MangoKorat

What this all comes down to is:

With regard to the man who has been acting as a tour guide on Phuket, whether you agree with the law that prevents that or not (I don't), he seems to have been carrying out such employment and if so, is guilty. Slam dunk.

However in relation to the hotel manager, the question is whether or not carrying out a minor task, which based on the report, is what it was, should be considered as breaching the Thai Labour Laws? When does a favour become an occupation? Say you're a bar owner, a customer walks into the bar and orders a drink but your staff are at the toilet. Is it so wrong for you to open a bottle of beer for that customer?  Would that actually be depriving a Thai of a job?  If you don't have any or not enough waiting staff and are regularly serving customers then you are breaking the law.

Based on the reports this woman has legal employment within the tourist industry. If all she's done is given a lift, on one occassion - again, is that so bad? If she has been doing it regularly, that is a different matter.

Surely common sense should apply? - and in fact it might, we know not at this stage.

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

When did I say I was smarter than everyone else? Please quote a post where i have said that.

I am not worried about a couple of hundred dollars. It's more the principle of not allowing someone to cheat me without retribution.

Given the political statements you have made on other threads, it's obvious you and principles are complete strangers.

Ignore him, you've clearly seen his contributions on other threads - I have a name for people like him, well 2 names actually and one of them is hole.

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

They say Uber is not co-operating in providing details of where the food orders were delivered to.

A visit from the police will probably sort that out.

On 3/7/2024 at 2:24 PM, Lacessit said:

It might not be obvious to you, but IMO their transaction security sucks.

I am in no way agreeing with the company but they may not be aware of the problem.  There are many ways in which criminals could have obtained your details without them knowing - including the company's software being hacked.

It may be worthwhile contacting your bank's fraud department to see if there are other reports of breaches after a genuine transaction has been made with that company.

 In the UK, the banks share such information with each other in order to identify where breaches originate, I can't see Australia being any different.

I used my card at a restuarant once and it was skimmed.  I later learned that a member of staff at the restaurant was arrested for 'skimming' cards. Things have got a lot more sophisticated since then but the concept remains.

11 hours ago, retarius said:

Thailand doesn't need expats.

I understand why you might say that. However, expats starting businesses which create employment and pay taxes is a form of Foreign Direct Investment - something which Thailand works hard to attract.

12 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

 

I think you will find that is not correct, there are no title deeds for structures. Yes you can own the structure but the documents to show ownership are the receipts from building the house. If a house and land already exists, the structure cannot be separated from the land.

Its really a moot point, unless the house is portable and can be moved, it serves no purpose to own a structure. 

I am aware that it is possible to own the structure and I know several that do although I have to admit, I don't know what those documents are - they could be just as you state. A structure can be separated from the land - think about it. Example, an owner demolishes a structure on their land and puts is up for sale - it is only the land that is for sale.

I am yet to see a chanotte that states anything about structures although I am aware that Land Offices are increasingly recording details of structures built on land when updating their valuations.

The purpose of separating the land from the house in this particular case would be that in the case of a relationship breakdown, the usufructuary would not be liable to charges of criminal damage if he was to demolish a structure that was not contained in the title deeds - i.e. the Usufruct was only on the land.

My Usufruct, when translated into English legalese states ' that land described on the illustration situated at xxx xxx xxx and the dwelling house thereon'.  Therefore, in my case if I wish to end my Usufruct I must hand the land back the land with the structure intact.  Mine also goes into some detail regarding exactly what the house consists of and the condition of those structures at the time of the agreement (a Usufructuary must return the property in a reasonable condition). It also states that 'reasonable' is 'allowing for usage and time'. That level of detail I believe, is not usual but I believe its there because the previous 'owner' was a foreigner and wanted to avoid problems). The actual registered owner was his wife.

The Usufruct was not one of the standard items - it was drawn up by the 'owner's lawyer, who is now my lawyer and a local judge.

I don't think the street food stalls should be got rid of but an alternative space should be found for them - similar to a marketplace. Don't just ban the culture, adapt it for modern times.

Anything that causes you to step off the footpath on a busy main road is a danger to most of us but imagine how it is for a disabled person?  Bangkok needs to seriously address all aspects of access for its disabled citizens and tourists.

Likewise the fruit (etc.) vendors alongside fast moving highways - downright dangerous as Thai's see something 'arroy' and suddenly stop.  These could be dealt with by providing proper laybys that are fenced off from the highway.  Granted, impulse buying would end but many lives and injuries would be saved.

Brits - can you imagine fruit stalls on the M1?😁

On 3/7/2024 at 11:06 PM, DjSilver said:

Crazy, I would rather have 10 of these guys, than 1 scamming Thai (most of Thais are scammers)

I think you mix with the wrong crowd.

6 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

 

Common knowledge does not convict anyone of murder but thanks for playing anyway Champ.

A strange reply. I don't remember saying that common knowedge convicted anyone.  I'm saying that the cases where people have got away with murder are common knowledge. We've all read about them.

Just now, Ralf001 said:

 

Common knowledge does not convict anyone of murder but thanks for playing anyway Champ.

Hmmmmm - American?

14 minutes ago, CartagenaWarlock said:

It will never make sense to foreigners whose only voice is on this forum. Johny foreigner, could not make money in his home country and came to Thailand to earn money. What a shame. Must be deported. 

Why do you post in such a way?  Do you do it for effect?  If so, you may want to think again, it actually works against you.

Why do you say 'could not make money in his home country' - is that because of your own experience?

I can't speak for others but I earned almost all of my money in my home country.  I'm moving to Thailand full time this year and I'm certainly not thinking I will be able to earn money easier - I fully expect it to be much more difficult.

5 hours ago, dinsdale said:

I also do not see barwork on the list but according to my friend who has a small bar and tells me it's illegal for him to serve drinks, it certainly should be.

They cover that in the labour laws with 'Manual Labour' - a catch all clause.  But you have to consider this - many foreigners start businesses that would not otherwise have been there previously.  Those foreigners provide jobs for Thai's and pay taxes - thus boosting the economy. I have no intention of owning a bar but if I did, I'd be pretty p'd off if I was providing jobs for Thai's but not able to serve my customers a beer.

On many occasions a foreigner can do a particular job better than a Thai would - take the example of a tour guide.  That guide, if they were a foreigner, would most likely speak the same language as the tourists fluently and therefore answer their questions and understand their requirements. That tour is bringing X amount of guests to Thailand - the authorities should be grateful for that.

I've been on a tour of Khao Yai National Park twice - on the first tour the guide spoke excellent English and knew the area very well. We had an excellent trip and the guide was very knowlegable about the wildlife that were the objective of the tour.  That prompted me to recommend the tour to some visiting relatives (even though its damned expensive).  On the second tour the guide could speak only basic English and was clearly reading from a script. Guests were only given basic information - we were all very disappointed.

I fully understand the reasons for protecting Thai jobs but common sense should be applied.  Abuse is pretty easy to identify.

6 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Maybe the Thai that normally does this was otherwise engaged

Possibly but it shouldn't matter.  This should be taken in context.  Its most likely that this woman got along well with or knew these guests and just said 'I'll give you a ride to the airport' - and why not?  If she was/is taking guests to the airport regularly, that's a different matter.  If it was just a one off, hopefully the authorities will apply some common sense - one ride does not = loss of a Thai job.

On 3/8/2024 at 12:38 AM, Lopburikid said:

Bad guys?  I would say ANY Person who frequents a Bar where young girls are offering themselves for payment should be removed from the country ASAP. It is these people who are financing an illegal organization. without these PERVES sex trafficking and underage porn would die out. Plus, RAISE the age for a retirement visa to 65 as that is the age most people retire in their own countries.

I quite often read tosh on here but that's the biggest load of tosh I've seen for a while. Define 'young girls' - if you mean underage, fair enough but the vast majority of young girls in the bars are of legal age.

What is this 'illegal organisation' you are refering to Mr. Holier Than Thou temple-goer?

The vast majoirty of the girls that work in the bars aimed at foreigners do so of their own free will.  If you check on where the majority of trafficked and underage girl are found - you may note that its in the entertainment venues aimed at Thai and Asian customers, often in Northern Thailand.

16 hours ago, RandiRona said:

Also why Cops are hiding his face when this is the real opportunity to use their finger pointing pose.

Its been illegal to show a suspect's face in these arrest photos for about 3 years now.

4 hours ago, steevjee said:

Considering buying a Villa and utilising Usufruct so that it can be in my name

The land will not be in your name but your name (normally in Thai) will be in the entry on the rear of the Chanotte.

The house itself (bricks and mortar) can be in your name and a specific deed to that effect can be issued to you.

The difference between having a Usufruct on the land only or one on the land and buildings thereon is that if you wish to end the Usufruct, you can remove the house if its in your name. Although its doubtfull, the owner can insist you remove any buildings built on the land after the date of the agreement.

If you wish to end a Usufruct that covers land and buildings the owner can insist that the buildings are in a condition similar to what it was when you took out the Usufruct unless the agreement specifically states otherwise. In other words, there is an obligation for you to maintain the property.

If you (your wife) buy land that already contains a house, I'm not sure that they can be separated again - check with a lawyer.  Although the chanotte will only refer to the land, Land Offices are now starting to include buildings in their valuation so they may have those details on file.

It all seems very messy to me, I'd just take out a Usufruct on the lot, I wouldn't try to own the house but some do.

The Usufruct agreement is not required to and does not contain any price you may have paid in consideration.  Therefore there is no tax payable on the agreement.

However, let's presume that what you are talking about is your wife buying the house/land and then granting you a Usufruct - the transaction between the then owner and your wife will be subject to the usual transfer taxes.  Who pays them is usually agreed on sale and you should clarify that before your wife buys it.

11 hours ago, nobodysfriend said:

but the natives believe that they are superior to anyone else

To be fair I don't think you can blame Thai people for that.  From a very young age they are not just taught to love Thailand, they are more or less told that Thailand is the most wonderful place in the world, never been invaded, etc. etc.

Most, are taught very little about history on a world level.  My ex thought that the industrial revolution began in Japan.

Isn't 'hooker' on the Resevered Occupations list then?