Thread: Irish teen pleads for justice over alleged Phuket corruption

Originally Posted by robuzo

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.

Firstly, why do you need to to try and twist my stance on the matter? I've never once suggested that I thought he got his "just desserts". I don't have any emotional connection to this story what so ever. That in fact was my very point. People who are so emotionally crippled that they can't see past their moronic xenophobia to see reality as it is.

Just simply pointing out his mistakes is not anything like saying he got what he deserved. If you can't see that then perhaps I'm not the "dumb and obstinate" one.

Secondly, my responses have been to people who clearly want to relieve the victim of all blame, as if he played absolutely no part in his current situation at all, which is of course nonsense. If you're not one of those people as you claim then we're not even discussing the same thing.

In all this idiocy propounded by morons at least one can relish the quite delicious irony of November Rain snuggling up to Looper in a bedfellow embrace. That he is demonstrably the apotheosis of an onanist orgasming on an endless fantasy of women as nothing more than base sexual objects seems to have eluded the silly woman.

Ah well. Perhaps she is indeed better with dogs.

Originally Posted by BlueBlood

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

Don't tell me, tell Looper and November Rain.

Originally Posted by robuzo

What would be the point?

So basically your saying it's pointless to point out that the victim could have avoided this whole situation if he he hadn't made very poor business decisions, but it's not pointless to go on and on and on and on about how corrupt Thailand is?

Sorry but I think you have the cart before the horse. The corruption was already there, therefor it's far more pertinent to discuss the appropriate behaviour needed to deal with that corruption, than it is to endlessly bang on about the corruption. The corruption is the constant, how you deal with it is variable.

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

Originally Posted by BlueBlood

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

Don't tell me, tell Looper and November Rain.

I have no idea what that means. Neither have said anything that would imply they don't already know that. It's you that's refusing point blank to lay any blame at the feet of the victim.

Originally Posted by BlueBlood

Originally Posted by robuzo

What would be the point?

So basically your saying it's pointless to point out that the victim could have avoided this whole situation if he he hadn't made very poor business decisions, but it's not pointless to go on and on and on and on about how corrupt Thailand is?

I haven't done that. I'm not Thailand-bashing, but you're still blaming the victim. It's a cautionary tale, we've established that. You don't feel sorry for him. Whatever.

Originally Posted by Silverback

Surely a Thai kid is a Thai National?

Yes, and if an unscrupulous foreigner uses him to churn some property the median price goes up putting it further out of reach of the other Thai nationals and the kid still owns nothing.

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

That he is demonstrably the apotheosis of an onanist orgasming on an endless fantasy of women as nothing more than base sexual objects seems to have eluded the silly woman.

Actually I am in a committed relationship of no less than 4 months standing

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by Silverback

Surely a Thai kid is a Thai National?

Yes, and if an unscrupulous foreigner uses him to churn some property the median price goes up putting it further out of reach of the other Thai nationals and the kid still owns nothing.

If his dad unscrupulous the Thai national doesn't get to own land? OK. There are probably quite a few 2nd and 3rd generation Thai Chinese who are glad that rule doesn't apply.

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

That he is demonstrably the apotheosis of an onanist orgasming on an endless fantasy of women as nothing more than base sexual objects

You have just described an awful lot of men on this forum, Gent. Seeing as I've been a member here for a number of years, now, I'd guess that it's something I can deal with. I guess I prefer overt sexism to pretension and pseudo intellectualism.

Originally Posted by robuzo

Does this mean that the crime is somehow mitigated by the circumstances? That the punishment for the corrupt officials involved should therefore be lighter?

Why on earth would you say that? What have I ever said that implies that?

I'm not discussing the "punishment for the corrupt officials" never have been. Why on earth would I waste a second of my life worrying about something that neither concerns me or I can do anything about?

The corruption is what it is. I concern myself in how best to deal with that, and doing what the Irish fella did wouldn't be at the top of my list. Which is why I'm happy to criticize him and blame him for his predicament.

Originally Posted by robuzo

Is there any practical meaning to your "point," or is it simply about whom we should all feel sorry for? I mean- "simply pointing out his mistakes is not anything like saying he got what he deserved"- OK, so what?

The point is, the moronic xenophobic, bias posters need to wake the fuck up and accept reality for what it is. Yes corruption is bad who the fuck doesn't know that! It is the way it is, if you make decisions that lead that corruption to chew you up and spit you out, then you need to take responsibility for those decisions.

Originally Posted by BlueBlood

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

Originally Posted by BlueBlood

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

Don't tell me, tell Looper and November Rain.

I have no idea what that means. Neither have said anything that would imply they don't already know that. It's you that's refusing point blank to lay any blame at the feet of the victim.

Correct, I don't think it is right to blame someone who is a victim in the eyes of the law. It is a slippery slope to venture down. People may be taken advantage of in life - but it doesn't mean they deserve it.

Whether its this guy, or the hooker who was killed by the US soldier in the Philippines.

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

Correct, I don't think it is right to blame someone who is a victim in the eyes of the law. It is a slippery slope to venture down.

But he was doing what he was doing BEFORE he became a victim! His actions and the fact that he went on to become a victim aren't logically connected. Why aren't you able to separate the two?

So basically, in your world nobody can ever be criticized for being incompetent, having a lack of common sense, and making decisions that will ultimately have negative consequences? Jeez, I wish I lived there. None of the countless mistakes I've made would ever have been my fault. I could have just blamed somebody else and moved on.

Indeed Moog, but that is an ethic these idiots simply refuse to recognise. The truly stupid will always cling to the wreckage of their own sanctimony and hackneyed, glib prejudices lest they drown in a sea they are evidently incapable of navigating.

Originally Posted by robuzo

If his dad unscrupulous the Thai national doesn't get to own land? OK. There are probably quite a few 2nd and 3rd generation Thai Chinese who are glad that rule doesn't apply.

?

Simply saying that the child ownership option can be used to facilitate foreign money churning of Thai land by the foreign parent which may be legal but is essentially circumvention of the system put in place to avoid this.

I would just like to raise a valid point concerning the guys that think they are protected by an ufustuct or a chanote.

In my very early years in Thailand I learned a few things about farang buying houses on a Thai's land.

A Thai friend at the time explained it like this. He told me that the Farang can own the house but in the event that the Thai land owner gets nasty he or she can stop the Farang from walking on that land to enter his house.

The land is not his so its very easy for the Thai to stop entry because its private property.

He told me that the Falang can still enter his house but he must buy or rent a helicopter to deliver him to it.

Funny as fuk that EH.

Stupid Irish fuk did not do his home work huh.

Many other farang don't either.

Originally Posted by BlueBlood

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

Correct, I don't think it is right to blame someone who is a victim in the eyes of the law. It is a slippery slope to venture down.

But he was doing what he was doing BEFORE he became a victim! His actions and the fact that he went on to become a victim aren't logically connected. Why aren't you able to separate the two?

So basically, in your world nobody can ever be criticized for being incompetent, having a lack of common sense, and making decisions that will ultimately have negative consequences? Jeez, I wish I lived there. None of the countless mistakes I've made would ever have been my fault. I could have just blamed somebody else and moved on.

We're talking about culpability - in a legal sense aren't we - not simply critiquing someone.

A line has to be drawn somewhere.

Its more clearcut to draw that line between the transgressor, and a victim.

If you don't draw it there - then you not only dilute your code of law, but ....taking interpretation of such a grey area to an extreme, indoctrinated populations believe that people can be deprived of democratic rights, can be put in camps for re-education (or worse in some regimes) - and they aren't victims, but need attitude adjustment.

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

Correct, I don't think it is right to blame someone who is a victim in the eyes of the law. It is a slippery slope to venture down.

People may be taken advantage of in life - but it doesn't mean they deserve it.

Jesus, I must be something special then.

I simply have no problem manning up when I have fuked up, I certainly never unload my fuk up onto someone else or a system.

I simply work through it to find out where I have erred and hope I never do it again.

I've made some monumental fuk ups by the way but have never been so retarded as the Irish fuker.

The way Moog, Thegent and Tax view the world they think its all our fault when they are fuked over.

Something seriously wrong with you three.

The law is there to protect stupid, weak, vulnerable and gullible people from being victims and losers, Terry. It's a social safety net they are given.

Not street-smart, shrewd, savvy players, like you, the Gent and I, who can duck and dive and come out Number One. Its not needed to help life's Winners.

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

The law is there to protect stupid, weak, vulnerable and gullible people from being victims and losers, Terry. It's a social safety net they are given.

Not street-smart, shrewd, savvy players, like you, the Gent and I, who can duck and dive and come out Number One. Its not needed to help life's Winners.

What country are you talking about exactly? I think that's where you go wrong. The law is this, the law is that. Not in Thailand it ain't!!

^ ^

Yes well, I don't buy that bolliks at all.

If the gnome had all that money to invest in Phuket he had enough money to consult a proper lawyer to be informed of his risk.

Load of shit these cry baby posts are.

You guys are such a disappointment at times. Its like I'm reading Thai fukin Visa.

Originally Posted by Looper

Haven't watched the video but any sensible fella knows that Thailand or any other 3rd world country is not a place to invest any more than you can afford to walk away from.

Any investment in a society that still has endemic corruption running thoughout its systems of governmrnt is a huge gamble.

In this case it was property investment. I always understood that land ownership was illegal for foreigners. The various legal constructs to work around this are just ways to bend the law and the law is there to prevent foreign ownership of land so you are taking even more risk by trying to circumvent the law.

This guy could have bought property in Ireland on his home turf and played it safe but he chose to gamble and lost.

Spot on.

With bigger rewards come bigger risks. Similarly, a greedy western multinational expanding into Thailand or China or elsewhere knows the risks but sees big rewards. Things don't always turn out rosey, as this guy found out. He had a lot of money, and now has none because he bet it all on a risky venture, and is now in exactly the same financial situation as 90% of the people in the country he saw as an easy target for a get rich quick scheme. Som nom na.

I have no sympathy whatsover. As for his kids, lots, but only for having such a reckless parent.

^

I mean,

That's another Issue, who in their right mind would relocate their young kids over here if not an Expat Package.

So if the story can be believed and this guy has been moving around as not to be topped obviously his kids have not been in School. ?

Why did he not just bung his kids on a Plane and get them the fuk out of Thailand ?

The story seems to just edge closer to not being quite right.

More to this for sure, the gnome ain't telling all.

Originally Posted by terry57

I would just like to raise a valid point concerning the guys that think they are protected by an ufustuct or a chanote.

In my very early years in Thailand I learned a few things about farang buying houses on a Thai's land.

A Thai friend at the time explained it like this. He told me that the Farang can own the house but in the event that the Thai land owner gets nasty he or she can stop the Farang from walking on that land to enter his house.

The land is not his so its very easy for the Thai to stop entry because its private property.

He told me that the Falang can still enter his house but he must buy or rent a helicopter to deliver him to it.

Funny as fuk that EH.

Stupid Irish fuk did not do his home work huh.

Many other farang don't either.

This, Terry, is the equivalent of Darwin basing his entire thesis on the theory of evolution on a trip to the local zoo and observing the antics of a chimpanzee.

But if your comprehension of Thai property law is founded upon some chickenhead beach chum communicating in Tinglish then so be it.

It does explain an awful lot.

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

But if your comprehension of Thai property law is founded upon some chickenhead beach chum communicating in Tinglish then so be it.

Probably makes about as much sense, anyway...