someone !!!...

And gives you the false sense of belief that you are not impaired while driving drunk...

And watched them like a hawk while doing so, so that they didn't revert to just going through the motions without thinking. Hopefully your contractor did a good job - Even out of the best ones, I've still have not had a contractor that has done anything other than 'an average job'...

Water ingress... We had the same and some of the flooring near the edges closer to bathroom leak had become soft (starting to rot)... Decided to relay the whole floor and do a proper job of it. Contractors were a waste of time, reckoned they could do everything in one day (rip up old floor, install new) - no chance of that... they didn't turn up on the first day... Were late on the second so I pulled the plug and decided to do it all myself. Hard work and shagged my knees, took me 5 days, but in the end a better job than they would have done - which is a little surprising as the some of the skirting board corners, at the doors etc are very tricky to get 'spot on'. ---------- The standard of workmanship in Thailand is generally atrocious - if there is a shortcut to be taken, it will be taken (thats probably true of labourers everywhere), but those shortcuts come back to haunt us later on - which doesn't matter for the workmen who have long gone by then. So, the only thing to do is 'look over their shoulder' all the time - which pi$$es them off and causes lots of debate about about the right way to do things... and 'This is the Thai way' type responses as if that golden droplet supersedes international standards and common sense !!!... In this case 'popping tiles' its clear that the tiles have been laid with the incorrect bond and laid too close - not an issue initially, until of course, this happens. I know of a case where a foreigner had his whole floor done on the ground floor. Paid for the job, weeks later many the tiles popped up - the contractor refused to come and fix the issue. The foreigner took the case to court and won. The contractor had to fix the issue or return the costs (money paid) so another contractor could come in and do the job... Great, a win in court !!!... the contractor disappeared and was never heard from again !!!.. So, even with a court win - nothing happend.

Could this be becase weed is a lot less prevalent until recently ?... and thus, due to its illegality was more likely to be consumed in the privacy one ones home, ergo the lack of people driving, which naturally means less accidents. Anecdotal information of personal use - I don't think I'd be able to drive while high. I'd be dangerous, more likely to fall asleep too. As you pointed out - this guy may also have been drinking as there is a higher probability of 'dual use' - particularly in a tourist resort. But that doe not omit the fact that weed was a contributory factor. IF while 'only' drunk he may not have made the choice to drive, weed was the additional factor that got him so smashed he was 'tipped over the edge' so to speak... (or not, there is no real way of telling'). But... just because 'weed was involved' does not imply a 'anti-marijuana agenda' as some are suggesting.... Though it would be interesting to know what the guys breathalyser result was, just to close out speculation. Either way: driving under the influence of booze or weed is very very stupid, selfish, dangerous etc etc.

Laws can be 'altered' under special circumstances, particularly when the interests of the general public are concerned - in this case the 'interests of the general public are that the a legal system is followed even for those seemingly untouchable'... ... all thats happening at the moment is that the process reconfirms that those who are considered untouchable, are in fact, untouchable and the law is dual tiered favouring the wealthy - as if anyone ever thought any differently anyway. In the UK just recently a Judge overruled that the name of a minor to be released to prevent further rioting in the UK (following the Southport attacks) - I know the UK is a different country, but the legal systems are very similar. Given such examples - there is no reason why a 'judicial ruling' can not be applied - that the case is tried in absentia or at least removing the statute of limitations due to his fleeing and absense.

Make sense.... But it also 'opens up the void' to speculation that the notice has been removed (hence the comments in this thread). That in itself can lead to a certain degree of unrest and lasting distrust in the policing services. Removing the Red Notice for Vorayuth from the public domain is an extremely clumsy move IMO. There is no evidence for the general public the notice still exists - this in itself lends to the very suspicious being drawn here and amongst the Thai public that this man continues to secure 'assistance' from authorities who may be 'turning a blind eye' instead of doing all they can to catch him.

Indeed, other substances were involved but for some unknown reason they do not tell us. So, I agree it is cannabis fear-mongering for ulterior motives. So, both of you think it impossible that someone consumes Marijuana and gets sufficiently high to do something as stupid as seeing a running car and thinking they'll go for a spin ????

100% agree..... I think the arguments presented so far imply that another substance was involved as 'weed makes lovers not fighters'... i.e. under the consumption of marijuana people become chilled, less aggressive etc... they are usually comparing to violent drunks etc. Nevertheless, marijuana has psychoactive properties which makes people do strange things... things as strange as seeing a running car and thinking... I'll take it for a drive !!!

I'm not so sure about that.... Driving while high is not something I'd be very keen to attempt... ... Crossing the road is not something I want to do here while high !!! In fact - in general, if I've taken some dope, I don't want to be out in public at all. Not getting on the 'Pro or anti' marijuana bandwagon here because the arguements for and against in such circumstances rely on anecdote and opinions with are too slim on fact. In this example: - Its perfectly feasible that this guy was high on Marijuana. - Its perfectly feasible that this guy was drunk and high on Marijuana. - Its perfectly feasible that other substances were involved. We've no idea - but for those suggesting this could not have been 'only marijuana' seem to be presenting a very 'pro-marijuana' bias and some flawed thinking. This could have simply been a very stupid guy, who got stupidly high, then though it a good idea to take the taxi and smashed it - there's not strong reason to suggest this could not have been the case.

There is no official system in place for 'disabled parking'... One would have thought that a driver could take a Doctors letter to the DLT and obtain a 'disabled parking badge' to display - but no such sticker / badge exists - which pretty much tells us all we need to know regarding how the rights of the less abled are considered here. Thus: IF you just want a sticker or badge - download or purchase one off the net. There is no 'resource' for obtaining one locally. -------- Disabled parking seems to be applied on a very hit n miss basis.. We see an older car in a disabled parking space and thing, valid use. Just a couple of days ago I saw a Bentley Flying Spur (Number plate 9999 I think) parked across two disabled spaces (yes thats right one large disabled space was not enough, the driver straddled two spaces)... Now, maybe the driver (or passenger) was genuinely disabled - there was is way to tell.... But I was sceptical. In short: what I see is the the disabled spaces being controlled by the parking attendant: usually there is a cone etc... IF you are disabled, you can ask them to move the cone, they may ask to see some sort of Dr's letter perhaps, or they may just decided to move the cone if they like you... Alternatively, (at a guess) they'll let you park in the disabled spot if you wave 100 baht at them etc or if you look hi-so enough that saying no to them may compromise your lowly position. To summarise: Get your own badge - and just see how you get along as trying to get anything official is no-goer.

Prove it was moved, otherwise you speak BS... Shame on you Firstly, get his name correct - is Lou not Joe, which implies that in your haste to argue you lack an attention to basic detail. Back on topic: Liverpool Lou has pointed out on here and in other threads - while the Interpol Red Notice was public record, not all Police and Interpol Records are public record or can be accessed by the general members of public - there are apparently 1000's and 1000's of notices that we, the public do not get to see. You (Aussie999) are arguing that the notice has been completely removed because the general public can no longer find the Interpol Red Noice on the publicly accessible area's Interpol's Website - Just because you cannot see the notice, it does not mean that it is removed from Interpol's Intranet. Liverpool Lou is arguing that the notice remains on the Interpol Intranet, while no longer accessible to the general public - that seems perfectly feasible, although I don't know why they would do that.

And if you are watching it [porn] in public and staring at females to such a degree they / someone is made uncomfortable or threatened - then there is an issue which needs to be dealt with. Its possible this cafe owner prevented a sexual assault. Its possible this cafe owner over reacted - but then, if I opened a video on the BTS and it was pornographic, I'd close it straight away.... In fact I don't open messages from 'some message groups' in public because of the possibility of such content.

All legal slopes are somewhat slippery when it comes to criminalisation, thats why the legal system often so complex - however, what would you consider of phycological harm ? ... women, even people feeling petrified ?... people need to be protected and thats the measure of a civilised society. And no - the law differentiates between harassment and assault. Possibly, but should someone remain 'un-punished' because they may become worse due to the punishment ??... they're already a 'wrong-un' if they are behaving in such a manner to cause prolonged discomfort that it is considered harassment - thus, there needs to be some detergent if such examples are common place - Note: A survey carried out by the British Transport Police recorded that 33% of females have endured 'sexual harassment' while travelling on the Train or the Tube. Thus: 'looking' is the thin end of the wedge... Also, this is not just 'looking' but leering, being lecherous, staring in such a manner for such a duration that the other party is made to feel uncomfortable and unsafe. People who behave in such an antisocial manner need to be dealt with - if not, there exists a risk of escalation. Though, as mentioned earlier - safeguards need to be put in place to limit false accusations. In such examples there is also a risk of perjury and potentially causing a miscarriage of justice which also has serious consequences. I suspect there would need to be more evidence than 'just witness statements' of friends which may well involve bias. I tend to agree... Though, we (the public and on this forum) are also very quick to condemn authorities when they do nothing proactive as a preventative measure. Its an impossible metric to measure - but could this publicity have prevented the guy from committing sexual assault ? A prison sentence is incredibly extreme - but that also depends on the seriousness, extent and duration of the behavior - I don't think action should rely on actual harm there are assault charges for that, harassment is a more minor offence but still causes psychological harm. Agree, nevertheless legislation needs to be in place for the greater good of society - in this case, those less able to protect themselves need protection by the law. Is it that easy ??? There are of course very public and extreme circumstances of unfair accusation and sentencing... but there are also public and extreme circumstances of false accusation and the accuser is charged (example: Eleanor Williams jailed for 8.5 years for her wrongful accusations).

OK - thats this weeks van crash... We've also had this weeks 'lorry blasts through red light killing someone'... Whats next... this months bus down a ravine or boat capsize ?????

Haven't we all done stupid things in the past when young ???? We use to pay the TukTuk drivers a little extra and go into an empty car park and have a go... It was great fun, although, with the benefit of hindsight also stupid. Thats not suggesting what this guy did was right at all, just that he is being heavily condemned on here for doing stupid shyite, when plenty of us have also done stupid shyite in our younger years - Are we just jealous that he's making millions for doing stupid stuff while we had to work ????

Erm... really - thats your take away ???... Driving a TukTuks is reserved for Thai Nationals only? - its not by the way.. Foreigners can drive a TukTuk if its a private conveyance and taxed etc.... Though obviously very daft and dangerous to others with his initial behavior - his response to take accountability will likely see him get away with this. That was vandalism.. where was an 'accident / incident', albeit a very stupid accident / incident... the comparison is rather different...

In which case the comments and suggestion made by Spidermike appear more necessary. Authorities are way too soft of such outrageous traffic offences. The surprise here is that the driver hasn't claimed brake failure - As you pointed out above, your 'take on it' is more likely the the cause of the accident... complete recklessness and driving without any regard for the safety of anyone else. Authorities just don't care - this driving will continue until effective action is taken with a degree of consistency to form a deferent.

She deserves a medal... The issue here is that people are forced to do things they'd rather not and take measures into their own hands because authorities fail at the most basic level.

I'm guessing (as pointed out below) that in such cases there would be video evidence and witness statements. In the examples provided (London Transport) - there is CCTV (on busses, on the tube etc). I'm not sure that would be sufficient, also, how prolonged and antisocial does the behavior (staring / leering) need to be before a female finds it uncomfortable ? A split second glance... normal human interaction. An hour of prolonged leering... not a normal human interaction. The line is somewhere in there and I'd suggest that a gaze held for longer than a few sections is already uncomfortable and most parties would naturally do the decent thing and look away. Your comment also brings to surface the possibility of a 'set-up' or a neurotic female over-reacting and falsely accusing a male of staring - I think this is where there would need to be CCTV evidence to corroborate witness statements - most public places (in cities in the UK at least) have CCTV these days. If you are finding ways to mask your lecherous behaviour - sure, wear sunglasses underground on the MRT... Though - you do make a point, how can someone tell if you are staring at them in a lecherous / leering manner or simply lost in thought with a 1000 yard stare. I think in the example of this story, when combined with watching porn and the owners statements / observations, this behavior was antisocial. Haha - Agreed... there is an element of 'handsome man looks at a woman she likes, it, ugly man behaves the same she doesn't'........ But.. if the look is for a micro-second.... surely its no big deal, I catch eye contact with people all the time... staring at them for 1 minute or more etc is just weird.

Hi Colin... .... have you ever been to Koh Chang by any chance ? ... how about any recent trips to Spain ???

Definitely 'starer beware'... Its common decency not to stare... There is a difference between a momentary glance that many of us males find unavoidable vs staring and making the other party feel extremely vulnerable and uncomfortable to the extent that legal proceedings are taken. The law clearly deals with the latter, though I do agree with your implied sentiment that dangerous precedent is being set when someone can go to prison for staring. There needs to be safeguards in place for both the victims of such harassment, but also to ensure those safeguards are not abused. From your link: That wasn't a casual glance at an attractive female.

There are clearly boundaries for public behavior. He was leering at girls and watching porn. IF you were in a cafe or on the BTS with your Wife and Child - and a guy sat opposite was watching porn and leering at your Wife or Child and making them feel extremely uncomfortable..... - Would you honour your idea of their right to privacy ???? - Would it be 'no concern of yours' ????