6 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

I didn’t say it was on the coast, I said it was off the coast, yes?

So it is your position that most anyone should be allowed to construct a habitat twelve miles off the coast of any country they like, correct?

 

 

Well, they can try .....

 

Most countries would rapidly get rid of any such habitat, as a show of power and soverignity.

 

A few countries, like Sweden and the UK, would allow the structure to stand, and pay the legal bills for the people who built the structure.

13 hours ago, fullcave said:

What were they thinking? Still massive knee jerk reaction by the authorities. Just kick them out and be done with it. 

Better yet, kick out the authorities and be done with them. Thailand deserves better than the army as a "leader".

16 hours ago, Classic Ray said:

In normal countries the authorities photograph immovable structures  as evidence in planning or other cases. Only here would they consider removing it entirely before the court case. Like to see them haul it into the courtroom with a big Exhibit A painted on it!

I would like to see them put it back when they end up with egg on face if court find the couple innocent. Typical Thais they race in feet first then can't get themselves out of the <deleted> without losing face.

9 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

I didn’t say it was on the coast, I said it was off the coast, yes?

So it is your position that most anyone should be allowed to construct a habitat twelve miles off the coast of any country they like, correct?

 

English is not my first language and I missed the "off". My position is that is if it's legal according to international law then it has to be allowed. Some people can't wrap their head about the fact that some people don't want any government interference or help and they don't care to defend themself and maybe die. This is called freedom. I'm not delusional and I understand that without some strong military it is pretty hard to prevent most country to let you alone near their coast. This seasteed has no propulsion but everything else is almost the same has a boat. It has a flashing light, an AIS beacon and probably a radio. If this is not allowed then any vessels should be prevented from anchoring in international water.

     What a pathetic narrow minded load of CRAP, to think that these people are running the country, and the Navy wanted something to do, to make them feel important.  The whole matter is a total over reaction from a load of idiots.

      And now the Navy want to sieze it as evidence, they have enough photoes, but can they produce an accurate sea chart, showing it outside Thai teratorial waters.

English is not my first language and I missed the "off". My position is that is if it's legal according to international law then it has to be allowed. Some people can't wrap their head about the fact that some people don't want any government interference or help and they don't care to defend themself and maybe die. This is called freedom. I'm not delusional and I understand that without some strong military it is pretty hard to prevent most country to let you alone near their coast. This seasteed has no propulsion but everything else is almost the same has a boat. It has a flashing light, an AIS beacon and probably a radio. If this is not allowed then any vessels should be prevented from anchoring in international water.

English is not my first language either.

It’s not a boat. In any event, if it were legal for most anyone to moor a boat indefinitely twelve miles off the coast of any country, most every country in the world would have boats moored off the coast of every major city in the world.

     Have not heard a dicky bird from Thailand about their allies in China and with all their Homesteads in international waters in the China Sea.

I think this is it: https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:98.595/centery:7.433/zoom:19

Seems like someone is there since there is 2 AIS beacon on the same spot.

23 hours ago, Oziex1 said:

This whole story is generated by a stunning overreaction by the Thai authorities. 

Good advertising for the company, as several pacific nations are currently looking at this option and the viability of it due to climate change.

In fact I know two universities are also working with some governments to assess the possibilities.

19 hours ago, Moti24 said:

Why don't they just put a flashing light on top and call it a lightstead!

Way too lateral thinking there

19 hours ago, Suetape said:

SINK IT!

Great for navigational safety

17 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

exactly!  why go to the trouble of building islands!  they can mass produce these things by the tens of thousands, tow them to 12.1 km from the coast.  not to worry, though, xi will promise not to arm them.......

But you cannot land an aircraft on it, or store weapons in large amounts on them, or populate with armed services easily

15 hours ago, Bangkok Barry said:

Has anyone yet asked the Navy how, exactly, this tiny construction is a threat to national security? If the country is so fragile as to be threatened by a tiny building many miles out to sea then I think the population needs to be very worried and serious questions - to which, of course, there are no answers - need to be asked.

Perhaps it was really a launch pad for a nuclear missile 

But you cannot land an aircraft on it, or store weapons in large amounts on them, or populate with armed services easily

Why?

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

Why?

 

 

 That's what the Chinese are doing ...

On 4/20/2019 at 1:23 PM, biggles45 said:

Over reaction is the standard response to most things by Thai authorities !! 

And what exactly is the overreaction in tis case? They remove a potential hazard for ships, constructed by an american idiot who has no clue about international sea law: out of territorial waters, laughing up my ass. Before setting up a bitcoin miner he should have stopped reading pirate stories and get up to date with international law.

 

6 hours ago, a977 said:

23 hours ago, Classic Ray said:

 

I would like to see them put it back when they end up with egg on face if court find the couple innocent. Typical Thais they race in feet first then can't get themselves out of the <deleted> without losing face.

And how exactly can they be found innocent with a obstruction set up 12 nautic miles of the coast? if it was 200nm + 40m swing around the anchor ... then you had a point ... perhaps.

51 minutes ago, Enki said:

And what exactly is the overreaction in tis case? They remove a potential hazard for ships, constructed by an american idiot who has no clue about international sea law: out of territorial waters, laughing up my ass. Before setting up a bitcoin miner he should have stopped reading pirate stories and get up to date with international law.

 

The threat of the death sentence is the overreaction don't you think. 

The threat of the death sentence is the overreaction don't you think. 

Are they being threatened with the death sentence?

Have they even been formally charged?

I’m guessing all the overreacting is coming from the press...

On 4/20/2019 at 3:19 PM, MeePeeMai said:

What happened to the "manhunt" that was on for him and his Thai wife?

It was not a manhunt , it was manufactured by social media.