CaptHaddock

16 minutes ago, blackcab said:

 

I can see where you are coming from. The main point I would disagree with is your use of the word "forcing". Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything (indeed in this case the family in question declined to guarantee the fiduciary bond).

 

Being a willing guarantor is not the same as being forced to cover an amount payable. The key issue is choice and consent.

 

Guarantors are used in contracts/mortgages/loans in many countries. Are all of these guarantors innocent people who are being punished if the person they guarantee defaults on the debt? In my opinion they are not. I would say they are people who willingly entered into a contract with their eyes wide open.

 

In the original post nobody was forced to sign. In the same wsy foreigners in Thailand are not forced to guarantee the partner's mortgages. Family members in Thailand are not forced to guarantee the relative's car loans.

The employee is forced to accept such onerous and unfair obligations if he or she wants a job.  The relationship between an employee and a company is nearly always unequal.  The company has far greater economic and probably legal power than the individual who wants a job.  In this case Thai companies commonly demand such bonds because of their power advantage.  For instance, their power to prevent the government from outlawing their odious practice. 

The difference between requiring a guarantor for a mortgage and for a job is that civilized countries where there is some restraint on the state's indulgence of the elites, it is recognized that people have a right to work in a way that they do not have a right to borrow someone else's money. 

In fact, although this hasn't yet come up in this discussion, Thai companies abuse their employees to a far greater extent than requiring them to supply employment bonds.  For instance, if the teller in a Thai bank makes a counting error resulting in loss to the bank, she herself is fully liable for the loss.  In the US an employee is generally not liable for such losses, because the employee is an "agent" of the company empowered by the bank to act on its behalf.   Therefore, although the employee can be fired for such an error she cannot be held personally responsible by the bank.  If we think of examples in construction or IT or many other kinds of jobs, it's plain that employees could not afford to work if they had to assume full financial liability personally for performing their duties as employees.

Clearly Thai companies will push their normal business risks onto their employees to the maximum extent possible which they are fully enabled to do by the pro-business stance of Thai governments.

If you have linux skills you can install open-source zoneminder on a raspberry pi 3 for a low-cost, but useable security system with motion detection, recording, alerts, notification, etc. 

to the OP,

Did you ever meet anyone who became fluent in Thai from any program of books and tapes?  Me neither.

On 8/11/2017 at 9:51 AM, geriatrickid said:

Perhaps the best way to learn is to go to a  mormon missionary training school. The My Mate Nate guy was a mormon missionary and his Thai is quite impressive. All of the mormon missionaries I have encountered have an impressive language skill. 

True, but then they are also nutjobs like Nate himself.

8 hours ago, Deserted said:

English is, by academics, described as Creole. Generally speaking many now drop the term 'Germanic', Max Muller's phrase whilst head of English at Oxford University. The teaching Company have some great lectures on that in audio files and they can be found online. The Norman Conquest in England forced out language to undergo a process of creolization as it was imposed by Royalty, hence the import of many 'northern' French words into what was once 'old English'. 

Doubtful that modern English is a creole, which is a stable, natural language that has developed from a pidgin.  This looks like a minority view.  It is unlikely that any creole formed after the Norman Invasion.  The ruling class, including the kings, just continued to speak Norman French exclusively for hundreds of years without much need to converse with the peasantry.  Similarly, during the British Raj no creole developed from pidgin English.  Instead, the Indians used Enligh and Hindi/Urdu as lingua francas.

On 8/9/2017 at 1:50 PM, blackcab said:

 

I have to disagree with you in this instance. If the guarantee is in the form of a bond then nobody has to pay anything... unless the employee is dishonest.

 

I don't see how this requirement equates to abuse. Personally I find it quite prudent in a country with a criminal justice system that is not quite the same as a fully developed country. People don't always get prosecuted here, so without a guarantee as discussed there is little stopping people being dishonest.

 

I've personally witnessed some stunning dishonesty while working in Thailand. Out of everyone caught, nobody was prosecuted. To add insult to injury one group that was caught red handed claimed unfair dismissal (for gross misconduct) at the Labour Board and won their case.

You have a naive understanding of money and value.  Assuming the risk of employee theft is a good that has a definite monetary value which is exactly the premium that an insurance company would charge to assume that risk.  Forcing the family to assume the risk themselves is equivalent to forcing them to pay the premium.  In fact, of course, it's worse than that since the family might be able to afford to pay the premium, but could be ruined financially if they were forced to cover losses which are theoretically unlimited.  A service is not "free" merely because there is no out-of-pocket expense.  (If you believe that, then you should be willing to assume the risk yourself.)  The system discussed imposes the penalty for loss on the family, who we know are completely innocent.  Punishing the innocent, no matter how effective, is unconscionable.

In the US employee theft is rarely prosecuted, not because the criminal justice system is not up to the task, but because the negative publicity is viewed as detrimental to the company's brand image.  The solution, here and there, is insurance.  If Thai companies are unwilling to write off the loss, then they should buy insurance to protect themselves from a normal business risk.

8 hours ago, blackcab said:

 

What are you talking about? Please name one example of a Thai employee paying for their own fiduciary liability insurance.

Why,  the OP's post, of course.  His girlfriend is being required by her employer to get her family to provide a bond for her, not by buying insurance, but by actually serving as the insurer.

Must be tough getting through life without adequate reading skills.

On 8/4/2017 at 9:40 AM, tonray said:

It's similar in the USA. Those involved in the financial industry in certain roles, financial sales for example must be bonded, meaning they must essentially take out an insurance policy against fraud or theft. Sometimes the company uses their bond or if the employee is an independent rep, then they must find an insurer to take them on before employment.

But in the US as far as I know, the employee is never responsible for the bond himself.  The employer obtains the bond at his own expense just like any other insurance against risk of loss in a business, e.g. fire insurance.

This is another example of routine abuse of Thai employees.

Or install Clean Inbox - sms blocker.

Some relevant facts:  the US has been responsible for most of the nuclear weapons proliferation in the world.  The UK participated in the Manhattan Project and shared in the technology.  The US secretly funded the development of French nuclear weapons during the 50's, which both the American and French governments lied about.  The US turned a blind eye to Israel's development of nukes and may even have permitted the Israelis to steal about 200 pounds of fissionable material from Pennsyvania in the 1960's.  The Pakistanis mysteriously had access to nuclear weapons technology after permitting the Reagan administration to support the Taliban and Al Qaeda via Pakistani territory.  Many have supposed nuclear technology for the Pakis was a quid pro quo.  The Soviets and Chinese developed nukes on their own, maybe India, too.  Neither the Russians nor the Chinese allowed any other nation access to their nuke technology.

So, the historically irresponsible player in nuke proliferation on a grand scale has been the USA.

In addition, the US by pursuing constant, aggressive war throughout the world especially the essential (and pointless) destruction of civil society in Iraq and Afghanistan, has created a situation where it is only rational for a country like North Korea to attempt to protect itself from the American juggernaut.  You don't have to admire any aspect of North Korean governance to recognize that developing their own nukes is a realistic way to avoid ending up like the Afghanis.  If I were Kim Jong-un I would be developing the missiles and weapons as fast as I could.

But, of course, you can hardly expect Americans to make the least effort to see the point of view of the other side.

Among their many freedoms drivers also enjoy freedom from benefits, stable income, opportunities for advancement, and job security.

9 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

                               I hope Mueller's team are allowed to follow leads and come to conclusions.  I worry that their conclusions will be sanitized before being published.  Similar to how Kushner, Don Jr. and Manafort were allowed to testify last week, IN PRIVATE SESSIONS, AND NOT UNDER OATH.   In other words, Reps will continue to try and shield Trump and his criminal cohorts as much as they can, and I don't think Mueller is immune from that.

 

                                Note; the same Rep politicians who are moaning about what a great AG Sessions is (to reasonable folks, Sessions is abysmal as AG) .....are the same Reps who say Mueller is great.   I think Mueller is good, but let's not get too giddy in our expectations.  As much as anything else, Mueller is a don't-rock-the-boat insider and conservative.  What the US really needs is a firebrand investigative team who will leave no stone unturned, and who won't shy away from reporting facts - no matter what the ramifications.

Eric Schneiderman, New York Attorney General and an ambitious Democrat, could step up for that role.  Many of Trump's financial and political crimes took place in Manhattan which is in the jurisdiction of the NY AG.  Federal pardons issued by Trump would not protect anyone from state prosecution.  When Trump fires Mueller and pardons his family, both of which I view as inevitable, Schneiderman may see his main chance.

7 minutes ago, iReason said:

Russian mafia boss still at large after FBI wiretap at Trump Tower

 

"For two years ending in 2013, the FBI had a court-approved warrant to eavesdrop on a sophisticated Russian organized crime money-laundering network that operated out of unit 63A in Trump Tower in New York."

 

"The FBI investigation led to a federal grand jury indictment of more than 30 people, including one of the world’s most notorious Russian mafia bosses, Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov."

 

"Known as the “Little Taiwanese,” he was the only target to slip away, and he remains a fugitive from American justice."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story-fbi-wiretap-russians-trump-tower/story?id=46266198

Trump Tower, on plush 5th Avenue in Manhattan, was from the day it opened a magnet for mafia and other crminal types, and this after it was built with what was estimated to be a  $100 million dollar special tax reduction, but which cost the city several times that is tax forgiveness in the past forty years.  This was always Trump's strategy: suck benefits out of the government while claiming to be a self-made man.  

33 minutes ago, iReason said:

 

Strong words that need to be said about the inept one. 

Kudos to Sen. Graham.

Trump appears oblivious to the prospect of the Senate's serving as the jury at his future impeachment trial. 

Other than impeachment and resignation, there is a distinct third possibility: health crisis.  People no longer complain that Trump never released his health records, but apparently there are ugly secrets there as well that Trump doesn't want the public to know.  For a seventy-year old health problems coupled with the unexpectedly high stress levels of the job, something could pop, and Pence will be ready with the 25th amendment.

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

We have different information. Some elements of a bill may be challenged as impassable as a budget matter but that leaves a lot that can. It certainly does complicate the challenge for the repeal / replace advocates.

Hell, even without passing any bill at all, Trump can, and probably will, sabotage Obamacare through purely administrative means, such as not enforcing the mandata and not funding the subsidies. 

28 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Dear Captain,

 

Although your account of the WW2 defeat is somewhat valid, and that I am sure Roosevelt and Churchill were happy that the Germans were happy to see the Germans heavily occupied on their eastern front, there are several points that need to be revised or included.

 

1. That for D Day to be successful only 2.5 years after the Americans entered the war is amazing in itself.

2. The logistical task for (1) was immense and geographically challenging. 

3. The British were occupied in N. Africa or regrouping at home and the Americans were initially rather busy with the Japanese in the Pacific!!

4. But still by 1943 the Allies had commenced the invasion of Italy - enough of a distraction for the Germans to be considered as a second front.

5. The Battle of the Atlantic was not won until 1943. Before that it was too dangerous to transport large quantities of men and materiel to Britain.

6. Several months of training was required for the allied forces in preparation for D-Day, which was not feasible through the winter months 1943/4.

7. Extra time and resources were required during preparation to try to foil the increased number of German spies in the UK.

8. The allies had to wait for good weather (summer months of 1944) to avoid a completely wasteful disaster.

9. By May 1944 the Germans had 58 divisions in northern France, not 10 as you claim.

10. Many of the poor buggers at the German eastern front were killed by freezing cold and hunger - not bullets - and this was Hitler's biggest cock-up.      

Your loyalty is more acute than your insight.

1.  If you find it impressive that the Americans were finally able to mount an offensive against the Wehrmacht 2.5 years after entering the war, you must be truly in awe of the Red Army's defensive success in the Battle of Moscow followed by their first successful offensive campaign that pushed back the Germans and nearly succeeded in surrounding three German armies in November, 1941, less that six months after being invaded by the 3.8 million man Axis force and after having already suffered losses of more than one million men by that point, more than double US losses for the entire war in both theaters.  So, really your point is laughable.

2.  Yes, D-Day was a large and well-executed amphibious landing, the largest in history, in fact.  But Normandy didn't decide the war, Kursk and Stalingrad did.  Had the Americans failed in the Normandy Landings there is little doubt the Soviets would have won.  And they would probably have only stopped at La Rochelle.

3.  The British fought in North Africa to keep control of Suez which was vital for their Empire.  So, it was a rational diversion for them, but Europe was never going to be freed from the Nazis by whatever happened in North Africa.  The British Army was well-advised to stay well away from the main force of the Wehrmacht which would have shredded them.  Gen. George Marshall and other American military leaders considered both North Africa and Italy as sideshows.

Despite announcing a "Europe First" strategy, the Americans delayed fighting in Europe for 2.5 years, while they were on the offensive in the Pacific by February, 1942.  The decisive battle in the Pacific was fought in June, 1942.  The reason for the difference is obvious: the US had considerable (colonial) interests in the Pacific.  The Phillippines, Hawaii, Guam, and other islands were outright colonies.  There was a substantial US Pacific Fleet in support of American interests in Asia.  By contrast, prior to World War II the number of US troops in Europe was zero.  So, the US government aggressively pursued its self-interest in sharp violation of their stated position.  Have you never noticed the discrepancy?

4.  Italy was at all times a net negative for the German war machine.  It was not the "soft under-belly of Europe" as Churchill claimed since even a successful Allied force was not about to climb over the Alps to get to Germany.  The numbers tell the story: the Red Army was facing 200 German divisions while the Brits and Americans were never facing more than 10 in Italy.  Be serious.

5.  The ongoing battle of the Atlantic did not prevent the Americans from sending large convoys to supply the British or, indeed, to support the Soviets in Murmansk which must have been a lot of materiel since the price tag for it ultimately reach $10 billion, more than the cost of Normandy I believe.  It beggars belief that those convoys could not have furnished an invasion force of at least the 170,000 that composed the Normandy Landings.

6.   Yadda, yadda, yadda.  Fortunately, the Red Army did not wait for sunny weather to mount an offensive campaign against the Wehrmacht.

7.  There were no German spies in Britain during WWII.  MI6 or MI5 or some other MI rounded them all up at the start of the war.  The proof of which is that the Germans never figured out that the real invasion was at Normandy until the second day.

8.  Good weather again, eh?

9.  The 10 divisions was for German strength in Italy, I believe. 

10.  Yes, in the German Armies in the East had substantial non-combat losses.  Your point is what?  That defeating the Soviet defeat of the Nazis was therefore mostly due to weather?  Please.

Your arguments are those of someone determined at whatever cost to believe that the US was the main victor in the European war in the face of the huge facts that argue against it.  I would mention that if you care to listen to US military lecturers covering various aspects of WWII online they are quite frank about the Soviets being the ones who defeated Germany.  It's only the average, poorly educated American who clings to the movie images of the forties.

The facts are inescapable: the Western democracies, i.e. Britain and France, were saved from Nazi totalitarianism by the heroism and sacrifice of the communists to whom they owe eternal gratitude.

10 minutes ago, chezy86 said:

Are you a politician? can't even be bothered to read all your reply because again you have not answered my question when you do I will read it


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Never mind.  I am sure it was above your paygrade anyway.

24 minutes ago, chezy86 said:

The question was " what war did you fight in to give you the right to belittle others who did?". I don't need a history lesson I also know that Russia sided with Hitler and invaded Poland at the beginning of the war. So what your saying then is the Italy landings the Normandy landings, operation market garden were insignificant?. BS Stalin pleaded with the allies to open a second front as he knew they couldn't win on their own. Where did Russia get a lot of its equipment from?. Oh yes Allied merchantmen braved Arctic seas and u boats to take them it. Of course Russia played a major part and lost heavily,they are a huge country and Hitler turned on them so they had little choice.Wars are fought for money and power I know that but let's not discredit the sacrifices of any nation in conflict who's armed forces paid the ultimate price.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

It's hard to respond to a post that is so profoundly confused on many levels.  You have a very emotional response, but many of us find it's easier to understand the course of events with a cold eye.

1.  The right to criticize governments and armies is not reserved to soldiers or veterans.

2.  The morality of governments, although an appropriate subject, is not the topic here.  We are discussing the policy decisions of the US government on the conduct of the war and the extent to which they belied both government statements at the time and the public understanding from popular media and propaganda.

3.  You do indeed need a history lesson since you apparently haven't read any. 

4.  All nations fighting WWII made sacrifices and nearly all the combatants in all the major armies fought bravely.  Neither fact, however, ennobles otherwise deplorable war aims or excuses atrocities.  So, that's pretty much irrelevant to this discussion.

5.  The decisive battles of WWI in Europe were Stalingrad and Kursk, both of which the Soviets won.  It's true the the food and Ford trucks (but not the inferior American tanks) contributed by the Americans helped the Red Army.  So, did the Allied invasion of Sicily since it forced Hitler to call off his last offensive in the East in order to divert troops to assist the Italians.  The distinction between a decisive battle and a diversion is nevertheless a fundamental one in military history.

6.  By the time of the Normandy Invasion, in the East the Red Army was rolling up the Wehrmacht which was never again to go on the offensive.  The Invasion itself and even before the Invasion, the threat of an Atlantic invasion forced the Germans to divert troops which could otherwise have been used against the Soviets.  Nevertheless, in war scale matters.  The total Allied casualties of the Normandy Landings were on the order of about 10,000 while the Soviet casualties in Stalingrad are estimated to have been 1.1 million. 

7.  Some Allied army had to take huge casualties to defeat the Germans.  The American and British leadership made sure it wasn't them.  The British leadership undoubtedly recognized that the British Army was no match at all for the Wehrmacht at any time during the war.  As far as I can see, the BA won one battle during the war, El Alamein, although Montgomery subsequently failed unaccountably to destroy the Afrika Corps even though he was in possession of accurate intelligence as to their much reduced tank strength.

The American position was articulated by the undistinguished senator from Missouri, Harry Truman, in 1941 as:   "If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible. . . ."   So, on May 30, 1942 Gen. George Marshall promised Molotov that the US would open a second front in 1942.  The US reneged on that promise.  In the summer of 1942, Churchill went to Moscow and promised the opening of a second front in 1943.  Britain and the US reneged again.  US official policy was "Europe First", but in the event, the actual policy was "the Pacific First", which is understandable since that is where US interests actually lay.  The US and Britain eventually opened the long-delayed second front in 1944 probably just to stop the Red Army from going all the way to the Atlantic.

World War II was always going to be decided by troops, not trucks.  The US and Britain, either cowardly or shrewdly depending on your point of view, outsourced the fighting to the Soviet Union who suffered the greatest losses in history, but won the war against Germany.  At this point in time it behooves us to see clearly by judging the participants on their actions not their promises or propaganda.

52 minutes ago, chezy86 said:

Which theatre of operation did you serve in? Must have been pretty major to belittle 2 great nations in this way and the men that fought and died for your liberty.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Here's the short history of WWII in Europe: the only two Western nations that had positive GDP growth rates in the 30's, Germany and the USSR, fought a war.  The US waited on the sidelines until the eleventh hour when the Soviet victory was assured and then rushed in to seize "the greatest material prize in history", the Mid-East oil, from... the British. 

You may however prefer to get your understanding of history from insightful Hollywood movies of the period.

14 minutes ago, Silurian said:

 

One option that could happen is that AG Sessions gets fired around the Senate recess/break in August and a new Attorney General is placed in office as a recess appointment (no need for Senate approval). Then any idiot that supports the "POTUS" can be AG for at least until the end of this year. Can we say AG Rudy Giuliani? I don't think Cruz will take the chance at leaving the Senate. Rudy doesn't have anything to lose.

 

It's clear that one way or another Trump certainly can fire Sessions, but there would be repercussions in the Senate and the possibility of Sessions as a hostile witness that he would like to avoid by goading the AG into quitting instead.  Sessions himself might fire Mueller out of a change of heart, i.e. to save his job.  Recusals are not legally binding.  One way or another I expect both a firing of Mueller and a mass pardoning of Trump's family and cronies.  But the investigations will continue one way or another and the dirt will be very dirty indeed.

Trump is in a real bind now.  He's doing everything possible to pressure Sessions to resign so that he can appoint a stooge who will fire Mueller.  But Sessions is resisting and has a lot of support in the Senate where he served for 10 years.  Trump could fire Sessions, but then Rosenstein would take over Sessions' duties.  Rosenstein would refuse to fire Mueller, so Trump would have to fire him, too.  Ditto for Sarah Brand, the next one up.  By then Trump's chances of getting a new attorney general approved by the Senate would be low.  Also, after being fired by Trump Sessions would have an incentive to tell what he knows in exchange for immunity for his own perjuries, etc.

If Mueller is fired, which I view as a certainty

As for the pardoning power, it's not the cure-all that Trump may think it is.  First, Trump cannot pardon anyone from prosecution by a state, only from federal prosecution.  The meetings with Russians that took place in Manhattan fall into the jurisdiction for New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a Democrat with ambition, who is already conducting investigations into Trump and his family.  Schneiderman, by the way, can subpoena Trump's New York State tax returns and possibly his federal returns as well.

Anyone whom Trump has pardoned cannot then take the Fifth Amendment to refuse to answer questions under oath and can be prosecuted for perjuries committed subsequent to the pardon. 

Trump's latest behavior shows desperation.  He told Mueller not to investigate his finances inadvertently insuring that Mueller will do exactly that.  And his financial dealings with sleazy criminals around the world stink to the high heaven.

And daylight is beginning to appear between the Republicans and Trump: on Russia sanctions, for example, and on NATO.

Looking ominous for DT.

I have had at least one only-in-Thailand experience so far.  A while ago I was looking for an apartment to rent.  The rental agent from a well-known RE firm took me to a high-end building.  When the landlord arrived, we went up to see the apartment.  It looked ok, but I make a point of scrutinizing all the fixtures, for instance, those attached to the ceiling. On the living room ceiling I saw a standard red glass bubble attached to the ceiling like the kind you see in a bank, which obviously enclosed a video camera.  When I demanded an explanation in a loud voice the landlord strenuously denied that it was a video camera, but she had no answer when I asked what it was.  So, then I was able to practice insulting a person in Thai.

On 7/20/2017 at 6:54 AM, Dave67 said:

How about we take out the cost of liberating your country from the Nazis

The Nazis were defeated by the Soviets who faced 200 German divisions while the Americans and Brits were whiling away their time on their sideshow in Italy never facing more than 10 divisions. 

7 hours ago, Bang Bang said:

Sometimes it helps to be able to look beseechingly into the eyes of the one person standing between you and an audit.

Did you ever figure how much you are paying for that dubious privilege?