Naked "Gik" ejected from Bangkok condo goes after wife for filming her distress

[digibum]

47 minutes ago, Johpa said:

 

So what.  You think you or your wife or your sister would be so hesitant to sell themselves if financially strapped and seeing few other options.  Get off your <deleted> high horse you arrogant prig. And the same to the others who like the post.  I have a far higher regard for most prostitutes I've met in Thailand than for most of the western foreigners I've met who live in-country over the last 35 years.

 

It is not "She is a <deleted> prostitute for God's sake" but rather "There but for the grace of God, go thee".

 

Maybe you need to meet better western foreigners.  

[Chapelroad]

3 hours ago, Essaybloke said:

So she's a prostitute? Does this mean ideas of justice don't apply to her? She works in an industry for which there's a huge demand ('the world's oldest profession' as they say). Leave your moralizing out of it.

 

If the cap fits wear it !

 

Galleeeeeeee.

[Johpa]

40 minutes ago, digibum said:

 

Maybe you need to meet better western foreigners.  

 

Oh, I meet many good westerners, have ex-pat friends going back over 30 years now.  But the good ones are few and far between. Most veer more to the prig I responded to.  Maybe you need to meet and engage in some non-commercial conversation with more Thai prostitutes in order to better understand Thai society.

[digibum]

3 hours ago, Essaybloke said:

So she's a prostitute? Does this mean ideas of justice don't apply to her? She works in an industry for which there's a huge demand ('the world's oldest profession' as they say). Leave your moralizing out of it.

 

 

I can't speak for others but I'm not moralizing anything. 

 

I think what you hear in some posts is that there's no automatic pity afforded to her because this seems to be an occupational hazard for people in her profession.  If you meet enough customers in their homes, sooner or later you're going to run into an angry wife/gf.  She's fortunate that the situation didn't result in violence.  

 

I also don't buy into her insane sobbing.  She was acting like a dog that rolls on its back and bares it's belly to another dog in order to show surrender.  Personally, I didn't perceive it to be real.  It seemed to me like an act in order to get out of there without the wife/gf doing her physical harm.  Seems like it's something she's learned from watching way too many Thai soap operas.  

 

There's also some pushback on the notion many are putting forward that the wife/gf was some sort of witch for treating the girl so poorly.  What's she supposed to do, make the girl some som tam?  Believe me, reverse the situation and have these same people come home and find Somchai banging their wife/gf, in their home, in their bed, and I highly doubt they would be seeing the situation from the same high perch.  I feel more compassion for the wife.  She's the only one who was not offered a choice in all of this.  The guy obviously made a choice.  The girl, well, her profession and willingness to meet men in their homes, was her choice.  The wife simply came home and caught them.  I would have posted that sh** online too.  F both of them.  

 

Lastly (maybe), is the issue of the absurdity of the defamation laws in Thailand.  Contrary to what some have said, the word defamation has a definition and as long as you use the word in English, it either has to match the definition or it's the incorrect word.  On top of that, this just goes to show how absurd these laws in Thailand are and prove that their purpose is to protect people who have been caught doing something wrong.  In English, whether using a legal or colloquial definition, one of the mandatory components of the use of the word is that the thing be false or untrue.  In Thailand even if something is 100% true, they can bring case for defamation for simply exposing the truth.  It's a horrible perversion of the word (and the western law it's supposedly based on) since all it does is provide an legal outlet for people caught doing something wrong to retaliate and silence those who have disclosed the truth.  

 

I agree with others who say that this is actually something that fits better under the computer crimes act since they show her naked and published it without her permission on the internet.   But defamation is the catch-all for every Thai who got caught doing something wrong and wants to retaliate against the person who caught them.  It's all about the extremes that "loss of face" can be taken to.  Like when you catch a Thai in a lie and they get mad at you for making them lose face by catching them in the lie.  It's insanity and only promotes egregious behavior because you can always claim that being called out for your actions is worse than your actions.  

[Docno]

12 hours ago, Chapelroad said:

'Suffered loss of face and reputation'

 

She is a prostitute for God's sake !

 

And the man had 'bought the condo for his wife' (as stated in the previous story)... The two ladies have something in common, but one has simply been more successful.

[digibum]

4 minutes ago, Johpa said:

 

Oh, I meet many good westerners, have ex-pat friends going back over 30 years now.  But the good ones are few and far between. Most veer more to the prig I responded to.  Maybe you need to meet and engage in some non-commercial conversation with more Thai prostitutes in order to better understand Thai society.

 

I have.  Know plenty.  

 

But I also don't buy into the sob story about why most of them got into it.  I've met a few who had no other options but the vast, vast majority that I have spoken to and really gotten to know well, had other options (even if they paint it as having no options).  The quick cash and perceived easy lifestyle was the main draw for many.  

 

Take this girl for example.  She's a sideline girl.  Typically, that means she's not even full time.  She has a lot of freedom in terms of when and how she takes on customers.  That doesn't sound like someone who has no other options.  She may have no other options that afford her that lifestyle but this isn't about not being able to put food in her mouth.   

[digibum]

15 minutes ago, Chapelroad said:

By the way, most do. 

 

You're basing this on what?  

[mankondang]

I think someone with Thai legal knowledge has got onto the "sideline girl" (a transliteration of the Thai term for an internet prostitute) and convinced her to report it to the relevant police sections. Initially, and there's been sufficient time, the girl had taken no action. But many I'm wrong as Thai lawyers, like lawyers the world over, are not interested in making money, but only in justice for justice sake....yeh, we all know this, even the tooth fairy does.

[georgemandm]

18 hours ago, JJGreen said:

Prostitutes can suffer loss of face and damage to reputation. why not?

Are you joking me a PROSTITUTE suffer loss of face give me a break, you have no idea about woman if you think like that most women in the world don't choose to become a dirty PROSTITUTE , but respect they self .

woman who chose to become a PROSTITUTE do it because they a lazy people.

[ClutchClark]

3 minutes ago, georgemandm said:

Are you joking me a PROSTITUTE suffer loss of face give me a break, you have no idea about woman if you think like that most women in the world don't choose to become a dirty PROSTITUTE , but respect they self .

woman who chose to become a PROSTITUTE do it because they a lazy people.

 

Or they don't want to spend a lifetime working at 7-11 and being poor.

[maoro2013]

19 hours ago, Chapelroad said:

'Suffered loss of face and reputation'

 

She is a prostitute for God's sake !

How do you know she is a prostitutre?

[LannaGuy]

7 hours ago, Chapelroad said:

 

Slags, and you cannot defend it. 

 

you are disgusting and a self-righteous born-again nob

Edited August 10, 2016 by LannaGuy

[LannaGuy]

5 hours ago, mankondang said:

I think someone with Thai legal knowledge has got onto the "sideline girl" (a transliteration of the Thai term for an internet prostitute) and convinced her to report it to the relevant police sections. Initially, and there's been sufficient time, the girl had taken no action. But many I'm wrong as Thai lawyers, like lawyers the world over, are not interested in making money, but only in justice for justice sake....yeh, we all know this, even the tooth fairy does.

 

"(a transliteration of the Thai term for an internet prostitute)"

 

This is not true, why keep perpetuating the ignorance? a sideline girl here is a SIDELINE girl. Most have jobs,  or are students, and choose to earn a little extra on the side. Internet escorts are completely different.

[natway09]

I do not think anyone is upset that she was thrown out the door (should have thrown out the clothes as well)

along with the double cheating husband

but to film it ......... very stupid

[varun]

Too much attention being focused on the definition of a 'prostitute'  and the application of western logic to a typically Thai situation.

The girls aside, the guy is a dimwit and that should be the epicenter of the discussion.

 

What was going through his mind bringing broad #2 back to the wife/GF's condo that apparently he had paid for?

 

Me thinks the best way to resolve this is cat-fight between wife/GF and broad #2.

 

Winner takes all = Condo + Husband/BF

 

 

 

 

Edited August 10, 2016 by varun

[seedy]

Derogatory posts Removed. Forum Rule -

 

11) You will not post slurs, degrading or overly negative comments directed towards Thailand, specific locations, Thai institutions such as the judicial or law enforcement system, Thai culture, Thai people or any other group on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

 

Post in like manner again and receive a Suspension

 

 

[AlQaholic]

16 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

As I have explained above, twice already, this is Thailand and Thailand has Thai law, defamation is defined by Thai law not some other countries definition and this does come under the Thai definition of defamation as she has been exposed to be hated and scorned.

I have read the Thai law in detail, particularly regarding defamation and crimes against the computer act. This is not defamation as what was depicted in the video actually took place and cannot be refuted. The posting of the video on social media constitutes a crime against the computer act as it causes harm and damage to the victim. There may have been defamatory additional comments posted along with the video, those comments may be of a defamatory nature, but the video itself is not defamation.

[mikiea]

wow ...... all you pro and con dudes and dudettes sit tight , i called for a fleet of wa wa wambulances to take you to a fairy tale land where these things do not happen ........a safe place where your opinion is respected  , here it is not because you trade in other peoples misery . there is no high moral ground here .

[snowgard]

But NO ONE have the right to film YOU and publish it AGAINST your will!!!

And to publish this video is a defamation:

Section 326. Defamation
Whoever, imputes anything to the other person before a third person in a manner likely to impair the reputation of such other person or to expose such other person to be hated or scorned, is said to commit defamation, and shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding one year or fined not exceeding twenty thousand Baht, or both.

Section 328. Defamation by Publication
If the offence of defamation be committed by means of publication of a document, drawing, painting, cinematography film, picture or letters made visible by any means, gramophone record or another recording instruments, recording picture or letters, or by broadcasting or spreading picture, or by propagation by any other means, the offender shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding two years and fined not exceeding two hundred thousand Baht.

And because it gone online it is a computer crime act and will much more harder be punished.

Edited August 10, 2016 by snowgard
forget something

[ToS2014]

22 hours ago, Chapelroad said:

'Suffered loss of face and reputation'

 

She is a prostitute for God's sake !

 

and your point? no loss of face with that line of employment as witnessed by the numbers.  Just goes to show how one thing is ok and another, is, well, not so.

[Shawn0000]

2 hours ago, AlQaholic said:

I have read the Thai law in detail, particularly regarding defamation and crimes against the computer act. This is not defamation as what was depicted in the video actually took place and cannot be refuted. The posting of the video on social media constitutes a crime against the computer act as it causes harm and damage to the victim. There may have been defamatory additional comments posted along with the video, those comments may be of a defamatory nature, but the video itself is not defamation.

 

It isn't very long, the details are clear, and whether or not it can be proved to have actually taken place is only relevant in cases which are not of a personal nature.

 

Whoever, imputes anything to the other person before a third person in a manner likely to impair the reputation of such other person or to expose such other person to be hated or scorned, is said to commit defamation

 

if the person prosecuted for defamation can prove that the imputation made by him is true, he shall not be punished. But he shall not be allowed to prove if such imputation concerns personal matters, and such proof will not be benefit to the public.

 

Is this of benefit to the public? No.  Is this a personal matter? Yes.  Will she be allowed to prove that the imputation made was true? No.  Is she otherwise guilty of defamation? Yes.  Pretty simple stuff, even for someone who feels the need to tell others that they have studied these couple of paragraphs "in detail".

[AlQaholic]

23 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

It isn't very long, the details are clear, and whether or not it can be proved to have actually taken place is only relevant in cases which are not of a personal nature.

 

Whoever, imputes anything to the other person before a third person in a manner likely to impair the reputation of such other person or to expose such other person to be hated or scorned, is said to commit defamation

 

if the person prosecuted for defamation can prove that the imputation made by him is true, he shall not be punished. But he shall not be allowed to prove if such imputation concerns personal matters, and such proof will not be benefit to the public.

 

Is this of benefit to the public? No.  Is this a personal matter? Yes.  Will she be allowed to prove that the imputation made was true? No.  Is she otherwise guilty of defamation? Yes.  Pretty simple stuff, even for someone who feels the need to tell others that they have studied these couple of paragraphs "in detail".

I stand corrected, you are right and I am wrong.

Does this mean posting a CCTV camera shot of you stealing a motorcycle is defamation?

[tifino]

4 minutes ago, AlQaholic said:

I stand corrected, you are right and I am wrong.

Does this mean posting a CCTV camera shot of you stealing a motorcycle is defamation?

 

probably will - if it leads to him losing the proceeds of his actions

[Shawn0000]

1 hour ago, AlQaholic said:

I stand corrected, you are right and I am wrong.

Does this mean posting a CCTV camera shot of you stealing a motorcycle is defamation?

 

No, because catching a thief is neither a personal matter nor is it outside of the publics interest.

[gemguy]

The girl has a case whether people agree with it or not.

The lawyer or lawyers and their law firm will make a case out of it.

She can honestly argue she did not know the man was married or spoken for while did not know that the condo was owned by the women who showed up and forced her out and threw her out in the "manner" that she was removed.

The sideline girl came to do what she was called for and by way of circumstances ends up on the wrong side of an angry bitch that forced her out into the hallway while totally nude and done deliberately to publically shame her and embarrass her while exacting angry bitch vengeance on the sideline girl.

Then, the angry wench goes and foolishly publically posts her angry conduct on Face Book and seen by many and for the record.

In this case I would support the Sideline Girl and her lawsuit.

The angry woman should have, could have handled the situation much better and simply asked the girl to get dressed and please leave...but, she did not and now her angry conduct, and seen for the record, are coming back to bite her in the ass.

I hope the media continues to post the ongoing developments and we learn what becomes of the law suit.

 

This one is interesting.....and somewhat juicy...lol

 

*** They should have this one televised on a Judge Judy type of Thai TV program where the plaintiff ( Sideline Girl ) demands monetary compensation from the Defendant ( Angry Bitch ) for unwarranted public shaming and defamation

 

Defamation. Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.

 

Cheers

Edited August 11, 2016 by gemguy

[Chapelroad]

I got a warning because of my viewpoint on t he matter.

 

But ask yourself, if your alleged tirak did the same, what would be your opinion ?