Douggie Style

(Endure you beat me to it)
Just a thought..

If the pro/anti gun debate is driven mostly by the need to feel secure, especially in your own home...perhaps the examples you see in your country have a over strong influence on your view..

For example in Oz & Britain guns are really not around that much anymore so if you grow up there and adapt to that environment you might be more likely to be anti gun...it doesn't seem having a gun can really add much more to your security ..

In the US and other countries, that have always had a gun culture, you are used to guns, become more comfortable around them, perhaps actually need a gun in the home to feel secure...

I can imgaine sitting in your home with kids and all sorts of crime going on around your neighbourhood...in that context  the pro/anti gun debate might then seem a bit different..

This is a lot of assumption, but I feel this might be why opinions become so polarised and passionate...it is as much trying to change a lifestyle than an intellectual argument


PS: And the reason I posted.....someone earlier mentioned most intruders enter via roof...so how do you secure the roof from intruders?..and are you allowed/is it a good idea to lay down a reinforced concrete style ceiling ...?

harrry, on 2012-03-10 09:49:24, said:

Wow thanks Harry...just had a read and googled it...seems you are right..also explains a lot..lol....appreciate the correction...a useful thing to know as well...cheers

Sorry don't have time to read the whole thread, so this might have been answered before..

The older brother was holding the land in trust, as a trustee, not as an owner.

So he never had title and couldn't loan against it. A trustee can't use trust property personally.

I am not sure how Thai law goes on equity but feel this will be the case and the courts will rectify this.

I feel the chanote issues probably follow this point not precede it.

But first you may need to get a court to declare there was a trust (via your lawyer), then if so the rest of the problems will probably fall away. If it goes that way you would want to request new trustees (all the family or a third party) and get the chanote issue sorted. You would also ask for all contracts, based on the breach of ubermai fidei to be voided.

Of course TIT but  a lot of their commercial law is similar to west...

Case is finished, summary judgement, the judge said he will announce the damages on March 8th, our lawyer also confirmed this.

Well good on you for seeing it through..will be interesting to see the amount of damages pls let us know..btw was it a summary or default judgement? just curious about the Thai system and if a default judgement any chance he can still request a set aside...

Hi Samran,

I can see your point however...my answer was to a different question being;

"some (not all) positions that require national security clearance exclude dual nationals - in Australia and USA for example"

I don't think the examples you cite were excluded on grounds of dual nationality.

There is a security vetting process which covers practical matters including conflicts of interest not to be confused with being excluded per se on the basis of dual nationality.

For example from the same rules you cite;
Dual citizenship may, however, cause other employment-related issues to arise, for example, if the person is required to obtain a security clearance or to work in an area where their dual citizenship could be seen as giving rise to a conflict of interest.
They are speaking of ‘employment-related issues‘ such as a ‘a conflict of interest.' not broad exclusions based on dual nationality.

In the embassy example, employees cannot hold Thai citizenship on the basis of an actual conflict of interest..for example how could you decided impartially on a visa for a fellow Thai citizen eg no different to a registered tax agent being excluded from the tax office or a migration agent from  the immigration department...on the practical basis of a conflict of interest not any broad security clearance issues with dual citizens