4413

Welcome All

I have a German friend who is looking to teach German in a Bangkok school or University. What schools/Universities would be best for him to approach, and what are the requirements of a German teacher in the way of qualifications. He is 37 and has his teaching certificate for teaching German. He has 10 years experience in teaching, but has not been teaching for the past 5 years. What are the typical wages in Bagkok for teaching German.

The fact is there is no law in Thailand that prohibits any individual, Thai national or alien, from knowingly or unknowningly transfering any disease - be it contageous or fatal. There is no arguement what we would do if it were in our countries, however, it has happen in Thailand and the only law bound infringement he has perpetrated is that of overstay. I

You seem extremely knowledgeable on this subject 4431. I find it hard to believe, although I believe you, there is no law against the knowingly transmitting of a potentially deadly disease. Is there any other charge that could be brought about that would cover such an act? Such as, Willful intent to cause bodily harm or murder. I mean if you know what you are doing, you can kill somebody easily with a tightly rolled up newspaper. But it is not against the law to carry a newspaper. And a newspaper is not classed as a deadly weapon. What I mean is, if somebody folds a newspaper and rolls it up tightly, it becomes as hard as wood and a hard hit to the throat or temple, could potentially kill. What would be the charge?

Here in Greece there is something called in 'The Spirit of The Law' which in certain circumstances, can be used by lawyers, to imprison somebody or have them set free. Does any such thing exist in Thai Law?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ravisher

My apologies - this is in the context of this case. Thai Law is not cold and heartless towards it's nationals.

This case is unique due to procurement of a sexual act for personal financial gains. In this case, prostitution, the Thai Law is very clear in this falling OUTSIDE the covenance of the Law boundaries. It therefor is deemed to fall under the same outlying rule we have in our Westminster System, that of 'Caveat Emptor' latin for Let the Buyer Beware. However this legal principle applies to both sides, both buyer and seller. Thus the Thai Law clearly sets out that if you procure sexual activities for personal financial gains, it is solely your responsibility as the provider of the service to ensure the environment and terms of sale meet your own guidelines.

Unfortunately for the girls involved in this case, they are not lawyers or scholars, and the law has no footing to assist them when followed to the letter. Now, with such a high media profile, there will be no one who will come forward to be ridiculed and shot down in flames. It has been the will to bring it out into the open that has seen it retract out of sight.

It is unfortunate that some of the gaps between the lines have not been filled in, even though they are known by the police and support workers associated directly with this case, but bound by international privacy laws. As a psychologist with one of the NGO's stationed here in Thailand, we were involved with the investigation of the girls who had been possibly infected.

....

... You will not find a security guard in a public prison system being paid less than 7,000 Baht per month, to risk his own life, or the life of his family, by attempting to stick a syringe into the arm of a man who has shown some unstable mental tendencies.

...

As for condoms, this again is a moral issue, and eveyone will allign to his own ported preference on this issue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, but if you would really be a psychologist you would have learned already that it is not a "security guard" who takes blood samples.

I doubt if your story is true, and if you really have something to do with a NGO you probably never went there yourself, thus you do not have any more information than what was in the news anyway.

You do not even mention which NGO, and don't say that that falls under privacy laws too.

And if you don't take a condom you probably do not catch HIV, but as a psychologist you would know that there are many STDs, and condoms do reduce the risk of infection significantly. So it's not a moral issue, but it's dumb and dumber not to use them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yuyi - seems you are the expert of all things good and evil. A man who is often misunderstood, right?

Let me just help so that you can catch up with the rest of us. Hold on tight now as we may go faster than first gear.

Sorry, but if you would really be a psychologist you would have learned already that it is not a "security guard" who takes blood samples.

To follow your logic, you therefor deem that doctors enter into a prison cell to exam a prisoner alone. World Health Organization guidelines prohibit any medical employee from examining a prisoner unless accompanied by 3 enforcement officers from the holding facility.

When taking a blood sample from a prisoner who has issued written consent, the enforcement officers are required to act as observation staff only who instigate action based only on aggressive mannerisms of the prisoner. A medical employee is restricted from extracting blood samples, or conducting obtrusive tests, unless the prisoner has issued written consent.

In the event that a prisoner captures a syringe, using this as a tool of threat or weapon, the enforcement officers must restrain and subdue the prisoner.

Having only one leg does not affect his reach nor his power to lunge and strike with a blood filled syringe. Farang are larger that Thai enforcement officers. There was never any implication that Security Guards take blood.

I doubt if your story is true, and if you really have something to do with a NGO you probably never went there yourself, thus you do not have any more information than what was in the news anyway.

Again Yuyi, you have shown that you are far from qualified as an Expert Witness. You will learn in life that your doubt is of no consequence to anyone but yourself. Your use of the words 'doubt' and 'probably' shows that even YOU do not have confidence in your own opinions - so why should others. As for whether I was there or not, you tell me the building that is opposite the main temple gate, and I will tell you if you know what you are talking about or not.

You do not even mention which NGO, and don't say that that falls under privacy laws too.

Well if you were a learned scholar Yuyi, you would realize there are a lot of international journalists who glean the thai forums looking for local snippets of news that is not covered by the international journalists elsewhere. I would hardly advertize to drive a mass of media frenzy to the NGO I have worked so tirelessly to support and develop. It would be more than my job is worth. Your lack of knowledge base is only the result of your own actions and readings. So, wrong again Yuyi, not privacy laws just logical common sense.

And if you don't take a condom you probably do not catch HIV, but as a psychologist you would know that there are many STDs, and condoms do reduce the risk of infection significantly. So it's not a moral issue, but it's dumb and dumber not to use them.

The first part of your statement is the only part of your post that we agree on. However, ANY issue NOT bound by law IS a moral issue. Look it up in your own country's constitution. It's in the Thai constitution. It is not my interpretation, nor my opinion. That is the legal definition of fact. The fact is there is no law in Thailand that prohibits any individual, Thai national or alien, from knowingly or unknowningly transfering any disease - be it contageous or fatal. There is no arguement what we would do if it were in our countries, however, it has happen in Thailand and the only law bound infringement he has perpetrated is that of overstay. I do not condone his actions, but now it is receiving such high media exposure, the Thai police must play this one by the book.

And finally, a line direct from Sigmond Freud - straight to you Yuyi:

"It is not for the misunderstood to critisize those who offer a more educated perspective."

Please get some cheer into your posts and drop the antagonistic tone. People might just respond to you with a more open outlook.

The most telling piece of information about this story, other than the fact that not one "victum" of his scheme was quoted or came forth to the authorities, was that it was the X-wife who exposed him. His X-wife is dying of AIDS. This is the piece that throws this whole story into question because ex's who don't have AIDS are sometimes vicious and vindictive. I never want to meet an ex who has AIDS and is most likely bitter about contracting the disease.

So can it be said that the wife "exposed" him and confiscated all his property? We don't know. We don't know much about this story. We only know what the authorities have been quoted as saying.

Not one victum has come forward...that puts alot of questions in my mind.

No one would argue that if the allegations are true that he could be prosecuted on many different charges than "trying to infect teenage girls."

Why wasn't he?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is unfortunate that some of the gaps between the lines have not been filled in, even though they are known by the police and support workers associated directly with this case, but bound by international privacy laws. As a psychologist with one of the NGO's stationed here in Thailand, we were involved with the investigation of the girls who had been possibly infected.

It was not the ex-wife who initiated the complaint about her husband. It was a verbal complaint made from many of the village heads, who's residents were left to care for the ex-wife now that she was to a very serious stage of the disease. Her story was picked up by someone in the know and it was released nationally - and subsequently - internationally.

Please do not think that because there were no women who made public statements, that there were no women who used the more subtle channels of the NGO assistance and support services to quietly voice their fears and seek to have blood tests completed.

Patient confidentiality will ensure that any students who may or may not be under age and do not want to be identified to the nation or the world, will remain under this veil of secrecy. You can be assured that with the world spotlight traced directly on these women that they would have their names plastered in every newspaper across the globe.

This is the driving reason why these women are not willing to put a public face to this. The women are well aware that media in other countries taint all Thai women as prostitutes, and do not wish this shame on their families to have their photo as the front page news world wide. Journalists are not exactly renouned for treating delicate situations with kid gloges (my apologies to any journalists amongst us)

As far as the German not providing a blood sample on request, and the lack of "forcing him" to provide one, the answer is simple. You will not find a security guard in a public prison system being paid less than 7,000 Baht per month, to risk his own life, or the life of his family, by attempting to stick a syringe into the arm of a man who has shown some unstable mental tendencies. It is therefor up to the doctor, and there is no law anywhere in the world that gives a medical practitioner the jurisdiction to administer you an AIDs test to prove either your innocence or guilt, without your expressed signed permission.

Although I did not want to enter into this discussion, and remain a passive observer, I was saddened by how far off track some people were steering their accusations. Unfortunately, due to draconian laws (even the local authorities admit that) the issue of unprotected sex in Thailand whilst knowingly HIV positive is not a legal one, but a moral one. I therefore will not port my professional opinions upon this forum, but would like to affirm that the majority of girls who must procure clients for this act do it solely as an act of family income and survival. The women who enjoy "ripping off" farang are in the minority and in the more commercial areas where high tourist flows allow this to take place. I do not condone, nor condem, prostitution, however gentlmen and ladies of this forum, please remember that every lady has her different reasons and justifications for working this vocation, and it is not for us to stand above and preside upon the mirality of their decision. Lets all keep an open mind and enjoy this beautiful land, and it's wonderful people, for whom and what they are.

As for condoms, this again is a moral issue, and eveyone will allign to his own ported preference on this issue.