Davedub

Well there is the problem right there - mindlessly repeating the same old action, every time expecting different results. Drugs won the war on drugs, decades ago. As proven by the Portugese for many years now, the provision of education and mental healthcare is a far more appropriate, effective and cost effective way of reducing drug harm. No well informed, mentally healthy person deliberately causes themselves harm. But no, like in so many other countries globally, the nature of politics demands that politicians be seen as 'tough on drugs' instead of compassionate and realistic, thus furthering and increasing drug harm and needless suffering whilst continuing the funneling of vast sums of money into the hands of criminal enterprises.

I'm reminded of a comment made in the British press years ago regarding Polish workers 'coming over here and stealing our jobs' The comment has stayed with me: 'If Polish workers have been coming over here, speaking English as a second language, not being familiar with British ways of doing things and are still seen as a better employment option, then surely the onus is on British workers to up their game no?' But then I'm a fan of fair competition as opposed to government control. Quite simply, if the education and training of Thai staff were to a higher standard then Thai jobs would not be in peril, regardless of the industry. Best person for the job and all that. It's a global market these days - as those of us who work in the tech industry know all too well. Being globally competitive is the way forward. Government interference in such matters is not going to raise the quality of goods and services offered in the Kingdom.

Yep. Perhaps a better way to ensure more Thai pilots get employed might be to incentivise an increase in the quality of training - that way whether or not a pilot gets employed would be a decision based entirely on their skill set and suitablility for the job. Piloting is a safety critical role after all - the best person for the job should *always* get the job. Their nationality should not be a factor.

I think a good start would be from a place of complete honesty. The above statement seems predicated on the idea that up until recently, trust and integrity were to be found within Thailand's institutions, which is quite obviously nonsense to anyone who has been here for any amount of time. I can't help but feel that starting from a place of dishonesty is destined to failure. To be clear; in living memory, there have never been acceptable levels of trust and integrity within Thailand's institutions. If the issues are truly to be tackled, I believe starting from the actual, ground zero truth would make a far better starting point.

The issue here is bullying, not vaping Do the authors of this article think that we're all so weak minded that we will see this incident as caused by vaping instead of bullying? Bullying behaviour typically stems from the family home - that is where the focus of this article should be if we are to take steps to prevent this sort of thing happening in the future I see this news article as a very naive attempt to sway public opinion against vaping when it should be addressing the problem of bullying - which is kinda reprehensible IMHO. It certainly does not fall into the category of responsible, unbiassed reporting, for sure.

The answer to what is wrong with these people lies in the concept of losing face. Whilst to the Western mind being shown to be wrong in public is unpleasant, but you take it on the chin and apologise, in many Asian cultures it is a totally unacceptable embarassment - and that is putting it mildly. A very common reaction to having lost face is to seek retribution, but in the circumstances the waitress did not have this option - hence her reaction. Saving face is the root cause of many problems in Asia IHMO - from bewildering forieners by not apologising for mistakes to people becoming violent when called out on their <deleted>. Not to mention never causing your boss to lose face by correcting them, even when they are about to make a terrible mistake. Whilst this might seem incomprehensible to the Western mind, it is a deeply rooted cornerstone of many Asian cultures

I find it interesting that these regulations came in just around the time the law was changed regarding cannabis. It occured to the cynic in me that the loss of side revenue from busting people for cannabis related offences would be offset by the increase in side revenue from traffic related offences. But then I thought surely not; this would require the coordination of systematic, endemic corruption from the bottom to the top - unthinkable. It must just be a coincidence these traffic laws were so hastily pushed through at that time and as a result were found to be unlawful at a later date.

Read: Police take measures to protect the Thai tobacco monoploy, reducing the harm inflicted on their profits. Protecting and serving the public? Reducing people's access to a nicotine delivery system that has been proven time and again, without doubt to be far less harmful than smoking is neither protecting or serving anyone except those reaping vast profits from the legal sale of traditional cancer sticks. This is a national disgrace. From the policy makers to the boots on the ground, they should be ashamed of themselves - total loss of face.

This guy was imprisoned in a holding cell, awaiting justice. I believe the ethos of the law is 'innocent until proven guilty' Also, human rights are important and most likely being broken all the time in Thai prisons. That is not acceptable, regardless of someone's crime. Two wrongs do not make a right. 'Punishment' does not lower rates of re-offending. Rehabilitation does. Rehabilitation has been proven beyond doubt (by the Scandanavians for example) to be far more beneficial for society as a whole (as well as the offender, their family etc) Draconian measures, hang-em-high, hit them hard attitudes come over as knee jerk reactions - if the evidence and history on the subject is studied it becomes abundantly clear such attitudes are not conducive to the formation a safer society. Let's hope you never get falsly accused of a crime here eh? All it takes is one spurned ex-girlfriend...

I wonder why preventing such 'offences' is such a big priority for the powers that be? From my point of view, there are far more pressing matters for the Police to spend everyone's tax dollars on if they are to actually perform the role of serving and protecting people. I'm guessing somebody far up the food chain who is so far removed from reality that they actualy think they are protecting the image and morals of the Kingdom. After the higher ups had the audacity to pronounce Pataya free of prostitution after a staged walk down the street a couple of years ago, I doubt they have any idea of how ridiculous this kind rhetoric sounds.

Like last year. And the year before. And the year before that. Etc. But it's ok, repeating the same action, over and over, always yeilds different results. I'm sure it will work this time.

Is it just me that sees screwed up priorities here - the fact that the women were unaware and that they were posted online SHOULD be (by far and away) the most important element in this story. All this waffle about the morals and reputation of the Kingdom is quite frankly laughable, a complete joke. The fact this woman was filmed and it was posted online without her knowledge or permission should have been highlighted in the headline. As per usual, the perceived 'loss of face' is prioritised over the actual issue under discussion. From my Western mindset, it is a challenge to not judge this obsession with saving face as an immature reaction that distracts from what is really important.

Funny how they're short on resources when it comes to real crime, yet seem to have bottomless pockets for fighting the 'war on drugs' and turning otherwise peaceful protests violent using techniques like kettling. I'd argue they are not short on resources, they are simply missmanaging the ones they have. Their bosses are more interested in cowtoeing to politicians self-serving agendas than protecting the public from criminals.

So many numbers and stats - with zero context! These numbers would hold far more meaning if they were compared against accident rates outside the festive period

This legal concept really ought be revisited in this context. As I have pointed out, it's impossible for many people to spend literally days reading through every T&C that applies to them. Moreover, not having a digital presence is increasingly becoming a necessity rather than a luxury. So I think it's fair to say that people are increasingly pressured to click the 'I agree' checkbox when, in fact: a) They may not agree with the entirety of the T&Cs and b) They simply do not have the time to read through pages and pages of legalise and, given that legalise is actualy quite hard to understand and can be quite misleading if interpreted as regular English, they may not understand it anyway. Caveat emptor harks from a far, far simpler time in history. It is an outmoded concept in the digital age on account of impractability and potential corporate abuse.