richard_smith237

23 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

I would guess that the majority of members on here would have áccess' to a Thai partner, but that still will not get you into a National Park for Bht 40, especially if you are not there!

The dual pricing at National Parks is on that gets my goat, not because of the prices, but because of the message it sends out to the rest of Thailand that dual pricing is not only accepted, but the Thai government advocates for it.

IMO - tiered pricing should never impact residents, neither should it be a mainstay of a country that covets tourists so heavily... 

Japan is now employing state sanctioned dual pricing more and more...  Over the past 15 years I've seen attitudes towards tourist deteriorate - the double edged sword of more tourist and and such attitudes, leads to a more tainted experience - Thailand relies heavily on 'repeat tourists' it's industry can't afford to ostracise those who visit.

1 hour ago, ChaiyaTH said:

You are the one who seems to defend them while you clearly not travel much, if you saw how they were treating people you would not state this. They were quite stupid too accusing people of did having applied for a Laos visa, not knowing you get those on arrival same as Cambodia.

 

They also act contradictory to the actual immigration laws by implementing these own made rules at immigration entry points, as well as embassies and consulates. For example a non-o now requires 400k baht already to get the single entry visa, while this is only in reality needed for a yearly extension. It also goes against the UN convention child rights that Thailand committed too. 

I know anecdotal information is 'thin'... But, I've only ever had one issue where a young male immigration officer was making a mistake (limiting my entry permission), it was senior female officer who resolved the issue.

Its seems that in all but rare circumstances, those having difficulties are doing border bounces, or are missing funds or lack documentation, they get upset and post bias but are less than 100% clear themselves with their complaints on here.

... for example: You complained that a Single Entry Non-O now requires 400,000 Baht in the Bank - it always has a requirement, so your information (complaint) is wrong.

[for a Non-Imm O (i.e. based on Marriage) you need proof of 400,000 baht, and then for an extension that needs to be seasoned].

You also complain about the UN convention of Children's rights?? 

What convention is this ?

Does the UK not have similar requirements - if our son, schools in the UK, my Wife can only get guardian rights until he's 12.

The issue with complaints such as yours if you voice anecdote without knowing the rules - no wonder people complain, their sense of entitlement exceeds their knowledge.

22 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Pools are dangerous precisely due to the fact that they are perceived, wrongly, as being very safe.

 

This sort of idiocy belongs in an 'off the beaten path - flat earther' thread... 

To 'imply' that pools might be more unsafe than open water due to perception is utterly preposterous.... 

To 'imply' that pools are dangerous because one might bang their head into the side is beyond preposterous... its truly astonishing that an idea even enters the mind... yet it offers an insight as to the deluded nonsense of some.

1 minute ago, CG1 Blue said:

100% disagree. Legalising cannabis sent out a message to low-lifes that Thailand is a place where anything goes. So more low-lifes are now heading for Thailand. That's the point you're missing. 

As the article said: 

 

"Some feel the cannabis culture is attracting a different type of tourist, altering the country’s traditional charm"

I'm not entirely sure how far the news about legal marijuana in Thailand has actually spread - it's still a fairly recent development.

Some younger travellers I know - friends and family - were genuinely surprised to learn it was legal when they visited. That said, none of them were particularly interested in it anyway, so it just wasn't on their radar to begin with.

Maybe there's a degree to which cannabis culture is attracting the wrong crowd - and it only takes a few to shift perceptions. But let's be honest - it's alcohol and hard drugs like yaba that are causing the real problems the media latch onto. It's the 'Benidorm' crowd getting into fights, or the first-time meth user wandering naked down the street.

Thailand has always attracted a certain element - and probably always will. The real point is that the country is drawing more tourists than ever, and when you chase mass tourism, consequences like this are bound to follow.

1 minute ago, Ben Zioner said:

40 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Indeed it is, which is why we've stayed there before...   

 

4000 baht per night for the Deluxe Villa's

 

 

Somewhat more expensive now though..

That was actually the price for a Deluxe Garden Villa for our next visit... 

Koh Chang is not an option though, its too far for a long weekend.

The price of 4000 baht is reasonable given the standard of accommodation, quality of beach and pool etc.

Place is ideal for those with kids.

The last time we were there it took 7.5 hours to get back to Bangkok - thats just too long.

1 minute ago, GammaGlobulin said:

7 minutes ago, rough diamond said:

So you would lets kids go swimming in the ocean rather than in a hotel pool.

 

Only if their parents were averse to having their kids bump their heads on the concrete of pools.

Such oddness in every post...       Is there any parent ever, who would have their child swim in the sea because a child 'could' bang their head when making a turn in a pool ???

....   honestly...  some of the most idiotic bumf I ever read comes from this poster who's managed to convince himself he's smart !!...   such delusion really leaves one wondering.

3 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Much less risk of bumping one's head against the ends of the pool.

 

The probability in a 25-meter pool is twice that of a 50-meter pool.

 

This is the main reason I prefer long-distance ocean swimming, outside the hotels, in Naples Florida.

The hotels have pools, but dangerous, compared to ocean swimming.

 

A comment such as this really leaves the mind boggling - the disconnect with reality is astonishing.

The probability is zero if you look where you are going !!!...

I used to swim a lot, competitively in younger years, and I can honestly say, the risk of bumping my head at the end of the pool is zero...

5 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I was always impressed that immigration in there and in PI were so friendly to tourists (both places immigration ladies spoke perfect English), unlike Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam who were never at all friendly (and no English).

Thai immigration officers may not be overflowing with warmth, but they’re certainly not ogres either. Like immigration staff anywhere in the world, they tend to be indifferent - which is completely understandable given the mind-numbing nature of the job. Sitting there for hours on end, stamping passports, would drain anyone of the will for small talk.

Personally, I’ve had very few negative experiences entering Thailand - or anywhere else, for that matter. There was one instance of an overzealous officer misapplying the rules, but nothing dramatic. On the flip side, I’ve had the occasional pleasant surprise: once, a charming female Immigration officer in Thailand recognised me from a previous visit and struck up a friendly conversation.

I’ve had similarly positive encounters elsewhere - once in the UK and again in the UAE, where the officer invited my son into the booth to stamp our passports; a nice human moment. But, for the most part, the experience is defined by quiet, disinterested efficiency. And honestly, that’s about all we should expect.

2 minutes ago, Ben Zioner said:

KC Grande on Koh Chang is exactly  what you need. But don't go hill side. 

Indeed it is, which is why we've stayed there before...   

4000 baht per night for the Deluxe Villa's

On 4/28/2025 at 10:15 AM, BritManToo said:

I also like air con and a swimming pool, if there's no clean beach within walking distance.

 

Don't think I've ever needed to pay more than 1,000bht to achieve that in SEA.

Slightly different... But, are there any 1000 Baht hotels, that have a pool and on the beach ? 

Koh Samet, Koh Chang, Rayong, Jomtien, Phuket, Hua Hin ?? - Anything acceptable in those area's starts at at least 3000 baht per night... 4500 baht a night is a good deal (relatively).

4 hours ago, lom said:

and had recently got a new girlfriend? 😄

My thoughts exactly...   

The BMW was not parked in 'regular condo parking'... rather is was parked outside the Condo, in much the same manner a visiting 'guest' may park...  the owner [of the BMW] also returned to their car at 02:30am, which suggests he was 'leaving'...    which also indicates he had been 'visiting someone'....

First steps... Find out what car the new GF's ex drives !!!!

3 hours ago, JackGats said:

When I read "cannabis concerns" I suspect the news is news manufactured for the sake of sensationalism. What kind of turist will complain about one in ten Indian tailor shops being replaced by a cannabis shop? Maybe I'm optimistic about tourists. Maybe they're dumb enough to complain about that.

100% agree - what tourist has ever genuinely expressed concern about marijuana being available for those who want it? Absolutely none.

As you rightly pointed out, it’s just manufactured outrage, whipped up for media sensationalism.

People will take it at face value simply because it appears in an article, which is absurd. Nonsense like that shouldn’t even be given oxygen.

8 minutes ago, Ben Zioner said:

Why is Malaysia so consistently overlooked. I use my French or my Australian passports and every and I get a great time on every trip, and better value for my Dollars. Food and wine lovers just don't bother with Thailand anymore.

As far as Beach holidays are concerned - Malaysia doesn't have the same standard compared to Thailand.

Penang is a bit of a hole.... only the beaches up north on Batu Ferrengi are ok.

Langkawi is good - often overlooked but worth a visit, often awkward to get to.

Tioman island is nice - very local small feel, very awkward to get to, for the same effort, there are lots of Thai Islands that are better.

On the mainland Malaysia, the beaches are very poor, much like the south east coast of Thailand.

As a City break, KL is a very good visit, Bangkok is much better for tourists.

After the towers, Merdeka square and Batu-caves - there's not much to see in KL.

Nightlife is limited - Bangsar.

Thailand has a lot more to offer than Malaysia: If Tourist want more civilisation than Thailand, Singapore is close enough for that high end city break, for Beaches and the 'holiday vibe', Thailand just does it better.

On 4/28/2025 at 12:48 PM, EVENKEEL said:

Hotel price sounds doable, but not the obscene food pricing. I usually rent a car and locate the good eating establishments.

 

I like Marriott. Have enough points for 3 free nights. Rate is 6500 baht/nt for 2 queens. Thanks......

Exactly what we do... 

When we holiday in Thailand, we tend to opt for a known quantity - a certain standard, beachfront location - which usually means significantly higher prices than the 800 Baht rooms people have mentioned. More often than not, we stick with international hotel chains we trust, where we can count on a consistent level of service, cleanliness, and room quality.

We've tried renting villas in the past, but after a couple of misadventures, we’ve steered away from that option- it just feels like too much of a gamble.

The article makes a fair point: Thailand has undeniably become more expensive. A beer that once cost 120-160 baht is now closer to 180-220 Baht in popular places (decent bars, clubs etc). Hotels that used to be 3,500–4,000 baht a night are now running 5,500 to 7,000 baht for the same rooms.

That said, the places are still full - ultimately, the market decides.

Two-tier pricing is a different issue altogether. It’s not universal, but where it does happen, it leaves a sour taste for tourists. Understandably so.

Thailand can still be inexpensive at the lower end - basic air-conditioned rooms, street food, that kind of thing -but that’s not really our scene, especially when travelling as a family.

When I was planning a getaway this April, I actually considered Vietnam given the rising prices in Thailand. But we ended up finding a good deal at a travel fair and stuck with Thailand - it was just easier, especially since we had the car.

Hotel dining and mini-bar prices have always been steep in mid-to-upmarket hotels. We usually ask staff to clear the mini-bar and then make a quick trip to 7-Eleven - stocking up on wine, craft beers, soft drinks, and snacks to fill the fridge ourselves. Simple and sensible.

We’re planning another trip in a couple of months, and it’ll have to be in Thailand since we’ll be travelling with several Thai families. Convenience is key - so we’re looking for somewhere drivable, beachfront, with a large pool for the kids and good restaurants nearby. When you put all those boxes together, it almost always points to an international chain. No one wants surprises, and that’s exactly what the big names offer: consistency, reliability, and peace of mind - unfortunately the price for that peace of mind is increasing. 

Hopefully there is another travel fair or the rao-tiew-duay-kan promo's (which offer great discounts for Thai's so the Wife can get it).

2 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Observers pointed out a recurring pattern, where foreign nationals face lenient consequences compared to their Thai counterparts, who might undergo stricter procedures like mandatory drug tests for similar offences.

The puritanical 'outrage' is rather hypocritical IMO:  I always thought the 'consensus' was the other way round in area's such as Phuket and Pattaya....  Whereby the foreigners are actively targeted.

Conversely, elsewhere in Thailand, the BiB aren't interested in foreigners anymore than Thai's - but, anywhere in Thailand, money talks and thats neither specific to foreigners or Thai's.

39 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Both VAERS and EudraVigilance provide a very strong signal.  That's a grave understatement as we are talking +2 million reports suspecting adverse effects of the jabs, and many studies have shown that there is even serious under-reporting. 

So if that MegaPhone signal doesn't warrant investigation, one could as well stop collecting data with both systems.

There are simply no excuses to start with these investigations, which actually should have started more than 3 years ago.  Note that independent researchers have already done investigations using the VAERS and EudraVigiliance data, and their conclusions are unanymous and call for an immediate halt of the Covid-19 innoculations,  

The biggest scandal being that the Covid-19 jabs are STILL recommended on the childhood vaccination schedule.

Not quite... 

The claim that independent researchers have unanimously concluded, based on VAERS and EudraVigilance data, that COVID-19 vaccinations should be halted is not supported by the broader scientific consensus.

While some groups, such as the World Council for Health, have called for a halt to COVID-19 vaccinations based on their analyses of pharmacovigilance data, these views are not representative of the scientific community at large. The majority of independent researchers and public health authorities continue to support COVID-19 vaccination, emphasising that the benefits outweigh the risks.

For instance, the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA) states that real-world data from billions of administered doses show that vaccines have a very good safety profile.

https://www.icmra.info/drupal/en/strategicinitiatives/vaccines/safety_statement

Thus, while there are isolated calls for halting COVID-19 vaccinations based on interpretations of VAERS and EudraVigilance data, these are not unanimous among independent researchers. The prevailing scientific consensus supports the continued use of COVID-19 vaccines, recognising their role in preventing severe illness and death.

That said - given the publicity, I don't see there being any harm in carrying out independent and impartial investigations.

But, if an independent and impartial investigation concluded that vaccines were safe and the Covid-19 vaccines were also safe, would you accept that, or simply double down and claim conspiracy ?

53 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

59 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

So who covers the costs ?? - that will always lead to some conspiracist thinking.

 

If the US government can find millions for 'transgender studies' in remote countries, they can find the money for this. I don't think that is a problem.

Wholly valid point - no argument from me there at all.

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

Which leads me to the point I wanted to make by quoting these figures: these studies (I would call them investigations) were not made, which begs the question as to why these reporting systems even exist. An inquisitive mind can only wonder what is hindering the process, or whether it is perhaps purposely hindered as the findings would be undesirable for some lobbyists (we have already established in this thread that there are serious ethical concerns in the US and France with regards to influence peddling from the pharmaceutical industry).

I don't believe the available information warrants further investigation, particularly when considered against the sheer number of individuals being vaccinated.

Where exactly should the 'line in the sand' be drawn? Should we launch a full investigation based on a single report in VAERS or EudraVigilance, or would it take 100,000 reports?

The only reason I would advocate for an independent and impartial investigation would be to put conspiracy theories to rest. However, I doubt that even a thorough, unbiased inquiry would satisfy the anti-vaccination crowd. Thus, such an investigation seems largely pointless—unless, of course, the data itself clearly indicates a need for it. And therein lies the crux of the argument: experts maintain that no further investigation is warranted, while anti-vaccination advocates vehemently disagree.

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

Regardless, my conclusion remains the same as previously stated: the only way to resolve this will be to lead a full, transparent end-to-end audit of the process and publish impartial conclusions, not influenced by lobbies or interests.

So who covers the costs ?? - that will always lead to some conspiracist thinking.

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

Will RFK deliver what a lot of people expect of him? We will see.

8 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

True, but I would retort that just as my analogy overstates the case, yours understates it.

 

Nobody in their right mind would ever attempt to draw a causation between the action of washing a car and a meteorological phenomenon occurring the next day. Yet you are implying that raising an eyebrow when looking at data spikes is just as absurd, when it isn't: while it doesn't prove anything at face value, this shift is a safety signal (as defined by the CDC on the VAERS page) which could mean there is a causation between the vaccinations and these adverse effects. So the comparison is flawed in the sense that it draws an equivalence between an impossibility (washing a car causing a storm) on the one hand, and a possibility (vaccinations causing injuries) on the other.

 

We can therefore conclude that analogies should probably be avoided in these controversial threads :-)

You make valid points. I agree that my analogy understated the importance of temporal causality in the context of VAERS and EudraVigilance data, where the emergence of 'any' patterns would clearly warrant further investigation.

That said, I do not believe the current VAERS or EudraVigilance data indicate any causality. Nonetheless, I am not opposed to further studies aimed at settling these questions - though I remain sceptical as to whether such inquiries would ever fully resolve them.

5 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

To me, this analogy was absurd, yet I understood how your bias could lead you to make it. I have showed you what that looks like from the opposite bias.

 

I agree we should probably avoid them altogether.

Ah ok - got it now... I was picturing a mechanical car wash or something similar when you mentioned 'car wash'.. 

I see both sides of the bias - although my analogy illustrates an improbable temporal causality, yours attempts something different: using circumstantial evidence to justify suspicion, but ultimately sidestepping the underlying problem of flawed causal assumptions.

In my analogy - just because symptoms appear after a vaccination doesn't mean the vaccination caused them, any more than rain the day after washing a car means the car wash caused the storm - I highlight the fundamental danger of mistaking correlation for causation, especially when emotions run high.

Your analogy - the police responding to screaming and finding a man covered in blood holding a knife - may seem superficially compelling, but it fundamentally differs. In that situation, the police are acting on immediate, tangible evidence of a potential crime - physical indicators that something likely did occur.

However, post-vaccination symptoms are neither direct evidence of causality nor necessarily evidence of harm. They are expected in a biological process that is inherently complex.

Thus, your analogy overstates the case: you're comparing obvious forensic clues pointing toward a specific incident with ambiguous, non-specific symptoms that, without clear evidence, cannot be presumed to indicate causation. Investigating is reasonable in both cases - but presuming or implying guilt based on circumstantial timing alone is precisely the logical trap my analogy warns against.

16 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

30 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

The "smoking gun" argument is both extreme and highly flawed when regarding VAERS and EudraVigilance and any pretty much any such data when attempting to apply temporal causality.

 

It's a bit OTT, but as you like to use such analogies yourself (c.f. the one about the carwash and the storm – if I recall correctly), I thought I would add it there for good measure, though the gist of my message lies in the previous paragraphs.

You've mixed me up with someone else - I've no idea what the 'carwash and the storm' even is.

There's no need to use exaggerated analogies that are so flawed - leave that to those who are trying their hardest to 'fear monger' with misinformation rather that take on an intellectual debate involving data sources.

14 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

To make an analogy, if the cops show up at a house following neighbours' reports of screaming, and find a man covered in blood and holding a knife running out, though at that point they can't draw any conclusions, they can justifiably take action to investigate and find out what happened (despite the fact that said individual will be presumed not guilty of anything until the proceedings officially reach their conclusion).

The "smoking gun" argument is both extreme and highly flawed when regarding VAERS and EudraVigilance and any pretty much any such data when attempting to apply temporal causality.

I wonder if there is any nearby CCTV... To lose control like that he must have been 'motoring' (i.e. suggestion of speeding)....     I wonder what is BAC test will return...

At least no one was killed, this could so easily have been another needless loss of life.