As a newbie to Thailand, I’m absolutely disgusted by many of the incidents I’ve read about on this news forum. There may be stories about locals causing problems, but the majority of the news stories are about the terrible things tourists, guests of Thailand, are doing to denigrate the country and people that have “allowed” them to visit. When I read these stories, it makes me think the Thai authorities should tighten the requirements for entry and hold travelers highly accountable for their negative actions.

13 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

What difference does it make s to whether the milks in bottle or not ?

She left the store without paying for goods

"She left the store without paying for goods"

No, she did not. She did not remove any goods from the store without paying, she left them on the shop's floor.

7 hours ago, tai4de2 said:

On 4/27/2026 at 11:56 AM, Liverpool Lou said:

That must be why she wasn't charged with theft!

You made the highly suspect claim that "theft" in Thailand requires removal of the goods off-premises, and were subsequently shown to be wrong when others cited the actual law.

TITLE XII

OFFENCE AGAINST PROPERTY

CHAPTER 1

OFFENCE OF THEFT AND SNATCHING

Section 334 Whoever, dishonestly taking away the thing of other person or which the other person to beco-owner  to  be  said  to  commit  the  theft

23 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"She left the store without paying for goods"

No, she did not. She did not remove any goods from the store without paying, she left them on the shop's floor.

The food on her person was removed from the store

An off topic deflection post about a Johnny Somali case in Korea has been removed.

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

The food on her person was removed from the store

If you really want to continue to be ridiculous probably 99.5% of it remained in the shop. Would you like to see her charged with removing 7-Eleven's oxygen from the shop as well, she had that on her person.

10 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

If you really want to continue to be ridiculous probably 99.5% of it remained in the shop. Would you like to see her charged with removing 7-Eleven's oxygen from the shop as well, she had that on her person.

Its still theft .

Dosent matter the amount

Its not theft to take oxygen from store

9 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

TITLE XII

OFFENCE AGAINST PROPERTY

CHAPTER 1

OFFENCE OF THEFT AND SNATCHING

Section 334 Whoever, dishonestly taking away the thing of other person or which the other person to beco-owner  to  be  said  to  commit  the  theft

You're reading something into this that isn't there, seemingly based solely on the presence of the word "away" in the English translation.

Firstly, the wording you cited in the English translation of the relevant law doesn't require removing something from the store, because "taking away" can simply be a synonym for "taking." Example: "the 7-11 worker took the bottles away from the woman when she started acting erratically." Having the word "away" in there does not require or imply that the bottles were taken out of the store. That word could be removed with no change in meaning.

Secondly, the translation is irrelevant. It seems to come as a surprise to some that Thailand's laws are written and interpreted in Thai, not English. That's why I went back to the Thai version, which I cited and then explained. The word "away" with the meaning you want to ascribe is not even implied in the actual Thai law, let alone explicitly stated.

I can foresee you may try to point out that "take away" can also be used in a way that does require removal from the context, e.g. take-away food. That doesn't change anything -- the Thai version is still the controlling law, and the English translation you cited still does not mandate item removal in order for the crime of theft to apply.

15 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Its still theft .

Dosent matter the amount

Its not theft to take oxygen from store

Exactly... and not removing items from a shop is not theft either.

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Exactly... and not removing items from a shop is not theft either.

So, going into jewelers and putting a diamond ring in your hair and walking out without paying , would that be theft ?

23 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Exactly... and not removing items from a shop is not theft either.

So, going into jewelers and putting a diamond ring in your hair and walking out without paying , would that be theft

Obviously it would be. Go on, compare a few drops of spilled milk to the deliberate theft of a diamond ring from a Jeweller!

44 minutes ago, tai4de2 said:

You're reading something into this that isn't there, seemingly based solely on the presence of the word "away" in the English translation.

Firstly, the wording you cited in the English translation of the relevant law doesn't require removing something from the store, because "taking away" can simply be a synonym for "taking." Example: "the 7-11 worker took the bottles away from the woman when she started acting erratically." Having the word "away" in there does not require or imply that the bottles were taken out of the store. That word could be removed with no change in meaning.

Secondly, the translation is irrelevant. It seems to come as a surprise to some that Thailand's laws are written and interpreted in Thai, not English. That's why I went back to the Thai version, which I cited and then explained. The word "away" with the meaning you want to ascribe is not even implied in the actual Thai law, let alone explicitly stated.

I can foresee you may try to point out that "take away" can also be used in a way that does require removal from the context, e.g. take-away food. That doesn't change anything -- the Thai version is still the controlling law, and the English translation you cited still does not mandate item removal in order for the crime of theft to apply.

Gawd... what she charged with theft?

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Gawd... what she charged with theft?

Stop moving the goal posts. You were wrong, admit it and move on.