Kitsch22

"Doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different outcome" is a symptom of something.

Religion?

Believe it or not there is a respectable and valid reason why Thai restaurant owners use this kind of profiling to predict what their farang customers will want. Disappointing though you may find it, they do not do it with the express purpose to cheat and offend you.

But it's okay, is it not? It should work out well for you. If you patronise only those restaurants that treat you as though you were a Thai, you will be spared the ordeal of mixing with those horrible hoi polloi farang who do not really know what they want. A true win-win situation.

I never said their intention was cheating or offending. Rather clearly the intention is CYA (to avoid complaints from people who can't eat the food as served), and to be polite, because they think they are doing us a favor. The intention and the RESULT are not the same thing. Look at the poll results. Again, this "treat you as Thai" is a red herring of your own construction. I just don't appreciate racial profiling at restaurants, and again, look at the poll results, I am not alone. So for the sake of a false stereotype based on a minority including you, the rest of us should be forced to often waste our money on substandard food? Shouldn't it be your spice phobic lot who should have to ask explicitly NOT SPICY and let the rest of us get the same food as the cooks would normally cook? Treat you as Thai, give me a break. Here we are in THAILAND, going to a THAI restaurant, wouldn't the baseline expectation that we are going to actually get THAI food? I am not asking to be inducted into the Thai military or to be undergo a monk's session, just looking for Thai food in Thailand. And according to you, that is unreasonable. No, it is not.

Now you say that you don't want to be treated as though a Thai - in that case what did you mean when you said you wanted: "the real deal food even when I clearly ask for it in Thai"? If they must not treat you as a farang nor as a Thai, how on earth are they to know just what 'the real deal' is supposed to be?

You feel cheated by honest attempts to help you and offended because someone takes an informed guess at what your tastes might possibly be. May we take it in similar vein that you regard the refuse collectors as having robbed you when they call?

The level of support that you have received here in TV is perhaps the most compelling proof possible that you are indeed whingeing about all of this. In fact I would say that you have shown yourself to be an exceptionally gifted and assiduous whinger in a very strong field. There is no need for you to feel ashamed about it. Acknowledge what you are. Come out and rejoice in it!

Most contributors here are referring simply to the number of prik khii nuu to be found in their dish.

Nope, there is more to cooking food Thai style than throwing in a bunch of prik ki nu although of course I like that when it fits with the specific dish.

I am not interested with arguing with people who think we don't have a right to complain about certain things here. I don't care if you call it whining, that kind of talk just stifles free speech.

For me, I am grateful if a Thai makes allowances for the fact that I am farang. If I want him to pretend that I am not, then I tell him so.

What does your race have to do with your palate? People that live here and many that visit love actual Thai food exactly as Thai people eat it. Sure its OK to change it IF we ask for it. If we don't and the food is changed based on race, the intention may be polite (probably more CYA) but the result is anything but polite.

Another point, the naive tourists who really don't know. Say they take a trip here and are never exposed to real Thai food in Thailand. Perhaps they would have loved it. I feel such "protection" of people actually cheats them of the experience they traveled around the world for. Yes, many don't want the real thing, but many don't even know what they don't want, they might like it if exposed to it.

BTW, I don't like all Thai food. I don't like insects, pork blood in soup, rats, fermented fish paste for som tam, and black crab for som tam. I simply avoid those dishes.

For some reason the TV software will not allow me to respond individually to your separate paragraphs so I must put it all together here.

Your right to free speech is exactly the same as mine. You are free to whinge and I am free to observe that you are whingeing and that the whinge is in my view unjustified and disproportionate. And of course you are equally free to decide to converse only with people who share your views. A tedious position, to be sure, but yes, you are free to choose it.

The sensitivity of my palate is very largely a product of my culture and upbringing which features are, of course, for me like most others closely related to my ethnic origin. Believe it or not there is a respectable and valid reason why Thai restaurant owners use this kind of profiling to predict what their farang customers will want. Disappointing though you may find it, they do not do it with the express purpose to cheat and offend you.

But it's okay, is it not? It should work out well for you. If you patronise only those restaurants that treat you as though you were a Thai, you will be spared the ordeal of mixing with those horrible hoi polloi farang who do not really know what they want. A true win-win situation.

We need a poll here.

Has anyone ever gone to the village with his girl and met a father who wasn't a drunken layabout ?

I really miss my late FIL. During the 16 years throughout which I was privileged to know him before his death a few years ago I never once saw him seriously affected by drink (even on the occasion of my wedding to his daughter). By a lifetime of hard work but without the advantage of literacy he managed to raise a family of nine children and leave to each of them sufficient land to ensure an adequate start in life. He sold us (very cheaply) the land where we built our house. During his last few years of life we spent a bit of cash looking after him (no more than a few hundred thousand Baht in total) and in return my wife received the land share which would otherwise have been the portion of her elder brother who predeceased the father. I am proud to have his picture adorn the walls of our homes both in Thailand and in UK.

I am afraid that this is a whinge for the sake of whingeing if ever I saw one.......

Didn't appear to be a whinge to me, just a question.

Not a whinge?

"I find it offensive for assumptions to be made about my food tastes based on being a farang only. In other words, while trying to help us out, for many of us, we are actually being cheated, not giving us the food we ordered and are expected to pay for."

"Offensive" ... "Cheated" - If that is not a whinge, then what is?

For me, I am grateful if a Thai makes allowances for the fact that I am farang. If I want him to pretend that I am not, then I tell him so.

OP clearly stated he thought restaurants were trying to 'lessen the impact' of their food as they want people to enjoy it.

For me, I enjoy hot spicy food from all different parts of the world (Caribbean, southern India etc.) and Thai.

Someone previously mentioned that the same dishes are prepared differently in different restaurants, I think that's a good thing, shows the individual chef's particular 'take' on the dish. I enjoy trying the same thing in different places.

Usually, when ordering, Thai people I'm eating with 'have a word' explaining that I like Thai food prepared as it would be for Thai people.

But do you really mean that? You want the bones and fat and gristle that a Thai would regard as normal? Most contributors here are referring simply to the number of prik khii nuu to be found in their dish.

But no, I wouldn't like them to assume I wanted a 'farang version'. I can imagine a similar English version of the same ....roast beef and yorkshire pudding with fish sauce and 15 chillies!

I do agree I think they may be genuinely worried that we can't eat it or won't like it if it's too spicy but I tend to pre-empt by making sure they know I want the real deal, even if it does set my mouth on fire!

Then that is entirely reasonable - you tell them what you want and you accept the consequences.

I am afraid that this is a whinge for the sake of whingeing if ever I saw one.

I don't appreciate personal attacks from posters just because they don't approve of the topic and think the Thais are always right,

JT, don't be so fragile - judging by the poll the majority agree with what you say, and I agree with it as well. It's not being difficult to request the food to be cooked the way it is supposed to be, rather than getting some ballsed up version of what they assume you might eat. I like the spicy food, and I often have to request it, otherwise I know I'll get some bland version that I don't like.

My post was not intended to be a personal attack on JT; it was an attack on what he was saying. Which was that there is something wrong in tourist restaurants serving up tourist dishes as standard. I am very sorry if I have hurt his feelings.

And I do not find myself overwhelmed with surprise that a whinge receives wide support here. This is TV, after all.

I have experienced little in the way of real problems ordering food in any place where I speak the language. If I am a regular, they will know what I want. If not, then I tell them exactly what I want and get the waiter to repeat it back by way of confirmation. Sure, it only works perhaps 80% of the time, but that is the same in UK, the States and most of Europe as well as Thailand.

I am afraid that this is a whinge for the sake of whingeing if ever I saw one. You are complaining because a subset of restaurant owners in Thailand makes an attempt to cater to the tastes of their target clientele. There is no "irony" here; it is purely a matter of commercial common sense. At a guess I would say that the average proprietor would not give a hoot about the few unusual Western customers desiring a culinary style which, if adopted generally by the establishment, would have the mainstream farang holidaymakers staying away in droves.

Do you really want all your meat on the bone and without the gristle and integument removed, pepped up with a sprinkling of mixed offal?

As an expat, you should have no trouble in avoiding tourist restaurants if you want to avoid tourist restaurants. Or just tell them what you really want when ordering. Even if you find yourself in a location with which you are not personally familiar, just check the menu; if it is all in Thai script with no trace of English then you can be pretty sure that you will get authentic Thai food and that the sighting your big farang nose will not result in automatic bowdlerisation.

As to your strawman analogy of a pizza parlour in the States, I would say: "First show me an American pizza parlour that has its menu written in Thai as well as English."

Prohibition in action...

Yes, they still don't get it, do they...

Get what? Freedom of choice? No, generally they do not get much. And when they do get a choice they are frequently robbed of its outcome. Sometimes by a coup; sometimes by a band of Health Gestapo. Plus ca change ...

To Ian and others considering leaving ThaiVisa...there's more to 'the naughty schoolboy' than meets the eye. He couldn't keep his own promise. The Google ads will go. TVisa carries on.

Back on topic.....

I am, relatively, a newbie and may have missed something but I am still struggling to identify the rule which he has broken. What is it that I must do (or not do) in order to avoid extermination?

Gin khao loo yung? I'm trying to find the meaning and Thai spelling of loo yung. I get asked this often, I think they are asking if I have eaten already. What is the correct answer to this for "yes" and "no"?

I am pretty sure that you are referring to:

กินข้าวแล้วหรือยัง

which transcribes as: kin khao laew reu yang (have you eaten already or not yet?); it is a standard informal greeting encountered in the North and elsewhere.

I live on a dead end soi on the edge of a moo bahn in Bangkok. When I want to park my car in my driveway I pull up and reverse it in, but now I cannot do this because of the two old women living in the house oposite me have blocked there front with a large plant on a concrete pot.

They have placed this plant there to be awkward just because they fell out with my wife. The reason they fell out is because we heard from other people on our soi that these two women have been saying nasty things about my wife and her family who stay with us. Not sure what they were saying and I couldn't care less.

We were all friends at first but then we heard what they were saying and we just stopped speaking with them, I think my wife told them why we are no longer talking to them. And ever since they sold there car they have blocked this small area off with this plant. By the way, it is on the road and it's not there land. It's really anoying as now I have to do a ten point turn to get the car in. We have two cars and the other on is parked out the front of our house.

I have moved the pot only for them to put it further out in the middle of the soi. I am thinking of just smashing it up but I think that will just giveus more problems. Do you guys have any ideas that I could try?

Make a little juju doll, about four or five inches tall, out of bamboo, raffia, straw, a little hessian and rag cloth. Next find a dead jing-jok and attach it with fine wire to the doll, crucifix fashion. Then (at night) affix this creation to the top of the pot plant in the style of a Christmas tree fairy. Just wait and see what happens.

The pedants are discouraged in the Teaching Forum. We had a general rule against it before the entire forum did. English teachers should know that forum posts are informal.

Do you know and/or understand and/or endorse the rationale for that approach? These are public postings. When you contribute, you advertise yourself to the world. There is no "formal"/"informal" dichotomy.

Of course one recognizes that contributions manually and sometimes hurriedly typed may contain errors arising from hitting a key adjacent to that intended, omission of the occasional letter, accidental double letters and so forth. They represent little more than evidence that there has been inadequate proof-reading.

On the other hand, the plethora of greengrocers' apostrophes and abominations such as "I should of been" instead of "I should have been" are a disgrace in a teaching forum and where such an error is perpetrated by a supposed teacher of the English language it is, I am afraid, an indication of incompetence.

I recall a particular post which appeared in the Teaching in Thailand Forum, apparently put up by an English language teacher which contained the following gem: "I think that even the spelling nazi's can appreciate this." Having read it many times I am still uncertain whether to salute a brilliant use of irony or alternatively to breathe a sigh of despair mixed with sympathy for the poster's students.

"Most" threads do not end up that way but a few do. When I do it, the act is not so much "ripping" as the selfless performance of a valuable public service. It is akin to picking up and handing back an item of litter with a cheerful, "You seem to have dropped this." The way in which one's help is received often furnishes a window on the character of the recipent.

Very good point and well written. Do you by chance, teach or write yourself?

Thank you. Sadly, I lack the patience that is an essential quality in a good and effective teacher and a competent writer should show sufficient attention to detail that he would not allow a misspelling of "recipient" to appear in a public utterance.

There are very smooth ways of rapping someone's knuckles without calling them an arsehol_e.

Just so. The use of a touch of subtlety can make one appear to be a nicer person than one really is.

Why is it that most posts on Thaivisa seem to end up with members ripping into other posters about the poor standard writing and grammar?

"Most" threads do not end up that way but a few do. When I do it, the act is not so much "ripping" as the selfless performance of a valuable public service. It is akin to picking up and handing back an item of litter with a cheerful, "You seem to have dropped this." The way in which one's help is received often furnishes a window on the character of the recipent.

Do the ones who do the ripping have nothing better to do?

Of course we have something better to do. But some of us feel that we cannot ignore our public duty.

My English isn't perfect, I know that and do not need to be told.

True. But do you not recognise that you are an improved person once you know that that last comma of yours should have been a full stop or (better) a semicolon?

There are many non native English speakers here so maybe we should cut them some slack.

I think that we usually do. They probably value the free lesson. I love it when someone puts me right after I have made a mistake in my use of the Thai language. Those who object to being corrected tend to be those who know that they should know better.

There is no fraud involved in my allowing a third party to have possession and use of my ATM card.

Interesting that you are quite prepared to breach the terms of issue of a card but pontificate about about a practical solution to try and recover (possibly) lost money.

BREACH OF CONTRACT IS NEITHER CRIMINAL NOR DISHONEST NOR EVEN REPREHENSIBLE.

The relevant fraud in this part of this thread was a proposal by somebody claiming to be an ex-bank manager who seemed to think that it would be smart for the OP's wife to lie and say that the use of the card on the occasion of loss was by her personally, even though her lie in that regard would inevitably be detected.

Detected by what....... telepathy ?? :jerk:

BY THE LOCAL POLICE WHO APPEAR FROM THE OP TO BE AWARE THAT THE CARDHOLDER WAS IN UK

Note - One does not claim to be an ex-bank manager - factually, you either are, or you are not. In this case - I am.

YOU CERTAINLY MADE THE CLAIM WHICH MAY BE A LIE (FITS WHAT YOU HAVE SHOWN US OF YOURSELF) OR MAY BE TRUE, IN WHICH CASE CONGRATULATIONS ARE IN ORDER (TO YOUR FORMER EMPLOYER)

The Financial Services Ombudsman, while not mythical, does have a certain resemblance to Father Christmas if you are a complainant. In real terms you cannot lose. It costs you nothing to make your complaint but it costs the card issuer significant money to defend the complaint. You are not bound by the Ombudsman's decision if he finds against you whereas the card issuer is bound by the Ombudsman's decision if he finds against the card issuer. In this case the Ombudsman would only need to decide whether or not the ATM had actually paid out or not. If he reached the factual conclusion that the machine had not paid out then he would order the card issuer to re-credit the holder's account. If, on the other hand, he reached the factual conclusion that the machine had paid out then the complaint would fail, which would be fair enough in all the circumstances.

Dream on ! The vast majority of cases are left for the bank determine. In this case the bank say, for example. "No - SCB report that they have no 'difference' for that day". You think the Financial Ombudsman Service will overturn such a decision ?

IF THERE TRULY WAS NO DIFFERENCE FOR THE DAY THE COMPLAINANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER ANYTHING. ANY SOUND COMPLAINT MUST SHOW AT LEAST A PRIMA FACIE CASE THAT THE MONEY WAS NOT PAID OUT. IT BEGGARS BELIEF THAT A GENUINE EX-BANK MANAGER COULD BE SO IGNORANT OF THE MECHANICS OF THE FINANCIAL OMBUDSMAN SCHEME.

The OP's wife cannot complain to the Ombudsman unless she has first exhausted the internal complaints procedure of her card issuer. However, if the card issuer gives her no joy in response to a truthful and honest complaint and if she is sufficiently incensed over the loss of £300, then the Financial Services Ombudsman is surely the way to go.

You really do not get it, do you Kirtsch - a "truthful and honest compaint (sic)" will simply expose her to recognition of misuse of the card by breaching the terms of issue. This is more likely to result in a demand to close the account than achieve recovery of any ATM shortfall.

UNLIKELY AND NO BIG DEAL IF IT WERE TRUE. BUT I AM CONTENT TO LEAVE IT AT THAT AND LET THE EX-BANK MANAGER WHO ADVOCATES FRAUD TO HAVE THE LAST WORD.

Then would you also go along with him in saying that a fraudulent claim is the way to go for the OP's wife? And at the same time (given your past work experience) can you confirm the figure for the minimum expense to a bank (win or lose) in defending a complaint made to the offiice of the Financial Services Ombudsman? [Hint: that expense significantly exceeds three hundred pounds.]

Hey, "Poor taste" - who is this mythical "Financial Services Ombudsman" ?

Someone who has allowed the 'fraudulent' use of their card is unlikely to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service when a bank tells them to <deleted> off.

If you really want to inflate the bank's overheads (which the customer will ultimately pay for) then write to the bank's Chairman to complain about such decision and throw in poor service against a named employee AND possible racist comments against the Thai wife. That should get them running around and it is no less fanciful than you alluding to an ombudsman.

There is no fraud involved in my allowing a third party to have possession and use of my ATM card.

The relevant fraud in this part of this thread was a proposal by somebody claiming to be an ex-bank manager who seemed to think that it would be smart for the OP's wife to lie and say that the use of the card on the occasion of loss was by her personally, even though her lie in that regard would inevitably be detected.

The Financial Services Ombudsman, while not mythical, does have a certain resemblance to Father Christmas if you are a complainant. In real terms you cannot lose. It costs you nothing to make your complaint but it costs the card issuer significant money to defend the complaint. You are not bound by the Ombudsman's decision if he finds against you whereas the card issuer is bound by the Ombudsman's decision if he finds against the card issuer. In this case the Ombudsman would only need to decide whether or not the ATM had actually paid out or not. If he reached the factual conclusion that the machine had not paid out then he would order the card issuer to re-credit the holder's account. If, on the other hand, he reached the factual conclusion that the machine had paid out then the complaint would fail, which would be fair enough in all the circumstances.

The OP's wife cannot complain to the Ombudsman unless she has first exhausted the internal complaints procedure of her card issuer. However, if the card issuer gives her no joy in response to a truthful and honest complaint and if she is sufficiently incensed over the loss of £300, then the Financial Services Ombudsman is surely the way to go.

In summary, short of a pre-nuptial agreement (I had never heard of such things in the 1980's) it was the best way the wife and I could think of to secure & protect everything we had for the children, in case something was to happen to either or both of us before the kids were old enough to be "adults". So - no, the primary motive in our case was not against the background of possible divorce or dispute between ourselves down the line, and in that respect we have been very lucky, because a trust is a trust is a trust i.e. once something goes into trust it can be very difficult getting it out.

Structered and setup properly they are secure holding entities for assets and are recognised in Thai law. - and it's legal for a foreigner to be a trustee (thats the important bit).

Are you saying that section 1686 of the Civil Code has been repealed or amended? [That section essentially declares that trusts are void and of no effect under Thai law]

Nope it hasn't - its one matter quoting a rule/regulation - it's another matter understanding it in its proper/correct context (!?) You have very boldly quoted the law, but I'm not sure you understand what constitutes a "trust" in Thai law and the concepts in Thai law that determine legal ownership and beneficial ownership. It is complicated, it needs specialist advise and wording is all important when drawing up these arrangements, otherwise, yes - you may well find your doc's are not worth the paper they are written on.

I guess you must be right. Your definition: "A trust is a trust is a trust" is plainly right (according to the Bellman's theorem).

What I am struggling to understand is the part of section 1686 which you think can be circumvented: "Trust created whether directly or indirectly by will or by any juristic act producing effect during lifetime or after death shall have no effect whatever."

I can also confirm the above statement is true IMHO from Chaimai, especially as we are both ex-Bank Managers

Dave

Then would you also go along with him in saying that a fraudulent claim is the way to go for the OP's wife? And at the same time (given your past work experience) can you confirm the figure for the minimum expense to a bank (win or lose) in defending a complaint made to the offiice of the Financial Services Ombudsman? [Hint: that expense significantly exceeds three hundred pounds.]

I once experienced similar at SCB at Suvarnabhumi re 10,000 withdrawal.

SCB not helpful and said contact Nationwide. The transaction initially showed as 'blocked' on the day of the transaction but thankfully disappeared by day 3 and no debit ever appeared on the account.

I assume that your account is showing a physical withdrawal.

If this is the case, Dave the Dude is right - SCB CAN check their records (and would have to do if Nationwide instigated an 'enquiry'.

Two choices and in both cases your wife has to portray herself as being the person withdrawing the cash - if she is not prepared to do this then I would question the MIL loyalty.

In my 30 odd years in banking 99.9% of ATM withdrwal disputes involved someone in the family acting fraudulently. Not saying this is the case here but unless your wife wants to write-off 15,000 Baht she will have to do one of the following:-

1. Make the claim through Nationwide on the basis that SHE was at the ATM but returned to UK next day so could not challenge SCB. SCB will then have to check their ATM audit roll for that day (and may simply confirm that 15,000 was withdrawn at the appointed time).

2. Get your wife to phone the SCB branch and say that she is now back in UK but the ATM failed to give her money and she has only just noticed that her Nationwide account has been debited with 15,000 Baht. She will get a "Mai Roo" and "Mai Dai" but if she gets lucky in finding a helpful person they MAY just check for her. Thai to Thai works better.

No one will really want to take ownership of this. Nationwide should be best equipped to deal with but even they are puting obstacles in the way of doing business.

My conclusion is that SCB will just confirm (to your wife or Nationwide's enquiry) that 15,000 was withdrawn. So, either give it up now or give it try through Nationwide - you have nothing more to lose.

Good luck.

You have forgotten to include the rider: "If she follows my suggestion this may amount to an attempt by her to obtain money by deception, an offence carrying up to ten years' imprisonment upon conviction on indictment. She may wish to consider whether or not it is worth it for three hundred quid"

Kitsch22 - you sound like a right holier-than-thou prick !

The OP and his wife have been quite happy (like many others in Thailand) to breach Nationwide rules on the use of the Flex Account.

I was proposing the best practical solution for the attempted recovery of 15,000 Baht. If this involves a further white lie - so be it. So your advice would be "break the rules when you want to, but don't cry over spilt milk if something goes wrong".

Scaremongering phrases likes "10 years improsonment" and "upon indictment" have no place in this discussion. Get a life ! :jerk: - do you think banks have the time to investigate every petty transaction or query ?

In this case money has 'prima facie' gone missing from their account - they have every right to pursue this.

Not by telling lies or by equivalent dishonesty, they don't. The "white lie" to which you refer is otherwise known as "fraud". If you are going to incite someone (for which the inciter can cop the same penalty, by the way - do you think that TV would resist an order to reveal your identity?) to commit an offence that could carry serious consequences, then at least have the decency to warn them so that they may take an informed decision. Especially bearing in mind that the fraud you favoiur would be easy to detect and then impossible for the fraudster to deny.

And as "holier than thou" evidently means "more honest than thou" or at least "less criminal than thou" when talking to you, then I guess that I must accept that accolade.

My advice by the way would be to make a report that was 100% truthful and then press the claim hard (up to and including a complaint to the Financial Services Ombudsman if necessary) whereupon the complainant would have a good chance of getting her money back or failing that learning who really nicked the cash. All without any risk of having to discover at first hand the miserable state of the accommodation at Holloway Gaol.

I once experienced similar at SCB at Suvarnabhumi re 10,000 withdrawal.

SCB not helpful and said contact Nationwide. The transaction initially showed as 'blocked' on the day of the transaction but thankfully disappeared by day 3 and no debit ever appeared on the account.

I assume that your account is showing a physical withdrawal.

If this is the case, Dave the Dude is right - SCB CAN check their records (and would have to do if Nationwide instigated an 'enquiry'.

Two choices and in both cases your wife has to portray herself as being the person withdrawing the cash - if she is not prepared to do this then I would question the MIL loyalty.

In my 30 odd years in banking 99.9% of ATM withdrwal disputes involved someone in the family acting fraudulently. Not saying this is the case here but unless your wife wants to write-off 15,000 Baht she will have to do one of the following:-

1. Make the claim through Nationwide on the basis that SHE was at the ATM but returned to UK next day so could not challenge SCB. SCB will then have to check their ATM audit roll for that day (and may simply confirm that 15,000 was withdrawn at the appointed time).

2. Get your wife to phone the SCB branch and say that she is now back in UK but the ATM failed to give her money and she has only just noticed that her Nationwide account has been debited with 15,000 Baht. She will get a "Mai Roo" and "Mai Dai" but if she gets lucky in finding a helpful person they MAY just check for her. Thai to Thai works better.

No one will really want to take ownership of this. Nationwide should be best equipped to deal with but even they are puting obstacles in the way of doing business.

My conclusion is that SCB will just confirm (to your wife or Nationwide's enquiry) that 15,000 was withdrawn. So, either give it up now or give it try through Nationwide - you have nothing more to lose.

Good luck.

You have forgotten to include the rider: "If she follows my suggestion this may amount to an attempt by her to obtain money by deception, an offence carrying up to ten years' imprisonment upon conviction on indictment. She may wish to consider whether or not it is worth it for three hundred quid"

I think I should insist on the fact that she doesn't hold the title deed as it is in her husband's hand

Does that make any difference when she tries to sell?

The idea of having it in the kids name carries more merit than may originaly appear......... my (and the wifes' - and she is Thai) assets are secured in a similar way: in the name of a Thai registered company (so thats the Thai part of it), but the company shareholders are an overseas trust.

Here's the important bit (which gives "control") - I am a trustee of the trust - transactions the trust carries out need my consent.

So where do the kids come in? - they are the beneficiares of the trust - my daughter 50% and my son 50%.

How legal is all this? - 100%

Trust law in Thailand is in it's infancy, but the precidents have been set i.e. Thai courts do and will accept asset ownership structured through trusts as lawful and binding if all parties are in agreement For lack of a better way of putting it, you can get these sorts of agreements and "setups", ratified in a Thai court.

The average Thai lawyer (and this is not to say they're no good at their job, its just that its not soemthing many are familiar with, but its slowly slowly becoming more popular - since all the publcity around Thaksin and his asset structures) has little experience with. It needs a lawyer with experience or who is willing to go away and do all the homework.

The second point to keep in mind is that it took us close on a year to get it all set up (and this is going back now to the late 1980's - maybe a lot easier now, I don;t know). There was a lot of paperwork to do, lots of doc's that needed to be signed/counter signed/witnessed ect ect .... and not inconsiderable cost at the time. ... and a year later there was a whole bunch of things that had to be corrected and rewritten.

Collectively one has to ask themselves if its worth all the time/effort and cost involved, and I guess thats all about what the assets consist of, their value, the family, how far ahead is one wanting to plan for, what if you want to undo it all later .. and whatever else you may consider important.

In summary, short of a pre-nuptial agreement (I had never heard of such things in the 1980's) it was the best way the wife and I could think of to secure & protect everything we had for the children, in case something was to happen to either or both of us before the kids were old enough to be "adults". So - no, the primary motive in our case was not against the background of possible divorce or dispute between ourselves down the line, and in that respect we have been very lucky, because a trust is a trust is a trust i.e. once something goes into trust it can be very difficult getting it out.

Structered and setup properly they are secure holding entities for assets and are recognised in Thai law. - and it's legal for a foreigner to be a trustee (thats the important bit).

Are you saying that section 1686 of the Civil Code has been repealed or amended? [That section essentially declares that trusts are void and of no effect under Thai law]

Kitsch, that was humor and people watching Family Guy know they are going to be watching sometimes edgy humor. The ad we are talking about is very in your face with no humor to it and no softening with some kind of entertainment context. I am not offended as nothing surprises me anymore in Thailand but I do see bad taste when its stuck in my face. Think of all the Russian tourists here too, they don't exactly get warm and fuzzy feelings when seeing a welcome billboard like that.

I do not think that I disagree with anything you say (except possibly your perception that the Hitler advertisement contains no "humor"; the Thai concept of humour is so different from my own that I feel unqualified to judge what a Thai does or does not intend to be humourous. I do not believe that the legend "Hitler is not dead" was intended to be taken seriously). Unless I have misunderstood, the billboard was an advertisement for the newly opened Tussaud's waxworks exhibition. It is traditional (worldwide, so far as I know) for such concerns to focus in their content and advertising on the ghoulish, the ghastly, the shocking and the unpleasant. Effigies of the great villains of history are a major part of their stock in trade. What picture better than that of Hitler for them to use for advertising purposes?

No doubt the animal-rights loonies will be offended if the Sri Racha Tiger Zoo shows a picture of a tiger on its billboard.

Although I, like you, think that I know bad taste when I see it, that is a criterion existing within me. I do not expect for one second that anybody else will care whatsoever whether I think that what they do or say is in bad taste. For me to allow my judgement of somebody else's taste to cause me to be "offended" simply indicates that I am attaching far too much importance to myself.

You say that you are not offended by the sign. I agree. You say that the context of humour can justify what would otherwise be poor taste; again I agree. I just think that the context of advertising can also justify what would otherwise be poor taste, but apparently you do not really agree with that view.

When advertisements for French Connection UK ("<deleted>") were the subject of a ban in England on grounds of poor taste, I was left with the feeling that it was the ban and not the advertisements which gave me, personally, the greater cause for offence.

I see nothing wrong with the billboard. Each of us can make up his own mind. If you do not like it, then do not go to see the show.

And sod the Russians!

Thais in general know nothing about european history.

I am not Jewish, but I find that sign extremely offensive!

Why? It's just an advertisement self-evidently intended for readers of the Thai language. By what sensible reason could it possibly cause offence to you? And who cares anyway? USA consistently refuses to enforce in its territory the censorship laws of Thailand. Quite rightly.

Moreover, I can assure you that the average Thai knows more about European history than the average European or American knows about Thai history.

In your own country, did you campaign for the suppression of the "Scarejew" episode of Family Guy? You know, the one in which Peter Griffin erects a scarecrow figure of Hitler outside his front door in order to dissuade his Jewish neighbour from coming round to borrow things.

Please no more slagging off of any nations, generally anywhere in TV, but especially in this thread.

tx, raro

Do you mean: "Don't mention the War!"?

Wow...........I really thought this was a joke post...........it is serious.........he actually won. I have no idea why.

Plainly the Selection Committee has performed its task superbly well, as ever.

It has made news, created a furore, refocused world attention once again.

Decades have passed since the purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize ceased to be in accordance with the objects and specification provided by Alfred Nobel.

Latterly, the goal has been to preserve, enhance and grow the Nobel Peace Prize brand and in that their measure of success has been close to complete.

It is not the biggest prize of its kind in terms of cash, nor on any sensible construction can the rationale of its awards over the years stand close scrutiny. But the public perception throughout almost the whole of the developed world is that gaining this prize is the ultimate accolade of merit for any individual.

And all of this without being tainted by any perceived connection with the despicable profit motive. Arguably the best brand in the world. Eat your hearts out, Coke, McDonalds, Gucci, Rolls-Royce ...