richard_smith237

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' ????

I think there is a line, which when crossed creates a situation which me be considered awkward at best and sexual harassment at worst. If someone considers themselves a decent human being, do they really need to be taught where that line is ?... 050416TFL_desk.mp4

Why ??... It was her business and her customers that were being made to feel uncomfortable. Is a person wrong to protect the interests and safety of their customers ???

You have demonstrated both a misunderstanding of the law and have infused your argument with your own misogyny for good measure. Women have endured inappropriate behavior for decades - the kind of behavior you fail to recognise as sexual harassment, instead normalising it. This is exactly why laws need to exist - because some people, perhaps those such as yourself, either refuse or are unable to acknowledge the seriousness of these issues. In fact, under UK law, staring at someone in a manner that makes them feel intimidated or uncomfortable can be considered sexual harassment. The Equality Act 2010 protects individuals from unwanted behavior that violates their dignity or creates a hostile environment, underscoring the need for legal safeguards - you accuse these individuals as being 'snowflakes with no or little self-esteem' - I'd suggest the saying 'walk a mile in their shoes' is appropriate here. Furthermore, if you believe this generation is a) weakened and b) hindered due to decency regulations, then the conflation of issues is entirely your own.

Its in Bangkok... Somehow I missed that this was in the Chiang Mai forum - so I assume you want advice on gated communities there. There are plenty in the CM area and I'm sure many forum members from Moobaans in Chiang Mai... ... I imagine most of the newer mid to higher range ones will have regulations about roaming dogs.... of course, the regulation is only as good as the enforcement.

+1 on the reply... All the best to your family & hope you continue to stay chilled & enjoy life.

1) Valid question, though airlines can often make up a small delay on departure in flight - depending on the airline and airport - I wouldn't want a delay of less than 1 hr 20 mins. There is also the additional risk of the baggage not getting through on a tighter connection. 2) Because the connection is not specifically for that individual flight, but a number of flights, thus it fits the best algorithm to suit a major routes and offset against the risk and potentail compensation rates of a connection on a minor route. Also Airlines have to meet take-off and landing slots - at an airlines 'home hub' there may be more variability on landing slots, but at destination airports landing slot and gate timing maybe more specific. Why sell the ticket in the first place ?... decisions will be based on balance probability of the compensation cost and statistical likelihood of a delayed flight vs loss of profit of not ticketing the route in the first place. For example: Flights Bangkok - Dubai - London are unlikely to have a 40min layover, because IF there is a missed connection due to delay of the first leg, 90% of passengers will miss their connecting flight. But: Flights Bangkok - Dubai - Istanbul are more likely to have a shorter layover, because most of the 'customers / passengers' of the initial Bangkok - Dubai will be taking layover to other destinations such as London, and they also calculate 1% of passengers are leg will be transiting to Istanbul - this the risk / probability / cost / profit factor allows for the shorter timing... Especially if the Dubai - Istanbul routes fits incoming flights from other areas where Transit to Turkey is wanted.

[don't know what to do].... You could go to a Pattaya GoGo bar... wait for some older fella to fall asleep, steel his squeeze, take her to Koh Chang... then refuse to pay her, get threatened by her brothers, then go on a few all day benders and post about your escapades, Rolex watches and numerous houses on this forum...

If you do... after publicly announcing your departure, are you going to come back under another moniker ??... ThainessBoy, perhaps ?

As isolated behavior perhaps... but he was also... .. leering at girls and women, which can be an act of sexual harassment. .. This was not a one off, he was noticed in 'other cafes' behaving the same. I suspect the behavior was more an issue than what he was watching, but perhaps the what he was watching was the final straw. Erm... thats a bit naive, even though porn is officially banned in Thailand, so are many thing, gambling etc... yet porn is as rife and accessible here as it is anywhere else... Even guys in Thai Parliament have been caught watching porn !!!.. I'm not sure what you are getting at with the pillow. --------- Perhaps this is a storm in a tea-cup and the cafe owner over-reacted and is rather woke, as you pointed out... Or, this is an issue of concern and young girls in the area are at risk... ... Had the news been different and his guy sexually assaults a young student on her way home from the cafe... many would argue that the warning signals were there and why did no one do something about this... Its kind of a no-win situation - but it seems the cafe owner did the right thing, she wants to protect the other customers and she has every right to, its her own shop.

Valid point... There are some messenger 'groups' I'm in, such as LINE Messenger for our football team etc.... and I don't open the posts on the BTS (for example) as one of the lads is bound to have posted something dodgy...

His wife's name is Fanny. The famous German former alpine skier ????