Big Trouble In Tourist Thailand

[TAWP]

After reading so many of comments and responses I can't help but assume that there are some rather unintelligent folk who make judgments of other people according to their own limitations. Of course if you are one of these people it is unlikely that you are able to recognise that this post is aimed at you!

As such this post is for the benefit of those intelligent and open minded enough to recognise the fact.

/.../

What??? i come from england. if someone asked me 'after work, can u spend u r evening dealing with pissed tourists etc, the answer would be no. So why do they do it????

excellant work???????????????????

1500 for a toilet seat???? well done my son!!!!!!!!!!!

You are a selfish prick, fine. Not everyone is.

And AGAIN you fail to read and then rant about your misconceptions of reality.

It was the TOILET that was broken, not only some plastic seat.

It was stated earlier in the thread.

[taffylee]

The Job does come with a uniform and dellusions of grandeur..

[whistleblower]

After reading so many of comments and responses I can't help but assume that there are some rather unintelligent folk who make judgments of other people according to their own limitations. Of course if you are one of these people it is unlikely that you are able to recognise that this post is aimed at you!

As such this post is for the benefit of those intelligent and open minded enough to recognise the fact.

/.../

What??? i come from england. if someone asked me 'after work, can u spend u r evening dealing with pissed tourists etc, the answer would be no. So why do they do it????

excellant work???????????????????

1500 for a toilet seat???? well done my son!!!!!!!!!!!

You are a selfish prick, fine. Not everyone is.

And AGAIN you fail to read and then rant about your misconceptions of reality.

It was the TOILET that was broken, not only some plastic seat.

It was stated earlier in the thread.

not wanting to wander the street and voluntarily help drunks and hookers makes me a selfish prick?? how come??

[mrtoad]

not wanting to wander the street and voluntarily help drunks and hookers makes me a selfish prick?? how come??

I'm just wondering, but you have an obsession with the TVP, are you one of the Katoeys that got pepper sprayed?

[oevna]

What is the reason for no filming in the bar anyway?? To protect the dignity of the staff?? I think not, more like protect the identity of the owner who is commiting the act of allowing prostitution on his premises (leased premises) and to protect his own identity in case someone from his own country recognises the fact that a guy they used to have a beer with is now a pimp in thailand!

My guess is it isn't so much to protect the identity of the owner as it is to prevent evidence from surfacing of illegal activity (such as full nudity, underage workers, etc.) going on in full view inside. I've heard (I swear I've only heard!) that dancers who are dancing topless will be informed if police are poking their heads inside bars in the area to check for nudity, so that the dancers can quickly pull their tops back on.

EDIT -- Just to add to that, I don't think that most go go bars are owned by foreigners.

Edited October 22, 2009 by oevna

[TAWP]

And would you like to be filmed by some sensationalists that are clearly there dishonestly to make money out of other peoples enjoyment or problems?

If anyone enters my home with a film-camera I retain the right to remove the treat, the camera, to protect me and my family.

It is no difference in a go-go bar that is privately owned. Don't like the rules? Don't go there!

And to add: Filming people without their consent is a crime so you are allowed to stop the criminal from continuing their act by physical restraint or dis-armament.

Edited October 22, 2009 by TAWP

[oevna]

And would you like to be filmed by some sensationalists that are clearly there dishonestly to make money out of other peoples enjoyment or problems?

That's a good point. Many of their customers might not want a video of themselves ogling go go dancers to end up on YouTube. If a bar were to lose business due to this, I can see how they would want to ban photography and filming inside their bars.

[whistleblower]

And would you like to be filmed by some sensationalists that are clearly there dishonestly to make money out of other peoples enjoyment or problems?

If anyone enters my home with a film-camera I retain the right to remove the treat, the camera, to protect me and my family.

It is no difference in a go-go bar that is privately owned. Don't like the rules? Don't go there!

And to add: Filming people without their consent is a crime so you are allowed to stop the criminal from continuing their act by physical restraint or dis-armament.

'some sensationalists that are clearly there dishonestly to make money out of other peoples enjoyment or problems.

No1. they didnt seem to have a problem letting the BTITT cameras in, or was that because it was free publicity?

No2. Foreign bar owner, naked girls, prostitution (illegal) doesnt that mean the bar is sensatialising poor thai girls in order to get the customer to take them home. thereby making money dishonestly (prostitution is illegal) from these poor girls problems? (ie no money or education)

If anyone entered my home i would just ask them to stop filming or leave!

And if filming people without their consent is a crime, does that mean next time i go to central i can confiscate the security cameras? And wasnt there cctv in the go go bar? so they could confiscate that one too!

[mrtoad]

And would you like to be filmed by some sensationalists that are clearly there dishonestly to make money out of other peoples enjoyment or problems?

That's a good point. Many of their customers might not want a video of themselves ogling go go dancers to end up on YouTube. If a bar were to lose business due to this, I can see how they would want to ban photography and filming inside their bars.

Either way, the rules of these places are generally No Cameras. I think that is the right of the owner to have those rules, and if people don't or can't obey them, then yes they get what they deserve.

I am pretty sure the No Camera rule is there for the protection of both staff and punters.

[TAWP]

And would you like to be filmed by some sensationalists that are clearly there dishonestly to make money out of other peoples enjoyment or problems?

If anyone enters my home with a film-camera I retain the right to remove the treat, the camera, to protect me and my family.

It is no difference in a go-go bar that is privately owned. Don't like the rules? Don't go there!

And to add: Filming people without their consent is a crime so you are allowed to stop the criminal from continuing their act by physical restraint or dis-armament.

'some sensationalists that are clearly there dishonestly to make money out of other peoples enjoyment or problems.

No1. they didnt seem to have a problem letting the BTITT cameras in, or was that because it was free publicity?

No2. Foreign bar owner, naked girls, prostitution (illegal) doesnt that mean the bar is sensatialising poor thai girls in order to get the customer to take them home. thereby making money dishonestly (prostitution is illegal) from these poor girls problems? (ie no money or education)

If anyone entered my home i would just ask them to stop filming or leave!

And if filming people without their consent is a crime, does that mean next time i go to central i can confiscate the security cameras? And wasnt there cctv in the go go bar? so they could confiscate that one too!

You clearly are incapable of reading written text as it is infact written.

1) BTIT's cameras has permission, it has been mentioned before. And notice the lack of customers in them.

2) Most bars throughout the nation housing girls are not foreign owned. So that has no bearing on anything. And the girls are there for their free will, so no I don't count it as using anyone. Filming it to make money, when it is against the rules and wishes of the people in the film, is however to take advantage of the very thing they surely will proclaim they wanna stamp out.

If anyone filmed you, you would not ask the tape back, you would just ask them to leave?

Would you mind sending your address in a PM?

And no you cannot tear down any CCTC equipment, they are OWNED BY THE VERY PEOPLE THAT ARE OWNING THE PROPERTY. By entering the establishment you are giving them your permission to film them.

How hard is it to understand basic things for you?

[mrtoad]

That bit was probably in the 200 hours of filming that didnt make it into the clip. bit like the BTITT show. And in YOUR own words "i think you have a problem grasping the concept of a tightly edited video" 555

Must be time for your medication now?

[whistleblower]

I know BTITT had permission to film there. I was making the point that the owners had no problem with them filming to maybe raise the profile of the bar, but were probably scared that the couple would make a film that showed them in a negative light.

and i dont know how many bars are in thailand, but most of the ones in bangkok are owned by foreigners. I would be interested in finding out how many of the bars in walking street are owned by foreigners and how many are owned by thais. anyone know?

[oevna]

I know BTITT had permission to film there. I was making the point that the owners had no problem with them filming to maybe raise the profile of the bar, but were probably scared that the couple would make a film that showed them in a negative light.

I think it's their choice to make that call, since the "no photography" rule is not the law, but only their policy. As seen in several instances of this series, several of the bars have CCTV filming their own bars for security purposes. It is their choice who they want to allow to film and when.

and i dont know how many bars are in thailand, but most of the ones in bangkok are owned by foreigners. I would be interested in finding out how many of the bars in walking street are owned by foreigners and how many are owned by thais. anyone know?

No idea. Pattaya isn't really my cup of tea, although I'll be visiting there in a few months with some friends who want to go. I'd be surprised if most of the bars in Bangkok are foreign-owned, but again, I have no numbers on this so I can't really comment on it. I would also be surprised if the "no photography" rule was exclusive to foreign-owned bars.

[StateSix]

In the case of the people who filmed in the bar and had their cameras confiscated, i think they were treated wrong (yes they went against the house rules) but they didnt break the law. To say 'your lucky i know people who have been battered for that' (or similar words) doesnt appear to be the right way for the situation to be handled. call the police and demand your camera back, then show (on tv) how inept and corrupt the thai police are in handling the situation.

So if I walked into your house and started taking photos despite you not wanting me to I would have recourse to go to the police and demand my camera back?

I wouldnt take your camera, it would be against the law. I would ask you to stop taking photos. But if i did take your camera, yes you would have recourse to go to the police, by taking your camera i would have committed theft!

Think of it another way.... If you parked your car in my designated parking spot, would that entitle me to confiscate your car (and give it back at 8pm the following night?)

Technically speaking the owner did not commit theft as a basic point to prove is that the suspect intended to permanantly deprive the owner of it. In this case, saying he would return it the next day means no intent to permanantly deprive. Having said that if I was the officer on the scene and informal requests to return the camera were rebuffed, I would certainly consider arresting on suspicion of theft as that would allow me to seize the camera as evidence. Of course the TPV would not have that option, and Thai law may well have some difference that wouldn't allow it.

I find Howard saying that the owner couldn't be arrested for theft as the owners had no receipts to prove it was theirs very strange. Maybe that is the case under Thai law, but it would make most theft allegations extremely hard to prove.

[TAWP]

and i dont know how many bars are in thailand, but most of the ones in bangkok are owned by foreigners. I would be interested in finding out how many of the bars in walking street are owned by foreigners and how many are owned by thais. anyone know?

No, most bars in BKK are not foreign owned. Not even close. Outside the city center I doubt you find many bars at all that is foreign owned.

[whistleblower]

nearly all the 'tourist bars' in bangkok are foreign owned. just look at cowboy, nana etc

[whistleblower]

[mrtoad]

nearly all the 'tourist bars' in bangkok are foreign owned. just look at cowboy, nana etc

That hardly constitutes 'most' of the bars in Bangkok.

[whistleblower]

Bit camera shy back then lads??

Howard have a word with your oppo, he's not tourist police. and why does he feel the need to carry his 'badge' when in civilian clothing?

didnt he have time to rush home and don his uniform this time? you know like he did with the ladyboys?

[whistleblower]

nearly all the 'tourist bars' in bangkok are foreign owned. just look at cowboy, nana etc

That hardly constitutes 'most' of the bars in Bangkok.

I agree. I was trying to make the point that most tourist bars are farang owned. sorry

[TAWP]

nearly all the 'tourist bars' in bangkok are foreign owned. just look at cowboy, nana etc

You are not talking about BKK, you are talking about a few very selected streets. Cowboi and Nana might be a majority of foreign owned (partly due to history), but Pat Pong (apart from the Russian that is built like a brick wall) is mostly Thai owned - and I would not call these 'tourist bars', they are clearly gogo bars.

[whistleblower]

nearly all the 'tourist bars' in bangkok are foreign owned. just look at cowboy, nana etc

You are not talking about BKK, you are talking about a few very selected streets. Cowboi and Nana might be a majority of foreign owned (partly due to history), but Pat Pong (apart from the Russian that is built like a brick wall) is mostly Thai owned - and I would not call these 'tourist bars', they are clearly gogo bars.

yes the very few selected streets that tourists go to. theres also soi 33 mainly farang owned, suk 22 mainly farang owned and i think if you check, i'd say patpong is about 50/50 now.

What i was really trying to find out is how many bars in walking street are farang owned. Sorry for not being accurate.

[hardy1943]

Gotta love Thailand. Tourists ripped off daily across the entire Kingdom and its business as usual, until it goes out on TV, then the Governor promises a big clean up. Sure... Yes, I prefer it here to Farangland, but the longer I am here, the more cynical I become.

I been here since 2003 every year worse,expect next year be like CARTOON NETWORK

[mca]

There's a part of me that reckons that despite all his holier than thou pontificating that stuck up knob and his wife (?) were simply filming so they could go back to their hotel room and watch the vid while she wanked him off.

Edited October 22, 2009 by mca

[TAWP]

nearly all the 'tourist bars' in bangkok are foreign owned. just look at cowboy, nana etc

You are not talking about BKK, you are talking about a few very selected streets. Cowboi and Nana might be a majority of foreign owned (partly due to history), but Pat Pong (apart from the Russian that is built like a brick wall) is mostly Thai owned - and I would not call these 'tourist bars', they are clearly gogo bars.

yes the very few selected streets that tourists go to. theres also soi 33 mainly farang owned, suk 22 mainly farang owned and i think if you check, i'd say patpong is about 50/50 now.

What i was really trying to find out is how many bars in walking street are farang owned. Sorry for not being accurate.

Since I know the lawyer that is on most of the owner papers for the establishments in the area, I could ask, but as there is a reason he is on the papers and not the actual people, I think it would be rude and to take advantage of the friendship.

But from my experience with Pat Pong is that the foreign ownership of the 'adult' (because that is what you are asking for, not anything else) bars/clubs is limited on these 4 streets in Silom/Surawong.

[Patsycat]

Is he one of those bible bashing people?

Hey, kidder it is known that boys will be boys and when they go to Pattaya they shall be naughty boys. So what is the problem? Howard and his mates are there to help, if they have to, men and women who have an altercation within certain venues or whatever and do not speak Thai. I would have no problem talking with Howard or any of his colleagues if I had a problem, or one of my friends had a problem. It, to me, is a sort of comfort thing - I am a foreigner in a country and "wow" there is someone that can speak to me in my own language.

Even I, as a woman, who has never been to Pattaya know that it is not good to try to take photos within a go go. Look up on You tube - all the films are taken under the table. I believe it is good, to preserve the anonimity of the girls and also the blokes. Who may be having a wee holiday away from the wife.

[Scott]

An altered video clip and subsequent posts have been deleted.

[cyb]

But weren't they committing an offense by breaking house rules on private property?

Yes they were, Filming in a public domain (outside) is one thing.

But filming inside a premise without permission is illegal.

[geriatrickid]

Lost in this discussion is the right of people to control their own intellectual property as in the form of trade dress, image, copyright etc. If a 3rd party wants to film you and use it for commercial purposes, i.e. make a profit off of your image, then you have a right to be compensated. Did the people filming offer to pay anyone? If they wanted to film people then they had an obligation to secure a proper release. Did they get permission from the dancers to film them? I don't think so. These 2 trespassers were most likely not even making a film and they certainly did not secure either permission or the permits to do so. Would you allow these people to come onto your premises and film you? How about if you were sitting by the pool and they came by to film your wife or g/f in her bikini?

[hm1973]

I received an email from Vera Production Company yesterday who informed me that Episode 8 (the last episode) is going to be a Prison Special, featuring extensive interviews with Brits Behind Bars and how they cope with being banged up in Thailand.