inquisitive

I'm not actually sure that your post requires an answer, but since I don't recognize your username from the many other threads that would have stopped you asking such dumb questions, I will assume you are relatively new to this whole cave rescue operation and I shall try to help....
 
There were only 18 sufficiently experienced divers available for the actual rescue phase, many of whom had been working for around 10 days.  To attempt to rescue more than 4 boys at a time would have meant these divers returning a 2nd or 3rd time.. physically tiring and entailing much greater risk to themselves and the whole operation.
As well as the 18 rescue divers, there were many more involved at each section of the cave system, each evening after the rescue divers had left, the empty air bottles all needed removing, recharging, and replacing... This didn't happen by itself.
Each evening the rescue divers were able to discuss the retrievals and were able to improve on the time it took to complete the next days rescues, to the point where the last 5 trapped were able to be taken out on the third day, rather than stretching into a 4th day.
 
I think your suggestion that it could have all been complete in a one day period demonstrates your total lack of understanding of the situation & conditions they had to deal with.  Rescues are always much easier when managed from the comfort of your armchair....   
 
 
 

I'll try to not take offense at the lack of self control that caused you to call my questions "dumb". You've embarrassed yourself unnecessarily, but I guess you know that already.

It happens that I'm an experienced caver, and I've had two occasions where I've had to travel "blind" through underwater passages too narrow and curved to allow a stretcher. I believe that I probably have a better understanding of the situation than most. There is no doubt that this was a daring rescue.

But let's look at some of your math: We know that the men that accompanied the boys through the first underwater passage handed them off to others to complete the journey. This is because the first section required an exceptional skill level. After that the journey was easy enough that Elon Musk could travel and send photos home. This is moot to take anything away from the bravery and skill shown by EVERY one of the rescuers. It is only brought up here because it impacts upon how the rescuers should be allocated

There were 4 boys per day, each accompanied through the very long underwater section by two experts.

Ok. That's eight experts doing a two hour round trip - plus the time to and from the staging area for this heroic effort. That leaves another ten experts doing less demanding work.

Another possibility is some of the top experts escorting more than one boy each day, which would leave even more experts doing lower level stuff.

And unless some of these guys were ferrying more than one boy per day, they were spending (some parents might even call it "wasting") more time traveling back and forth to their cars than doing the most essential work for which only they were qualified.

I have nothing but respect and admiration for these men, but I don't understand why they were told to spend so much time and energy doing things that people with lesser skills could do.

In this life and death race against time, why on earth would anyone ordet6 them to spend so many hours commuting to work when they could have eaten and rested inside the cave - and there would be much higher chance that all the boys would come out alive. In the time that they spent commuting to their cars Ann returning back to the boys, they each could have saved 2-4 boys each. So, OK, we have to assign two experts to each boy, but with 18 experts that still comes to between 18 and 36 more boys in that same amount of time.

No matter how you dress it up, with lives on the line, there was no reason compelling enough to shut down every night, or even to sleep in a soft bed until every child was breathing air with sufficient oxygen and safe outside the cave.

My hat goes off to those who saved those lads, but it was not by virtue of good management as the politicians want ud to believe.

If it was your son that they were saving, what would be your call?

Sent from my SM-N910C using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

I'm over the moon that everyone made it out. We all knew that the situation could turn impossible in a matter of hours. In fact, the authorities were fairly sure that would happen and continually predicted that they were in a race with nature. So with that said, why on earth food they stretch the removal over three days? Why did they stop every night instead of finishing up in less than 36 hours? Because it was dark out? Did no one notice that it's always dark inside a cave? If they ran out of time, who was going to explain to the parents of the boys left inside that no one could plan more than 12 hours in advance.

This was NOT an example of good management. With thousands of participants available, the managers still let the operation close down every sunset - let the boys be damned.

Sent from my SM-N910C using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 
Just more inane Thai-bashing.
 
In Thailand the equivalent is known as a Notarial Services Attorney.  They are Thai lawyers who've undergone and passed a professional training course before being registered by the Lawyers Council of Thailand.
 
Thai-notarised documents are widely accepted across the globe.

I've had to notarize lots of papers from the US over the years, and I've never been told that a Thai notary is acceptable. It's fifty bucks a pop at the embassy, so I keep hoping. Your best bet is to ask an appropriate authority in the country in which it has to be official. Whenever I dealt with the courts or immigration, I was told it must be a US notary.

If you can't even be bothered to reply to me or my points - don't bother! Please!

Ok, since you said "please", let me be more clear.

By law, the victim of this police brutality and potential murder is not guilty of anything at this point. That is because the police are not empowered to determine guilt or innocence. Yes, the victim might be a murderer, or then again he may have been a special agent empowered by parliament to not stop for police checks because he was delivering an urgent report needed to avert an act of terrorism. Honestly, I doubt either of these scenarios are true, but the fact is that the cop did not know when he intentionally created a high-speed and potentially deadly traffic accident.

So while you are free to make your opinion known, the law is clear that the police officer was acting illegally in using lethal force to stop the victim. It was brainless, immoral, and in your words, wrong. That is why his superior officer had to tell those obvious lies. Otherwise there was no way to get the cop of the hook. In this case, the truth would not have set him free.

Furthermore, since your only source of information about the incident consists of a video and a "highly suspect" report, I submit that your opinion might at the least be premature.

I know that in some groups the prevailing view is that anyone that seems to disrespect a policeman should be killed without recourse, and anyone suspected of any violation of the law should be murdered by the state before they get a chance to present their defense, but the last time I checked, that is not the official and legal policy of this beautiful country. I am sure that many of us who live here resent your saying otherwise. It's just plain disrespectful.

So here's my question: do you advocate the same use of deadly force against a person who demonstrates disrespect of our ethical and law abiding police on the internet by suggesting that they should act illegally?

Despicable? The guy ran a roadblock, then kept going for some thirty minutes, and not with typical Thai motorcyclists' safety standards dictating his driving. Yes, they could have let him go, but I certainly don't decry their way of bringing him to a halt - granted, a straight answer would have been logical, but TiT. 

I think just about everything in your post is wrong:-
1.  "All this guy is guilty of is running a road block." Wrong - he also sideswiped a Ford.
2. "He could be seriously hurt due to this" Correct - also he could have seriously injured a pedestrian, or somebody trying to cross the road
3. "There are other ways to deal with runners like this. A good lawsuit with a huge fine will stop this." Wrong. So in the meantime, you let him go on his merry way, sell the bike (or change the number plates) and put the incident up as "evaded arrest"?
4. He could have been shot, or his tyres blown out, in which case he could have been seriously injured or dead. As it was he got a few cuts and bruises.
5. "Police think they are above the law here.  And most times, they are." It makes a change for the police to be doing something positive to apprehend a wrongdoer who, by the very fact that he jumped a road block could have been a wanted murderer or terrorist - Bravo!
 
P.S I think the Police Chief should have admitted it was no accident!
 
 

You actually BELIEVE that nonsense about the policeman chasing the victim for 30 minutes? ! Without radoing ahead? THIRTY minutes? When was the last time you even heard about a BIB showing that amount of dedication to duty? Or work?

Nobody believes that the officer acted in self-defense so why would they believe anything else in that report?

Please!

What is the lesser of 2 evil's with someone who runs from a police stop?
 
1) shot them with a gun, wound or kill them...( or other people in the area )
Or
2) take them to  the ground any way you can....
 
Me, I'll take number 2.
 

There are far more than just two choices here. You've created a totally false dichotomy. One wonders if you are intentionally trying to manipulate the news or if your brain truly can't handle more than two possibilities at once.

It is also possible that the driver was on his way to the hospital because he was suffering from a heart attack and stopping would be fatal. Our he was bringing medicine his child needed to receive in the next five minutes to save his life. Or a thousand other extenuating reasons. At this point we don't know. The policeman also did not know the reason for not immediately stopping and yet felt he had three right to kill the driver (since that obviously would always be a potential result of a high-speed crash.)

It is NOT ok for police to use more force than necessary to enforce ANY law. Would you say it would be ok for a policeman to fire a bullet into your brain because you dropped a chewing gum wrapper?

Let me see ... frightening, humiliating, and abusing freshmen has the effect of making them feel less lonely? Did I understand that correctly?

Or are the rituals merely a manifestation of the seniors' sadistic impulses which they rationalize by saying that the freshmen deserve it because the seniors went through the same thing 3 years ago.

But isn't that like a father saying that it is ok to beat and burn his child because he himself had a sadistic parent?

When will the university start acting like they are run by responsible adults? These activities bring shame and scorn to Thailand.

The universities represent the intellectual elite of the country. What does that say about this society?

What exactly are the "controls" that the dentists want removed, and what do they feel will be the gain by removing them? In other words, what is the whole point of this exercise?

Right!  You probably aren't even aware of what all the legal alcohol limits are in every state, province, and country.  Also, sleep deprivation can be as bad as driving intoxicated. Now you're going to tell me that you never drove tired. Oh and how about those prescription drugs that you've been taking. Give me a break!

Give it up, Kabula. You're wrong, and the more you argue, the more you're embarrassing yourself.

I wonder if there is something to be learned here from Las Vegas. I'm certainly not an expert on the topic and I would love to hear from someone who knows the details, but I believe that LV had an analogous situation. It was the capital of naughtiness in the USA and making incredible amounts of money for its investors (the locals are a different story of course). But then the powers looked at their golden goose and thought "but we're only attracting single adult males. We could double our profits if we could somehow attract females as well. No, wait! What if we attracted whole FAMILIES? My God! How could we even store all the money we'll be making!"

And so they set out to change their image.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the bank: Families didn't come. Few people wanted to bring their kids to a place with a reputation like LAS VEGAS. And the incoming numbers of single men dropped since the main reason they were coming was now disappearing.

So after a few years of this failure the founding fathers looked around and decided to go back to the good old days and now the city advertises on national television that "what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas".

And the money machine started to come back to life.

Mightn't Thailand do better by building a new family destination city down the road and keep the cash flowing from the existing one rather than killing of a HUGE moneymaking enterprise to make way for one that they only hope will be better? Wouldn't that be closer to having one's cake and eating it too?

How about we learn from someone else's experience for a change?

I  understand that your  motivation  is  genuine. I do not  understand why  you describe  my comments  as  snide given that  the comprehensive  claims  you  have described are  without any substantiation yet  you  request immediate  high level participation/ approval. Even  "limited"  field  trials are an indefinative.
So  while  my  reply  was optimistic in  essence  you  need to  appreciate that given the  reality  of  this  world  there  always  remains  the  question  of  veracity.

Golly, you simply can't resist confrontation when an open mind would suit you so much better.

The fact is that I have NOT requested approval, and (please forgive me if I am mistaken) I have no reason to consider your participation as "high level". I simply asked if anyone knew a good person to contact in the present government. Quite clearly in your case the answer is "no". Any comments after that are distractions and unwelcome. I do, however, thank you for your interest and if you feel qualified to help with the research in any way I invite you to contact me directly.

If  you  have  substantial data  to  verify  your claims then perhaps  you are  mistaken  about "staying away"? Given  your claims on such a scale it  would undoubtably  be  of  benefit to any  nation  with an agricultural base.  
Or is this  a " I have created/designed  a  time  machine" but need  investors  to  make  it?

Reasonable question (if it weren't for the fact that it ignores my request to put aside any skepticism for the moment). I'm not seeking investors nor even approval of my method or protocol.

I already have a string of patents along with textbooks published in at least five languages. That makes your snide question seem both ignorant and arrogant -- which is a shame because you are probably neither of those things.

My question is a sincere one. I would like to help my adopted country but I also know how the game is played. I am hoping that someone on TV knows of a politician who would accept my offer of help in the spirit it was given and would keep the interests of the country in mind - and not let the fact that I am a farang blind his judgment. I will leave the creation of a perpetual motion machine to someone else. [emoji6]

On ‎2‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 0:23 AM, spiderorchid said:

I wish I had an easy solution. There is not one. Cities, towns and villages are all expanding. Thailand depends on tourism. Tourists use far more water than the average Thai. But the priority of water supply is to tourists. 

Most farming is under pressure from low returns on their labour, increased costs resulting in increased demand to grow more. So they use more water in the dry months which depletes the underground water supplies. The situation is compounding. The farmers see city workers as thriving while they work hard for little improvement in their circumstances. And the long suffering farmers are slowly becoming disillusioned  

I am reading this discussion with great interest. I don't want to bore anyone with a long cv, so I'll just ask that you please put aside your skepticism long enough to take this question seriously. I have been developing a system for rapid water absorption and increased retention in the soil.  There is still much room for improvement, but at this stage it already can eliminate most of the drought for farmers while doubling the amount of fresh water available for the cities. It also allows farming with less chemicals/fertilizers, has a small effect in reducing flooding, eliminates the stockpile of unsold latex, restores reasonable prices for rubber farmers and allows rice farmers to plant a second crop. As I said, there is still a lot of room for improvement, but we've long passed the proof-of-concept stage and have even carried out a limited field trial. 

 

Now for the question: In order for this system to really benefit the nation it would have to be employed fairly widely - and that usually means cooperation with the government. In the past I had relationships with some of the right people, but since the coup I have stayed away.  Does anyone have any suggestions about who and/or how to go about getting the right people in the government to look at this project?

This is my "I have a friend story". 
 
I know a Thai lady ...
 
They simply got married in the US... Did the marriage visa while here. She did the interview and was never asked about her tourist visa or overstay. No issues at all ...

Just wondering, what state did your friend's lady apply for her new visa? I understand that can make a difference.

Here's a follow-up : I called the 24 hour information hotline and was told that I could do the 90 day report to Burirum by mail. The fellow didn't sound super- confident, though, so I had someone else call again the next day. She got a different person and they confirmed that it could be done by mail and gave the address. Today I called the Burirum office directly and they said the report could definately NOT be sent to Burirum by mail. All reports would be handled in person only (and they don't use an appointment system at that office). Thanks to all who answered.

The extranet for Immigration has been down for a while with no reason to believe it will be functioning when I need to submit my next 90 day report. I'm living upcountry these days and it would require a few hours for me to drive back and forth to my (not so) local Burirum immigration office to make this report in person. I sure do wish that I had the option of using the mail instead. Unfortunately, I somehow remember that 90 day reporting by mail used to be only available in Bangkok. Does anyone know if it is now possible to report by mail in Burirum?

Thanks.

There's a good chance that you'll never be asked, but the authorities are supposed to do so. This is to prevent either parent from stealing the child from the other parent. BTW you run this risk even on the way out of the US. Conceivably it is possible that the child would be stuck in the USA while you sort this out.

I believe there is a weakness in the system in that the letter from his mom does not need to be notarized. Without notarization and an accompanying birth certificate, how can the authorities be sure that the child's real mother actually gave permission? They certainly aren't going to phone her from the airport! (That wouldn't work anyway. How could they know who is really on the other end of the line?)

An American friend of mine has a GF with a 10 yr b1/b2 visa (tourist /business) for the usa. They have already taken several 5-6 month trips to the usa. He'd like to get married in the usa, but would also like to propose in his old home town, not in Thailand.

Should he travel to the usa on the existing visa and get married once there (assuming she agrees) or must he either get a fiance visa or even get married in Thailand and change his visa over here? Besides ruining his practiced proposal, it would delay the event for many months or even a year or two.

The immigration rules state that if she KNOWS she'll get married on any given trip, then she isn't arriving for the purposes of tourism. I know from someone else in the village that US immigration gets all bent up over this. The poor girl from the village had quit her job and sold her car in preparation for a move.

When that poor hapless girl arrived she proudly told the immigration officer of her plans ... and was sent back to thailand on the next plane!

In my friend's case, the Thai lady believes she's just going for a visit. (If my friend has misread her feelings, that might even be all that happens. Who knows?)

So what do you think they should do?

Thanks.

To all of you who are commenting about how good or bad the medical treatment is in Thailand based on personal experience, I have to ask if you really are able to tell? Do you really know whether your treatment was optimal? Could/should the doctor have done something else? What really were the alternatives (beyond the ones he might or might not have known)? Would another doctor have gotten a slightly better result?

The fact is that as a patient you only know what your doctor told you. If he had a gap in his knowledge, so now do you. So that begs the question: as a layman, how can you judge?

You really can't. You do as everyone else does and you assume that if the doctor ACTS knowledgeable and compassionate, the nurses are nice to you, and the equipment and room looks clean and new, well then the doctor must be good. That's the best you can do.

I am a medical professional/educator from America that has made his home in Thailand. I have published something like six textbooks, 50 scientific papers in 6-7 languages, presented over 200 lectures around the world, served on the faculty of around 6 universities in four countries, and have a handful of intentional patents for my medical innovations. I also have had the opportunity to see the health care industry up close and personal in Thailand and a few other countries.

And my conclusion? Whether you get good or damaging treatment depends entirely on one factor: people. The same as car repair people, or plumbers, or housepainters. If the person providing the service has good skills and really cares, then they won't take shortcuts that they know you won't discover. They'll keep their skills and knowledge up to date and refer out the things that someone else can do better even if they have an upcoming payment on their new Benz. They'll put your needs ahead of their own.

In Thailand the medical establishment has very few checks. Up until very recently it was unheard of to question a doctor, even after tragic results from obvious malpractice.

Unquestionably, Thai doctors and nurses are human beings. I don't believe that anything more needs to be said on this subject.

I went to the dentist last week and after he took an x-ray I was asked for my passport. I was told that all dental x-rays for foreigners must now be sent to the government along with their I'D. Now this sounds like the government will also have the fingerprints of everyone that has a bank account. And if the country goes cashless, that will mean everybody. Interesting.

I have to agree with you. Unfortunately the ex-employee in question was terminated without any cause stated. He was given 3 months pay "in lieu of notice". That prompted him to ask me what the requirements for legal notice were. Naturally enough, I replied that I didn't know the answer, but I knew lots of knowledgeable folks on TV and I'd find out for him.

As best I can tell, the company is not required to give a reason for the termination so long as they give the appropriate amount of severence pay. That sounds a bit counterproductive to me (instead of improving an already partially trained employee, management simply hopes the next untrained recruit will miraculously and innately know everything needed for the position - something that their own experience argues against.

Still, the question was not so much what would be the fairest thing for all involved, nor even what would best serve the interests of the company. My friend merely wanted to know what the law required. In this case it may be somewhat unenlightened.

Thank you everyone for your fine help.

I've seen that as well. My question is whether or not a written warning MUST be given "for cause" after the probation period. I believe it is good practice, but is it legally mandated?

If an employer wants to terminate an employee before his contract expires, is it necessary to give the employee written warning first? For example, if the employee isn't functioning up to expectations/hopes, can the employer just can him at will, or does he have to tell the employee what the deficiencies are and give the employee a chance to fix the problem before he is actually dismissed?

Once all the papers have been submitted for citizenship on the basis of marriage to a Thai and support of (one's own) Thai children, what is the expected waiting time before approval? Is it reasonable to spend part of that time out of the country, or would that harm your chances of approval?

Thanks.