MangoKorat

Don't be so hard on yourself.

I really don't care what the Chief Immigration officer produced - my mate was taken to Lumpini police station along with about 15 others and I had to get his passport. Maybe I shoulld have told the cops that I'd report them to their chief? My passport was with me on several beaches in Koh Chang and Koh Kood just last week. I don't remember claiming any laws state you must carry your passport so what are you banging on about? I simply said what happened to a friend.

I don't remember saying that any 18 year olds have offered me anything. What I said was if they did, I would. No, I'm not married, not anymore. If you want to call me a sex tourist, I'm fine with that. You actually know nothing about my life but I see you regularly comment on other people's expoits as if they're some kind of pervert - you are clearly lacking in testosterone so you won't understand normal male sexual behaviour.

Right, I wasn't aware of that line. The Bangkok - Vientiane high speed line will not be ready for many years. The Bangkok-Korat section is supposed to open in 2026 but if the M6 motorway (4 years late and counting) is anything to go by, that will be doubtful.

Firstly, I have carried my passport with me for at least 25 years. Must remember to book am appointment to get my head examined. Secondly, were you at one of those clubs at the time? I can assure you that people were not being released until their passport was released - I should know as I had to go get my mates from his hotel room.

You seem to be having a problem using the quote facility. After you've clicked quote and the box opens, just type under the quoted text. You don't have to write your reply in a separate post.

Yes. About 5 years ago there was a clamp down in Bangkok looking for overstayers, illegals etc. There were reports of people being stopped on the street in the Sukhumvit area for passport checks. I was in a taxi at the Asoke junction traffic lights when 2 coppers approached and asked to see my passport. As far as I can remember though, that's the only time I've been checked in 22 years. There was also a time around 7 years ago when clubs in upper Sukhumvit were raided. Those raids were targeted/drugs related though and not random passport checks. Both Thais and foreigners were subjected to urine tests. Any foreigner that couldn't provide a passport on the spot was locked up until someone could get their passport for them.

Well there's a hell of a lot of us 'losers' then. Would I want a relationship with an 18 year old? Not a chance. Would I bang an 18 year old that offered it? Absolutely! You're welcome to as many women of your own age with boobs like envelope flaps and stretch marks as you can handle Mr Temple-goer. I'll stick to something that remains reasonably attractive.

Which Fast Train is that?

No, I wasn't 'misremebering' anything. The rule did exist but as has been established in posts after mine, it was done away with.

Whilst I agree that using a Thai Limited Company to own land is against the law if the business is not actually trading and/or has no reason to own land, your statement is incorrect. If the company is correctly structured and the Thai shareholders shares don't include voting rights, they cannot get rid of the foreign shareholding/directorship. The Thai shareholders though, may have to prove where they got the money from to buy the shares and that they bought them for investment purposes. Your wife's granny might have a problem claiming she's a legitimate investor. There are several types of business where a company with foreign shareholding can own land legally - a property development/investment business for example. A shophouse, used for a business that a foreigner is legally allowed to be involved in should also be OK. However, I doubt that a Thai court would be convinced that a company owning just one piece of land/house and renting that out to a director was a legitimate property investment business. It all hangs on that word - circumvention. They may exist but I'm yet to see an example of a Thai Limited Company with foreign control owning a piece of land legally when we are talking about single plots containing just one house. Most seem to be fake companies, submitting accounts and paying a little tax - as such I'm sure that each one of them is at risk if they are investigated. What I find unfair, if its true, is that when such 'fake' companies are discovered, is that the penalty is forfeiture. Deeming the ownership contravenes the Thai land laws and ordering the sale of the property would be a much fairer way of dealing with the matter. Personally, I find the Thai land laws archaic and xenophobic, they cause lots of problems for married couples and should be reformed. I don't see why a foreigner married to a Thai can't own property but have to sell it within a set time should they divorce - much like the rules on what happens when a Thai wife dies and wills a property to a foreign husband.

That should of course say 'owning through the company route'.

Its easy to see why people often do the wrong thing but think they've done the right one. That's why its wise to use a decent Thai lawyer rather than believe what you read on online forums. 'Under Thai law, if you divorce your wife you / she gets 50% each' - That is not correct. For example, if your wife owned the land or the house before your were married, you would only be entitled to 50% of any uplift in value since the date of your wedding. 'Under Thai law if you use a company, it's 49% ownership opposed to 51%' Potentially incorrect depending on the rules in play in your area. Some Land Offices will refuse to register a property in a company name if the foreign ownership is over 39% (and possibly other percentages). The most serious side of owning through the property route is that the company must be trading and it must, if required, demonstrate a need to own property. If that can't be proven, such ownership is in direct contravention of the Thai land laws as the company has clearly been set up in order to circumvent those laws. There is a specific clause in the laws regarding circumvention. Those who simply pay a book keeper to make up a set of fake accounts and pay a little tax each year for the 'company' that 'owns' the land, will always be at risk.

Why puzzled Mr Somebody? Civilised countries don't release deceased's names until the family have been notified. Would you like to find out your son was dead via a social media story?

As has already been stated, the departure tax was never 'got rid' of - it was transferred to the airlines who I guess will have added it to their ticket prices.

Whatever the reason for death or the man's background, I'm suprised that the Thai authorities consider it OK to name him before they've contacted his family.

You'd better be hoping that the Thai farm-workers that harvested your veg, also wash their hands after using the bathroom then. I'm sure they do though..........in those special handwashing sinks in the farm fields. The ones next to the mobile toilet blocks, have you seen them?

You can't even trust organically grown veg in Thailand. Its a few years back so I can't remember details but some group or other, not sure if they were official or an environmental group, tested 100 supposedly 'organically' grown vegetable samples from shops/markets around Bangkok. The vast majority had traces of harmful pesticides on them. I'll be growing a lot of my own veg soon.

There you are @Goat - kind of debunks your claim that Brits doing wrong are 'protected' - clearly stated as a Brit. Also: https://aseannow.com/topic/1293784-naked-brit-smashes-beer-bottle-over-elderly-australian-tourist’s-head-in-pattaya/ Again, nationality clearly stated as British.

Do we know exactly what this criticism was?

I can't say I've heard that but I've long suspected it - especially since the announcment that many foreigners in Thailand will now have to file tax returns. Reading through the details on that on this website, I was convinced that such landlords are trying to avoid tax. There is a specific tax dealing with income from property - from memory, I believe its 12.5%.

Right, I was just trying to understand the reason for your post.

Are you saying that a tenant or Usufruct holder cannot now register their own TM30?

It is clearly not as simple as you posted. Otherwise we would not have people posting on here (one quite recently) that they are having problems. It was simple for you, it is clearly not as simple for everyone! I have created this post to help the people that are having problems - if you don't need any help then you don't need to chirp in then do you? As for immigration, well that's up to you and although I understand where you are coming from. I don't muck about with them. My local office has been taken to court twice (possibly more now) and lost. Speak to Sebastian (formerly of Isaan Lawyers,now of Thai Law Online) if you don't believe that. I would of course remain polite - which is probably why they backed down on this matter when I first applied to register TM30. I would not get into any heated argument with them but instead, leave it to my lawyer who has dealt with my local office many times. Thai's respond far better to Thai's, they won't have a foreigner telling them what to do but they will normally listen to a Thai who's on the same level of social standing. If not, court is an option but it would be a last resort. If you cow tow to them when they are going against Police Orders, you make a rod for your back that you may have to live with forever. There was a guy on here a couple of years back that cannot ever get his yearly extension done by his local office because he had an altercation with them. He didn't get a lawyer involved and now has to use another address and a different office for his extensions. Its about how you do it - I've been around Thailand long enough to know that you don't walk in to an Immigration office and simply tell them they are wrong. You go through 'channels', my lawyer knows them but I'll admit that I am fortunate in that she aslo knows most of the staff at Korat Immigration.

You do spout a lot of twoddle. I thinnk you will find that the problems go with the age and booze - not nationality so wind your neck in and stop spouting your racist nonsense. As we've seen in recent months there have been foreigners of all nationalities causing problems in Thailand. The later headline also states that he's a Brit so where's the protection? As I'm typing this I'm watching a bunch of American yobs beating one member of an opposite group to a pulp during the University riots in the US (on TV). Do you think they'd behave any differently if they were in Thailand? They are just yobs and thugs and that mate - is a borderless phenomenon. When I first came to Thailand there were very few male tourists under 40 - except for the backpackers and they've always had their own hangouts. I rarely saw any trouble in those days. Thailand has become far more popular with younger tourists of all nationalities - they get rat ar5ed and violent. I've seen groups of Indian youths causing trouble with Thais, Germans fighting each other and Arabs being rude and violent towards Thai street vendors. Most of that is because they are a much younger group of tourists than we used to see. I have no idea what the mix of nationalities is in percentage terms but when I visit the bar areas most of the voices I hear are British. They may or not make up the largest group but despite what the TAT say, there's still a hell of a lot of younger Brits visiting and a large expat community so its not so unsual to find them in the news.