Horace

15 hours ago, robsamui said:

Well - as their children chant in school every morning . . . "we are the biggest and finest country in the world" . . . that being the case, I would imagine Thailand doesn't give a toss about the judgments of other nations.

Except when they need the help, products or assistance of another country.  But memories are short, and when it comes to remembering that foreigners helped on the cave rescue or foreigners provided assistance or a loan an infrastructure project, memories here particularly short. Poor record of honoring agreements = bad international credit = higher price.

On 7/28/2018 at 4:17 PM, lanista said:

First time in nearly twenty years i havent been able to buy some booze from a mom / pop store  in BKK.

Theyre definitely enforcing  the ban.

I wonder what newly arrived thirsty tourists think about it?

These restrictions are really silly, and they do seem to be getting tighter.  Not sure why.  More days are subject to bans and the rule about the hours when alcohol can be sold make no sense.  They don't reduce teenage drinking or alcoholism generally, but they do annoy tourists.

Thailand's excise tax system on alcoholic beverages is another example of this silliness. Although they seem to be aimed at protecting local liquor barons, I don't see how they even achieve that goal.  If health is the issue, this is accomplished by imposing a lower excise tax on wine and beer since you want to discourage the drinking of hard alcohol and nudge people in the direction of drinking lower alcohol beer and wine. 

But in Thailand, high octane lao-kao is sold for a pittance while a ridiculously high excise tax is imposed on wine.  Why?  Tourists don't come here for cheap Thai liquor (although some might try a sip for kicks), but even "quality tourists" will often want some wine with their dinner.  They find the high prices annoying, and its just another aspect of Thailand that puts them off.  

I don't get it.  Its not like the local liquor barons are going to lose business because Thai men (and it typically is men, but not always) are going to switch from lao-kao to wine.

11 minutes ago, PoorSucker said:

Not visa requirement but for extension of stay based on employment.

OK, this make sense.  Thanks.

49 minutes ago, seancbk said:

Yes, it pays to remember that these changes were not made to make it easier for Western foreigners.   

Correct.  Thailand is falling behind and these chances were necessary, but there are plenty opposed to the work permit reforms. For example officials involved in rent taking activity in connection with work permits.  And for that reason, we need to see how this is implemented in practice.  What might be good for the country may not be good for individuals that profit from cumbersome and difficult work permit laws.  For example, while the country may benefit, the income stream of some officials and some lawyers that profit from arcane and difficult work laws may suffer. 

These changes have been in effect for some time.  But I have only seen information about them on the websites of three law firms (other than the linked article here) and very little press.  Those law firms mainly service major corporations and handle work permits as an ancillary  service to their corporate clients.  Because they are not relying on the work permit practice to support the firm but rather to keep their corporate clients happy, they have a strong incentive to offer clear and accurate advice.  They don't have any incentive to offer work permit or visa work at cut throat prices.

23 hours ago, zib said:

I am not sure now also. Googling indeed says that you need 4 for every 1 work permit. But I've had a WP for 3 years now (renewed every year) and I've never had 4 Thais in my company ?

I always thought that was a visa requirement.  In other words, you could not get a one year visa unless you had four employees, which meant that you have to get a multiple entry visa.  

On 7/30/2018 at 10:33 AM, PoorSucker said:

Don't get to excited, this applies to conducting business meetings, sale exhibitions and such. 

You can now attend a conference without a WP. 

Participants in culture events and entertainers can also "work" without a work permit if they are entering from "time to time" to do so.  In other words, a foreigner cannot get a multiple entry visa and sing "Hotel California" in the same bar for a year. 

It sounds ridiculous, but foreigners were getting arrested in Chiang Mai for "working" when sitting in bar and singing for a few nights, juggling or putting on a magic show.

6 hours ago, taipan1949 said:

Working without a work permit is ILLEGAL. The company I worked for in Map Ta Phut had to pay a lot of money and we both had to go through a lot of paperwork to get my work permit. I believe in Thailand for Thais first and if you are doing something illegal you belong in jail or deported.

Now here is the funny part.  Under the new work permit law, they are not required to have a work permit for the "work" (as they described it) they were performing.  A work permit is not required under the new  work permit law when a foreigner gives advice, talks at a lecture or a seminar, or provides training or a demonstration.    

4 hours ago, rkidlad said:

So what did he say? You can't just say he didn't say that and follow it up with nothing. 

 

My wife, who's very Thai and has only pure Thai blood in her, said he did say that. I won't support that with any evidence because it (makes sense to me). 

Agree. This is nonsense.

47 minutes ago, ttrd said:

Yes, BUT they were arrested for breaking the old Law and will not benefit from a change that applies later...

I thought the law changed in April?  I couldn't make their training session because of a scheduling conflict? so I am not sure when they had the training session that got them arrested.

51 minutes ago, balo said:

THe families can decide for themselves , if they will earn 500k THB  for an interview its life changing money for them .  

The Thai government can not prevent that from happening. 

 

That is precisely why the government wants to control this.   That money could go to *gasp* the kids or their family instead of the pockets of some officious official. 

You also can't have ordinary Thais making decisions for themselves. That could lead to all sorts of mischief.

The officials in Bangkok know what is best for the kids and their families.  And how are they going to afford expensive cars, condos and trips abroad if they don't get most, if not all, of the money that is paid for interviews?  Very selfish to ignore the god-given privileges of privileged Thais ?

7 hours ago, NanLaew said:

7 hours ago, webfact said:

One person is charged with overstay, three with illegal entry and all with working without a work permit.

Soi 6 slappers don't need WP's.

Doesn't section 4 of the new work permit provide that no work permit is required for "persons entering [Thailand] from time to time to organize or participate in conferences, give advice, lectures, or demonstrations at meetings, training sessions, company visits or seminars or participate in artistic or cultural exhibitions..."?   They were participating in a conference where they gave advice, demonstrations  and training sessions.  Don't need a work permit for that? This was also certainly an artistic or cultural exhibit. Don't need a work permit for that either.  So why are there work permit charges??

4 hours ago, webfact said:

Daily news reported that relatives of the bride had gone to Muang Ratchaburi police to file a complaint for financial losses.

 

Cops are set to meet each side tomorrow, Tuesday, to sort out the financial claims.

I must have missed something: where is the criminal conduct?

Or is making someone lose face a crime in Thailand?

On 7/18/2018 at 10:46 AM, sanemax said:

Ha ha , are you aware of Thailands slander and defamation laws and their computer crimes act ?

Thais are far far more litigious than Americans.

I wrote a letter to the management of a gym that failed and failed to honor refund claims (take a guess which one: there are so many). Facts were clear and never disputed. I proveded written back up on every. I said including documents from the gym.. On this day I paid X for a full year. Two months later it was closed.

I got seven letters threatening a private criminal defamation charge if I complained to anyone, and a demand that I pay 10 million Baht damages and plead guilty to criminal defamation. A demand that I pay $25,000 to cover the costs of poorly written letters I got. The police called me in to respond to criminal defamation charges. They visited my son’s school when I refused to accept the charges, All designed to intimidate me and keep my mouth shut. All bacuse of a strictly factual two page letter!

I think Thai people would benefit if they could fight rich crooks that steal from them. Thailand needs more litigation, not less. We certainly can count on the authorities to protect to give us a fair shake.

21 hours ago, 9KPhalak said:

A country that allows the rape of its children speaks to the despicable and scummy nature of this country.  This shows just how mean and cruel the Thai people can be.  Thailand likes to think that its people are of a kind and compassionate character, but they're not. This latest episode of Thai conduct displays this all too well.  The teachers and administrators of this school raped these girls as well and should be treated as such.

What happened here is appalling, but I would not blame “Thai people”. This is a very hierarchical society which is conducive to these and and other travesties. Sakdina survives. It’s no accident that Thailand has had umpteen (I’ve lost count) Coups.Books have been written on the subject (and some of them banned). Thais are taught at a very early age to be subservient. Some buy into to it and some secretly seath with anger. There are people where I 

53 minutes ago, Mattd said:

Personally I think that proving malice would be extremely easy if the statement was made without justification, what other possible reason would somebody call somebody else a peadophile, especially if they didn't personally know the other person, somebody who is supposedly as intelligent as Musk is would know the implications of what he posted.

As mentioned by another poster, calling somebody a peadophile is an extremely loaded accusation and if it is without foundation, then it about as malign as they come.

You are absolutely right.  I will see if I can somehow post the video clip, but in LA that asked a panel of prominent lawyers and a retired judge if Musk would win or lose a defamation case, and they all agreed he would likely lose, but disagreed about the amount of damages.

6 hours ago, JLCrab said:

And none of that makes any difference unless it came to picking a jury.

When Musk's lawyers are assessing the value of the claim, they will, of course, look at how a jury would react. 

Calling someone a "pedo", without any proof, is going to be damn hard to justify anywhere, notwithstanding the impediments to bringing a defamation claim in the US.  This shouldn't surprise anyone, but if you falsely tweet to 20,000+ followers that someone is a sexual criminal, a pedo, without any proof, you have tremendous exposure even in California. 

3 hours ago, JLCrab said:

. and at least in California, where Mr. Musk has employed 10+ thousands of persons at his various ventures with further ripple economic effects, he may not be so unlikable as you suggest.

I just got back from California.  Musk was viewed as clown by everyone I met in San Francisco and Los Angeles.  His tweet is getting coverage in the local media there, and all of its negative.  Everyone I met (Silicon valley, West LA) viewed him as a huckster.  Recent events in Europe have made the Californians I met hostile to self-aggrandizing Americans creating problems abroad.  Musk's comments were seen in that light.

7 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

All I have said is that, if Mr. Unsworth found lawyers to bring a libel case against Mr. Musk in California, it would not be the slam-dunk case you seem to suggest and that, once filed Musk's lawyers would then rush to settle. The rest who knows? He may tell the lawyers for Unsworth: Go ahead ... Make my day.

 

And although you note that 95% of cases are settled before trial, how many of those defendants were worth 20 billion dollars? And there was another US Supreme Court case following Sullivan which established the principle of "Limited-purpose public figure"

Don't disagree with most of what you are saying.  But I do think that a lawyer offering good advice would tell Mosk to settle.  There are financial damages and damages to Mosk's reputation.  The stakes for Mosk are high and I think Mr. Unsworth could find a good lawyer willing to handle this on a contingency fee basis.  So no cost to Unsworth. 

Putting aside legal issues, as a moral issue, I think Mosk's conduct here was beyong reprehensible.  Quite frankly, that is the real reason I think Mr. Unsworth should pursue this.  What Mosk did was wrong, and he should not get away with it.  I also don't like the insinuation about Thailand.

1 hour ago, JLCrab said:

However the real underlying case law here is a US Supreme Court post-Sullivan ruling that established a "limited-purpose public figure" in libel cases as --

 

"... an individual voluntarily injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy, and thereby becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues. In either case, such persons assume special prominence in the resolution of public questions."

Do you think Musk could successfully raise this to justify calling Vern a pedophile?   I don't claim any expertise on this issue, but that would be surprising to me. 

And since the public figure issue arises out of a US Supreme Court decision, I would expect that all states make this distinction, but again I am no expert.  But I did check and Mosk lives in California so I would think jurisdictional and venue issues would be easy in California.

V could sue outside of the US to avoid First Amendment protections, but any judgment he obtained would be hard or impossible to enforce in the US.  Musk is a rich man and it would not surprising to learn he has assets in a jurisdiction friendlier to defamation claims.

Ultimately, however, I would think Must would want to settle this case.  If he claims he's not liable because V is a public figure, he's basically saying: "yeah, so what: I falsely called this guy a pedo, but because he's a public figure I am not liable for making such a reprehensible claim".  And then what if a court decides V is not a public figure (I don't think its clear cut).  Musk is at considerable risk and smart approach would be to quickly settle out of court.  V won't have problems finding good lawyers willing to take this on a contingency fee basis.

3 hours ago, JLCrab said:

There is no such thing as US defamation laws. It is a state-by-state issue. And California might not be such a good place to bring a case that might require proof of malice.

You are right about it being state by state (too quick).  But the proof of malice requirement varying between public and private persons stems from a US Supreme Court decision (the Sullivan case).  I am not sure why California would be a worse state than any other on the proof of malice issue, but be curious about any insight on this issue.