Foreign tourists fined for inappropriate behaviour at famous Bangkok temple

[jacko45k]

She had underwear on! There was me thinking otherwise!

[mistertraveler]

4 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

5,000 Baht each for "obscenity".

 

In a country with Pat Pong, Soi Cowboy and Nana Plaza.

 

Hmm... a wee bit hypocritical, aren't we?

I had been in Isaan for 4 years and frequently invited to their “Mua Lam Sing” or party just inside the fence of their temples, even beside the temple...where almost naked dancers dancing all way almost tearing their panties while drinks served all around and drunkin’ masters were showing all their drama of being “very conservative” people and they were not “obscene”? 

4 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

5,000 Baht each for "obscenity".

 

In a country with Pat Pong, Soi Cowboy and Nana Plaza.

 

Hmm... a wee bit hypocritical, aren't we?

 

[Voodoochile]

2 hours ago, bsdthai said:

Hmm.... This country tries so hard to pretend these sites mean anything just to ripp off tourists. Buddhism is a joke. Reality hurts! My local temple are full of illegal loggers. Got a photo this morning of a monk up a tree from neighbouring land cutting it down. I complained and now it appears they can do as they wish undeterred. Buddhism sux. My wifes no longer buddhist. Anyone who is is ignorant. I suggest thais fix themselves and fast or buddhism will go out of fashion soon enough. Out of all the religions buddhism was the only one that seemed to make sense buy the ways of monks is a far more serious issue tarnishing buddhism far more than a girl with a skirt. Despicable...

I agree, and from what an old friend told me who has been practicing buddhism for over 40 years and has been to most Buddhist countries he says The Thai peoples way of practicing is unique and has nothing to do with "real" buddhism in fact he states that in most casses it goes against most the teachings of buddha. He sees it For Thais  it more of a good luck charm for the followers and a jackpot for the government.

[Bundooman]

3 hours ago, colinneil said:

Big joke, you are becoming a big joke.

Want to do something useful?

Get up off your a++e and go after serious criminals, not just a silly young girl flashing her tush.

May I please correct your statement if you don't mind......."not just an attractive and sexily posing, silly young girl flashing her tush".

There. I think that is better.

While the apparent Thai guy taking the photo doesn't seem to be too concerned either.

Thank you.

[Maestro]

4 hours ago, rooster59 said:

the pair admitted taking the photos and were charged with obscenity by Suvarnabhumi airport police who found them to have breached Section 388 of the Criminal Code.

 

The Serbian couple were given the maximum fine of 5,000 baht each.

 

The above is with reference to the Criminal Code, B.E. 2499 (1956), also known as the Penal Code, section 388 of which was amended by the Criminal Code (No. 22) BE 2558 (2015) to read as follows:

Quote

 

Section 388

Anyone who commits a shameful act in the presence of a third party, by unclothing or disclosing the body or doing a different kind of vulgar act, shall be liable to a fine of not exceeding five thousand baht.

 

Source: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Penal_Code_of_Thailand_(1957)/Division_3/2015-02-14#endnote_388.a

 

Before 2015, the maximum fine was 500 Baht.

[Bundooman]

1 minute ago, Maestro said:

 

The above is with reference to the Criminal Code, B.E. 2499 (1956), also known as the Penal Code, section 388 of which was amended by the Criminal Code (No. 22) BE 2558 (2015) to read as follows:

Source: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Penal_Code_of_Thailand_(1957)/Division_3/2015-02-14#endnote_388.a

 

Before 2015, the maximum fine was 500 Baht.

OK. That's reasonable - but the little white cloud hovering over the alleged obscenity bit, doesn't actually prove to one and all that the cloud wasn't just covering a small glimpse of just her knickers, does it? And it doesn't actually mean that she was intent on flashing her gash, either!

[BEVUP]

Well it looks like Viral Face book cost them 10,000 bht for a picture

[Just Weird]

5 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

5,000 Baht each for "obscenity".

 

In a country with Pat Pong, Soi Cowboy and Nana Plaza.

 

Hmm... a wee bit hypocritical, aren't we?

Yes, lots of temples and consecrated areas in entertainment zones, aren't there?

Not hypocritical at all unless go-go dancing was normal in this temple.

[Just Weird]

5 hours ago, colinneil said:

Big joke, you are becoming a big joke.

Want to do something useful?

Get up off your a++e and go after serious criminals, not just a silly young girl flashing her tush.

Are you suggesting that no other crimes were being investigated during the search for this woman?

[Just Weird]

4 hours ago, Thian said:

Did big joke already bust the fake officials around Grand Palace who say the temple is closed and bring tourists to their longtailboats?

Probably not, as someone telling visitors that the temple is closed when it isn't (lying) isn't an offence.  

[colinneil]

3 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

Are you suggesting that no other crimes were being investigated during the search for this woman?

What a weird comment!!

Ohh just seen just weird posted it, say no more.

[Just Weird]

Just now, colinneil said:

What a weird comment!!

Ohh just seen just weird posted it, say no more.

Is that the best response that you could come up with?  Geez...

[Just Weird]

4 hours ago, Maejo Man said:

The outraged Thai that took the indecent photo is the one that should be fined. The perspective that the boyfriend was taking was quite decent as she had her skirt over her legs.

Obviously that's not her boyfriend!  

[Just Weird]

2 hours ago, sanemax said:

I climb onto my barstool in a bar in soi 6 , so, whats the difference between my climbing on my barstool and them climbing onto their seat , hypocritical   

They weren't climbing on to "their seat" or even a seat, that's the difference.  As you seem to think that there is some rational comparison between the two, presumably you climb onto you barstool wearing a slit-front dress and flash your knickers to passers-by? 

 

Come back when your bj bar stool turns into a consecrated temple wall.

Edited March 25, 2018 by Just Weird

[gbswales]

Frankly if the picture shown is typical of the ones taken I cannot see any reason for people to get offended - its a pretty normal holiday picture that might have been taken anywhere in the world - tame enough to have been taken in Westminster Abbey or Notre Dame - there are very few places in the world where legs are seen as offensive.  If some "self-righteous" person had not posted the pic the only place it would have been seen is in the couples photo album.  Even if the couple were doing something offensive then a quiet word from an official is all that is needed.  Now they will be telling the tale back home and making other people think twice about coming to to Thailand. If Thai people are so concerned about their temples then I suggest they demand they not be promoted as tourist attractions

[Shaunduhpostman]

The irony is that the country would come away much more enriched and appear in a much better light internationally  if the police had explained to the couple their mistake, allowed them to publicly apologize and promise not to do it next time and police explain to the Thai people that all had been forgiven and forgotten. But as it stands, the couple will likely go away quite alienated, humiliated, possible even have a sense of fear for their lives that they'll be on the receiving end of reprisals from random facebookers  and will be unlikely to return to Thailand and more people in Thailand will come away thinking this is how tourists should be handled ie, monitored by volunteer vigilantes with mobile phone cameras and tarred and feathered should the facebook mob disapprove of what they see. Essentially, the police are inciting a kind of violence against tourists. It is not unlikely that we'll see this kind of thing again and next time it could be tragic tourists may end up being physically attacked for little to nothing they have done wrong other than to violate people's sensibilities. Potential tourists will feel the police will forgive whatever the Thai masses want to do tourists and not feel safe to come here at all. 

 

These tourists were attacked by someone with a phone camera and later joined by the facebook mobs who used the club of the police authorities to beat them down so to speak. Excruciatingly ironic that this kind of behavior surfaces in connection with defending the dignity of a symbol of Buddhism. In the end, you have to ask, who is desecrating the Emerald Buddha here?

 

 

[jesimps]

7 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

5,000 Baht each for "obscenity".

 

In a country with Pat Pong, Soi Cowboy and Nana Plaza.

 

Hmm... a wee bit hypocritical, aren't we?

Been saying it for years, Thais are the planet's biggest hypocrites.

[SpicyMeatball]

Land of hypocrisy. 

Where does this “fine money” go to?

[HerbalEd]

8 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

5,000 Baht each for "obscenity".

 

In a country with Pat Pong, Soi Cowboy and Nana Plaza.

 

Hmm... a wee bit hypocritical, aren't we?

Let's see: One of most sacred temples in Thailand vs. Pat Pong, Soi Cowboy, Nana Plaza. All the same to you, huh?

[HerbalEd]

7 hours ago, tingtongtourist said:

 

and unlike the first thread they now mention "exposed underwear"

 

no big joke, its only tush and not bush!

Bush has gone out of style. Haven't you seen?

[Puccini]

3 hours ago, Just Weird said:

7 hours ago, Maejo Man said:

The outraged Thai that took the indecent photo is the one that should be fined. The perspective that the boyfriend was taking was quite decent as she had her skirt over her legs.

Obviously that's not her boyfriend!  

 

There appears to be some confusion here. Maejo Man refers to two persons taking photographs:

1. The man shown in the published picture and referred to by Maejo Man as the boyfriend of the woman in a blue skirt in the photograph.
2. The person of unspecified name and gender and allegedly of Thai nationality who took the published picture and therefore obviously is not shown in that picture.

With your exclamation "Obviously that's not her boyfriend!" you appear to mean number 1 above, which would be wrong, wouldn't it?

[Cheops]

What they should have done:

Give the tourists a 2 hour lesson in cultural and religious behavior.

 

Give the guide a lesson of how to really guide tourists and gently correct them when needed. (Was the guide summoned or fined or even spoken to?)

 

Ask tourists if they understand the signs and if they are clear and placed in visible places and take action accordingly to improve the signs.

 

Tell the guy who made the photo and post it on FB to go to the person who acted incorrectly and kindly point out the wrongdoing. Posting photos without someone's consent is not allowed in most countries. 

[anon789561]

this is my take on this. the couple were in the wrong but probably through lack of knowledge. the guy who posted the photo with her wardrobe malfunction should also be punished as i don't believe it was her intention to show herself like that and that would be deemed as voyeurism in alot of places. judges son in london for example. it was only a few weeks ago that a some young thais got similarly shamed on social media and fined etc so those paranoid that it's because they are farang. well, that makes no sense to me from recent news. they also got their fine. being posted all over social media is a bit much but that's the time we are in. also, look at the kerfuffle that erupted when top gear decided to race past one of londons respected monuments. uproar. 

Edited March 25, 2018 by Happy enough

[Puccini]

8 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

5,000 Baht each for "obscenity".

 

In a country with Pat Pong, Soi Cowboy and Nana Plaza.

 

Hmm... a wee bit hypocritical, aren't we?

 

"obscenity" as used in the context of the legal clause mentioned somewhere in this topic is relative, in the case being discussed here relative to the location (Buddhist temple) where a woman sat in a manner that allowed, apparently unintentionally, another person who happened to see her from a particular angle to get a glimpse of a square inch of her underpants.

 

I agree, though, that this is stretching the definition of "obscenity" a bit far and it is interesting to see that the maximum fine permissible under the law was imposed on her.

[Henrik Andersen]

9 hours ago, rooster59 said:

The Serbian couple were given the maximum fine of 5,000 baht each.

 

In their defence the couple said that they had no idea they had done anything wrong

If you want to go holiday in a country you can at least read the rules about be in a good manners 

Serbians are catholic I think so ask yourself this can I do that in my church properly not 

You just another selfish tourist there think you can do whatever you want 

[metisdead]

Some troll posts and the replies have been removed.

[JohnThailandJohn]

Clearly the guy in the photo did not take this picture which shows he underwear

[Uncle Pecker]

You can google it <grin>

[owl sees all]

1 hour ago, Henrik Andersen said:

If you want to go holiday in a country you can at least read the rules about be in a good manners 

Serbians are catholic I think so ask yourself this can I do that in my church properly not 

You just another selfish tourist there think you can do whatever you want 

This Thai witch-hunt on visitors and resident farang is simply vindictive. Most Thais are jealous and the authorities see this as an oppotunity to put the non-Thai in their place.

 

These two were just enjoying their holiday. Can't see they did anything wrong. 

 

As for Serbians being Catholic; well no ones perfect.

[Just Weird]

2 hours ago, Puccini said:

 

There appears to be some confusion here. Maejo Man refers to two persons taking photographs:

1. The man shown in the published picture and referred to by Maejo Man as the boyfriend of the woman in a blue skirt in the photograph.
2. The person of unspecified name and gender and allegedly of Thai nationality who took the published picture and therefore obviously is not shown in that picture.

With your exclamation "Obviously that's not her boyfriend!" you appear to mean number 1 above, which would be wrong, wouldn't it?

No, you've got it wrong.

 

Your No.1 shown in the article photo was obviously not the boyfriend as he could not have taken the picture in which she was flashing!

 

No.2 was specified as the one who took the photo and was not alleged to be Thai in the report (from the OP, "Two foreign tourist have been fined after taking photos which were deemed to be inappropriate at a Bangkok temple").  The Serbs were referred to as a couple and the one in the photo was referred to as "the woman" so it's fair to assume that the other was a man and therefore his gender was obvious, even if not specifically stated.

Edited March 25, 2018 by Just Weird