Thread: Irish teen pleads for justice over alleged Phuket corruption

^

Your post lays out exactly how it is in Thailand and why it is buyer be ware.

Thegent and Tax won't have that though,

They consider that one should be able to live and reside in this utterly corrupt 3Rd world country and at the same time be protected by first world laws.

Hence I usually laugh at most of their posts.

How about you two just man up, stop posting up shite where you think you are in a real country and just sit back and enjoy the ride.

Well, finally, we get there!

Terry concedes Thailand is an irredeemable shithole.

I knew he would get there in the end.

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

I think the Gent's point is that there are laws that protect property owners - but if crooks are hellbent on stealing your belongings, then there has to be restitution of the assets and punishment of wrongdoers This isn't a case of caveat emptor.

Fair enough, but my point has been that if he was switched on and did his due diligence he would have been alerted to the fact that the system is riddled with corruption and therefore the laws themselves don't offer much protection. Laws only work if they are enforced by a system that has some integrity.

In that sense it became very much of a caveat emptor. I mean would you buy a building and open up a jewellery store in the Detroit ghetto or South Chicago, just because the building is cheap and there are "laws" to theoretically protect you?

Another great post and nice analogy. I find it fascinating how reality is so easy for some and yet others struggle so badly.

Thailand is corrupt - Corruption is bad - People who invest all their money in a country they knew was corrupt, need to take some personal responsibility for their poor decisions.

Is that the same as saying corruption is good? No. Is that the same as saying the victim deserved to be fleeced? No. Is that the same as saying it's impossible to do business in Thailand without being ripped off? No.

Why do people insist on letting their pathetic bias and agendas, prevent them from accepting simple facts as they are.

Originally Posted by robuzo

Maybe the land was in his Thai son's name, in which case it's possible that everything was above board.

Just another legal workaround to circumvent the law. When you find yourself putting assets which you regard as being your own property in somebody else's name chances are you are trying circumvent laws which are there for a good reason. Do you think foreign property dealers should be allowed to use their kids to get around foreign ownership laws?

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

This discussion reminds me of situations where girls who have dressed in tarty clothes get raped

Shabby and sensationalist comparison. Rape is a very different sort of crime.

Originally Posted by BlueBlood

Thailand is corrupt - Corruption is bad - People who invest all their money in a country they knew was corrupt, need to take some personal responsibility for their poor decisions.

Corrupt people who invest in a corrupt country should know this.

Originally Posted by Silverback

Originally Posted by BlueBlood

Thailand is corrupt - Corruption is bad - People who invest all their money in a country they knew was corrupt, need to take some personal responsibility for their poor decisions.

Corrupt people who invest in a corrupt country should know this.

Don't go an live in the USA then



Cops Use Traffic Stops To Seize Millions From Drivers Never Charged With A Crime - Forbes

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

This discussion reminds me of situations where girls who have dressed in tarty clothes get raped

Shabby and sensationalist comparison. Rape is a very different sort of crime.

Originally Posted by November Rain

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

This discussion reminds me of situations where girls who have dressed in tarty clothes get raped

Shabby and sensationalist comparison. Rape is a very different sort of crime.

You can all applaud each other, but opprobrium directed at sluttily-dressed girls who get attacked happens more often than you might care to acknowledge. They are accused of tacitly abetting the crime - even by Magistrates and Judges at times.

Originally Posted by robuzo

Not working around anything if the kid's Thai. You aren't making sense. A non-Thai parent makes one ineligible to own real property? Since when?

If a foreign property dealer intends to buy and sell a piece of land simply to turn a profit during favourable economic conditions should they be allowed to use their kid to do this since they cannot buy it themselves?

The purpose of the law is to prevent foreign money bumping prices up out of reach of Thai nationals. The foreigner is using their Thai kid to circumvent this law. It is foreign money that is being used to gamble on Thai property markets generating exactly the effect that the law is trying to prevent.

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

You can all applaud each other, but opprobrium directed at sluttily-dressed girls who get attacked happens more often than you might care to acknowledge. They are accused of tacitly abetting the crime - even by Magistrates and Judges at times.

I'm well aware of that. What I'm applauding is Looper saying that your comparison is shabby and sensationalist for comparing this case (or people's responses to it) with a magistrate or police chief dismissing a woman's rape ordeal because of the way she was dressed.

Sorry, are you trying to say that a Thai citizen is banned from owning land if one parent is non - Thai? As to this- "If a foreign property dealer intends to buy and sell a piece of land simply to turn a profit during favourable economic conditions should they be allowed to use their kid to do this"- you're just making shit up. What does that has to do with this case?

Originally Posted by robuzo

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by robuzo

Maybe the land was in his Thai son's name, in which case it's possible that everything was above board.

Just another legal workaround to circumvent the law. When you find yourself putting assets which you regard as being your own property in somebody else's name chances are you are trying circumvent laws which are there for a good reason. Do you think foreign property dealers should be allowed to use their kids to get around foreign ownership laws?

Not working around anything if the kid's Thai. You aren't making sense. A non-Thai parent makes one ineligible to own real property? Since when?

But they clearly were trying to work around something, the second they start snivelling that they no longer have control of the property.

There's a big difference between putting land in a child's name to secure the child's future, and putting it in a child's name so you yourself can own and turn a profit on it.

One will seldom lead to problems and the other invariably will.

Originally Posted by November Rain

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

You can all applaud each other, but opprobrium directed at sluttily-dressed girls who get attacked happens more often than you might care to acknowledge. They are accused of tacitly abetting the crime - even by Magistrates and Judges at times.

I'm well aware of that. What I'm applauding is Looper saying that your comparison is shabby and sensationalist for comparing this case (or people's responses to it) with a magistrate or police chief dismissing a woman's rape ordeal because of the way she was dressed.

Here is a better example- a wealthy man is walking through a poor neighborhood dressed to the nines, and the cop gets a gang of locals to rob him and then takes the lion's share of the proceeds for himself. Sounds outlandish, I know, but then we aren't dealing with a "real country" apparently.

Originally Posted by November Rain

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

You can all applaud each other, but opprobrium directed at sluttily-dressed girls who get attacked happens more often than you might care to acknowledge. They are accused of tacitly abetting the crime - even by Magistrates and Judges at times.

I'm well aware of that. What I'm applauding is Looper saying that your comparison is shabby and sensationalist for comparing this case (or people's responses to it) with a magistrate or police chief dismissing a woman's rape ordeal because of the way she was dressed.

How pompous and condescending you are!

One expects it from Looper.

If you care to read what I wrote, you will see that I wasn't comparing the offences, I said that this 'discussion' was veering in that direction. Same as how other threads on this forum mete out partial blame to the victims.

Originally Posted by robuzo

Originally Posted by November Rain

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

You can all applaud each other, but opprobrium directed at sluttily-dressed girls who get attacked happens more often than you might care to acknowledge. They are accused of tacitly abetting the crime - even by Magistrates and Judges at times.

I'm well aware of that. What I'm applauding is Looper saying that your comparison is shabby and sensationalist for comparing this case (or people's responses to it) with a magistrate or police chief dismissing a woman's rape ordeal because of the way she was dressed.

Here is a better example- a wealthy man is walking through a poor neighborhood dressed to the nines, and the cop gets a gang of locals to rob him and then takes the lion's share of the proceeds for himself. Sounds outlandish, I know, but then we aren't dealing with a "real country" apparently.

But why are you leaving out the bit where the wealthy man knew that that's what happened in that neighborhood before he decided to do it? Pretty relevant when accessing the scenario honestly and accurately wouldn't you say?

No, you are quite simply blaming the victim.

Originally Posted by robuzo

Sorry, are you trying to say that a Thai citizen is banned from owning land if one parent is non - Thai?

Originally Posted by BlueBlood

There's a big difference between putting land in a child's name to secure the child's future, and putting it in a child's name so you yourself can own and turn a profit on it.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

Same as how other threads on this forum mete out partial blame to the victims.

And that's exactly where people like you go wrong. Refusing point blank to acknowledge the mistakes and poor decisions people make, because in your mono maniacal view point you think it somehow condones the corruption. It doesn't. They're two separate facts and one doesn't negate the other.

Originally Posted by Looper

The purpose of the law is to prevent foreign money bumping prices up out of reach of Thai nationals. The foreigner is using their Thai kid to circumvent this law.

Surely a Thai kid is a Thai National?

Originally Posted by BlueBlood

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

Same as how other threads on this forum mete out partial blame to the victims.

And that's exactly where people like you go wrong. Refusing point blank to acknowledge the mistakes and poor decisions people make, because in your mono maniacal view point you think it somehow condones the corruption. It doesn't. They're two separate facts and one doesn't negate the other.

So you'd agree then that the actions or behaviour of people can sometimes lead to criminals preying on them, whether through violence or fraud.

Originally Posted by robuzo

No, you are quite simply blaming the victim.

Yes I am. I'm blaming him for making stupid business decisions that have cost him his financial security. Did he not do that then? Did that not happen?

You don't need to panic. When I blame the victim for what he's done, I'm not for one second condoning corruption. I'm capable of seeing BOTH sides of the situation exactly as they are. I don't need to bury my head in the sand and pretend one side doesn't exist because the other side is something that I have very strong feelings about. Which is exactly what you are doing.

Why are you completely incapable of discussing the mistakes the victim made?

Originally Posted by BlueBlood

There's a big difference between putting land in a child's name to secure the child's future, and putting it in a child's name so you yourself can own and turn a profit on it.

One will seldom lead to problems and the other invariably will.

I don't know whose name the property was in, and it doesn't matter. None of us know exactly what happened. What we do know is what the cop had to say, and that is that the maid or the mother or whatever she was got very little out of the scam, while corrupt officials, public and private, made off with most of the loot. The policeman rather noticeably didn't say anything about foreigners not being able to own land. Have to leave that to a bunch of holier-than-thou foreigners, I suppose.

Originally Posted by BlueBlood

Originally Posted by robuzo

No, you are quite simply blaming the victim.

Yes I am. I'm blaming him for making stupid business decisions that have cost him his financial security. Did he not do that then? Did that not happen?

You don't need to panic. When I blame the victim for what he's done, I'm not for one second condoning corruption. I'm capable of seeing BOTH sides of the situation exactly as they are. I don't need to bury my head in the sand and pretend one side doesn't exist because the other side is something that I have very strong feelings about. Which is exactly what you are doing.

Why are you completely incapable of discussing the mistakes the victim made?

Because they are irrelevant. What would be the point? If I have to explain that irrelevance it means you're too dumb or obstinate to understand. I'm not really interested in who feels sympathy for the guy, although suggesting that this is just desserts says more about your character than it does about the victim's.

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

Originally Posted by BlueBlood

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

Same as how other threads on this forum mete out partial blame to the victims.

And that's exactly where people like you go wrong. Refusing point blank to acknowledge the mistakes and poor decisions people make, because in your mono maniacal view point you think it somehow condones the corruption. It doesn't. They're two separate facts and one doesn't negate the other.

So you'd agree then that the actions or behaviour of people can sometimes lead to criminals preying on them, whether through violence or fraud.

Yes. And those people need to hold their hands up and accept that they were stupid to behave like that.

Are you saying nothing people ever do can be criticized and blame can never be laid, just because they were victims?

As I've said, you think by blaming the victims for their stupid behaviour, you're somehow forgiving the criminals for their crimes. That's not the case at all. The criminals were wrong and the victim was stupid. Simple.