thaiwanderer

That's just what I meant, it all seems to have gone very well for him. Maybe he had a plan B arranged if anything went wrong in Phuket, which indeed it did.

It can't be easy to get out of any country under these circumstances, even on a second passport. You would have thought that the passports would have been linked through the immigration system.

Cheers, Rick

My understanding is he left through a non-computerised border.

I think you are giving him too much credit for having an escape plan before the alleged incident.

^prob would be a different case if it was a murder of a thai national.

It would have been very different if it involve Thai national. This guy is not stupid and he knew that if he could get back to the UK that he had a fair chance of getting off with it. Pre meditated escape as well as it seems the murder. allegedly.

cheers rick

Not sure I get your meaning, do you mean as opposed to an unintentional or accidental escape?

As for Thai efforts to have him extradited, he said, "It depends on the charge, the evidence presented and the documents being filed… There is an extradition treaty in force, but they [the Thai authorities] have to provide the evidence."

Pfft! What does Ambassador Quayle think the charge is? Possibly premeditated murder? Great answer Mr. Quayle...

Yeah, answers like that really inspire confidence.

What do people expect from a diplomat (rather than for example someone making unsubstantiated axe grinding posts on an internet forum)?

His answer is entirely apt and correct in the circumstances and it's not at all his place to 'inspire confiidence' other than in due process being followed.

Presumably the extradition will not fail due to RTP dropping the ball.......

All is needed to extradite him is enough evidence to convince a court there is a case against him. And that is there without a doubt.

Hopefully correctly collated and preserved by RTP, i think i can still hear the flapping from when they realised they may have to justify an extradition.

in the lease agreement as registered in land title, it can be stated whenever lessee want to transfer rights according to lease, a new agreement is to be issued/registered valid for 30 years

Sure it can be in the lease agreement.. But a lease agreement can say anything, doesnt means its truly enforceable..

For all these things you need cooperation of the lease holder.. If they decide to just vanish on you, cant make it happen without them.

civil court less than 6 months if no co op. simple case, and they will probably not even show up cause guaranteed outcome

how many times have you successfully enforced such a clause at court?

in the lease agreement as registered in land title, it can be stated whenever lessee want to transfer rights according to lease, a new agreement is to be issued/registered valid for 30 years

you can say many things in a lease without them having any legal basis or being at all enforceable

It will be very, very interesting in a few years time when these "30 year land leases" to farang are up. No one knows what will happen. An "option" for another 30 years, to my knowledge, has not been tested in a Thai Court. My understanding is "the clause on the contract" is not recognised at Thai Law and, therefore, can be "voided."

In any case, what's stopping the Thai Landlord from saying, "The lease on the land is now going to be 2 million baht for the next 30 years." In order to sell your property, you would have to discount that amount off the sale price and the Thai Landord cleans up. It will be very hard to sell when that time comes that sees a lot of these 30 years land leases coming up, due to the boom on Phuket some years ago.

Of course, the landlord may just put a crazy price on the land lease just because he wants to retain the house, that sits on his land.

I think hiring bulldozers might be a good business in the future, on Phuket. :) :)

Actually the Phuket Land Office allows you to register one 30 year option to renew. But an 'option to renew' can only be an option if it is fixed at a certain price. An option to renew at the owners discretion is not an option.

The underlying principal of a 30 + 30 lease may not have been fully tested under Thai Law but as it is given by the Crown Property on various properties one can probably assume it is legal. The real problem comes if the the option is granted by a 'person' who no longer is alive in which case his inheritors might claim no responsibility to honor the option which dies with him.

I do however find it difficult to imagine that a contract of 30 + 30 given by the Crown will not be respected under the legal system although the legal system might deem the Crown to be fallible.

the 'registration' of the lease document that contains such an option does not amount to a registration of the 2nd 30 year period

that requires the co-operation of the freeholder in 30 years time and if no longer the original lessor is not enforceable and even if it is the original lessor you woulkd need to take legal action to force a renewal (if they aren't co-operating) and that opens its own problems which aren't necessarily defeated by pre-payment 30 years in the past

It will be very, very interesting in a few years time when these "30 year land leases" to farang are up. No one knows what will happen. An "option" for another 30 years, to my knowledge, has not been tested in a Thai Court. My understanding is "the clause on the contract" is not recognised at Thai Law and, therefore, can be "voided."

In any case, what's stopping the Thai Landlord from saying, "The lease on the land is now going to be 2 million baht for the next 30 years." In order to sell your property, you would have to discount that amount off the sale price and the Thai Landord cleans up. It will be very hard to sell when that time comes that sees a lot of these 30 years land leases coming up, due to the boom on Phuket some years ago.

Of course, the landlord may just put a crazy price on the land lease just because he wants to retain the house, that sits on his land.

I think hiring bulldozers might be a good business in the future, on Phuket. :) :)

Of course there are timebombs around but there are also farang lesees who also happen to effectively be the lessor (which of course brings it's own problems and depending on the precise sturucture may have varying strength).

I suspect many of those leases that rely on a lessor at arms length co-operating on renewal relate to land that's the lessee will have had their value out of by the end of 30 years and if not they only have themselves to blame.

On first read I hadn't actually realised this was from Property Report.

The author is: 'Jay Walker is sales and marketing manager at The Village Coconut Island Resort.'

yet his missive seems in conflict with the Village website claim 'Enjoy year-on-year capital appreciation as well as annual rental returns of up to 12.6%.'

Unless of course its all part of differentiating the Village's 'unique' position or some such claims?

Well there's certainly an insufficient supply of reasonably priced property that people actually want

- but that's more to do with unreasonable expectations of potential buyers. ('I want west coast but I can't afford it').

Do sellers have unreasonable expectations?

No more than they ever did (I can 'sell' that and get it back lease in 30 years (if not before) for how much???).

The rate of arrival of bubble headed investors /dream chasers has slowed but they do still come.

I'm a little uncertain as to the OP's suggestion that 'we all' want the property market to get back to what it was while at the same time bemoaning the bubble continuing despite the lack of buyers?

In any case I view it more as pyramid selling and don't see any problem with it unless the OP is someone who overextended themselves in purchasing and is now having trouble offloading or missed the boat and now cannot afford to buy what they want.

The only other people who may feel disgruntled about the rate of sales slowing is real estate agents but I cannot shed a tear for them.

So, we can look forward to the Phuket Gazette no longer accepting advertising revenue or running 'stories' promoting anything which degrades the natural environment?

Also it seems a little strange to talk about preserving that environment so as not to doisappoint millions of tourists.

The OP moaning about snootiness is hardly 'live and let live'.

So....by your logic, someone that complains about bigotry is a bigot?

Flawed logic methinks.........

No, that's not the same.

I'm unsure why you've started a thread asking for examples to confirm your own conclusion.

The root cause seems to be your own insecurities.

Why should any section of Phuket society be viewed as 'snooty' or whatever because they do not actively seek to associate with others within that arbritarily chosen group?

'Expats' is a very wide group. How many Burmese are regular social vistors to your house?

The OP moaning about snootiness is hardly 'live and let live'.

I hope those who have posted their 'opinions' irresponsibly in such a way as to state outright that he did certain things are satisfied now that they have contributed to the potential failing of extradition proceedings and successful prosecution. *

(* this should in now way be misinterpreted as a discussion of TV's sterling moderation).

Hopefully those who posted in the other connected threads unsubstantiated 'facts' about him and Thai Visa's owners for publishing them might now consider what affect these posts may have if he wishes to resist extradition on the basis that a fair trial is unlikely.

How are the bald fact suggestions of drug dealing, involvement with mafia and murder not speculative?

Probably because it is a forum where people express their views.

That's fine if it is expressed clearly and carefully eg. 'based on what I've read / heard etc I think he did / didn't do it' (though that would of course just highlight they aren't really saying anything).

Based on your posts you seem to highly doubt Lee did this. You have a right to you opinion as do other board members.

I am a firm believer in "innocent until proven guilty" and I would like to see him in a come forward to answer the questions that the police have.

However I think you are not seeing what I would think are considered facts:

• They had a fight at the freedom bar. (no one seems to dispute this)

• Lee stole the knives from 7-11 and his girlfriend tried to stop him. (no one has said they were misidentified in the cctv)

• The victim was found dead at HIS bungalow.

• Lee fled.

Are you a personal friend of Lee or do you have any facts that something other than this happened?

Do you think the police set him up?

I have not suggested one way or the other whether i think he did it or not.

Others are suggesting outright that he did it but without making it absolutely clear that what they are saying is only their opinion based on allegations others have made which are yet to be tested since it is an ongoing investigation at the moment.

As such there are no 'considered facts' at all at the moment.

Talking about those allegations, expressing opinions and postulating what might have happened is all well and good but that is quite something else from saying he murdered him.

Probably because it is a forum where people express their views.

That's fine if it is expressed clearly and carefully eg. 'based on what I've read / heard etc I think he did / didn't do it' (though that would of course just highlight they aren't really saying anything).

What you need to be clear of mmh8 is there were witnesses that saw the guy kill.

All the other stuff is rubbish, I agree. Including the ring fight video, who cares.......

He's a twit of a Brit who couldn't handle his booze or his anger, especially when a better man knocked his a*s down. So he sneaks up and murders.

Complete coward and will get what he deserves.

Why is Thai Visa allowing on this thread and the other one the publication of unsubstantiated 'facts'?

From speaking to other people in freedom and his mates, Lee made some smart ass comment to him, he made a smart comment back and it kicked off. He was getting the better of Lee before it was broken up. I have heard different things of what happened next so i won't speculate. Lee did get the knife from 7/11 and did stab him at his home infront of his g/f and fled the scene shortly afterwards. These are facts all witnessed. People who are trying to say its bullshit or that its all specualtion are just not well informed and are trying to suggest there must be more to it.

You are speculating based on hearsay.

other countries? okay one example of many - England. However as can be gleaned from my posts on this topic I'm not at all suggesting that makes it okay here.

That the OP even needs to ask suggests fingers are going to burnt along the way.

My last comment queried whether the OP was going to try and secure his/her investment in an illegal way in which case criticising the dirty hands of others is a bit rich.

Not sure what your query is regarding 'at the very least' (or generally why you have such an attitude?)

And no I'm not a real estate agent or similar.

As to spoiling the island can we assume you were born in Phuket and your family have farmed the land for generations?

Lawyers can and frequently do openly and perfectly legally and properly act on both sides of property transactions in many countries outside of Thailand.

Protections from abuse vary but mixing it with estate agency business heightens the potential for conflict.

In relation to Phuket the same protections aren't available and even if any connection or favouritsim to a developer or seller is explicity denied - its a small island.

However at the very least assistance of a local lawyer (whether local 'international' or local thai) will in part be needed to enable an accurate due dilligence and depending on your intended structure greasing the right wheels.

Given the OP's distaste at certain local practices can we assume he/she is looking at buying only in a 100% straight way?

Well as far as I can see they don't even have any offices outside of Phuket let alone in any other country?

I can't see that they are explicitly estate agents as well but if that's what it says somewhere and you are ill at ease with that then I think you've answered your own concerns.

Speaking generally I imagine you may be more comfortable dealing with a firm that doesn'topenly have a potential conflict as you see it (although the reverse might be true if chinese walls are involved - i doubt it generally in Phuket).

However even where no direct kickback even if hidden its a small island and many aren't keen to rock boats.

I suspect the answer in this case (although not always the sole crierium with any lawyer) might be to dig a little deeper in your pockets for at least the illusion of the service you want.

You now (rather than entering the contract?????) find out the Thai version has precedenece and says something different than the English version.

On the basis of what you've said I'm afraid its entirely your own fault and I don't see where at all a 'scam' comes into it?

Had not somebody suggested it was a training exercise would the paranoia have continued to grow like the 'hollywood murders' (-have we decided how many were masacred inn that atrocity yet?).

Actually surprised tin foil hats satisfied by training exercise suggestion given its far easier to hide deaths of Burmese?