MangoKorat

Yes I know you were. However, the Thai police's attitude seems to be that all they have to do is say sorry. I suspect that they will also have contributed to the Thai Police Benevolent Fund.

Nowhere near good enough - not even for the Thai side. I doubt even the Thai public will be satisfied. From a legal point of view, all three should be charged with assault and the one who kicked the guy in the head should be facing an attempted murder charge.

A better suggestion, why don't you stop writing your rubbish and get your facts straight?

Its not only Brits and that's the fact of it. Would I accept my countrymen sometimes behave badly abroad - yes. Would I say they are the only ones - no way. Using football hooligans as an example - the UK is often portayed as the hub of it, yet there is much more severe violence in many other European countries - Poland and Turkey spring to mind. Even then, its not limited to Europe - Indonesia has a long history of football hooliganism. Granted, there are nations who's young men behave much better than some but the problem of violence amongst and between young men is actually world wide. Although its not reported as much these days, Thailand had (has) a major problem with gangs at Technical Colleges - rival gangs of kids as young as 14-16 have even killed each other. A lot of violence in Thailand goes (intentionally I suspect) unreported. This is not a new problem and its wrong to say that one nationality is worse than others - its a problem concerning young men, mainly under 30 and when you introduce alcohol into the mix, things get far, far worse. Security guards are supposed to stop violence through restraint, not perpetrate it. There is no excuse for the behaviour of the Brits in this incident but there is even less excuse for the actions of the 'Security Guards'. Thailand will try to play this down because of the effect on the country's reputation/tourism. I hope that doesn't work this time and that the incident is given to publicity it deserves. The 'security' business in Thailand needs regulating in Thailand - just as it has been in the UK and many other European countries. Thugs and gangsters cannot be allowed to run these businesses.

Interesting - security guards are employed to inflict punishment by violence. You're a sick man.

Getting very very tired of your ridiculous comments!

Totally agree. Generally the respect you are shown, depends on the respect you both present and show others. Granted, there are exceptions and a few will always regard you as dog dirt - isn't that the same in all countries? I know there are people in my country that treat any and all foreigners very badly. I have always been shown, respect, kindness and been made welcome. However, on one night out with Thai friends we received a phone call from the friend of a friend telling us that drinks were taking place at someone's house. When we arrived one person made it clear that he didn't like me before we'd even spoken. My mates saw this and we didn't stay long. Nothing was said afterwards but I think my mates were more embarrased than anything else. That was one guy on one occasion - I don't think you can form an opinion of an entire country based on that. I have an Aussie mate in Thailand who is well known and loved by everyone locally. Thai's go to him for advice and he is very well respected by all. He treats everyone with respect and always has time for them - you get out what you put in. However, as a foreigner anywhere, you may have to put a little extra in. If I had to state where I had received the least respect then it would be with with officialdom - especially immigration. On two occasions Thai women just walked in front of me in a queue as if I wasn't there - something that's never happened before, anywhere. However, its just twice in almost 22 years.

No idea about the Revo but with other cars, if you change the language on that screen, the language changes for everything else.

I have and they go way too far - usually because they far outnumber their opposition. The ones I've encountered have been little more than thugs. They are there to provide security, the law is there to dish out punishments. If the Brits punched a girl, the police should charge them with assault. We had years of this from doormen in the UK until the law was changed and security staff were placed under much more scrutiny. Before that the job was usually performed by the 'hardest' guys in the area, regardless of how crazy they were. They often seriously injured people and I believe there were one or two killings. I'm not in any way defending the Brts behaviour but when you sell alcohol, you have to accept what goes with it - drunk people, sometimes out of control. The best doormen are trained in how to resolve a situation, not just beat the crap out of anyone who steps out of line.

It is always possible that he may not be able to obtain a 12 month extension under any scenario. When I was married I used 12 month Multi Entry Non O's because I was never in the country long enough to go through firstly, waiting until the last 15 days of my stay before applying and then the waiting time for the extension. He may well have the same problem as he appears to be interested in how long the application process takes. From the little information he does give, it would appear that he doesn't live in Thailand at the moment. Again, more information is needed before anyone can advise him accurately.

After marrying in Thailand - which is what I 'presumed' in my first reply. You advised him after my post. There are several ways that he could obtain an extension - he can choose the one that suits himself. There is no 'one way' for any of what he asks, nothing wrong with giving him options - especially when he doesn't say much about his current status.

I most certainly have not. As for the rest......twoddle but up to you.

Sunak can have as many ideas as he wants. To enact any proposal, first you have to be in government - after 4 July it is highly doubtful that Sunak will be making any new rules.

The man is on a suicide mission. He's already out of touch with real life - that experienced by 'normal people'. Now, he's doing all he can to alienate that young vote. First the smoking ban, now this. I had a discussion with my neighbour's lad who would be affected by both laws - if they ever get enacted. On smoking, he told me his even his non smoking mates were worried about the implications on freedom of choice that the proposal brought about. This one will probably convince them the Tories are hell bent on a more authoritarian future for the UK - something I believe has been clear since Theresa May was home secretary. The current Home Secretary, James Cleverly stated that 'too many young people live in their own bubble' and went on to state that they need to integrate more fully with society. What is this? Social Engineering?

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.

Because he has not said so and from his general lack of knowledge about the process. He could be married but even then, getting a single entry Non O from Savannakhet would give hime more time. That does not necessarily mean he's married. Some people are not aware that an agent can help with a bank account. Some have an aversion to using them for anything. Access to an agent can be difficult/impossible depending on his Thai location. Agreed, it is difficult to advise on his situation without more details.

I'm guessing you're entering to get married and will then deal with the visa situation? You could find the 'conversion' and extension process a little tight on time - especially if you haven't got a Thai bank account opened yet. In which case, you could enter exempt, get married then go up to Savannakhet and obtain a single entry Non O based on marriage - no 400,000 or Thai bank account needed for that. You would then have 90 days in which to get your bank account open and start the 12 month extension process.

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?

Yes indeed. However, negligence doesn't have to be proved.

The Airlines in each case, were also sued. In terms of the airline, it matters not whether its a fault, negligence or weather - The Montreal Convention - as I have now posted twice - establishes that the airline is liable. In those cases, I believe it was the US government that instructed Boeing to settle. Had that not been the case, the way the law works would be that the passengers or rather their relatives sue the airline and in turn the airline sues the manufacturer. Two things on that. 1. I have never said its totally straight forward and I have no doubt that some airlines will 'try it on' - at the end of the day, they are liable and will have to pay. The convention is clear on that. As per your request, I will tell you one more time. I have had this with members on here many times - you search out evidence and proof and they still want to fight - so I won't waste my time. I have however, provided 2 such cases - the Lion Air and Eithiopian examples. Don't tell me that's entirely different - its not, in just about every case, the airline is liable - as established in Section 17. Enough already.

It never fails to amaze me that some members here think they know more than legal experts in the field - a few quotes from a Daily Mail Report: 'Passengers injured when extreme turbulence hit a Singapore Airlines flight on Tuesday could receive huge compensation payouts of US$150,000 due to an international treaty. A British grandfather died and 71 were treated for injuries after the flight from London Heathrow to Singapore was shaken by clear air turbulence and forced to make an emergency landing in Bangkok. Now lawyers have said that even if the carrier is not found to have been negligent, those with injury claims could be in line for substantial sums of money.' 'Under the Montreal Convention, if injured passengers file a lawsuit for an injury they were not to blame for, the airline cannot contest damages up to around $150,000 under 'strict liability'. But the figure is often far higher depending on financial losses and where the claim is being made from, and is often difficult for airline firms to avoid.' 'If the injured party or the family of the deceased suffer losses greater than [$150,000], the airline is only able to avoid paying for the entire compensation if they can prove the accident was not caused by their negligence or was caused by a third party,' according to law firm Irwin Mitchell. 'However, proving this can be very difficult for the airline so larger compensation awards are common.' California attorney Mike Danko, who represents passengers, said the airline could try to limit their liability by showing the passenger bore some of the fault for the injury, such as by ignoring warnings to wear a seat belt. The size of damages often comes down to the country where the case is filed and how the legal system assesses the amount of compensation. 'First and foremost what is the jurisdiction where you can bring a claim and how do they value injury claims,' said Daniel Rose, a New York attorney with Kreindler & Kreindler, which represents passengers. For example, US juries have awarded passengers more than $1 million for the emotional trauma of severe turbulence, while many courts in other countries award far less if anything for similar emotional distress. The Montreal Convention sets out various rules for determining where a claim can be brought, which can depend on the destination, where the ticket was purchased and the residence of the passenger.' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13447485/Injured-Singapore-Airlines-passengers-compensation-international-convention-firm-negligent-deadly-turbulence-flight-experts.html

Just remember this - the Singapore Airlines incident relates to just one death and several injuries - the amount of compensation due will be relatively small. Singapore Airlines have a superb reputation - a failure to adequately compensate victims would probably cost them far more in terms of that reputation than it would to settle.

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.

Agreed. I also thought that you actually had to have citizenship, not PR to obtain/put your name in a Thai Tabian Baan.

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.