stevenl

7 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Will they be prosecuted? PM had said they too would be targeted for criminal offenses. 

I quoted the article. Beyond me why you're quoting me.

19 minutes ago, G_Money said:

I think Trump will rob Peter to pay Paul.  I would say 500 million is appropriate for George to pay.  Fair play in the big leagues.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-sues-abc-news-george-stephanopoulos-defamation

Glad that ABC will pay within 6 days. 

6 minutes ago, G_Money said:

500 million worth?

Aren't you confusing a few things here?

11 minutes ago, cncltd1973 said:

I'm sure a Saudi prince or Russian oligarch would oblige

I'm a bit surprised they haven't yet.

I think the reason is the same as all those billionaire republican donors are not coming out to help him. The gamble of a pay-off by a win seems to big 

40 minutes ago, illisdean said:

They already have, go read....get acquainted with the issues and see the poll results. Tells the story.

Only the truly dumb and uninformed believe the stories coming out of your cognitively impaired savior Biden, especially about his "secure border" and "bidenomics" and the deficit and job creation embellishments and  outright. Even the disgusting lies and remarks about his son that did not die in Iraq as Biden would have you believe while serving but instead died of brain cancer. 

Anyone doubting who the biggest liar is belongs to the truly dumb and uninformed.

Trump has won that contest long ago, he has an unsurmountable lead that he keeps adding to.

They don't.

5 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

That's the problem. 

 

We need to find alternatives to oil 

 

Anyway they amount tod oil used in these medical things is insignificant compared to the environmental impacts of oil used for fuel, for example.

The main thing ATM is stopping the subsidies to the oil industry.

https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel-subsidies-surged-to-record-7-trillion

28 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

She would say that, wouldn't she?

Playing the victim always works in politics.

So his remarks were not directed at her?

1 hour ago, sanook 1 said:

Might be correct sir,but since sor kor 1 is the last step before becoming chanote(so i been told) i guess its possible..and if can convert in to chanote id be interesting in a plot land.

Many examples where a chanote was issued on sor kor 1, only to be later retracted. You can pay the official, just be prepared for a return.

I just wish people would understand what they're talking about. Looking at the previous posts in this thread my hopes are shattered.

6 hours ago, Trip Hop said:

 

Not another one.  GCE's not GCSE's in my day.  Got 2 degrees in engineering as well as a successful business that I have been running for the last 25 years.  Provides a nice lifestyle and puts me in the top 5th percentile of earners in my country too.  So much for your so called fantasy eh? 

Now you just need some manners and comprehensive reading ability and you're there.

17 minutes ago, Trip Hop said:

 

Not matter how much it hurts inside, give it up man! 

Yes, I'm giving up, there really is no point in a discussion with someone who doesn't stand by his own words 

19 minutes ago, Trip Hop said:

 

Give over man, are you suggesting that some know-it-all on AseanNow knows more than a Bangkok lawyer with 40 years experience?  Go and find something better to do with your life than trying to bait and troll people.

So despite your own link stating "If the foreigner is only sitting in the restaurant but not serving customers, not training or managing staff, not cooking and not buying supplies, then he does NOT need a work permit for this. But if he is involved in any of these activities, officially he does need a work permit."

You still stick to your claim. "Totally correct in that if you are married, there is a not very well known law that states you are allowed to help in a small family run business without a work permit in order to provide for your family."

Do you realise your own source of proof contradicts your claim?

4 minutes ago, Trip Hop said:

 

Not really except that I thought to post the whole text would be too much?  You clearly doubted my claim and even went to the extent of trying to belittle me by accusing me of a posting an unsourced claim.  I have in return clearly proved to you the contrary, period.  Whilst you quote the above text to try and save face, it is taken partially out of context in that my original quote of. "However, there is another section of Thai law that applies to this situation which is that when this is a small family business he is allowed to take care of his family. So in practice, normally no work permit is enforced", comes after what you have quoted above and therefore somewhat implies overarching principles?

 

I have already stated in my original post that even my lawyer brother-in-law has said that me carrying out a full time task would cause issues but occasional small help would not, so why are you nit-picking? 

See full quote.

Work permit required, no matter how hard you wiggle.

Is there a reason you omitted this from your quote?

"If the foreigner is only sitting in the restaurant but not serving customers, not training or managing staff, not cooking and not buying supplies, then he does NOT need a work permit for this. But if he is involved in any of these activities, officially he does need a work permit."

4 minutes ago, Trip Hop said:

 

Apologies regarding my earlier post, I was searching regarding digital nomads needing a work visa when I came across it and it's actually on the Thai Embassy website where it reads:

 

However, there is another section of Thai law that applies to this situation which is that when this is a small family business he is allowed to take care of his family. So in practice, normally no work permit is enforced.

 

It can be found here under the section Other Related Cases.

 

https://www.thaiembassy.com/thailand/thailand-digital-nomad-visa-and-work-permit

Thanks.

"Normally no work permit is enforced. "

So substantially different from your earlier claim. I do agree that in the sticks it is less likely to lead to problems than in tourist hotspots, but that is the same for all law violations, including riding without a helmet or DL.

1 hour ago, Trip Hop said:

 

The brother-in-law told me about it but I also came across it not so long back when researching it online.  I haven't got time to look for it myself right now but if you have, it can be found on the website of either Siam Legal or a similar website.  If I get time later to find it myself, I will post it.  

So you make an unsourced claim that working without a work permit is permitted depending on circumstances.

45 minutes ago, Trip Hop said:

 

Totally correct in that if you are married, there is a not very well known law that states you are allowed to help in a small family run business without a work permit in order to provide for your family.  The issue is how the local BIB or immigration interpret this and whether someone if charged, would have access to a honourable lawyer to fight the case on its merits and not just see it as a meal ticket with no care for the outcome?  My lawyer brother-in-law once told me that me helping to clear up after hours or occasionally carrying a bag of rice or similar for my other half in her roadside cafe/restaurant in the suburbs will not be a problem although waiting tables full time would.  I'll be honest though in stating that I wouldn't want to test it in your average bar/restaurant in the centre of a tourist hotspot.  

Looking forward to a link for your claim.