@Tod ********

maybe tech nerds think these things are important than the rest of the world or 'normal' people. Most clients are just interested in ease and reliability of contact than what a Hotmail account means

@Jaap ***********************

jurisdiction is usually determined by residence. You can state a jurisdiction in the prenuptial but it doesn't mean that it can only be enforced that way

@Tod ********

I've used a Hotmail account professionally (albeit mostly as a secondary/backup account) for 25 years. I've never had another lawyer or court official mention that it wasn't "professional". Particularly for small firms or independent lawyers, it isn't uncommon

Doing a will is significantly easier

@Stuart ********

The IDP is valid for 1 year. If you are in Thailand for more than 90 days, then you are regarded as 'resident' (as generally speaking you can only stay in Thailand longer than 90 days if you are on some form of long-term visa), and residents are meant to use a local licence, which is where I believe the 90 day 'restriction' comes from. Insurance requires a 'valid licence' and invariably that seems to be interpreted broadly, which means that it's unlikely that provided that you are qualified to drive in your home country and have a current driving licence at the time of the accident (whether Thai or foreign). the insurance company won't seek to avoid paying against the policy on that basis.

@Bobby *******

What's the police interpretation then? There have been several different 'interpretations' published in the press. I have never once seen anyone actually refer to the specific law that states that foreigners have to carry their passports. There is, however, a law that requires all persons in Thailand (including Thai citizens) to carry ID with them at all times, which is a different thing entirely as of course a passport is a form of ID, not the only form of ID. There have been instances of the cops fining or trying to fine foreigners for not having their passports, and there have been high ranking officials going on record to say that that was wrong, so I am not saying that there isn't or hasn't been a problem at street level. However, saying that you have to do something because it's the law is wrong if that isn't actually the law and that's the point I am making.

Brett Wilkins What I take issue with is the number of expats who just parrot information without knowing either the law or the basis behind any interpretation of the law. It's one thing to say that for practical reasons, it is best to carry your passport (or have easy access to it) and another entirely to say 'It's the law: you have to (or else!)'

Brett Wilkins That's absolutely correct, but many people (including, it seems, the Thai police), conflate that to mean that foreigners have to carry their passports at all time, which isn't (of course) the same thing at all (a passport is a form of ID, not the only form of ID). I remember reading somewhere that only Thai Immigration Police have the authority to require you to produce your passport (apparently normal Thai police don't have access to the immigration database), but of course even if that is correct, trying to argue it out at the police station is likely to be a futile exercise and easier to just produce your passport.

@Martin *********

Why is pointing out that something is inaccurate bitching? It's completely factual. what is pretty moronic comment is bitching about my comment being hypocritical in itself

@Brett ********

Strictly speaking, that isn't correct, but arguing the law with the police is usually a futile exercise