jayboy

Dont want to hijack this thread, but has anyone read the crapola that Rangsit University posted in the guise of an advertorial in the other English newspaper today?

Yes I have, and found it very revealing of a certain type of Thai mindset.It expressed the predictable PAD quasi fascist uber nationalist position, and Iwondered whether Rangsit university understands the contempt it will attract for endorsing this trash.The only saving grace was the comic effect of the appalling and semi literate English with which it was written.

I have no problem with doing what a nation requires of me (a third world nation) to stay for prolonged periods. Its just abundantly clear that so much is motivated by sheer greed (keep us away from business investments, ANY investment - even a house!).

No doubt there are some bad eggs, but Thailand has always, always been a shady place for shady people. TAT boasts millions and millions of visits, sur ein this age you are going to get some baddies. That is not the fault of the good people.

No problem people checking on me. But all this reporting in/out and the inflexibility and some guys driving hours. This is the Thai government saying we simply do not care about you. They simply do not care how inconvenienced we are or what it costs to meet their frivolous and usually arbitrary demands.

The 65k baht has always been a rubbish amount to ask of a single person. A well educated Thai working a standard job is lucky to make half that. And pls explain why someone married only has to produce half that to support at least 100% persons? A retiree could easily live in a little house outside Hua Hin, Pattaya and esp upcountry for 30k. Then we have the "currency crisis part deux" - many major currencies have dropped dramatically. SO instead of being clever and pegging the amount to pension income (maybe a basket of the currencies). Thailand in affect raises the financial requirement for RETIREES to stay here by 25%.

I recall an article some years back in the WSJ about the lack of retirement visas made in Thailand. It was at time when many TRs were getting legal and some just starting to up and leave. But it was a shocker compared to other countries that had far better terms. I forget the stats but Thailand was about last in this regard although the offical stated he expected the number to increase yoy.

Many, many are leaving these days - they are gone so don't post to TV. Its past story for them, ancient history in their book of life. Retiring? Try it first before you plunge in here. Keep track of ALL your visa costs to stay here, you will be shocked and the expense and hassle.

If we are THAT bad...why have us here at all? Really. I think that question should really be put up to the government. This si sort of a last straw that says we are all nothing more than a gaggle of criminals. Why does Thailand have an absolute inability to sort the good from the bad? It seems so easy.

It's not a question of foreign "retirees being "bad".It's just that there are far far too many of them taking advantage of Thailand's liberal visa regime.Most are not what might describe tactfully as the elite of their home countries, and in many case are clearly the dregs.Anyone who participates in a visa run is actually ignoring the spirit if not the letter of Thai law.The harsh truth is that to retire in a foreign country it is usually necessary to be quite wealthy.The financial criteria imposed by the Thai government on foreign retirees are currently very modest and should be increased substantially.This would also help in reinforcing Thailand as an upmarket destination.I suspect the patience of the Thai authorities is being sorely tried by this unproductive bunch of losers, many of whom -let's face it - are former sex tourists.

Reds have double standards too but for all the wrong reasons 55

don't forget all the thousands of extra judicial killings under tyrant thaksin, shutting down of media, corruption etc etc red equals hypocrit

What on earth do the Reds have to do with the extra judicial killings.These were initiated by Thaksin before the movement even existed and were supported by the forces that initiated (and protected the criminals involved) behind the last coup.

There is right and wrong and then there is corrupt. Corrupt and wrong usually go together. In the case of thailand, there are limited benefits for the average person with the corruption that exists and a huge cost to society that includes a moral cost.

As Thailand embarks on an international mission to send a warship and 171 naval personnel to the coast of Somalia, I wonder if they will follow the moral high ground. Is this a good will gesture or is someone benefiting financially?

I suggest neither.Thailand has a strategic interest in the area given that a number of Thai vessels have been seized by Somali pirates.I would have thought this was exactly the kind of valuable work the Thai navy should be doing.

If you want an example of heart stopping greed,arrogance and incompetence in the Thai navy look no further than the purchase a few years ago of the aircraft carrier from Spain.

Bribery and corruption are part and parcel of UK, US and French international business deals and when uncovered not always investigated. Remember the little UK-Saudi affair where it wasnt in the national interest to investigate it? Iraq and Afghanistan are awash with unaccounted for wads of dollars being passed around for something or the other. Then there are arms deals which always need sweeteners. Im sure Lord Ashcrofts untaxed millions targetting 60 UK constituences woudl bnot be regarded as vote buying even though they no doubt affected outcome. And I wonder if the UKs sudden found desire to hunt down social security fraud will be extended to with such vigour to hunting donw the tax dodgers that cost the country far more but who donate to the current ruling party? I guess that is not corruption, to donate to a party and expect them to ignore your excesses. There are many more. It is not half baked moral relativism but reality.

How many massive arms deals has Thailand been involved in that have led to thousands of deaths of poor people in far off foreign lands? How many illegal wars has Thailand started resulting in the routine killing of local civilians that arent even investigated and over which there is no proper jurisdiction. Corruption is not just about brown envelopes, but too often the western powers and their people decide that only they can define what corruption is and that is mainly something that is committed by those that havent achieved the glorious levels of enlightenment that exist in the west and which have led to the rape of the planet to what may be a tipping point whioch the great majority will suffer from without even being involved in the cause

There are far far worse things than Thai corruption and far far worse people than Abhisit (or Thaksin) who have done far far worse things that we turn a supposedly educated blind eye to while calling out the locals here with some neo-colonialist or neo-imperialist attitude. And that is not to excuse what happens in Thailand but to put it into a real rather than artificially created context.

Oh Blimey Dave Spart has escaped from the columns of Private Eye, semi-educated lefty at work.

Yeah yeah everywhere is like corrupt man.On the one hand and on the other.Thailand's no worse than anywhere else.It's all the West's fault for culturally defining what corruption is anyway.Like George Bush's and Tony Blair's crimes, just as bad as what goes on here,man.

God I haven't seen so many tired worn out dishonest cliches in years.

The general sentiment, to be serious for a moment, is an insult to all those Thais trying to create a better and cleaner society

Sad, sad, sad.

How pathetic is Thai politics.

And good old Mark is as complicit as the rest.

Seems pretty hopeless.

Not just Thai poltics but the world over.

Ditto

What utter rubbish, another example of half baked moral relativism.Reality is that Thai politics is along with other third world countries appallingly venal and corrupt.There are some shining examples like Costa Rica,Botswana defying the trend.Countries like New Zealand,Sweden,Norway,Denmark are far superior.Other countries like UK,Germany,Australia all have higher standards.Of course corruption can be found almost any where but to suggest Thailand is other than a particularly disgusting example is to be almost wilfully blind.And by the way I do not believe Abhisit to be as complicit as the rest:he's almost unique among Thai leaders in seeking to minimise political corruption.

save your breath. This isn't about an answer, we have that. Jayboy is intent on proving two things:

1) he is smarter than everyone else

2) proving me wrong, even when he can't. He has a history in jumping down my throat, as well as a few others who don't like his politics.

My dear fellow I think you and I have bored members long enough on this subject.Your comments have been very misleading but to some extent you are excused because clearly you have no knowledge or experience of high level commercial legal matters.Those who do (none of whom I imagine would participate in this forum) deal with foreign lawyers in Bangkok regularly.If you are simply saying that that Thai regulations prevent foreigners formally practising law, thank you although most grasped that point some time ago.Sayonara.

Steve,

save your breath. This isn't about an answer, we have that. Jayboy is intent on proving two things:

1) he is smarter than everyone else

2) proving me wrong, even when he can't. He has a history in jumping down my throat, as well as a few others who don't like his politics.

But you have been proved wrong.It is now clear there are many foreign lawyers practising in Thailand.You respond when your ignorance is pointed out by posting comic pictures.

I have no idea what your politics are, neither do I care.I merely pointed out a misleading answer.

You seem to be on some other mental journey - related to in-Thailand employment opportunities for foreigners who have backgrounds as lawyers in their home countries. I think everyone who participated in this discussion agrees that there are employment opportunities here for bright foreigners - including those with law degrees from outside Thailand - and that quite a few of them even work at Thai legal firms. And - that information may even be useful to the OP. But - answering the direct question - directly - does not seem to me to amount to "being ... legalistic".

As far as all the other verbal illusion - "being a partner in a firm" is just verbal fluff. Every Thai private company requires at least three shareholders - regardless of what it does. Those three individuals can call themselves "partners" or "joint venture investors" - or whatever fancy term they want. Similarly - a shareholder/director of a restaurant can call the cashier a "partner" if it make him/her feel good. I run a business services firm that employs Thai lawyers - and Thai accountants. I suppose I can call myself a "Senior Partner" - but I choose the functional title "Managing Director." A "Partner" who is not a company shareholder, or a company director, is simply wearing a meaningless title. If he is a shareholder or director, and he is called a "Partner" - his authority and legal influence comes from the shareholder or director status, not from the title "Partner".

Meaning: citing the fact that foreign non-lawyers (Thai legal status) are called "Partners" in some Thai law firms - and trying to use that as "evidence" that they are "really lawyers in Thailand" is just dissembling.

There are some really good foreign executives in Thailand with law degrees, and who have licenses to practice law in their home countries. A lot of them are probably associated with Thai law firms.

There are also a bunch of sad sack foreigners here, with the same credentials - some of whom have been disbarred for misconduct in home countries. Or who are alcoholics, or drug abusers, or are otherwise shaky characters. Some of them run their own small businesses, marketing themselves in Thailand as "lawyers". Most clients wouldn't know the difference. But - there will always be a Thai lawyer lurking somewhere in the background, to sign documents that require the signature of a licensed Thai lawyer. Additionally, not many foreigners with legal training have sufficient fluency in written Thai to read Thai legal texts, and prepare written documents - so they need qualified help in that area

Cheers!

Steve

Indo-Siam

Steve

You don't seem to be fully focusing on what I have been saying, perhaps because the focus of your firm is more on visa issues and SMEs (I'm guessing).I'm referring to the relatively few international firms operating here (Linklaters,Allen and Overy etc) dealing with major players.Foreign lawyers at these firms offer legal advice and opinions.Any major league player knows this, and yes of course they have back up from Thai colleagues.As to their legal and academic credentials, with respect you seem to be on your own different mental journey with your talk of alcoholics and disbarred lawyers.The cognoscenti know the recruitment standards of the magic circle firms.

The argument here reminds me of the medieval debate about how many angels could fit on the end of a pin, pointless.. because it avoids dealing with the practical.We know about the Thai restriction on practising law.We also know that almost every major international law firm here has foreign lawyers in employment, some of them as partners.This as I have stated repeatedly is almost always in matters relating to the corporate sector.None of the foreign lawyers I have dealt with in over 20 years is concerned about sitting in the background or having a Thai colleague sign off.In terms of what their work permits say I fully understand the word "lawyer" isn't used.I know that Thai lawyers only can be involved in ourt proceedings.

I can only reflect that the nature of this forum focusing on the world of visa regulations (and the bottom feeding lawyers that live off them) doesn't provide the necessary experience.Those who have actually operated at this level would know I am pointing out none other than the truth.I suspect Indo-Siam at least knows the practical position as well as I do, but perhaps he is just being - dare I say it - legalistic.On a point of detail Indo-Siam comes up with a prescriptive definition when he talks about signing a document that counts as a legal action.As I have made very clear that It's understood very well a foreign lawyer cannot do this.His role is purely in the sphere of giving advice and opinions.

... Of course this 'welter of disinformation' stems from dealing with UK-based law firms as mentioned above where in the UK there is a differentiation between barrister and solicitor --

In the USA and in USA-based firms in Bangkok, you either are a lawyer or you ain't ... and unless you are qualified IN Thailand as opposed to maintaining your qualification from elsewhere, you ain't a lawyer.

haha, "welter of disinformation". Hamming it up for us, ole jayboy. You'd think that at least 5 other people telling him he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about would be the end of it, but no. It is simply a 'welter of disinformation".

I think the picture is now fairly clear.There is a restriction on foreigners practising law in Thai courts.Subject to work permit/visa being in place there is no restriction on foreign lawyers in multinational legal practices where indeed many foreigners are partners.Any businessmen with experience at the upper corporate level knows this already.It doesn't really matter how many second tier expatriate "businessmen", ambulance chasers and "immigration" specialists disagree

samran: thank you very much for your informed answer(s). It looks like there is a hope, still

btw, what is a "magic circle law firm " ?

\

* Allen & Overy

* Clifford Chance

* Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer

* Linklaters

* Slaughter and May

some of the biggest law firms in the UK...many with a presence in BKK, and with many foreign consultants and managers, of course....

And many,despite the welter of disinformation on this thread, with foreign partners and lawyers as well - as any serious Bangkok based businessman will already know.

On the "magic circle" issue here's a useful summary and although 6 years old provides a round up on the major firms catering to the corporate sector

http://asia.legalbusinessonline.com/law-firms/thailand-at-the-cross-roads/1175/21352

From our erstwhile forum sponsor, Sunbelt

http://www.sunbeltlegaladvisors.com/Thailand-Work-Permit.php

"Thai law prohibits employers from allowing aliens to perform any function other than that described in the alien's Work Permit....

"Any alien who engages in work without a Work Permit, or in violation of the conditions of his work as stipulated in his Permit, may be punished by a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months or a fine of up to 5,000 baht, or both. Aliens engaged in work prohibited to them by Royal Decree (as listed in the " Restricted Occupations ") shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine ranging from 2,000 to 100,000 baht, or both"

There is also absolutely no truth to the suggestion that these lawyers are somehow sailing close to the wind in terms of work permit or immigration status.

A cocky arrogant lawyer. We'll I'd never...

Only Thais can get a lawyer's license in Thailand. International Firms have foreign partners yes, but their work permits all read 'consultant' or 'arbitrator' or something else. They do not 'practise' law in Thailand as such.

Believe me, with respect to this issue, I know what I'm talking about.

actually I have no idea

you said it bud....

Well that clears it up then.Play around with my post "you said it bud" when the reference was solely to my having no idea how foreign lawyers process their work permits.Your invocation of Sunbelt is more revealing than you probably know.

The fact remains that despite your poor advice and ignorance on the matter, many foreign lawyers practise here perfectly legally.I never said foreigner lawyers could be involved in the court system:their role is confined to the provision of advice mainly in the larger corporate sector.

Well I have had over 20 years in business here <SNIP>

Henceforth we will all bow to your infinite wisdom in only dealing with "top commercial firms", and that you have abso-tively, posi-lutely NO experience with as you so succinctly put it; "small time foreign lawyers". ..

BUT, this begs the question;

Have you ever had a foreign lawyer (NOT Law Firm) represent you in a thai court of law about ANYTHING??

I doubt it.

There are only thais in thai courts; except maybe the thai/engrish translator or the foreign 'advisor' (who may or may not be a lawyer) which talks to you.

Contract law, arbitration, litigation, etc, yes foreigner lawyers a plenty; but they are "whores of different color" <sic> , sorry; "HORSES of different color". Sorry for the typo. ..

I have been to MANY thai court proceedings and other than acting as 'advisors', I've never seen a foreign attorney ever, as in NOT a single time, address a thai judge.

And now, without further ado, back to the pissing match already in progress. We are sorry to have interrupted your broadcast. ..

Sorry I thought I had made it clear in a previous post that I appreciate only Thais may be involved in a court of law.My reference to foreign lawyers was purely in the role of solicitor.Try reading posts more carefully and it will avoid the need for this kind of redundant question.

Well I have had over 20 years in business here dealing frequently with foreign lawyers so I also know what I'm talking about.However you seem to be confirming the undeniable truth that many foreign lawyers practise in Bangkok.My knowledge is restricted to the top commercial firms however.There is also absolutely no truth to the suggestion that these lawyers are somehow sailing close to the wind in terms of work permit or immigration status.They openly practise their trade and certainly dont describe themselves as consultants or see the need for Thai lawyers to sign off on their written opinions.In some cases these international lawyers advise the Thai Government.It is perfectly possible - actually I have no idea - that their work permit/visa applications have to be worded in a particular way.

As I say I have no experience of the small time foreign lawyers on occasionally hears about.I suppose there is a market for their services from a certain type of expatriate.

yi-sip pii - oh ho. Geng chip beng!

Where has anyone said that there weren't foreign qualified lawyers working in Thailand?

Anyway, here is an interesting discussion paper from Tilleke & Gibbins

http://www.tginfo.com/Publications/pdf/NYSB_Lawyers_Obligation.pdf

maybe the firm is a little 'small time' for you. Probably qualifies as 'ill-informed nonsense' in your book.

But for the rest of us mere mortals, a good discussion the ambiguities of categorisation of lawyers in thailand, as well as.

No it's an interesting paper.Thank you for making it available.

I suppose it's a sign of progress that you now concede there are many foreign lawyers working in Thailand.It wasn't clear before.

Oh by the way since you are familiar with Tilleke and Gibbins (several foreign lawyers employed by the way in this reputable but second tier firm), could you clarify whether David Lyman believes that curious skunk like wig he wears is likely to fool anyone.Just wondered.

he will never be able to practice law as a non-Thai national. It is a restricted profession.

Now, he can act as a consultant however, and have a Thai national lawyer sign off on all his work....

Ill informed nonsense.All the major international law firms in Bangkok have both Thai and non-Thai partners.

No, he is right. Only Thais can get a lawyer's license in Thailand. International Firms have foreign partners yes, but their work permits all read 'consultant' or 'arbitrator' or something else. They do not 'practise' law in Thailand as such.

Believe me, with respect to this issue, I know what I'm talking about.

Having said all that - the brother-in-law of the OP should have no trouble building up a practise here in Thailand if he wants to. The presence of foreign lawyers is recognised by the government and other powers that be, as essential for foreign direct investment therefore their presence is tolerated and enforcement of the law is relaxed accordingly.

Well I have had over 20 years in business here dealing frequently with foreign lawyers so I also know what I'm talking about.However you seem to be confirming the undeniable truth that many foreign lawyers practise in Bangkok.My knowledge is restricted to the top commercial firms however.There is also absolutely no truth to the suggestion that these lawyers are somehow sailing close to the wind in terms of work permit or immigration status.They openly practise their trade and certainly dont describe themselves as consultants or see the need for Thai lawyers to sign off on their written opinions.In some cases these international lawyers advise the Thai Government.It is perfectly possible - actually I have no idea - that their work permit/visa applications have to be worded in a particular way.

As I say I have no experience of the small time foreign lawyers on occasionally hears about.I suppose there is a market for their services from a certain type of expatriate.

Why don't you stop ranting and do your research, check the "magic circle' firms represented in Bangkok and reflect on the outcome.I have no idea what these foreign lawyers have on their work permits but their work isn't signed off by a Thai colleague, at least in my experience.Here's some leads..Clifford Chance,Allen and Overy,Linklaters.All employ foreign lawyers some of them partners.If you think their immigration status is irregular you can take the necessary action.But somehow my guess is that their credentials in understanding the status of foreign lawyers in Thailand might be somewhat superior to yours.

pompous...that is the word I was thinking of.

Having known foreigners for all those firms you have kindly pointed out to me, well, I dare say that their understanding of the status of foreign lawyers is exactly the same as mine. (again, a hint of condecension...so attractive)

The only Australian citizen I did know who was a registered lawyer in Thailand, well she had a Thai passport as well. A&O as i recall.

The others, well they were very careful not to overstep in how they described themselves in Thailand. But I could be imagining all this of course. Even 'consultants and managers' had to get sneaky on their immigration status. But I won't dob them in, if you don't.

You are very clearly the expert.

Since you have a contact at A and O, suggest you check the position with her.It's a very good example of a major firm employing several foreign lawyers.The senior partner is a Brit I believe.It's all there on the website if you can be bothered to look.

I think you have a man-crush on me....darling. Your passive agressiveness is just so, well attractive. "Presumably small time contacts". Your arrogance, condescension....such an attractive look.

I dare you to ask your friends if you could look at their work permit and see what it actually says on it. Won't be lawyer, that is for sure. Well, unless you know one of the 6 foreign lawyers who were grandfathered pre-1975.

And no, I have no idea of what a magic circle law firm is...can you tell me? I know the former chairman of one of these small time law firms...Baker and someone....dear....you'll have to remind me.

http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/charununlegal2.html

So...

The Lawyers Act B.E. 2528 (AD 1985) defines a lawyer as "a person who has been registered as a lawyer, and a license has been issued to him or her by the Law Society of Thailand." Therefore, no one can become a lawyer or practice law in Thailand without an education in law, registration, and a license to practice.

(10) Section 35 of the Lawyers Act B.E. 2528 (AD 1985) provides as follows:

"Section 35. An applicant for registration and a License shall have the following qualifications: (1) being of Thai nationality; (2) being at least twenty years of age; (3) having a Bachelor's Degree or an Associate Degree in law or a certificate in law equivalent to a Bachelor's Degree or Associate Degree from an educational institute accredited by the Law Society of Thailand, and must be a member of the Thai Bar Association; (4) not being a person of indecent behavior or delinquent morals or a person whose conduct is indicative of dishonesty; (5) not being imprisoned by a final judgment; (6) never having been imprisoned by a final judgment for an offence which, in the Board's discretion, will impair the integrity of the profession; (7) not being bankrupt by a final judgment; (8) not having an ailment which is contagious and repugnant to the public; (9) not being physically disabled or mentally infirmed which may cause professional incompetence; (10) not being a government official or a local government official with permanent salary and position except a political official."

Baker and Mackenzie is just a franchise, its quality varying from market to market.The Thailand partnership is I agree well thought of but it's not a "magic circle" firm.

Why don't you stop ranting and do your research, check the "magic circle' firms represented in Bangkok and reflect on the outcome.I have no idea what these foreign lawyers have on their work permits but their work isn't signed off by a Thai colleague, at least in my experience.Here's some leads..Clifford Chance,Allen and Overy,Linklaters.All employ foreign lawyers some of them partners.If you think their immigration status is irregular you can take the necessary action.But somehow my guess is that their credentials in understanding the status of foreign lawyers in Thailand might be somewhat superior to yours.

he will never be able to practice law as a non-Thai national. It is a restricted profession.

Now, he can act as a consultant however, and have a Thai national lawyer sign off on all his work....

Ill informed nonsense.All the major international law firms in Bangkok have both Thai and non-Thai partners.

Ah, wherever I go, there will be Jayboy trying to prove me wrong.

http://www.thailandlawonline.com/list_1.html

check out number 39 there sunshine. I guess your PhD didn't include basic research.

To the OP. I have a number of friends who are lawyers, working in Thailand. We regularly pitch work together. Strictly speaking though, they are advisors, consultants, anything else, but not a lawyer as far as the Thai government is concerned.

Ill informed nonsense again.The list of prescribed activities for foreigners is well known.However there are many exceptions in the legal profession, and as I earlier noted every multinational legal firm in Bangkok has foreign as well as Thai partners.I can only conclude you have no experience or understanding of doing business at a high level in Thailand, and cannot comment on your presumably small time contacts.For those who doubt look at the website of any international legal firm with representation in Bangkok.(I am actually doubtful whether you even know the names of this international legal firms).There are also foreign lawyers with some local firms but this is not universal.If you mean foreigners cannot practise at the Thai bar, that's a different matter.I am talking about "solicitors" in the English or Australian sense.

he will never be able to practice law as a non-Thai national. It is a restricted profession.

Now, he can act as a consultant however, and have a Thai national lawyer sign off on all his work....

Ill informed nonsense.All the major international law firms in Bangkok have both Thai and non-Thai partners.

You are as you do, thus Until he balances things out he is simply another hired gun like Amsterdam.

Hired by whom please?

The irony here is that Crispin had rather a high reputation among apologists for this government, partly because he wasn't "taken in" by the class war theory common among Thaksinstas.However as the quoted example shows once a journalists strays from the elite's script of events he is insulted and traduced, although in this case just with a foolish lie.

There are few western journos who understand Thailand as well as Crispin. People may not like or agree with what he writes but in terms of understanding he far surpasses any of the local beat rotated in and out of Thailand while on their career ladder

Of course all journalism is propaganda and so it is right to be cautious in believing what any journo writes but generally those better informed and understanding have the goods somewhere in what they write even if it is half hidden, coded or even accidently let out. Other lesser infromed ones are well just like the not the nation portrayed them as parachuted in.

There are a lot of myths about journalists that have been reinforced over the years by hollywood etc

Fully agree your views on Crispin.Having said that there's no law of nature which rules that a journalist "parachuted in" is going to have less interesting or relevant insights.Indeed sometimes it takes an outsider to identify issues that are important.My concern about resident journos and stringers (and I exclude people from Reuters,CNN, BBC etc who are only here for a few years) is that they tend to be unduly influenced by the seductive nature and charm of this country.In practice this means that visas and resident status becomes very important (usually but not exclusively because of family ties), and the prospect of offending the authorities becomes difficult to contemplate.This doesn't necessarily make for robust and healthy journalism.I have no idea whether this is an issue for Crispin, and indeed all the evidence is that he is admirably independent minded.

They were shot, by solders, or reds, while being in a crossfire, in a place the should not have been. What more needs to be solved? Grieve for your loss, and hope that in the future, more reporters don't pretend they are bulletproof.

Question is did government soldiers shoot by accident or "red" shirts shoot to create an incident to blame the government?

Those are not the only two possible options.Another option is that the murdered journalists were targeted deliberately by the army just as unarmed civilians were targeted.

Nonsense, for what god-forsaken reason would the soldiers be targeting the unarmed protesters instead of all the armed or rioting ones?

Or even less, the journalists. Talk about 'shooting themselves in the foot' if they did.

The army has a record over many years of murdering civilian protestors, and equally there has never been proper investigation of these crimes.The Thai army is not accountable, and doesn't care about "shooting itself in the foot" to use your slightly unfortunate metaphor.

Your statement about the latest incident (Clearing the Reds from Bangkok) is simply untrue.It is known unarmed Red civilians were gunned down by the army.The question is what were the circumstances.I have always accepted that by and large this exercise was done professionally, but that doesn't give the army carte blanche.Or at least it shouldn't.

As to the targeting of journalists I simply raised this is a possibility, albeit a serious one.The mindset and possible psychology is well evidenced by some of the earlier posters in this thread (i.e If you don;t go looking for trouble you won't find it syndrome.Clearly the current elite(government/army etc)has a horror of international scrutiny and exposure of repression.How convenient that one or two journalists on the scene were gunned down.Still one never quite knows.Could just be the fog of war.

They were shot, by solders, or reds, while being in a crossfire, in a place the should not have been. What more needs to be solved? Grieve for your loss, and hope that in the future, more reporters don't pretend they are bulletproof.

Question is did government soldiers shoot by accident or "red" shirts shoot to create an incident to blame the government?

Those are not the only two possible options.Another option is that the murdered journalists were targeted deliberately by the army just as unarmed civilians were targeted.

Indeed. And another option is that PAD mercenaries shot them. And yet another is that they shot themselves. Or perhaps southern separatists shot them.

Yes there there umpteen possibilities.But most will recognise that your alternatives are comic fantasies.Most will equally know mine needs to at least be considered seriously.

Chunky mentioned something about being "ignored". Is there a way to ignore people's posts here? I'll have to do some searching and find out how.

Berkshire...yeah, you got me, I'm not really in Afghanistan, I'm a 18 year old kid sitting on a computer in Iowa. Oh, and I don't "go around threatening people with personal harm." What I typed in previous posts weren't threats, they were factual based on what I would do if a comment was made to my girl (or to me for being with her). Trust me, there will be no threatening involved in what would transpire. In fact, I likely won't say anything at all...would just take care of business and walk away.

Now...off to find that "ignore" button.

And go on admit it, while in confessional mode, you met your so called "girlfriend" in a bar.Your over the top denial rather confirms the fact I'm afraid as many members will have observed a thousand times.Go on fess up:it will do you no end of good.Do it for your country.