QualityTouristNumberOne

They are sooooooooooo pathetic, ranting away about the Thai image on their laptops with cracked OS........

stevenl, on 2012-05-15 10:13:29, said:

Hello Mr nitpick ; And usually the concensus in Thailand is, that you got to have white skin, before labelled falang.
Didn't you read that sentence ?
How about cctv footage revealing 3 foreign men ( read article from yesterday ), that now really is 1 foreign male and 1 Thai man and 2 Asian women ?
I have asked around the office, 4 Thais all agreeing that a falang ( foreigner ) must have white skin, and is not Asian.

So ongoing jet ski scams and taxi/tuk tuk intimidation is fine but spread a few harmless rumours and you could face a fine and imprisonment.

Remarkable.

"Please have confidence in the authorities"

Things may sway. Japan has very stringent building codes. I afraid here it wouldbe more like pop goes the weasle and we all fall down.

jacko45k, on 2012-03-22 13:57:34, said:

Who was arrogant?they let him  in before with ballons,then i would argue with them too,and if i  get hit by a baton i'm pissed nothing to do with arrogant

It saddens me to see so many people making a mountain out of a molehill. What is clear is that many of the posts here reflect a high level of racial dislike.  Rather then making this a 'them vs us' or 'us vs them' thread fest, how about a bit of common sense and reflection so we stop de-humanizing each other with petty, nasty comments Both parties were probably in hindsight equally to blame and I'm sure they could both have handled the situation better. The fact they were both born in different countries is irrelevent

For all the speculation here, one has to assume that the authorities have (and have examined) CCTV footage of the entire incident.

From this, it seems fairly easy to deduce that seeing as the Company are willing to compensate the victim of the assault, that the fault would indeed lie with their employee as they are accepting liability.

BKKBrit, he is an Irish Gentleman and by all accounts a highly respected and qualified teacher; NOT a TEFL monkey.

If people could simply learn to utilise what little facts we have in such cases to draw what is a simple conclusion, there would be little need for all of this "you're a Thai Apologist or you're an Anti Thai Farang" dribble.

The trustworthiness of the member Badbanker, who started this topic, has been ascertained and confirmed by the management of ThaiVisa. Further posts doubting this will be deleted unceremoniously.

beano2274, on 2012-03-05 15:55:46, said:

iPocket?

There are arguments for both approaches. From what I know of others' relationships, where the Thai partner has been taken to the west, it can pose problems when the Thai partner gets involved with other Thais also living in the farang's country. They will network and your partner can be exposed to a more hardened type of Thai hell bent on financial gain, which, depending upon your partner's ethics, could be of detriment to your relationship

However, as each relationship is different it is impossible to obtain a definitive answer to your question without generalising. Personally, I prefer not to live in my country of origin so the option has never arisen. Also, my wife is not easily led and has already been shocked by having been given "advice" from other Thai females that we have met socially about how best to exploit our relationship.

As for my generalisation, I speculate that the genuine strength and depth of feeling and commitment, or otherwise, that each party bring to the relationship will have a greater affect upon the relationship than the geographical location in which the relationship is conducted.
Thus, one's initial selection of the most suitable partner would seem to be the way forward.

ratcatcher, on 2012-02-10 17:00:53, said:

Believe it or not, pit bulls can be wonderful family pets! But for that to happen, the animals need to be socially trained from an early age and become intertwined with the family group, understanding where they are in the "pack" order.

Unfortunately, as mentioned by ratcatcher, they were originally bred for fighting, and this stigma attracts owners that perhaps should not be owners. In this particular case, the owner should be held accountable if the 4 pits were roaming free. If the attacked person was on private property when the attack began, then that is an entirely different story.

I in no way condone attacks like this, but do believe that all facts should be given, So many time I have read of fatal attacks between dogs and humans that have omitted in the initial report that the animal(s) were being abused or teased before the assaults began, or that the victim was intruding on private property (their patch).

Hand out guns to all those operators, let them kill each other !     Problem solved !

Of course it has to be an evil foreigner with a whole THREE jetski's that is being lined up as the scapegoat for the locals shooting up the house. Otherwise the local Thai jetski operators can carry on ripping off the tourists by renting out the other 286 units that are owned by the police anyway.

fiddlehead, on 2012-01-28 10:47:49, said:

You damaged it just by looking at it.
You pay now!

Big fuss being made by officials because no proper licences but what action about the scams by the holders of licences?  Presumably it is a licence to scam rather than a licence to operate a jet ski.