newnative

I saw that and thought the same thing. He's gone stark raving mad.

I wish that was the case--it's not, at least for some condo projects. My partner and I lived in two different new condo projects in Pattaya. Both around 1000-1200 units. They would have been wonderful places to live were it not for the illegal daily renters messing everything up. Believe me when I say it was a big problem, pre-covid, for some projects. We owned a third condo as a rental at another large, new project, also around 1000 mostly small units. Had a long-term tenant who was happy at first--until the illegal daily renters invaded and made the place unpleasant. We saw the writing on the wall and sold that condo--and the other two we owned and lived at. We're in a house now but if we ever moved back into a condo we would look for an older project with bigger condo unit sizes and fewer units altogether. I think that gives you a better chance of not being in a project over-run with illegal daily renters using it as a hotel. We wised-up with the last condo we owned--less than 200 units in the project and the smallest unit was 64 sqm. No unpleasant daily rental churn, no feeling like you're living in hotel.

Prawit . . . he still alive?

Per the article: The spokesman said relevant agencies are rapidly considering tourism promotion measures for the rest of the year. This is so Thailand would be able to attract 10 million tourists for the whole of 2022, in accordance with the current target. No matter how 'rapidly' they consider 'promotion measures', no way they'll hit their 'current target' of 10 million. Expect the 'current target' to change to a lower figure soon.

Certainly hope this news might deter some. I haven't seen one person that looked better with a tattoo. Several times I've looked at people and thought they must have been in a terrible motorcycle accident that horribly scarred their legs. How awful to have to walk around looking like that. Then looked closer and saw it was tattoos. Bad on men, much worse on women.

The last condo we rented, when we still rented condos, was a 1 bedroom at The Base in Pattaya. The agent brought the client and it was a 1 year contract at 25,000 baht a month. The agent took the first month's rent as his fee. Tenant had nothing to do with the agent's fee, we paid it. Tenant paid rent, internet/cable, water, and electric. We paid the condo monthly maintenance fee. We were happy to pay the agent's fee as this was a corporate rental--the company paid the rent each month like clock work and the tenant didn't trash the place since it wouldn't look too good with the company.

I think it's 15 stores now with the Pattaya branch.

Both Home Pro and Mega Home seem to be owned by Home Product Center Public Co., Ltd.

I guess we'll see how it shakes out. When the new Home Pro opened on Sukumvit, I thought the old one at Big C Extra, just down the street might close. But, so far still open. And, now this third home improvement store from the same company. Maybe they know something. Possibly like Grande Centre Point opening a huge, new hotel right across the street from their other huge hotel at T21.

Sorry you misread my post. I meant the day we visited there were customers around.

Brick and mortar still seem alive and well in Pattaya. We just had a huge, new home improvement store called Mega Home open. Not to be confused with Mega Furniture, which also recently opened. We already have 2 Home Pro stores, Baan and Beyond, Thai Watsadu, Boonthavorn, Home Mart, and numerous smaller paint, lumber, plumbing, hardware stores, etc. My partner and I stopped in and checked it out; seemed to be doing ok business. Partner asked the sales staff and apparently Mega Home is owned by the same entity that owns Home Pro.

Prawit . . . Isn't he like the World's oldest living person? Or, just pretending to be?

Good. Brain apparently already lost sometime in the past.

They have a MAJOR GENERAL as their police spokesman??? Talk about over-the-top top-heavy with generals, good example here. Anywhere else it'd likely be a lieutenant.

I think they will not have a ruling until after the big APEC Summit in Bangkok in November. Prayut dearly wants to still be PM then and act as host because China's Xi is expected to make his first visit to Thailand for the meeting. The court needs to stretch it's research of what could easily be decided in a few days. Ok, boys, let's start our careful study of this issue by first taking a long, hard look at the font that was used. Then, later next week or the week after we'll move on to the paper that was selected . . .

Yes, I understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty. I also understand the concept of, in the immortal words of Warner Wolf, "Let's Go to the Videotape." In decisions on granting bail, a court is primarily determining two things: whether a defendant will appear at trial and whether he or she poses a danger to society. Supposedly the defendant is rich and could be a flight risk. The videotape of the 'alleged' brutal murders over a haircut complaint clearly shows he could be a danger to society. A Thai court is suppose to weigh, among other things, the gravity of the charge and the existence of evidence in determining whether bail is granted. I think in cases such as this, where there is actual videotape of the crime, and the crime is especially brutal, bail should not have been given.

It wasn't racist, either, in my opinion--unless Big Nose is a new race or ethnicity I haven't heard of. I would call it offensive, along the same lines as saying, "You're really fat so I guess you are from the USA." I don't think telling someone they are fat is racist, either. So, a comment about weight or having a big nose, offensive in my book, but not racist. I know many are of the opinion that the word' racist' can now be used for all sorts of non-racial offenses--we saw it bandied about with the debate on dual pricing. Thailand was being racist. In reality, Thailand was being nationalistic, favoring their citizens with lower prices than non-citizens. It might be considered discrimination by some but it's not racial discrimination--unless specific races or ethnicities were singled out for separate pricing among the non-Thais. But, people are lazy with language and we now have 'racist' applied to just about everything remotely offensive. Discounts for seniors are racist against the rest of us who aren't yet old--dual pricing of any sort is, apparently, always racist. Casting a non-gay actor to play a gay character is now racist. But, apparently, not yet racist to cast a gay actor to play a straight character. Or, a Black actor to play a White historical character--still ok. Racist to cast a non-Latino to play Castro. But, apparently not racist to cast a Mexican to play Portuguese explorer Magellan. Racist to cast an able-bodied actor to play any part involving a disability. A bit dizzying keeping track. Easy to see the popularity of using, and misusing, the 'R' word. Doesn't being called 'racist' sound so much more condemning than other, more appropriate words, like, say, nationalistic. Calling someone a sexist is now much too tame. Not enough impact. No, they are now a racist. They've been upgraded to a new level of disdain, however inaccurate. In my opinion, applying 'racist' and 'racism' to everything offensive lessens the impact of behavior, by individuals or entities, that is truly being racist in the original meaning of the word.

Brutally murder two people, in front of their daughter, no less, and get bail??? Outrageous. And, just 500,000 baht.

And, that's where the big money is.

I know it's an unpopular view but I don't think tourists should even be allowed to rent motorbikes. They don't know the roads, they likely have no motorcycle license or experience driving a motorcycle, their inexperience and unfamiliarity make the roads less safe for drivers and pedestrians, and, as shown here, they could care less for those of us who live here and need the roads for normal usage, not as a tourist amusement.

A pittance. Meanwhile, owner and his son quickly came up with 1.3 million for bail. Revoke the bail and pass the 1.3MB along to the victims--as a start on what they owe them.

Saw the video on Thai tv news with partner. Horrible.

Right. As I said in an earlier post, 58% of Dems voted by mail vs. 32% Republican. Trump almost carried Biden's home state of Delaware with election day only votes. This led to the false belief, Election Night, that Trump was winning the election. Trump, himself, even brazenly declared himself the winner. Meanwhile, a crucial state, Pennsylvania, had not even begun to count the mail-in ballots. I was born in Pennsylvania and I was following the returns Election Night and I remember thinking 'yikes' it doesn't look good for Biden to carry PA--Trump had a big lead. Disconcerting when broadcasters say something like, with 90% of the precincts reporting Trump has increased his lead in Pennsylvania, a crucial state for Biden. My goodness. Can Biden ever pull ahead with just 10% of the precincts left? You do look at the vote totals and tend to forget about the mail-in ballots. You do get caught up in watching the coverage and the networks want to be the first to declare a winner in this state or that state. It's gotten a bit out of hand, in my opinion. I think election coverage--and things like when a candidate is allowed to be declared a winner even with some polling places still open and some ballots not counted-- needs to be given a reset. I believe there's too much emphasis on being able to declare a winner on Election Night before everyone goes to bed. Everybody wants to see the winner at the victory party and the loser concede. Going to bed with the victor in doubt is unsettling--unfinished business. With so much voting now being done by mail, Election Night winners may no longer be the case in close elections. Now, if the US would just switch to Presidential elections by popular vote things might be easier . . . Who won? Biden, by 7 million votes.

Not the only one.

American with a Thai spouse, who has lived in the US in the past. We have a much better life here than what we would have in the US, for a variety of reasons. We do now have the resources to live in the US, at least in certain areas, but neither of us wants to; we prefer to just visit our relatives there.