Evil Penevil

Thank you, Gabor. I'm glad you see the light. Evil

Nothing I write is bullshit. I think you have had some very painful reminders of that by now. Demanding payment for an UNREGISTERED overnight guest is standard practice in most hotels around the world. Many hotels and guest houses in Pattaya choose to allow because they do more business by being guest friendly. If both guests are REGISTERED at the hotel. But the hotel can always demand payment for an unregistered guest. Yelling and threatening the front desk personnel may work at a shabby budget hotel with mostly East European guests, but try insisting that you won't pay a joiner fee at a hotel like the Dusit or Royal Cliff and see what happens. Evil

It's a fee that some hotels impose if one or more UNREGISTERD guests stay overnight in your room. Depending on the hotel, the fee can range from several hundred baht to 1,000 bahtor more. While you can enounter joiner-fee scams, a joiner fee isn't always a rip-off. It's a policy decision by the hotel to discourage guests who are likely to bring back P4P providers to their rooms. To be considered "guest friendly," the hotel must allow your unregistered guests to stay overnight without extra charge. Moreover, you must be able to change guests every night or even several times in the same day. Lists of "guest friendly" hotels are frequently posted on the boards, but many punters misunderstand hotel regulations, local law and joiner's fees. You do not have an absolute right to bring back an unregistered guest even if you have paid for a double room. Whether an UNREGISTERED guest can stay the night with you is always at the discretion of the hotel, no matter what country you are in. Some of the misunderstanding stems from experience with U.S. motels (motor hotels), where it's standard practice to charge the same price whether one or four guests occupy the room. That practice doesn't usually apply at hotels. Just avoid those hotels that aren't guest-friendly, but don't worry too much about it. Some guys go to great lengths to try to get the hotel to commit in writing to never charging a joiner fee, but it is a useless exercise. All hotels retain the right to charge a joiner fee, even if they never do so in practice. That's to prevent extreme cases, in which someone - not necessarily a punter - allows five or six people to sleep in a room in which two or three are registered. More guests than allowed in a room is an everyday problem in hotels around the globe and doesn't always relate to P4P. While joiner fees aren't a regular policy at many hotels, they are sometimes used as a dsiciplinary measure when punters get too carried away, i.e., four or five people are staying in a room for which two are registered, or too much rowdiness late at night. So while a hotel can be guest friendly, it doesn't mean it welcomes wild partying. If you know that you'll be taking several girls back to your room each day as well as drinking heavily, you want to make sure you get a monger-friendly as well well as guest-friendly hotel. Evil

Keep in mind that Chinese New Year (Spring Festival, Year of the Rabbit) begins on Feb. 3 in 2011. Prices tend to be higher (and planes at full cpacity) for a week before and about two weeks after that date. It's the most important holiday on the Chinese calendar and thousands of overseas Chinese travel at that time. If you are flying through Taipei or Hong Kong or even Tokyo, you usually have to book early. Before Spring Festival and after (it lasts up to 10 days, depending on the country), flights to/from Asia are often cheaper because of lower demand. Evil

Have flown with them several times from JFK to BKK. Never a hint of a problem. Evil

You can safely eliminate the second option. But instead of functionally illiterate, I would suggest he not the English so good write. The question becomes: From which language is a native speaker most likely to translate "wandering eyes" as "skipping eyes"? Evil

Thanks, Joe. And on to a new point - More than one poster has maintained that picture taking on the street can put the photographer in danger of a kicking. Has anyone actually seen this happen? Has any bar owner had a customer object to another customer taking pics in your bar (assuming photography is allowed)? Has it ever led to a discussion with injuries? I doubt many farang are all that sensitive about having their pictures taken, considering there are dozens of Asian and Russian package tourists who walk up and down Walking Street filming every inch of the way. There would be a hell of alot of fights each night if even a few guys objected. I've never had anyone demand that I delete a photo I've just taken. In a few cases, customers in a bar have asked politely that I not include themin pictures and I've always obliged. During my most recent trip, a two guys objected to me taking pics from the street, but that wasn't hard to understand why. There's only been one case where a BM objected to a photo I had included in a T/R and that was a wind-up. Bottom line; on the street or in bars where photography is permitted, there's very little hassle in taking pics. Most everyone realizes there's no expectation of privacy in such places. The exception might be Skank Alley in Bangkok. Evil

It wasn't much of a point, but since you're a glutton for punishment ... Arno, cousin, Myrrh, Upharsin and Syb are right. It would not be a good idea to print out the OP and read it to a Thai male in an attempt to deflect his anger. In fact, I doubt a printout of my OP - or anyone else's OP - would serve much use in a street confrontation in Pattaya or anywhere in the world, except maybe if you rolled it up real tight and jabbed it in your opponent's eye. Along those lines, it wouldn't be a good idea to frost a cake with motor oil or to lubricate an automoble engine with cake frosting, either. The purpose of the OP was inform BMs about the legal basis of street photography, not to give tips on handling angry Thai males. Personally, I've never had a Thai male raise his eyebrows, much less confront me, over picture taking. I doubt I ever will. But if your rather fanciful situation were to occur, I'd apologize and leave as quickly as possible. Confrontations with scumbag non-Thais are a very different thing. Not one step backwards. But on a practical note, singing "Men of Harlech" in a loud voice has proved a very effective tactic around Suk Soi 5 in Bangkok. Evil

Time to read the writing on the wall, Arno! From Daniel 5:25-28 :25 And this is the inscription that was written: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. :26 This is the interpretation of each word. MENE: God has numbered your kingdom, and finished it; :27 TEKEL: You have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting; :28 UPHARSIN: Your kingdom has been divided, and given to Pattaya Addicts and Pattaya Live (actually, the Bible says "Medes and Persians," but I thought I'd make it more relevant.) Sorry, MM. I know I should have ignored him, but I couldn't resist any Myrrh. Evil

Definitely. I would be very discrete in taking pictures of the Amish in Intercourse Village, PA or Coptic Christians in Cairo. But I was discussing in the OP common situations on the street and in bars in Pattaya. I know better than most there are some individuals in Pattaya and Bangkok who don't want their pics taken, but their objections are based more concern about Interpol or their parole officers or the research department of America's Most Wanted recognizing their pics than religious/cultural beliefs. I'd say that if you are worried about taking photos in the street, don't do it. Same-same if you are worried about driving in Thailand, or picking up freelancers on Beach Road or swimming in the ocean. Just don't do it. I'm aware of the risks, but not worried enough to stop taking photos. Let's say I enjoy the challenge of getting photos of more difficult subjects. I do think the notion of violence against street photographers is exaggerated, at least when it comes to Pattaya. I've never had anyone ask me to delete a photo, much less try to take my camera from me. There are a few who don't want their pics taken and I'll most often respect their wishes, but I don't care what some of those guys think. If they want to take things to the level of discussion with bodily harm, I'll deal with that situation when it arises. In Bangkok, it is different. In parts of the City of Angels, some of the less angelic residents really, really, really don't want their pics taken. Unless you're able to handle the consequences, it's unwise to take their photos. Some pics I took in Bangkok on Suk Soi 5: --- I am aware of the need for discretion in some situations. Here's a photo I took in Pattaya Beer Garden where I masked the identity of the guys in the photo: And another from FLB: I answered a similar question in post #32. I do worry about the consequences of taking nude shots of girls. and that's why I don't do it. Evil

Rascall - First off, I'm not qualified to give advice about real-life legal situations in Thailand. I have enough background to discuss broad principles of street photography, but not specific applications of the law, especially not in Thailand. With that proviso, here are some suggestions for questions to ask an attorney who is qualified to advise on Thai law: Section 287 of the Thai Penal Code makes it illegal to produce pornography for purposes of TRADE. Is production of sexually explicit material for non-commercial purposes, with one's wife as the model, also considered illegal? Are there any cases in which non-Thai citizens have been arrested and tried in Thailand for producing sexually explicit material for private use only? Has the Supreme Court of Thailand made any rulings which are considered definitive on the difference between pornography for commercial purposes and sexually explicit material for private use? Keep in mind that case law and judicial review don't have as firm a tradition in Thailand as in the West. Also, law enforcement agencies in Thailand may function on occasion in a manner that is very difference than in the West. Here's an article from a Thai law forum that touches on some of these questions. It was written by lecturer in law at a Thai university, but the author isn't Thai. INDECENCY ON THE INTERNET AS A CHALLENGE TO THAI LAW The relevant point is: "...Thai law prohibits production, distribution and possession of pornography for the purpose of trade only, although paragraph 2 of the Section can be interpreted in a broader sense. " Strikes me that you could be in more trouble for posting the pics on the Internet than taking them. But that would assume: 1) Thai law enforcement has any interest in investigating such cases; 2) law enforcement agents could discover the real identity behind the handle "rascal;" and 3) a prosecutor could prove you and only you could upload the pics to the Net. In the West, there would be reasonable doubt because many different people can "share" one board handle (that's often how trolls manage massive numbers of posts in a short time, they work as team with one handle). But I have no idea how far that defense would fly in a Thai court. That's why you need to talk to an attorney who's qualified in Thai law. My advice, and take it with however many grains of salt you choose, would be for resident ex-pats not to upload sexually explicit homemade material to a forum, especially not while in Thailand. There's probably only a small chance of running afoul of the law, but why take a chance at all? Hope this helps. Evil

Confusion abounds about privacy and photography, particularly as it relates to the Internet. This post summarizes what‘s allowed and what’s not. Bottom line: There are no significant restrictions on street photography in Thailand. You don't have a right NOT to be photographed. If the publication of a picture taken in or from a street in LOS is going to cause you problems with your spouse, boss, creditors or parole officer, then the only real solution is to stay secluded. If people can't see you, they can't take your picture. There's no other realistic way to render impossible the publication of your photo on the Internet. Evil IN THE STREET A photographer can take pictures of anybody or anything that is visible in or from a street. He doesn't need the consent of the person being photographed. No one has any reasonable expectations of privacy on a street or in a non-secluded area that can be seen from the street. That's the rule almost everywhere in the world, including Thailand. Are there any restrictions? A few, but they seldom apply to situations in which a tourist or resident ex-pat is likely to find himself. Up-skirt or down-blouse photos could be considered a violation of Thai law, but that's about it in terms of forbidden street photography. Of course, a photographer has to use common sense. It’s stupid to stick a camera in a stranger's face or block anyone's forward progress on a street. But the issue in these instances is that the photographer is making a nuisance of himself, not that he is capturing images. You almost never see paparazzi-style photographers in farang-oriented areas in LOS. What can you do if you're walking in a street or sitting in an open-air beer bar and don't want your picture taken? Very little. Many times you won't even notice you're being photographed. If you do notice, you could ask the photographer to stop and hope he obliges you. He will probably have already gotten the picture he wants, so he loses nothing by agreeing to stop. But a photographer doesn't have to delete any picture he's taken. To try to force a photographer to delete pictures or hand over his camera could result in felony charges. It's unlikely things would get that formal in Thailand, but for a farang to assault another farang or destroy a camera over picture taking could lead to an unpleasant encounter with the BiB for the guilty party. Again, common sense plays a role. A photographer probably won't get very far arguing freedom of expression with a drunk guy who's twice his size. At the first sign of hostility, the photographer should exit the scene as fast as possible. If you can't get away, it's better to delete a picture than have your camera broken and better a broken camera than a broken head. But if you're smart, there are ways of making someone think you've deleted a photo when you actually haven't. All this is about violent reactions to picture taking on the street is very hypothetical. It doesn’t happen that often. If had a dollar for every time someone had tried to take my camera by force in LOS… I’d have one dollar. Once in Bangkok, three guys on Suk Soi 3 did attempt to relieve me of my camera, but I’m not sure if it was because I had photographed them doing a drug deal or they were simply trying to steal my camera. The timely intervention of some moto drivers restored the odds in favor and nothing happened in the end. On a few other occasions, in Thailand and elsewhere, people have objected to me taking photos, but none ever took things past the yelling stage. IN A BAR Inside a bar or any other private area, it’s a totally different situation than on the street. The owner or manager sets the rules. If photography is forbidden, that has to be respected.. Considering the special circumstances in Thailand, it’s a very understandable that no pictures are to be taken in that bar. But if the bar allows photography – and that’s common in hostess bars - there is no “opt out” clause for individual customers. It is the owner/manager who decides whether pictures can be taken, not the person whose image appears in the picture. POSTING PHOTOS ON AN INTERNET FORUM A photographer can post to the Internet any photograph he has taken, as long as the photo itself doesn’t contravene national law. If he posts it to his own non-commercial Web site or home page, there’s nothing anyone can do to force him to take down a permitted photo. Just like you don’t need the subject’s consent to take his photo, you don’t need his permission to post it. Should an embarrassing photo, even a bare-assing photo, be posted to a forum such as this one, it depends on the forum rules. The owner/Admin can make any rules regarding photos that he deems fit, again assuming the photos remain within the law. The owner/Admin can be as restrictive or as liberal as he chooses, as long as he stays within the law. He can remove a photo for whatever reason he chooses. He doesn’t have to be consistent or even rational – it’s his forum, he can do as he likes. Should you want a photo taken down, you can always ask the poster or the Admin of the board. Neither is under any obligation to comply, nor are there any legal means to force compliance. Sometimes in discussions about photography and privacy, model releases and copyright are mentioned. They are two very separate things and neither is very relevant to forums such as this. But for the sake of completeness, I’ll deal with them briefly. COPYRIGHT Copyright is part of intellectual property law and protects the right of an author or creator of an original work to protect how that work is reproduced or modified. It also provides a remedy under the law in case of infringement of a copyright. A copyright exists from the moment a work takes tangible form. For photographs, that would be the moment the photographer presses the button on the camera. A photograph doesn’t have to be formally registered to carry a copyright, nor does it need to bear a notice such as “Copyright by Evil Penevil, 2010.” A copyright remains in place until the number of years specified by law has passed (usually 70 years after the death of the author or creator). A copyright isn’t invalidated by publication on the Internet. I’ve often read on forums that it’s free to “lift” posted photos because they were put in the “public domain” through publication on the Internet. That is a false statement and results from the difference in meaning between the term “public domain” in popular usage, i.e., easily accessible to a broad public, and its correct meaning under the law, i.e. works to which a copyright never applied or for which the period of copyright protection has expired. However, it is in practice almost impossible to sue someone for copyright infringement for lifting a photo from a forum such as this. MODEL RELEASES A model release isn't required to post a picture on the Internet, whether it is a compromising photo or not. A model release protects the publisher of the image from civil liability, i.e., getting sued for damages. It almost always applies to situations in which the photographer SELLS the image for commercial use. One common situation is an image used in an advertisement. Assuming the photo contains a recognizable image of an individual, the photographer must obtain a model release in order to sell the photograph of that individual. Otherwise, the model could sue the publisher (not the photographer) because the image was used without permission. But it could only be a civil suit - there is no criminal penalty attached. The use to which the image is put is most important factor in deciding whether civil liability can arise. No model release is required for news photos. An image (of a recognizable person) published in an article in Time or National Geographic wouldn't need a model release, but the exact same image, if used in an ad in the same publications, would need a model release. The U.S. is the most litigious society in the world and there are only a handful of lawsuits every year over model releases. They most often involve celebrities. PORNOGRAPHIC PHOTOS, VIDEOS This is a very tricky point, as photographer can run afoul of several different sets of laws. The laws are strictest if you plan to make commercial use of the pics, but even if you only take them for non-commercial, personal use, you can find yourself in violation of criminal law. Most importantly, you need to be damn sure the models (male or female) are over the age of 18 and that you have acceptable proof of age. Beyond that, the situation is so complicated I’m not going to say more, other than do a lot of research if you plan to take XXX-rated pics or videos. MORE INFORMATION Finally, I’ve included links to articles written by attorneys in Australia and the U.S. for those of you who enjoy detailed discussions. The rules and laws are substantially the same in almost all countries, including Thailand, but the application can vary depending on local custom and practice. “In Australia the taking and publication of a person's photograph, without their consent or knowledge, but within the limitations outlined below, is not an invasion of privacy, nor is it in contravention of case or statute law. Privacy advocates may disapprove, but in this country it has always been, and for the moment remains, a perfectly legal thing to do.” http://4020.net/words/photorights.php “The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. ... Members of the public have a very limited scope of privacy rights when they are in public places. Basically, anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes.” http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Here are some sample pics of wives and girlfriends of top international football players. You can see the entire layout with all the names of which player is with which girl here: The Hottest WAGs of the 2010 World Cup. Enjoy! Evil

You might want to look at the Lido Beach Hotel, which is located on Beach Road about half a block from WS. It doesn't have a pool, but otherwise meets your needs. It is possible to bargain with them about the rate, but a lot of times the hotel is full due to regularly returning guests. Otherwise, the Residence Garden (in the banner ads, special rate for Pattaya Talk members) isn't a bad choice. Evil

Looks like the crack down is off to a good start: Iranian Man Arrested for Smuggling 3 Kgs of Ice.

Coke is readily available in Pattaya at all 7-11s and every other food and convenience store. You can get it in both cans and bottles. There's even a guy who sits outside a WS establishment and sells it in plastic bags. Evil

My TG's daughter (age five) cried when we checked out of the Centara Beach Resort. To her, it was a fantasy world. She loved all the activities for children - swimming and dance classes, exercise sessions, arts and crafts, etc. The water park was also great for her. It costs a bit, but it is definitely the best hotel in Pattaya for children. You can see some pics in a mini review I did here: http://www.pattayatalk.com/forums/index.ph...st&p=725801 Evil

It would be more accurate to say that, in LOS at least, that some Russians are gangsters, some Thai people have pitiful existences, quite a few West Africans are involved in criminal behavior and most of the Arabs I've encountered are antagonistic. I've never written anything that either states or implies race or national origin determines a person's character. I have written T/Rs that are all sunbeams and bunnies, but by looking at the world from a different angle, I saw warts on the fantasy. It's called reality. I guess I've always been aware of the ugly spots, but now I decided to write about some of them. Evil

I implied nothing of the sort. I only said he didn't like his picture taken. BTW, is he your cousin? Are no West African drug gangs operating in BKK or Pattaya, in your opinion? Please read that in both of the ways that it is intended... Evil

Very interesting article in the Bangkok Post: Narcotics cops to target Africans Let's hope they succeed and that the gangs they run out of Bangkok don't switch their base of operations to Pattaya. Evil

I'm stuck in the U.S. as well, but I wish you the best of luck with the party and will be sure to drop by Chanpen on my next trip to Pattaya. Evil

I've done the early morning flight to Tokyo dozens of times to catch the non-stop to Newark Liberty. I simply stay up all night and head to the airport at about 3.30 a.m. It depends on circumstances, but often I won't even have a hotel room that night. I check out as late as possible the day before, leave my bags at the concierge desk and then come back to collect them before leaving for the airport. Plenty of places with inhouse S/T rooms (or go to S/T hotel) if needed that night. Staying up all night means I sleep most of the flight to Tokyo. Evil

It is not guest friendly. It's a very nice hotel and value for money at 1,766 baht/night, but there's a 1,000 baht joiner fee. It's high to discourage male guests from bringing back girls. It's a good deal if you register with a companion who will stay with you the whole time (no joiner fee), but not if you plan to switch partners every night. Evil

As others have said, just reply to them that you don't feel comfortable emailing your credit card information. I have stayed at the Dawin, Dynasty Inn and Dynasty Grande. None of them insisted on my c c number upfront. They replied to my email, in which I politely declined to give my cc details, by saying in effect, "Fine. Pay when you arrive." Evil

That means if you're a black male in some cities in the U.S. who engages in high-risk behavior (unprotected sex, especially with other males; or injects drugs), you have a bigger chance of getting HIV-infected than people in some African countries. It's hardly a startling conclusion. The key concept here is "high-risk behavior." Avoid it and there is a very small chance of becoming infected with HIV, no matter what your race or where you live. Evil