2 days now.

Still not having any doubts.

So one is disputing that it happened, just the location.

I think the 'how' and 'why' are also being questioned.

How many of you actually took the time to engage and read Neubauer's full article and the full Coconuts article? Precious few I'd guess from the comments. Neubauer and the TVP's accounts of the event seeming only diverge regarding location, whether he added 'not my signature' to his signature and whether or not 'tea money' was requested. If he thinks what he described occurred to him is 'harassment' then he has obviously never experienced true police harassment. Apart from his personal, subjective, experience the bulk of his 'article' in Time is a cut and paste rehash of others work.

RTP just lie Again Again and Again - cant these morons do anything right ?

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I find myself in a weird position where i would tend to believe the BIB's version of this story than that of Mr. Neubauer.

In his original article printed in Time, he has twisted the story that he is an innocent being harassed. If you add the unwritten facts (albeit supplied by the police) that it was a full-on drug bust where product was seized, of a known supplier and that 'customers' were detained for drug tests, then, to me anyway, it is a completely different story. Why would he not mention the seizure in the original article for an unbiased report?

Not only do i believe their account, but feel a certain sympathy towards their portrayal in this instance.

Actually, how and why would this individual possibly know what was seized at some location? You're saying that the reporter lied, and you imply strongly that he was somehow involved with the inner workings of this place, or a drug dealer himself somehow. He was outside being searched and being demanded to pee in a cup on the street. Not a position to be going over details around the location from, huh? Are you saying that the BiB then came to offer him a full report of things concerning a place he was not the owner of? Again, no, because he was outside - in his reporting - being searched, and watching police kicking a man, and threatening people. His report read to me as someone unfortunate to be in a location at the wrong moment, and encountered this. And sounds like the BIB were unfortunate to believe no one there could possibly a reporter for Time magazine. Oops.

Actually, I'm saying nothing of the sort, what I'm saying is that he has written the story to reflect the direction he wants it to go.

He was not stopped outside the premises (from his original article) but stopped on exiting the premises. Stopped in the bar area after coming down from the rooftop. Where the person allegedly assaulted by the police, handcuffed to a chair was. Not on the street. Later he says he was taken outside to meet some woman who wanted a million baht (?) or something for it all to go away. Read the original article......................

On his follow-up to the original story, he got as far as sending a couple of emails which he commented on, but my question was, as a journalist why didn't he follow up the story to at least understand what had happened to him instead of giving partial information to an extremely large reading audience?

All assuming that the facts released by the BIB are correct.

Lets not forget this is not a novice tourist but a journalist experienced in SEA. Yet he comes across as a whining little girl instilling dread and fear into his readers. As i stated previously, i tend to agree with the police version rather than his.

Edited January 29, 201511 yr by chrisinth

always 2 sides to a story, if they differ, 1 must be incorrect, who to believe is the 6 million dollar question

yes, one side is renowned to play fast and loose with the truth to make sure the facts fit the "story"..

the other is a reporter

OK... so... Reporters never make up stories ? Reporters never arrange facts so that they fit with their theory ? Reporters never use their Press status to make the police release them in a hurry when they've been caught red-handed doing something wrong ?

I have no particular sympathy with the Thai police (or any other police for that matter) but I'm somewhat impressed to see how most posters here side massively with the journalist, as if that corporation was never at fault. Just explore your memories, my friends, and think of an event you witnessed first hand, and then read about in the papers. How impressed were you with the accuracy of the report ?

My actual impression (and yes, I may be totally wrong) on this one is that :

1/ a Times reporter was caught by the Thai police with his finger in something dirty,

2/ he witnessed some uncalled for brutality by the RTP, possibly against himself as well

3/ he didn't get into any deeper trouble because he made it clear who he was

4/ he then proceeded to cook up a vengeful article in which he largely arranged the facts to give the worst possible image of the Thai cops

5/ as the saying goes 'vengeance is a bad counsellor' because his article is now backlashing in his face.

I repeat, I may be totally wrong, but I strongly believe in this hypothesis, and frankly I don't have much more confidence in journalists than in cops, anywhere in the world, when it comes to tampering with the truth.

Edited January 29, 201511 yr by Yann55

always 2 sides to a story, if they differ, 1 must be incorrect, who to believe is the 6 million dollar question

yes, one side is renowned to play fast and loose with the truth to make sure the facts fit the "story"..

the other is a reporter

OK... so... Reporters never make up stories ? Reporters never arrange facts so that they fit with their theory ? Reporters never use their Press status to make the police release them in a hurry when they've been caught red-handed doing something wrong ?

I have no particular sympathy with the Thai police (or any other police for that matter) but I'm somewhat impressed to see how most posters here side massively with the journalist, as if that corporation was never at fault. Just explore your memories, my friends, and think of an event you witnessed first hand, and then read about in the papers. How impressed were you with the accuracy of the report ?

My actual impression (and yes, I may be totally wrong) on this one is that :

1/ a Times reporter was caught by the Thai police with his finger in something dirty,

2/ he witnessed some uncalled for brutality by the RTP, possibly against himself as well

3/ he didn't get into any deeper trouble because he made it clear who he was

4/ he then proceeded to cook up a vengeful article in which he largely arranged the facts to give the worst possible image of the Thai cops

5/ as the saying goes 'vengeance is a bad counsellor' because his article is now backlashing in his face.

I repeat, I may be totally wrong, but I strongly believe in this hypothesis, and frankly I don't have much more confidence in journalists than in cops, anywhere in the world, when it comes to tampering with the truth.

my post was satirical

great rebuff though

Edited January 29, 201511 yr by ColdSingha

Sounds like someone trying to cover the cost of (and a tax deduction) for their Christmas holiday trip to Thailand.

I know that if I was detained in a lockup for four hours I'd definitely remember the name of the police station.

I'm probably also likely to remember the name of the street I was on. There's a huge difference between Silom and the back streets of Sathorn, especially down where Wongs is. Soi Sribamphen Rama 4 is about 3 meters wide. Could hardly be confused with Silom.

Not exactly on the tourist route either. Perhaps the alleged reputation of the bar was the reason he was their and just picked the wrong night to go on a supply run.

Either way, that Time or Neubauer haven't responded to inquiries by Coconuts or on Twitter doesn't instill confidence in the voracity of the claims.

In any event, it's nothing like the tourist shake-downs that were reported in Thonglor Police District's area - which had already been reported stopped around the middle of December.

Perhaps the "innocent provincial girl forced to work as a Bangkok bar girl by evil people traffickers" or "post-middle aged, pot bellied, bald old men with almost naked girls young enough to be his grand daughter", or "young children forced into a red-light district frequented by predatory sexpats to sell flowers late into the night" type stories are a bit old hat these days.

In this instance I'm believing the Coconuts story.

This Time Journo thought he was smart enough to pull a scam on his editor the magazine, Time readers and the police all at the same time. The story was true to some extent but being a high journo he made a few colorful small changes thinking that everyone would be fooled by him, he has probably done this hundreds of times telling stories to make money to feed his habits. I dont read Time I read TV and it is not so easy to fool TV readers these days with all the evidences provided nicely.

Edited January 30, 201511 yr by Dumu Ali

always 2 sides to a story, if they differ, 1 must be incorrect, who to believe is the 6 million dollar question

yes, one side is renowned to play fast and loose with the truth to make sure the facts fit the "story"..

the other is a reporter

OK... so... Reporters never make up stories ? Reporters never arrange facts so that they fit with their theory ? Reporters never use their Press status to make the police release them in a hurry when they've been caught red-handed doing something wrong ?

I have no particular sympathy with the Thai police (or any other police for that matter) but I'm somewhat impressed to see how most posters here side massively with the journalist, as if that corporation was never at fault. Just explore your memories, my friends, and think of an event you witnessed first hand, and then read about in the papers. How impressed were you with the accuracy of the report ?

My actual impression (and yes, I may be totally wrong) on this one is that :

1/ a Times reporter was caught by the Thai police with his finger in something dirty,

2/ he witnessed some uncalled for brutality by the RTP, possibly against himself as well

3/ he didn't get into any deeper trouble because he made it clear who he was

4/ he then proceeded to cook up a vengeful article in which he largely arranged the facts to give the worst possible image of the Thai cops

5/ as the saying goes 'vengeance is a bad counsellor' because his article is now backlashing in his face.

I repeat, I may be totally wrong, but I strongly believe in this hypothesis, and frankly I don't have much more confidence in journalists than in cops, anywhere in the world, when it comes to tampering with the truth.

my post was satirical

great rebuff though

eeeeeek, I feel all red in the face, Coldsingha, for totally missing the fact that your comment was indeed ironical, and it turns out we were in total agreement on the subject. Pray excuse me for this mistake, and accept my apologies. I'm quite often appalled at how irony is easily missed on this Forum, even when it's blatant, and now I'm the one who missed it ! I'll eat the humble pie and you can drink your cold Singha, cheers !

Edited January 30, 201511 yr by Yann55