Na Jomtien demolitions

[sandgroper2]

3 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Well I specialised in other areas of law, and I'd bet it hasn't changed in the last 40 years.

 

But there's a similar statute under Thai law.

"and I'd bet it hasn't changed in the last 40 years."  With that legal opinion, you must be a QC. Me, ex SAS, Ranger, CIA agent.

[LongTimeLurker]

5 hours ago, sandgroper2 said:

"and I'd bet it hasn't changed in the last 40 years."  With that legal opinion, you must be a QC. Me, ex SAS, Ranger, CIA agent.

 

Out of interest I looked it up. The principle was introduced by the Romans, was adopted into Napoleonic Law and on the UK statutes in 1625.

 

There was a change in the last 40 years, reducing the qualifying possession period from 12 years to 10 years.

 

So you see you were way out in your belief that after 100 years it would still be illegal.

[prk888]

On 25/01/2017 at 10:53 AM, LongTimeLurker said:

The OP sure seemed very pleased that they were being demolished.

as a supposed lawyer you might  know the clear difference between not liking something and complaining.  In your profession words are important

 

[prk888]

23 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Well I specialised in other areas of law, and I'd bet it hasn't changed in the last 40 years.

 

But there's a similar statute under Thai law.

 

Q: when did Pattaya start to be developed ?  When was the fishing village in Na Jomtien established?  And the beach front properties?  When were the restaurants etc on the beach built?  

 

Do the answers fall within the Thai statute you refer to? 

[LongTimeLurker]

3 hours ago, prk888 said:

as a supposed lawyer you might  know the clear difference between not liking something and complaining.  In your profession words are important

 

Don't you know that lawyers like to twist words?

[Rimmer]

Troll post and reply removed

[johng]

4th of January  Drifters and Sea falcon still there.

 

 

[wpcoe]

On 1/25/2017 at 10:48 AM, LongTimeLurker said:

Not necessarily.

 

There's a legal principle of adverse possession whereby an occupier of land has right to LLegal title if they have enjoyed free, unencumbered possession for a certain number of years.

 

Can't recall the exact details as it was covered in my law course in my first year at uni 40 years ago and I've never used it since.

You attended law courses at uni 40 years ago in Thailand?  If not, trying to apply another country's law principles, even generally-accepted Western principles, is folly.

[LongTimeLurker]

18 hours ago, wpcoe said:

You attended law courses at uni 40 years ago in Thailand?  If not, trying to apply another country's law principles, even generally-accepted Western principles, is folly.

 

On ‎26‎/‎01‎/‎2017 at 11:44 AM, prk888 said:

there's a similar statute under Thai law

prk888 didn't say that, I did, there's something wrong with the copy quote button.

 

[Gman99]

any update? last time I was there no more work had been done, the clean up ended in front of The Waters Edge condo. will it continue down the beach? 

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, Gman99 said:

any update? last time I was there no more work had been done, the clean up ended in front of The Waters Edge condo. will it continue down the beach? 

Still under research.  Not 100% known yet.  Welcome to Thailand.

[Gman99]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Still under research.  Not 100% known yet.  Welcome to Thailand.

Thank, curious to see if the destroy the shacks in front there down to sea falcon and beyond. 

 

are the breaking up the cement walls along the beach? I heard the might make a boardwalk down the beach. also heard the were going g to move all the wires underground but nothing has changed goes since last year. 

 

[johng]

Sea Falcon and Drifters still there


....they massacred the far end

One place has set out tables and chairs on the beach again