Jump to content

bkkcanuck8

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    3777
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by bkkcanuck8

  1. 4 minutes ago, Sig said:

    Being a different branch of government has nothing to do with it. You seriously have never heard the uproar when a President or a Prime Minister (or other high ranking official, like maybe an Interior Minister....) makes a comment on a pending court case that is creating a stir in the public??? It happens on occasion and is always (except maybe in countries like Thailand?) met with immediate reproval from many quarters, except maybe the idiot's own partisan political party hacks. It is irresponsible and unethical, full stop.

    I don't think Thailand has jury trials - so there is no jury to taint.  That is the main issue with fair trials is that they can make it unfair if you cannot seat a jury that is unbias... in countries with rights to jury trials you have to be more careful.  I believe Singapore has a 3 judge system... here, I am not sure but I have not heard of juries.

  2. 6 hours ago, bob smith said:

    Commenting in this manner publicly by a senior member of government during an ongoing investigation is both unprofessional and extremely dangerous.

     

    He is, in effect, subverting the rule of law by turning it into a personal vendetta motivated by his general dislike for farangs.

     

    Shocking behavior as always.

    Swiss david doesn’t stand a chance of a fair trial.

    Not that I expected anything different..

    TIT!…

     

    (Or is it China? Sometimes the line is so blurred I can barely tell the difference!)

     

    Bob.

    You don't need to be tried and convicted to be declared undesireable and deported - you/he (generically) are not a permanent resident nor a citizen with a right of abode.

    • Thanks 1
  3. 6 hours ago, bob smith said:

    Commenting in this manner publicly by a senior member of government during an ongoing investigation is both unprofessional and extremely dangerous.

     

    He is, in effect, subverting the rule of law by turning it into a personal vendetta motivated by his general dislike for farangs.

     

    Shocking behavior as always.

    Swiss david doesn’t stand a chance of a fair trial.

    Not that I expected anything different..

    TIT!…

     

    (Or is it China? Sometimes the line is so blurred I can barely tell the difference!)

     

    Bob.

    You don't need to be tried and convicted to be declared undesireable and deported - you/he (generically) are not a permanent resident nor a citizen with a right of abode.

    • Like 2
  4. 12 minutes ago, Photoguy21 said:

    They usually get heavy storms in the rainy season, so what is so different now?

    [I am by no means an expert in anything -- in this area].  I would think the issue could be that the hotter than normal weather meeting cold fronts - could produce stronger and more turbulent weather than average ... just a guess.

  5. 13 hours ago, ABCDBKK said:


    Personally, I wouldn't make the effort to mark pages. It's the IO's job to find a place to put their stamp. As long as your passport has blank space in it for a stamp, you can't be held responsible for which pages are full or empty. After all, you aren't the one putting the stamps in the book anyway. The only time you should get another book, before it hasn't expired, is when all the pages are clearly filled with stamps. As long as there are a few empty quarter pages left in the book, then it's still good for travel, regardless of what page number the blank areas are on. 

    The issue is that some visas you get in your passport still require a full page... if IOs take up part of all the pages, if you run into one that needs a full page... I am guessing you would need to get a new passport.

    • Agree 1
  6. 1 hour ago, n00dle said:

    Kicking spitting and throwing things certainly isnt. 

    and where did you get the impression free speech is a legal right in Thailand? 

     

    This is a society that values face over free speech... this is not the west...  

     

    Criminal Code:

    Quote

     

    Section 393. Public Insults

    Any person who insults another in the latter’s presence or through publicity shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than one month, or a fine not exceeding one thousand baht or both.

     

     

    Quote

     

    Section 397. Bullying in Public

    Any person who, in a public place or in public and through whatever act, treats another with insolence or in an offensive way or causes another to undergo disgrace, trouble or annoyance shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than one month, or a fine not exceeding one thousand baht or both.

     

    For those that do not like it because free speech is not as high a priority as the west, you may return to a country that values free speech.

    • Haha 1
  7. 51 minutes ago, John Drake said:

     

    The woman sitting to the right was launched from her seat. You can see it. The only way a body moves like that without force being applied is if Father Damien is in the room doing an exorcism. 

    Not to mention he effectively confessed in a way (IMHO).  In response to the charge that he kicked her, he said he slipped (i.e. it was caused by a slip)... but the video shows no indication of a 'slip'.  I have slipped often enough to know that you do not maintain a normal stride, your body automatically does a quick corrective movement - your arms go out... etc.

    • Agree 2
  8. 9 minutes ago, Rampant Rabbit said:

    No it means that the Thais  should  have an equal punishment when they commit a  similar  crime when often its not, thats what I MEAN.

    The phrase you would use would be something like 'as well as [Thais who act in a similar manner]'.  However, since this is a 'first offence' (officially) -- and if he confessed to it... jail/prison would not be warranted for a minor assault charge.  I think the deportation is more than enough punishment in this case.

    • Like 1
  9. 9 minutes ago, BenStark said:

     

    Maybe I misunderstood your post, but when you are on a retirement visa, or extension, in Thailand you can not get a work permit

    Thanks for the correction, it does seem that Thailand excludes the ability to get a work permit on a retirement visa.  I had made the assumption there was not an exclusion from another post on IO saying you could work in Thailand on a retirement visa.

  10. 16 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

     

    If you retire and still work somewhere else then you are not retired. You are working. I'd have thought that was obvious.

    I would disagree, you can (if not precluded by contract or law) be retired in one jurisdiction but work in another. (of course you would be ineligible to collect any pension nationally).    This is similar to the military as well, you retire at age 50 with a military pension but you can make money in other endeavours.  This is sort of similar to how it works when you get a retirement visa here, you could be working outside of the country part time, but for the purposes of the retirement visa you cannot work in Thailand.

  11. 34 minutes ago, BenStark said:

     

    But was your father on a retirement visa, and was he issued a work permit?

    No, the section you quoted was in response to working after retirement (not specific to Thailand).  There were two parts to it -- two different things... 

     

    The first part of that that you did not quote talks about retirement visa not conferring onto you the right to work.  In fact I don't think any Thai visa does that.  A visa confers a right to reside in Thailand for the term of the visa... and a work permit confers onto you the right to work... you need both to work in Thailand.  I believe they are issued by different ministries.

  12. 12 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

     

    This is incorrect. I was talking my local IO, questioning exactly this, and he told me that you are allowed to work with a retirement extension. The conversation happened when he was trying to persuade me to have a retirement instead of a marriage extension. Whether you work or not has absolutely no relevance as to whether you qualify for a retirement extension. All they care about is seeing 800,000 in the bank.

    To be clear, for the retirement visa all they require is that you will not be working in Thailand... it does not prevent you from getting a work permit though which would allow you to work in Thailand, but the retirement visa does not...   People retire and work at the same time... in fact my father did... he retired from head of a public Technical College in one province - and was able to collect his pension and start working at another collect in another Province (colleges are provincial so outside of their domain).  Others start businesses after they retire.  BTW, every time I go to extend the retirement visa (or the 90 day report - but it is one of them) they give me another form that says - you are not allowed to work in Thailand etc.  to make sure you understand it - and you must sign it.

    • Thumbs Up 1
  13. 45 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

     

    It might be a good idea that to get a retirement visa you have to be retired. I mean, that's the way the real world works. In Thailand you don't need to be retired to have a retirement visa. Makes no sense. I think they need another category, or another title.

    The only thing Thailand needs for retirement visa - is are you old enough to retire -- and you will not be working in Thailand (and you can support yourself without working).  Adding a lot more rules only ends up with more red-tape and often you get into exclusions that were not intended because they did not think of everything.  The age being 50 makes sense since if you are a police officer or military, you can retire at the age of 50 at full pension (assuming a certain length of service).   They could add other classifications, but that is up to Thailand to determine if they want to (hopefully after an investigation on whether it is beneficial to Thailand). 

    • Agree 2
  14. 11 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

    An earlier article said that the steps that she was sitting on was claimed by the Swiss man to be part of his private villa property and so not public property. For that he kicked her.

    The doctor previously asked a nearby guard if it was okay to sit on the steps and the guard said 'yes.' She trusted he was correct.

    But further reporting said the Swiss man was not the property owner but a renter. According to a police investigation, the steps were encroaching on public property and removed.

    And that right there is why they say in the legal profession... self-help is fraught with peril... 

  15. 21 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

    Being deported does not necessarily mean that he is banned from re-entering or applying for a new visa.

    No, but first he has to have the record magically disappear since while he is a danger to society -- no immigration officer is going to let you in since you can not say how or when he is no longer a danger to society (that will cost a significant amount of money if he can find the right people).  The incident has to be out of people's mind as well (might have to have authorities going around requesting the incident to be forgotten - i.e. deleted news stories from the web)... at least that is how I see it.

    • Like 1
  16. 53 minutes ago, EdrigoSalvadore said:

    The Canadian guy who admitted to the Police that he had kicked me in the back of my head got 20k fine. I don't understand why some incidences are rated so different in Thailand.

     

    I would fathom to guess it is a combination of: status, visuals, and loss of face by the dummy being so arrogant that he did not take the opportunity to apologize and move on when he had the chance.  Also there were no Thais involved in your incident... (the 20K fine would be a bonus for the police fund).

×
×
  • Create New...