Transcript of the above video: 

This is another one of these sort of informal videos. Apologies, we are having issues with this mic because I said if I can't get the mic dealt with this week, I'll get a new mic for next week, if I'm going to keep doing these informal videos. I have really appreciated a lot of people's input regarding the audio stuff; I'm hoping this sounds better now. I'm trying to offset this mic apparently this mic you don’t speak directly into it; you want to sort of set It off to the side from you. 

That said, as the title of the video suggests, we're talking about the "Beach Bully" yet again. When I have talked about this in the past, I had some people say ‘well you didn't get in the background’. Well I've done multiple videos on this at this point, I think seven or eight probably so you can go back into the search function in our channel and look up basically the history there. I thought of making this video after reading a recent article from the Bangkok Post, that is bangkokpost.com, the article is titled: Phuket Court finds Swiss "Beach Bully" innocent of kicking doctor. So a lot of the background is really in this article, so if you're curious for the background, I'll put a link below. We usually cite stuff, in my standard videos we usually citestuff visually. On these videos because it's a little more informal, I will go ahead and put the link up so you can see what I'm talking about. Quoting directly: "Phuket Kwaeng Court on Tuesday reportedly acquitted a Swiss man charged with kicking a woman doctor sitting on steps leading down to the beach outside his villa in February." And if you get into again the detail, you can read in that article, turns out the steps were encroaching on public property. Then there was also some question as to whether or not there was intent to actually kick anybody or whether or not there was just an accident that basically caused somebody to get kicked I guess. It appears that the Court, well let me quote further. Quoting further: "The Court gave the benefit of the doubt to Urs Fehr, 45. No further details of the ruling were available”. Then quoting further, and they get into the backstory, I'm not going to go into all of that but "the incident caused an uproar, splashed across social main stream media. Local residents rallied and demanded Mr. Fehr's expulsion and Immigration Police revoked his Visa considering him a threat to society. Mr. Fehr appealed against the revocation." Now let me quote further, and I'm going to come back to that because I want to talk about this from the Immigration standpoint. Quoting further: "He was also fined over a road rage incident with an ambulance driver and his Elephant Foundation's license was investigated. Authorities also revoked licenses for a pistol and a rifle registered to Mr. Fehr's and his elephant foundation. On Tuesday Phuket Kwaeng Court reportedly found him not guilty of the incident that sparked the furor. Dr. Thandao’s father" (now that's the alleged victim in this situation) "Kasem Chandam, confirmed that the Court found in the defendant's favour. He said his daughter was upset by the ruling. Her lawyers would request a full copy of the Court's judgment in the next few days." So it does appear that he has been acquitted on mischarge.

Now back to the Immigration issue. As we talked about in a prior videos, the Head of the Ministry of Interior itself actually chimed in on this regarding the revocation of the underlying visa and bear in mind, Immigration matters are different from Court matters. This is the same in the American Immigration system .I've discussed this in videos regarding for example grounds and inadmissibility to the United States. For example even though one might not have committed a crime in the sense of they were convicted in a Criminal Court, there are things like crimes involving moral turpitude, there are things like prostitution, where even just admitting it, even there just being the factual existence of something even without an adjudication can lead to inadmissibility. It will be interesting to see because there are like other complaints that were lodged against this person. Again it raised a major furor. Now he may have been acquitted and that may be because the Courts were just; I don't know the underlying reason behind the acquittal. I'm not the Judge; I wasn’t involved in the adjudication. As we said at the outset it's a good idea to wait until there is a full adjudication before commenting regarding the underlying case itself. At the end of the day, it's the adjudication that has to occur. He has been acquitted.

Now that said, it's not necessarily a foregone conclusion that the acquittal will lead to the Visa not being revoked or a termination of the Visa revocation. Because again immigration is a different system and if it's determined for example under the Immigration Act of '79 here in Thailand, again they could say threat to Public Health, threat to Public Safety, threat to National Security - any of those things.  You don't necessarily need some kind of conviction from a Court, to be able to revoke a Visa under those circumstances. So again while I am sure this person is very relieved that this case has gone down the way it has, that this person has been found not guilty in the actual adjudication, it remains to be seen whether or not this will have implications in an Immigration context; will this person still be deported; will the visa revocation be upheld, remains to be seen. We'll try to keep you updated as best we can on this channel.