wadman

If the hospital is forced/coerced in letting him go without receiving full payment, then the next foreigner in an emergency will not be treated until payment is received upfront (or sufficient guarantees are provided). I don't see how that is a good thing.

It depends on what lead to the fight. IF (big IF) it is really true that the Canadian was drunk, belligerent, and started the fight, then why would the beach chair vendors want to fight "fair"? Not to mention that average falang is significantly larger than a Thai, how is that fair anyway?

Sounds like he really did walk 500 miles, and rolled another 500 more, just to fall down at her door.

The husband not reporting her missing may not be as incredible as it sounds. Best as I can piece things together from several news articles, this is what happened: - in 2004, Thai wife leaves her husband, goes back to Thailand for 1 month. While there she had at least 1 phone call with her children in England, so they know she is in Thailand. - she then returns to England, but it is unclear as to whether she returned to the husband, and whether he even knew that she had returned to England - if the husband didn't know that she had returned, then as far as he was concerned "she went back to Thailand to marry another man". Which is what he told their 2 kids, and what they believed until the body was identified in 2019 - the son was around 12 years old in 2004 (when the wife disappeared), so he was plenty old enough to understand things. If the wife had returned to live with her husband (and his parents), and subsequently disappeared, the son would not believe that she would be in Thailand. In 2016, the son visited his maternal grandparents in their village in Udon Thani, wanting to invite his mom to his wedding. He was still in the belief that she was living in that area.

The road checkpoint in question was on the night of Jan 4, and early morning of Jan 5. So July 4 should be Jan 4, but you know how it is with the ineptness in Thailand.

The issue with vapes is that so many Thais use them openly. And they are sold openly. Police sees them and does absolutely nothing, if they are Thai. But for a foreigner it's a hefty fine. Implementation of a law in such a way doesn't deserve any respect or credibility. What next? Fine people for jaywalking? 10k for foreigners, Thais go free?

Chuwit had an online call with Mr Sky for 1 hour. Apparently they communicated just fine.

Too sad for words. What the RTP really needs is permission from Singapore, for their police to travel there in any kind of official capacity. If they go, even in civilian clothes, and seek out and talk to Mr Sky, I'm pretty sure they will get arrested. States are incredibly touchy about their sovereignty in this way. For a case like this, where there is no strong evidence against Mr Sky in a serious crime, there is no way they will get permission. It's just all talk on the RTP's part for PR purposes.

It will be both. Turn a blind eye if it's a Thai. Arrest/court/fine/jail/deportation for non-Thais.

She needs to make a skit (a short movie) about it, and post it on YouTube. Bet that would get a lot of views.

It looks like the RTP just might travel to Taiwan after all. To offer an apology and repay the 27k baht.

1. for Thai police to travel to Taiwan, and do police work (even if it is just talking to her) requires official permission from Taiwan. I doubt they will grant it. 2. She won't be afraid of Thai police in Taiwan, she will laugh in their faces.

If she made her statements while in Thailand, then she did run afoul of Thai laws. You and I may or may not agree with the Thai defamation law, but it's their country, and they can make their laws as they like it. But it seems that she made her statements outside of Thailand. For Thailand to file charges, and claim that that specific law applies in this case is serious judicial overreach IMO. It's essentially Thailand trying to control her freedom of speech outside of Thailand. I doubt they will file a case with interpol, it will only get them laughed at.

The fact that the police claims that they have CCTV footage and it exonerates them, but refuses to publish it tells you all you need to know.

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.