wadman

9 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Looks like Olaf had his hands full with that frauline.

Surely you mean frau. Fraulein is the diminutive form of frau. 

4 hours ago, cardinalblue said:

The objective is if he is ready for travel and the family has lined up medical travel, then should go asap….

 

He should not be held hostage for bill payment…that is not medical care…

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. 

1 hour ago, bob smith said:

it's always 4 on 1 out here.

 

your average local thai wouldnt stand a chance in a 1 on 1 fight with your average farang.

 

they know this, this is why they always gang up.

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. 

23 minutes ago, Banana7 said:

July 4?? I thought it was in January 2023. Quality Thai reporting of the facts.

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. 

7 minutes ago, Bangel72 said:

This is what is needed for vapes, bike licences etc. Publish the on the spot fines and remove the extortion. 

 

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? 

5 hours ago, Dogmatix said:

It has been obvious from the beginning that Charlene was telling the truth and the BiB, including the commissioner, were lying. Why would she want to make up such a story anyway?  She has enough popularity and publicity for herself already.

 

Another suspicious part of the BiB story is that they had communication problems with the group of apprehended tourists which apparently included a Singaporean, Mr Sky, who apparently paid the 27k bribe on behalf of the group. They claimed to have problems because they could speak English but the tourists could only speak Chinese.  Obviously Mr Sky, a Singaporean, can speak much better English than most Thai police. If he is a Chinese Singaporean, which seems most likely, he can also speak at least passable Mandarin and may have been talking to the Taiwanese in the group in Mandarin and could have interpreted for them. In addition I find it very unlikely that sophisticated young Taiwanese tourists cannot speak English at least as well or, more likely better than Bangkok's finest.  Apparently Charlene referred to Thailand's "ba5tard police" in English which implies a passable knowledge of English. 

 

So if the cops had communication difficulties, it was because their own poor English but they clearly got their point over to fluent English speaker Mr Sky as he was able to comply with their demand to hand over all their cash to the cops. 

 

The days of social media are clearly making life more difficult for Bangkok's finest extortion racket.

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

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

As regards vapes in the future, it can go one of 2 ways: A. turn a blind eye, or B. arrest, court, fine/jail, and deportation.  If it's the latter, it'll kick up a heck of a sxxxstorm.

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

1 hour ago, marcusb said:

^This, yes.  I'm guessing she will drop it but would love to see her sue.  

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

25 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Apparently, yes, so  I wonder how much she's looking forward to her and her friends' being interviewed in Taiwan by the Thai police?

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.

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Agreed....   Nothing has been found true or false at the moment, but the legitimacy of the public claims made by the Taiwanese lady matter little in a Thai Defamation case, IF one were to be filed. 

 

The obvious reason for filing such a case is not to win it, but for the publicity - I don’t put the RTP beyond acting with such hubris with the belief that this may sway the optics. 

 

 

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.

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Thats exactly what it seems like to me too... 

 

That said: Why is there no clear direct statement from this lady?.... 

 

I’m wondering when the police to obfuscate some more and file defamation charges against the actress. 

 

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. 

26 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Where did the lady state that the Police put a vape in her hands ?

 

The article states they she has claimed this ?...  where did they source that info if no other social or news outlet has this information?.... is it made up? 

... link to the the girl making their statement on her own social media page or wherever she made it ?

 

 

Seems very dodgy as if the Nation have been executing a smear campaign.....

 

 

 

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!") 

1 hour ago, FritsSikkink said:

the actress has been lying about several things: Taiwanese actress who claimed extortion caught in lie on camera (nationthailand.com)

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. 

8 minutes ago, happydreamer said:

Yes...this will be the outcome of this situation.  There will be a law made just like the anti-defamation law that says if you "out" anyone here you will be banned from the country for a set amount of time.  Totally expect this to happen within the next few weeks

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

8 hours ago, persimmon said:

There is one of these at a house on our soi . It`s huge and I wouldn`t want to be anywhere in the vacinity if it ever got out . The main reason people keep these things is to intimidate the neighbours . The Thai media has christened them " kartagorn see kah " , or 4 legged killers - that`s just about right. The owners of these dogs that savage people should be charged with manslaughter and put behind bars .

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.

17 hours ago, mikebell said:

No.  The home owner should use reasonable force to subdue the intruder not carry on kicking him to within an inch of his life.

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.