Sig

And you could go on with that list with China in Tibet and Inner Mongolia as well as their desire for Taiwan.... Probably the worst nation, regarding this matter, on the globe (North Korea might be the only nation worse). Yet, people and their various governments are fine doing business with them and buying their products. It is revolting.

That isn't too great of a surprise, since they mentioned the under 30 years old bit. Under 30, in Thailand? At 30 they may just be beginning to learn what the word "responsibility" means. In the categories they inquire about - "GDP per capita, social support, healthy life expectancy, freedom to make life choices, generosity, and perceptions of corruption" - I could easily see why 18 to 30 year old Thais would vote with highly favorable ideas on those issues. In countries where young adults are given and expected to bear responsibility and have a reasonable education that gives them an ability to think logically and critically, I'd expect a lower score. Poll adults over 40 in Thailand and I'd expect the outcome would be quite different. It seems foolish to poll young adults and expect to get a result that matters. If you want to know what countries are enjoyable to live in, how about polling people who know what enjoying life means.

Actually, I have seen it before. Also, in this case, we have no idea how he may have been behaving when they came to him. He may have been erratic and needed to be cuffed regardless. Skin tone? Hopefully not, but I guess anything is possible....

Yes, hopefully he'll get the 5 year ban (or more) You do know that Thailand has no official religion, right? And all religions are constitutionally guaranteed freedom. Although Buddhism is favored and carries some sort of special status, religion cannot legally have any sway in the matter.

I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think religion has anything to do with the guy being judged as right or wrong. The issue is his overstaying his visa. The article was only bringing up what the guy was supposedly doing because it is what he was doing that was making people in the community uncomfortable, which is what led to the police finding out that he was overstaying his visa, which is what he will be judged about, not religion. The case at the end of the article is related, in that it's also a visa overstay case in which the culprit was also doing something against the social norms, which got him reported to the police and they found he was overstaying. If these criminals would have behaved like a decent normal person (which they aren't, so they can't), they probably could have gotten away with living here MUCH longer, regardless of any religion. I'm glad they'll be gone! And I hope they'll be banned too.

I believe the intention is to highlight another case that is related regarding people overstaying visas.

Highly doubtful that they viewed him as a threat, but apparently he was making people uncomfortable and if he's overstaying his visa, none of that really matters anyway. He should be booted and banned for at least 5 years IMO.

I'd wonder - why does ANYONE need such things.... Nobody needs such things, but if one is wealthy and already helping loads of others in need, I don't think anyone should begrudge someone enjoying some luxury, but more often than not, with this kind of luxury, it is nonsensical squandering of resources just to make one feel better than their everyday existence. Meanwhile, it does the opposite because in reality they can't afford such items and it causes stress (to pay for it or to care for it or to worry about it) rather than relaxation in the norm of a wealthy person's luxury.

The only possible way this could have been written was by interviewing a politician. "Beauty" and "charm" are words that would likely NEVER come to mind to describe Pattaya.... to say the very least.

Thanks for your ideas. I agree with the sign in the channel! On the bit about people staying upon work visa refusal. I had more in mind the typical Thai illegal who came either for tourism, work, or studies, and then decided to stay on even after their original visa had expired, but wouldn't be able to get a work visa approved. I didn't have in mind the type you mentioned who were intentionally coming over to work illegally. We are not in disagreement there. I'm certain you're right that these criminals who are purposefully entering illegally, seeking work, would not go back home after being refused a visa. They've already proved themselves to be criminals who couldn't care less about the laws of the country they are attempting to take advantage of and wouldn't be stopped by something like that. I feel compassion for these people who are hoping to better their and their families' lives, but I can't excuse them for breaking these laws. I think many of them could actually become productive citizens, but sadly they are headed down the wrong path.

Yes, I do think they (the majority) are going to say, "Oh, that's a shame", and return to their home country. I like to believe that the majority of people are not criminals. I suppose you could say that making laws exacerbates problems, much like those who argue that speeding laws exacerbate traffic issues. However, I don't find that argument logical or convincing. A country can't simply, willy-nilly hand out work visas to everyone who requests one. I know you didn't say such and may not intend that, but it could be seen as a logical progression from your position. Certainly, there will always be individuals who engage in criminal activities and contribute to the 'Black Economy.' This is precisely why we have laws — to provide recourse against such lawless individuals who demonstrate a disregard for the societal norms reinforced by a legal framework. Agreed, there are unscrupulous employers who criminally exploit these individuals for their own selfish gain, thus further necessitating laws to address such antisocial behavior. It may indeed be in the best interest of society not to allow such individuals to operate businesses.

Yes, really. You still don't seem to be able to comprehend what is written at face value, but insist on applying your own interpretation, reading between the lines. As I said, AGAIN, I wasn't making any claim. You strongly imply that I was, yet at the same time use language that would show that I wasn't making a claim, but that I "suggested", which I didn't and I explained what I was doing, which of course you reject because apparently you seem to think you know my intended meaning better than myself. Either way, if it were a suggestion, as you posit, such modality is not a claim. Yeah, well... maybe Reading 101 is too advanced for you. You need the prerequisite of attitudinal adjustment and reform of know-it-all syndrome. I'm done. No use in continuing... Have a better day.

I figured as much... It's a bit of an annoyance, but even low brow morons should be replied to at least once, if it isn't terribly time consuming. Beyond that, it may become an issue of casting pearls to swine and be useless.

And the UK The number of Thais working illegally in the US is mindboggling. It seems like every Thai restaurant has illegal workers. I don't believe that's the case, of course, but sometimes it is so obvious from talking with many of them that there are a LOT of them illegally working. From polls and studies I've come across in the past, Thais alone represent many thousands of illegal workers in the US, and they are a small minority of the problem. It's no wonder the US is so strict about giving visas to certain demographic groups.

Your English hasn't shown deficiencies like this in past postings I've seen... It appears that your extreme bias is blinding you. I was giving an example of how places of worship have been and continue to typically be viewed by cultures across the world in both common practice and law. I wasn't making any claim that there would be any sort of "legal protection" applicable here. And I also didn't claim or even remotely imply that acts of war would be applicable here, so why on earth would you mention that? Remedial reading 101....

Why? Are worshipping offenders granted immunity whilst in their club houses? I don't think it's too difficult to grasp. Historically, places of worship have been sort of like sanctuaries, and in some cases, legally such. Culturally, I think it can be pretty easily understood in Thailand, if you imagine a bunch of police coming to a Buddhist temple for a random check on worshipers for their passports and/or ID, I believe it would be highly likely be considered to be incredibly disrespectful. I could be wrong, but unless there were some clear reason of suspicion of a crime occurring or having occurred on the premises, I really doubt it would happen. I know that if it happened in some countries, it would be expected that there would be some serious public outcry and possibly lawsuits. This protection can also be seen in how places of worship are given special consideration during war, when it is considered a war crime under international humanitarian law to attack a place of worship and specifically prohibited under various international treaties and conventions, such as the Geneva Conventions.

well that didn't work Hard to know... Good luck can come in funny ways. It might have taken out some ne'er-do-wells! 😅 In reality, sad for those bystanders who may be suffering for a while to come...

Yep, about the same amount of time for me, since 2000 and I've been to one national park. My Thai friends paid because they were too upset to let me pay that and felt they sort of needed to apologize by paying for me. I was new to Thailand at that time, but I never went to another place that set charges like that. For one, it is too humiliating for both oneself as well as any Thai friends one is with, and secondly, it is a detestable policy to abide by, so I pass. I'd love to go to many of those places, but I find alternative destinations and smaller operations to support financially.

Ok, no need to read further when you have idiots saying nonsense like this. They instantly prove that whatever issue they're dealing with is a non-issue. So-called "overtourism" is not the issue. The issue is horrific mismanagement and corruption in the tourism sector.

lol I meant for digging, approximately 6 feet....

Of course there were no signs of illegal activity! How could there be such a thing in the most family friendly tourist venue in the country!

Hopefully there's no key involved, but maybe a shovel.

And I guess you'd be fitting to wear a tight brown uniform....

Hard to fathom that an educated, moral person could write this. Maybe it's a safe assumption to make that you are neither? Answers to your questions: 1. Is it really a crime to find money sitting in an ATM machine? Of course, no. And nobody was suggesting that it is. And nobody suggested that the thieving couple did anything wrong in discovering the money there. 2. What person would not take it if you saw it sitting there? A normal moral person. A person who is not a thief. What kind of person would take that money, rather than safeguard it for the person who might even be a poor person for whom that could be a massive amount of money and could cause tremendous hardship for, if it were lost? That kind of person, from what I gather from your comment would apparently include you. It would be an immoral, self-centered piece of trash that has no business being free in society bringing problems, likely everywhere they go. They should be locked up and have their freedom taken away from them, while being educated and taught how they need to behave in society. For a crime like this, I'd give them 3 months in jail with a penalty of restitution to the victim of double what was stolen from him. After the 3 months in jail, a public flogging with advertisement made in the media with his name and what he did. I doubt they would do it again. If they did, double the penalty and so on. If recalcitrant, and continues 4 or 5 times more, put them to death. Simple. Done.

Yep... one would think that elusive, seemingly nonexistent in Thailand, concept known as logic would bring about some change here. But... initiatives? lol --> TIT