Indebted to kindness
A jeweller who claims gym owner and former model Chalomejit “Looktarn” Junkate assaulted her when she turned up at her gym last week to demand repayment of a 1.4 million baht loan says she regrets extending a helping hand to her former friend.
 |
| Looktarn |
 |
| Jum |
Thitapat “Jum” Akarasakdapirom, owner of the Blue Daimond jewellery chain, confronted Looktarn on Feb 2 at her Hotmanfactory SpeedFitness gym in soi RCA, Huai Khwang district after the ex-model, she says, blocked her on social media and refused to respond to her demand for prompt repayment.
The two, once close friends, have fallen out over the loans drama with Looktarn failing to pay back the debt as agreed by the end of 2018, forcing Jum to take on the burden of repaying the bank on her behalf for the past 12 months.
She said Looktarn approached her a couple of years ago asking if she could help her meet a cash shortfall as she wanted to expand her business. She reluctantly agreed to lend her the overdraft for her business, on which the bank charges 20% annual interest.
“I told her it was inconvenient but she kept calling and was determined to part me from my money at whatever cost,” Jum said. “I agreed as I felt sorry for her but I regret the time I wasted being her friend,” she told one interview.
A video clip of the pair outside the gym shows Jum asking Looktarn for payment. Looktarn refuses to talk and calmly gets into her BMW and drives away. In her complaint later to Makkasan police, Jum says Looktarn slapped her in the face, and that her young daughter, Belle, on hand as a witness, managed to capture the incident on her phone. However, if they have the clip they have yet to release it. Looktarn denies hitting her.
“When she turned up I asked her to take it outside as I didn’t want a scene in the gym where I had many customers,” Looktarn said.
“However, outside I decided I had nothing to say as we had met previously at the police station to discuss it. Our lawyers agreed that if she wanted payment beyond what I have sent her she could sell the items I left as surety,” she added.
The two entered an unusual arrangement where Looktarn was required to leave with Jum five items of jewellery, comprising four rings and a diamond necklace, and later a big bike, as surety for the loan.
They also entered three loan contracts, and on top of that Jum had Looktarn sign multiple cheques in advance covering a year of repayments, which she would progressively tear up each month as the loan was repaid.
One stumbling block was the pair could not agree on the value of the items Looktarn left as surety. The four rings included her wedding ring, which she had made at Jum’s shop. Jum declined to buy it back and the pair decided she would help in the form of a loan.
However, while Looktarn reckons her wedding ring was worth 1.6 million baht, Jum put the value at just 230,000 baht. Likewise, while Looktarn claims the big bike she left could fetch 650,000 baht, Jum, who visited the dealer, said it was worth just 200,000 baht.
“The items had no value to me because we had a friendship. I just wanted them as surety and had no intention of selling them,” Jum said.
The pair agreed Looktarn would make repayments of 70,000 baht a month, though the loan contracts did not specify how much was interest. Looktarn said she contacted her friend after paying 840,000 baht over 12 months only to be told she had yet to start repaying the principal.
Looktarn said she understood she was paying interest of 5% a year; Jum told her later it was 5% a month and she had yet to touch the principal.
Some reports claim that under their agreement a chunk of her repayments also cover a fee Jum charged her for doing her the favour of extending the loan. In one interview, Jum could not say how much she took for herself and how much she paid the bank.
Both sides met police with their lawyers last May when Looktarn agreed to offer the big bike itself as further surety, after previously giving her just the ownership papers. However, her lawyer later told her to stop repayments as the two could not agree on how much was still owed.
Looktarn says she is happy for Jum to seek legal action and to sell the surety in the meantime.
“Anything left over I will pay at the bank’s direction,” she said. However, Jum would rather Looktarn settle the debt and retrieve her surety instead. She asked her to pay her back late last month but says she was rebuffed.
“She claims I charge usurious interest, which has damaged my reputation,” Jum said, adding she would sue for defamation.
Looktarn’s celebrity lawyer, Nitithorn “James” Kaewto, says the interest charged exceeds that allowed by law, which is limited to 7.5% a year.
“Anything over that is null and void, so the balance of the repayment can go towards paying down the principal,” he said. The row continues.
HIV+ Pete versus the nurse
Gay activist Thitiwats “Pete” Sirasersthakorn says he will press on with his campaign to help gays who like unprotected sex stay safe, after netizens claimed a course he intended running could encourage the spread of the virus.
 |
| Pete |
Pete, who is HIV-positive and campaigns for safer sex on his Facebook page, “Pete Living With HIV Positive Undetectable”, came under fire last week when he advertised a course which, resorting to salty language, he named: “Get screwed the safe way for 500 baht.”
The ad gave rise to a variety of interpretations, with some claiming it was an invitation to group sex. Other critics, such as outspoken nurse Narinya “Ging” Mongkoleiam, said he was encouraging people with HIV to kill each other. “If unprotected sex is so safe, how come you ended up with HIV, you idiot?” she asked on social media.
Pete threatened to sue the young woman, and as their clash heated up it gave rise to the Twitter hashtag, #SaveNarinya.
As the social media commotion gathered pace, a city venue where Pete had booked a course on Tuesday pulled out.
A couple of TV shows which had invited Pete on air to discuss living with HIV also pulled the clips from YouTube after learning Pete had posted the links to his FB site.
 |
| Narinya |
The At Ten Day show on Channel 3 invited Pete on the show in January last year. Responding to the fuss, it said it had now deleted the clip and would take legal action against Pete.
“We invited him on the show to discuss living with HIV but he is citing the clip in the wrong way to encourage unprotected sex. We have a responsibility to society and will not support people with such poor views,” it sniffed.
Explaining his stance, Pete said people with HIV who take antiretroviral drugs and whose viral load has decreased to the point where it is no longer detectable can afford to have unprotected sex, as they are at no risk of infecting others.
He cited the slogan, “Undetectable equals untransmittable” and was backed by medical experts including Praphan Phanuphak, director of the Thai Red Cross Aids Research Centre.
“For those who take the anti-retroviral drugs, after testing their blood twice and finding no trace of the virus, they can have unprotected sex...but they must keep taking the antiretrovirals. If they do that they can lead normal lives including marrying and having children without endangering their families,” Dr Praphan said.
Ninety-five per cent of those who take the three-drug cocktail available in Thailand for six months end up with no detectable viral load, he said. However, Dr Praphan added some people do not know they have the virus, so wearing protection is the safest bet.
Other medical experts mentioned the risk of a sex partner picking up other sexually transmittable diseases, which was an added risk of wearing no protection.
Chaturong Jong-asa, an independent researcher, says many agencies try to spread understanding among Thais about the issues raised by Pete but are thwarted by those with no vision or understanding. “I have no problem with the course, as encouraging this group to have sex safely is good, but the language in which he couched the invitation was wrong. He used ribald language to lure people into joining.
“Then, in the absence of any better way to present information, he threatened to sue those who do not share his point of view. Pete should present the details to educate people so society will reach a new understanding,” he said.
Pete, who admits having had more than 1,000 sexual partners since being diagnosed about four years ago, some of it unprotected sex, had embarked on such a campaign on his FB by the end of the week. Earlier, he tried laying a complaint against nurse Narinya, but Sutthisan police declined to accept it.
He said he aimed his message at those gays who prefer unprotected sex. “There is a group out there who doesn’t wear protection and I want to help them. I want them to go and have themselves tested and start taking the antiretrovirals if they have HIV,’ he said.
He had previously posted a message seeking partners for unprotected sex claiming he had HIV and was taking hard drugs, another risk group for spreading the virus. “I wanted to test society to see if anyone was willing. People without HIV contacted me but I didn’t get back in touch,” he said.
He said he knew the wording of the ad was provocative, but took heart when the Aids centre director came out and confirmed his message was fine.
“I want a fairer deal for those with HIV. I haven’t met the nurse and don’t want to talk to her as we don’t see things the same way. If she wants to say sorry that’ll be enough.” Ms Narinya refused to apologise.
No comments:
Post a Comment