Damen Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 Jesus guys.He`s a scott.... What is a "scott"? bathroom tissue...in America at least http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Paper_Company Poor Scotts. Always getting shit on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexi Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Talking of cheapo houses,I wonder if anyone can beat this....on a trip up to Chiang Dao last year came across a large open field by the road side.There was a small office and a sign ad.saying plots of land for sale.Having nothing better to do I went in and had a chat with the sales girl,from her reaction I guessed I was the first customer she had seen in a long time.Turns out some enterprising business man from Bkk.had bought loads of land hoping to flog it to Farangs on the basis that Chiang Dao was an up-coming resort.Before long she had persuaded me to talk to the guy on his mobile.He was obviously desparate for someone to make a start on building,as the only other house at the bottom end of the huge plot (c.20-30 rai )had been built out of PLYWOOD by some German guy and was in a bad state.Anyway,the site owner was so eager to get me on board he offered to sell me a generous sized plot for......2 K Bt :thumbup: ..........Also,a bit further up the road a lady who worked at the monastery offered me a local house for rent,10 K Bt.......per year... :content: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Munchmaster Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 I don't think I've ever seen Scotts toilet paper, only Scotts kitchen paper. Anyway I always get Andrex (soft, strong and long). :content: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallenda Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Just curious -- if this happened between a Thai couple, where one spouse went to the bank and withdrew all the money and ran away, would they be able to get away with that? It just seems as if this principle can't really function in a civil society. Would a foreigner be able to do the same to his Thai spouse? Withdraw all the money from their joint bank account and leave her with nothing, and just say, too bad...? Back in our own countries, there is the next step of a divorce and settlement -- in which case the husband and wife would both be entitled to some percentage of the proceeds of a home sale, with whoever wins custody of the kid getting more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 But that *does* happen with frequency in farangland. If a joint account, there is nothing one partner can do to the other re: restitution. Divorce, yes. Cheers, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Board screw up: I cannot edit at all. How I meant that to read was: ++++++++++++++ But that "draining of joint accounts" happens with *frequency* in farangland -- I myself know a dozen people that that has happened to (male & female). If a normal (like a bank checking/saving account) joint account, there is nothing one partner can do to the other re: restitution. Divorce, yes. Perhaps restitution later, but we all know *every* court in *every* country is biased against the men, so is justice even possible anywhere? Cheers, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallenda Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 With a decent divorce lawyer in the west, the person withdrawing a huge sum of money out of a joint bank account would need to account for what happened to that money, and it would probably be considered to still be part of the joint estate during divorce proceedings. If it got spent on something, that would be considered part of the estate. The very act of withdrawing all the money out of a bank account itself would look suspect to any judge. So I'm not sure I agree with the idea theres nothing that can be done. I still wonder if it's necessarily true in Thailand too -- like what happens in similar cases with Thai couples. I know a woman close to me who went through divorce (Australia), and initially the courts were what I thought unreasonably sympathetic to his side. It took some pretty clear signs of irresponsibility on his part to get them to change that opinion. As it was he got 1/3 of the estate in the end, when both contributed about equally to it over the years. She was primarily responsible to take care of the kids, and that seems to be how it works in Australiia, US, etc. If one of the couple has primary responsibliity for kids, normally the mother, they get larger share. Obviously harder for a woman to take care of kids herself and also work, not to mention lower earning power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TroyinEwa/Perv Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 As it was he got 1/3 of the estate in the end, when both contributed about equally to it over the years. She was primarily responsible to take care of the kids, and that seems to be how it works in Australiia, US, etc. If one of the couple has primary responsibliity for kids, normally the mother, they get larger share. Obviously harder for a woman to take care of kids herself and also work, not to mention lower earning power. I don't think I could more strongly disagree with you or the system. I am enough of a realist to understand this is the way it is but it is soooooo wrong. By your example, she received 2/3rds of the estate when they each put in the same amount. And the reasoning given is because she took care of the kids. Taking this a step further, she probably gained majority custody (guessing) so the man will have to pay child support plus probably alimony as well as getting shafted in what he was awarded from the divorce, only 1/3 of the assets. Just a ridiculous system. As far as less earning power, it's illegal in the US to pay someone less because of their gender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallenda Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 It seems as if your definition of 'realist' is someone who strongly agrees with your own opinion. I'd say a realist is someone whose opininon is based on reality. Cases get decided on their own merits. Factors. Facts. But here you are presuming the system wronged this guy without bothering to consider what those might have been. About the division of the estate, the division is based upon who has primary custody of the kids, yes. You seem to consider this to be unfair. The idea is that it costs money to raise kids, and that they're considered to be members of this family entitled to some share of the assets. Is that unreasonable? It seems like this aspect of settlement didn't occur to you at all. And child custody gets decided on a number of factors, such as stability, sense of responsibility, etc. Again in this case, the husband made a pretty spectacularly bad example of himself in this area. I don't want to go into details, but if you just imagine some ways you could prove to a court that you're REALLY not fit to look after children, he probably did most of those things. The trend these days in Australia at least is for fathers to get 50% custody. In such cases the estate would probly be divided about about equally since both parents share raising the kids. In this particular case the father wouldn't have been able to do that due to his behavior. I can appreciate that there must be guys who get screwed over by the divorce process. This just wasn't one of them. If anything, the system tried very hard to give him benefit of the doubt, but over time he just proved that approach wrong time and again. Anyway, we're supposed to be talking about a Scot pooping in his car. I don't think I could more strongly disagree with you or the system. I am enough of a realist to understand this is the way it is but it is soooooo wrong. By your example, she received 2/3rds of the estate when they each put in the same amount. And the reasoning given is because she took care of the kids. Taking this a step further, she probably gained majority custody (guessing) so the man will have to pay child support plus probably alimony as well as getting shafted in what he was awarded from the divorce, only 1/3 of the assets. Just a ridiculous system. As far as less earning power, it's illegal in the US to pay someone less because of their gender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPike Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Rule #1 Don't ever marry a poor girl. Rule #2 Isaan girls are only for short-time Kinda sorry about the dude...but happens all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.