Bangkok: Starbucks demands arrests in IP case

[Emdog]

It wouldn't matter if the product Starbucks sold was reconstituted rat poop! That is not the issue. I don't want to ever read from posters who somehow make extraordinary leaps of illogic as somehow justifying a company protecting it's brand and image, and later complain about Thais being thick and illogical.

Some say Starbucks should just pay more taxes in UK out of kindness or some silly reason. That is not how the tax game is played. Assuming you have worked and paid taxes, did you purposefully overpay your taxes? I doubt it. Management is there to maximize returns to investors. Paying more than legally required would mean less to shareholders. Duh. Modern marketing is about image more than product. You may not like that, but that is how it is. If people want to think they are more hiso going to Starbucks, and are willing to pay the premium, that is their choice. Your not going there and thinking the coffee is crap also your choice, which you are entitled to. How many of you corporate bashers have Apple products? that is major snob product and charging far more than it costs to make, with much larger profit margins (which explains why they have such huge profits, btw).

Edited October 21, 2013 by Emdog

[Prbkk]

no. The most objectionable thing about the way Starbucks behaved in the UK was the disingenuous claim to be a good corporate citizen until it was discovered that they structured their tax arrangements to AVOID paying Any tax at all. When that was exposed, there was outrage and they agreed to pay ( while denying they had any legal obligation to do so). Had they not agreed, I suspect they would have experienced the same result as their Australian stores. Starbucks plays this silly " we're all warm and fuzzy folk from Seattle" crap . Bullying some poor street vendor....pathetic.

Sent from my ipad

It wouldn't matter if the product Starbucks sold was reconstituted rat poop! That is not the issue. I don't want to ever read from posters who somehow make extraordinary leaps of illogic as somehow justifying a company protecting it's brand and image, and later complain about Thais being thick and illogical.

Some say Starbucks should just pay more taxes in UK out of kindness or some silly reason. That is not how the tax game is played. Assuming you have worked and paid taxes, did you purposefully overpay your taxes? I doubt it. Management is there to maximize returns to investors. Paying more than legally required would mean less to shareholders. Duh. Modern marketing is about image more than product. You may not like that, but that is how it is. If people want to think they are more hiso going to Starbucks, and are willing to pay the premium, that is their choice. Your not going there and thinking the coffee is crap also your choice, which you are entitled to. How many of you corporate bashers have Apple products? that is major snob product and charging far more than it costs to make, with much larger profit margins (which explains why they have such huge profits, btw).

[NeverSure]

I already knew that Thais were corrupt and had no problem stealing other people's intellectual property. They aren't smart enough to develop their own Tesco or McDonalds or KFC or the drugs they have blatantly copied or the DVD's and fake handbags they sell on the street.

But I didn't know there were so many farangs who would approve of it, showing a total lack of character.

I seriously doubt that any of the Starbucks bashers here would refuse an offer of the vast wealth that has been created by Starbuck's loyal customers worldwide.

Too many people on here are advocating outright stealing. Why am I not surprised, considering where most of them come from?

[rametindallas]

It is good to see that the majority of replies to this topic recognise just how ridiculous these wanke_rs at Starbucks are. It shows what the truth of the matter is.

So, in your world, truth is determined by popular view. I'm glad you weren't my science teacher.

[Baloo22]

Yes, it's the coffee equivalent of Kraft processed cheese...bland , appeals to the mass market but very cleverly promoted and marketed . Someone said hi-so. I don't think so....closer to McDonald's end of the scale

Of course Starbucks grew into a multi-billion dollar company with over 19,000 stores in 62 countries by selling " coffee equivalent of Kraft processed cheese" that nobody wanted to buy.

I'm fairly certain of one thing that Starbucks did NOT do that helped them to grow into such a successful company; They didn't take advice from you!

[samran]

Does anyone even drink that muddy rice paddy water they call starbucks? I tried it once, never again. Give me Starbung anyday or a kafai yen for a fraction of the price!

No you're right. nobody anywhere ever drinks coffee from Starbucks.

It's an amazing story when you think of it. Thousands of shops in dozens of countries just set up overnight and making millions of US$ and all without anything being sold because they had no idea how to make a cup of coffee that anybody was able to drink.

Unbelievable.

Funny that you say that because of all these so called stores are diminiushing around the world. Starbucks tried to infiltrate the Australian market with their vile s@@t and opened 100's of stores. Today I think they have 2 left. Theres an example I guess?

Even funnier YOU say that, since the actual numbers are 87 (vs "100s"...lol) and 22 (vs "2"). Sources: Starbucks own AU website and strategiccreative.com.au. What's any of this got to do with willful trademark infringement, or are we just being petulant?

Probably pointing out that most, but not all, Australians have extremely good taste when it comes to coffee and prefer the good stuff over the poo water Starbucks served. I'm guessing the rest are where the tourists are.

Six state capitals. At most four Starbucks in each city. It ain't many.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jul/30/australia.starbucks

[samran]

Khun JSixpack aptly described the mentality of the shrill Starbucks haters in another topic last year. His description of them and his observations were very accurate and astute. They remain accurate and still apply today!

If I may quote;

Something, but more so the very word "Starbucks." It's always caused a knee-jerk reaction for many of the members. The reasons are

• it's American, appeals to the vast America-bashing crowd here;
• it's global, anti-globalists hate it;
• it's not Thai, anathema to our Thaier-than-thou farangs;
• it's a chain;
• it's a corporation;
• it's relatively upscale for a mere coffee shop, many can't comfortably afford to go there;
• Starbucks coffee tastes like Starbucks coffee--not what some think coffee should taste like, not that they would know anyway;
• Starbucks isn't just about coffee but about the other products, service, and atmosphere--which many disingenuously ignore;
• some need to cling to a kind of reverse snobbery for illusory self-affirmation.

The original comment can be found here.

Nah, I love a good big corporation. They pay my bills. I love the American ones the best. I get to charge them the most.

Starbucks have every right to sue this old bloke. Bad PR, but within their rights to do so.

They just serve crap coffee, and the atmosphere is pretty average.

Edited October 21, 2013 by samran

[3SoiDogNight]

This has to be one of the most entertaining thread I've read in a long time here at ThaiVisa.

It's funny watching how petty some people get over a frikkin' cup of coffee.

Starbucks in Thailand taste isn't special and isn't anything like in the US. Even in the US, there are better coffee shops. I prefer Black Canyon or Amazon coffee. My favorite is Bicycle Cafe on Sukhumvit at the Ploen Chit BTS station. It's Thai owned too.

[Prbkk]

Well, that's exactly the point I was making....cheap, tasteless, sugary crap in a seemingly endless choice of minor variations on a theme, of course that will appeal in the US market. How could it not, given, As I acknowledged, it is well-marketed. But the home-spun hype and the Ma and Pa Kettle clientele will not work everywhere.
The coffee spot on 1st floor of Amarin was one of the original coffee shops in BKK. It has been in the same location for 30 years, plus . It's no more a threat to Starbucks than Starbung.
But yes, Starbucks does well in appealing to the lowest common denominator..and making them feel it's something special ( the same branding strategy as many American food companies). Enjoy.

Yes, it's the coffee equivalent of Kraft processed cheese...bland , appeals to the mass market but very cleverly promoted and marketed . Someone said hi-so. I don't think so....closer to McDonald's end of the scale

Of course Starbucks grew into a multi-billion dollar company with over 19,000 stores in 62 countries by selling " coffee equivalent of Kraft processed cheese" that nobody wanted to buy.

I'm fairly certain of one thing that Starbucks did NOT do that helped them to grow into such a successful company; They didn't take advice from you!

[impulse]

In the immortal words of Scooby Doo:

Ruh Roh!

http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/21/news/companies/starbucks-china-pricing/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

[Baloo22]

Well, that's exactly the point I was making....cheap, tasteless, sugary crap in a seemingly endless choice of minor variations on a theme, of course that will appeal in the US market. How could it not, given, As I acknowledged, it is well-marketed. But the home-spun hype and the Ma and Pa Kettle clientele will not work everywhere.

The coffee spot on 1st floor of Amarin was one of the original coffee shops in BKK. It has been in the same location for 30 years, plus . It's no more a threat to Starbucks than Starbung.

But yes, Starbucks does well in appealing to the lowest common denominator..and making them feel it's something special ( the same branding strategy as many American food companies). Enjoy.

Yes, it's the coffee equivalent of Kraft processed cheese...bland , appeals to the mass market but very cleverly promoted and marketed . Someone said hi-so. I don't think so....closer to McDonald's end of the scale

Of course Starbucks grew into a multi-billion dollar company with over 19,000 stores in 62 countries by selling " coffee equivalent of Kraft processed cheese" that nobody wanted to buy.

I'm fairly certain of one thing that Starbucks did NOT do that helped them to grow into such a successful company; They didn't take advice from you!

You say; "cheap, tasteless, sugary crap in a seemingly endless choice of minor variations on a theme, of course that will appeal in the US market." and "home-spun hype and the Ma and Pa Kettle clientele will not work everywhere."

Well, they provided products (coffee, tea, and others) and services that people like enough for them to grow into over 19,000 stores in 62 countries. Let me state "62 countries" again since, apparently, you didn't read it well enough to notice the first time. Perhaps some Starbucks coffee would help you!

You say "But yes, Starbucks does well in appealing to the lowest common denominator"

You certainly are pegging the "Low-Class Snob Meter" with that one!

I believe that these two items on Khun JSixpack's list are apt replies to your comment. Especially the ", not that they would know anyway!"

• Starbucks coffee tastes like Starbucks coffee--not what some think coffee should taste like, not that they would know anyway;
• Some need to cling to a kind of reverse snobbery for illusory self-affirmation.

[NeverSure]

No you're right. nobody anywhere ever drinks coffee from Starbucks.

It's an amazing story when you think of it. Thousands of shops in dozens of countries just set up overnight and making millions of US$ and all without anything being sold because they had no idea how to make a cup of coffee that anybody was able to drink.

Unbelievable.

Funny that you say that because of all these so called stores are diminiushing around the world. Starbucks tried to infiltrate the Australian market with their vile s@@t and opened 100's of stores. Today I think they have 2 left. Theres an example I guess?

Even funnier YOU say that, since the actual numbers are 87 (vs "100s"...lol) and 22 (vs "2"). Sources: Starbucks own AU website and strategiccreative.com.au. What's any of this got to do with willful trademark infringement, or are we just being petulant?

Probably pointing out that most, but not all, Australians have extremely good taste when it comes to coffee and prefer the good stuff over the poo water Starbucks served. I'm guessing the rest are where the tourists are.

Six state capitals. At most four Starbucks in each city. It ain't many.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jul/30/australia.starbucks

And this from a country which eats Vegemite, a product made from leftover brewer's yeast, and belonging to Kraft foods, an American company who's cheese was just dissed. (I don't like Kraft cheese OR Vegemite.)

But anyone who could choke down Vegemite has absolutely nothing to say about taste.

BTW, Starbucks hand picks and contracts for the high end coffee beans as recognized around the world. Make that 62 countries and 19,000 stores making billions of dollars.

If I was from a backwater former slave colony that had never seen a good, premium coffee bean before, I'd probably happily squat by my fire and stir up some junk too. Those other millions upon millions of people relaxing in a Starbucks while enjoying their coffee and free WiFi just wouldn't know what they were missing.

Cheers.

[chrisrazz]

This case has not been tested by the law, so until there is a ruling there is no infringement. This is a matter where a corporate giant is claiming there is infringement and all that implies. Unless all those claiming a blatent breach are experienced in this area of the law you are only expressing an uninformed opinion.

The negative sentiment towards Starbucks that is claimed as irrelevant, is just as irrelevent as those opinions that suggest a clear breach.

As the thread has moved onto a discussion that is wider than the original topic I'd like to add my bahts worth.

A Thai controlled American brand adopting US style litigation tactics to bully, or, for those of the other persuasion, protect the integrity of their brand surely is another form of plagerism and is a development the world could do without.

Using big legalese, marketing and PR to crush competitors is more important than providing a good product. If customer satisfaction is derived from one's assesment of self-worth rather than the actual product, then the next fad to come along will knock you off.

Corporate citizenship of many global US brands is historically poor and is the reason for much atagonism with good reason. And, there are many cases where big US campanies have stolen IP and used legal might to crush a small inventors claims. The legal costs of bringing such a case to court have diminshed the ordinary citizens ability to stand up for what is supposed to be the right of every citizen.

[Prbkk]

No. Starbucks conceded that they could not compete in a sophisticated coffee market, in respect of the closure of many of its Australian stores. They are right and it was a good call. Billions of dollars profit? For years they claimed to be making a loss in the UK until they were publicly shamed over tax avoidance. I will support smaller shops and chains rather than Starbucks. It';s not an American thing. Even Au Bon Pain makes better coffee and is, notwithstanding the name, American . How petty of these greedy F$#@s to pursue this guy..

http://www.smh.com.au/business/starbucks-closes-61-shops-cuts-700-jobs-20080729-3mt1.html

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/us-britain-starbucks-tax-idUKBRE89E0EX20121015

And this from a country which eats Vegemite, a product made from leftover brewer's yeast, and belonging to Kraft foods, an American company who's cheese was just dissed. (I don't like Kraft cheese OR Vegemite.)

But anyone who could choke down Vegemite has absolutely nothing to say about taste.

BTW, Starbucks hand picks and contracts for the high end coffee beans as recognized around the world. Make that 62 countries and 19,000 stores making billions of dollars.

If I was from a backwater former slave colony that had never seen a good, premium coffee bean before, I'd probably happily squat by my fire and stir up some junk too. Those other millions upon millions of people relaxing in a Starbucks while enjoying their coffee and free WiFi just wouldn't know what they were missing.

Cheers.

[JSixpack]

I'm sure you'd love the the welfare state in the UK to be failing but I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. Like any welfare system some people will abuse it and there are differing views on how to prevent it but it's still going fine.

Cough.

With a welfare system far more advanced than the United States, the British have achieved the remarkable result of turning entire communities of ancestral British people into tattooed, drunken brutes.

[Pattaya tourists! ]

I guess we now have the proof of what conservatives have been saying since forever: Looting is a result of liberal welfare policies. And Britain is in the end stages of the welfare state.

In 2008, a 9-year-old British girl, Shannon Matthews, disappeared on her way home from a school trip. The media leapt on the case -- only to discover that Shannon was one of seven children her mother, Karen, had produced with five different men.

The first of these serial sperm-donors explained: "Karen just goes from one bloke to the next, uses them to have a kid, grabs all the child benefits and moves on."

Poor little Shannon eventually turned up at the home of one of her many step-uncles -- whose ex-wife, by the way, was the mother of six children with three different fathers.

--http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-08-10.html

Government by blunder: From The Dome to HS2, the hubris, incompetence and mindless waste of our ruling class makes you want to weep. But then it's only YOUR money they're squandering

And a vid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs#t=178

This should also include the NHS which despite many problems has provided a life expectancy which the last time I looked was pretty good.

Well, you can't really criticise NHS now can you?

Sickening: Death threats. Her mother's grave desecrated. Her business destroyed. The whistleblower who exposed Mid-Staffs scandal is driven from her home

Julie Bailey fearlessly helped expose appalling conditions at Stafford Hospital

• She was driven by the death of her mother Bella at the hospital
• But she has faced a hate campaign from local activists
• Her mother's grave was desecrated and she has been intimidated
• The mother-of-two has now sold her cafe and moved away from town

--http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2348449/Julie-Bailey-The-whistleblower-exposed-Mid-Staffs-scandal-driven-home.html

Got three words for ya: NHS computer system. Precursor of the Obamacare computer system!

NHS is generally despised and ranked quite low among the welfare states' health systems. You know that.

I don't know why the legislation hasn't been changed but it may be more difficult than it seems. It does need changing as it's unfair on domestic companies like Costa Coffee who pay more tax as a proportion of their profits.

Similarly, it's terribly unfair on domestic citizens that UK expats aren't paying tax on income earned abroad, correct? But YOU, now, like all our upstanding Brits here, are voluntarily paying anyway, just because you know you should--for things like the Millenium Dome, HS2, immigrant welfare, bank bailouts, submarines, warfare . . . .

YES! That non-resident income law should be changed! Add capital gains in there too! Email your MPs!

Fortunately, now, you do have reason to be happy that state pensions for UK expats are often frozen. Dunno WHY I hear our UK expats around here complaining, do you?

And then there's loss of immediate NHS benefits when returning from permanent residence abroad, heh, heh. Right on! Way to go!

Turns out, Starbucks in the UK was merely blackmailed by a mob. The mob determined the law, not Parliament--which is what our anti-Starbucks crowd wants to happen here as well. Just meant closing stores and loss of jobs.

Starbucks Gives In To The Mob's Blackmail Over Tax

--http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/24/starbucks-gives-in-to-the-mobs-blackmail-over-tax/

Exactly what our mob here would have: give in to leftist, populist blackmail and forget about the trademark and the law protecting it.

I'm grateful for the welfare state in my country as it has helped me.

Says it all really. You were made a dependent--which was, after all, the plan. You may wave the flag now.

Yet, a startling thought: might you have helped yourself and others far more without it?

Edited October 22, 2013 by JSixpack

[Emdog]

Okay, to dream the impossible dream once more..... a business exists to provide a good or service the public wants to pay for (high school level econ). Enough people like Starbucks to enable them to be a profitable company, regardless of what some may think of their product (I too prefer coffee at good independent coffee shops, btw). Going through legal channels is not bullying. They already tried the informal approach of asking Starbung to change, to no avail. Should they have used the more appropriate local method of sending some thugs around to smash the cart? The case has not been decided yet, so we cannot say infringement for sure. But lawyers for Starbucks are bringing suit because they think it is. Getting a "free ride" off of Starbucks name brand is theft. Is that so difficult to comprehend?

[samran]

@Neversure

Yep, Australia does coffee and healthcare better than the US. Deal with it.

I'm happy than many millions of people and 63 countries like drinking toilet water and charging more for it. Marketing genius. Capitalism and poor taste at work. Would have it any other way. Not knocking the system, just the <deleted> coffee.

Having said that, there is an island of enlightenment and sanity in the south pacific. Even better, more than a few places in Bangkok now serving coffee as it has been perfected down under.

Also don't be surprised if the terms 'long black' and 'flat white' enter the US lexion over the next decade. We rock.

[Tywais]

This case has not been tested by the law, so until there is a ruling there is no infringement. This is a matter where a corporate giant is claiming there is infringement and all that implies. Unless all those claiming a blatent breach are experienced in this area of the law you are only expressing an uninformed opinion.

I am experienced in the area and if one wishes to be more 'accurate' than it is an alleged trademark infringement until a claim is filed for such and handled through the courts. In this instance it is quite clear though it is in breach of the trademark laws as seen below. It easily satisfies the three claims.

To prevail on a claim of trademark infringement, a plaintiff must establish that it has a valid mark entitled to protection; and that the defendant used the same or a similar mark in commerce in connection with the sale or advertising of goods or services without the plaintiff's consent. The plaintiff must also show that defendant's use of the mark is likely to cause confusion as to the affiliation, connection or association of defendant with plaintiff, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of defendant's goods, services or commercial activities by plaintiff. Thus, "use," "in commerce," and "likelihood of confusion" are three distinct elements necessary to establish a trademark infringment claim.

"Likelihood of confusion" is the central focus of any trademark infringement claim. A likelihood of confusion exists when consumers viewing the allegedly infringing mark would probably assume that the product or service it represents is associated with the source of a different product or service identified with a similar mark. Courts conducting a likelihood of confusion analysis apply a different standard to directly competing, as opposed to non-competing, goods. When the alleged infringer and the trademark owner deal in competing goods or services, the court rarely needs to look beyond the mark itself; infringement will usually be found if the two marks at issue are sufficiently similar that consumer confusion can be expected. If the goods in question are completely unrelated, confusion is unlikely and infringement will generally not be found.

Cornell University of Law

[Emdog]

Update from BBC: China had been following this discussion on TV and are now whinging about Starbucks charging more than $4 for a latte. Don't want to pay it? Don't buy it! I'd like to be able to sell toilet water for those prices, wouldn't we all? Don't know if I could keep up with supply. Not a big beer drinker....

[rametindallas]

With a welfare system far more advanced than the United States, the British have achieved the remarkable result of turning entire communities of ancestral British people into tattooed, drunken brutes.

[Pattaya tourists! ]

I guess we now have the proof of what conservatives have been saying since forever: Looting is a result of liberal welfare policies. And Britain is in the end stages of the welfare state.

In 2008, a 9-year-old British girl, Shannon Matthews, disappeared on her way home from a school trip. The media leapt on the case -- only to discover that Shannon was one of seven children her mother, Karen, had produced with five different men.

The first of these serial sperm-donors explained: "Karen just goes from one bloke to the next, uses them to have a kid, grabs all the child benefits and moves on."

Poor little Shannon eventually turned up at the home of one of her many step-uncles -- whose ex-wife, by the way, was the mother of six children with three different fathers.

--http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-08-10.html

Government by blunder: From The Dome to HS2, the hubris, incompetence and mindless waste of our ruling class makes you want to weep. But then it's only YOUR money they're squandering

And a vid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs#t=178

This should also include the NHS which despite many problems has provided a life expectancy which the last time I looked was pretty good.

Well, you can't really criticise NHS now can you?

Sickening: Death threats. Her mother's grave desecrated. Her business destroyed. The whistleblower who exposed Mid-Staffs scandal is driven from her home

Julie Bailey fearlessly helped expose appalling conditions at Stafford Hospital

• She was driven by the death of her mother Bella at the hospital
• But she has faced a hate campaign from local activists
• Her mother's grave was desecrated and she has been intimidated
• The mother-of-two has now sold her cafe and moved away from town

--http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2348449/Julie-Bailey-The-whistleblower-exposed-Mid-Staffs-scandal-driven-home.html

Got three words for ya: NHS computer system. Precursor of the Obamacare computer system!

NHS is generally despised and ranked quite low among the welfare states' health systems. You know that.

I don't know why the legislation hasn't been changed but it may be more difficult than it seems. It does need changing as it's unfair on domestic companies like Costa Coffee who pay more tax as a proportion of their profits.

Similarly, it's terribly unfair on domestic citizens that UK expats aren't paying tax on income earned abroad, correct? But YOU, now, like all our upstanding Brits here, are voluntarily paying anyway, just because you know you should--for things like the Millenium Dome, HS2, immigrant welfare, bank bailouts, submarines, warfare . . . .

YES! That non-resident income law should be changed! Add capital gains in there too! Email your MPs!

Fortunately, now, you do have reason to be happy that state pensions for UK expats are often frozen. Dunno WHY I hear our UK expats around here complaining, do you?

And then there's loss of immediate NHS benefits when returning from permanent residence abroad, heh, heh. Right on! Way to go!

Turns out, Starbucks in the UK was merely blackmailed by a mob. The mob determined the law, not Parliament--which is what our anti-Starbucks crowd wants to happen here as well. Just meant closing stores and loss of jobs.

Starbucks Gives In To The Mob's Blackmail Over Tax

--http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/24/starbucks-gives-in-to-the-mobs-blackmail-over-tax/

Exactly what our mob here would have: give in to leftist, populist blackmail and forget about the trademark and the law protecting it.

I'm grateful for the welfare state in my country as it has helped me.

Says it all really. You were made a dependent--which was, after all, the plan. You may wave the flag now.

Yet, a startling thought: might you have helped yourself and others far more without it?

Brilliant! I have a daily newsletter here in Dallas and often attach articles from British newspapers giving examples of how the NHS is run. It is illustrative of where the US is heading with government control of what was the World's best healthcare system; soon to be rationed and one-size-fits-all. I am sending your comments out today.

[JSixpack]

Update from BBC: China had been following this discussion on TV and are now whinging about Starbucks charging more than $4 for a latte. Don't want to pay it? Don't buy it! I'd like to be able to sell toilet water for those prices, wouldn't we all? Don't know if I could keep up with supply. Not a big beer drinker....

Read that article on CNN. It was noteworthy that in one of comments a resident (or former resident) said China has hundreds if not thousands of fake Starbucks shops. Maybe Starbucks would like to stop the pirating early on here in Thailand.

[JSixpack]

Brilliant! I have a daily newsletter here in Dallas and often attach articles from British newspapers giving examples of how the NHS is run. It is illustrative of where the US is heading with government control of what was the World's best healthcare system; soon to be rationed and one-size-fits-all. I am sending your comments out today.

One of the comments to the Julie Bailey article is indicative:

Richard, York, 3 months ago:

Doesn't surprise me at all the NHS is in terminal decline and an utter disgrace. Those who are killing and torturing patients should be sacked and face the full rigour of the law.

--http://www.dailymail.co.uk/reader-comments/p/comment/link/33436415

BTW, speaking of TX, loved Ted Cruz's recent: ""After two months in Washington, it's great to be back in America."

[kimamey]

Cough.

With a welfare system far more advanced than the United States, the British have achieved the remarkable result of turning entire communities of ancestral British people into tattooed, drunken brutes.

[Pattaya tourists! ]

I guess we now have the proof of what conservatives have been saying since forever: Looting is a result of liberal welfare policies. And Britain is in the end stages of the welfare state.

In 2008, a 9-year-old British girl, Shannon Matthews, disappeared on her way home from a school trip. The media leapt on the case -- only to discover that Shannon was one of seven children her mother, Karen, had produced with five different men.

The first of these serial sperm-donors explained: "Karen just goes from one bloke to the next, uses them to have a kid, grabs all the child benefits and moves on."

Poor little Shannon eventually turned up at the home of one of her many step-uncles -- whose ex-wife, by the way, was the mother of six children with three different fathers.

--http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-08-10.html

Government by blunder: From The Dome to HS2, the hubris, incompetence and mindless waste of our ruling class makes you want to weep. But then it's only YOUR money they're squandering

And a vid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs#t=178

Well, you can't really criticise NHS now can you?

Sickening: Death threats. Her mother's grave desecrated. Her business destroyed. The whistleblower who exposed Mid-Staffs scandal is driven from her home

Julie Bailey fearlessly helped expose appalling conditions at Stafford Hospital

• She was driven by the death of her mother Bella at the hospital
• But she has faced a hate campaign from local activists
• Her mother's grave was desecrated and she has been intimidated
• The mother-of-two has now sold her cafe and moved away from town

--http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2348449/Julie-Bailey-The-whistleblower-exposed-Mid-Staffs-scandal-driven-home.html

Got three words for ya: NHS computer system. Precursor of the Obamacare computer system!

NHS is generally despised and ranked quite low among the welfare states' health systems. You know that.

Similarly, it's terribly unfair on domestic citizens that UK expats aren't paying tax on income earned abroad, correct? But YOU, now, like all our upstanding Brits here, are voluntarily paying anyway, just because you know you should--for things like the Millenium Dome, HS2, immigrant welfare, bank bailouts, submarines, warfare . . . .

YES! That non-resident income law should be changed! Add capital gains in there too! Email your MPs!

Fortunately, now, you do have reason to be happy that state pensions for UK expats are often frozen. Dunno WHY I hear our UK expats around here complaining, do you?

And then there's loss of immediate NHS benefits when returning from permanent residence abroad, heh, heh. Right on! Way to go!

Turns out, Starbucks in the UK was merely blackmailed by a mob. The mob determined the law, not Parliament--which is what our anti-Starbucks crowd wants to happen here as well. Just meant closing stores and loss of jobs.

Starbucks Gives In To The Mob's Blackmail Over Tax

--http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/24/starbucks-gives-in-to-the-mobs-blackmail-over-tax/

Exactly what our mob here would have: give in to leftist, populist blackmail and forget about the trademark and the law protecting it.

I'm grateful for the welfare state in my country as it has helped me.

Says it all really. You were made a dependent--which was, after all, the plan. You may wave the flag now.

Yet, a startling thought: might you have helped yourself and others far more without it?

I'm sorry I've had to cut your quotes of my post as it takes it over the limit. I hope that's OK. It's not my intention alter the intention of your post.

This has nothing to do with the OP. Most of your comments on that and on the anti Starbucks stupidity in this thread I agreed with.

I feel I must reply to some of your comments and in particular the last one.

As I said the welfare system which dates from the early 1900's with it's main components appearing in the late 40s is open to abuse. This is no different in many ways to the welcome that is given to immigrants by western countries including the UK and USA. Most cause no trouble and work hard to integrate as much as possible and provide for themselves and their families. Some just want to take advantage of that welcome. It will always happen but shouldn't prevent that welcome. The same can be said for westerners who come to Thailand.

With a welfare system far more advanced than the United States, the British have achieved the remarkable result of turning entire communities of ancestral British people into tattooed, drunken brutes.

Yes there are drunken brutes and many will be amongst those on lower incomes and therefore on welfare benefits. I suspect that in any country with or without a welfare system drunken brutes will tend to be those who are less inclined to find work. Some will find the welfare system helps them to do that but I doubt they would be upstanding citizens if the welfare was removed.

Never been to Pattaya so I can't really comment as I also don't know what you mean.

You've mentioned Shannon Mathews which is a very sad story and it's true that there are people like that. As for whether her mother just had kids for the benefits but it's certainly possible. Again I suspect that a lack of benefits wouldn't have caused her to keep her legs together.

The Youtube video is of a conservative MEP criticising a Labour PM so is biased and as far as I could see didn't have anything to do with the welfare state. It wasn't entirely correct and it's worth noting that the economy was growing at the end of the Labour government and slowed under the new Conservative one. Oh and he mentions the markets view of the PM. Moodys downgraded the UK under the next government.

The idea of the NHS computer system was good but was plauged by problems. Some due to the contractors and some due to the government. That doesn't really make the whole NHS bad does it?

I'd like to know your scouce for the NHS being despised. Apart from Republicans in the US. did see some of them talking about death panels deciding who would die. Decisions have to be made on where to spend money based in part on whether it will reasonably sustain life. Insurance companies won't pay out huge sums for no gain either.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about tax. It doesn't affect me at the moment but I believe I would have to pay tax on UK earnings but tax on non UK earnings would be dependant on whether I paid tax in the country where it was earned. As far as I know US citizens have to pay tax wherever they are as well.

If I live permanently outside of the UK and EU I lose my entitlement to some NHS services but if I return to take up residence I regain it immediately.

I do think my pension shouldn't be frozen if I live in certain countries but that's not a problem with the whole welfare system. Also remember I have paid for all these benefits through my taxes. It's not given for nothing.

Starbucks Gives In To The Mob's Blackmail Over Tax

--http://www.forbes.co...kmail-over-tax/

Exactly what our mob here would have: give in to leftist, populist blackmail and forget about the trademark and the law protecting it.

The UK issue had nothing to do with protecting a trademark where I've already said I largely agree with you.

I've not seen the Starbucks accounts for the UK but I doubt they are operating in the UK without profits just so we can have a cup of coffee. What they've done, and it's not only Starbucks, is they've moved the profit around so they can avoid the tax. This is probably legal due to the fact the laws need to be updated as I mentioned. There are suggestions that some of the big companies that do this might have behaved in a way that is, if not illegal certainly is very close to it.

I'm not sure I think boycotts are a good idea or really fair but then I have a similar view about large corporations avoiding tax however neither are illegal so there's not much you can do.

kimamey, on 21 Oct 2013 - 12:47, said:

I'm grateful for the welfare state in my country as it has helped me.

Says it all really. You were made a dependent--which was, after all, the plan. You may wave the flag now.

Yet, a startling thought: might you have helped yourself and others far more without it?

No it doesn't. I have used the NHS more as I've got older but I'm no more dependent on it than if I'd paid for private health insurance. The welfare system in the UK is basically just a state run insurance policy. It's not perfect but it means that if for example a child has parents who drink and smoke all their earnings and the child needs medical care they get it despite their parents lack of responsibility which isn't their fault.

I have claimed benefits on several occasions.

When I was unemployed it got money to keep my family until I found another job. I actually lost out on at least one job as I would have been better not taking it as it meant a long expensive journey every day and I lost some housing benefit.

My first wife had multiple sclerosis which eventually lead to her death. I'm not sure if private medical insurance would have covered her care for the 8 to 9 years between the diagnosis and death. I'm sure if it did it would be very expensive. She had what's known as primary progressive MS which means she got steadily worse until several of her internal organs just gave up. At the beginning she wasn't too bad but then her mobility suffered and I we had to move to a single story house which we paid for. We were provided with hoists and some doors were widened to enable her wheelchair to get through.

At first I carried on working but in the end stayed home to look after her although it was difficult as I'd hurt my back in a car accident some years earlier which had stopped me working for a while. I had to slowly build up from working part time until I could work a full day albeit in some pain at the end of the day. During this time I received some benefits. I also had some financial help from the government whilst I was looking after my wife although I used savings as well. If I hadn't stopped work I would have been much better off financially and the welfare state would have had to pay a lot more to have someone look after my wife whilst I was out working. Towards the end of her life this would have been very expensive as the help she needed due to her lack of mobility and general bodily function was extensive and something I wouldn't want to start describing here.

I'm not perfect but and neither is the welfare state but you shouldn't judge it solely on a few lazy irresponsible people in news stories.

Just to get back to Starbucks and the suggestion of paying taxes to feed the UK welfare state. They don't have to trade here if they don't like it anymore than those who don't like their coffee have to drink it. Or even those who don't want to be sued have to copy their logo.

[Baloo22]

As far as Starbucks operations in Britain:

I'm going to leave out all the quotes on whether the British NHS is good or bad and all the quotes on a "nanny/welfare state" Britain. Because, IMO, they are not relevant.

Starbucks in Britain followed the applicable tax laws. Period! That's the important point. No individual or corporation is legally or ethically required to pay any more taxes than they are required to by law.

Tax avoidance is using applicable tax laws to pay the least amount of taxes that you are required to pay. There is nothing legally or ethically wrong with that. And 99.99% plus of all individuals and businesses do exactly that. That is exactly what Starbucks did in Britain. Nothing legally or ethically wrong with it at all.

Tax evasion is an individual or business performing illegal acts to evade paying legally required taxes. Acts such as not reporting income, misreporting types of income, claiming deductions that are not valid, etc. Starbucks in Britain DID NOT do any of this.

[connda]

I used to be a Starbucks customer, but abject greed in the corporate world like this totally turns me off to their (overpriced) products. There are times when corporate jackasses should simple ignore small vendors who present absolutely no threat to these corporate behemoths multi-multi billion dollars profit centers. All they have accomplished is to tarnish their own image, if you want to call moving your operation offshore to avoid US taxes and image. "He is without sin should cast the first stone'. I hope they win in Thai court and have the 'damages' are reduced to 1 baht and a slap on the hand. These corporate giants have better things to do other than pursuing Intelligent Property suits against some poor individual pushing around a hand cart -- you know, like evading their social responsibility to pay taxes. I won't go to Starbucks again. I found a place in Chiang Mai that makes coffee drinks that are just as good as Star(Big)Bucks for less than half the price. Star(Mega)Bucks would probably send out the hounds in an attempt to prove they pirated their 'specific coffee making methods'. Big government and Big Corporation have one thing in common -- Big Greed.

[rametindallas]

Brilliant! I have a daily newsletter here in Dallas and often attach articles from British newspapers giving examples of how the NHS is run. It is illustrative of where the US is heading with government control of what was the World's best healthcare system; soon to be rationed and one-size-fits-all. I am sending your comments out today.

One of the comments to the Julie Bailey article is indicative:

Richard, York, 3 months ago:

Doesn't surprise me at all the NHS is in terminal decline and an utter disgrace. Those who are killing and torturing patients should be sacked and face the full rigour of the law.

--http://www.dailymail.co.uk/reader-comments/p/comment/link/33436415

BTW, speaking of TX, loved Ted Cruz's recent: ""After two months in Washington, it's great to be back in America."

When those of my generation, and those before it, reached a certain age, we went out into the world and became independent of our parents protection and nurturing. I seems later generations lost that ethos and only left their parents to become dependent of government handouts.

"The nature of the encroachment upon American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer; it eats faster and faster every hour. The revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity and frugality become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole of society." - John Adams 2nd US President

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have. - Thomas Jefferson 3rd US President

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.” - Alexander Tyler, in 1887, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, in regard to the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior

Government should serve the public by protecting rights, not granting them. Starbucks has the right to exclusive ownership of their trademark and it is government's job to protect Starbuck's rights. If Mr. Bung's rights were being infringed upon, then the government should protect Mr. Bung's rights. The Thai government is running a popularity contest and not doing their basic job which is to treat everyone fairly under the Law and to enforce the Law. The courts will say what the law, pertaining to Mr. Bung and Starbucks, is and the government must enforce that. Otherwise, you have anarchy.

Edited October 23, 2013 by rametindallas

[Baloo22]

I used to be a Starbucks customer, but abject greed in the corporate world like this totally turns me off to their (overpriced) products. There are times when corporate jackasses should simple ignore small vendors who present absolutely no threat to these corporate behemoths multi-multi billion dollars profit centers. All they have accomplished is to tarnish their own image, if you want to call moving your operation offshore to avoid US taxes and image. "He is without sin should cast the first stone'. I hope they win in Thai court and have the 'damages' are reduced to 1 baht and a slap on the hand. These corporate giants have better things to do other than pursuing Intelligent Property suits against some poor individual pushing around a hand cart -- you know, like evading their social responsibility to pay taxes. I won't go to Starbucks again. I found a place in Chiang Mai that makes coffee drinks that are just as good as Star(Big)Bucks for less than half the price. Star(Mega)Bucks would probably send out the hounds in an attempt to prove they pirated their 'specific coffee making methods'. Big government and Big Corporation have one thing in common -- Big Greed.

Connda; If you would read some of the previous comments on this topic, you would know that Starbucks cannot "simple ignore small vendors who present absolutely no threat to these corporate behemoths". It isn't that simple. Read rametindallas's comment below. Besides that, Starbucks gave those copy-cat thieves the opportunity to cease their illegal actions before Starbucks started any legal actions against them.

Starbucks has been very responsible in their actions.

If Starbucks knowingly lets one person violate their trademark, then they have to let anyone violate their trademark. Once the precedent has been set, (that you don't care who uses your trademark) then any large company can come in and do what the small offender did and there would be nothing Starbucks could do about it. You can't have selective enforcement. It is costing Starbucks much more in legal fees and bad publicity that even ten pushcarts like Mr. Bung runs but they have to protect their trademark or lose all rights to it. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.

Another point would be, why does it make a difference if the thief is small time or big time; you have still been robbed. Let me personalize it for you. Would it make a difference to you and your family if a poor thief with six children to feed robbed your house or a gang of professional thieves robbed your house? You suffer a loss in both cases. With your logic, you would let the poor thief off with no punishment (and even allow him to reoffend) and prosecute the professional gang. What would your family (stockholders), that your are responsible to, say about your generous spirit?

Connda;

Your statement that Starbucks has "moving your operation offshore to avoid US taxes" is factually incorrect and zany nonsense.

Starbucks has thousands of stores in the U.S. and it's corporate headquarters is in Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.

Your statement that Starbucks is " evading their social responsibility to pay taxes" is again factually incorrect and more zany nonsense.

Starbucks DID NOT evade paying taxes. They used applicable tax laws to pay the least amount of taxes that they are required to pay. And 99.99% plus of all individuals and businesses do exactly that. That is exactly what Starbucks did in Britain. Nothing legally, ethically, or socially wrong with it at all.

Tax evasion is an individual or business performing illegal acts to evade paying legally required taxes. Acts such as not reporting income, misreporting types of income, claiming deductions that are not valid, etc. Starbucks in Britain DID NOT do any of this.

Your comment " Star(Mega)Bucks would probably send out the hounds in an attempt to prove they pirated their 'specific coffee making methods'." is yet more zany nonsense.

If your favored Chiang Mai coffee house does not start using the Starbucks logo in an intent to deceive customers or take some action to deceive people that they are making Starbucks coffee, etc; They have very little to worry about any legal action from Starbucks.

[JSixpack]

This has nothing to do with the OP. Most of your comments on that and on the anti Starbucks stupidity in this thread I agreed with.

. . .

As for whether her mother just had kids for the benefits but it's certainly possible. Again I suspect that a lack of benefits wouldn't have caused her to keep her legs together.

True, but you wished to argue that helping pay for the welfare state is a good thing (as did some other posters, by implication) so Starbucks shouldn't legally avoid (as opposed to evade) doing so. I pointed out how so much of that money is wasted, how it helps cause social problems, and how Brits themselves, personally, take every opportunity to avoid paying more tax, notably on their offshore assets. And as expats they don't like the State keeping their cost-of-living increases. Etc.

It's not a question of keeping legs together. Birth control is freely available. Why pretend you don't know what's really going on? It's all well documented.

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

--http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/relationship-between-welfare-state-crime-0

And a big effect is the increase in crime rates:

Welfare contributes to crime in several ways. First, children from single-parent families are more likely to become involved in criminal activity. According to one study, children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior.(3) Moreover, O’Neill found that, holding other variables constant, black children from single- parent households are twice as likely to commit crimes as black children from a family where the father is present. Nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates.(4) Research indicates a direct correlation between crime rates and the number of single-parent families in a neighborhood.(5)

--http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/relationship-between-welfare-state-crime-0

The Youtube video is of a conservative MEP criticising a Labour PM so is biased and as far as I could see didn't have anything to do with the welfare state.

Pay attention. "You've subsidized if not nationalized large swathes of the economy" is directly relevant. You see, if more Brits and companies avoided (not evaded) paying tax, politicians couldn't afford to do nearly as much of this. If the Brit welfare state is so healthy as you claim, why did it go into the recession in the "worst condition of any member of the G20." Etc.

I'd like to know your scouce for the NHS being despised.

Yawn. Go look up the British Social Attitudes (BSA) surveys for yourself. You'll find that satisfaction averages around 60% among those who've used NHS. (Many don't: they go for medical tourism to get better care.) So 40% is pretty widespread. Horror stories abound. As I noted above, one of the comments to the Julie Bailey article is indicative:

Richard, York, 3 months ago:

Doesn't surprise me at all the NHS is in terminal decline and an utter disgrace. Those who are killing and torturing patients should be sacked and face the full rigour of the law.

--http://www.dailymail.co.uk/reader-comments/p/comment/link/33436415

Just to get back to Starbucks and the suggestion of paying taxes to feed the UK welfare state. They don't have to trade here if they don't like it anymore than those who don't like their coffee have to drink it. Or even those who don't want to be sued have to copy their logo.

I'm not a spokesman for Starbucks, you see. My little huzzah for its avoiding needless support for the failed Brit welfare state and using that money to open shops and provide REAL jobs (for Brits) was purely personal. You still haven't shown me how the welfare state is "doing fine" whereas I pointed you towards hard evidence it really isn't, just as I suggested. (Many a Brit expat will heartily agree.) So you're now in a position to do further research on your own, or you may simply remain in denial. You're welcome!

Doing fine

Needless to say, Britain leads Europe in the proportion of single mothers and, as a consequence, also leads the European Union in violent crime, alcohol and drug abuse, obesity and sexually transmitted diseases.

Liberal elites here and in Britain will blame anything but the welfare state they adore. They drone on about the strict British class system or the lack of jobs or the nation's history of racism.

None of that explains the sad lives of young Shannon Matthews and Scarlett Keeling, with their long English ancestry and perfect Anglo features.

--http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-08-10.html

BTW, anyone can invest in Starbucks shares. Do so and you (I mean our pro-pirate mob) will be much more inclined not to want its logo pirated.

Edited October 23, 2013 by JSixpack

[hannahc]

There's only one course of appropriate action: Starbucks boycott! In fact, Starbucks protest! Stop the bullies. Who's in?

[Prbkk]

This is the Lehman Brothers perspective on corporate ethics and responsibility. What you fail to mention is that Starbucks deliberately structured their operation in the UK in order to avoid any tax liability.and as a consequence deny that they have ever made a profit ( cf the comments to their US shareholders about being extremely pleased with the profit from UK operations). I'm not convinced by the maniacal rantings of someone on Forbes online suggesting that a mob had blackmailed Starbucks into paying the tax they wanted to avoid: in fact it was the CONSERVATIVE govt. Not even Labour.

Frankly I don't see much of a distinction between between some of the corruption in Thailand and that undertaken by tax avoiding corporations....in both cases the $$$$$ goes to people who are not entitled to it

As for Starbung, I see no real similarity with other brand ripoffs. No-one, absolutely no-one, would EVER be confused between these 2 brands and the matter is so trivial it should be thrown out of court

As far as Starbucks operations in Britain:

I'm going to leave out all the quotes on whether the British NHS is good or bad and all the quotes on a "nanny/welfare state" Britain. Because, IMO, they are not relevant.

Starbucks in Britain followed the applicable tax laws. Period! That's the important point. No individual or corporation is legally or ethically required to pay any more taxes than they are required to by law.

Tax avoidance is using applicable tax laws to pay the least amount of taxes that you are required to pay. There is nothing legally or ethically wrong with that. And 99.99% plus of all individuals and businesses do exactly that. That is exactly what Starbucks did in Britain. Nothing legally or ethically wrong with it at all.

Tax evasion is an individual or business performing illegal acts to evade paying legally required taxes. Acts such as not reporting income, misreporting types of income, claiming deductions that are not valid, etc. Starbucks in Britain DID NOT do any of this.