jackspratt

This should do it:

www(dot)wat(dot)austhai(dot)biz/

Thailand airfare war hots up

By John Le Fevre

BANGKOK (thaivisa.com): -- Just a day after Thai Airways International (THAI) entered the discount airfare market with its "Fly THAI, get more" promotional fares designed to "put AirAsia's offering to shame," local carrier Bangkok Airways (BA) has fired back with its own "Flyer Pass" range of discounted air fares.

The THAI campaign sees the airline cutting it's fares by 20 percent below seasonal standard fares, with up to one-third of all seats on all THAI flights being sold at the promotional rate.

Pandit Chanapai, executive vice-president for THAI's commercial department said on Tuesday the airline hoped the campaign will help it fight back against the low-cost carriers and increase its flight load to 70 percent.

"We are telling the public there is another good option for buying air tickets and that we are ready to compete squarely with other airlines".

In direct response, privately owned BA responded on Wednesday with a series of "Flyer Pass's, priced between Bt9,000 and Bt29,000 (about $US264 to $US851) for a booklet of four flight tickets valid for one year.

The Flexi Pass-Fun package, priced at Bt9,000, is valid for all domestic routes flown by BA, while the mid priced Flyer Pass-Fusion covers domestic routes as well as flights from Bangkok to Ho Chi Minh, or Phnom Penh.

The Flexi Pass-Fancy, priced at Bt19,500, can be used for domestic and international routes, including Bangkok to Siem Reap or Luang Prabang, or from Samui to Singapore, while the most expensive package, the Flyer Pass-Freedom, priced at Bt29,000, can be used on the Bangkok to Hiroshima or the Bangkok to Maldives sectors.

BAs senior sales director, Chonlada Chevathakorn, said the airline had prepared a total of 20,000 tickets across the four packages and expected them to be sold out within four months.

According to Chonlada, "in general Bangkok Airways does not give discounted fares to passengers during the high season for traveling, but we are doing so this year, to stimulate passenger numbers.

"The average air fare under the promotion is discounted by 20 per cent from normal prices," she said.

According to THAI, its entry into the discount airline market has been brought about by airlines continuing to undercut each other in a desperate bid to cope with a market marred by global recession and pandemic A(H1N1), which has seen the airlines' passenger numbers from east Asian countries such as China, Japan and Korea tank by up to 20 percent.

The new THAI promotional fares will see an all-inclusive round-trip start at Bt2,810 for domestic routes, while regional flights start at Bt4,300.

Whereas the THAI promotional tickets must be purchased by July 31, and travel made before September 30, BAs Flyer Pass's are valid for travel between August 1 this year and July 31, 2010.

-- thaivisa.com 2009-07-16

Your reference to Bangkok Airways code as BA is misleading. Bangkok Airways is PG. Or do you just make up your own?

Didn't mislead me in the slightest.

In fact BA is clearly used as an abbreviation of Bangkok Airways. Following your own logic, would you be mislead that THAI is the code for Thai International?

As I have commented previously, funny old forum at times is TV.

You can discuss tax evasion (ie smuggling cigarettes) until the cows come home, but don't dare mention downloading torrents or the such like (where is the "scratches head" emoticon )

Is the situation any different if the music is being played in a bar via a music channel on satellite TV?

It seems that a number of posters on TV are more anxious to defend the reputations of Mr Ingram and Ms Xi, than they are to defend themselves.

The King Power videos and statement were released more than a week ago, and as yet (apparently) not a dickie bird from the "accused".

I wonder why that could be?

i agree with Laopo, by letting go such acts (extortion), KP discredit itself.

Yes the thieves must be punished .

But it seems obvious that KP don't care that a band of thugs have set up

an extortion business (bound to problems that all stores can enconter : shoplifting)

involving KP shops.

From now on I will not put a foot in these stores and i will advise all my friends

to avoid them.

Between you and your friends, and the others on TV who have made the same vow, we are probably up to 1000+ boycotters by now.

Given the 40+ million passengers each year at Swampy, King Power are no doubt shaking in their boots.

None of us knows how a court would interpret the evidence because none of us is looking at what a court would see. A lot would depend on how the prosecution presents it's case and how it attacked by the defence. None of us can assess the demenour of the witnesses and form an impression of their truthfulness. We don't even have all the facts that might be presented to a court.

For example it appears they were interviewed by police, but we do not know whether or not they were shown the CCTV footage. If so did they admit or deny it was them? If they did admit it was them the CCTV footage would be strong evidence.

The rest is circumstantial.

Sitting at different tables - not usual behaviour

Change of clothing - the exact details of this need further explanation. Did, for example, they have the clothing shown on the CCTV footage in their possession.

Ingram leaving the restaurant instead of going to see what the police wanted with his wife - very odd behaviour.

The stolen property being found along his line of flight.

We simply do not have all the details of the circumstantial eveidence. How this comes out in court could have would have a bearing on the outcome. A conviction is quite possible and so is an aquittal. There would certainly appear to be a prima facie case.

Most of us, myself included, draw our conclusions on less evidence than a court would have, which is just as well as we don't have to decide whether they are guilty or not. At this point in time I am satisfied they did it, but if I got more information I would be quite prepared to change my view. Even if aqitted by a court this does not mean they did no do it. It means the prosecution could not prove it's case.

I give my views based on whether they did or did not do it not whether they are legally guilty or not. Since this is not going to court that will never be known.

The guy obviously hasn't seen a court in action. The prosecution simply say that you stole a wallet, then you have to prove that you didn't. Then it gets nasty for you as KP will find a dozen witnesses who saw you put the wallet in your bag. The witnesses are told what to say before they go into court, they will lie as they work for KP and their jobs depend upon it.

So, you won't have a legal leg to stand on, you will be found guilty, whether you did it or not, and to top things off, your sentence will indeed be much harsher for wasting the courts time.

Also, courts in Thailand do not use juries, for small cases, just a single judge, and he is literally your jury, judge and executioner all rolled into one. You don't stand a chance.

Can you point out a country that does use juries in "small" cases?

Certainly Australia, UK and the US do not.

The Netherlands for instance.

Yes, the Netherlands for instance has minor cases heard by a single judge, or sometimes a panel of 3 judges.

Is that what you were trying to tell us?

http://www.helplinelaw.com/law/netherlands/courts/courts.php

It's apparent that some posters do not understand law nor understand that evidence in a court of law is used by the prosecution to prove their case.

It should not be in a proper functioning legal system, although often is the case in Thailand, up to the accused to prove their innocence. It is up to the prosecution to build a case, and prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty.

That's how it works. They have not been able to do so in this case to my knowledge.

That the couple were not apprehended while leaving the store with the item, that the cctv footage is inconclusive, that the couple were apprehended in the food court in different clothing, that the couple were not found in possession of the item, and many other factors, ensure the prosecution may not have had sufficient evidence to get a prosecution.

Very plausible scenario, hence the subsequent extortion and lack of due process.

Quite simple and any decent lawyer would have p*ssed this case if the prosecutors were even foolish enough to take it to court.

None of us knows how a court would interpret the evidence because none of us is looking at what a court would see. A lot would depend on how the prosecution presents it's case and how it attacked by the defence. None of us can assess the demenour of the witnesses and form an impression of their truthfulness. We don't even have all the facts that might be presented to a court.

For example it appears they were interviewed by police, but we do not know whether or not they were shown the CCTV footage. If so did they admit or deny it was them? If they did admit it was them the CCTV footage would be strong evidence.

The rest is circumstantial.

Sitting at different tables - not usual behaviour

Change of clothing - the exact details of this need further explanation. Did, for example, they have the clothing shown on the CCTV footage in their possession.

Ingram leaving the restaurant instead of going to see what the police wanted with his wife - very odd behaviour.

The stolen property being found along his line of flight.

We simply do not have all the details of the circumstantial eveidence. How this comes out in court could have would have a bearing on the outcome. A conviction is quite possible and so is an aquittal. There would certainly appear to be a prima facie case.

Most of us, myself included, draw our conclusions on less evidence than a court would have, which is just as well as we don't have to decide whether they are guilty or not. At this point in time I am satisfied they did it, but if I got more information I would be quite prepared to change my view. Even if aqitted by a court this does not mean they did no do it. It means the prosecution could not prove it's case.

I give my views based on whether they did or did not do it not whether they are legally guilty or not. Since this is not going to court that will never be known.

The guy obviously hasn't seen a court in action. The prosecution simply say that you stole a wallet, then you have to prove that you didn't. Then it gets nasty for you as KP will find a dozen witnesses who saw you put the wallet in your bag. The witnesses are told what to say before they go into court, they will lie as they work for KP and their jobs depend upon it.

So, you won't have a legal leg to stand on, you will be found guilty, whether you did it or not, and to top things off, your sentence will indeed be much harsher for wasting the courts time.

Also, courts in Thailand do not use juries, for small cases, just a single judge, and he is literally your jury, judge and executioner all rolled into one. You don't stand a chance.

Can you point out a country that does use juries in "small" cases?

Certainly Australia, UK and the US do not.

It's nonsense.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/warnings/hotelkey.asp

I mean this is pathetic, do we have to wait until someone's kid cops a bullet in the noodle from this guy before something is done.

"What sort of man points a loaded gun at their wife?

What sort of man fires bullets into a neighbourhood full of kids? " Answer ,A dangerous one, and the scary bit is as ive said before when they are mad they dont consider the consequences,.Safety first remember

How about one of Thailand's finest BiB!

At 12:00 hrs. today on 4 July 2009, Pol. Colonel Prasong Kongpanya, an investigations officer with the Nong Khai provincial police, Meung district, was notified of a a shooting incident that took place at Baan Dao Reung, Tambol Song Hong, Meung district of Nong Khan province, and thus reported the incident to the local police commissioner.

Police subsequently went to the scene for investigation. The incident took place at House no. 112 Moo 6, Baan Reung, Tambol Song Hong, Meung district of Nong Khai.

Adjacent to the house were found large quantities of bloodstains; the injured had been taken to the Nong Khai hospital. It was later discovered that his name was Sarn Chaisarn, aged 12, residing in the same village. He had been shot with an 11 millimeter bullet in the center of the face, bullet lodged inside, and had earlier been reported in critical condition. Doctors attempted to resuscitate the victim but were unable to save him.

In their investigation, police questioned the instigator of the incident, police senior sergeant major Pathomchai Sukwhaiya, aged 44, who was responsible for guarding a suspect as he was attached to the Nong Khai court at the time. From their investigations, police questioned Mrs. Soomla Wirasakdi, age 41, the boy's aunt. She told police that before the incident she had been transplanting rice seedlings behind the house belonging to the police sergeant major, which was a bit away form where the shooting took place. The child had been sitting playing in front of the house, but about thirty meters away.

All morning, she told investigators, there was loud shouting as the police sergeant major had been arguing with his wife, until approximately 11:00 a.m. At that time two men in a pickup truck, arrived to collect daily payment for debts the police sergeant major had incurred. They parked in front of the home and asked about payment of debt for purchase of a bicycle that the police officer's wife had bought. The daily debt payment was 200 Baht. But the discussions turned heated, with the police senior sergeant major cursing the two with vile language. They hurriedly turned about and jumped in the truck to leave.

As the truck was speeding off, the police sergeant major fired off two rounds at the men, but missed, with one stray bullet catching the young child instead. Police investigations and prosecution of the case continue, but it was learned that the sergeant major's wife had leased the bicycle without his knowledge and that the argument that morning was over the increasing debts incurred.

http://www.thekoratpost.com/headlines.html

As they were not apprehended leaving the store with the stolen goods there is no case to answer.

CCTV footage alone is not sufficient to convict in a proper court of law.

End of.

Based on those observations, you really have no idea of how an investigation and evidence works

But you are right on one point - there is no case to answer, because they have chosen (rightly or wrongly) to buy their way out of a court case.

I reckon you should give it a rest.

Yes, everyone has seen a woman put something in her shoulder bag and hastily exit the store but the burning question is,

WHO IS SHE?

Well according to this incredibly well informed and highly observant poster, it cannot possibly be Ms Xi:

Look at the video closely, this is not the same couple, the guy is a stand in and the woman is the actor. Neither ever look up or around to see if they are being watched, surely they can see the camera looking straight at them. The woman looks younger, walks like someone in her 20's not like a person in their 40's, the hair is longer and is being used to cover her face and the body is slimmer, the breasts appear smaller than Xi's are.

OK Jack, as the guy asked "Who the f#ck is she?". Give us your humble opinion as to WHY she is "Ms Xi". Where is the resemblance? --- once again to be discussed over another beer!

In the video, she is sufficiently like Ms Xi, as he is like Mr Ingram, and there seems little doubt they have nicked a wallet.

The only other photo of Ms Xi that appears to be in existence to the public at large is that shown on the earlier thread, when they were interviewed by the Times Online.

There is nothing in that photo (particularly her different hair style) which dissuades me that the person in the video cannot be her.

Add to that KP's plausible story of the events, and the downside for KP if it were shown that they had staged an elaborate hoax, employing actors etc, and I am happy to accept they (the Ingrams) did it.

Who cares if it was 2 million or 2 baht.

The point of the story is FAKE POLICE at Bangkok International.

And the rest of the story is that the FAKE POLICE were arrested by the REAL POLICE at Bangkok International.

The REAL POLICE don't like others getting in on the graft out there it seems to me.

Most unusually, you are probably right.

But this seems to be getting away from both the origins of this thread (shoplifting from KP), and the sub-thread (rogue customs/excise officers and "extortionate" fines imposed thereby).

There will always be shoplifters.

The question is, was this handled properly or are the Police playing games and terrorizing people.

No Serpico - the question on both this thread, and the previous one (as it started), has always been "is there reasonable cause to accuse KP of being complicit in the setting up and scamming of two innocent English tourists".

And the answer is clearly NO.

I don't believe I have read a single post on either thread which suggests the Thai police and others are not capable of scamming once the "shoplifting" parties have been correctly handed over.

Yes, everyone has seen a woman put something in her shoulder bag and hastily exit the store but the burning question is,

WHO IS SHE?

Well according to this incredibly well informed and highly observant poster, it cannot possibly be Ms Xi:

Look at the video closely, this is not the same couple, the guy is a stand in and the woman is the actor. Neither ever look up or around to see if they are being watched, surely they can see the camera looking straight at them. The woman looks younger, walks like someone in her 20's not like a person in their 40's, the hair is longer and is being used to cover her face and the body is slimmer, the breasts appear smaller than Xi's are.

Who cares if it was 2 million or 2 baht.

The point of the story is FAKE POLICE at Bangkok International.

And the rest of the story is that the FAKE POLICE were arrested by the REAL POLICE at Bangkok International.

A few years ago the embassy recommended that I use one of the lawyers on their official list, I did, and the bugger ripped me off for B50,000.

Have you got a video of it?

I can soon make one just like your friends over at KP HQ did.

With Brad Pitt playing your part, no doubt

4. I and others have provided facts and sources. You have not.

Having looked back through the thread, the only "fact" I can see that has come from your keyboard is that you are the only farang in a soi - and I guess we have to take your word for that.

Wait, maybe you meant this fact from the other thread, referring to this thread:

caf post Yesterday, 2009-07-08 11:44:04

But Benjie has opened a new thread to continue his ramblimgs (sic)

Ooops!!! The OP was Oneman

8000 pounds is in accordance with publicly available schedules for penalties.?????

Have you read any of these posts or visited other independent websites ( eg drummond but there are others). How long have you lived in Thaialnd

Do you have an understanding of "context"?

The kommando was talking about "excise scams", and I was responding about "excise scams".

This has nothing to do with the Ingrams, and 8000 pounds.

What you believe is irrelevant. Everything posted thusfar on TV (going back 2 years) points to Excise Officers performing their legally sanctioned duty.

I can't find anything to suggest that. Please can you provide links to substantiate these claims as I asked you previously but as yet you have failed to do so, thanks once again in advance.

But please feel free to produce evidence, or even a convincing argument, to the contrary.

There are many reports of men posing as uniformed officials extorting arriving passengers notwithstanding the example you highlight below.

Unfortunately the entire lengthy thread initiated by Emperor_Tud was deleted when he chose to exit from TV. However, those who were around at the time will (hopefully) remember how silly he was made to look with his thread on "Rogue Customs Officers".

Perhaps the mods will feel free to reinstate the thread, in the public interest.

However, to briefly touch on the points you raise - Excise Officers are not confined to the Customs Hall when exercising their duties. The people discussed earlier were dressed in uniforms (blue jackets) and produced ID when questioning passengers coming from the Customs Hall.

Once again, these people were targeting people in the main airport area and at the taxi rank, nowhere near the Customs hall (that is air-side) and they were not questioning, several people have remarked that they felt physically threatened, intimidated and harassed.

The fines outlined by those unfortunate enough to be busted were totally in accordance with publicly available schedules for penalties.

Again I ask you to provide evidence to substantiate this.

We have incidents of people being extorted into paying thousands of US$ is supposed fines, I don't believe that in these cases, as with the Ingrams, that due process was followed nor these fines are in accordance with the law.

Based on your argument so far, the only one that would be laughed out of court is your good self

I'm afraid these stories of extortion and blackmail by uniformed officials at Suvarnabhumi Airport are no laughing matter.

Start here http://www.thaiembassyuk.org.uk/pdf/tobacco.pdf

Then look at this thread http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Customs-Tobb...l&hl=excise

for the services a XXXXXXX lawyer . Great help that!

I would advise you to delete that post

Why?

A few years ago the embassy recommended that I use one of the lawyers on their official list, I did, and the bugger ripped me off for B50,000.

Who can you thrust these days?

Perhaps not brand new posters on TV, who are full of unsubstantiated "facts".

They were perpetrating a similar scam on tourists bringing in excess tobacco from the Middle East recently. Anyone caught bringing in over the allowed amount was taken away and extorted in a similar fashion to the Ingrams.

It wasn't Customs doing their jobs either, it was just a bunch of people claiming to be officials searching travellers bags in the arrivals area and at the taxi ranks.

It seems they have switched tact and are now targeting Duty Free shoppers.

Extortion, pure and simple.

Rubbish!

This hoary old chestnut was gone through at length on TV more than a year ago, and clearly shown to be codswallop.

Those caught with excess fags were being fined the prescribed amount - hardly extortion.

But you are right on one point - it wasn't Customs Officers doing their jobs.

It was Excise Officers doing their jobs.

I don't believe the correct fines (imposed by Customs BTW, not Excise) are in the thousands of US$ as many people were extorted into paying for just a few excess cigarettes.

It was people claiming to be excise officers, no proof that they were actually Excise officers nor had jurisdiction or the authority to operate at the airport has ever been provided. If you have such informations please share them here with us. Thanks in advance.

Of course if a person has already passed through Customs and is in possession of tobacco waiting for a taxi or in the arrivals area there is absolutely no proof they brought that in with them to Thailand. Possession of tobacco is not a crime as far as I am aware, correctly tax stamped or not. In any country with a vague semblance of a justice system it would be laughed out of court.

In Thailand they use intimidation and bullying as they have done in the Ingram's case to extort money with the very real threat of having to face Thailand's inept and corrupt court system, a process which often takes months, if not years. If it is not shoplifting, it is people over the limit with their duty free, or they come up with another flimsy reason for the extortion.

Good on the Ingrams, The Times and Andrew Drummond for bringing the real problems at the airport to the public fore, even if some people are still sticking their heads in the sand and pretending nothing is wrong.

What you believe is irrelevant. Everything posted thusfar on TV (going back 2 years) points to Excise Officers performing their legally sanctioned duty.

But please feel free to produce evidence, or even a convincing argument, to the contrary.

Unfortunately the entire lengthy thread initiated by Emperor_Tud was deleted when he chose to exit from TV. However, those who were around at the time will (hopefully) remember how silly he was made to look with his thread on "Rogue Customs Officers".

Perhaps the mods will feel free to reinstate the thread, in the public interest.

However, to briefly touch on the points you raise - Excise Officers are not confined to the Customs Hall when exercising their duties. The people discussed earlier were dressed in uniforms (blue jackets) and produced ID when questioning passengers coming from the Customs Hall.

The fines outlined by those unfortunate enough to be busted were totally in accordance with publicly available schedules for penalties.

Based on your argument so far, the only one that would be laughed out of court is your good self

for the services a XXXXXXX lawyer . Great help that!

I would advise you to delete that post

Why?

A few years ago the embassy recommended that I use one of the lawyers on their official list, I did, and the bugger ripped me off for B50,000.

Have you got a video of it?

Facts, they are both employed at a university where they live. Not even close to the profile of a shop-lifter. Pray tell, what is the "profile" of a shop lifter?

Why steal a wallet at the airport that you could buy for 100Baht on the street. Exactly

In Singapore, if you are caught, you are caught. You cannot buy your way out, like these Brits, no matter how much you pay.

In another discussion, I am disapointed to hear that most of the Thai people think that corruption is OK in Thailand. IMHO this is the root of the problem.

Yes, no corruption at all in this democratic country. A real role model for all !

Unless you are unfortunate enough to be one of those endangered species, otherwise known as opposition politicians