Police open door to no death penalty charge over Phuket seastead case

[natway09]

I think some of you have lost the plot a little in regard to this being allowed to happen.

If there is not an outcome that penalizes those that built & stayed aboard it the next thing that 

will happen is that everyone with money will build one & then the criminal element will take over for all sorts of smuggling etc.

As already posted can you imagine the chaos if had 100 of these things off the coast & a major storm came through ?

The Police Investigator has spoken with sense & am sure this will end with every bodies heads attached to their shoulders.

 

[natway09]

Just think about what your home country would do if these sprang up everywhere ???

[anterian]

Seasteading is being proposed as a sensible approach for future communities, Thailand is missing an opportunity here, it could be a leading pioneer. 
https://ocean.builders/seasteading/

 

[newnative]

   You can hack your wife to death and be out in 5 years but building an unauthorized structure could bring the death penalty?   Absurd beyond belief.

[metisdead]

An overly derogatory post has been removed as well as a reply. 

[Guest]

As someone moving to Thailand soon, this is disturbing. I get that civil liberties there won't be what I'm used to. I get that I'll have to bite my tongue on a lot of things. I get that I'll have to differentiate the people and culture I love there from head-scratching domestic policies (and the people imposing them).

 

...but this is just too much. If it's in international waters, you have NO CASE, Thailand. Not only can you not abduct and prosecute these people, they've committed no crime that I can ascertain.* So, you'd be unlawfully rendering someone into your country, detaining them for a "crime" over which you have no jurisdiction, and destroying their property extraterritorially. Every official involved in this case should take heed: they're violating the Law of the Sea treaty (of which Thailand is a signatory) and could wind up in the Hague.

 

*The only legitimate offense I can think they might have committed would be an immigration violation if they headed out by boat to this thing without exiting through a proper port. Still, there's no grounds for taking action on the structure, and you can only really get them on the exit violation if they're in Thailand.

Edited April 20, 2019 by Guest
added

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, natway09 said:

Just think about what your home country would do if these sprang up everywhere ???

Everywhere? Well, ostensibly they wouldn't be springing up in anyone's "home country." #InternationalWaters

[chang1]

1 hour ago, natway09 said:

Just think about what your home country would do if these sprang up everywhere ???

If it is floating, why is it not treated the same as a boat that has dropped anchor, which are everywhere?

[yellowboat]

8 hours ago, rooster59 said:

if he finds no evidence that the structure threatens national security.

It is little more than a prank for goodness sakes.  If something the size of an elaborate tree house is a threat to Thai security, the country needs new military leadership.

[MeePeeMai]

I'd choose the death penalty anyday over life in prison, so if I was Chad I'd be screaming "Don't do me no favors!"

[jgarbo]

8 hours ago, observer90210 said:

As said before, why not start rather to hunt down those who agreed to build the structure  ?

Relax. The "death penalty" was PR to stop any further nonsense. The structure is a danger to shipping and creates a legal problem. Interesting how fast the US embassy jumped in to "save the brave individual", or is it a another scam to pressure Prayut for blocking NED (CIA) backed Future Forward gangsters.

[sawadeeken]

21 hours ago, YetAnother said:

everything threatens national security just ask the military and the government

More reason for needing to buy Submarines...... Then the Royal Thai Navy can actually sneak up on a 'Seastead' such as this..... LOL.....

[petertucker48]

Just a danger to shipping the owner is a total idiot !!!

[jgarbo]

11 minutes ago, chang1 said:

If it is floating, why is it not treated the same as a boat that has dropped anchor, which are everywhere?

From video it looks anchored - no movement. No warning lights. If it's run over at night by a vessel? another PIA American in trouble. But a hotel.

[jgarbo]

35 minutes ago, GrumblesMcGee said:

As someone moving to Thailand soon, this is disturbing. I get that civil liberties there won't be what I'm used to. I get that I'll have to bite my tongue on a lot of things. I get that I'll have to differentiate the people and culture I love there from head-scratching domestic policies (and the people imposing them).

 

...but this is just too much. If it's in international waters, you have NO CASE, Thailand. Not only can you not abduct and prosecute these people, they've committed no crime that I can ascertain.* So, you'd be unlawfully rendering someone into your country, detaining them for a "crime" over which you have no jurisdiction, and destroying their property extraterritorially. Every official involved in this case should take heed: they're violating the Law of the Sea treaty (of which Thailand is a signatory) and could wind up in the Hague.

 

*The only legitimate offense I can think they might have committed would be an immigration violation if they headed out by boat to this thing without exiting through a proper port. Still, there's no grounds for taking action on the structure, and you can only really get them on the exit violation if they're in Thailand.

Problem's solved. Thai visa canceled, PNG. See you in 10 yrs. There's more to this scam. 

[Pedrogaz]

5 hours ago, steelepulse said:

Only problem with this defense it's in the economic zone which does not fall under the 12 nm rule.  Pretty easy for the Thai gov't to prove that they were exploiting this for monetary gain.  That being said, mountain and molehills come to mind.  Just knock the thing down, create a new artificial reef, charge this guy the cost of doing so and be done with it.

Oh stop being sensible...

[Guest]

Just now, Pedrogaz said:

Oh stop being sensible...

It is in the EEZ (and possibly Thailand's "contiguous zone"), but that doesn't give Thailand full sovereignty over it for law enforcement purposes. They have economic rights over it, and they can pursue criminals (i.e. "hot pursuit") for limited purposes. Basically, the violation has to have occurred within territorial waters (or is about to occur). So, unless Thailand can cite a specific customs, taxation, immigration, or pollution violation, it has no business enforcing its laws on the seastead.

 

The "monetary gain" argument doesn't hold up.

[peterb17]

There was never really a threat of the death penalty- I don’t think the Kingdom has actually executed anyone for ages ( correct me if I am incorrect) 

 

Again correct me if I have a misconception- the USA seems to have one of the most far reaching tax collection systems in the world.

 

This whole concept was dreamt up to avoid tax - nothing more -living in a tin box in the ocean to avoid tax ( you can’t escape it) would be my idea of hell on earth - unless you like fish of course .

[VBF]

4 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I can answer that one.

There is nothing more important to the Thai authorities than harassing white men trying to live in (or around) Thailand.

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you 

[Guest]

Just now, peterb17 said:

There was never really a threat of the death penalty- I don’t think the Kingdom has actually executed anyone for ages ( correct me if I am incorrect) 

 

Again correct me if I have a misconception- the USA seems to have one of the most far reaching tax collection systems in the world.

 

This whole concept was dreamt up to avoid tax - nothing more -living in a tin box in the ocean to avoid tax ( you can’t escape it) would be my idea of hell on earth - unless you like fish of course .

Yes, the U.S. tax system is illegit (they claim right to tax citizens' global earnings). 

 

The concept is about more than taxes. It's a weird mix of pioneer spirit and libertarianism, this idea that you can start a new country (even if it's just for yourself) somewhere and not be subjected to anyone's laws. Yeah. The problem is, you'd better like spending time with just yourself (and whoever else is willing to go with you).

[VBF]

1 hour ago, natway09 said:

Just think about what your home country would do if these sprang up everywhere ???

Sort of reminds me of the so-called "pirate" radio stations offshore UK in the sixties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_radio_in_the_United_Kingdom

They were only shut down after a loophole in the law was closed.

 

"The UK Government also closed the international waters loophole via the Marine Broadcasting Offences Act of 1967..."   (From above link)

[4675636b596f75]

8 hours ago, BritManToo said:

How can a platform built in international waters be a national security issue?

Was it in International waters?  I don't think it was.

[Splash210]

8 hours ago, observer90210 said:

As said before, why not start rather to hunt down those who agreed to build the structure  ?

Because this case really has nothing to do with the seastead, it has everything to do with what his intentions were to build and live in a structure like that to avoid governmental control. He could have thrown that woman over into the water and by law they wouldnt be able to charge him. Why fly into a foreign country and live that far from the shoreline to avoid the government? 

[Ossy]

8 hours ago, rooster59 said:

I do not find any evidence that this seastead threatens national security, I will not ask the Public Prosecutor to move ahead with that charge,” Col Siriwat said.

 

Thank-you, students, for your attention to this, our three-hundred-and-thirty-fifth lesson in how to be an international clown. I hope you took special attention to the splendid mike and name-board usage that Govr Supoj employed, whilst urging 'sensitivity' in this process of grabbing a floating homestead from the sea.

 

And what further mess Lt Col Siriwat Inyim, Deputy Chief of the Wichit Police, can add to this lesson in International Tomfoolery, we must await the combined findings of Security (aka Gen Prawit & Co) and the State prosecutor . . . let's say around Christmas-time, unless our seasteading couple have upped anchors and pissed off to somewhere offshore to a less scary kingdom.

[Thingamabob]

6 hours ago, sammieuk1 said:

Like the way you concentrated on their good points????

You appear not to be up to date on this. Some sensible comments being made by the foreign office.

[Ossy]

6 hours ago, rooster59 said:

and the couple’s whereabouts are not known.

Ossy Herald Report just in: Rumours gain momentum, now, that the couple have been housed in a huge inflatable dinghy provided by the RT Navy, of course, moored on the Choa Phraya, across from Government House and flying some new sort of flag, resembling a single finger, held erect. Pictures to follow, they say.

[peterb17]

39 minutes ago, GrumblesMcGee said:

Yes, the U.S. tax system is illegit (they claim right to tax citizens' global earnings). 

 

The concept is about more than taxes. It's a weird mix of pioneer spirit and libertarianism, this idea that you can start a new country (even if it's just for yourself) somewhere and not be subjected to anyone's laws. Yeah. The problem is, you'd better like spending time with just yourself (and whoever else is willing to go with you).

I can sort of see where you are going - but I can’t imagine there is anywhere in the world these days that you can express a pioneer spirit- there are always tribal wars , corruption, constant surveillance.

 

There is nowhere to go. 

 

But if this guy really wanted to escape - can you imagine he would be totally off grid? Not getting his quadruple skinny latte - not being able to see his bitcoin fortune crumble .

 

I seem to remember a cruise liner that toured the world - so billionaires would have no home country- maybe he should join them?

 

The Wild West does not exist anymore 

 

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

1 hour ago, petertucker48 said:

Just a danger to shipping the owner is a total idiot !!!

As stated by the organisation that built the structure:

 

Quote

[The] seastead is so small (6 meters wide) and not located near any known shipping route, so that the claim it would hinder ship movements is ridiculous

Also, according to the builders and owners of the seastead (Ocean Builders) the couple who had been living there neither built, nor own the structure.

 

The following is from a report by the Associated Press:

 

"In online statements, both Mr Elwartowski and Ocean Builders said the couple merely promoted and lived on the structure, and did not fund, design, build or set the location for it."

Edited April 20, 2019 by GroveHillWanderer

[raccos21]

They need to do some investigation before coming to conclusion because someone is about to kick their bucket. We have already past those stone, bronze and iron ages, and I am wondering are we really living in the age of kakistocracy.

[observer90210]

1 hour ago, Splash210 said:

Because this case really has nothing to do with the seastead, it has everything to do with what his intentions were to build and live in a structure like that to avoid governmental control. He could have thrown that woman over into the water and by law they wouldnt be able to charge him. Why fly into a foreign country and live that far from the shoreline to avoid the government? 

you have a point.