aroiaroi

30 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

you maybe discussing the issue via their reports but I am not and I suspect most people in Thailand aren't either

I am sure you must know the term "gutter press" or "chequebook journalism" they relate to what people think about journalists

 

Don't make the mistake of shooting the messenger if you don't like the message.
 

12 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

And everyone knows if these international journalists were offered a freebie holiday to Thailand they would be on the 1st  plane out.

Most people in Western countries don't rate their journalists higher than a turd that you find on the bottom of your shoes

And yet here we are discussing the issue via their reports.

Like it or not, journalism these days is increasing driven by the click through rates.
The hotel resturant has served these journalists a very tasty headline meal: "Amazing Thailand. Enjoy your stay or go to jail". 

If negotiations break down, settlement isn't reached, and the customer gets thrown in jail, international journalists have their trigger finger on the publish button with headlines such as:

"Amazing Thailand. Enjoy your stay or go to jail".

That type of damage in terms of direct loss of tourists will be difficult to quantify esspecially with covid masking things.
A better way to assess damage would be to estimate the reach and duration of these international headlines and calculate the cost of equivelant tourism campaigns, then multiply that by some factor of x (people remember the negative headlines more than the positive ones). So it's potentially many millions of dollars damage.
 

14 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

Tourism Authority Governor foresees negative feedback internationally as ‘relatively minor’ and refused to intervene as the case is before the courts

Mr Yuthasak indicated that, at this time, his agency was busy fielding calls from anxious tourists attempting to gain entry to Thailand and that ‘negative feedback is relatively minor’ in relation to the incident concerning the American’s one-night hotel stay on Ko Chang.

They are in the middle of an important negotiation.

TAT is smart to play it down - they don't want to give leaverage to the customer.

Their statements are hardly believable though. Stories like this put the industry at an international competitive disadvantage. "enjoy your stay or go to jail".

4 hours ago, vinny41 said:

Richard Barrow did try to push the case to TAT their reply was

But since the case has already entered the legal process, it is beyond the scope of the agency to mediate or resolve the conflict.

As to the rest of your post that your personal opinion but many people disagree with you 

I wouldnt assume to take TATs statement on face value. It's a standard type of reply no doubt.
As the thread title implies, they are the biggest stakeholder in this.

They won't just drop charges without conditions.

1. Probably they will ask him to publically apologise (part of saving face).

2. He would also be asked to sign a non-disparagement agreement

3. To soften (1) and (2), he should be offered a private compansatory payment.

If the deal is unsatisfactory, he may refuse but then he is in the courts hands. That is a black box.


 

2 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

 left the hotel with no alternative

????  if the hotel couldn't think of better alternative, they must be run by incompetent management... wait a sec, wasn't their reason for pressing charges to stop the 1 start reviews ? how did that work out for them ????  

15 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

I suggest that you read further. The reports I have read from overseas news reports often have chitchat comments, bit like thaivisa. They, in the main have been negative towards this guy.

If he was Australian I would be posting that this guy is a kanker and not all Oz are as stupid as this guy.

I have. The general tone is "<deleted>..... I won't be travelling to Thailand next". 
The topic headline sums it up.

Foriegn diplomats also are considering including warnings for their citizens. 
TripAdvisor and Google and doing something similar.

It's clear this isn't an isolated incident related to 1 crazy tourist.
The real problem is a structural one. 

Just now, vinny41 said:

Its impossible to say as "the special one" refused to enter a discussion on the subject

Because he thought they were empty threats. 

Even if the timeline went like this: customer posted 1 star reviews, hotel sends flowers and a bottle of gin, and requests a discussion in good faith to see if some amicble solution could be found.... no response.... silence..... hotel pressed criminal charges.

Your justification for the dramatic escalation by the hotel between between the time of the 1 star review and the pressing of criminal charges, is weak.



 

34 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

Disasgree

Here is the timeline of events

29 Jun First TripAdvisor Review

3 July Second TripAdvisor Review

21 July Email (He later replied 11 Sep after he got arrested)

Roughly between 21-9 Aug First Google Review

A week after the first G- review Second Google Review

9 Aug TripAdvisor message sent (He later replied 11 Sep after

he got arrested)

3 Sep Phone call (He picked up but refused to discuss the

matter.
September 10, 2020 Collected NON B visa today
September 11, Arrested

 

If "the special one" stopped published reviews in July no-one knows if the hotel would have press charges

but no "The special one" decided 2 reviews wasn't enough so he decided to published 2 more reviews with google

It's disingenous by the hotel or anyone else to frame the Sep 3 call from the hotel as an attempt to simply "discuss" the matter. Lets get real, it was a take down demand, backed by legal threats. 

Basically he made a few 1 star reviews, the hotel then demanded to take them down or be charged criminally, he ignored them, and ended up in jail and is going to court.
 

As ridiculous as it sounds, the narritive the hotel is spinning is that "we tried, we did all we could, but were left with no other option except criminal charges".
The escalation by the hotel from 1 star review to criminal charges betrays their intent.
This critical point may be lost on some but it hasn't been overlooked by the foreign journalists that have covered this story. 
 

1 hour ago, fasteddie said:

''but there is no no evidence of that intent'' au contraire, there is plenty of evidence they made numerous attepts to contact him to no avail, he just kept on slandering them. He's had his chance now let the courts decide, after all TiT!

I was refering to the intent behind the contact attempts: ill willed and disingenuous.

There is a big difference between reaching out with the intent of resolving a situation aimicably vs take down requests backed by legal threats & jail time threats.

The hotel has obviously phrased it this way in order to cover themselves legally and make themselves look reasonable. I suppose it's fooled some - but it's not too difficult (shouldn't be) to read between the lines and get the context.
 

36 minutes ago, fasteddie said:

Not a chance, his fault, the hotel is in the right here, ''The hotel claims they tried to contact the complainant to sort out the matter but he only stopped when police got in touch and took him to jail in Koh Chang.''

"Sort out the matter?" Normal business procedures might try and reach some compromise but there is no no evidence of that intent. based on the charges laid, it's not unreasonable to say the hotel made contact with ill intent. In Other words, "sorting out" the matter = escalating take down threats, legal threats, culminating in charges. 

He will most likely have to make a public apology, but privately get a chunk of cash from the hotel, and perhaps a bottle of gin.

The careers of the hotel manager is now basically over (self inflicted).


 

The news headline could have been better phrased.

The snowflakes that manage this hotel have made a terrible decision for the business and for their careers (it's a career ending mistake).

Pressing charges leading to jail time for a 1 star review ? Good luck trying to justify that to a future employer without looking like a complete fool.

17 minutes ago, robblok said:

His comments were wrong, he was out to destroy the restaurant.

Don't be so dramatic.
1 star reviews don't cause destruction of the restaurant. 
 

A fire might, an earthquake might... what else would destroy the restaurant ?... I dunno, snowflake hotel managers that jail a customer because they posted a 1 star review might. 


 

Apparently the court case is on the 6th of this month.

He should set up a go-fund me page for lawyer fees etc to fight this. The story has legs, I think he would certainally get more than enough to fund good legal representation. It would also give him some additional negotiation leverage.

Where there is smoke there is fire. It's highly unlikely this is an isolated incident.

In this particlar case, hotels, and the tourism industry, are the beneficiaries of this draconian law (probably quite a shock when their facade was exposed internationally). But more generally, this law extends to protect the interests of big companies and industries in Thailand. (yes, TIT).

I wonder how pervasive this practice is, how many reviews have been silenced via threat. Have a handful of 1 star reviews been deleted? Or hundreds (or more) via legal threat and gag "agreements" ? Some have been jailed (because they were lying or because they couldn't prove they were not ?) ????

What cosy relationship have the police had with the various industries, including the tourism industry to "protect" Thailands interests and each other ? 

Farang expats survive in Thailand by acquiescing, or at the very least, holding their tongue. This thread reflects some of that. No shame in that. I'd do it too if I were an expat.

However, defending this draconian law on a (semi-anonymous) forum is another issue.

I've already suggested one reason, but I will bite my tounge and not speculate on the other reasons.

2 minutes ago, Flying Saucage said:

If so, the manager did as the owner told him. It is almost beyond imagination that a foreigner himself starts to deal with a Thai court in such a case without an order from the owner.

Yes ultimately it would have had to come from the top via proxy. But both are culpable.