Trip Hop

6 hours ago, mlkik said:

This happened in Soi New Plaza between Soi Buakhaw and 2nd road. The report says the Emergency services arrived quickly and that is a lie. It happened opposite Maew burger and I had time to order and eat my burger and chips before the ambulance arrived.

It happened before I arrived but Maew did not mention that he was hit by a car only that another farang had decked him.

Looking at the road surface and adjacent bar it certainly looks more like New Plaza than Buakhao.

6 hours ago, save the frogs said:

People underestimate how dangerous alcohol is despite one horrific incident after another involving alcohol making the news.

 

Getting drunk in a bar full of strangers or frienemies is the worst thing you can do.

- Alcohol lowers inhibitions, so you are more likely to insult others or get into fights

- Alcohol can bring up repressed anger

- Alcohol makes you lose your capacity to defend yourself or think clearly

That's a dangerous combination and people need to understand that getting drunk in bars is a high-risk activity

 

Have you ever thought about changing your screen name to Save the Brits? 🤣

1 hour ago, MalcolmB said:

I think they are there to make sure that the customers don’t run off after having sex with their girls.

 

They are hired by the pimp (who was a fellow Brit) to protect his girls, not hired by the Thai government tourist department to look after tourists safety. 
 

I hear all those Pattaya bars have been taken over by the Brit gangsters?
Little Britain?

You should try getting out a bit more to see for yourself instead of relying on what you hear?

I would say that over the last 5 years and most probably double that, that there has been a noticeable decrease in the amount of bars owned by Brits.  Also, your use of words such as pimp explains a lot about your knowledge.  Either that or you're just a troll

3 hours ago, transam said:

That clears a few things up, seems the Russian deserved the slap.......🤗

I totally agree and would have done exactly the same.  It's sad that the Russian has died, he didn't deserve that but it was just bad luck.  However, if he hadn't approached the daughter, it would never have happened.

In my life I've had one mate do a 5 stretch for a similar situation where a guy attacked him.  Another mate died where the situation was the other way around.  I bear no malice towards the guy responsible though as it was just bad luck.

57 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

Not deflection at all. I have explained why I won't reply on 3 separate occasions.

 

I have never thought I am any form of 'Oracle'. I have simply provided the rules - the rules that both countries and airlines agree to through ratification/membership.

 

I have never said it would be straightforward - airlines/insurers can and do try their best to wriggle in the hope that claimants will settle. I am fully aware that these court cases can go on for years. However, ultimately they are goverened by the rules and the rules are very clear. 

 

On this particular ocassion, Singapore Airlines have far more to lose through making things difficult than it would cost them. I fully expect them to settle any claims very quickly and without argument.

 

I would not be at all surprised if they had not already agreed to pick up the tab for injured passengers.  Thai hospitals want to know who's paying at a very early stage.

Let's turn this around:

I have shown you that Section 17 of the Montreal Convention establishes and airline's liability.

I have shown you that IATA recognises the Montreal Convention

Singapore Airlines are an IATA member coded as SQ

Singapore as a country has ratified the Montreal Convention.

Can YOU tell me of 5 cases in the last 10 years where an airline (IATA Member & Country Ratification) has won a compensation claim for injury or death where they have failed to establish fault on the part of the passenger?

Answering a question with a question and statements such as the first line of your reply posted above are text book examples of deflection.  So is your waffling about manufacturers' faults when we are talking airlines and your so called reasons for not just answering my request.

Let's be honest, you've already searched for the information that I requested and it can't be found.  I already knew this when I asked you but instead of just admitting this, you have continued to deflect.

Even if this incident is declared as an Act of God, I do believe that any of the injured passengers that were out of their seats with genuine excuse such as going to the toilet will be compensated by the airline.  Based on my former work colleague's experience though, I think that any such ones that were sat in their seats without their belts on or similar will face a much harder time.  One of the main considerations for any judge when ruling on liability/extent of liabilty is whether anything could have been done by the claimant to minimise/mitigate the same.  For the ones on this flight that were just sat with their belts not fastened, the answer is yes as they could have just simply fastened them as advised during the pre-flight briefing.

As previously said, the airline will do as much as it can for precedence not to be set as it will open the floodgates for future claims and cost them and every other airline far more in the future.  As for out of court settlements, my former work colleague wasn't looking for a US style payout, just a replacement flight and for them to cover the cost of his treatment plus a couple of hours lost wages for every time he was treated.  This didn't amount to a lot and the airline could have quite easily settled this before it even got into the hands of the solicitors but they chose not to and in the end it cost them far more in legal costs etc than if they had.

Don't be fooled that Singapore Airlines have far more to lose as most people with an ounce of common sense will see that it couldn't be avoided and will most probably just ensure that in the future their belts are fastened whenever in their seat.  Plus the demand for tickets will always be there if the price is right and if this was to happen in the future on any other airline, the way that it will be dealt with would be exactly the same.  As said previously, the airlines will stick together as not to open the floodgates and therefore there would be no benefit in boycotting Singapore Airlines as you will get exactly the same with every other one.

22 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

Let's turn this around:

 

I have shown you that Section 17 of the Montreal Convention establishes and airline's liability.

 

I have shown you that IATA recognises the Montreal Convention

 

Singapore Airlines are an IATA member coded as SQ

 

Singapore as a country has ratified the Montreal Convention.

 

Can YOU tell me of 5 cases in the last 10 years where an airline (IATA Member & Country Ratification) has won a compensation claim for injury or death where they have failed to establish fault on the part of the passenger?

Rather than answer my original request for you to name 5 occurrences in the last 10 years of where a passenger has successfully sued an airline for injury, you are still using deflection tactics as a means not to answer this.  Most probably because you will really struggle to find such occurrences and just don't want to admit this?  You have stated that you don't have the time to search for this information but again you have found the time to search for plenty of other and quote.  Strange this?

Another simple question for you?  Do you know someone on a fairly personal basis, e.g. work colleague, friend etc that has actually tried to put a claim in against an airline for injury?

I do and as said, it is far from as straight forward as what you believe and portray, regardless of what you may read and quote.

Let's leave it at that as you are far from the Oracle that you think you are.  If you contend this, just stop the deflection tactics and answer my original request?  I'm an honourable guy, will hold my hands up when wrong and even apologise if you prove so.  Let's see if you are cut from the same cloth?

14 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

Jeez, you will simply say anything - even when proven wrong.

 

That 'solicitors website' contains text lifted directly from the convention - such as this which is also on the Airlines Trade Body, IATA's website:

 

Liability of the Carrier and Extent of Compensation for Damage
Article 17 — Death and Injury of Passengers — Damage to Baggage
1. The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon
condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or
in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.

 

THAT IS THE ENTIRE CONDITION AS PER THE CONVENTION

 

https://www.iata.org/contentassets/fb1137ff561a4819a2d38f3db7308758/mc99-full-text.pdf

 

And this from the webpage itself:

 

The Montreal Convention 1999 (MC99) establishes airline liability in the case of death or injury to passengers, as well as in cases of delay, damage or loss of baggage and cargo. It unifies all of the different international treaty regimes covering airline liability that had developed haphazardly since 1929. MC99 is designed to be a single, universal treaty to govern airline liability around the world.

 

https://www.iata.org/en/programs/passenger/mc99/

 

If you think that I have nothing better to do than seek out details of compensation payments for you to come back and argue with that - you are fooling yourself. Been there, done that with several AN members in the past - I have more to do with my life.  I stand by all that I've said.

 

I have quoted from the actual rules whereas you make statements that allude to be from the rules then conveniently forget that when its shown that the rules state the opposite. Remember you said that the Montreal Convention was written in such a way that a claimant would have to 'undoubtably prove negligence' - as I have shown you, the actual convention shows that negligence DOES NOT have to be proved. Note Article 17 section 1 which very concisely deals with that and establishes liability in one simple paragraph.

 

I'm happy that the rules are in place and that passengers are covered by both the Montreal Treaty and individual country laws. I am also happy that eventually, every single passenger on the Singapore Airline's flight will receive full and adequate compensation.  I would not be at all surprised if Singapore releases a statement shortly to the effect that they will cover the hospital bills in Bangok.

 

I will say this though - in many cases passengers haven't had to sue.  Major crashes are often taken over by a country's authorities who either order compensation to be be paid or negotiate it with the airline on behalf of passengers.

 

Why don't you do the search - starting with Boeing and the Lion Air 737 Max that crashed (and yes, I'm aware that Boeing haven't finished paying yet).

 

Similar with the Boeing/Ethiopian Airlines 737 max crash.

 

Boeing are about to find themselves back in court, in part for failing to fully complete the compensation they previously agreed to.

 

Just waiting for you to come back and say 'thought so' in reply to my refusal to waste my time seeking out details of settlements. 

But you have the time to search out details of the Montreal Convention and solicitors who quote the same whilst touting for business?

Since when  has Boeing been an airline?  You're talking about manufacturing faults here which are a totally different issue.

It appears that rather than admit that things might not be as straight forward as you claim, you're trying to divert away from my simple request for you to substantiate the same?

Even out of court settlements make the news, even though the exact details do not.

1 hour ago, MangoKorat said:

Well, instead of speculating, let's wait and see.  My bet is that Singapore Airlines and/or their insurers will fully compensate passengers for any and all harm done.  They know very well that refusing to pay will lead to law suits, probably a class action that they will lose hands down because although they may not be to blame, they are responsible.  Then, not only will they have to pay compensation, they will be faced with a hefty legal bill.

 

One thing I am absolutely sure of, it is not up to anyone to 'prove negligence' they are responsible.   A way, way more minor matter but my suitcase came around the carousel one time - smashed to bits with the contents in a plastic bag in a tray.  The airline tried to say I should make a claim against the baggage handing company.  I searched online and found out that they were 'responsible' for my baggage from the moment I handed it over at check in.  I quoted them the rule and they paid up. 

 

If they're respnsible for a bloody suitcase, I'm damned sure they're responsible for passengers. Some airlines might put up a fight, I don't expect that from Singapore Airlines - especially with the publicity this incident has attracted.

 

Your take on the Montreal Convention - quote 'the Montreal Convention and any airline's conditions of carriage are written so that unless you can undoubtedly prove negligence by the carrier, it is very hard to make a successful claim against them.' appears to be at odds with this:

 

'If a passenger has been injured during air travel by anything that is out of the norm, then the airline is strictly liable. There is no need to prove that the airline has been negligent, making the process of making a compensation claim more straightforward than in many other forms of personal injury claims'

 

Article 17 of the Montreal Convention 1999 specifically covers liability for personal injury and provides that:

“a carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.''

In most personal injury claims it is necessary to prove negligence or a breach of statutory duty on the part of a defendant, but under the Montreal Convention 1999, it is only necessary to prove the following:

• That the accident was an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger
• That the accident was not down to the passenger’s own internal reaction to the usual, normal, and expected operation of the aircraft. i.e. deep vein thrombosis
• The accident took place upon the aircraft, whether it is in the air or not, or during the process of embarking or disembarking the aircraft.

https://www.psrsolicitors.co.uk/personal-injury-claim/no-win-no-fee-claims/flight-accident-claims

 

A quite clear statement that you DO NOT have to prove negligence.

You can quote all you like from solicitors' websites as they are just touting for business and will take on any case providing someone else is picking up the bill.  The reality is far from this though and if you do not agree, excepting the recent incidents where doors have blown off etc,  simply quote me say 5 incidents in the last 10 years whereby passengers have successfully sued an airline for injuries that have occurred on board.  Now considering the amount of flights worldwide per day, the subsequent probability of accidents and the amount of information that is stored on the web, this should not be too much of a task if everything is as you say?

The bottom line contrary to your beliefs is that an airline will fight tooth and nail incurring financial cost far in excess of settling any individual claim quite simply because if it admits liability and precedence is set, it will open the flood gates to future claims and cost them far more in the long run.  Even if someone did win and set precedence, don't be surprised if the airlines as a collective appealed the ruling due to it opening up the possibility of action against all of them,  As previously said, quote me 5 incidents where people have successfully sued?

21 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

They would likely have insurance coverage for this.

 

What is passenger liability insurance?
Passenger liability insurance is aviation insurance that specifically covers any passengers who are on board your aircraft. This type of insurance protects your passengers and ensures that you’re covered in an accident in which you’re liable that injures or kills a passenger.

 

https://avioninsurance.com/passenger-liability-insurance/

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

The key word is "liable".  Is SIA liable for passenger injuries caused during tubulence?  If all the passengers had been injured then SIA's liability could be huge but many walked away and flew on the next flight to Changi.  I'm certain many lawyers are arleady on the case. 

Correct as this could be deemed as an "Act of God", which is the mother of all exclusions and get out of jail card when it comes to liability and insurance payouts.

Due to air travel being subject to so many unforeseen risks, with regards to liability it is totally different to say travelling on a bus or train.  With the exception of minimum levels of compensation for say death etc caused by a crash or compensation for delays or cancellations, the Montreal Convention and any airline's conditions of carriage are written so that unless you can undoubtedly prove negligence by the carrier, it is very hard to make a successful claim against them.  This is why successful claims are very few and far between (even when to the layman they would appear reasonably just) with the last successful one I recall being a passenger who sued for being scalded by hot coffee accidentally tipped into their lap by a stewardess.  Apparently this was awarded not on the basis that the stewardess had an accident (as this could occasionally be expected due to human error and/or possible sudden movements of the plane) but on the basis that the airline should have foreseen the possibility and therefore not served the coffee at such a high temperature as to cause injury,

Basically when you get on a plane, the airline promises to get you from A to B and will try their utmost not for you to get injured in the process.  However they don't guarantee it and if you are injured, it is up to you to prove their negligence. Their conditions of carriage and the Montreal Convention don't even guarantee you a proper seat, i.e. you could end up in a jump seat for the flight and they will just pay you a fixed level of compensation after. However strange this may seem, it's the truth. 

I was on a flight about 30 years ago that hit clear air turbulence (or cloud drop as someone called it then) although nothing near to this extent.  At the time it was enough to lift me out of my seat although I avoided smashing my head on the overheads.  Since then I have always flown with my seatbelt loosely fastened and even on rare occasions when I have been lucky enough to have 3 seats to myself and stretched out a bit, I've always put the middle belt around me just in case.  Not only is it good practice, if sleeping it saves the flight attendants waking you up to put your belt on whenever the seatbelt sign comes on.

Whilst the airline or its insurers will most probably cover the medical bills out of courtesy, there will be no big payouts for any claims for minor injuries or possible stress caused as it looks like it was totally unforeseeable.  Additionally if you read the law/full terms of carriage for any flight, you'd be shocked at how little you are actually covered for?  

11 hours ago, kwaussie said:

Always ride your bike as if everyone is out to get you.

After riding on the road in various countries for over 40 years I totally agree.  When asked by biker mates back home as to what it is like riding in LOS, I always liken it to being similar to one of those old arcade video driving games where you have everything coming at you from all sides.  No matter how good you are at reading the road though, you can never prepare for being by some idiot from the rear.

Just now, connda said:

I bet you're up to date on your Covid vaccines and your boosters?

Actually no and I only had the first ones to protect my elderly parents.  Considering my late mother had mid/latter stage Alzheimer's at the time, my father was her main carer and made her a promise that he would never have her placed in a care home, I thought it was the responsible thing to do.  Why, do you have any problems with this?

2 hours ago, ryandb said:

Not this bs again, I've never had one and never had covid once or been sick in the 4 plus years over this hypercondriacs wet dream people are living in, it's a cold unless you have underlying health problems, if you do, treat them or act accordingly.

 

So having not had it, you are effectively commenting in ignorance.  Not that I believe it is worthy of the mass hysteria but it is far from just a cold as you state and affects different people in different ways.  Having had it myself 3 times (the last time being about 6 weeks ago), it has never really hit me that seriously although the last time/variant, I wasn't capable of anything other than sleeping and binge watching Netflix for a week.  On the other hand I have a mate who was a strong fit guy in his mid 30s, who spent 7 days in an induced coma during the early infection wave and states that it has affected him long term.  Tell him to his face that he's a hypochondriac and he'd drop you where you stood and most probably send you to ICU for a week. 

Strange this as a quick search of the internet reveals that whilst drugs like THC and Ketamine can be fairly easily added to a vape, meth & heroin are not really possible due to the high temperatures needed?  Easy solution is to legalise and license proper vapes so that they can be controlled and only sold by reputable vendors, then just confiscate the rest.  Vapes have been around in the UK for over 10 years and whilst there are some reports of them being laced with THC and Spice, it's not something that has really hit the headlines. 

Yes, perhaps she shouldn't be making money out of being an ex drug smuggler but so was Howard Marks, whom if you had met him was one of the most intelligent, intriguing persons that you would ever come across?

However,  I find it extremely sad that so many here are quick to judge her without no real experience of exactly how bad a drug heroin is, what type of person it can quickly turn you into and what was her life like before she got involved in it?  Having known a few addicts myself over the years, the one common reason given for their use is the escapism it provides from various problems previous or current in their life, as well as the physical pain that they go through when trying to withdraw.  No one here knows exactly how she first got involved, it may have been just teenage curiosity/foolishness but there again she may have been trying to escape something seriously bad that had happened in her life?  The one thing that I can tell you though is that once you are in, it is extremely hard to get out and therefore people should not be so quick to judge?  No one here is perfect and we've all made mistakes in life when we were young, it's just that hers as a teenager turned out over time to be a bit more costly than most of ours.  Therefore have some compassion as she's done her time and if her book deters just one person from making the same mistake (regardless of whether she is making money out of it or not), it will be worth it!      

Just heard on the local grapevine that there is a curfew in Bangkok for next weekend in the expectation of street protests. 
 

Before anyone goes on the attack, I can’t vouch for the truth in it nor whether it is related to this? All I can say is that I was just told by a local tourist restaurant owner. 

46 minutes ago, Classic Ray said:

They could always consider extradition if they know to where he travelled.

 

interpol Red Notice etc, lots they can do.

If he’s an Irani, there’s not many places that he can travel to without a visa, unless he has a 2nd passport?

Red notices normally only work when you’re entering a country. Knew someone from the UK who had one on him but was in LOS for years. His solicitor told him just don’t go travelling to any western countries. 

Lucky it wasn’t my missus? He might have died a slow death from either a hammer/large wrench to the head or a quick one from a big knife, depending on what she had stashed under the pillow when I’m not around? It’s even become a bit of a sport explaining to the BiB as to why there’s an offensive weapon under the seat of the motorbike whenever they pull me over!

On 4/29/2024 at 2:21 PM, richard_smith237 said:

 

Indeed - this would be the logical way to set things up.... 

 

What about regular post - i.e. grandparents sending presents over etc....     Are customs going to be jumping all over those packages too ??? and does this mean packages are going to take much longer to get through rather than the usual 1 week to 10 days ?

 

 

 

 

 

Only time will tell on this one because nobody knows their full intentions but they appear to be getting desperate for cash lately with all the recent changes to tax legislation? I can understand them wanting to clamp down on cheap imports but I think taxing everything imported including what may just be a simple present from a relative abroad is going a bit far?

It looks like someone at FETTA or TCT has been looking at the news in Europe, seeing what's going on in Spain/the Canaries and thought we'll have a bit of that?  Goes totally against what TAT is continually spouting though! Flip-flop!

4 hours ago, Dan O said:

issue staff and security guards with tasers. That tends to slow down the aggression when it gets above normal acceptable levels

I think the one time that I made the mistake of going to the Bangkok Samui several years ago, the security guard had a gun? Followed me everywhere until the insurance confirmed that they would cover the cost. For that reason alone I went elsewhere for the follow up rabies shots.