Reasonableman

As mentioned by me else where, at 4pm my 2 local coppers were supping their beer at the local shop. Both Days.

Maybe they will be turning themselves in on Monday.

Sent from my GT-I9003 using Thaivisa Connect App

Yeah, to sleep it off somewhere comfy

I am shocked at all these postings! If I didn't know any better I would think that the LOS is the Hub of Hypocricy .

...isy, shaken not stirred...

http://www.thailandlawonline.com/article-blog/property-law-land-and-title-deeds.html

Por. Bor. Tor. 5 (P.B.T. 5), is an evidence showing that the occupier of a plot of land has been issued a tax number and has paid tax for using the benefit of the land. This confers no right at all but was formerly used to establish that the holder was occupying a plot of land and could apply for a Sor Kor 1.

Why bust the little mum and pop stores, they aren't exactly selling truckloads and what they do sell hardly provides enoungh income to feed the family for a day.

Because it is the law?

Because alcoholics have rights, too?

Or something else?

What's the right answer?

That sounds really lovely, JG. What resort would you recommend?

Last time (more than 5 years ago) I stay in a resort, it was owned, oh irony, by an officer of the forest department

Are you recommending that one, then? If you want folks to visit, they will need to know where to go. You are a local expert, so your suggestions are being sought. Where do you recommend?

There is no point to go further with our discussion.

I invite the readers of this forum to come and judge by themselves. It's close to Bangkok, around 3 to 4 hours by car. The area is very nice, people describe it as the Switzerland of Thailand. The weather is wonderful, cool, around 20-22 at night, you really don't need an air cond at night. During the winter months you may actually need an extra blanket and a jumper for breakfast. A wonderful place if you want to get away from the heat of the city.

And you will judge the situation by yourself. You will find the resort where you stay is in a very nice surrounding, close to the national park but actually in the middle of an agricultural area. No need to believe anybody, just come and judge by yourself. And in the process you will discover a very nice, very different side of Thailand

You continue to cloud the issue with irrelevancies. If the land is being used for purposes for which there are restrictions on the title, then it is illegal use, and that is why the court issued demolition orders. And it doesn't matter how long illegal use has occurred, it is still illegal use until the land is re-zoned. good luck with that, because it is not going to happen.

BTW You don't NEED air-conditioning to live in Thailand if you adapt yourself to the climate

Agree with you, it about re zoning. Decision have been made 40-50 years ago according to the realities of the time. These realities have changed, it happens everywhere all the time. Agricultural zone are changed to industrials zones, disaffected industrial areas are upgraded to commercial or residential areas ...

But rezoning is a boring word. People who oppose that prefer to use the term "encroachment", that creates a much more emotive reaction even with (and especially with) people with no real knowledge or understanding of the situation.

I don't know where you get it's not going to happen, I personally believe negotiation are on the right track probably one of the reason why our Judge Dredd was in such in a hurry to go ahead with his new role as Demolition Man. And soon he will be staring in "The Expendable"

Even a list of resort options would be great. Which one is yours?

Who were the candidates in the election again? JG seems a liitle confused.

That sounds really lovely, JG. What resort would you recommend?

I trust that the upshot of this matter and the broader debate will not result in the legitimization of encroachment on national parks and reserves. A disaster long in the making already, a slow train crash, destroying much of what once made Thailand an attractive destination for visitors and expats.

The best thing is for you to have a look at the disputed area. We had people coming over because they wanted to know what it was all about. They were very very surprised. They kept on asking, but when do we arrive ? We were telling them but here we are. They were asking, but where is the forest ? the national park ? all what we can see is villages that seem to have been here for a very long time and cultivated fields.

The area we are talking about is not a national park, it's an agricultural area under the jurisdiction of the national park, which is very different. Have you ever see lands in a national park that have ownership titles ?

And your last remark really disturb me "once made Thailand an attractive destination for visitors and expats". That's your idea of Thailand ? A zoo for western people ? And local people are monkeys who are here for your amusement ? I'm quickly losing all the respect I was having for you.

These are your emotive words, not mine, so I suggest you withdraw the misleading inference along with the prior throwaway line re "bad faith". Your level of respect for me is ultimately inconsequential, as is mine for you. The issues will be decided by neither of us. Environmental degradation affects everyone, residents, entrepreneurs and developers, tourists, expats, everyone. All are stakeholders in the preservation of national parks and reserves, many of which have already been degraded and encroached upon. You are focused ostensibly on poor little old women and their ability to make ends meet, and your own retirement project. Fair enough, that's pretty clear, as far as your self-revelation goes. Meanwhile, you are (deliberately?) playing down the other stakeholders. If this wins sympathy for your cause, so be it. Attacking me will not affect the eventual outcome. I have no personal stake in this, other than a desire to protect national parks and reserves from further destruction. And yes, i do agree with you that the competing interests need to be considered and mediated. I just hope that national parks and reserves will be preserved for current and future generations, and that their piecemeal destruction is prevented.

It would be nice to see this guys balls in a vice and the rest of the cronies that were partners in crime.

I doubt that will ever happen coz there is obviously far too much money involved and some judge or powerful officials will

get paid off...It will then be swept under the proverbial rug and forgotten about.

Just another chapter for a country that sees itself as becoming a REGIONAL HUB!

Are you lost? What are you talking about that is relevant to this topic? Or was it a copy/paste from another thread?

Thanks for your admission of bias. You are therefore advocating a position in which you have a personal interest, and in support of your friends. It helps when advocates declare themselves, don't you think? Kinda clears the air and adds a contextual dimension to people's posts. Of course, we all feel terrible for any innocents affected, but to characterize all of the players as poor little old ladies is perhaps unintentionally misleading, wouldn't you agree?

Agree with you. But I think the way the newspapers describes the situation , probably influenced by the PR office of the forest department, is terribly misleading. I try to show the other side of the coin.

The real debate here should be what is the future of rural Thailand ? How eco tourism can help alleviate poverty in rural Thailand ? Under which condition ? Is this system of land title still relevant in Thailand in 2012 and how should it be modified to reflect the reality of the modern economy ? And the solution that will be found here can later be applied in other provinces of Thailand.

But these questions flight way above the head of our Judge Dredd from the forest department. That's why the first move should be to remove him from his position then to engage in a constructive debate with the representatives of all the parties involved in the area.

I trust that the upshot of this matter and the broader debate will not result in the legitimization of encroachment on national parks and reserves. A disaster long in the making already, a slow train crash, destroying much of what once made Thailand an attractive destination for visitors and expats.

True, there are other issues that have been discussed in other threads. But I believe that the situation is complex enough that we should handle them one by one. If you want to talk about points that have discussed in other threads, I suggest that you "resurrect" these threads and that we start from there.

This thread is about the conduct of the national park head. He has clearly overstep his authority, acted unlawfully and antagonized the other parties at a point that he now needs to be removed so negotiation can resume.

you sound VERY biased? do you own anything there?

Did I miss the answer to this question?

You're of such a bad faith mate You asked me the same question two days ago and I replied you right here in this forum.

I don't own anything there yet but I wish to buy a small piece of land there to build a house for my retirement. We've been visiting this area for the past few years , staying in the house of a friend who moved back home leaving us in charge of his property. We really fell in love with the area, we have very good relation with our neighbour and the bias you can feel is our solidarity with them .

The situation is worse than people can imagine. The forest department is terrorizing the population. They say that if anybody is caught working in the area he will be put in jail with bail of 100,000 bahts, a sum people can't definitively afford. And they are not rich city people invading the pristine forest, they are villagers born in this area, the villages exist for 40 years, since the 70's, long before the creation of the national park.

Just to give you an other example. On TV, during a PR exercise organized by the forest department, they show a house describing her owner as an evil encroacher running a business damaging for the environment who should be evicted. In a later interview that wasn't broadcast that day, you can see the owner, an old lady, really worrying. She is 60 something, she has been living here for the past 40 years, she has nowhere else to go and all she does is growing flowers in her backyard. That's the kind of evil people K Damtong is fighting against !

But this they never tell you on TV, you can never read it in the newspaper. Just read this forum, they only want to know who are the "big names". No big names, just old ladies ? So who care, just burn them !

Sorry Reasonableman, the well named, my feelings are again overcoming me.

In short I'm biased because I know the people living there, we have developed good relation over the years and therefore I'm on their side.

Thanks for your admission of bias. You are therefore advocating a position in which you have a personal interest, and in support of your friends. It helps when advocates declare themselves, don't you think? Kinda clears the air and adds a contextual dimension to people's posts. Of course, we all feel terrible for any innocents affected, but to characterize all of the players as poor little old ladies is perhaps unintentionally misleading, wouldn't you agree?

It's incredible how full of non sense this thread is.

We start from a non-event. Lobbying for foreign customers is highly regulated in the USA, and rightly so. Full disclosure is required.Two years ago, probably anticipating a more complicated situation, Amsterdam's firm informed the US congress that they have been hired by K. Thaksin to represent his interest in the USA. Two years later, they fill an other mandatory form saying they won't do it anymore because basically there weren't much to do anyway. Billing less than $5,000 over two years is probably the cost of filling these two forms. R. Amsterdam in an unrelated document confirms that his relation with K. Thaksin remains unchanged as the focus of their cooperation is, and has always been, somewhere else. In short, a total non-event

So why so much noise about nothing ? Obviously a sign the opposition is getting desperate.

One year ago this government was voted in office. If you were at that time listening to the opposition, sure by September something will have happened and this nightmare will be over. Then it was by December ... then by April ...then June ... And here we are one year later with a government as strong as ever and K. Thaksin proving one more time that he is the only one able to form a stable government.

So what do the people from the majority should think of this non-event? Probably nothing much, the dogs bark but the caravan moves on ...

Thanks for highlighting the "non-event-ness" for all, JerkinG. Very helpful. From land encroachment to lobbying, a multiplicity of interests, good to see another Renaissance Man.

True, there are other issues that have been discussed in other threads. But I believe that the situation is complex enough that we should handle them one by one. If you want to talk about points that have discussed in other threads, I suggest that you "resurrect" these threads and that we start from there.

This thread is about the conduct of the national park head. He has clearly overstep his authority, acted unlawfully and antagonized the other parties at a point that he now needs to be removed so negotiation can resume.

you sound VERY biased? do you own anything there?

Did I miss the answer to this question?

The reference, from the Nation, is here:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/08/18/national/ALRO-RFD-join-up-to-resolve-issue-30163055.html

Another, to a TV thread at the same time, here:

That's your opinion. It may well be substantiated... Or not. To be determined elsewhere, not on TV. Thanks.

Well how pompous! So just what are we supposed to do on TV if not debate and pontificate? Perhaps you should send a note to the site owners asking they shut it down as you don't agree with people having differing opinions

Your opinions have been duly noted, more than once, as you wished. You are welcome to debate, pontificate and restate them further. No problem. Have a good evening.

That's your opinion. It may well be substantiated... Or not. To be determined elsewhere, not on TV. Thanks.

Well there ya go, but that's the process we all have to live with. If only they'd known.... Such a waste... ;-)

A major bone of contention seems to lie in the words you use "in the nearby national park", which supports your view. Others appear to differ, and feel the correct phraseology is "in the national park". Let's see what the committees determine, if that issue is within their remit.

True, there are other issues that have been discussed in other threads. But I believe that the situation is complex enough that we should handle them one by one. If you want to talk about points that have discussed in other threads, I suggest that you "resurrect" these threads and that we start from there.

This thread is about the conduct of the national park head. He has clearly overstep his authority, acted unlawfully and antagonized the other parties at a point that he now needs to be removed so negotiation can resume.

It is clear that you have an opinion. Whether it is the correct one or "clear" remains to be seen. You seem to have reached the conclusion before the due process of investigation, unsurprisingly. You no doubt have your reasons, and you outlined those early in this thread. You are an involved player, not an observer, with some personal stake in the outcome. Therefore, your opinion is influenced by, or conflicted by, self-interest. And you are not alone, for sure. We should all be pleased that these two committees, in their wisdom, will sort out the divergent opinions and historical details.

Yes JG that is one version of the history, and personally, I can't and have no wish to dispute it. It's just that there are other versions, so that it needs sorting out. Let's hope these committees are able to distill the truth and act with wisdom for all concerned, and to ensure the security of our dwindling parks and reserves.

Also reported here: http://www.southeastasiantimes.com/

What is not said in this article :

- There was an appeal against the court order. So Damrong should have wait the result of the appeal before going ahead with the demolition. Strictly legally, Damrong's action is wrong.

- The borders of the National Park are not clear. They should have been modified in 2000 but as it was frequent at the time, the government collapsed before the law was passed. There are current discussion to finally pass this law which will mean that the resorts won't be anymore under the National Park jusrisdiction. For concerned trees huggers, the area that is disputed has been cleared in the 70's (before the creation of the national park !!!) and there is no more forest, no more wild life, just villages and cultivated fields, and now resorts.

Obviously it was just a matter of time that this area escaped from the jurisdiction of Damrong. In his sick mind, he couldn't accept to fail so close to the goal that's why he decided to go ahead with the demolition even if the appeals mean that the destruction order was suspended.

It was just a few points for the consideration of interested readers.

Well Jurgen, these are a few points as you say, but by no means all of the story. If you wish to appear objective, you really shouldn't use loaded terms like "tree huggers" and "his sick mind", because it conveys the impression you are prejudiced, as did a few attempted character smears in this thread already. Just a few words for your kind consideration.

Reasonableman

But regardless of any other 'points', the fact is that the major 'point' was that the courts decision was under legal appeal, and the owners of that appeal were entitled to that appeal under law. The Government Department Chief has therefore acted illegally. Everything else in the story is an aside.

I imagine the 1000's of staff and traders in the local area who relied on the resorts for a living are more than slightly upset about being thrown on the heap and now facing traveling to a different area to earn family income, once again abandoning children to the care of Grandparents. The Chief has literally taken the law in to his own hands and that cannot be allowed to happen.

oh and by the way, lets not get too zealous and lets be fair to Jurgen, calling someone a tree hugger or stating that someone has a sick mind in your own opinion can in no way be classed as prejudice can it!

Esteemed GJ, thanks for the further details, which show the complexity of the issue, rather than simplify it. Very unfortunate for all concerned. It bemuses me that, if the issue is as simple and crystal clear as you assert, that two (2) committees are investigating. Why didn't they save the time, and just ask GJ and JG for the answer? Easy peasy. ;-)

It's a learning process.

Also reported here: http://www.southeastasiantimes.com/

What is not said in this article :

- There was an appeal against the court order. So Damrong should have wait the result of the appeal before going ahead with the demolition. Strictly legally, Damrong's action is wrong.

- The borders of the National Park are not clear. They should have been modified in 2000 but as it was frequent at the time, the government collapsed before the law was passed. There are current discussion to finally pass this law which will mean that the resorts won't be anymore under the National Park jusrisdiction. For concerned trees huggers, the area that is disputed has been cleared in the 70's (before the creation of the national park !!!) and there is no more forest, no more wild life, just villages and cultivated fields, and now resorts.

Obviously it was just a matter of time that this area escaped from the jurisdiction of Damrong. In his sick mind, he couldn't accept to fail so close to the goal that's why he decided to go ahead with the demolition even if the appeals mean that the destruction order was suspended.

It was just a few points for the consideration of interested readers.

Well Jurgen, these are a few points as you say, but by no means all of the story. If you wish to appear objective, you really shouldn't use loaded terms like "tree huggers" and "his sick mind", because it conveys the impression you are prejudiced, as did a few attempted character smears in this thread already. Just a few words for your kind consideration.