NATION Journalist Held Up At Gunpoint By 'Police'

[JennyTaylor]

Does anyone here really believe that the Thai people are protected by the police any better than foreigners? As foreigners, we generally have more money, and are therefore targets of crime - but a young Thai friend of mine, who was sharing his room with a 'yaa baa' user, had his room searched by police, and 15,000 Baht was stolen (sorry, confiscated!) by the police, as they claimed his room mate was a dealer. Who should he turn to??

You just need to read the Saudi Jewel Theft story, and see what happens to a policeman who arranges the murder of a member of the Saudi Royal family, to see what kind of society we have chosen to live in!

[surayu]

Does anyone here really believe that the Thai people are protected by the police any better than foreigners?

Surely not, we are all the same, just you start kind of developing some sort of doubts when you, as a foreigner, call the police into assisting a situation where you have a thief holding your stolen items and the police just start challenging YOU with an authoritative tone and have friendly smileing chit chat with the thief that go back happily away with YOUR belonging....just an isolated case? no no, have a look at the story about those 3 irishmen treatened with a butcher knife and the police showing up hugging him, etc... more and more stories like that are populating the forum and the news.....

What's the name of that famous former party again? "Thai Rak Farangs" isn't ?

see what happens to a policeman who arranges the murder of a member of the Saudi Royal family, to see what kind of society we have chosen to live in!

If i recall that story correctly, he got a promotion in rank, business as usual i would say.

[surayu]

oh and by the way Jenny, sorry if i didn't before but i wasn't paying too much attention, welcome to the forum! for being a "newbie", you seems to have already matured a very good knowledge of these shores, congratulation !

JennyTaylor

• Newbie
• 
• Group:Members
• Posts:3
• Joined:Today, 09:31

Edited January 17, 2011 by surayu

[somchaismith]

"out-of-control, drunk, gun-wielding thugs"

At which point did you realize that they were drunk?

[JennyTaylor]

oh and by the way Jenny, sorry if i didn't before but i wasn't paying too much attention, welcome to the forum! for being a "newbie", you seems to have already matured a very good knowledge of these shores, congratulation !

Thank you, Surayu, for the welcome. In fact I've been here for some years, and have only just started contributing to this forum.

Mine is a pseudonym, by the way (as I am sure you have spotted), and not one I would say out loud in front of your maiden aunt...

JennyTaylor

• Newbie
• 
• Group:Members
• Posts:3
• Joined:Today, 09:31

[metisdead]

Discussion of the missing Saudi gems case is off topic to this thread. The discussion of the missing Saudi gems continues here.

[mmushr00m]

Any follow up to this story?

I remember seeing this in the Nation (I was in a waiting roomand there was nothing else to read) and it did not appear as a news article or as an editorial. Instead it was printed in the "letters to editors" section.

I kind of think its rather strange that a story regarding their own journalist/staff appears in the "letters" section and not as an actual news story.

Thats why I am wondering if there is any follow up?

[retell]

It is good that the Nation is printing this. This kind of thing has been going on for years. It would be surprising if these criminals did not have some sort of informal relationship with the local police.

I don't expect it will stop but it may disappear or relocate for a while.

i would be

[FOODLOVER]

"You'll be taken to Pattaya and shot."

Gee, I wonder why Pattaya?

A last smoke, maybe

[DocN]

Ahm...why is this of interest now? It happened in january...??? Maybe I am missing the point, so ....please...enlighten me....

[siampolee]

If my memory serves me correct the so called "police," were proven to be impostors.

[saengsureeya]

"You'll be taken to Pattaya and shot."

Gee, I wonder why Pattaya?

Same here! Obviously some Pattaya cockroaches couldn't wait for their victims to settle down in Pattaya for the weekend, so decided to search them elsewhere.

Maybe the same low-life people who are robbing people's houses.

Only one thins comes to mind: "Shoot to kill!"

[rogerdee123]

I also have a farang Thai-speaking friend who lived off Silom Road who was picked up by police some years ago (the previous Thaksin years) and put into a marked police car as he was walking down Convent Road. He was taken to Pattaya and wasn't allowed to contact anyone for more than 24 hours and held for 3 days until a lawyer (and a couple of well known Thai personalities) were able to get him released. Never any charges or any explanation except the lame excuse that they confused him with another "wanted" person. He left Thailand shortly after that and has never returned.

[Bagwan]

I think racism against Blacks and Indians in Thaland are coming from the era of emperialism and colonialism where lots of small impoverished nations was being insulted or half enslaved by a bunch of powerful emperialist nations such as France, England etc.

I am sure this created a deep psychological complex and i think now they are taking the revenge of these old hard days from impoverished Blacks and Indians.

The post of REDNIVAR is totally right as well. India is the main origin of Thai culture. So, it is totally hard to understand.

And when was Thailand exposed to imperialism and colonization?

1941-45? About 30,000 Caucasians died building the Death Railway but 300,000 Asians also lost their lives on that entrprise yet the Thais are buddy buddy with the Nips which rather destroys your argument.

As for colonialism consider the state of the African nations today. I am willing to bet that if referendums were carried out in those countries where the Brits once governed, the results would reflect a desire for the Brits to return. The Brits built roads and railways, hospitals and schools, prevented inter tribal warfare - and outlawed them eating each other. The US did much the same in Thailand during the Vietnam unpleasantness. After beggaring ourselves defending the freedom of fellow Europeans, the British far flung Empire was of necessity flung as far as we could manage. That the locals have made a total mess of the government and administration of their now 'free' countries is reflected in that they all want to come to live in a tiny European off shore island.

BTW please learn to differentiate between England and the UK. It is totally bad manners to leave the hairy sheep stealing bagpipe playing Scots, the dwarfish Welshmen who used to live underground sporting lamps on the headgear (and sing too much), and the unintelligible, usually at least half pi$$ed Ulstermen still fighting over Cromwell and William III but who are the lads to call on if you want a tunnel dug or a motorway built, out of the picture. They too must take some of the blame for the wrongs that the UK has brought about, and due credit for some of the wonderful things that the UK has given the World - and is still giving.

[wallswod]

Just amazing, this country is on a very dangerous slippery slope, with gravity. Even if Thai Gravity is different to Farlang gravity.

[steveromagnino]

1941-45? About 30,000 Caucasians died building the Death Railway but 300,000 Asians also lost their lives on that entrprise yet the Thais are buddy buddy with the Nips which rather destroys your argument.

As for colonialism consider the state of the African nations today. I am willing to bet that if referendums were carried out in those countries where the Brits once governed, the results would reflect a desire for the Brits to return. The Brits built roads and railways, hospitals and schools, prevented inter tribal warfare - and outlawed them eating each other.

Well, actually for a start you mean "nip" as a derogatory comment (some consider it so) :jap:

Africa is an interesting case study; reading experts on the subject, Africa was seen mostly as a place of resources rather than a viable colony (due to tsetse fly, disease, inability to use horses etc) and so it was mostly seen as a place to mine, take from or remove things. Such as people; when you take out a large proportion of the working age population as occured during the slave trade, it left the country in a 'bit of a mess' so to speak. Ditto for mining, trees, etc - much of Africa was not viewed as a place anyone would want to live in, so they went and just took stuff out. Africa's biggest issue is logistics; British didn't waste time creating the education and rail systems like they did in India...because they were just a visitor taking stuff. Like going to Harrods with a big bag, some quick hands and no wallet.

South Africa was an exception - why - because climatically it had something in common with Europe and could be farmed, diamond mined, etc - hence the Dutch and English both wanting it.

The Brits as you describe them may indeed done many things (including a ton of good stuff as well as less good raping and pillaging, privateers, slavery, a bunch of diseases, opium trade, etc etc) to the rest of the world, and were certainly a 'pound for pound' champ (when you consider at one point they had 1/3 of the world under their control all from a pretty tiny country) but many of the world's problems (as well as discoveries) can arguably be traced back to the impact of the colonies.

Certainly the natives of Tasmania would have done better without colonisation. We won't know, since they are all dead.

It is impossible to say which way people would prefer and I don't think anyone would willingly give up rule now to have the archaic British empire as it exists now running things (aren't Scotland, Ireland and Wales trying to win more independence for themselves, Australia is looking at becoming a republic); you cannot tell how things turn out - not every country would or would not end up a successful colony like Australia (which by any measure is a pretty decent place); many would and have ended up basketcases or warzones and recolonising or not isn't going to change that.

Like India/Pakistan border, Israel/Egypt/Palestine/middle east, Sierra leone, Iraq, etc. In a few cases during colonisation the locals did deals with the British as they arrived to save themselves (e.g. Maoris in NZ, which is a major issue for the country to deal with the legal issues or now, as the Maoris are claiming ownership of for instance, wifi, under ownership of the air) but to suggest that the British were so generous and helpful when they went in to run things....is no really accurate in all cases. You can ask the 3m+ slaves what they thought of British roads... :-) Or the opium addicts in China.

The usual argument is they brought progress....Next comes the question if the Australian aborigines are so smart, how come they didn't have iron, machinery etc, and the English had all of that when they arrived to settle the place in 1800s (to make it a prison in fact, which explains why Australians are so good at Rugby League. And drinking). Or in NZ..the Maori tribal wars got 10X worse when the settlers arrived...because suddenly intensive farming and firepower meant you could go and raid the tribe's land next door and screw them over 8 Tray Gangsta style (you could even load the musket and hold it sideways, like a real gAnGsTa does); in NZ history until 30 years ago, this was given as proof; the locals needed the British to come in to defend them from eachother/themselves. Because winners write history; losers (especially ones who are colonised and top the bottom of most statistics as is the case in NZ and Australia) end up stereotypically as alchoholics and wife beaters.

The answer to this and why Europe gained dominance in the last 200 years are easily explained in Guns Germs and Steel and various other texts; it was simply being born in a region with domesticable crops, animals and thus the ability to create cities and specialised production.

I can assure you the last thing many members of the previous colonies of the British empire wish to do is to go and live in a country that has scousers, can't play rugby and is home to that insufferable Noel Edmunds and his awful houseparties. Also, the vast number of English in Pattaya suggests that not all of them want to live there either.

I normally would not bother to respond to such a post, but as it is so relevant to Thailand (short answer, if Thailand had been a colony it probably would be like Burma, also a British colony, or maybe Combodia/Laos/Vietname - also colonies, or maybe Philippines - also a colony, or maybe Malaysia - also a British colony; but we'll never know for sure) but what is obvious is that the British would have lost Thailand anyhow in WW2 just like they did Singapore, and thus it would have made zero difference to history since that point.

Legal system might be slightly different, with more case law based stuff and less statute. Except maybe we'd have slightly more brummie accents.

hey you hey you hansum farang would give way to Oi theenk oi quoit loik you :-)

Potato potato (ok that works better when speaking)

Edited October 27, 2011 by steveromagnino

[waza]

1941-45? About 30,000 Caucasians died building the Death Railway but 300,000 Asians also lost their lives on that entrprise yet the Thais are buddy buddy with the Nips which rather destroys your argument.

As for colonialism consider the state of the African nations today. I am willing to bet that if referendums were carried out in those countries where the Brits once governed, the results would reflect a desire for the Brits to return. The Brits built roads and railways, hospitals and schools, prevented inter tribal warfare - and outlawed them eating each other.

Well, actually for a start you mean "nip" as a derogatory comment (some consider it so) :jap:

Africa is an interesting case study; reading experts on the subject, Africa was seen mostly as a place of resources rather than a viable colony (due to tsetse fly, disease, inability to use horses etc) and so it was mostly seen as a place to mine, take from or remove things. Such as people; when you take out a large proportion of the working age population as occured during the slave trade, it left the country in a 'bit of a mess' so to speak. Ditto for mining, trees, etc - much of Africa was not viewed as a place anyone would want to live in, so they went and just took stuff out. Africa's biggest issue is logistics; British didn't waste time creating the education and rail systems like they did in India...because they were just a visitor taking stuff. Like going to Harrods with a big bag, some quick hands and no wallet.

South Africa was an exception - why - because climatically it had something in common with Europe and could be farmed, diamond mined, etc - hence the Dutch and English both wanting it.

The Brits as you describe them may indeed done many things (including a ton of good stuff as well as less good raping and pillaging, privateers, slavery, a bunch of diseases, opium trade, etc etc) to the rest of the world, and were certainly a 'pound for pound' champ (when you consider at one point they had 1/3 of the world under their control all from a pretty tiny country) but many of the world's problems (as well as discoveries) can arguably be traced back to the impact of the colonies.

Certainly the natives of Tasmania would have done better without colonisation. We won't know, since they are all dead.

It is impossible to say which way people would prefer and I don't think anyone would willingly give up rule now to have the archaic British empire as it exists now running things (aren't Scotland, Ireland and Wales trying to win more independence for themselves, Australia is looking at becoming a republic); you cannot tell how things turn out - not every country would or would not end up a successful colony like Australia (which by any measure is a pretty decent place); many would and have ended up basketcases or warzones and recolonising or not isn't going to change that.

Like India/Pakistan border, Israel/Egypt/Palestine/middle east, Sierra leone, Iraq, etc. In a few cases during colonisation the locals did deals with the British as they arrived to save themselves (e.g. Maoris in NZ, which is a major issue for the country to deal with the legal issues or now, as the Maoris are claiming ownership of for instance, wifi, under ownership of the air) but to suggest that the British were so generous and helpful when they went in to run things....is no really accurate in all cases. You can ask the 3m+ slaves what they thought of British roads... :-) Or the opium addicts in China.

The usual argument is they brought progress....Next comes the question if the Australian aborigines are so smart, how come they didn't have iron, machinery etc, and the English had all of that when they arrived to settle the place in 1800s (to make it a prison in fact, which explains why Australians are so good at Rugby League. And drinking). Or in NZ..the Maori tribal wars got 10X worse when the settlers arrived...because suddenly intensive farming and firepower meant you could go and raid the tribe's land next door and screw them over 8 Tray Gangsta style (you could even load the musket and hold it sideways, like a real gAnGsTa does); in NZ history until 30 years ago, this was given as proof; the locals needed the British to come in to defend them from eachother/themselves. Because winners write history; losers (especially ones who are colonised and top the bottom of most statistics as is the case in NZ and Australia) end up stereotypically as alchoholics and wife beaters.

The answer to this and why Europe gained dominance in the last 200 years are easily explained in Guns Germs and Steel and various other texts; it was simply being born in a region with domesticable crops, animals and thus the ability to create cities and specialised production.

I can assure you the last thing many members of the previous colonies of the British empire wish to do is to go and live in a country that has scousers, can't play rugby and is home to that insufferable Noel Edmunds and his awful houseparties. Also, the vast number of English in Pattaya suggests that not all of them want to live there either.

I normally would not bother to respond to such a post, but as it is so relevant to Thailand (short answer, if Thailand had been a colony it probably would be like Burma, also a British colony, or maybe Combodia/Laos/Vietname - also colonies, or maybe Philippines - also a colony, or maybe Malaysia - also a British colony; but we'll never know for sure) but what is obvious is that the British would have lost Thailand anyhow in WW2 just like they did Singapore, and thus it would have made zero difference to history since that point.

Legal system might be slightly different, with more case law based stuff and less statute. Except maybe we'd have slightly more brummie accents.

hey you hey you hansum farang would give way to Oi theenk oi quoit loik you :-)

Potato potato (ok that works better when speaking)

:cheesy:

[bigbamboo]

I agree. Something is fishy here. Surely nobody would struggle against 3 police staring down the barrel of a "cocked gun."

Yup. I'm having a hard time with this. Struggle against 3 drunk men armed with guns, who are pointing them at your teenage son, and manage to safely escape from them while in a moving car

And with one bound Somchai was free!

[bigbamboo]

1941-45? About 30,000 Caucasians died building the Death Railway but 300,000 Asians also lost their lives on that entrprise yet the Thais are buddy buddy with the Nips which rather destroys your argument.

As for colonialism consider the state of the African nations today. I am willing to bet that if referendums were carried out in those countries where the Brits once governed, the results would reflect a desire for the Brits to return. The Brits built roads and railways, hospitals and schools, prevented inter tribal warfare - and outlawed them eating each other.

Well, actually for a start you mean "nip" as a derogatory comment (some consider it so) :jap:

Africa is an interesting case study; reading experts on the subject, Africa was seen mostly as a place of resources rather than a viable colony (due to tsetse fly, disease, inability to use horses etc) and so it was mostly seen as a place to mine, take from or remove things. Such as people; when you take out a large proportion of the working age population as occured during the slave trade, it left the country in a 'bit of a mess' so to speak. Ditto for mining, trees, etc - much of Africa was not viewed as a place anyone would want to live in, so they went and just took stuff out. Africa's biggest issue is logistics; British didn't waste time creating the education and rail systems like they did in India...because they were just a visitor taking stuff. Like going to Harrods with a big bag, some quick hands and no wallet.

South Africa was an exception - why - because climatically it had something in common with Europe and could be farmed, diamond mined, etc - hence the Dutch and English both wanting it.

The Brits as you describe them may indeed done many things (including a ton of good stuff as well as less good raping and pillaging, privateers, slavery, a bunch of diseases, opium trade, etc etc) to the rest of the world, and were certainly a 'pound for pound' champ (when you consider at one point they had 1/3 of the world under their control all from a pretty tiny country) but many of the world's problems (as well as discoveries) can arguably be traced back to the impact of the colonies.

Certainly the natives of Tasmania would have done better without colonisation. We won't know, since they are all dead.

It is impossible to say which way people would prefer and I don't think anyone would willingly give up rule now to have the archaic British empire as it exists now running things (aren't Scotland, Ireland and Wales trying to win more independence for themselves, Australia is looking at becoming a republic); you cannot tell how things turn out - not every country would or would not end up a successful colony like Australia (which by any measure is a pretty decent place); many would and have ended up basketcases or warzones and recolonising or not isn't going to change that.

Like India/Pakistan border, Israel/Egypt/Palestine/middle east, Sierra leone, Iraq, etc. In a few cases during colonisation the locals did deals with the British as they arrived to save themselves (e.g. Maoris in NZ, which is a major issue for the country to deal with the legal issues or now, as the Maoris are claiming ownership of for instance, wifi, under ownership of the air) but to suggest that the British were so generous and helpful when they went in to run things....is no really accurate in all cases. You can ask the 3m+ slaves what they thought of British roads... :-) Or the opium addicts in China.

The usual argument is they brought progress....Next comes the question if the Australian aborigines are so smart, how come they didn't have iron, machinery etc, and the English had all of that when they arrived to settle the place in 1800s (to make it a prison in fact, which explains why Australians are so good at Rugby League. And drinking). Or in NZ..the Maori tribal wars got 10X worse when the settlers arrived...because suddenly intensive farming and firepower meant you could go and raid the tribe's land next door and screw them over 8 Tray Gangsta style (you could even load the musket and hold it sideways, like a real gAnGsTa does); in NZ history until 30 years ago, this was given as proof; the locals needed the British to come in to defend them from eachother/themselves. Because winners write history; losers (especially ones who are colonised and top the bottom of most statistics as is the case in NZ and Australia) end up stereotypically as alchoholics and wife beaters.

The answer to this and why Europe gained dominance in the last 200 years are easily explained in Guns Germs and Steel and various other texts; it was simply being born in a region with domesticable crops, animals and thus the ability to create cities and specialised production.

I can assure you the last thing many members of the previous colonies of the British empire wish to do is to go and live in a country that has scousers, can't play rugby and is home to that insufferable Noel Edmunds and his awful houseparties. Also, the vast number of English in Pattaya suggests that not all of them want to live there either.

I normally would not bother to respond to such a post, but as it is so relevant to Thailand (short answer, if Thailand had been a colony it probably would be like Burma, also a British colony, or maybe Combodia/Laos/Vietname - also colonies, or maybe Philippines - also a colony, or maybe Malaysia - also a British colony; but we'll never know for sure) but what is obvious is that the British would have lost Thailand anyhow in WW2 just like they did Singapore, and thus it would have made zero difference to history since that point.

Legal system might be slightly different, with more case law based stuff and less statute. Except maybe we'd have slightly more brummie accents.

hey you hey you hansum farang would give way to Oi theenk oi quoit loik you :-)

Potato potato (ok that works better when speaking)

Three points.

Firstly, nice to read this basically well infromed comment from Steveromagnino.

Secondly, does the insufferable Noel Edmonds still have houseparties?

And thirdly, what an under rated (ouside of Thailand) ruler KIng Mongut is.

Edited October 31, 2011 by bigbamboo