Blackmailing foreigner caught out

[moderation snip]Picture removed /Meadish[/moderation snip]

Bar worker Miss Sangduan Sangmate did not hesitate to go to the tourist police after finding that her erst while boyfriend had made unflattering references to her on the internet. Embarrassing pictures were also posted.

The entries apparently advised visitors to Thailand not to patronise the bar where she worked. The internet site in question was visited by 200,108 foreigners. Mr Brett Antony Patterson, an Australian national, eventually returned to Thailand and set up a meeting between himself and the girl who had lost face.

Police were also there in a stakeout position and descended mightily on him. It transpired that the Aussie had become annoyed after Miss Sangduan refused to stay with him for several days after a one night stand. She said he was not her cup of tea and had dished out insufficient money. He was charged with an attempt to defraud.

Hey Brit,

Who wrote that.......and I thought my grammar skills were poor...wow!!!

Very handsome man.

I wonder which website it was. Any guesses?

Hey Brit,

Who wrote that.......and I thought my grammar skills were poor...wow!!!

Ok then ... Which part displeased you ? Share with us.

Ahh ... I see ... you were online at 03:17 (not drunk, but had been drinking)

Naka.

I didn't know Johnny Vegas was Australian?

Is the title of this thread misleading?

Definition of Blackmail: Blackmail is threatening to reveal substantially true information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates unless a monetary demand is met. This information is usually of an embarrassing or damaging nature. As the information is substantially true, revealing the information is not criminal, the crime is demanding money to withhold it.

The news item makes no reference to demands for money so was it Blackmail?

Why were the police involved? Because the girl "lost face"?

I agree.

I see not evidence of fraud or blackmail here.

She just lost face, which is a very bad thing to do to a Thai.

Well what a stupid thing to do. If what we read is correct he not only posted unflattering references about the lady and embarrassing pictures but also advised people not to frequent the bar which would have probably resulted in loss of income to the bar.

He then stupidly arranged a meet with his ex girlfriend.

I think that this guy will learn a lesson which he will not forget in a hurry.

....[moderation snip]Picture removed /Meadish[/moderation snip]........ Mr Brett Antony Patterson, an Australian national.....

Funny he also looks a bit like "Sir Les Patterson"

It transpired that the Aussie had become annoyed after Miss Sangduan refused to stay with him for several days after a one night stand. She said he was not her cup of tea and had dished out insufficient money. He was charged with an attempt to defraud.

So let this be a lesson to all who use the bars "take away service" if you don't pay the girl sufficently for her services she is entitled to call the BiB and they can charge you with "attempting to defraud". Errrrr.... but wait, just a minute, isn't being paid to have sex PROSTITUTION. Errr.. isn't PROSTITUTION illegal in Thailand.... Should the headline read.... Police assist prostitute in illegal act. Errr. isn't that pimping?

I agree.

I see not evidence of fraud or blackmail here.

She just lost face, which is a very bad thing to do to a Thai.

It depends if he was demanding sex in return for removing the postings. Blackmail can be over paperclips or anything that can be considered a value to someone. I don't think there are enough facts to pass judgement. I don't think that the police would have acted just because a bargirl "lost face".

So what is the source of this journalistic gem?

Apart from the headline not matching the content which has become an industry standard, it is far too well written to be from the ususal sensationalistic shit bucket...

The reason why he is in trouble is because what he did contravened Section 34 of the Thai Constitution law which states:

"A person's family rights, dignity, reputation or his right to privacy shall be protected. The assertion or circulation of a statement or picture in any manner whatsoever to the public, which violates or affects a person's family rights, dignity, reputation or the right of privacy, shall not be made except for the case which is beneficial to the public."

Maybe he thought it was beneficial to the public to name and shame her but the Thai authorities clearly had a different notion on this intepretation.

The reason why he is in trouble is because what he did contravened Section 34 of the Thai Constitution law which states:

"A person's family rights, dignity, reputation or his right to privacy shall be protected. The assertion or circulation of a statement or picture in any manner whatsoever to the public, which violates or affects a person's family rights, dignity, reputation or the right of privacy, shall not be made except for the case which is beneficial to the public."

Maybe he thought it was beneficial to the public to ame and shame her but the Thai authorities clearly had a different notion on this intepretation.

I agree that that would be a tad too much for a headline, but it hardly amounts to blackmail...

Hey Brit,

Who wrote that.......and I thought my grammar skills were poor...wow!!!

Woops posted in a hurry....

Due Credit goes to:

Pattaya Today

It transpired that the Aussie had become annoyed after Miss Sangduan refused to stay with him for several days after a one night stand. She said he was not her cup of tea and had dished out insufficient money. He was charged with an attempt to defraud.

So let this be a lesson to all who use the bars "take away service" if you don't pay the girl sufficently for her services she is entitled to call the BiB and they can charge you with "attempting to defraud". Errrrr.... but wait, just a minute, isn't being paid to have sex PROSTITUTION. Errr.. isn't PROSTITUTION illegal in Thailand.... Should the headline read.... Police assist prostitute in illegal act. Errr. isn't that pimping?

how frickin true !! what a joke ,the bib are so corupt

The reason why he is in trouble is because what he did contravened Section 34 of the Thai Constitution law which states:

Hmmm... I don't see anything about "family rights, dignity, reputation or his right to privacy shall be protected" in the Constitution.

From http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/10/02...es_30015101.php

Article 34. For the purpose of maintaining public order and national security, there shall be the Council for National Security consisting of members as stipulated by the 24th announcement of the Council for Democratic Reform dated September 29 B.E. 2549.

The Chairman of the Council for National Security appoints no more than 15 members of the Council for National Security.

...

In the ladies defense, it wasnt very nice of the lad to post her photos on the web and abuse her. Pretty stupid of him actually - prob told her what he did as well. How else would she have known about it??

Som Nam Na

The reason why he is in trouble is because what he did contravened Section 34 of the Thai Constitution law which states:

"A person's family rights, dignity, reputation or his right to privacy shall be protected. The assertion or circulation of a statement or picture in any manner whatsoever to the public, which violates or affects a person's family rights, dignity, reputation or the right of privacy, shall not be made except for the case which is beneficial to the public."

Maybe he thought it was beneficial to the public to name and shame her but the Thai authorities clearly had a different notion on this intepretation.

Source????

CURRENT THAI Law is governed as follows:

Kingdom of Thailand

Constitution

Sections 34, 37 and 58 of the 1997 Constitution protect, respectively, rights to dignity and privacy, the freedom of communication, and the right to access personal information held by State agencies.

Data Protection Laws

Computer Crime Law approved with revisions, May 2002

Electronic Transactions Bill, April 2002

Thai information law, the Official Information Act, B.E. 2540 (1997)(OIA)

Official Information Act, 1997

Source: Faculty of Law Chulalongkorn University who I think may know a little more about the law than the Nation newspaper rag don't ya think?

Anyone get the URL of the offending website?? Is it still up?

Anybody got the link to the original story I can't find it on the Pattaya Today website, thanks EE

Anybody got the link to the original story I can't find it on the Pattaya Today website, thanks EE

http://www.pattayatoday.net/index.php?acti...ews&id=1952

thanks Britmaveric ... its an interesting post and one with ramifications for those in other forums who post BG pictures

thanks Britmaveric ... its an interesting post and one with ramifications for those in other forums who post BG pictures

Would you be refering to losers.com by any chance?

Why 'offending' website ? The pics were not that interesting.

Why 'offending' website ? The pics were not that interesting.

what website?

Why 'offending' website ? The pics were not that interesting.

what website?

Barladies by any chance ? It is mysteriously unavailable at the moment. Not that I ever look at it, much, erm.....

Why 'offending' website ? The pics were not that interesting.

what website?

Barladies by any chance ? It is mysteriously unavailable at the moment. Not that I ever look at it, much, erm.....

It was banned sometime ago by the censors - so I heard!!!

well fxm is looking a the junta rule (I dont know if constitution is the right word for that)

but what casanundra posted is very correct. however depending on when the event took place, if it was after 19sept, then ofcourse the 1997 constitution cannot be applied