CRUNCHER

In one breath, we like say how bloody hopeless the Thai (English) press is.

But in the next breath, we are happy to take what they, plus assorted bloggers and other forums say as gospel, and mount whatever case happens to suit us at the time, based on that "evidence".

Thank god rational people, and those in positions of responsibility, do otherwise.

But then if the good correspondents of TV went in that direction, the input would likely fall by 50% or more.

Maybe not such a bad thing when you think about it

I don't know who you are referring to when you mention rational people, and those in positions of responsibility.

But I do think that you will agree that there is only 2 possible scenarios here.

1. The couple did not steal the wallet, but were extorted of 8000 Pounds to secure their freedom.

2. The couple did steal the wallet and paid 8000 pounds for the prosecutor to decide that there was insufficient evidence to proceed with the case.

I cannot see that it can be anything but a case of extortion or corruption whether they are guilty or not.

You may well be right.

However, if you cast your mind back, this thread started its life as a quite nasty diatribe against King Power.

And no-one has yet mounted a reasonable case against them.

I, for one, have not directed any accusations at the company King Power, but I do see what you mean. The sum of money involved here is chump change to the owner of King Power, really not worth his while.

I do not believe that King Power is involved in this scam, but maybe some employees are. We don't have enough information to form an opinion. The statement from King Power can only originate from what its employees have stated and maybe the security personnel employed by King Power lied.

I do believe that a wallet was stolen, the video is not clear, but I would say that a theft took place. The quality of the video that we have seen is not good - it could be any couple out of so many that I have seen at the airport.

It just seems to me very convenient that the wallet was found in a bin outside a toilet visited by Ingram while being followed by security. If they believed that the two were working together, why didn't they detain both at the restaurant? Why would they allow him to walk off a dispose of the evidence? Note that they did not state that they witnessed him throw anything in the bin even though they were following him.

I believe they were sitting at different tables, which seems odd behaviour, and when they approached the woman the man walked out. You would have thought that if they were inocent and the security guards approached his wife he would have gone over to see what the problem. Walking away like that suggets guilt. If they were being set up you would have expected the security guards to have "seen" him throw it away.

The fact that they were wearing different clothing is also suspicious. This issue also raises the question of correct identity. From reading the various reports it appears that the couple do not deny that it is them in the CCTV footage, but that the footage does not show them stealing. I might be wrong on this. If I am right identity is not an issue and the only issue is did they steal the wallet. Based on the CCTV footage and their subsequent conduct the did steal it.

This one includes some comment from police, but they do not say a lot.

http://www.ttrweekly.com/beta/2009/07/shop...2%80%99s-image/

The picture on my computer is not that good. It looks to me that when they are both on the right side of display shelves the man picks up a wallet with his right hand and transfers it to his left hand. He then puts it back in his right hand and just before the woman moves to left side of the shelves he slips it in her left hand. by this time the woman seems to have put back al the wallets she picked up, but as she comes round to the left side she clearly has a wallet in her left hand. She then seems to put a wallet into her shoulder bag and walk out.

Perhaps someone who gets a better picture on their computer can say if I am right or wrong.

Notice also how the man waits for the woman to arrive before picking up any wallets. They then both pick up and put down several wallets without really looking at them, presumably to mislead any staff who are watching. As a layman I would say they are guilty, that it was well planned and that they had probably done it before. There seems plenty of practice in their actions.

I will say on the CCTV footage alone a good lawyer might raise some doubt at a trial. If the King Power story about them changing clothes, sitting at different seat and the mans going to the toilet where the wallet was found provides a good deal of circumstantial eveidence. In a set up someone would have"seen" him dropping the wallet into the rubbish bin.

As to it being the same couple, again my computer is not helpful. But seeing them together I do not have much doubt it is them. Again at a trial a good lawyer might raise doubts.

As an aside, I hope the newspapers that published one side of the story will nopw print the other side.

I have some experience in dealing with CCTV footage for this sort of thing. Problem is my current computer is not top of the range and add to that loss of quality for internet postings and a lack of a facility to isolate and enhance individual frames means I have to draw inferences that I cannot clearly see. It is necessary to review something like this dozens of times, which I have not done. Each time you pick up something new and then review it several times to see what it means. I have viewed it a few more times since my above post to try and analise small points. The following are of some note:-

1. When they enter the shop they act as if they do not know each other, but a review of the whole suggests they are coneted.

2. They are both holding something in their left hands which obscures what they doing.

3.Ingram in fact puts his right hand to his left hand twice, possibly palming two wallets.

4.When the woman moves from the right to the left she appears to be holding a wallet, but in fact it is two. She puts one down on the shelf and is still holding one.

5. Ingram, at the end of the footage, appears to be attempting to distract staff.

The more times I look at this, and I still need to see it more, the more I am convinced that these two are an experienced pair of shoplifters. they even had their escape plan - it just didn't work.

The picture on my computer is not that good. It looks to me that when they are both on the right side of display shelves the man picks up a wallet with his right hand and transfers it to his left hand. He then puts it back in his right hand and just before the woman moves to left side of the shelves he slips it in her left hand. by this time the woman seems to have put back al the wallets she picked up, but as she comes round to the left side she clearly has a wallet in her left hand. She then seems to put a wallet into her shoulder bag and walk out.

Perhaps someone who gets a better picture on their computer can say if I am right or wrong.

Notice also how the man waits for the woman to arrive before picking up any wallets. They then both pick up and put down several wallets without really looking at them, presumably to mislead any staff who are watching. As a layman I would say they are guilty, that it was well planned and that they had probably done it before. There seems plenty of practice in their actions.

I will say on the CCTV footage alone a good lawyer might raise some doubt at a trial. If the King Power story about them changing clothes, sitting at different seat and the mans going to the toilet where the wallet was found provides a good deal of circumstantial eveidence. In a set up someone would have"seen" him dropping the wallet into the rubbish bin.

As to it being the same couple, again my computer is not helpful. But seeing them together I do not have much doubt it is them. Again at a trial a good lawyer might raise doubts.

As an aside, I hope the newspapers that published one side of the story will nopw print the other side.

I agree that there is not one shred of evidence that King Power as a company are involved in these scams, but it is obvious that their staff are. By now they must have knowledge of this involvement. One would expect that a company that depends on tourists for their profit would be a bit more proactive in addressing this problem. Their laid back attitude, i.e. what happens after the victims are handed over is beyond their control, is, to say the least, a little disappointing.

Kitsch22 They were not released as you said, they were brought to a hotel until their money came in. Were you under the impression they were doing all this willingly?

They were bailed, according to the Sunday Times. They were detained on the night of Saturday 25 April and held in police custody until the morning of Sunday 26 April when they met the fixer from Sri Lanka who arranged bail in the sum of 100,000 Baht. Thereupon they were allowed to leave and were accommodated in an hotel. Although the police retained possession of their passports it is unclear whether or not residence at the hotel was a condition of their bail. What is clear is that they were sufficiently free to be able to walk out of the hotel on Monday 27 April and travel to the British Embassy and then (apparently) return voluntarily to the hotel after that. They flew back to UK on 1 May.

No "kidnapping" there; just extortion.

Kidnapping might be a strong word, but if they were completely free to come and go why did the need to "sneak" out of the hotel. There arre a lot of things in this story that are not clear and a lot that needs greater explanation.

The Foreign Office said consular officials had offered to raise the case with the Thai authorities at the time but had been asked by the couple not to intervene.

This happened at the "Foreign Office" in England, once the couple has found their way home. They obviously realized that this was more "Jack Schitt" because it would amount to nothing / solve nothing and in all likelihood nothing more than blowing smoke up their <deleted>.

Thats not the way I read it. Says "consular officials" offerred help "at the time".

This story starts when they were about to board the plane. There is a lot missing.

Did they go into KP?

Did they go into the section that had the alleged stolen property?

Did they pick it up to look at?

Did they in fact buy it?

Did they buy anything else?

Was the wallet in their possession when they were detained?

Who made the complaint to the security guards/police?

What was the eveidence? etc etc.

Why were this couple vicimized?

After the arrest the story is odd to say the least. The "sneaked" out of the hotel on 27th, went to the embassy, but did not want the Thai authorities contactd. Why? again Why?

They were not released for 3 (?) further days. What happened during this time? Where were they? Did they "sneak" back into the hotel?

I understand that usually embassies cannot do much for people arrested for crime and kept in police station/prison except get a local lawyer. However, when people are illegally detained in a hotel, have their passports confiscated and are blackmailed for huge sums of money there are thing the embassy can do.

I am not saying that this couple have not been set up and treated badly, but I think there is a lot more to this story than has come out so far.

Sorry Sailfish, something in another thread reminded me I should have updated this thread. Actually I do no know much.

The development is cancelled. A number of buyers have been to court and have got orders saying that the land must be sold and buyers (of Grand Peaks)are to have their down payments refunded with interest. Apparently Saha are working on this. I do not have a time table, but I think repayments should be made by this summer.

Do not know current progress.

My TG and I love Sriracha, clean streets, walking friendly sidewalks, nice people, a real public park, two "farang" friendly hospitals and no Songtow mafia

We took the bus up from Pattaya yesterday and did a cold call at the office of Eastern Tower Condominium / Serviced Apartments, the office attendant showed us a 92 sqm, two bedroom, 1 and a half bath room on the 10th floor. She told us that she had 3 apartments on that floor, although she could only show us one that was unoccupied

The price was 3.2 Million and the best I could figure the "common" charge was 30 THB per sqm per month, and it was in the foreign quota

I don't particularly like the layout of the unit but a good designer and construction crew could do wonders with the layout, oh and did I mention the view

My biggest concern were the three thai style houses across from the public park, between Eastern Tower and the road, a perfect place for a NEW CONDO to block the view

Having seen the saga here in Pattaya of the folks in Jomtein who had their view blocked by the building of a new condo I am reluctant to make the jump

I gave her my cell phone number and before we even left town the price had dropped to an even 3 million baht

Any thoughts from those who are familiar with the area

In closing we did "hire" a tuk tuk who took us to the Siam Bayview Condo (nothing available) and the other HUGE one farther out, but they start at 4 MB

Sorry for the delay in getting in on this.

Eastern Towers is almost exclusively Japanese and Thai occupied (I don't know of a single farang that stays there). One of the reasons that they are reselling condos there again is that many of them were bought up by Japanese companies, which they in turn used to house their Japanese employees in. With the proliferation of all the newer condos in town, these companies are off-loading their older properties and buying up entire floors in the new projects.

It's interesting that they are now going for 3.2 (or even 3.0) million...as about 5 years ago they were nearly double that. So much for any rise in resell values. I think it speaks to the desperation that the sellers are facing with an aging condo building that more people are leaving then are arriving.

Those houses up front of Eastern Towers belong to influential and multi-generational Sriracha folks, so whatever they decided to do with their property would be up to them without much discourse. They've been there for generations, but with all the new condos going up and if they were offered the right price, I could see them selling.

Another concern I would have about Eastern Towers is that the tallest buildings in all of Sriracha are going up right next door to Eastern Towers... the Grand Peaks Sriracha:

(interesting they've eliminated Eastern Towers in their artist's rendition)

In conclusion, I would have serious doubts about buying into Eastern Towers. It's an aging building with spotty maintenance which you might notice on a detailed visit. Obviously no sort of investment potential given their falling prices.

For the same amount of money as the condo you're talking, there's a number of single family detached homes that I personally would prefer.

My understanding is that Grand Peaks is not going to be built. It has been taken over by Saha Group and when anything is built it will be something different.

People staying here, year after year, on back to back visa runs was legal, but an abuse of the system. Visa exempt entries were intended for tourists, not de facto permanent residents. So they have been tightening up the rules to try and curb the abuse and in so doing have caused problems for many genuine cases.

As of today, you can still stay here indefinitely on 30 day stamps. Just fly in and out and you can stay here doing that until they change the rules again. And then loosen them again. And so it goes. This is legal, not was legal. Where is the abuse? If they want to restrict that, they will, as they did in the past with the day counting (currently abolished). I find it hilarious when people act like they understand the internal motivations and fickle moves of Thai immigration.

All the Thai Government has demanded is that farang staying here have a visa appropriate to their stay.

Not really. Why do you say that? Currently if you don't want to fly in and out every 30 days you can get UNLIMITED double entry tourist visas and stay here that way indefinitely. Do you actually believe Thai immigration believes people staying here for years that way are tourists? Come on now!

The commennt about visas appropriate to stay was in a Goverment statement in 2006 when they started tightening up on visa runs. Nothing I have seen so far really contradicts this, although as I said it has not been well handled.

Those who go to their home countries every year seem to have little or no trouble getting visas. Embassies/Consulates in SE Asia have been gradually tightening up on tourist visas to prevent the boarder runners from using tourist visas to stay here permanently. You watch - Laos will be next. Non-immigant visas are also becoming more problematic in SE Asia.

They have obviously been trying to make visa exempt entries unprofitable for "permanent residents". Going to a land boarder every 15 days or flying in and out every 30 days is not cost effective.

I get a little fed up reading some posters who, in one sentence say how much they contribute to the Thai ecconomy and in the next say they can't afford to go to their homer country to get a visa. They can't have it both ways.

I think they need to look at financial requirements for extensions based on marriage (does not affect me) and perhaps retirement, but generally in most cases these are not too problematic.

If you are financially sound you are welcome. The problem immigration has is in establishing financial soundness. Presumably one test is if you can afford to go back to your own country once a year. Another is income or money in the bank. Of course these are not fool proof, but they are an indication.

There is room for improvement without compromising the principle of visa appropriate to stay. This does not, however justify the wild critical comments in some posts in this thread.

All the Thai Government has demanded is that farang staying here have a visa appropriate to their stay.

People staying here, year after year, on back to back visa runs was legal, but an abuse of the system. Visa exempt entries were intended for tourists, not de facto permanent residents. So they have been tightening up the rules to try and curb the abuse and in so doing have caused problems for many genuine cases. It has not been well handled, but I have some sympathy for the authorities.

Another abuse was the practice of borrowing money for a few days to support extensions for marriage or retirement. This was not illegal, but was an abuse. You were supposed to have the money yourself, to support your living here, not just borrowing it for a few days. Now we have a requirement that money has to be in bank accounts for a certain period. You cannot blame the authorities, but it has caused a lot of problems for many genuine cases.

Thailand has a right to have the immigration laws and procedures it wishes. Every country does. Thailand’s are far from perfect and cause some problems, especially for those under 50 and single, but, taken as a whole, they are not unreasonable.

yes, way too many farangs on this thread thinking 'if it wasn't for me and my pension, the Thai economy would fall in a heap'.

No but several local wage Thai JOBS for each and every retired expat is not chopped liver.

...and would be more than replaced with increased foreign investment if Thailand wasn't viewed as the knock shop of Asia....

this won't change that impression, but it is a first step....

What an absurd thing to claim.

How on Earth is capping border visa runs a first step to changing Thailand's reputation or the way this country is viewed abroad?

Again, whiners using visa rules as a red-herring for their own deficiencies.

The same goes for people using a discussion on these rules to denigrate other expats and their contribution to Thailand.

Well said.

I can't be the only reader who is sick of the "dog in the manger, I'm all right Jack's" who rabbit on about how if they can afford a visa everyone else should be able to, and the only people who want to use the border runs are criminals and scum.

There are enough threads on TV about how there are hardly any tourists now to prove that there is a serious problem for thousands of locals who used to make a decent living from western tourists, and it would seem to be a rather strange time to be making it more difficult for western tourists to visit. Bordering countries with more liberal arrangements must be loving the way Thailand is continually shooting itself in the foot.

As for the more liberal arrangements for the Chinese, anyone who thinks hordes of Chinese are going to compensate for the absent western tourists is dreaming.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/tourismreview2007/10.html

This link is a bit dated, but you can see that Asia/Pacific provides the bulk of Thailand's tourists. This is likely to continue. Apart from anything else it is cheaper for them to get here. Because of the way tours from some of these countries are structured their presence is not so obvious, but they keep coming.

China has a large and ever growing middle class who love to travel and Thailand has always been a popular destination. These people do not care about visa runs. Any visas required are organized by tour operators.

Military coups and street demonstrations are far more of a deterant than visa changes that affect a few westerners. It is not a dream.

A poor country needs all the jobs it can get, expats, tourists, foreign investment all create jobs. Why discourage ANY of those?

cause a country needs to stop scraping the bottom of the barrel sometime...

Well said, hit the nail right on the head.

Visa runners and backpackers contribute very little legitimately to the Thai economy and are more of a burden than an asset.

If these people were substantially of any benefit towards the economy of Thailand, than the authorities would not be creating hurdles and difficulties for those staying here.

I am sure that the powers that be have done their sums and concluded that the cost of policing these people, administration and controlling illegal activities far out ways any contributions if any, these travellers are making towards the country.

I agree Thailand does not need to scrape the bottom of the barrel, but I am not sure that includes backpackers. A few years ago Australia did a survey and found that, whist backpacker did not conribute much per head, collectively they made up about 20% of Australia's tourist dollars. Not sure how that would pan out in Thailand.

The problem here is the numbers of people who expect to live here full time when they cannot meet visa requirements and many of whom flount the law by working illegally. I have no figures, but I suspect these are a small number, buit they are a problem for Thaiand.

Could I just clarify please.

If my car is over 7 years old and I get the technical check done on Sukhumvit, do I still need to go all the way out to the Transport Office or can I do this (vehicle licence renewal ) at a post office?

Thanks

Abrak - you are qite right. Until the developer has sold half of the floor area he will always control a general meeting. Even with a large minority he will, inpractical terms, have a big say. He cannot, however, evade the law and the law takes precedence over the R&R.

He must pay management fees for the unsold units. He only has one vote on the Residence Committe. Meetings must be held and accounts presented and displayed in accordance with the law. If this is not done the JP can be fined. Trouble is, many developers (and their appointed JPs) are ignoring the law and without proper enforcement not much can be done.

Certainly if a developer has a lot of unsold units he does not want "bad press" or it may affect future sales. Unfortunately many developers do not have the brains to think that far ahead. Short term greed comes before good business practice.

Is this a new article introduced under the revised Act?

In my condo the voting is by ownership percentage and the JP actually has no vote as he's not a condo owner.

Sorry if I mislead. I was referring to the developer not the JP who, as you say, has no vote unless he is a co-owner. The developer at a general meeeting has a number of vote depending on how much floor area he is still holding. At a committee meeting it is one man one vote and this includes the developer.

Abrak - you are qite right. Until the developer has sold half of the floor area he will always control a general meeting. Even with a large minority he will, inpractical terms, have a big say. He cannot, however, evade the law and the law takes precedence over the R&R.

He must pay management fees for the unsold units. He only has one vote on the Residence Committe. Meetings must be held and accounts presented and displayed in accordance with the law. If this is not done the JP can be fined. Trouble is, many developers (and their appointed JPs) are ignoring the law and without proper enforcement not much can be done.

Certainly if a developer has a lot of unsold units he does not want "bad press" or it may affect future sales. Unfortunately many developers do not have the brains to think that far ahead. Short term greed comes before good business practice.

The law is adaquate - just about. The juristic person basically carries the can for non-compliance.

Problem is - who enforces it? Presumably it is Lands Office. Next problem - Do lands office have the manpower, resources or even the experience (not to mention the will) to undertake effective enforcement action?

The letter writer has a good point. There is a real need, in Pattaya at least, for some Government led aggressive enforcement.

I underdstand Lands Office have sent letters to some condo managements. Let us see what follow-up there is.

From the latest Pattaya Mail.

Local road to be ready this month

Sawittree NamwiwatsukDeputy Mayor Ronakit Ekasingh told the press on May 12 at city hall that Pattaya Bypass, construction of which started in mid 2006 with a budget of 340 million baht, would be ready by the end of this month.

New traffic lights will be switched on May 24 to improve traffic flow and reduce accidents.

It is a two-lane road with the width of 10 meters on each side starting from Kratinglai intersection down to Soi Huay Yai, with a length 16 kilometers. This, he said, should help ease traffic congestion for those living in the area as well as to prepare for future growth. Ronakit said that currently the local road was 80% completed and at the testing stage, to completed by May 24.

“Our contractors have agreed to complete the project by that date, but if any technical problems should occur, there will be an extension of only 12 days,” he said.

The water drainage system to prevent flooding is not fully completed and minor finishing touches are still being made, he said.

http://www.pattayamail.com/current/news.shtml

I just found out by email last night that my wife wants a divorce. I work in Iraq while my wife, she is Thai, is living with my father in the U.S., she was working on her permanent resident card. She thinks that I am cheating on her but I think she is using that excuse because she wants to go home or is tired of me. Oh well not much I can do from The Sandbox. I tried to convince her by phone and email but to no avail and she knows that I can't leave work now.

My question is this: we were legally married in Thailand, paperwork and all, and so can I use a thai lawyer to draw up divorce papers? Any ideas on that from anyone? I am flying her back to Thailand next week so I would like to get this ball rolling. Any ideas about where I should look for such a lawyer. Any advice is welcomed.

We were going to buy land and start building a house in September but that idea seems to have been shot down. I even wanted to own a small business there in the future one day. I will probably have to stay away from Thailand for awhile, which is a shame. Oh well, to be a bachelor again. Don't know what I would do there just being by myself.

Again, I will take serioisly any good advice and only half-seriously bad advice. Thanks

Perhaps she read your post about "Cute Girls Pattaya Link"

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Pattaya-Link...85#entry2662185

Thanks Jetpilot. It's a 3G phone and sounds like you might be right. I will follow up.

I find that when I put my 12call pay-as-u-go sim card in my mobile phone obtained from my phone company in Hong Kong that the value on the sim card runs down even when I do not make any calls. When I use the same sim card in another phone this does not happen so it not a problem with the card.

Could this be the equivalent of the phone locking that some companies use e.g. T-mobile in UK?

Cruncher

you do need Letter of Residence for each driving licence

regards

Thanks again.

I appreciate the useful and up to date advice.

One more question; for the one year licence I needed a certificate of residence. Presumably this is not required for the 5 year one?

Thanks Soutpeel