A challenge for those with testicular fortitude!
[QUOTE=EihTooms;3086523]I'll have to be very wary of accepting what you "teach" us about Bitcoin, crypto, the stock market and land investments from now on.[/QUOTE]Start date October 15,2026.
Three Senior Members individuals have challenged my investment abilities. If they know so damn much here is my challenge to them.
Here is my challenge to them:
3 markets, Oil (Brent), Gold, Bitcoin.
Predict the high and low between the Start date of October 15,2026 and End Date of December 31,2026.
This is the chart we will use for Brent Oil Spot (USD):
[URL]https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/brent-crude-oil[/URL]
This is the chart we will use for Gold Spot (USD):
[URL]https://www.apmex.com/gold-price[/URL]
This is the chart we will use for Bitcoin Spot (USD):
[URL]https://www.coinbase.com/price/bitcoin[/URL]
Each prediction is scored by the distance of the prediction from the high and the low in either direction. The total distance is added up for each market. And like golf, the predictions with the lowest total distance wins. Winner takes the entire pot.
[B]The bet is 30000 THB for each participant placed up front in escrow.[/B]
[B]Talk is cheap. Easy to be a critic[/B]
Show some testicular fortitude and put some money on the line. Let's see who steps up!
Ok, but only Thai Law's legal definition of Prostitution is illegal in Thailand
[QUOTE=TheCane;3087722]Can we all agree that in Thailand prostitution is de jure (as a matter of law) illegal, but de facto (in actuality) accepted as an every day part of life? That would make both sides of the argument right in the end. It's illegal, but you find it all over the place because the authorities don't enforce the law, except for on occasion and very selectively.[/QUOTE]If you had said Thailand and Thai Law's own very narrow legal definition of prostitution is illegal in Thailand but not anyone else's definition of it is illegal in Thailand if that legal definition is the mere exchange of sex for money or money for sex between consenting adults or the mere discussing and agreeing to engage in that exchange in private, then the Prevention and Suppression of Prostitution Act of 1996 would agree with you and so would I.
And when it comes to the Thai Penal Code, that legally enforceable document has nothing at all to say about any version or definition of Prostitution except that it is illegal for anyone age 16 or more who can take care of themselves to live off the income of a prostitute. That's it. Nothing more.
The reason consenting adult prostitutes and customers of those prostitutes in Thailand are not arrested and charged with a crime for discussing and agreeing to exchange money for sex or sex for money and then retreating to private quarters to fulfill that agreement is because there is no law in any legally enforceable document citing those behaviors to be illegal, crimes or punishable by any penalty whatsoever.
Which is why there has been no report of any arrest or charge for those behaviors in any bar, nightclub or any other venue or location in Thailand nor has it ever happened "in secret" but mysteriously never reported in the media. Ever.
It isn't because every one of the Thai police have decided to ignore it. Nor is it because every one of them are being bribed to ignore it.
They don't make arrests for those things and the Thai DOJ does not charge or convict anyone of a crime for doing those things because there is no Citation or Section stating those behaviors to be illegal or crimes on the books to charge them for, never has been and never will be.
The question has been asked one way or another dozens of times on this Forum over the years; if someone thinks the mere person-to-person discussion and agreement to exchange money for sex or sex for money between consenting adults age 18 or older and that the mere fulfillment of that agreement in private is illegal or a crime in Thailand then please produce a link to the legally enforceable document in Thailand stating that it is illegal and a crime and a quote of the Citation or Section that says so in a plain language sentence.
So far nobody has been able to do it. Because no such Citation or Section exists, never has and never will in Thailand.
Which, granted, is very different from the legal definition of prostitution and solicitation for prostitution in other countries, in the mind of people from other countries and as it is perhaps commonly understood in the minds of many everywhere.
But, obviously, Thailand and Thai Law doesn't give a shit about those other definitions of it. They have instead taken great pains and gone to extraordinary measures to write laws in words and sentences that travel wide circles around and away from any sentence that might be inadvertently misunderstood to be stating those mere acts to be illegal and crimes when it would have been blissfully easy for them to simply state it as clearly and in plain language as other countries' laws on the topic are written if that was ever their intention. Which it isn't their intention now, never has been and never will be.
Thailand and Thai Law apparently doesn't WANT those other legal definitions of it to come within a mile of their own very narrow legal definition of it. That's why no legally enforceable document in Thailand allows so much as a single sentence to find its way into the text of those documents suggesting such a thing, much less spelling it out in plain language.
Prostitution Establishments
Individuals are speaking about Pattaya without knowledge of the actual nightlife. You cannot find out everything by walking around on the streets observing from outside and watching YouTube. [U]Gentleman's Clubs[/U], [U]Soi 6[/U] Bars, Bars on Soi Buahkao and massage parlors all have rooms available.
[B]The Cmdr knows Pattaya![/B]
Prostitution Establishments (The Remix)
[QUOTE=EihTooms;3087752]Nana Plaza in Bangkok shut down its on-site short time rooms too for that same reason. That would be too close to the proprietors profiting from prostitution as a commercial business and therefore illegal in Thailand.[/QUOTE]Were there any signs? [B]No, there were not![/B].
[QUOTE=EihTooms;3087601]We already know that a couple of BJ Bars in Bangkok were temporarily shutdown a few years ago because the ladies sitting outside got too loud, overt and shameless about describing the sex acts for sale inside their venue to the pedestrians passing by. That is illegal in Thailand. But they soon reopened and since then and for years now the ladies just describe the sex acts for sale inside their venue in a normal voice to potential customers that approach them up close.
I have been in Windmill a few times and could see there were customers paying the ladies for "sexual gratification" activities like DATY right onstage, in full view of everyone in the bar and it being done as a matter of routine exchange of money for sex. The fact that we can only vaguely recall one time in the past when that place was closed down for being a [b]"prostitution establishment" but only for drifting into the part of Thai Law where the ST rooms on the premises could be construed as concrete evidence they were running a commercial prostitution [B]in a promiscuous manner[/B] establishment[/b][/QUOTE]I have made this point repeatedly in my posts and when I quote the law. Thank you for finally acknowledging what I have have been saying this entire time.
[QUOTE=EihTooms;3086802]That qualifier for the Act's definition for what THEY mean when they say Prostitution follows through into all of the Sections including the concept of a [u]"Prostitution Establishment"[/u].
A shop on Sukhumvit Road or Asoke where weed is advertised and sold commercially to anyone and everyone who walks in the door with the proper prescription in a promiscuous manner and regardless how the sales clerk personally feels about it or personally thinks of the customer would be a "weed selling establishment". The same principle would apply but without a prescription required to the various "hamburger establishments", "t-shirt establishments" or "smartphone establishments" in the neighborhood.
According to the plain language definition of Prositution in the Act, [u]owning, operating, managing, working in or patronizing a venue that offers or allows the commercial sale of sex in a promiscuous manner or hawks it openly and shamelessly in a public place (redacted for brevity) is illegal[/u].[/QUOTE]Your constant assertions that [B]EihTooms[/B] that [I]prostitution is legal[/I] in Thailand is incorrect. I will continue you teach you about Thai Law for as long it takes you to learn about how it applies to the actual realities that exist in Thailand.
[B]Prostitution is not Legal in Thailand[/B]
Period. Full Stop!
That's a stretch and highly doubtful
[QUOTE=SubCmdr;3087749][B]Selective Enforcement[/b]
You make my point about [I]prostitution establishments[/I]. All other [I]prostitution establishments[/I] get a pass. Until they don't. Just like the law against nominee business structures are being enforced now after 20 years of lying dormant on the books. The laws are on the books for the Royal Thai Police to shut down [I]prostitution establishments[/I] using the definition found in the the current law anytime they would like.[/QUOTE]It's a stretch and highly doubtful that either the Windmill Bar or the Soi 6 bar were determined to be "prostitition establishments" in this case. All of the details of the reports you linked argue against it.
1. The police had to wait to be tipped off by an informant that prostitution was taking place inside the bars before they bothered to go inside them. And even then they had to wait until an offer to exchange sex for money was made to them. That is antithetical to the whole idea of a prostitution [B]in a promiscuous manner[/B] establishment being set up for the purpose of prostitution as Thai Law clearly but narrowly defines it. Nobody needs to be tipped off by an informant and sit inside a McDs until someone's asks them if they want a hamburger to know immediately a block away that the building with those Golden Arches and the words "delicious cheeseburgers, 99 baht" on the window is a hamburgers sold in a promiscuous manner restaurant.
2. There is no mention in the reports that anyone was arrested and charged with running a "prostitution establishment", which has its own category of charges and penalties associated with it in the Prevention and Suppression of Prostitution Act of 1996.
3. Of the very few arrests and charges mentioned in the reports, the only people who were arrested and charged with anything were 3 people in Windmill Bar who could only have been proprietors, managers and / or mamasans of the Bar. And charges were only left pending for anyone at the Soi 6 bar. There was no mention of prostitutes or customers of prostitutes being arrested and charged for any crime in those bars.
4. As you, I and anyone who has read the Section in the Act related to "prostitution establishments", the Law is that virtually anyone and everyone consorting, working in or patronizing a "prostitution establishment" as characterized by the Act's clear but narrow definition of prostitution in Thai Law is subject to being arrested, heavily fined and imprisoned. And there was no round up and arrests of any patrons or non-management staff in those bars for anything, much less for anything related to them patronizing or working in a "prostitution establishment" according to Thai Law.
It's always possible I suppose. But all of the known characteristics of a WS bar and a Soi 6 bar as well as every detail of those linked reports argues very much against it.
EihTooms has given us his opinions as a lay person
[U]Opinions of [b]EihTooms[/b][/U]
[QUOTE=EihTooms;3087601]speaks volumes about how overt and shameless one needs to go for Thai authorities to bother with it.[/QUOTE]Your opinion. You have neither enforced Thai Law no spoken with the Thai authorities in order make this statement.
[QUOTE=EihTooms;3087833]It's a stretch and highly doubtful that either the Windmill Bar or the Soi 6 bar were determined to be "prostitition establishments" in this case. All of the details of the reports you linked argue against it.[/QUOTE]You actually don't know what was in the charging documents so you are making your statement with incomplete information.
I deal in FACTS!
[B]In the history of ISG no one has ever produced legal opinion from a member of the bar in Thailand that says: [i]Prostitution is Legal in Thailand[/i][/B]
The actual definition of prostitution reads as follows:
[U]Prostitution[/U] means the acceptance of sexual intercourse, the acceptance of any other act, or the commission of any other act for sexual gratification of another person [U]in a promiscuous manner[/U] for remuneration or any other benefit, irrespective of whether the person who accepts such act and the person who commits such act are of the same or opposite sex;.
[B]in a promiscuous manner[/B] is not defined in the law nor has it been defined in Thai Courts.
There is no definition of [U]solicitation for prostitution[/U] written into the law.
There is no definition of [U]overtly and shamelessly[/U] or [U]cause nuisance to the public[/U].
If a case was to goto Thai Court then the Judge would determine if the circumstances supported by the facts met the standard. That standard is not set up front.
[B]Prostitution Establishment[/B] means the place or premises arranged for prostitution or allowed for prostitution, and shall include the place used for making contact or procuring another person for prostitution;.
There is not requirement that a venue advertise that they are a [I]prostitution establishment[/I] in order for them to be one. They simply must have premises arranged or allowed for prostitution or be a place used for making contact for prostitution.
That is the plain language of the law. It needs no interpretation from a non-Thai citizen, non-Thai member of the bar.
[QUOTE=EihTooms;3087601]The police had to wait to be tipped off by an informant that prostitution was taking place inside the bars before they bothered to go inside them. And even then they had to wait until an offer to exchange sex for money was made to them.[/QUOTE]Anyone one who is actually familiar with police work on a street level would identify this a excellent police work.
[QUOTE=EihTooms;3087601]That is antithetical to the whole idea of a prostitution [B]in a promiscuous manner[/B] establishment being set up for the purpose of prostitution as Thai Law clearly but narrowly defines it.[/QUOTE]This is your opinion. [B]in a promiscuous manner[/B] is not defined in the law nor has it been defined in Thai Courts. You cannot speak for the Thai Courts. But you can always give your [I]lay opinion[/I] as a non-Thai Citizen, non-member of the Thai Bar.
[QUOTE=EihTooms;3087601]Nobody needs to be tipped off by an informant and sit inside a McDs until someone's asks them if they want a hamburger to know immediately a block away that the building with those Golden Arches and the words "delicious cheeseburgers, 99 baht" on the window is a hamburgers sold in a promiscuous manner restaurant.[/QUOTE]Once again this is your opinion. Filled with outrageous analogies that do not apply and a insane amount of hyperbole. There is no requirement that a [B]prostitution establishment[/B] has to be clearly marked as you assert. Plain language of the law.
[QUOTE=EihTooms;3087601]There is no mention in the reports that anyone was arrested and charged with running a "prostitution establishment", which has its own category of charges and penalties associated with it in the Prevention and Suppression of Prostitution Act of 1996.[/QUOTE]There is no mention that they were not charged with a violation of [B]Section 6[/B]. You are reading a news report, not a police report, nor the charging document. You actually don't know for a fact what anyone was actually arrested and charged with in this particular case. You only know what you read in the article. You are the one always making the case that the news reports are incomplete. I can go through you previous posts, you have said this many times.
[QUOTE=EihTooms;3087601]Of the very few arrests and charges mentioned in the reports, the only people who were arrested and charged with anything were 3 people in Windmill Bar who could only have been proprietors, managers and / or mamasans of the Bar. And charges were only left pending for anyone at the Soi 6 bar. There was no mention of prostitutes or customers of prostitutes being arrested and charged for any crime in those bars.[/QUOTE]You are reading a news report, not a police report, nor the charging document. You actually don't know for a fact what anyone was actually arrested and charged with in this particular case. Your statement supports the idea that I have always proffered that there is [U]selective enforcement[/U] of the laws in Thailand related to the issue of prostitution.
[QUOTE=EihTooms;3087601] As you, I and anyone who has read the Section in the Act related to "prostitution establishments", the Law is that virtually anyone and everyone consorting, working in or patronizing a "prostitution establishment.[/QUOTE]This is incorrect.
Lets review the law again:
[B]Prostitution Establishment[/B] means the [U]place or premises arranged for prostitution[/U] or [U]allowed for prostitution[/U], and shall include [U]the place used for making contact[/U] or procuring another person [U]for prostitution[/U]; .
[QUOTE=EihTooms;3087601] as characterized by the Act's clear but narrow definition of prostitution in Thai Law is subject to being arrested, heavily fined and imprisoned.[/QUOTE]Once again you are incorrect. If you actually have read the law there are very specific provisions in the law that create the violations related to prostitution. We goto the language of the law once again:
[I][u]Section 5[/u]
Whoever, for the purpose of prostitution, offers, solicits, introduces oneself to, follows, or importunes another person on a street, in a public place, or any other place and such act is overtly and shamelessly committed or causes nuisance to the public, [u]shall be punished with a fine not exceeding one thousand baht.[/u][/I]
[B]EihTooms[/B] considers 1000 THB as a heavy fine?
[QUOTE=EihTooms;3087601] And there was no round up and arrests of any patrons or non-management staff in those bars for anything, much less for anything related to them patronizing or working in a "prostitution establishment" according to Thai Law.[/QUOTE]You are reading a news report, not a police report, nor the charging document. You actually don't know for a fact what anyone was actually arrested and charged with in this particular case. Your statement supports the idea that I have always proffered that there is [U]selective enforcement[/U] of the laws in Thailand related to this issue.
[QUOTE=EihTooms;3087601] It's always possible I suppose. But all of the known characteristics of a WS bar and a Soi 6 bar as well as every detail of those linked reports argues very much against it.[/QUOTE]It is possible. You know it. You don't have to suppose. I don't know for sure either. I have not read the police report or the charging document. News reports don't mean jack in the courtroom. Even in the podunk country you are from.
[B]EihTooms[/B] has never seen the inside of a courtroom in his life except if it was for jury duty in his podunk country, in the podunk state, in the podunk county, in the podunk city where he is from. He has never cracked open a law book or a legal code. He has never analyzed the elements of a law then had to apply those elements to the facts of the case while writing a police report or explain them to a prosecutor who is charged with creating a charging document.
[QUOTE=EihTooms;3087601]I have been in Windmill a few times and could see there were customers paying the ladies for "sexual gratification" activities like DATY right onstage, in full view of everyone in the bar and it being done as a matter of routine exchange of money for sex. The fact that we can only vaguely recall one time in the past when that place was closed down for being a "prostitution establishment" [u]but only for drifting into the part of Thai Law where the ST rooms on the premises could be construed as concrete evidence they were running a commercial prostitution[/b] [B]in a promiscuous manner[/B] establishment[/QUOTE][B]The Prosecution rests using the words of the defense![/B]
[URL]https://mekongmigration.org/labourlaw/images/labourlaw/pdf/thailand/49%20Prostitution%20Prevention%20and%20Suppression%20Act%201996.pdf[/URL]
EihTooms continues to press his opinion
[QUOTE=EihTooms;3087935]Ok, let's see what we all have been taught about Thai Law according to [B]SubCmdr[/B], only to [B]SubCmdr[/B] and no one else on the planet:
In his opinion and based on zero facts he alone has decided Windmill Bar on WS and the Soi 6 bar were deemed to be "prostitution establishments" by the police, the Thai DOJ and the people whose reports he linked to supposedly support anything he has been asserting about the legality of venues and locations that simply happened to have been the site of a legal or illegal solicitation for prostitution according to Thai Law and / or the fulfillment of an agreement to the perfectly legal and well-known and well-understood by the police and DOJ to be non criminal exchange of money for sex or sex for money between consenting adults in Thailand.
That is despite there being no mention of those bars being identified by anyone, not the police, not the DOJ, not the reporters, no one except [B]SubCmdr[/B] quite a long time later that either bar was a "prostitution establishment".
It is also despite no one, not one single person in the bar, patronizing it, associtaing with the proprietors, the management, the staffers, other customers, not one person inside, outside, walking into them, out of them, nowhere related to the interior of those bars being arrested and charged with the clearly stated in plain language criminal penalty outcomes for anyone doing so in a "prostitution establishment" according to Thai Law.
It is also despite zero mentions in the reports he linked of even one prostitute nor one customer of a prostitute in either bar being arrested "for prostitution" of any kind according to Thai Law or for that matter even according to some Podunk country's law that Thailand and Thai Law doesn't give a shit about or prosecute anyone in Thailand for ever, much less for patronizing or working in a "prostitution establishment" according to Thai Law.
And, how about that; all of those facts vs [B]SubCmdr's[/B] unsubstantiated opinions are right there in the plain language of Thai Law and the reports he linked, easy enough for anyone to read and comprehend without a Law degree, passing the Thai bar, ever having been personally convicted of a crime and without being a Thai citizen.
Well.
No doubt about it, [B]SubCmdr[/B] is certainly teaching me and I have to assume everyone else who reads his posts something very important about Thai Law, his understanding of it and what he repeatedly tries in vain to convince anyone else reading his posts about it. But it doesn't appear to be the lesson he thinks it is.[/QUOTE][U]Opinion[/U]: [I]A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof[/I].
This is exactly what [B]EihTooms[/B] is giving us. He is not a Thai Citizen nor is he a member of the bar in Thailand. His so called [I]facts[/I] are based on second hand knowledge in news reports. He has not read the police reports nor has he read the charging documents. The actual facts of the case are contained in those documents.
[U]Here is a FACT undisputed by [b]EihTooms[/b] that he continues to ignore:[/U]
[B]In the history of ISG no one has ever produced legal opinion from a member of the bar in Thailand that says: [u]Prostitution is Legal in Thailand[/u][/B]
[QUOTE=SubCmdr;3087888]It is possible. You know it. You don't have to suppose. I don't know for sure either. [u]I have not read the police report or the charging document[/u]. News reports don't mean jack in the courtroom. Even in the podunk country you are from.
[u]You are reading a news report, not a police report, nor the charging document. You actually don't know for a fact what anyone was actually arrested and charged with in this particular case[/u]. Your statement supports the idea that I have always proffered that there is selective enforcement of the laws in Thailand related to this issue.[/QUOTE]This is what I wrote!
News reports are not the police reports nor the charging documents. That is a FACT. A [I]truth[/I] that [B]EihTooms[/B] continues ignore. On this forum, I will continue to assert my opinion. [B]EihTooms[/B] can continue to assert his opinion about the law. Both of our opinions have zero legal weight with the police or with the Thai Courts. Neither I nor [B]EihTooms[/B] are members of the bar in Thailand.
In my opinion: the law (The Act) that we are discussing are written to allow for [B]selective enforcement[/B]. It's all good. Until it isn't. Just like what happened with the [U]Nominee Structures[/U] here in Thailand. Now, I have a theory as to why these laws are written as they are and why they are [B]selectively enforced[/B] but that is another discussion.
[U]It should also be noted[/U]
I don't give a fuck what [B]EihTooms[/B] thinks. His opinion holds no weight with me nor with the Thai Courts.
