suthnuh

7 hours ago, Charlie1 said:

I noticed that many Thais try to speak a not understandable "American English". They should be taught only by UK native speakers - the teachers, I mean.

You are assuming "UK native speakers" also speak "proper" English. I think you are referring to Queen's English, and not the regional UK dialects? I'm from the USA, and I've had friends from all over the UK, and various areas within England. When they go into their local tongues no one from outside their county can follow. Let's agree that there are aspects of English that are universal for all countries where English is the native tongue. (crisp, chip, fries, biscuit, cookie, lift, fag, elevator, bonnet, hood, boot, trunk, etc. notwithstanding). The point is to have a native English speaker with a grasp of proper, grammatical English teaching the teachers.

When I lived in Thailand I joined a scuba diving group. I was the only regular from the USA. The regular group had a Brit, a Scot, an Irishman, a Welshman,  and a Kiwi (NZ). We'd all go drinking after a day of diving. At then end of the night we'd head back to the hotel, and they'd all tell me how glad they were I'd joined the group. I'd ask, "Why?" They'd all laugh and say, "because 1, you buy a lot of rounds; and 2, after 4 or 5 of them you're the only bloke we can all understand!"   (the accents get pretty heavy as the drinks build up)

Cheers mate. 

I lived and worked in Thailand for years (1999-2000 and then again 2004-2007). My wife (a Thai national) and I opened an account in both our names at Siam Commercial Bank in Nong Prue, Cholnburi. We've maintained the account ever since, and use it as a method to send money to her family there when needed, and have done annual small wire transfers into it from our U.S. based bank to keep the account active. I can still access it via the SCBeasy website, and see the current balance, but now when we try to wire money it is rejected as "invalid beneficiary." Her family went to a local branch and were told it's a foreigner account and they could also not deposit even THB100 to the account.

Anyone know why? Has a regulatory change occurred? More brilliant anti-foreigner policy-making, or something less nefarious?

University of Phoenix is a U.S. based fully accredited online university.

www.phoenix.edu

They do have a College of Education: http://www.phoenix.edu/colleges_divisions/education.html

However, it requires US citizenship or Permanent Resident (Green Card) status for admission. I think that will be the case for all US based schools.

Hardly news - if you take blood from a large random number of people then this result is inevitable. Good scaremongering tactics from the government but that is about it - any intelligent person knows that blood carries risk

110% agree - just statistic medical data that exists in every population no matter what country.

I think you folks are missing the point.

Whether you agree with the Redshirts, or with the Aphisit government, it's the "potential" to pass the infection that creates the criminal issue.

In the USA, at the very least, this would be considered "Reckless Endangerment" and subject to criminal prosecution. However, if the Redshirt leadership who planned it, KNOWINGLY utilized infected blood it could be considered "Attempted Homocide". If someone actually contracts an incurable terminal disease from it, then the planners and perpetrators could be prosecuted for premeditated murder, or in the case of the PM's home, attempted assassination.

In the law you have to consider intent, and potential. Not just dismiss it as low probability.

ThaiVisa.com have you taken this lying down?

As a journalist of over 20 years and lecturer of Mass Comms, I am unaware of the legal strength of this decision, and it sounds as though you are too - as you have not mentioned any REAL legal argument for this decision. Have you been bullied? Acted out of fear? Simply believed that you can not properly quote with use of referents, just because they told you so?

This sounds fishy ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls.

Perhaps you may wish to put this to rest by actually quoting your legal source, or making reference to the legal precedent that actually forbids you from quoting with use of referents.

There is NO legal precedent for this. They have NO legal right to prevent you from quoting them with full credit.

What's the REAL story here Thaivisa?

Don't you have a duty to report the truth, ethically and responsibly, as well as some kind of duty to your readership?

Maybe you should make a stand - with respect.

I highly recommend those interested in the actual issues surround the ethics of online publishing and responsibility take a look here: http://facstaff.elon.edu/andersj/ethics.html It's still very fertile ground for debate, and there really is no international regulation.

While I agree the fully referenced quoting of someone else's content should be okay, many organizations do not provide total reference credit, nor do they provide link to the source.

Thaivisa.com has always assigned credit where it was due, but ethicly they are obligated to abide by the wishes of the owner of the intellectual property (content).

With that said, there is no reason legally that Thaivisa would be prevented from aggregating headlines, attaching mini-summaries to them, and linking the headline as a redirect to the original source.

I agree also that I can find no online reference to any "Society of Online News Providers". Maybe it's something Bangkok Post has established themselves???

Cheers,

Banana

And now, a magazine for Thaksin

Sutham said the red shirts and general public could acquire shares in the company that published the magazine at 1,000 Baht per share.

-- The Nation 2009-07-15

Too expensive for toilet paper

Wow, You Farangs get all worked up about a pro-Thaksin initiative. But I understand that it takes time to turn around the brainwashing that has been the product of three years plus, of anti-Thaksin demonization program in the only media you can read. Fortunately the Thai electorate have shown they are more astute, and that is all that matters. Brain-washed Farangs can blow-viate all they want, and I enjoy interacting with them via these posts. I am surprised however by their susceptibility to anti-democracy politics, considering the democratic traditions they have grown up with. By the way, this magazine was conceived and is being published by "friends of Thaksin", and is not an initiative of his. Publishers know the huge readership involved and it is good business.

Not sure why you think any Farang who is not pro-Thaksin has been brainwashed. I've lived and worked in Thailand since 1998. I watched his election, his early successes, and his sudden and despotic shift to authoritarian rule, extra-judicial killings, suppression of the press, nepotistic disregard for the law, and massive conflicts of interest.

If they want to start a magazine, that's fine. I'm a firm believer in the right to freedom of speach and expression, but so much of what he says or does is treasonous... it needs to be carefully done... Words can be denied, print is irrefutable.

So, while we may bloviate, you may continue to obfuscate. Just don't be so quick to malign that which is different from your own point of view.

Cheers,

Suthnuh

Boy, this is getting worse and worse. It is really starting to feel like they want all us farang out of their country.

The thing about a loophole is, it needs to be closed by changing the law, not by punishing those who used it. By definition a loophole is a legal circumvention to a laws intent. So change the laws but don't punish people because "It might be illegal." <deleted> am I saying, this is Thailand.

And what is the exception for Americans on this 49% rule?

The USA and Thailand have the "Treaty of Amity and Economic Relations" executed in 1966. You can read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-Thai_Treaty_of_Amity

The problem is, in practice, unless you have a very good legal advisor in Thailand, it can be difficult to get the local Thai offices to recognize (meaning: abide by) the terms of the treaty. Also, it is my understanding that the Treaty has in actuality expired. However, last I checked, both governments had agreed to continue under it's terms until such time as a new Free Trade Agreement could be agreed and executed between our nations. You can probably also check with the US Embassy's office for American Citizen Services. They are able to recommend attorneys in Bangkok for various needs.

Cheers,

Suthnuh

So much hatred. For Thailand to have any chance of moving forward this has to stop.

Thaksin may be bad, but he was not half as bad as Bush, and America did not solve its problems though which hunts.

People should really try to get back to their senses. Lets face it, Thaksin is mainly a great threat to a small powerful elite.

I find Thaksin to be worse than Bush on many points.

You might not agree on the politics, but atleast look at the numbers and aim with their rule.

Really...lets name a few things. Torture, starting a war based on lies, politically motivated firing of attorneys, illegal wiretapping without going through congress, leaking of CIA agent, denial of global warming, reconstruction of Iraq without bidding or oversight..

But for sure...checks and balances are much stronger in the US than in Thailand, and a US president can only do so much damage.

Oh my, where to begin?

1. Torture - You mean 'enhanced' interviewing? You prefer what? Public beheading on Al Jazeera?

2. Starting a war based on lies - which lies? You can't be referring to the WMD samples retrieved and delivered to the UN, which they then misplaced and rediscovered in their NY offices can you? Maybe you're referring to the rape and dismemberment of Iraq women perpetrated by Hussein's (Sadam, not Barak) son? Or possibly the testing of chemical WMD on the Kurds... Iraqi citizens? No. Certainly you wouldn't be referring to any of those.

3. Politically motivated firing of attorneys - as opposed to what? The political appointing of judges? Seriously now, say it isn't so.

4. Illegal wiretapping - Of whom? International calls going into the USA from locations within nations that are known to support and sponsor terrorists? By the way... the US congress doesn't "approve" wire tapping. A judge does that by authorizing a warrant.

5. Leaking of CIA agent - You surely are referring to Lewis Libby who was tried and convicted, and not President Bush who was not... right?

6. Global warming - Are you serious? You do realize that the ambient temperature, at least in the USA, is now moving lower. So, it needs to get cooler for global warming? Wow, so that's what happened to the dinosaurs! Try again.

7. Reconstruction of Iraq without bidding - Okay so the process was badly implemented, but your alternative is what? Not rebuilding Iraq? I think in this case the new schools, hospitals, homes, and infrastructures installed can speak for themselves. It's already done. And the process has been corrected. We blew up the facilities, it's only right we build new ones, and we've done more than just rebuild items ruined by the war. So I'll let this stand as it's own example.

I'm not a big Bush fan. I didn't vote for him. But I will defend against misinformed half-truths.

Cheers,

S

He was elected by the people in free and fair elections as were his proxies after he left the country. Like him or not, that is how a democracy is supposed to work! If there were another election today, he would STILL win by a landslide and PAD knows it. PAD remaining in power is an affront to the will of the people. You can call that many things, but democracy is not one of them.

Get over it.

Can we just first set the record straight on the use of the term "Democracy"? A true democracy requires the direct election of representatives including the national executive.

The USA is a republic - it directly elects representatives and senators to congress through population and equality based divisions. The senate is comparable to the Paliamentary Upper House, and the House of Representatives is comparable to the Parliamentary Lower House. The national executive, in this case the President, is elected through a representative Electoral College with each state of the union allocated votes based on population/quantity.

Thailand is a Constitutional Monarchy similar in form to the United Kingdom. The Ministers of Parliament are elected directly by the population. The MP's then elect the national executive, in this case a "Prime Minister", or "First among equals." Originally intended to be the Parliamentary representative to the royal head of state, the PM role has evolved into the current national executive we see now in most Parliamentary systems.

So, none of the above are Democracies, but they are all according to a "Democratic Process" which allows for votes cast by the citizenry being allocated either directly or indirectly into establishment of some form of representative government.

In Thailand's case specifically, as a parliamentary system and according to their own process, no re-election is required because the previous government was not disolved by the previous PM. The same MPs who were previously elected by direct vote of the citizenry, with exception of the PM and those affected members of the dissolved PPP party, formed a new coalition and elected a new PM. Nothing about that process requires a new vote by the general population.

Last I checked, riots, molotov cocktails, and burning of ministry buildings and public transport were not considered part of the "Democratic Process"

I wish Thailand would teach this in their schools, but it is still somewhat new for them and I understand it takes time generationally to fully absorb political processes into a culture.

Lucy was very confrontational.

Did she think she was doing "Hard Talk"?

At the end of the day, Mr T was legally elected and deposed by a military junta. He deserved a more respectful interviewer.

flame away. I don't care.

ok lets warm you up..........

he is a wanted fugitive and he does not deserve respect nor BBC airtime

i thought that Aphisit got a much harder time actually on hard talk and came out with a lot more credibility than he went in with

i cannot say the same for Thaksin especially as he has now been proven to be a liar when he answered NO to Lucy's question 'was he financing the reds protest?''

Wow! 65 posts and you just joined yesterday? Must have had a lot of pent up things to say!!

Convicted fugitive? Non-issue to the political sophisticate. Convicted by a victorious rival faction is not the same as being convicted by a transparent legal system.

He was the first elected PM in Thai history to finish his term. All previous PM's were deposed by unelected military juntas. Almost a definition of Banana Republics. He was massively re-elected to a second term before falling victim to the previous noted "modus operandi" of the Thai military and their backers, both visible and invisible.

I take by your tone that you believe a "political sophisticate" is one who believes rule-of-law only applies to those at the bottom of the political and wealth food-chain, and not the wealthy despotic elitists?

Mr. Shinawatra was convicted by a trial, presided over by judges who were in place during Thaksin's time as PM, not inserted by the military junta. The trials of Thaksin and Pojamon were transparent, and appropriately handled. Evidence not speculation or opinion won the day. Both he and his wife, instead of working within the system through appeals and allowing rule-of-law to prevail, chose fugitive status.

Massively re-elected does not place someone above the law. How the votes were gained is immaterial, and not related to the reasons he was convicted of criminal conflict of interest.

"The decision to cancel his passport was based on passport issuing regulations, which state that the ministry can cancel or recall a passport if it can prove that a person has caused damage to the country," he said.

Though, wouldn't it need to be decided by the courts if the person has done damage or not? Nobody is denying the events of the past days, but I would think that a court decision was needed.

In my passport it is written "this passport is property of my Government". As far as I can read it states clearly, this pp was given to me by my country/Government temporarily. It is not my property, and they can take back their property any time they want, without any court involved. Am I correct?

Maybe different rules apply for Thailand

Yes you are correct.

Last month the Government tried to find a legal interpretation in order to revoke Thaksin's passport, to the extent that the Government asked the Council of State to find a legal basis for the action. The Council refused to look into the matter as they said that the revoking of an individual's passport was a "Political Issue", not a legal issue.

To that extent, this should be seen as probably a bad move, as almost certainly Thaksin has other passports, so will effectively cause little problems for him, but it does set a very bad precident, as it means that should any Government in the future, decide to take action against individuals who cause them problems, the revoking of a passport may become a standard practice.

It also means that the revoking of Thaksin's Passport is labelled as "Political" rather than "Legal".

You do recall that Thaksin was convicted of a crime and sentenced to 2 years in prison, right?

In most countries where rule-of-law affects, a judge would have revoked or requested surrender of travel documents (eg Passports) to prevent the accused from skipping the country. Thaksin still had friends in power when he was under trial. Whether a political or legal reason it is prudent, and should have been done a long time ago.

...I don't know the qaulity of the average officer or NCO in the Thai army but I doubt there was any leadership there, NCO or officer-wise. Just a bunch of conscripts told to park their apc at an intersection and "wait for further instruction".

I can tell you the quality. Poor. Any armor officer worth a d*mn knows a tank without infantry support is about as useful as tits on a bull. And anything less than infantry platoon strength (approx 47 men) is ineffective in riot situations. So, not only are there questions regarding the quality, effectiveness, and loyalty of the grunt level troops, there are serious questions about the intelligence of the individuals commanding them.

All I can imagine is they intended them to be a visual deterent rather than an effective riot dispersing tool. All they've done is play into the hands of the red shirts; given them a weapon with which they can escalate the current crisis; and looked foolish doing it.

Since TiT, I will definitely ere on the side of caution.

What everyone here seems to be forgetting is the FBA as it stands forces foreign corporations to incorporate as a Thai company... which means 51% ownership by Thais... which means a Board of Directors composed of a majority of Thais... which means Thai "persons of influence" will have their influence and power and income increased by MNC's that place them on the BoD.

It's not in the best interest of the Thai "powers-that-be" to put a halt to that practice.

(sorry folks. I don't know why this message posted twice) :-/

Since TiT, I will definitely ere on the side of caution.

What everyone here seems to be forgetting is the FBA as it stands forces foreign corporations to incorporate as a Thai company... which means 51% ownership by Thais... which means a Board of Directors composed of a majority of Thais... which means Thai "persons of influence" will have their influence and power and income increased by MNC's that place them on the BoD.

It's not in the best interest of the Thai "powers-that-be" to put a halt to that practice.

I've lived/worked in Bangkok, Cholnburi, and Rayong provinces for 7 years and never once heard any of my Thai friends or associates use anything similar to the whimsical "see you later aligator" "after while crocodile" "okey dokey artichokey" type 'goodbyes'. They have a funny way to greet each other which usually uses a form of insult humor like answering the phone "Hello Khun Suay" (hello beautiful) to a woman who is not pretty; or "Hello Poo ying" to a gay man.

Mostly the humor I see in conversation is Thai's with the experience love to play with mixing the languages to be funny. Like on a Friday when leaving the office when they say "Have a nice weekend" if I reply "Gonna go have fun!" they might ask "Fun Thai, or Fun Farang?" The word "fun" in Thai is apparently a colloquial term for sex in some parts of the country.

So, my experience has always been with people who see humor in meanings of words that are used in other languages, but the original question has got me very curious. I'm going to start asking around!

Cheers mates!

C

I hear roads have collapsed on the lamai-chaweng section of the ring road.

That would make sense. I remember when they were building/re-building the road through Chaweng they were using sand as road bed filler instead of dirt and gravel. Same as the BKK sidewalks. It has no cohesion and washes away in light rains.

Be careful as the road bed can wash away without any visible sign above the road. Then if the steel rebar and the concrete give way it can be disastrous.

And the laments go on!! After a couple of years here I learned the expression mai pen rai and try to live by it. As a result I am much happier as I no longer try to run the country. Sure I have an abundance of ideas on how Thailand could be more like a western country or more to my liking but until someone comes and asks me to join a law revision commission, I remain continue to try to practice mai pen rai.

I can understand the Thai concept that they want their land to remain in Thai hands.

Had the law been any different, Thailand would be owned by foreigners by now.

Those who ignore the basic rationale behind Thai property laws, lawyer or not, will suffer the consequences. Sure, there are legal loopholes and gimmicks that give the foreigner some feeling of satisfaction of ownership of land, but the long term trend is consistent with the Thai rationale that Thai-land is for Thais, not foreigners and those who try to buck that rationale do so at their peril.

while i certainly agree with you on the "legal" aspects of the THAI property laws, i am confused as to how "mai pen rai"fits into this equation.

"Mai pen rai" is Thai language for "Nevermind". It's basically the answer of all those who are complacent and willing to accept the status quo. I'm happy to live within the laws of the land where I make my residence, but that doesn't mean I have to be satisfied and not hope for better treatment under those laws.

The comment regarding "Thai-land is for Thais" sort of ignores the fact I was suggesting limiting foreign ownership to one primary residence in order to prevent the de facto colonization that would result from unregulated foreign ownership.

Regarding freehold foreign ownership in Singapore, Malaysia, and Philippines... I've got some info somewhere on that topic. If I can dig it up I'll post it for everyone.

Thanks all. Pretty much what I already thought, that whoever the woman was it was much ado about nothing.

Thailand continues to be the most foreigner unfriendly place in SE Asia of the democratic countries when dealing with ownership laws. In the Philippines if you're married to a Pinay or Pinoy you get an automatic 1 year visa with no hassle. in Malaysia, if you buy a home you get an automatic long stay visa. Singapore? If you work there you can apply for permanent resident status and get it with no hassle after a very short period of time. All these countries recognize that bringing in foreigners is a huge boon to the economy. Mainly because unlike Thais who migrate to the West, we generally keep our money where we live. Whereas they earn it over there, and send it all back here.

Not much of a mental effort to see why more people and businesses are settling elsewhere.

Last statement I recall from, I think it was the Ministry of Interior - they stated they don't allow foreign ownership because it would price Thais out of the residential market. What a crock of horse hooey.

What it does is bring more money into Thailand, which supplies developers with more money to buy and build, which requires more laborers, which reduces unemployment, which increases retail demand, which in turn brings in more people, who continue to buy more houses.

If they would like to be smart about it...

1. Limit foreign owners to a single primary landed residence

2. Not more than 1 Rai

3. Government retains all mineral and natural resource rights (so if you strike gold when installing the new in-ground water tank, they get it - minus a small finders fee)

4. Ensure village developers manage percentage of house ownership similar to Condo rules 49% foreign/51% Thai

5. Limit license approval for developers to specific "special zones" where foreign owned developments can be built. (similar to "re-beautification" projects for districts and neighborhoods in western cities where people receive tax benefits to buy and improve a local area, which ends up benefiting everyone)

6. Cap property value growth to ensure Thai's aren't priced out of the market

I live and work here. Pay taxes here. Educate my children here. Own and drive a car. In fact I contribute a significant portion of my income to the local and national Thai economy. It seems somewhat silly for them to completely ignore the value of the foreign market and $$$ if they manage it properly. Its very very simple to regulate.

Sadly, most of the decision makers only care about lining their pockets, and not really with boosting the economy on a sustainable basis. Real Estate is the easiest to manage and most sustainable method of economic growth after agriculture.

Our house in Pattaya (Primary residence) has been on the market for about 6 months. While I was at work today a Thai woman brought a foreign customer to see the property.

She told my wife there has been a change in the law within the last 48 hours and foreigners can now buy houses again.

Sadly she didn't explain exactly how - through shell company, or direct, or whatever.

Has anyone heard of any changes in the ownership laws?

got news for you guys in usa ... you can sue on environmental grounds, or maybe some municipal mumbo-jumbo

yod get laughed out of us court w/ a suit because the bldg is blocking your view.

this is PRECISELY why you should never buy anything w/ a view in pattaya

Actually jinjok, a slight correction... Many major cities in the USA, with major high-rise developments and low space availbility, have what in the U.S. are called "Sunshine Laws". Those laws, while not preventing view blocking construction do require developers to pay compensation to tenants of neighboring buildings for blocking the direct sunlight with a new building. New York is a good example of this.

Additionally, if a law says no construction over a certain height within a certain number of yards/meters of some physical landmark (such as a tide-line), then permits would not be given by the issuing authority in the first place. And if for some reason they were, the court could place a hold on all construction until an investigation determines if the planned construction violates that building code. With the loser being required to pay all court costs and investigation costs resulting.

However, as many have said, TIT. The mayor and crew will never take responsibility for incorrectly issuing a permit, and by the time the Administrative Court gets around to it, the building will be near completion likely.

Probably the Plaintiffs need to request the court freeze construction until such a time as the court can rule on the case.

Luvley jubley = very nice indeed

We have two different spellings of both of those words... can someone verify the correct spelling for me, please... and was is the derivation of the expression.... i'm guessing British/U.K. Can anyone shed some more "light" on this gripping question?

luvly jubbly

easy squeezy

Okey dokey

The phrases meanings are derived only from the first word of the pairing, or could be interpreted as slightly better than the simple meaning of the first word.

I am just completing the construction of a house on the outskirts of Pattaya and we can expect a telephone line to be installed within this century but until then I will need to have internet services.

Does anyone know if I can get internet via satellite dish or micro wave or something else other than telephone line.

And if you do can you recommend someone I can get the service from and give an idea on the reliability of the provider and the connection.

There's a Hutch shop next door to ComCity (TugCom) on Pattaya South Road. You can buy an AirCard either PCMCIA for laptop or USB connectable for full size PC. These use cellular connectivity, so if you have cellular access in your area, the AirCard will work fine and will give you around 26 to 30 kbps download (faster than dialup) slower than full ADSL. (this is based on my personal experience)

If you sign a 12 month agreement with unlimited access, I think you get the card with that package for approximately THB7000. I think the service cost around THB800 per month.

I live in the Eastern Sukhumvit area off Soi Siam Country Club. I have TOT ADSL at home... worst quality of service I've ever seen in broadband. Connection constantly up and down, router reboots, sometimes very very slow even during non-peak hours. I bought an AirCard... the consistant speed and service is worth the slightly slower load time and you can take it with you anywhere in Thailand where you have mobile access.

How can one party be cleared of electoral fraud because those laws no longer apply post-coup, and at the same time another party found guilty under the same laws being retroactvely applied??

The judges spent 10 hours boring us rather than just publishing the whole document and just giving us the verdicts, in an attempt to show how even-handed and legalistic they were being. The least they could have done is sorted out the logic of their decisions!

rych

The reason for the long and full evidence based verdicts was to clarify that some offences are construed {owing to their execution and intent} under different aspects of the legal system. The Tribunal clarified how it would apply the law during the afternoon session and having, as is its right & function, defined the legal framework then applied that rigorously to the charges placed before it in all cases.

I agree with A_Traveller. 101%. The court stated that the charges brought against the Democrat party were legitimate. They didn't say they were guilty of crime because of them. After review, due process, and legal consideration they were acquited of those charges. Charges are just that... charges, not verdicts.

My wife, extended Thai family, and I are all looking forward to 5 years without TRT and the 111 executives. Now maybe Thailand really can become a regional hub of something.

dont know what realy happened to the man but there are those on this forum who seem to be very quick in reponse.

unfortunatly most of those coming from other countries are used to the Media and culture that is very quick in accusing and making false charges before the facts are known.

...

no one realy knows what happened there and its up to the police to try and solve this case. I find it sad that some posters are assuming postions as judge and jury and condemed the girl.

I think the point most people (from a "Western" point of view) are trying to make is, even with due process of law, you don't release a murder suspect without either posting of bail, or at least basic forensic conclusion that the suspect is not the responsible party. If the finger prints and other data show potentially the suspect was involved, you hold them pending further tests. It's not about race or culture, it's about enforcing appropriate law and process (which are present in Thailand).

If she assaulted the man, that's assault and battery. If she assaulted him and he died accidentally, that's involuntary manslaughter, and if she assaulted him and he died but she had no premeditated intent to kill him that's manslaughter/murder 2. If she assaulted and killed him with intent, that's murder 1. Add in the fact that she attempted to steal the car? It's in her name so that's probably not attempted theft.

It's puzzling that once again a dead farang is found naked. We'll probably never know why, but could she have come back while the new girlfriend was away to try and romance the car away from him? That does add a strange twist to this episode.

Either way, my only desire is to see justice and due process. Again, my condolences to his family and friends.

This is truly sad. My condolences to his family and friends. Via con Dios muchacho!

But really, no one has ever accused the Thai police of efficiency. It's just plain irresponsible to release a suspect you have in custody before the fingerprints, blood, hair, etc. - all the "gathered forensic evidence" it tested and conclusively releases that individual of wrong-doing.

Apparently, unless you are a foreign teen female, farangs get no justice. The laws of the Kingdom of Thailand are clear, but the police 1. don't know what the laws are; and 2. clearly have no interest in upholding them unless there's a financial return.

My wife's uncle is a Police Captain. Even he admits many police are sadly lacking in motivation without incentive.

Sounds like the Danish Embassy needs to begin an inquiry.