wadman

Can they really file defamation charges against her? Under Thai law they could. But I assume that she was out of Thailand by the time she posted her story on Facebook. If her story is true, it's not defamation under Taiwan law, or what's generally accepted internationally. So yes, they can file charges against her in Thailand. But those charges wouldn't hold up outside of Thailand, so I don't see how they can put in a request for interpol to arrest her, and extradite her.

Initially her story was posted on Facebook here http://www.facebook.com/taiwantopic Posts are in Thai, but you can click on auto translate. You have to wade through a lot of posts to even get a sense of what's going on. Allegedly, one of her claims goes like: "she claimed that the police actually took her money, put a vape in her hands and took a photo". That is not the same as she claiming that police "planted" a vape on her. It is likely one of those crime reenactment photos that police are so fond of in Thailand. And as insurance in case it becomes public ("she had a vape! Vaping is illegal in Thailand!")

According to the article: "The actress told Taiwanese media that Thai police put a vaping device into her hand and that she did not know what it was. She alleged that she was charged with having an illegal e-cigarette device in her possession. Police subsequently took her into an alley and extorted 27,000 from her, she claimed. " That is some wild, new claim by that article, claiming that police planted a vaping device in her hand. That article shows a number of still photos from CCTV showing her with a vaping device in her hand (not at the checkpoint, from days before). It's amazing that they can dig up those videos, but not the actual videos of the police stop. It's a classic case of obfuscation: can't win with the actual videos, smear her on other issues.

She has already stated that she will never ever return to Thailand.

The article in the BP only STATES that police have reviewed the CCTV footage, and found it to back up their version of the story. It does not SHOW any of the CCTV footage. So again, if the RTP wants to prove their innocence, show the footage!

Yes, criminal charges against the owner is the only way to stop this nonsense.

In the absence of CCTV footage, I would say most likely scenario is along the lines of: homeowner confront thief, they have a scuffle, thief goes to ground but isn't incapacitated, homeowner kicks him a few times while he is on all fours. Thief is then allowed to crawl away. In this scenario, I don't see why the homeowner should get charged with anything.

There is absolutely no proof of that so far. Is there CCTV footage showing the homeowner continuing to kick the thief after he had been incapacitated (not merely fallen down)? When the thief was delivered at the police station, they sure didn't see it as him being kicked "within an inch of his life". The thief himself apparently didn't see it as such either, as he waited 1 week to go to the hospital. Non of his family did either.

November 15 at 10 pm: The thief broke into the homeowner's place. He was then apprehended by local officials who brought him to the police station. The police fined him 500 baht, and then let him go. Clearly the thief wasn't that visibly hurt to the point where the police even thought about taking him to the hospital. November 23: "he went to hospital and was admitted for several days but left after refusing to be fed via a nasal tube." Even the thief himself didn't think it necessary to seek medical help until 1 week later. December 1: That's when the thief died. At home, after checking himself out of the hospital. The thief broke in, in the dead of night with some very nasty intentions. He didn't show any serious injuries afterwards, didn't seek medical help until 1 week later, left after "several" days in the hospital. Given all this, the onus is entirely on the family of the deceased to prove that the homeowner was responsible for his death in an UNREASONABLE way (i.e. by using an unreasonable amount of force). The fact that the homeowner MAY have kicked him a few times is not unreasonable imo. Facing an intruder 1 on 1 in the dead of night is a very scary situation. You don't know what weapons the other party has, how big he is, how a good a fighter he is. I myself would have clubbed him over the head with a baseball bat first, just to make sure that's it's me getting him and not vice versa.

It wasn't the homeowner who was threatened with 1 month of jail and eventually fined 500 baht. It was the thief! "He was apprehended by local officials and taken to the Wang Sam Mo police who fined him 500 baht for fighting and let him go though he was initially told he'd have to spend a month in jail. He went home and no one knew that he was coughing up blood after he was badly bruised. He couldn't walk and stopped eating."

I thought that part of the deposit was to cover for the utility bill of the last month, no? I moved out of my last place (soi buakhao 15) on the 28th of the month, asked/told the agent to pay the electricity + water bill when they come out at the beginning of the month (as I too wasn't quite sure I would get my deposit back). They were fine with that. After considerably longer than promised (at the time of signing the contract, it was "we will refund your deposit in 3 business days!"), I did get my deposit back minus the utility bills. In the agency's defence, they did have to wait a few days for the utility bills to come out. And there were a couple of holidays in between. But still, it took 19 days and several times of prodding before I got my money back. But still, I consider myself lucky to get my money back.

I buy roughly the same as before online shopping, maybe a touch more because some products I would not have been able to find before. I spent less money though, as online shopping is way cheaper.

I did that on Wednesday, and it is indeed true. If you have your "under consideration" stamp already, no need to join the long line. They do require you to accompany your passport with a photocopy of the photo page, and the "under consideration" stamp page now. I was at the immigration office at: Wednesday 8:45 am - line was enormously long, didn't quite spill out onto the street but it was close. Thursday 9:45 am - line was enormously long again Thursday 2:35 pm - very short line, only 7 people in the line outside. Inside it was packed. Risk is, if you get there late in the day, even if you make it inside, the front desk guy might tell you "no more number, come back tomolo"

I am not there yet, will be there on Wednesday January 19.

Thank you for the info. That is one thing in Thailand that absolutely baffles me: in situations with long lines, there are no clear signs posted as that what each line is for. Same thing with the Covid vaccine lines at Central Festival mall.

I have my "visa under consideration" already. When I go to get my actual visa stamp (covid extension), do I have to stand in that loooooong line? Or can I hand it off to the people on the right-hand side (outside the office), where people come to collect their passports?

Yet another graph highlighting the incredible difference in deaths by age group. 2 age groups (75-84 and 85+) account for 6.9% of the total population, but they account for 55.7% of all deaths. Children (0-17) account for 22.3% of the population, they account for a miniscule 0.07% of all deaths. (note: the 0.1% in the graph is rounded up from 0.07%, as you can see in my previous graph) • Share of total COVID-19 deaths by age U.S. 2021 | Statista

I have had 1 dose already. I am not in the children's age group. My point is (and the point of the OP), should children take a fasttracked/rushed vaccine, with their risk of serious illness and death being such a minute percentage of the total?

Is that for the good of all, or for the good of the kids though? Take a look at this graph of all covid deaths in the US since the pandemic began, broken down by age groups. 0-17 year olds only had 513 death (out of 712,930). That's 0.07% of all deaths. For the next 2 age groups, 18-29: 0.5% of all deaths, and 30-39: 1.6% of all deaths. Not very high either. It's the older folks that really get whacked. I am 50. Hypothetically: - if my age group had 0.07% of the deaths - and the 2 age groups below me had a very low % of deaths - and the 2 age groups above me had a very low % of deaths I would not get vaccinated. • COVID-19 deaths by age U.S. 2021 | Statista

Measles and polio vaccines have been around and tested for decades. Therein lies the difference.

1. Chances of the Corona virus disappearing in 10 years is virtually zero. Most likely it will stay with us for a very long time, or forever. The 1918 Spanish flu is still around (in mutated strains). So this virus will continue to spread, (some) governments have already switched the focus to preventing serious cases/hospitalization instead of preventing spread. 2. There is the issue of what's good for the collective vs what's good for the individual. Vaccinating kids now (or soon) may be good for humanity overall. But is it good for the kids? Question: if you had a young child, would you vaccinate him/her ASAP? I wouldn't.

They are switching from Sinovac to Sinopharm. The brown envelopes will just be coming from a slightly different source.

That link says: "According to the report, 97.7 percent of the UK adult population now have antibodies to COVID-19 from either infection or vaccination." At that time, the percentage of fully vaccinated was right around 60%. So 37.7% got their antibodies from infection. If you are not vaccinated but have the antibodies already, is it still worth it to get vaccinated?

Track him down. Buy him from the owner. Make said lemongrass soup.

These reports for the UK, from week 36-39 2021, so very recent. The 2 dose vaccination rate there was 60.1% at that time. And if you cared to read the reports of the other weeks, you will find that the infection rates are quite similar to week 36-39. i.e. that vaccinated and unvaccinated are getting infected are roughly the SAME RATE! That is very surprising and troubling indeed. To be more precise: infection rates are much higher (2-3 times higher) for under 18, and 18-29 age groups. Infection rates are slightly higher for vaccinated for the other age groups. Overall it's not all that different, certainly nowhere near the 80-90% efficacy one would expect. Although if you look at the other tables in the same reports, serious illness and deaths are vastly lower for the vaccinated. And just to get back to the OP, the death rate of those under 18 is 0.0 per 100,000 for both vaxxed and unvaxxed.