MangoKorat

Another one who is unable to hold a discussion without throwing insults and attempting to belittle - and yet you claim its me that looks ridiculous? A man who can't argue without such behaviour is the ridiculous one in my opinion. Of course I've seen all the shops, I'm not blind. My understanding is not flawed at all - unless you can show me the law that allows recreational use. Can you? I am fully aware that the law is being openly flouted and that a blind eye is being turned to that. That is probably why the current situation has arisen - in that there are now proposals to change the existing regulations. Legalising cannabis in the way it has been - cloaked as medicinal only whilst openly stating it will attract tourism clearly hasn't fooled the (opposed) public. The portion of the Thai population that are opposed to legalising cannabis is sizeable and backed by some very influencial public figures. They are not happy at all with cannabis being even partially legalised and they have been lobbying for change - unless you missed the new reports. The authorities, if they are going to do anything at all, need to be clear this time and, if they are going to allay public concern, ensure that enforcement takes place. You think they won't do it because of external pressure? I would remind you that we are talking about a country that refused to allow an elected political party into government - with little complaint from the electorate, they can do whatever they want. I am actually for legalisation as it happens - I'm just dealing with facts here and what you have posted is just simply wrong - unless you can prove otherwise. I repeat, my understanding of the current law is that cannabis is only allowed for medicinal purposes and the maximum THC content allowed is 0.2% - basically hemp! There's an 80kph speed limit on a major road near my home. Most drivers are doing at least 100kph and many 120kph +. The limit is still 80kph - its the same thing. A law exists but its not enforced. I suspect that whatever the outcome of this threat, the government will have to enforce it this time. The anti cannbis lobby are not going away.

When was it ever licensed for recreational use?

That's not my understanding.

If you buy the car and its a diesel - its right on the change (2011) from series 1 to series 2. Series 1 models use a cambelt which I'd bet my botton dollar hasn't been replaced. Series 2 models have a camchain which on the 2.2 diesel should last for life. If its a series 1, unless the previous owner has proof that the cambelt has been changed - at 13 years old an original cambelt is well past its sell by date. Change it immediately or risk catastrophic engine damage. Factor the cost of this into the price you pay. The Captiva in general has some pretty bad write ups which had a knock on effect on other models - unjustifiably in many cases. Mind you, you can find bad write ups on most cars if you look. Hopefully some members here will have experience of owning a Captiva.

I own a Chevrolet - although its not the same model. I have had no problems whatsoever in getting parts for it. When I got the car back from my ex wife I had to sort quite a few problems out due to the usual Thai abuse - some involving parts that I thought I'd have to wait for, including a gear lever. Chevrolet's appointed stockists had everything in stock and will post them to you. Their prices seemed very reasonable too and they are very easy to find - being right at the side of the expressway. https://www.gpautoparts.co.th/en/products-service-2/after-market-2/ac-delco-products-2/ G.P.Auto Parts Co.,Ltd. 2 Vibhavadi Rangsit 50 Alley Lat Yao Chatuchak Bangkok 10900 Thailand +66 2 941 1222 There's a QR for their LINE ID on the Contact Us section of their website. They have English speakers available on LINE. I have found them very helpful - including sending a parts diagram for exact confirmation of the required part. Bear in mind that most 'service items' and those that regularly need replacing such as alternators, starter motors etc. will also be available from local autoparts stores.

You're a sick man, see a doctor.

All seems a little strange and contradictory to me - my understanding was that the so called 'Legalisation' only referred to 'Medicinal Use'. I don't ever remember anything stating that recreational use had been legalised. Let's also not forget - the 0.2% THC limit in any case. Even if recreational use was allowed - 0.2% wouldn't get a gnat high. This cannabis 'decriminalisation' has been a load of tosh from Day 1 - constant flip flopping and contradictions. Anybody who was stupid enough to invest in the business on the back of such an ambigous and unclear change in the law should have had their head's examined. No sympathy for them really.

In the words of Tim, nice but Dim............................ he's a bloody nice bloke 😁

Let's also not forget Thaksin's 'War on Drugs' - where he instigated a 'shoot to kill' policy on suspects thus becoming judge, jury and executioner. It was later reported that more than half of those killed had no links to the drug trade.

Good bloke my rear end. Just about all Thai politicians are corrupt lying bar stewards who pee in the same pot and drink from the same trough. Thaksin was well known for buying votes and he also instigated a scheme that gave farmers loans they couldn't afford to pay back.

Really, you have access to what goes on in immigration do you? Of course it doesn't but foreigners who's passport was found to contain the fake stamp faced prosecution. Shortly after the story broke The British Embassy reported a very large increase in Brits 'losing' their passports.

He's gonna have a few hurdles to cross in court.

Thaksin being just one example.

Yes but is it possible for a foreigner to find a woman 20-30 years younger than themselves in those countries? If not, I'm not interested. I refuse to have a woman with envelope flaps for boobs. 🤣

Yes, its strange how cameras bring on pain and the need to wear a neck support, its had doctors baffled for years.

Isn't it amazing how fast you can recover once you get out of hospital?

But you know that book's been written many times?

Its OK, I think most of us here, if only they'd admit it, could write the same book. Some of us learn though 😁.

Oh, I don't know - it sounds like a very real interpretation of what happens to may blokes visiting Thailand. The strange thing is the context of how and why it appears on here. It seems like the prologue from a book, lifted verbatim and simply posted as a topic.

Would you care to show the law that establishes the facts you are claiming please?

Its not the law actually and its not that simple. Assets held before marriage are normally considered Sin Suan Tua and after marriage - Sin Somros. However, as my case showed an asset purchased after marriage may still be considered Sin Suan Tua. I think you are mixing up the rules on divorce with those relating to property left in a will.

Nope, this matter has already been decided in the Thai courts. The maximum term of a lease is 30 years. A lease that containing renewals after that period is invalid.

That would depend on when the property was bought. If purchased after marriage then it may well be considered as 'Sim Somros' - a marital asset. However, it is very complicated and down to interpretation. In such a case, I think the prosecution's case would be that a house cannot be a marital asset as a foreigner cannot own land. It would be up to the defence to convince a court that they are not seeking ownership, only a share on the financial aspect. To be fair, I have heard of cases where a court has decided that the foreigner is entitled to 50% of a property's value. It remains questionable though. I convinced a Thai court that an item (not a house) was bought with money I held before I was married to my (ex) Thai wife - even though the actual purchase was done after marriage. I provided a certified paper trail of the money's source, showing how long it had been held and that it was transferred into Thailand. Therefore the case was allowed to go ahead with the outcome almost certain as the court ruled that it was up to my (ex) wife to prove otherwise. I cannot be 100% certain of that outcome as my wife (ex) backed down before court and returned the asset but I believe the court made it quite clear. Marital financial disputes can be a nighmare and a lot of things are taken into consideration.

I don't think you have considered all angles in that statement. If it can be proven that money has changed hands to facilitate an I.O.s 'discretion' as you put it, that is corruption and all parties involved can be prosecuted. Unless the extension holder could convince a court that he/she was unaware of the situation (unlikely), they too would wind up in court. The highly likely outcome would be that the foreigner would be ruled complicit and be punished accordingly. Such punishment would almost certainly include revocation of their visa. Do you not remember the fake passport stamps fiasco?

A Usufuct does not convey ownership - only the right to use and enjoy the property. Therfore, the intention of the law - to keep Thai land in Thai ownership is not broken. You can think a Usufruct is dodgy as much as you like, it is a legal instrument, accepted in Thai law. Thankfully Thailand has a functioning legal system and therefore if the authorities did try to 'clamp down' on them, they themselves would fall foul of the law. It is always possible that they could ban future Usufructs but existing agreements are within the law and therefore cannot be anulled. To do so would threaten every law in Thailand and that would have serious consquences, both nationally and more importantly, internationally. Thailand is not Russia yet. I believe the law would be upheld.