Pattaya: Brit and German had sex with underage girls - they paid 2,000 baht a time

[Orinoco]

On 11/2/2022 at 1:17 AM, Hummin said:

George Clooney as a Yung man

Thought that was Joe 90

 

[Artisi]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

30, 50, 80, OLD! 

 

I prefer: old enough ???? 

 

For interest, who would be willing to offer the age for this young lady with or without a genuine ID card?

[OneMoreFarang]

1 minute ago, Artisi said:

For interest, who would be willing to offer the age for this young lady with or without a genuine ID card?

Like I said: Old enough.

Does it really matter if she is 21 or 22 or whatever?

[cocoonclub]

10 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

In Thai would be quite acceptable.????

Here: ราชกิจจานุเบกษา

But you’ll be wasting your time. As I wrote already, what the other guy claimed doesn’t exist in the law, but feel free to read the 150+ pages yourself if you don’t believe me. 

 

[cocoonclub]

10 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

You keep saying "the law", I assume you mean the Thai Penal Code? But you have yet to provide any proof, you are just whistling Dixie.

There is no proof for what you claimed because it doesn’t exist in the law as I wrote already. The “whistling Dixie” is you. 

[cocoonclub]

9 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Its really quite simple all he has to do is quote the relevant law, with the reference Title, chapter etc and this discussion would be over?Instead he is going round in circles?????

I can’t quote something that doesn’t exist.
 

Please redirect your request to the guy who claimed something is in the law that clearly isn’t. 

[cocoonclub]

9 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

"Not according to the law." What law, reference 

Again, the Thai penal code. 

 

9 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

and quote? 

I can’t quote something that doesn’t exist. 
 

9 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

 

"It doesn’t say that." What does it say?

If you want to know what a law says you  read it. 

 

9 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

"What’s relevant is what is in the law, not what’s not in the law." What exactly is in the law?

Read it. I can’t help you with that. 

[cocoonclub]

9 hours ago, Sparktrader said:

Law is whatever u get away with or who you know.

No, it isn’t. You’re confusing legislature with judiciary and executive. 

[cocoonclub]

8 hours ago, jdlancaster said:

There are literally sections dedicated to mitigating circumstances lol. Aggravating and mitigating circumstances literally also written into each law, lol.(e.g. agreeing to marry the girl) Coccoclub is just making things up lol.

Next time you wanna insert yourself into a discussion, try to understand what the topic is before looking like a fool. 

 

[cocoonclub]

7 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

That's exactly what I figured. The fact that he is unable to actually answer anything at all is I suppose a giveaway!

You claimed that it makes a difference if an underage prostitute pretends to be of legal age. What the other guy pulled from an unofficial English translation of the penal code doesn’t support that, so I’m not sure what “exactly” you “figured” other than that you’re still lacking proof for your claim. 
 

Visit the ราชกิจจานุเบกษา, pull the penal code, then post a screenshot of the page where it says that underage prostitution is ok if the prostitute pretended to be of legal age or where it says that that is “‘mitigating circumstance”. You can’t because it doesn’t exist. And that’s why you keep dancing around here. 

 

[Artisi]

9 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Like I said: Old enough.

Does it really matter if she is 21 or 22 or whatever?

Is 15 or 16 old enough for you? 

[OneMoreFarang]

6 hours ago, Artisi said:

Is 15 or 16 old enough for you? 

Why do you ask?

 

For me personally there are maybe 4 criteria:

a) Is she legally old enough. If not, then forget it.

b) Is she emotionally old enough? Some girls know what they are doing when they are 16, others are still unsure or confused when they are 20.

c) Am I interested? I met 16-yo girls who I definitely want to see closer. With many others I am just not interested.

d) Does she want sex with me (for whatever reason)? If not, then not. Fine. And if she wants it and all the other criteria are met, then let's do it.

[jdlancaster]

11 hours ago, cocoonclub said:

Next time you wanna insert yourself into a discussion, try to understand what the topic is before looking like a fool. 

 

Lol, I read the code. I copy and pasted a translation of a section that says mitigating because it is ridiculously clear and you don't understand what a mitigating factor is lol... I gave you an example of a mitigating factor posted.  If it doesn't say what I said... you can post it. That is why there is a range of punishments, mitigating and aggravating factors are used to decide the punishment. These are basic things, lol.... 

 

You literally have these things spoon fed to you.... This is not an opinion and open for debate, lol.... How much any certain factor may be mitigating, up for debate.... that mitigating factors exist... not up for debate lol.

[jdlancaster]

11 hours ago, cocoonclub said:

You claimed that it makes a difference if an underage prostitute pretends to be of legal age. What the other guy pulled from an unofficial English translation of the penal code doesn’t support that, so I’m not sure what “exactly” you “figured” other than that you’re still lacking proof for your claim. 
 

Visit the ราชกิจจานุเบกษา, pull the penal code, then post a screenshot of the page where it says that underage prostitution is ok if the prostitute pretended to be of legal age or where it says that that is “‘mitigating circumstance”. You can’t because it doesn’t exist. And that’s why you keep dancing around here. 

 

Lol, you are thick. It is a catch all section I posted. There are an infinite number of mitigating factors and are judged based on the totality of the circumstances. It is literally impossible to post all of them. They sometimes will say specific factors so they define how mitigating a factor is.... 

 

It also doesn't say that being insane is a mitigating factor specifically in every law in the penal code lol....... Imagine if you had to write every possible mitigating factor in every single possible crime.... lol.... Imagine a general catch-all section of law that allows judges to use the totality of the circumstances lol. I guess when given a range of punishments judges just pick the punishment randomly, lol. They don't weigh the mitigating and aggravating circumstances lol.... because they don't list them all specifically in each specific law.... I guess we just pretend the mitigating/extenuating circumstances section doesn't exist lol.

[mikeymike100]

11 hours ago, cocoonclub said:

You claimed that it makes a difference if an underage prostitute pretends to be of legal age. What the other guy pulled from an unofficial English translation of the penal code doesn’t support that, so I’m not sure what “exactly” you “figured” other than that you’re still lacking proof for your claim. 
 

Visit the ราชกิจจานุเบกษา, pull the penal code, then post a screenshot of the page where it says that underage prostitution is ok if the prostitute pretended to be of legal age or where it says that that is “‘mitigating circumstance”. You can’t because it doesn’t exist. And that’s why you keep dancing around here. 

 

I am not saying or claiming that underage prostitution is OK and the Thai Penal Code will also not say that obviously. That is certainly NOT the point i am making.

What I am saying, for the sake of argument,  is if it could be proven, in court, that the two guys were led to believe that the girls were of legal age and ID's were shown to corroborate that, then this evidence would be mitigating circumstances in the eye of the court?

You are saying "Completely Irrelevant" I am disagreeing with you, I am saying it would be relevant.

Surely in any criminal case there are aggravating and or mitigating circumstances that the court would need to consider?

You are the one dancing around claiming "the law" doesn't say that?

 

[jdlancaster]

12 hours ago, cocoonclub said:

You claimed that it makes a difference if an underage prostitute pretends to be of legal age. What the other guy pulled from an unofficial English translation of the penal code doesn’t support that, so I’m not sure what “exactly” you “figured” other than that you’re still lacking proof for your claim. 
 

Visit the ราชกิจจานุเบกษา, pull the penal code, then post a screenshot of the page where it says that underage prostitution is ok if the prostitute pretended to be of legal age or where it says that that is “‘mitigating circumstance”. You can’t because it doesn’t exist. And that’s why you keep dancing around here. 

 

Lol, you want a screenshot.... in legal Thai... that most people can't read. Native speakers struggle to understand legal Thai and you expect that for an English language forum lol.... If the translation is wrong, please tell me where. I am assuming you are a Native speaker because I read at a CEFR C2 level.... or you're just being disingenuous. probably the latter.

 

I will post another section for you about criminal intent as a matter or law and I have bolded the section that gives the court discretion in determining:

 

CHAPTER 4

CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Section 59 A person shall be criminally liable only when such person commits an act intentionally, except in case of the law provides that such person must be liable when such person commits an act by negligence, or except in case of the law clearly provides that such person must be liable even though such person commits an act unintentionally.

To commit an act intentionally is to do an act consciously and at the same time the doer desired or could have foreseen the effect of such doing.

If the doer does not know the facts constituting the elements of the offence, it cannot be deemed that the doer desired or could have foreseen the effect of such doing.

To commit an act by negligence is to commit an offence unintentionally but without exercising such care as might be expected from a person under such condition and circumstances, and the doer could exercise such care but did not do so sufficiently.

 

And another section that gives the court discretion:

PART 3

INCREASE, REDUCTION AND SUSPENSION OF PUNISHMENT

Section 51 In increasing the punishment, it shall not be increased up to the punishment of death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment exceeding fifty years.

Section 52 In reducing the punishment of death, whether it be the reduction in the scale of punishment
or in the punishment to be inflicted, it shall be reduced as follows:

If the reduction be by one-third, the punishment shall be reduced to imprisonment for life;
If the reduction be by one-half, the punishment shall be reduced to imprisonment for life or imprisonment of twenty-five to fifty years.

Section 53 In having life imprisonment reduced, whether the punishment will be reduced in the punishment scale or in the inflicted punishment, the life imprisonment shall be transferred as five year imprisonment.

Section 54 In calculating the increase or reduction of the punishment to be inflicted, the Court shall determine the punishment to be inflicted upon the accused first, and then the punishment shall be increased or reduced. If there are both increase and reduction of the punishment to
be inflicted, the punishment shall be increased first and the reduced from the result of the addition. If the proportion of the increase is equal to or more than that of the reduction, the Court may, if it thinks fit, not increase or not reduce the punishment.

Section 55 If the imprisonment, of which the offender must be inflicted, is only for three months or less, the less imprisonment may be determined by the Court or if the offender to be inflicted by imprisonment is only for three months or less, and to have the fine also, the less
imprisonment may be determined by the Court, or such imprisonment may be repealed and only fine may still be made.

Section 56 Whoever commits offence of imprisonment, and in such case, the Court will imprison not exceeding three years, if it does not appear that such person has been imprisoned before, or it appease that one has been imprisoned before, but it is punishment for offence
committed by negligence or petty offence, when the Court has taken into consideration of sex, age, past record, religion, behavior, intelligence, education, health, mind-condition, temperament, occupation and envelopment of such person or the fined person's offence condition or other extenuating circumstance, it deems advisable, the Court will trial that such person has an offence but suspension of the determination of punishment or designates the punishment but the suspension of the in friction of punishment and then one is released for giving the time to such person reforming oneself within the period designated by the Court, but it must be not out of five year as from the date of the Court has passed a judgment and it will be designated by the condition for controlling such person's behavior or not.

Regarding the conditions for controlling the behavior of the offender, the Court may determine one or more conditions as follows:

1. To report himself to the official specified by the court from time to time so that the official may make inquiries, give advice, assistance or admonition on the behavior and carrying on occupation, or arrange the activity to be done for the social service or the public benefit, as the official and offender think fit;
2. To be trained or to carry on occupation substantially;
3. To refrain from going into the society or from any behavior which may lead to the commission of the similar offence again;
4. To take the offender to receive the assuagement and cure of the harmfully habit forming drugs, defective body or mind, or the other illness at the place and the period of time as determined by the Court;
5. The other conditions are determined by the Court, as it thinks fit, in order to rectify, resuscitate or protect the offender to be not commit the offence or not having the occasion for committing the offence again.

[jdlancaster]

@cocoonclub Let me help you with forum rules too. We are to make it accessible to the majority of posters by posting in English:

 

Standards of Conduct

 

1. Do not respond to insults with more insults. Instead use the report button to report inflammatory posts.

 

2. Do not post off-topic responses in an attempt to hijack the thread.

 

3. English is the only permitted language anywhere on ASEAN NOW, except within the Thai language forum, where using Thai is allowed. Short Thai translations of technical terms are permitted in specialty forums. While we make allowances for members who do not speak English as their first language, we expect everyone to make an effort to post in a manner that allows others to understand their posts. As an international forum we have members from many countries in the world, and English is not the first language of every poster.

[jdlancaster]

53 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

I am not saying or claiming that underage prostitution is OK and the Thai Penal Code will also not say that obviously. That is certainly NOT the point i am making.

What I am saying, for the sake of argument,  is if it could be proven, in court, that the two guys were led to believe that the girls were of legal age and ID's were shown to corroborate that, then this evidence would be mitigating circumstances in the eye of the court?

You are saying "Completely Irrelevant" I am disagreeing with you, I am saying it would be relevant.

Surely in any criminal case there are aggravating and or mitigating circumstances that the court would need to consider?

You are the one dancing around claiming "the law" doesn't say that?

 

Coccoon is using:

1. "The invincible ignorance fallacy,^[1] also known as argument by pigheadedness,^[2] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word. The method used in this fallacy is either to make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing, all without actually demonstrating how the objection fit these terms. It is similar to the ad lapidem fallacy, in which the person rejects all the evidence and logic presented, without providing any evidence or logic that could lead to a different conclusion."

2. Appeal to the stone, also known as argumentum ad lapidem, is a logical fallacy that dismisses an argument as untrue or absurd. The dismissal is made by stating or reiterating that the argument is absurd, without providing further argumentation. This theory is closely tied to proof by assertion due to the lack of evidence behind the statement and its attempt to persuade without providing any evidence.

[cocoonclub]

1 hour ago, jdlancaster said:

Lol, I read the code. I copy and pasted a translation of a section that says mitigating because it is ridiculously clear and you don't understand what a mitigating factor is lol... I gave you an example of a mitigating factor posted.  If it doesn't say what I said... you can post it. That is why there is a range of punishments, mitigating and aggravating factors are used to decide the punishment. These are basic things, lol.... 

 

You literally have these things spoon fed to you.... This is not an opinion and open for debate, lol.... How much any certain factor may be mitigating, up for debate.... that mitigating factors exist... not up for debate lol.

Again, read the topic before posting off-topic. Or don’t insert yourself into a discussion if you’re unable to understand what the topic is. 

[jdlancaster]

7 minutes ago, cocoonclub said:

Again, read the topic before posting off-topic. Or don’t insert yourself into a discussion if you’re unable to understand what the topic is. 

Are you saying you weren't arguing mitigating factors as they relate to crime in Thailand? You're not arguing that intent isn't a mitigating factor lol?  lol, you are obviously trolling. The Thai law you wanted to see is off-topic.... lol You can't make this up... 

 

I get it... the law posts are too difficult for you to understand. It can be complicated with all the terminology. Especially where they intersect. I get it, it is much easier to just use argument by pigheadedness. 

[brewsterbudgen]

Not wanting to "insert myself" into the discussion, but I don't think there would be any mitigating circumstances when it comes to child abuse, no matter where the offence is committed.

[jdlancaster]

1 hour ago, mikeymike100 said:

I am not saying or claiming that underage prostitution is OK and the Thai Penal Code will also not say that obviously. That is certainly NOT the point i am making.

What I am saying, for the sake of argument,  is if it could be proven, in court, that the two guys were led to believe that the girls were of legal age and ID's were shown to corroborate that, then this evidence would be mitigating circumstances in the eye of the court?

You are saying "Completely Irrelevant" I am disagreeing with you, I am saying it would be relevant.

Surely in any criminal case there are aggravating and or mitigating circumstances that the court would need to consider?

You are the one dancing around claiming "the law" doesn't say that?

 

There isn't really a reason to engage him. I looked at his previous posts and he is a troll. For example with a guy trying to learn how to make friends with Thai men:

 

"It’s impossible for farang men to make friends with Thai men. You gotta keep in mind that farang men are frustrated losers; overweight, bald, and fast aging moaners and complainers who have a superiority issue and are into dark farm girls."

 

He posts nothing substantive and helpful on topics and just uses inflammatory posts to instigate. He does not act in good-faith. You could literally show him Thai male friends or copy and paste the law as I have.... and he'd be the same as he posts now. I'm not sure which is worse, he is a troll or actually believes what he says. 

[Artisi]

4 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Why do you ask?

 

For me personally there are maybe 4 criteria:

a) Is she legally old enough. If not, then forget it.

b) Is she emotionally old enough? Some girls know what they are doing when they are 16, others are still unsure or confused when they are 20.

c) Am I interested? I met 16-yo girls who I definitely want to see closer. With many others I am just not interested.

d) Does she want sex with me (for whatever reason)? If not, then not. Fine. And if she wants it and all the other criteria are met, then let's do it.

Seems you missed the point re the question, it had absolutely nothing to do with your answers. 

[jdlancaster]

11 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Not wanting to "insert myself" into the discussion, but I don't think there would be any mitigating circumstances when it comes to child abuse, no matter where the offence is committed.

There are mitigating/aggravating circumstances for most every law. E.g. if a law has a penalty between 3-10 years how does the judge decide how many years to give? As I posted things like previous arrest record, mental capacity, addiction, and intent all can be mitigating or aggravating factors. You wouldn't give the same sentence to a mentally handicapped 20 year old first offender that didn't know or understand as you would to a 50 year old multiple time offender that methodically grooms and searches for victims. The judge uses mitigating and aggravating factors to determine the sentence. If they didn't, how would they decide? Random? A mitigating circumstance doesn't mean you aren't guilty. Even if there is a mitigating circumstance they are measured against the aggravating factors so doesn't guarantee a lower sentence. 

[RafPinto]

On 11/1/2022 at 3:44 PM, it is what it is said:

 

why would anyone pay for sex?

I don't.
I have as many i want. They especially like my "moustache".

[jack71]

On 11/1/2022 at 12:15 PM, connda said:

If you're going to purchase sex, go for the 30 year olds.  They are at the peak of their hormonal imperative to reproduce, they have experience, they know the game, and you're not going to mistake most 30 year olds with an under-aged teen.

Yeah, do that if you dont mind the overweight ugly ladies who have the bad attitude.

[mikeymike100]

1 hour ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Not wanting to "insert myself" into the discussion, but I don't think there would be any mitigating circumstances when it comes to child abuse, no matter where the offence is committed.

I take your point, but I was playing devils advocate. If for the sake of argument the 2 guys really thought the girls were of legal age and they had been led to believe that with corroborating evidence, then the court would look at that mitigating evidence before determining a sentence.

Personally as i have said before the available evidence makes them look guilty, it was a 'What If' scenario!

[OneMoreFarang]

4 hours ago, Artisi said:

Seems you missed the point re the question, it had absolutely nothing to do with your answers. 

If you had a point in your question which apparently I missed, then you should have asked about whatever you wanted to point out.

Or did you not intend to ask anything and just point something out?

 

I tried to be a nice guy and I answered your question in detail.

[OneMoreFarang]

Does anybody remember Traci Lords?

She made movies when she was 16 - and it seems nobody noticed.

So much about: It's easy to see if they are too young.

 

 

[Hummin]

Old enough or not, 

 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CkPJXZcAs3C/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=