wandasloan

Why should it necessarily be a good think to make it "criminal" defamation?

Darned if I know. Why should it?

Well, I suppose in the sense of every state loves to accumulate power at the barrel of a gun it would be a good thing. Myself, I don't like that kind of power at all, but is that what you had in mind when you say it would be a good thing?

I know what you mean, but unfortunately "the very public embarrassment" lasts until the next squirrel diversion. What you say here is what a lot of people say every lese majeste trial. And 90% of the people ARE locked up, and the government is embarrassed on front pages in Bangkok and around the world for hours. And they it's not because... oh, look, another squirrel!

Of course there is a valid and always existing question of whether a government (i.e. politicians) can ever be embarrassed about anything, ever, anywhere.

.

one down now about another 50 to go.

Another rich, connected, nose-snubbing Daddy's boy. Not a chance he'll be held, ever.

A good example of why the PDRC has never released an idea for anti-nepotism.

.

You are flying uphill on the way back, on the way here its downhill.

Common error. In fact, it's because Thailand sucks.

.

If you think that I have offended you in any way, I suggest that you take it up with your Mum and then see what the rest of the planet thinks.

No, what I think is that you ask the weirdest (not to mention personal) questions? So again *I* ask *you*:

Why do you care/mention/bring up the theory I am Thai? I really don't care what your mother thinks. I am curious what you think since you directed your comment directly and exclusively to me. Why? Obviously there is some significance. Maybe it's a positive one I can't think of.

.

You are correct - the issue is with the defamation laws that allow actions to be brought even though someone may be stating the truth and its already in the public domain - archaic.

Careful. Pretty well every country in the world allows action to be brought as you describe. What is unique about Thailand among civilised countries - and it is not archaic, but quite modern, 21st century law that is involved - is that in addition to normal defamation, Thailand has *criminal* defamation, prosecuted by the state and with prison time as a punishment. In other places, it is a civil action, person vs person with no incarceration involved.

But libel, slander and/or defamation cases worldwide are brought and settled in cases where someone "may be" stating the truth. Its not at all rare. You may call it archaic, but people or groups or companies that think they have been defamed wouldn't agree with you. They want the right to go to court and contest this so-called truth - BECAUSE it is known to the public.

.

Police said investigation was underway to find out the cause.

Here's a tip..........the load was too high.

no no no the overpass was to low!!

555 That's what every one of these idiot drivers says. And actually, they're right. Video is here. The home website for the happy cameraman is 11foot8.com.

Which court?

At the moment, there is only the Phuket Criminal Court. For this topic we can disregard the court of public opinion, since it won't impact any guilt or prison term decisions which may come.

I suspect that you may actually be Thai.

And that is significant for what reason? You wouldn't lower yourself to an actual discussion with a Thai? Or what?

at least they will be in jail, that has to be a first, usually they run off while on bail...........

I agree. I often wonder why they don't make them tourist attractions, all those prisons all around Thailand without any prisoners.

.

I've seen a waitress serve a Russian a cocktail with a cockroach in it.....

I'm pretty sure the OP was hunting for negative stories.

.

If that had happened in a first world country where engineers actually test welds and steel and concrete if used, the overpass most likely would have won.

Does that white man's burden not get heavy at all?

Bridge collapses in Wash. state; people in water

The Interstate 5 Bridge over the Skagit River in Northwestern Washington state collapsed on Thursday evening, dumping vehicles and people into the river. State troopers are not certain if there were any injuries or deaths. (May 24)

Note again: Interstate highway, the best there is.

Well... the court case involving the reporters will be heard in a Thai court, but if Reuters counter-sue, that will be heard in a neutral country away from Thailand's corruption.

In which universe would that be? If not in some parallel universe or hidden, EVERY case filed at a Thai court will be heard in Thailand, including a (still hypothetical) case of Thailand vs Reuters. Why would some other country's court accept a suit by Reuters against the Royal Thai Government?

And yes, it's the government. The Navy is the complainant only, it is not a party to the prosecution, just a witness. It's like if you were robbed, you would report the robbery, the police would catch the robber, the prosecutor would prosecute him and the court would put him away. You might or might not be called as a witness, but you certainly would not prosecute the case.

The Navy has no LEGAL standing in this actual case of criminal defamation, would also have none in the hypothetical case against Reuters. Of course, the Navy, as the allegedly aggrieved victim, could ask the court to dismiss the charges, just as you might want to forgive the robber. But it's in the hands of the court, not the Navy/you.

I have no idea of what you are talking about with "counter-suit... in a neutral country". You didn't get it from Reuters for sure. Can you explain?

So far as Reuters being determined to fight the possible case tooth and nail, well, yes indeed Mr Obvious, it's not like there is an Option 2.

That brings up an allied point though. Only Phuketwan republished any key points from the Reuters report to my knowledge. That indicates the Thai media in general were more ... er.... thoughtful about it than the unique decision-makers at Phuketwan. And yet, any reader or listener or viewer in Thailand knows exactly what has been happening with trafficking of Rohingya, even without the single Reuters report. So, yes, not thoughtful.

Reuters as an international service has slightly different priorities from the Thai media. But please, don't let one single person think that Reuters does not self-censor its Thailand news report all the time. It's as guilty of censorship in Thailand as the most fearful Thai TV broadcaster. Enough said about that.

Cut them some slack, please. the Nation and every other Thai newspaper has reported extensively on the Rohingya situation. It has not done so exactly like Reuters, but the Nation has let its reader know exactly what has happened in the South with the Rohingya and the Navy. It has spent at LEAST 10 times the effort, the time and the words as Reuters. The only people in Thailand who don't know don't want to know.

.

If this is correct then I would think Abhisit will be outlining, or even presenting, these plans to the people he meets and asking for input.

That they haven't gone public with these plans is hardly surprising considering the likely response from PT and their red supporters who have done nothing other than demand quick elections.

This would be great, and Abhisit is making the rounds of newspaper offices today like he has a new soap opera to promote. I do hope he intends to say something that is less platitudinous than that atrocious three minutes on YouTube.

I absolutely don't understand why a politician(s) would keep their policy programmes secret. Are you saying Korn and Abhisit are so terrified of getting criticised that they can't speak? As terrified as they were of a fortune teller's prediction?: It seems to me that the only reason that a politician ever closes his mouth is either to swallow his expensive wine or because he can think of nothing more to say. Those two definitely included.

.

Very smart move by Abhisit and the timing couldn't be better.

"We need to guide our country towards reform. Reform must be carried out under constitutional and democratic principles. And the election process must be acceptable to all," the former prime minister said yesterday.

The election process MUST be acceptable to all.

Who can argue with this?

No one. It's what everyone in the country over 15 has said many times. So what is the value here? If there's no argument (which there isn't) then why are we even listening? He wants to re-invent himself or re-launch or something, fine, why not? But what is he bringing to the table that needs paying attention to?

.

All the mainstream media seem to never pick up on their stories, in fact as far as this report goes, Vietnam has already scuppered Thailand's rice deals with Phils.... This is more believable as it is reported more widely than these unfounded claims.

No, your report is as credible as the OP. As this ACTUAL report from Vietnam says, this three-year proposal from Manila that the government is working on, is quite separate from a recent Vietnam sale to the Philippines. Vietnam has scuppered exactly nothing, but has made a rice sale.

If you are depending on short reports on Thai Visa of what is happening in Thailand (or anywhere), you aren't informed. Use those horrible little OPs as a reference to find out the real story. There *is* a story about rice sales to the Philippines or, if you prefer, many stories, and you can find out about them if you want. None of them, not one of them that's worth anything is in the OP and I haven't seen one by a poster yet, either. This isn't X-Files stuff, but the truth IS out there.

.

How strange that no one ever thought of it before.

Oh. Wait. Yes they did.

.

Not only the above, but obviously, Reuters is correct in its assessment/article and the Navy does not have a leg to stand on unless they can prove Reuters is wrong. Fat chance of that!

.

Good on the protesters, without such disruption the rest of the world would be clueless to what as gone on, now the authorities realise the impact these actions have had and perhaps next time will sort things out before the locals highlight another problem.

'Power to the People'

Actually, large crowds at the scene of brutal crimes are very, very common events. There are many, every week. The provincial press has made a big deal out of some foreigners missing their flight. Other than that, this is standard for this type of brutality. As said in the first story, the crowd gathered at the scene of the crime, to vent their anger when police brought the accused for re-enactment of the assault, battery and rape. Then the re-enactment didn't happen and the crowd got more angry.

You are cleared for takeoff on re-enactments and presenting accused criminals to large, threatening crowds. Nevertheless, it *is* hugely common.

.

Rubbish..... I managed to get well over US$100,000 into Thailand simply by having it wired in over a few months by western union and just picking it up from many of their terminals.... easy peasy.

And no record exists of this at all. Good idea on how to very, very secretly transfer your money so governments don't know anything about it.

I wonder why every big-time criminal doesn't do this?

Also my first reaction. How useful!! This carefully considered advice could substitute just about anything after "do not declare". Watch out for people who won't say if they are carrying three cartons of cigarettes. Watch for people who don't declare they are escaping from a foreign jail. Look for people who are hiding their intention to have sex with minors.

Isn't that the goal of customs/immigration anyhow? It sounds as useful as some demented person (not NECESSARILY Australian) walking into the kitchen of a large restaurant and saying to one of the chefs, "watch out how much salt you use in the mashed potatoes" and then walking back out.

.

Note to the Thai authorities, take a leaf from the Singaporean and the Malaysians book of

penalties for drug dealers, this country is awash with drugs and ill gotten loot fro drug dealing,

and matter how many millions and billions you will catch, the gains still out weigh the losses,

introduce similar laws to the US R.I.C.O laws and the mandatory death penalty to any one

who caught with drugs above a certain amount, that will make those drugs runners think twice...

A new high for satire in Thai Visa, I really appreciate the humour. If I were to complain, which I won't, I'd say that using Malaysia and the United States as examples where harsh drug laws have cleaned up drug abuse is a little obvious and over the top. But all in all, darned good satire. Thank you. The United States!!! hahaha, still chuckling as I write.

Singapore is neat. Now the drug runners only use Singapore as a stopover as psychological pressure on customs in their target country. Not that you can't score in 5 minutes, mind you, but Singapore did manage to change the rules a bit by pretending to harsh drug traffickers. (Ever heard of Steven Law?)

Replying to my own quote.....should have looked more closely at the new channel list. News starts at ch 111, Films at 222 ....Cartoon s at 444.....and Sport at 666.

 

That looks about right. Most women know sports in excess (numerous channels, etc) are evil.

.

no charges being laid against the Royal Thai Navy even though it was reported on world press.

Secondly the fact that the libel laws in Thai are amongst the strongest in the world supported by a Govt department that offers cost free litigation cases to be pursued by any Thai person/ identity.

You are conflating. This is NOT a libel case, which is a civil matter and not supported by a government department. This is *criminal* defamation. And it is not "supported" by the government, it is flat-out prosecuted like any other (alleged) crime like robbery or murder. You are correct that few civilised countries have this sort of law. Most such countries have only libel and slander laws to handle this type of action.

What happened here is pretty much text-book. The navy felt defamed by the Phuketwan report. It filed a charge at the police station, just as you or I would in any criminal matter. The police took it to the (government) prosecutors who considered it on its merits. The prosecutors said, "yes", a real crime had been committed; perpetrators were known. The prosecutors filed the criminal charges at the Phuket Criminal Court last week. The two named defendants were given bail, and a first hearing date was set.

This is just how any criminal prosecution goes ahead in Thailand, and indeed in most countries. The unique part of this is the actual case - defamation, which is not prosecuted by the government in many countries.

Thailand, like almost all countries *ALSO* has libel and slander laws, which are between two people/groups, and do not involve criminal charges or prison punishment. But the use, misuse and abuse of criminal defamation is possible because of throwback laws that have been eliminated in most places.

.

Reuters? Good luck with that. Bet Reuters legal guns are bigger than the Thai Navy's guns.

The Thai Navy's lawyers are government prosecutors. This is a CRIMINAL case in front of a Thai court. I can't think of one way that Reuters could have a bigger one than the Navy and the Thai government combined.

.

Did it occur to you to find out how and why she knows English? Only bar girls and international business executives speak English in Thailand.

 

Dumbest post of the YEAR. Silliest one I've ever seen but I've seen relatively few.

.

As far as I am aware the divorce consists of signing a paper in the local office and costs a few hundred baht.

 

30,000 dollars !!!!!!!

1. It's usually not that expensive. But that is a divorce that is not contested. According to the OP, the husband will not agree to such a divorce.

2. A contested divorce can get very complicated and sticky very quickly. But as the OP says, there's no obvious grounds for divorce. Assuming she has been honest with the OP (I said "assuming") it is clear the husband and the mum do not want a divorce and see the OP as a house-wrecker —  WHICH HE IS!

This case may not even wind up with a successful divorce, if the husband contests it. She has no grounds to divorce him, it appears. He is not going to state any grounds to divorce her. ("Yeronner, I still love her. I don't want this divorce she wants.") The foreigner being the bad guy — WHICH HE IS — the judge might well deny a divorce, at any court cost.

The cost of a divorce could be $30,000. Or more. In this case, it probably is not. But the point is that the $30,000 has nothing to do with the actual divorce. Because.

3. Do not conflate the divorce with the money demand. The $30,000 - it doesn't matter what we assume about the OP. There are two main possibilities. One, the husband is willing to see his house broken for $30,000. (In that case, the uncontested divorce is a few baht.) Two, it is a scam where the husband, wife, mum and buffalo get $30,000. (In that case, there is no divorce at all.)

It doesn't matter which is true - the $30,000 has nothing to do with the divorce mechanics.

.