sysardman

Burma still wants US$, not Thai Baht!

The visa runners want the 500 Baht, but (have to) pay in US$, anyway.

Your post is confusing - why would you want to pay 500Bt when paying 10$ is only like paying 300Baht - as I said if you try asking the Myanmar Immigration guys they will say Baht because it's more money for them. Just put the 10$ in your passport, don't say a word and in my case the money went in their drawer, no fuss and I was 200Bt richer than paying 500Bt.

If you're still not sure I've got a wad of crisp 10$ bills I'll readily swap for your 500Bt notes

Confusing? Maybe.

Visarunners = Companies offering visa trips and asking for the fee in Thaibaht in a 'good rate'.

Never got ask from officials, to hand over Thai Baht. In the office, US$ is the only thing that is officially accepted. And I never try to make officers bend the rules.

I can remember, the one time, over 10 years ago, I checked on Mike Bike's visa service, Chalong Phuket;

Visarun 999 Baht only, cheapest in Phuket, plus visafee.

Ok, I have here the 5 US$, crisp (That time 5 US fee, at a rate ~40 Baht = 200 Baht).

Can't accept you US$, we have to pay in big bills, you have to buy the 5 US from us, good rate, 300 Baht! If not, you can't come with us.

Thank you, bye bye. (He probably forgot, I haven't paid the 999, that time)

I like it, to get scammed in Thailand by non Thais

Thanks for clarifying visa runners as opposed to Visarunners, now I understand. The moral here is to kick these scam visarunner companies in to touch. I bet they take all your 500Bt notes and then pay the immigration 10$ notes behind the scenes. I now take the Green bus to Mae Sai, pay the Myanmar in USD and in total the whole trip costs me (with a meal) about 550Bt as opposed to 1000Bt plus that I used to have to pay the minibus companies. The trip is more comfortable than the minibus, it takes the same time (minibus always takes an hour to pick up and drop customers and are cramped and stuffy).

As for the Myanmar Immigration, I made the mistake because I'd seen it on Thaivisa that they were only taking 500Bt so I asked, was firmly told 500Bt and that was what I paid, then I saw a guy hand 10$ over while I was having my mug shot processed and realised that I'd been a mug. Don't listen to gossip on TV and just give 10$ without asking questions.

Burma still wants US$, not Thai Baht!

The visa runners want the 500 Baht, but (have to) pay in US$, anyway.

Your post is confusing - why would you want to pay 500Bt when paying 10$ is only like paying 300Baht - as I said if you try asking the Myanmar Immigration guys they will say Baht because it's more money for them. Just put the 10$ in your passport, don't say a word and in my case the money went in their drawer, no fuss and I was 200Bt richer than paying 500Bt.

If you're still not sure I've got a wad of crisp 10$ bills I'll readily swap for your 500Bt notes

So Seh Daeng shot himself then?

No, he was rightfully taken out.

So you support extrajudicial shooting? makes you one of the animals too

I support animals to be shot when they show symptoms of rabies

Watch it you're foaming at the mouth

Burma still wants US$, not Thai Baht!

The visa runners want the 500 Baht, but (have to) pay in US$, anyway.

Just did a visa run a couple of weeks ago and this time I put the 10$ in my passport and handed it over. If you try to ask them like I did last time they bluff you into paying 500Baht and obviously not in a position to argue you feel obliged to pay the larger amount. So moral is don't ask just give

So if all these highly trained snipers were deployed, why didn't they use them to pick off the hate-mongers inciting violence from the stage?

So Seh Daeng shot himself then?

Well to me these people are just as bad as the people in the illicit drug trade and if I had my way it would be the death sentence for the lot of them. I can't understand why peoples attitude it so anti drugs and yet we tolerate scum buckets like these that ruin peoples lives by stealing their hard earned savings.

Death penalty or life in prison. Next?

So you're all for legalisation or did a politician tell you to say that.

Re Option 1, I am not up to date with the latest regulations, but setting up a company and employing four local Thais, will get you one work permit. There is a ratio of expat employees to Thai employees - and it is not generous. If the six of you are planning to live and work in Thailand, this option is not the answer.

Re Option 2 - you cannot apply for the B visa without a letter from your intended employer, including a copy of that employer's company registration certificate.

Option 3 - When I first came to Thailand 14 years ago, I met someone who had been working here, without a work permit, for three years. But that was also in the days of easy visa runs.

As Oldsalt did not actually address your 3rd option I will add my bit - a single entry Non O would only give you 90 days but there are many conditions attached to obtaining this visa (search other threads or check your local consulate). If you meet these conditions you can extend it a further 60 days - so either way you would fall short if you intend staying a year. If you were to meet Non O visa requirements then you would be better getting a 12 month multi entry to start with.

A non-O cannot be extended by another 60 days. A 60 day extension is only available to people married to a Thai or having a child with Thai nationality and can be given on any kind of entry.

I mentioned the 60 day because he states he has a 'Thai partner' but as he doesn't mention the actual relationship then I suggested he checks on visa requirements.

Yes, legally your only option is to set up a company. However, contrary to what the previous posters have mentioned, you may be able to avoid the issues with Thai/Farang ratio and investment capital.

The industry that you are in is one that Thailand actively wishes to develop so there is a good chance you are eligible for Board of Investment privileges which can reduce the total required capital to as little as 1 million baht and the ratio of Thais to foreigners to anything negotiable. The capital brought in can be working capital used to pay wages. You would definitely need to hire some Thais or show some contribution to Thailand.

Your first stop should be talking directly to the people at the BOI. You do NOT need to go through a lawyer.

My quick impression is that if you wanted to do multiple projects in Thailand over a few years and planned on hiring and training some locals, you would get what you need, but for a one-off project it would be much harder. That said, you can "sell" to the BOI on the basis of what you hope/expect to bring to Thailand, rather than what you have a 100% secured.

Don't be dissuaded by the naysayers!

That's good advice from CDB and not wanting to be a naysayer I would just ask are you and your friends actually professional animators? While CDB suggests the route of approaching the BOI, I would assume they would insist on some kind of evidence that you are what you say you are and would therefore be in a position to be contributing to Thailand. If you are legit then you would need to gather together documentation supporting your claim and you would need to do a lot more research which you seem to have not done by some of your questions.

Re Option 1, I am not up to date with the latest regulations, but setting up a company and employing four local Thais, will get you one work permit. There is a ratio of expat employees to Thai employees - and it is not generous. If the six of you are planning to live and work in Thailand, this option is not the answer.

Re Option 2 - you cannot apply for the B visa without a letter from your intended employer, including a copy of that employer's company registration certificate.

Option 3 - When I first came to Thailand 14 years ago, I met someone who had been working here, without a work permit, for three years. But that was also in the days of easy visa runs.

As Oldsalt did not actually address your 3rd option I will add my bit - a single entry Non O would only give you 90 days but there are many conditions attached to obtaining this visa (search other threads or check your local consulate). If you meet these conditions you can extend it a further 60 days - so either way you would fall short if you intend staying a year. If you were to meet Non O visa requirements then you would be better getting a 12 month multi entry to start with.

No negative judgement from me regardless if escaping or altering one's reality but will say there isn't anybody who doesn't escape be it through drugs or something else. Just have to be sure to return when needed.

There is very little correlation between legal status of drugs and their level of harmfulness. It is fallacious to categorize all drugs into one "bad" category; each drug is unique and so should be considered individually. Crystal methamphetamine ("ice") is quite harmful from what I've researched, so I am not at all an advocate for it as I am for cannabis and MDMA. But I am against prohibition of drugs in general as many other problems have arisen from it. Education with factual information is better, but unfounded propaganda has bred mistrust in authorities, so that mistrust may need to be repaired first. Once people know which drugs are extremely harmful and which aren't, they are likely to avoid the most harmful drugs and instead take the least harmful drugs (after legalization) if they so choose to take drugs. That would be much better than the situation that we have now - relatively harmless drugs prohibited leaving people little choice but to either comply with the law and take harmful drugs like alcohol and tobacco, or take the illegal route and be offered both harmful and relatively harmless drugs from the same dealer.

Just to add to the observations about harmful drugs, it's actually the governments attempts to prohibit the well know substances (cannabis, heroin, LSD, cocaine) that all these designer drugs have sprung up. Every time new legislation includes another drug then some enterprising person whips up a batch of some new drug to circumvent the law for a short period before that too is added to the growing list. The problem then is that these new drugs are unkown and therefore untested before they are pushed on to an eager market seeking a high. The Mr Bigs are not some shady guys on a street corner but businessmen who know how to market the stuff by giving them fancy names and also how to increase profits by cutting the drugs with bulking agents.

Just read the Brad Pitt (Yahoo News) article and I hope his endorsement doesn't fall on deaf ears

Anyone find rods less than 2.6mm,

1.6mm would be ideal.

You dont get a 1.6mm SMAW eletrode smallest two sizes are 2.5mm and 3.2 mm

You would have to be getting into GMAW or GTAW type wires for very small diameter

Just been reading these posts and am in the same position i.e needing 1.6mm coated arc welding rods. Was confused by Soutpeel, are you just saying cannot get in Thailand? back in England can walk in to any welding supplies and buy 1.6mm rods (even Halfords stock them). Anyway if anybody has sourced them in the Chiang Mai area would be grateful for info.

PS please don't say MIG, TIG, Gas etc, I'm just doing a small job and my neighbour has offered a small arc welder - beggars cannot be choosers

As it appears that 1.6mm welding rods are the proverbial 'rocking horse s**t' in Thailand, can anybody recommend a good sheet metal supplier in Chiang Mai that stocks 2.5mm or 3.00mm sheeting.

No negative judgement from me regardless if escaping or altering one's reality but will say there isn't anybody who doesn't escape be it through drugs or something else. Just have to be sure to return when needed.

Doing something enjoyable isn't necessarily escaping. Is engaging in sexual activity purely for pleasure "escaping"? Is eating tasty food "escaping"? What are people who drink alcohol at a wedding "escaping" from?

You are the only one attributing escaping as being something negative 100 percent of the time.

Hey you guys you've been putting over some great arguments so don't spoil it by bickering over a silly point. Escapism is a weird thing and differs with the individual, some people get a massive rush jumping out of a plane but for most people common sense prevails and your head says 'no way Im doing that' so they smoke a bit of weed instead

No negative judgement from me regardless if escaping or altering one's reality but will say there isn't anybody who doesn't escape be it through drugs or something else. Just have to be sure to return when needed.

There is very little correlation between legal status of drugs and their level of harmfulness. It is fallacious to categorize all drugs into one "bad" category; each drug is unique and so should be considered individually. Crystal methamphetamine ("ice") is quite harmful from what I've researched, so I am not at all an advocate for it as I am for cannabis and MDMA. But I am against prohibition of drugs in general as many other problems have arisen from it. Education with factual information is better, but unfounded propaganda has bred mistrust in authorities, so that mistrust may need to be repaired first. Once people know which drugs are extremely harmful and which aren't, they are likely to avoid the most harmful drugs and instead take the least harmful drugs (after legalization) if they so choose to take drugs. That would be much better than the situation that we have now - relatively harmless drugs prohibited leaving people little choice but to either comply with the law and take harmful drugs like alcohol and tobacco, or take the illegal route and be offered both harmful and relatively harmless drugs from the same dealer.

Just to add to the observations about harmful drugs, it's actually the governments attempts to prohibit the well know substances (cannabis, heroin, LSD, cocaine) that all these designer drugs have sprung up. Every time new legislation includes another drug then some enterprising person whips up a batch of some new drug to circumvent the law for a short period before that too is added to the growing list. The problem then is that these new drugs are unkown and therefore untested before they are pushed on to an eager market seeking a high. The Mr Bigs are not some shady guys on a street corner but businessmen who know how to market the stuff by giving them fancy names and also how to increase profits by cutting the drugs with bulking agents.

I deleted my Firefox only 2 days ago, had enough with browser crashing and not working properly.

The last update was when things started going wrong, well more wrong actually, always had trouble with it.

Had been trying many browsers and found slimboat but maxthon 3 is ok also. Unfortuantely have to keep IE as programs request it otherwise it would be gone also.

You should check your whole computer because my Firefox is very stable and I seldom have problems. Firefox (Mozilla, Netscape) have been going since the launch of the internet and with that is a massive amount of development and experience that not many of these new browsers can boast of.

McAfee has been around a long time as well, and it's now one of the worst, most bloated antivirus clients going.

McAfee isn't open source and therefore written by money motivated individuals who don't really care too much about their product so long as it pulls a few mugs bucks in.

Oh dear. The purpose of the 90 days check is so that the officers know where you live. You can get proof of domicile through various methods, you may wish to go into this, physical presence at immigration is not absolutely necessary.

You may also want to read my post again. Mate.

OK profuse and abject apologies for misreading your post the first time. I shall now shoot myself in the head for committing such a heinous crime.

Make it a good clean shot mate, don't want to end up bedridden and miss your 90 day reporting

I dont think they can give you a stamp, longer than your visa is valid.

Just for Fakenames information, if you have a Non Immigrant visa and leave a day or two days before it expires you will get another 90 days which makes your 12 month visa last for nearly 15 months.

IMHO, the best way to reduce drug-related crime, and drug-related deaths is to legalise drugs. I have reservations, but as long as there is demand (ie ALWAYS), we need the least damaging option.

Legalisation will allow better quality control and remove drugs from the hands of many criminal suppliers. This would (I hope) reduce or at very least stabilise cost to the users, and so in turn this would reduce the need for as much crime to fund users' habits. Naturally, governments would want their cut, via taxation, but then again, that would help support the spiralling costs to the nation of care for users.

OK.... bring on the flames.... I did not say this wasa perfect scheme, but we have an evil out there that we cannot beat, so the only option is to bring it in from the cold and try to minimise the damage caused.

£0.02

You were doing well until the evil part It's only in the minds of the terminally stupid that drugs are evil. Society is teeming to the brim with hypocrites. It's like the 'war on terror' - western governments are clawing hand over fist to sell WMDs to the east but then start crying terrorist when they use them. The same governments are covertly supporting and dealing in drugs but try to give us the 'what us' answers when questioned. I for one think I should have the freedom to choose what I put in my body and that should mean it shoukd have passed some sort of quality testing to make sure that what I paid for is what I get - same as any consumer product.

Weaknesses in someone's argument are always highlighted when they have to resort to abuse. I resent your comment about terminally stupid, but beyond that, I am not going to react, and certainly not enter into a petty, childish slanging match. Nor do I see the direct benefit of diverting into WMD and terrorism if there is a line of argument to follow.

I have worked with young people all of my life and have seen far too many young lives blighted by drugs directly and/or indirectly. Sometimes this was due to the youngsters deciding to take drugs, but also it was due to young people being denied a childhood because their parents were addicts. Denying kids their childhood IS evil, and nothing you say, no insult you try to dream up will ever make me change my mind, based on 40 years of working with young people.

I have no issue with your comments about personal choice, and I think you would have seen this had you considered my post a bit more carefully. legalising drugs would put them on a par with other available drugs - tobacco and alcohol. We all have free choices there already. The big advantage in the case of my argument (and yours at least in your final sentence when you started to make sense), would be that one would KNOW what one wasputting in one's body, whereas at present, who can tell what has been used to pad out a deal? Some of the kids to whom I have alluded would probably still have parents alive if the drugs they had taken were certified and so not be in foster care somewhere. Some of those kids would not be living secret lives caring for addict parents. Some of those kids would still be alive. Further, there would be a lot less people whose lives had been blighted by being the victims of crime of various sort to fund the high-priced habit of buying illegal drugs.

Do NOT tell me that the effect of these impure (illegal) drugs, the greed of the traffickers and the crime generated to fund drug habits is not evil, because it is. We cannot beat drugs - I am not so sure I want to, but we can mitigate the worst of their effects to some extent.

Well the point I'm making (and I think you are trying to make it too) is that drugs (and guns) are not evil in themselves, it's the evil in people that try to manipulate and control society through use of drug laws or gun laws. Peoples lives are not ruined by the actual drugs but by the consequences imposed by laws that seek to make drug users criminals. I mentioned in a previous post that a friend of mine was a heroin addict and was one of the nicest people you could have met but he committed suicide because of constant police harrassment. Evil is in peoples minds and not inanimate objects. My comments about 'war on drugs' and 'war on terror' are that hypocrites in our western governments try to control guns and drugs at home but will sell both to other countries.

IMHO, the best way to reduce drug-related crime, and drug-related deaths is to legalise drugs. I have reservations, but as long as there is demand (ie ALWAYS), we need the least damaging option.

Legalisation will allow better quality control and remove drugs from the hands of many criminal suppliers. This would (I hope) reduce or at very least stabilise cost to the users, and so in turn this would reduce the need for as much crime to fund users' habits. Naturally, governments would want their cut, via taxation, but then again, that would help support the spiralling costs to the nation of care for users.

OK.... bring on the flames.... I did not say this wasa perfect scheme, but we have an evil out there that we cannot beat, so the only option is to bring it in from the cold and try to minimise the damage caused.

£0.02

You were doing well until the evil part It's only in the minds of the terminally stupid that drugs are evil. Society is teeming to the brim with hypocrites. It's like the 'war on terror' - western governments are clawing hand over fist to sell WMDs to the east but then start crying terrorist when they use them. The same governments are covertly supporting and dealing in drugs but try to give us the 'what us' answers when questioned. I for one think I should have the freedom to choose what I put in my body and that should mean it shoukd have passed some sort of quality testing to make sure that what I paid for is what I get - same as any consumer product.

If someone is old, bedridden and doesn't have 800K any more, then medical extensions are an option. Also, frankly, sometimes people in this condition just go on "permanent overstay" provided they remain under the radar. Immigration isn't out beating the bushes looking to deport someone in this condition.

Very well said Nancy.

Yeah live dangerously, I think anybody that's in that condition couldn't give two flying f**ks anyway.

Never lie about occupations. I did so once on a hotel registration form in Malasia win my young days and that afternoon had a knock on the door from the receptionist and her brother who were bearing gifts and were pleased to meet somone who had the same occupation as he had.

Well at least you made new friends

I deleted my Firefox only 2 days ago, had enough with browser crashing and not working properly.

The last update was when things started going wrong, well more wrong actually, always had trouble with it.

Had been trying many browsers and found slimboat but maxthon 3 is ok also. Unfortuantely have to keep IE as programs request it otherwise it would be gone also.

You should check your whole computer because my Firefox is very stable and I seldom have problems. Firefox (Mozilla, Netscape) have been going since the launch of the internet and with that is a massive amount of development and experience that not many of these new browsers can boast of.

Legalise drugs like yaa baa or yaa ice and watch the violent crime rate skyrocket.

Suggesting these kinds of chemicals are freely available to people with an average IQ in the 80s?

Really? Are you mad?

Legalizing drugs does not automatically make them freely available, just as alcohol, even though it is legal, is not freely available to children. Similarly, legal narcotics like hydrocodone are not freely available as a doctor's prescription is required. Legalization and then regulation is much better than prohibition and no regulation.

Anyway, I think legalization of currently illegal recreational drugs should start with the less harmful drugs like cannabis. In California cannabis can be legally bought in many shops.

Thank you @hyperdimension for the voice of reason

People can argue about stamping out drugs till they are blue in the face, the fact is they will never go away and if people think the current situation of leaving the control of drugs to gangsters is OK then it's them that's mad. Traces of drugs have been found in Egyptian mummies so it's not a new phenomenon. Prohibition on the other hand is recently new and is used by politicians for controlling the masses and was started to deter workers becoming lazy through drug use. If you read about the Anglo-Chinese opium wars you will find that the British government were very active in the opium trade and had no qualms about selling it to anybody who wanted to buy (and this was only just over a hundred years ago). If we are now declaring ourselves as a civilised, enlightened society then we should also start to review our thinking about drugs. To insist that alcohol should be everybody's choice of recreational drug is narrow minded to say the least. Many of what we call artistic masterpieces were created by people taking mind altering substances and yet we always focus on the negative usually because somebody has had a bad reaction to dodgy substances.