Case of British swinger illustrates Thai justice

The Bangkok Post has reported that a British man who ran a business arranging swinger parties in Thailand has been arrested by police.

The 54 year old man, Christian Arthur Richards, was arrested at the scene of one such party on Thursday. Police also held six Thais and 16 foreigners found with Richards in a Bangkok hotel.

Richards ran a website to arrange and advertise the parties which cost 3,000 baht (circa £60) per person. It is thought that he arranged at least 100 parties in Bangkok and notorious party/sleaze resort Pattaya.

Richard's punishment is interesting part of the story, the police are suggesting he will face either "a 10 year jail term or a fine of up to 20,000 baht".

Ten years sounds incredibly harsh, for a victimless crime and with no prostitutes were involved. Wouldn't it be ironic if a professional sex party organiser had to spent 10 years eating porridge and taking showers in a Thai slammer?

Back to reality, this is Thailand and a fine will most likely be sufficient and, as is often the case, the fine is hardly a deterrent.

Given that his parties typically attracted 20-25 'guests', the fine is less than a typical event's earnings (20,000 equates to less than 7 paying customers). As a veteran of more than 100 parties, 20,000 should be well within his reaches rendering the fine is a truly pitiful slap on the wrists.

Welcome to Thai justice where money is king and (some) crimes far darker and more sinister than this can be settled with no great punishment or deterrent for future offenders.

The saga of The Economist

[More than little slow to the punch here but...] Last week's edition of The Economist was banned in Thailand after it lead with a story entitled 'Right Royal Mess'.

The article looks at the Thai royal family's role in politics, laying a significant proportion of blame for the country's current malaise with King Bhumibol Adulyadej. The article gives insight into the king's uneasy relationship with ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra, the uncertain future of the monarchy beyond Bhumibol's reign, the current 'red vs yellow' political split and media censorship - criticism of the monarchy is forbidden, so the press is effectively self-regulated on the issue.

Despite rumours of an outright ban, The Economist did not circulate the issue "out of consideration" to its local distributor which would have"risked breaching Thai laws" (see guardian.co.uk article).

The irony writing about press-restrictions, and then being governed by said restrictions is not lost on me. I'd like to think that The Economist did all it could to distribute the issue, out or principle, but the reality looks to be down to money and the negative effects of distributing.

The article is well worth a read and can be done so in full, online here.

Just to clarify, normal service has resumed and the print publication is available again, including a letter from Thailand's Foreign Minister.

However the storm following the article is still raging with a number of newspapers, particularly The Nation, responding to issues raised , with expat bloggers taking these articles to task.

This is Thailand and life goes on the same regardless of The Economist or the valid issues raised.

As they say here mai pen rai (it doesn't matter).