Thai gov. to tax (remitted) income from abroad for tax residents starting 2024 - Part II

[underlordcthulhu]

5 hours ago, mikebike said:

Question. Why is loitering considered a "crime"? Has anyone here ever loitered? If yes, do you feel like you were committing an incarceratable offence?

It's not nice to use someone's electricity, wifi, water and toilets, all of which cost money to run/maintain, without buying something.

[daoyai]

34 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Crime? What crime did they commit?

They did not comply with the order by police to vacate the Starbucks as they were not customers. very petty offense but still a crime.

[Krataiboy]

The devil is in the detail. Here's a video of how Al Jazeera saw the incident:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/black-men-arrested-waiting-starbucks-180416050337967.html

Edited May 3, 2018 by Krataiboy

[Chomper Higgot]

7 hours ago, daoyai said:

They were publicly given a dollar but the real amount is reported to be confidential. They were also given scholarships and are being hired to address the diversity workshops... sometimes crime does pay.

Except they did not commit any crime.

 

Tresspass is a Tort!

[Baerboxer]

8 hours ago, Grouse said:

The subtleties of this are clearly way over your head ?

 

You mean the race card being played and ruthlessly exploited by various members of the professional "only whites can be racist and accusing non whites of anything is obviously racist" brigade.

 

So had they been white, and treated the same as these two, i.e. asked to buy something or vacant the shop, a shop not a public place, would you think there were subtleties there too?

 

 

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Except they did not commit any crime.

 

Tresspass is a Tort!

 

And refusing to obey a police officers instruction is a what?

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

The devil is in the detail. Here's a video of how Al Jazeera saw the incident:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/black-men-arrested-waiting-starbucks-180416050337967.html

 

Thanks for posting that. The police chief, who happens to be black himself, is clearly absolutely right.

 

Black, brown, white, yellow or any shade thereof, refuse a police officer's instruction and get arrested. Simple.

 

The two men weren't customers. refused to but or move and quite frankly should be having some attitude awareness help.

 

As for the demonstrators - someone needs to start telling these people a simple truth. Bring black isn't a license to do as you please, when you please and treat private property as if it were your own.

[Grouse]

20 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

You mean the race card being played and ruthlessly exploited by various members of the professional "only whites can be racist and accusing non whites of anything is obviously racist" brigade.

 

So had they been white, and treated the same as these two, i.e. asked to buy something or vacant the shop, a shop not a public place, would you think there were subtleties there too?

 

 

Starbucks management were moronic to have the police remove two men from their bloody cafe. 

 

I think the settlement is excellent because it shows the two men were not interested in monetary compensation but would rather the city put some cash into a fund to help others get some help.

 

OK? 

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, underlordcthulhu said:

It's not nice to use someone's electricity, wifi, water and toilets, all of which cost money to run/maintain, without buying something.

Yes, lack of courtesy, but hardly a capital offence!

[thrilled]

They the 2 men were definitely in violation.Most restaurants in the US won’t allow you to use the restroom without purchasing something.Then the manager was right in asking the men to leave.Then the men were breaking the law when they refused to leave.If it had have been whites there wouldn’t have been A story.

[Grouse]

38 minutes ago, thrilled said:

Most restaurants in the US won’t allow you to use the restroom without purchasing something.

What a civilised place. Keep it!

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

And refusing to obey a police officers instruction is a what?

It depends on the legality of the officer’s instruction.

 

Doh!

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, thrilled said:

They the 2 men were definitely in violation.Most restaurants in the US won’t allow you to use the restroom without purchasing something.Then the manager was right in asking the men to leave.Then the men were breaking the law when they refused to leave.If it had have been whites there wouldn’t have been A story.

If they’d have been white their explanation that they were waiting for a third party to join them would have been accepted without the need to call the cops.

 

A point the Starbucks management acknowledged when they intervened, dropped charges and set about retraining their staff.

[KneeDeep]

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If they’d have been white their explanation that they were waiting for a third party to join them would have been accepted without the need to call the cops.

 

A point the Starbucks management acknowledged when they intervened, dropped charges and set about retraining their staff.

 

 

What the heck do you think that you are doing? Introducing a perfectly reasoned argument to Thaivisa's resident rednecks. Desist immediately!

 

[farcanell]

3 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

And refusing to obey a police officers instruction is a what?

The instruction must be lawful to require obedience.... I suppose the pair, the city, the company and other Starbucks customers present, did not see this as a lawful instruction

Edited May 3, 2018 by farcanell

[farcanell]

12 hours ago, mikebike said:

Question. Why is loitering considered a "crime"? Has anyone here ever loitered? If yes, do you feel like you were committing an incarceratable offence?

Lol... no one wants to play.

 

loitering is to hang around, for a protracted time, for no purpose, and is actioned by police as it is deemed to be a precursor to a real crime, and as such, it is a lessor offense “tool” used to prevent greater crime, and protect the innocent ( like me ?)

 

its existence in modern law is contentious, and largely removed (I think!)

 

these two guys apparently had a reason to be in starbucks, so by definition, not loitering.... ergo payout.

 

 

[farcanell]

13 hours ago, FreddieRoyle said:

This is hilarious. They won $1 each in settlement! Well if they pool their money they will almost have enough for half a cup of Starbucks coffee. They could at least afford one at 7/11 now.

 

 The mishandling of these 2 loiterers should be a wake-up call to any right minded human as to how the pervasive extreme liberal mentality is dooming our society. The manager that dealt with these non-paying loiterers should be awarded a hefty payout and promoted. The world has gone mad.

Lol, I think you should start re reading from this point ?

 

Two black men arrested while waiting at a Philadelphia Starbucks store reached a settlement with the coffee chain and dropped legal claims against the city. 

[Tongjaw]

23 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Crime? What crime did they commit?

Just taking a stab in the dark here (no racial slur intended). They wouldn’t purchase anything. Where asked to leave the business premises and refused, Maybe trespassing. 

 

[daoyai]

19 hours ago, Grouse said:

Starbucks management were moronic to have the police remove two men from their bloody cafe. 

 

I think the settlement is excellent because it shows the two men were not interested in monetary compensation but would rather the city put some cash into a fund to help others get some help.

 

OK? 

NOT OK,

Read the story, they were paid by Starbucks an undisclosed amount ,you can be sure it was hefty...  the city paid them the symbolic dollar.

[daoyai]

16 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If they’d have been white their explanation that they were waiting for a third party to join them would have been accepted without the need to call the cops.

 

A point the Starbucks management acknowledged when they intervened, dropped charges and set about retraining their staff.

A racist assumption on your part.

[Tongjaw]

19 hours ago, Grouse said:

Starbucks management were moronic to have the police remove two men from their bloody cafe. 

 

I think the settlement is excellent because it shows the two men were not interested in monetary compensation but would rather the city put some cash into a fund to help others get some help.

 

OK? 

Not interested in monetary compensation?  Did you read any of the article?

There was a confidential settlement between the 2 men and Starbucks. They will also get their undergraduate degrees paid for. They planned their 15 minutes of fame well and have made money from it as they knew they would. Playing the, “poor me I’m black and being racially discriminated against” card has worked yet again. 

[Tongjaw]

16 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If they’d have been white their explanation that they were waiting for a third party to join them would have been accepted without the need to call the cops.

 

A point the Starbucks management acknowledged when they intervened, dropped charges and set about retraining their staff.

Do you know for a fact a white persons excuse would have been accepted or are you making racially biased assumptions ?. Starbucks are only retraining their staff because the black racist card was used again. I wonder what the retraining will consist of? Now listen up Latte makers, if any coloured people come in and don’t purchase anything do not approach or make eye contact. Just let them use it as a hangout place. Even let them bring in their supersized McDonald and eat them here as our WiFi is better. Just give all the paying customers coffees in take away cups so they don’t take up priority seating for non paying scam merchants. ?

[Grouse]

6 hours ago, daoyai said:

NOT OK,

Read the story, they were paid by Starbucks an undisclosed amount ,you can be sure it was hefty...  the city paid them the symbolic dollar.

Listen Big Star, I am well aware of that! It was still a great settlement! Everyone comes out smiling. (Except the Starbucks burger flipper who made a fuss)

 

Hey, you get to criticise me for not knowing Starbucks don't sell burgers!)

[Opl]

Starbucks Restrooms Open for All Visitors

Employees told in a letter that everyone is ‘considered a customer’

 

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/05/starbucks-will-now-allow-anyone-hang-use-restrooms-no-purchase-necessary/

[ChouDoufu]

i believe this was just a stunt to gain publicity for the "resistance."

do a quick google search for images.....check out the way the guys are

dressed.  seems they went out of their way to look like stereotypes.

 

they sit in a busy starbucks (full of white folks!), looking "out of

place,"  after being asked several times for their order, they refuse to buy

anything.  when asked to leave, they refuse.

 

according to the new york times, they were waiting to meet another man

to conduct a business meeting to discuss a real estate project.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/us/starbucks-arrest-philadelphia-settlement.html

 

really?  dress like thugs for a business meeting?  plan to invest in

real estate, but don't have $5 for a coffee? 

 

obvious set up.