Kieran00001

5 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

how many felons were convicted for the reason this whole phony investigation of russian "collusion"??

Who cares?  What matters is that these criminals were caught and brought to justice, the investigation was clearly a success, and it is not over yet by the way.

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

Doesn't matter, 2 yrs of trying to make Trump the Boogie Man didn't work. Stop the nonsense and get back into the business of running the country.

It certainly does matter that there are convicted fellons in jail due to the investigation when trying to make claim that the investigation is "crap", if it truly were crap they would not have exposed Trumps criminal team and incarcerated them, would they?  And the FBI investigation is not holding up the running of the country, that would be the incompetent president and his incompetent friends and family.

7 minutes ago, PerkinsCuthbert said:

It's nonsense, sensational rubbish; nobody goes for a two-month holiday with a single source of funds, no friends back home to help when things go wrong, and has to sleep on 'streets and in disused buildings with rats'. Even in the extremely implausible event that the man was so helpless and had nobody to assist him, a temple would give him shelter and food for the duration. 

I think you will find that plenty of young people have a single source of funds when they go abroad and plenty wouln't have people to help them back home should they need it, to imagine that these people do not even exist makes you sound completely out of touch.  Sure, a temple would be a good place for him to head, but he is already working for his food, why do you expect him to want to ask for a handout?

On 4/19/2019 at 8:36 AM, EVENKEEL said:

No Conspiracy, How much more do you need to drop this crap and get back to work. From now on the harder the dems try to find dirt on Trump the easier his campaign will be. Trump 2020 is looking better all the time.

How many criminals from Trumps team are currently sitting in jail because of this "crap"?

On 4/17/2019 at 4:13 PM, rott said:

And only very occasionally do they find one.

 

Are you another who is very familiar with Pattaya because you've read about it?

I used to live there, not any more, too many agro foreigners for my liking.  As for fights being very occasional, I saw more in Pattaya than anywhere else in Thailand.

On 4/15/2019 at 1:02 PM, uhuh said:

These are interesting figures that certainly support your argument ( but you talk about fees for tourists,  which is not what this thread is mainly about).

May I ask where you get these figures from and what kind of "parks" they refer to? (I suspect it is Koh Samet, Similan and similar tourist traps, sorry, attractions... but I really don't know)

The figures are in a link a few pages back, it refers to the the parks which charge, there are only about 20 out of some 110 ish national parks which do charge, the rest are free  Overall, at fee paying parks, the numbers have doubled in less than 10 years raising an extra 2 billion baht.

1 hour ago, transam said:

That is total rolox.....Folk who voted to leave voted because of what they saw happening on their STREETS....How the gov of the day (remainers) have acted is the PROBLEM....

You are not making the slightest bit of sense.

12 hours ago, tlandtday said:

Like I said they will keep having referendums until they get the vote they want then they will say it was democratic.  People are so stupid to buy this crap.

March to Leave vs March to Remain.  Most of the people who bought the Brexit lies now feel stupid.

14 minutes ago, transam said:

What is the "Onesie and spoonies"   ?   ????

British stuff, don't worry about it.

On 4/12/2019 at 8:05 PM, malagateddy said:

 

 

A " NO VOTE " then should automatically trigger " NO DEAL ".

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

Nothing can be autmotically triggered through a referendum, they are only advisory, all moves need to be ratified by parliament, and they have already voted overwhelmningly against no deal, it cannot happen.

2 hours ago, uhuh said:

Many places write the Thai price at the gate in Thai numbers, foreigners are not supposed to see they pay more (the same does the English restaurant menu mentioned by another poster, different menus for different folks; many hospital websites do this too)

 

That's because Thais know very well how insulting double pricing is.

They would laugh about the Thai apologetics at TVF.

Did you not realize that it was Thai's who made the dual pricing system?

18 hours ago, wilcopops said:

as opposed to a ten-fold surcharge? Different thing altogether

You mean the 90% discount for Thai nationals?

16 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Oh dear... the same rubbish is being regurgitated by folk, who, 31 pages into a thread think they have the answer but instead presenting the same rubbish posted in the first few pages... 

 

"Foreigners regardless of their official Status in Thailand are obliged to pay the foreign price"

 

 

Very simple stuff, you are not considered a foreigner if you apply for residency and then get a Thai ID card.

12 hours ago, luis888 said:

I don't need anyone to make me feel better, as far as I'm concerned dual pricing is wrong, plain and simple. I've been charged more for a haircut just because I'm a foreigner. Is that so that the poor Thais can also have a haircut? Sure there's many locals that can't afford certain things, that is the same all over the world. Many foreigners work very hard the whole year so that they can have a week or two holiday in another country, to experience different cultures. This subject has been discussed so much and it'll never end. There are those that feel it's fine to take advantage of the foreigner and those like me that feel that the foreigner already does a lot for the economy just by coming here and deserves a brake and a "thank you" for generating billions of Baht every year. Not a kick in the arse and get screwed everywhere possible. This goes for any country that does or supports this type of thing.

Please, spare us the sob story, you are not hard done by, you are entitled.

On 4/15/2019 at 12:19 PM, donim said:

No wonder.

For HKT:

Sweden left together with the peace,

Russian came and they don't giving a 'stool' about others with high level of xenofobia.

 

Except Garage54 and The riotting cats. ????

 

For that article at Nation

"Quoting the Tourism Department"

????

 

 

Anyway, tourism is not about foreigners. It consist of foreigners AND thais.

These numbers says nothing but better welfare with Thai people.

 

Nonsense, they break down the numbers into Thai and foreigner, and they remain at 2/3 Thai and 1/3 foreigner, both increased and are the result of increased disposable income in Thailand and also increased foreign visitor numbers.

22 minutes ago, donim said:

 

 

The Chief of Tourism Promotion office of the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, Wanlapha Yuttiwong :

•     She insisted, stipulate that foreigners, regardless of their official status in Thailand, are obliged to pay the foreign price.
•     Foreigners even do not qualify for free entry if under 3 or over 60 years of age.

 

•     Asked why she thought the fees were so high, Ms Wanlapha remarked “We don’t get enough budget from the government to maintain the parks, and lately the number of foreign visitors to national parks has declined.”

And no wondering why?

That was five years ago, visitor numbers have since doubled, wondering why?

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/big_read/30359219

11 minutes ago, wilcopops said:

Again more nonsense - you have not read anything to suggest this as the maths is just not that simple - if the fees are unified, foreign visitor numbers will increase and as said added value activities once in the parks also increases income - but you have chosen to ignore changes in numbers as well as the amount of funding in proportion the games from government. 

The change required is not just a simple scrapping of the fees for foreigners - (you also need to identify who they are BTW) - it is a total shake up of how the parks are maned with an eye to increased usage accompanied by appropriate conservation safeguards. The amount of foreign tourists who visit national parks outside the "iconic" money-spinners is incredibly small - there are a vast national recsources that at present is at best ignored and even worse abused.......... they get nothing from tours of Phi-Phi etc but they have a lot to offer and with the archaic dual pricing system and management in place no progress cam be made and it is very likely a lot of these natural resources will be diminished or even destroyed.

Quote

there are a vast national recsources that at present is at best ignored and even worse abused

No, they are protecting that land, it just looks ignored because they are ignoring you, the protected area keeps growing, you talk nonsense.

9 minutes ago, wilcopops said:

this is grossly misleading, it hasn't raise "extra" money, it has raised money despite the situation. If a single fee for each facility was introduced the money raised would go much further and as a percentage of funding it is insufficient.

 

the main money is also raised by just a few parks - e.g the maritime parks in the South which have millions of visitors - the money is not shared out equitably and again management makes no good use of the money as seen by the damage sustained by these parks.

The parks have seen foreign visitor numbers increase in line with overall tourist numbers, what is misleading?  What fee would you introduce?  Would you increase the Thai fee?  Would you introduce fees at the currently free parks?  The money is shared out, the free parks don't have any income, and the good use is evident in the fact that they have protected the tiger and elephant populations to the point that they are increasing for the first time in a long time.  I can't see what you ask me to, what I see is them sacrificing small amounts of land in sites which happen to be particularly beautiful to protect massive areas of land which are particularly bio-diverse, that would be evidence to the contrary to that which you claim, that is good use of the money.

19 minutes ago, luis888 said:

Absolute bullshit, so in your theory, because you have more money than the Thais it's fine to pay more, so you should pay more for everything. You should pay double or 10 times more when you go to Big C, Tesco,  the cinema, put fuel in your vehicle,  etc. Wake up and smell the roses, oh, sorry, you can't,  because the smell of the bullshit you just spoke is so strong you can't smell anything. Wake up people, dual pricing is wrong. Full stop. 

But what would you replace it with?  Would you increase the Thai fee just to make you feel better but in doing so also price out the poorest local people?  Or would you reduce the foreigner fee and lose the billions of baht it has been raising, protecting an additional 4.5 million rai last year alone?

15 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Source?

When i visit a national park many times i don't see any other foreigner, and never more than a handful, but i see hundreds of Thais. At Phuket the ratio might be different, but for sure not 1/3 foreigners when counting all over Thailand.

In this article from 5 years ago they said the number of foreigners has declined https://www.thephuketnews.com/tax-paying-foreigners-not-entitled-to-local-price-at-national-parks-50333.php#OFAYZJxaGFBvJpCo.97

Quote

During the same period, the country saw the number of visitors at iconic national parks soaring, from 11 million in 2013 to 18.7 million last year, with foreign tourists accounting for almost one-third, around six million visits.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/big_read/30359219

14 minutes ago, jackdd said:

When looking at the majority of national parks probably less than 1% of visitors are foreigners. If they increased the price for a ticket by 5 THB and charged everybody the same price they would get way more money than by charging foreigners 10 times the Thai price. Having to pay 20 THB more for a family trip would not stop any Thai from visiting a national park.

At the fee paying parks 2/3 are Thai and 1/3 foreigner, currently it brings in 3 billion from foreigners and 600 million from Thais.  If they increased the Thai price by 5 baht and reduced the foreigner price to the same they would bring in 330 million from foreigners and 660 million from Thais, that's over 2.5 billion baht loss.