richard_smith237

I would prefer to relocate them humanely, but would that solution work ??? send them to the forests?> how many would survive that ? The solution of course is for the issue not to exist in the first place. Had this issue of stray dogs been dealt with 20 years ago we wouldn’t be facing these issues now. To where? where in Thailand doesn't have a soi dog problem. This is the issue... the can just gets kicked down the road by those who think they are being humane. The reality is those who think they are caring towards soi dogs simply allow further generations of soi dogs to live as they do. This is why I suportied your ’spaying’ of the animals - IF all soi dogs could be spayed, the issue would be resolved - but is not the case. A humans life is worth more than a dogs... In my opinion anyway - we’re just going to have to disagree if you think a dog life is valued more than or equal to a humans. The reality is that this should never come down to a choice. Poor decisions, poor planning, lack of action and weakness has led to generations of soi dogs suffering unnecessarily on the streets of Thailands towns and cities. 10 years from now more generations of soi dogs will have suffered because there is no action now. Millions of dogs suffering mange and disease, scrounging for scraps in garbage bins etc.... is it humane to allow that to happen ????

Disagree, the whole story infers that the perp wouldn't have gone bonkers if the wife had walked away with another Thai guy. Hence the "deep underlying" racism. Exactly... the whole story ‘infers’.... ... you’re being guided down the ‘racism’ pathway so you click on the story... journo’s love this stuff. The slightest hint or sniff of something that may trigger a response gets wildly inflated... Of course, stories such as this are a dog-whistle to those who want to scream racism.

I disagree, dogs to attack and have attacked for no ‘apparent’ reason, the reason also becomes irrelevant when its the mail man or a child etc... I also disagree with your comment about defending ourself... No person, especially a child, should have to. The remedy is to not have stray dogs living in the same areas as humans, and any dogs that do live in the vicinity of humans are trained pets which are well looked after by responsible and caring owners.

If there are 1000 soi dogs on the streets and one of them may attack a child at some point in the future... I want all those 1000 soi dogs removed. Is the right of a child greater than that of a soi dog - I think so.

You may be correct when presenting that argument with wild animals and habitats. But not about dogs.... Soi dogs were not in the habitat before humans, soi-dogs are here because humans feed them, they create a habitat for them - the argument you present in this circumstance is flawed. It is concerning that those who care for Soi dogs, that those who allow their own pets to roam the streets care less for the welfare of children in the area than they do these animals. Ultimately - there should be no ’stray soi dogs’... they are not wild animals hiding in the wilds of the forest, they are foraging the streets... Anyone with a pet dog should also be licensed to prove they have the time and the means to look after it well, to protect it, to ensure it cannot escape, to ensure its well excessed, well fed and healthy.

billsmart is of the belief that any animal has as much right to be here as we have, as a more intelligent species we have to look after other species, we have no right to kill them or displace them from their habitats etc.... It's difficult to argue with this from a human perspective, but the issue is not one which is clear cut, black and white... or is it ??? it depends purely on the perspective from which we base our argument. I will argue from the perspective of a parent - I do not want any unsupervised dog near my child, be that walking into a 7-11, playing in front of our house or on the beach while on holiday. I believe any wild animal, soi dog or unsupervised dog which may inadvertently attack my child for no obvious reason should be removed from that area - that basically means any dog which is not restrained. Humans and dogs are not equal, both have rights to a life of course - but my child has more rights not to be injured by dog or other animal than that animal has a right to live - disagreeable, but thats how protective I am as a father. There is no grey area for me. Thus: While I have hit like on many of bill’s posts, I commend what he is doing, partially having spayed the female in the group of soi dogs he looks after it doesn’t wholly deal with the issue of ’stray dogs’ in Thailand. IF there were stray dogs in front of my house, pooping or making a mess, making a noise at night and / or presenting a risk to my son while he plays outside our house I will take measures to have that dog or group of dogs removes. I will pay someone to do this.

Try a google translate app (from photo) on the text... You may see that you have the blue and green book mixed up. The Nissan March should have a blue book....

NO, no, u'sa not understand , is 160 each A little over halfway to their destination... The TukTuk driver was adamant that the fare was to Chong Nonri - once there the passengers wanted to go to Surasak. There was some stellar miscommunication - Either the TukTuk driver deliberately misunderstanding the singaporeans, or the Singaporeans getting the name of their destination wrong. More to the story perhaps - did they show Surasak BTS on the Map and the TukTuk Driver assumed Chong Nongsi (not being able to read the map correctly)... Or the otherway round ???

Irrelevant.. TukTuks have always been more expensive than a taxi. Tourists take TukTuks or very local locals who get a basement rate. If a Price of 150 baht is agreed from A-B, thats the agreement. If B changes to C, that agreement has been changed. If the TukTuk driver meant 150 baht each (the same stunt they used to pull in the Phuket) then the TukTuk driver is a scam-artist. In this case it seems the Singaporean state his destination accurately but still expected to pay the shorter distance.

I think thats great and agree this is the right way to go about things. I’m curious why do the males need the testosterone ????

Question... As you are ‘feeling responsible’ for these stray animals... how far does that feeling of responsibility extend ??? If while running free they knock a motorcyclist of their motorcycle are these dogs then your responsibility ??? I think the issue is not quite as black and white as we may sometimes thing: Its lovely to be caring and look after animals, but there is always a bigger picture, especially when it comes to stray animals we may want to care for, but not want to go so far as being responsible for.

I do agree.... I just believe we should be doing something better and preventing the issue of soi dogs being an issue in the first place....

Similar, but I don’t believe I am a ‘guest’... This is my home and I am a member of my community, one in which I don’t want soi dogs running around and strangely enough, neither do the Thai’s I speak with. Thats kind... and well done for caring for them fully and having them spayed so they don’t procreate and lead to further generations of animal suffering scrounging for scraps, eating from garbage cans, catching mange etc... ???

Perhaps they were first time tourists and didn’t know any better ???

Its far more effective when a TukTuk driver finds and returns 100,000 baht in cash that a ‘tourist accidentally left in the TukTuk’... expect that story at some point in the next 2-3 days...

I’m don’t want to defend the TukTuk driver because his actions were terrible. However, the videos highlights that the Singporean couple had agreed a fare of 150 baht to go from Siam (Paragon) to Chong Nonsi (4.4km / approx 15 min) the Singaporean actually directed the driver to Surasak which is 2 stops further on the MRT (a further 1.2km / 7 mins). The TukTuk driver is arguing that they should pay extra for this extra distance as the agree fair was to a closer destination. He feels cheated. The Singaporean is arguing that 150 baht is a good enough fare for the journey. IMO - if I understand the Thai language clearly enough between all the F$%k You’s... the TukTuk driver has a fair point. ------- In the article is says from Central World - the TukTuk driver in the video mentions Paragon. I didnt here anywhere in the video that the fee of 300 baht was paid or asked for... just the argument that 150 was the agreed price to Chong Nonsi and Surasak is further.

You are the flaw in your statement - IF you can’t make mutually respectful friendships here I’d suggest looking inwards rather than blaming others.

What nonsense. Why do people still persist in believing that? Those who believe such bumf have generally been told such rubbish by a long timer who hasn’t really got about much but likes to sound authoritative.... These guys are usually heavy drinkers and congregate with likeminded heavy drinkers, void of intelligent discussion the just repeat the same stupid rubbish and misinformation because they think it makes them sound knowledgable - the love it when they get hold of a naive newbie who would believe such rubbish. I recall witnessing a motorcycle accident in my first weekend in Thailand - it was in front of a bar I was in. Two motorcycles collided at a cross-roads. I went out to help - some old-timer from the bar walks out and tells me ’they will all blame me if I stick around and try to extort money from me’.... I’ve helped out at the scene of accidents since without the slightest sniff of impropriety... I’ve been in car accidents (3 in 20 years - 2 while I was stationary !)... I’ve clipped motorcyclists who’ve cut me off (not enough to knock them off)... no hint of ‘farang always at fault’... And the idea of ‘if the foreigner hadn’t been there..... ‘... I’ve never heard of anything so stupid in my life... that said, in area’s of the Middle East... things are that different - but here... No, not at all.

Of course they do... because ALL Thai’s will give you loads of room and ALL foreigners (farangs) drive in exactly the same inconsiderate manner, especially when in trucks ??? Don’t think you carry and bias yet ???? Bias again... only foreign motorcyclists ?? Thai’s don’t ride with any degree of recklessness? If you are projecting they have the same intelligence as yourself, I too would be extremely cautious !!!... A clear way to out yourself has lacking any intelligent thought whatsoever. This ‘anti farang thing' you have going is seriously out there towards the realms of derangement.

Lack of critical thought. Doesn't matter... he wants to blame the foreigner.. any accident involving a foreigner will add to his conformation bias while ignoring all else. Nope... only Aussie drivers... or is it only foreigners, he doesn’t trust any of us. All of us.... Whenever there is any incident, near-miss or something silly occurs its totally ignored, unless of-course its a foreigner... then that gets added to the conformation bias because foreign drivers cannot be trusted.

Talk about the lowest hanging fruit first, What about the certifying authority? - Probably paid off, surely who ever certifies that the structure is sound, and all services including water, electrics, emergency exits, fire fighting equipment etc. have been checked, prior to issuance of said certificate - Just for a change start at the top & work downwards. Agreed... But was the extended part of the structure legal ??? IF illegal, how could it be inspected ?... In which case the fault lies with the police for permitting the place to open.... Once the surface is scratched we see the corruption and failings at every step... Go to any building and we may very well see the same issue. But, even with fully legal buildings are we to truly believe that these places have been correctly inspected ???... or have they passed with flying colours and the inspector leaves a little happier and takes the wife out for dinner with the extra cash he just earned !!! ????

If you don't like it... you could go away! Making sure I don’t let the door hit my ar$e on the way out of course !!!

He wasn’t making a U-Turn... he was pulling out of a car park turning right. (Or he went into the car-park itself so that he could make the U-Turn, which ironically should have been more safe than doing a U-Turn in the road itself). Given the lay out of the car-park it would appear that the angle of SUV was pointing more left than straight, perhaps it was more difficult for the foreigner to check over his shoulder to see if vehicles were approaching, or his B-Pillar partially blocked his view when he looked back and he just didn’t check properly.

So you distrust foreign drivers in a country with 25,000 road fatalities per year because you think all Aussies drive the same and ‘gun it’ for a gap ????.... On this basis should I believe that all foreigners jump to ridiculous conclusions ?

Why? It was a horrible accident. Even as a horrible accident severe punishment is not an impossibility. Even in the UK there is a possible jail term for those driving without due care and attention casing death for which there is a maximum penalty of 5 years. After watching the video we can all see how this was a horrible accident through a moment of inattention which led to tragic consequences.... But, there are laws which are in place to ensure people ‘double check - triple check’ etc and ensure they don’t allow complacency to creep into their habits. This accident is a lesson and reminder to us all to take extra extra care out there.