According to Joan Smith at the Guardian the reason that Derrick Bird went on his killing spree in Cumbria was that he was a sexual predator.
The reason being, using her tortuous and convoluted logic was that he visited prostitutes in Pattaya. In fact he was so much of a predator that he insisted on seeing the same girl every time he visited the bar where she worked and he sent her over a thousand pounds so she could quit the bar game, thus â Guardian logic follows â his depravity forced him to become a mass murderer on returning home.
Of course the bleatarati got going with the comments like âhow true!â and âban menâ (yes really) by people who have obviously never been to Thailand and learned all there is to know about the Thai sex trade from the pages of the Guardian. A few real gems stood out, such as one by some idiot calling itself âproudlycynicalâ who said: âsex tourism in Thailand is officially a state sanctioned industryâ¦â That comment pretty much summed up the Guardianistaâs view on Thailand and anyone who loves (and more importantly knows about) this country will know that it is completely untrue. In fact the reverse is true; it may be overlooked, in return for suitable brown envelopes regularly arriving on senior police officerâs desks, but prostitution is actually illegal in Thailand.
And what about this priceless gem from Damntheral who said: â[â¦]because we see men using prostitutes as ânormalâ, we fail to stop men like Derek Bird before itâs too late: that in short, we must view all men who use prostitutes as vermin at best and potential mass-murderers at worst. Only then can we be protected from men like Derek Bird.â Or from Paleologue we have: âThousands of men go off all the time to sample the dubiousâ delightsâ of near-paedophilia in Thailandâ. Near-paedophilia? What on earth is near-paedophilia?
There is nothing new in this: I remember an article in the Denver Post a few years ago where their reporter stated that you could get underaged girls forced to perform fellatio on you while you sipped your latte in a particular coffee shop in Bangkok. The problem was that the coffee shop she mentioned happened to be a very up-market cafÃ©, in an expensive area of Bangkok, that is frequented by well heeled Bangkokians. I spoke to a few of them at the time about it and they were incandescent with rage (i.e. they frowned) at the big fat quivering lie.
And if the mendacity didnât get you the hypocrisy would because, as everyone in Denver knows, the Denver Post is situated on Colfax Avenue which is THE place in Denver to pick up under aged crack whores. In fact you could stand almost on the steps of the Denver Post building any evening and youâd be accosted by pimps pushing the services of their 13 and 14 year old victims. Has the Denver Post campaigned against this? What do you think?
But theyâre not alone, other news organizations feel itâs perfectly ok to trash Thailandâs reputation; for example take this steaming pile from the BBC. There are so many lies in that article it is almost impossible to fisk but note that the girl was a volunteer, she could leave at any time and eventually did. She also said: âOne time a Japanese man followed me all the way home at the end of the night, and he kept screaming at me,â but forgot to mention that it was because she had ripped him off. Oh yes and note the fact that western men âprefer children or young girlsâ forgetting to mention that sleeping with an under-aged girl is a VERY serious offence in Thailand which would land both the punter and the bar owner in the Bangkok Hilton for a very long time. The Thais even jailed a Senator, who are usually immune to just about everything, for 30 years for sleeping with a 15 year old.
My Thai friends want to know why the BBC â the BBC of all people â should tell lies like this. How do you explain that dogma trumps verity in todayâs BBC to people that always believed that auntie told the truth?
Back in Guardian world Ms Smith went on to write in crayon: âThe widespread cultural imperative to normalise sex tourism by Western men in south-east Asia is a barrier to admitting how damaging the trade is to women.â
Listen love; let me help you out here, because you are obviously utterly ill informed, by telling you the real story of sex tourism in Thailand.
First of all let me correct one of your assertions, to whit: âItâs a centre of Thailandâs deeply exploitative sex trade, where foreign men go to pay for sex â it costs as little as Â£10 â with young Thai girls and women who have been forced into it by poverty.â
I happen to agree that it is deeply exploitative but not of the women working in the industry but the poor suckers who get snared by them. Almost every week a foreigner hurls himself to his death from Mike Bazaar [sic] in central Pattaya after being fleeced out of his life savings by unscrupulous bargirls. You can see a discussion on the topic here by Pattaya residents and an example here.
From the moment they step off the bus from Isaan these girls are taught how to extract the maximum amount of money from their mark, often without even sleeping with him. All new bargirls, who know exactly what theyâre doing long before they arrive, are issued with a small book in which there are listed some âusefulâ phrases like: âHallo hansom manâ and âyou buy drink/gole for me?â They are also extensively coached, by their âsistersâ, on how to manipulate their mark emotionally so they can get him to âsponsorâ her into quitting the game by sending her money every month. I know a lot of girls who have 10 or more sponsors sending up to Â£1,000 pm each and, more often than not, they also pay for her apartment and car. Meanwhile these same girls carry on hooking new victims by continuing to work in the bars. Note that they are not forced but choose to stay in the industry because it offers excitement, money, fun and unfettered sex which are totally lacking back in their villages. Yet they are still able to send money home to support their siblings or offspring. There is no way an uneducated village girl can command that sort of money in any other job. No wonder there is no shortage of new girls entering the trade â this is Hollywood Thai style.
The clever ones parlay their money into legitimate businesses (I know one girl who owns a massive supermarket in her home town â she now works in a massage parlour in Leicester incidentally, leaving her mother to run it â and another who owns a fleet of Bangkok taxis) others thoroughly enjoy themselves, spending their money on gambling, drugs and booze, until their looks fade and their prices drop to the Â£10 mentioned in the article. This is the point where they seriously start to look for a foreign husband.
What about their âpredatorsâ though, those evil western men? Arenât they all vicious, nasty, exploitative baskets who get off on forcing under-aged girls to do unspeakable things? Which they can only do in the fleshpots of Asia; because, as we know from the Guardian, Asians are all foul misogynists who actually enjoy pimping their under aged daughters to foreign sleazebags.
Well you can read some of their real life stories here. Aside from the cock wavers most of the stories are full of pathos or impotent anger. These are not exploiters, these are the exploited. The MSM seems to have problems with why these men come here and, after wracking their brains, came up with the notion that theyâre either paedophiles or they get off on dominating meek women.
Well, as far as the second point goes, they obviously havenât met any Thai women. Anyone that knows will tell you that they are quite capable of mindless, screeching, armed, fury especially if they think they are losing face. There are a lot more men maimed or killed either by women or on behalf of women than the converse.
As for paedophiles, yes there are some, but the Thais take a pretty dim view of them and it usually isnât long before they get their collars felt by the boys in brown (Police) after a tip off. Oddly enough the majority of the cases I have seen concern Cambodian children smuggled in and exploited by their mothers! Funny how nobody in the Guardian ever mentions that fact.
Just about every man Iâve talked to about the subject over here gave me the same answer and that was they felt that Thai women are more âRealâ â aka feminine. And theyâre not talking about them being more subservient because, if there is one thing that every Thai woman believes in and that is that she is the equal of any man. And they are, in fact theyâre more than equal. Women own well over 60% of the wealth of the country and at one time men were regarded almost as chattels. The custom was that if a man wanted to marry the daughter heâd have to pay âSin sotâ or dowry. But not in money, no instead he had to work, for free, on the family farm for a year and a day. Land was always passed down the matriarchal line and was worked by the men. The quid pro quo is that girls are expected, by both custom and practice, to care for their parents in their old age as well as their own offspring â men, on the other hand, were only expected to give their monk robes to their mothers.
Hence you arrive at the situation where many men are feckless womanizers taking no responsibility for anything, which leaves the women bearing the burden â oddly enough you can see the same thing happening in parts of South London.
Security for their family is what drives a lot of poor Thai women and makes them ruthless and exploitative and frankly who can blame them?
But they cannot be regarded as being exploited at least not by westerners who are, if anything, their saviours.
By publishing this blether the Guardian, like the BBC, appears to have finally given up trying to be a serious, factual news outlet.