The staff are making claims and do not want to sign any paper like a minutes.

 

The conversation will happen in a public area which just anyone can use, anyone can passing by and where anyone can join anytime and is recorded by cameras of this company.

Edited October 10, 20214 yr by zappalot

Section 328. Defamation by Publication

 

If the offence of defamation be committed by means of publication of a document, drawing, painting, cinematography film, picture or letters made visible by any means, gramophone record or another recording instruments, recording picture or letters, or by broadcasting or spreading picture, or by propagation by any other means, the offender shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding two years and fined not exceeding two hundred thousand Baht.

 

Defamation (Sections 326-333) | Thailand Law Library (siam-legal.com)

thanks for that, so if the recording is not used anywhere in public there should not be a problem. (If there is not more to it in the law...). The recording is just to have proof in case something goes to court, then a judge can decide if he/she wants to see it. No broadcasting anywhere planned...

It would likely be illegal if all parties being recorded did not consent 

2 minutes ago, zappalot said:

No broadcasting anywhere planned...

But once it is on record...????

Can you be more concrete in what you want to record and who are the people being recorded.

 

Is it you and the staff or the staff and others and your  not around. 

 

 

It is the notoriously lying staff of our condominium that I want to ask some questions, just in the lobby of the building. They say it is illegal but yeah, of course they not want to be recorded. So they would not give consent.

Wouldn't it be easier to move?

29 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

Section 328. Defamation by Publication

 

If the offence of defamation be committed by means of publication of a document, drawing, painting, cinematography film, picture or letters made visible by any means, gramophone record or another recording instruments, recording picture or letters, or by broadcasting or spreading picture, or by propagation by any other means, the offender shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding two years and fined not exceeding two hundred thousand Baht.

 

Defamation (Sections 326-333) | Thailand Law Library (siam-legal.com)

Actually, after reading this:

_________________________________

Section 329. Good Faith Statement

 

A person, in good faith, expresses any opinion or a statement:

1. By way of self-justification or defense, or for the protection of a legitimate interest;
2. In the status of being an official in the exercise of his functions;
3. By way of fair comment on any person or thing subjected to public criticism; or
4. By way of fair report of the open proceeding of any Court or meeting

shall not be guilty of defamation.
_________________________________________

 

1. ...or for the protection of a legitimate interest and

3. ...By way of fair comment on any person or thing subjected to public criticism

gives me the (probably wrong) expectation that, if I can proof to make a truthful statement and the other side is outright lying (supported by a Bangkok metropolitan inspector report in my favor) that I can even use such recording e.g. in youtube (of course with the risk of being sued).

But still no 100% statement if a public recording is legal in the first place...

 

17 minutes ago, zappalot said:

It is the notoriously lying staff of our condominium that I want to ask some questions, just in the lobby of the building. They say it is illegal but yeah, of course they not want to be recorded. So they would not give consent.

So its not your staff, its just staff of the condo that you want to have on record saying something.

 

I think they can refuse this I certainly won't let everyone just record what i say. It can be manipulated later on ect ect. 

My condo office want conversations with shady falang owners recorded, fitted CCTV and audio,  it's amazing the stories, many have a screw loose

5 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

My condo office want conversations with shady falang owners recorded, fitted CCTV and audio,  it's amazing the stories, many have a screw loose

I think if a condo office has nothing to hide its best to have CCTV with audio. Protection works both ways and like you said plenty of idiot foreigners around with strange claims. Best to record it all for both sides. 

If I was staff at the building I wouldn't want a recording that's for sure.

people don't want to be incriminated ........   !!

6 minutes ago, robblok said:

I think if a condo office has nothing to hide its best to have CCTV with audio. Protection works both ways and like you said plenty of idiot foreigners around with strange claims. Best to record it all for both sides. 

Correct, if they see you coming they make sure CCTV and audio is on

1 minute ago, scubascuba3 said:

Correct, if they see you coming they make sure CCTV and audio is on

Personally I like it, then there is no discussion he said she said. Though I think it might be hard to store and label it all. Finding stuff back might be hard and how long do they keep stuff. So there are of course downsides too. But IMHO better then nothing. 

So given that, as it seems, any juristic person can record just anything the other party should have the same right, right? Or is there somewhere a law that gives companies special rights?

59 minutes ago, zappalot said:

The recording is just to have proof in case something goes to court

thai law gives power to the powerfull and do not care much about the weak, so your question

is very interesting indeed.

in most democratic / reasonable countries it is allowed to record a conversation, that might be

used later in court. but not sure about thailand. from my experience in other countries, you might

have difficulties even recording the conversation, because the man in power might grab and smash

your recording device. if the recording is made secretly it might work, but than again, not sure

a thai court will accept it as evidence.

5 minutes ago, zappalot said:

So given that, as it seems, any juristic person can record just anything the other party should have the same right, right? Or is there somewhere a law that gives companies special rights?

You probably can record it if they want, but i doubt you can record if they don't want. Its not as if you can force them to speak on the record. So practically you lost and you better get to terms with it. 

 

What is it that is ticking you off what is that major problem that you can't get solved and need recordings for. Probably something irrelevant otherwise you would have mentioned it and made your post a bit clearer.

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, robblok said:

You probably can record it if they want, but i doubt you can record if they don't want. Its not as if you can force them to speak on the record. So practically you lost and you better get to terms with it. 

 

What is it that is ticking you off what is that major problem that you can't get solved and need recordings for. Probably something irrelevant otherwise you would have mentioned it and made your post a bit clearer.

 

 

 

We have many safety issues, potential buyers are not blind. Now, as the management always claimed: "Farang lies, everything perfect", we brought in the responsible section of the BMA. They not only confirmed all our findings but found even more issues. We have that in writing. After the visit the management claims that everything is perfect, they do  not care. And the "few" things that are not ok are on the way to be fixed. Yet, 15 months after the BMA visit, 0% progress...
I am pretty sure that we can go to court suing them (yes I know expensive, thats not the subject). But the more proof I have, including statements, the better, right? Non existing water hoses for example. They claim it is just my opinion that there is no water hose in the fire cabinet. Yet, I am not blind... No one would believe they make these statements if not recorded...

20 minutes ago, robblok said:

What is it that is ticking you off what is that major problem that you can't get solved and need recordings for.

Key question. 

A grammar police post has been removed as this topic is not about punctuation or sentence usage. 

5 minutes ago, zappalot said:

We have many safety issues, potential buyers are not blind. Now, as the management always claimed: "Farang lies, everything perfect", we brought in the responsible section of the BMA. They not only confirmed all our findings but found even more issues. We have that in writing. After the visit the management claims that everything is perfect, they do  not care. And the "few" things that are not ok are on the way to be fixed. Yet, 15 months after the BMA visit, 0% progress...
I am pretty sure that we can go to court suing them (yes I know expensive, thats not the subject). But the more proof I have, including statements, the better, right? Non existing water hoses for example. They claim it is just my opinion that there is no water hose in the fire cabinet. Yet, I am not blind... No one would believe they make these statements if not recorded...

Why would you need these statements ? I mean you got the BMA report let the BMA visit again. Then you got 2 reports and can start a court case.

 

Do you really think that the staf would say stupid things while being recorded. Plus its not even needed. A second visit of the BMA and their report would solve it all.  (evidence wise for a court case).

 

IMHO a second visit of the BMA and their report would be enough. Then you got 2 reports  over a year apart confirming all your claims. 

 

Not sure how much it would help you to record the other stuff as all you need to do is prove that things havent improved. The way to do that is a second BMA visit.

1 hour ago, FritsSikkink said:

Section 328. Defamation by Publication

 

If the offence of defamation be committed by means of publication of a document, drawing, painting, cinematography film, picture or letters made visible by any means, gramophone record or another recording instruments, recording picture or letters, or by broadcasting or spreading picture, or by propagation by any other means, the offender shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding two years and fined not exceeding two hundred thousand Baht.

 

Defamation (Sections 326-333) | Thailand Law Library (siam-legal.com)

Defamation laws were written by cowards, to scare the less bold amongst us. Do not give into them. They are an enormous societal shortcoming. Ignore them. Defy them. Record to your hearts content. They do not need to know. 

1 hour ago, zappalot said:

Actually, after reading this:

_________________________________

Section 329. Good Faith Statement

 

A person, in good faith, expresses any opinion or a statement:

1. By way of self-justification or defense, or for the protection of a legitimate interest;
2. In the status of being an official in the exercise of his functions;
3. By way of fair comment on any person or thing subjected to public criticism; or
4. By way of fair report of the open proceeding of any Court or meeting

shall not be guilty of defamation.
_________________________________________

 

1. ...or for the protection of a legitimate interest and

3. ...By way of fair comment on any person or thing subjected to public criticism

gives me the (probably wrong) expectation that, if I can proof to make a truthful statement and the other side is outright lying (supported by a Bangkok metropolitan inspector report in my favor) that I can even use such recording e.g. in youtube (of course with the risk of being sued).

But still no 100% statement if a public recording is legal in the first place...

 

You are in Thailand and not Thai.  

 

That being said it is the same in every country that if you are recording anything then you are supposed to at least advise the person in a way that they understand that you are recording it.  They then have the option of saying OK or of walking away.

 

Most People would walk away.

 

It is the lazy man's new age oway of asking for something in writing.

6 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Defamation laws were written by cowards, to scare the less bold amongst us. Do not give into them. They are an enormous societal shortcoming. Ignore them. Defy them. Record to your hearts content. They do not need to know. 

Right give someone bad advice that could land him in a world of trouble in Thailand. Just because your a rebel with extreme fantasies does not mean you have to give people bad advice.

 

Defamation can be a big problem in Thailand to say that someone should just ignore it and do as he pleases is stupid. Plenty of cases in the news where the party that was defaming had to make apologies / pay up. 

Always insist on good service, no matter where you are. 

 

Some time ago when I was living on Samui I had an issue with an air conditioner that I had just bought from Homepro. I went into Homepro asking for service and got no satisfaction at all. I asked for the manager which is something that I usually do, when I am not getting anywhere, and she had a terrible attitude and was very unhelpful.
 
I had got her name, went home, looked up the head office in Bangkok, sent them a quick email explaining the situation calling her out by name and within an hour I got a phone call from a vice president telling me that everything would be addressed, and he said that I should go back into the store the following morning. When I did I got a deep bow from the manager, I'm so sorry I misunderstood yesterday. What can I do to make you happy? It was the exact response I wanted the first time around but that I got after she had been scolded by the VP, and likely her job had been threatened if her attitude didn't improve. Sometimes we just have to escalate things to a more senior employer or manager in order to get things done here, sometimes the fools on the floor just don't know what service looks like.
 
My Thai wife was shocked when I first started doing this, as she tried to explain to me that they do not have customer service in Thailand. I explained to her that they sure do! Now she realizes that service does exist, can exist, and will exist if the right amount of will, force and action is brought to the table.

 

 

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

Do you really think that the staf would say stupid things while being recorded.

Definitely they would. They are very talk active presenting themselves in the best light possible at all times, no matter how much audience. Not sure if we can convince the BMA again. They told us that some management officials went to the BMA after their visit complaining about the visit since the building is in perfect condition (that was before the BMA issued the report, management thought by complaining they can avoid a report). But it seems to me that BMA has the right to inspect but no further rights to force a management to get active.

17 minutes ago, zappalot said:

We have many safety issues, potential buyers are not blind. Now, as the management always claimed: "Farang lies, everything perfect", we brought in the responsible section of the BMA. They not only confirmed all our findings but found even more issues. We have that in writing. After the visit the management claims that everything is perfect, they do  not care. And the "few" things that are not ok are on the way to be fixed. Yet, 15 months after the BMA visit, 0% progress...
I am pretty sure that we can go to court suing them (yes I know expensive, thats not the subject). But the more proof I have, including statements, the better, right? Non existing water hoses for example. They claim it is just my opinion that there is no water hose in the fire cabinet. Yet, I am not blind... No one would believe they make these statements if not recorded...

A much simpler way is to elect a new board to look after the condo. or elect members that are like minded to sit on the condo board.

 

Do not forget that a little brown envelope or good deed done for the BMA can change any report.

1 minute ago, zappalot said:

Definitely they would. They are very talk active presenting themselves in the best light possible at all times, no matter how much audience. Not sure if we can convince the BMA again. They told us that some management officials went to the BMA after their visit complaining about the visit since the building is in perfect condition (that was before the BMA issued the report, management thought by complaining they can avoid a report). But it seems to me that BMA has the right to inspect but no further rights to force a management to get active.

I would just try to get the BMA to visit again it would be far better then the recordings. It would basically prove all you want  and yes maybe pay the BMA to come. 

 

If you want to win the case get a second inspection and forget about the recordings. Then you can start a court case. 

 

If i was a renter in this building id vacate, bit harder if you bought property. This will cost money and take a long time.

7 minutes ago, kingstonkid said:

A much simpler way is to elect a new board to look after the condo. or elect members that are like minded to sit on the condo board.

Not simple at all. Only Farang cares, Thais are not interested in safety. Farang do not have 25%  to vote current board out. Current board believes whatever management says...

Edited October 10, 20214 yr by zappalot