Jump to content

Thai-German man charged for ‘airline should be bombed’ remark


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Truth Will Set You Free said:

It’s become norm if you use your freedom of speech or opinion in Thailand they have a law to place you in jail and fine you. 
 

Why don’t they have a law that fines and place those men and women in jail that do not pay child support? 
 

is there a law and fine for my freedom of speech and opinion of this?

 

I feel had that remark been made in any airport in any country you would find yourself detained and interrogated and possibly charged. 
There’s a huge difference between airline security and child support, they are not even vaguely similar or comparable 

Edited by RJRS1301
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well you cannot fix stupid.... Boy was he stupid making a comment like that.

The b. word, right up there with   Terrorist Allah Muhammad Missile Gun 9/11   on the list of words it's "unwise" to use in the airport.

.......in a wife beater shirt.....🤭

4 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

I feel had that remark been made in any airport in any country you would find yourself detained and interrogated and possibly charged. 

I disagree. People make remarks everyday that could be taken in a different way. It does not mean they going to do it and especially if they are <deleted> off because of poor service.
 

If the remark was made that he was gong to boom the Airline,then that’s another story.  Should, do not constitute would or will. This is why there is freedom of speech, but here in Thailand and everyone trying to get a buck, it’s becoming a norm, so if you don’t have anything good to say than don’t say nothing. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2020 at 12:16 PM, webfact said:

Thai-German man charged for ‘airline should be bombed’ remark

By Eakkapop Thongtub

 

1605589126_1-org.jpg

Thai-German man Mike Wilms was charged for saying that the ‘airline should be bombed’. Photo: Saku Police

 

PHUKET: A Thai-German man has been charged for telling airline ground staff at Phuket International airport that their airline ‘should be bombed’ yesterday (Nov 16) after delays for boarding a flight to Bangkok.

 

Saku Police were notified of the incident at about 12:50pm, Saku Police Chief Lt Col Kaken Nikrahatchai noted in the official police report of the incident.

 

Officers arrived and were introduced to the man, named by police as Mike Wilms, 26, originally from Ayutthaya, at the airport security office.

 

Full story: https://www.thephuketnews.com/thai-german-man-charged-for-airline-should-be-bombed-remark-78007.php

 

tphuketnews_logo.jpg

-- © Copyright Phuket News 2020-11-17
 

A likely nomination for the November Darwin Award

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2020 at 7:53 AM, zyphodb said:

A silly thing to say, but a massive overreaction by the authorities though. TIT

Exactly the same would happen in any UK airport he would have been arrested and made to miss his plane and possibly charged depending on how aggressive he was (I spent 2 months working at Heathrow airport)

On 11/17/2020 at 9:28 AM, SupermarineS6B said:

Is this possible...... A Thai national guilty of such a crime ,   surely he must be a farang .......

Thai nationals simply wouldn't say such a thing they know what would happen so yes you are correct but not because Thai nationals are favoured. It is because Thai nationals simply don't make such stupid remarks to officials

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2020 at 1:35 PM, TSF said:

Year, airline and bomb are two words you should never put together.

Yes, I learned years ago while flying to Thailand on business you don't converse on the plane with your colleague about needing to 'update the product BOM'...  (Bill Of Material)... 🙂

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RobU said:

possibly charged depending on how aggressive he was

Charged with what?

 

In legal terms there is a significant difference between saying "I'm going to bomb your company" or "I will bomb your company" and saying "your company should be bombed". The first 2 contain a threat the last one is purely saying what a person thinks should happen.

 

I may think the Prime Minister of a certain country should be placed before a firing squad for his actions - if I say so am I suggesting it will happen?

 

There are of course, some countries that seem to be able to 'adjust' the interpretation of their laws in order to fit the crime. This man may well find himself prosecuted for his outburst.

Edited by KhaoYai
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

Charged with what?

 

In legal terms there is a significant difference between saying "I'm going to bomb your company" or "I will bomb your company" and saying "your company should be bombed". The first 2 contain a threat the last one is purely saying what a person thinks should happen.

 

I may think the Prime Minister of a certain country should be placed before a firing squad for his actions - if I say so am I suggesting it will happen?

Personally I hope that the fool is banned by the particular carrier for life. 
I think the employee concerned would have felt intimidated and no person in any workplace should have to endure verbal intimidation.

 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Personally I hope that the fool is banned by the particular carrier for life. 
I think the employee concerned would have felt intimidated and no person in any workplace should have to endure verbal intimidation.

 

You would feel intimidated by an angry passenger saying "your company should be bombed"? Oh well, I guess we are all different.

 

I would have thought that airline staff are quite used to angry passengers.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

You would feel intimidated by an angry passenger saying "your company should be bombed"? Oh well, I guess we are all different.

 

I would have thought that airline staff are quite used to angry passengers.

That does not make the behaviour acceptable on any terms.
Staff whether an airline or local corner store should not be subjected to rudeness by clients. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RJRS1301 said:

That does not make the behaviour acceptable on any terms.
Staff whether an airline or local corner store should not be subjected to rudeness by clients. 

I am not saying the behaviour was acceptable - however, people get angry in airports quite often. If I was an airline I would not put timid staff in a customer facing position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

I am not saying the behaviour was acceptable - however, people get angry in airports quite often. If I was an airline I would not put timid staff in a customer facing position.

This is not about the staff but about acceptable behaviour of those accessing the service. Personal responsibility for actions, if that involves courts and police in this instance, then so be it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2020 at 11:06 AM, Accidental Tourist said:

It's just hysterical...words in personal anger forward a Counter girl which replied in anger too.

Anger management advised for both... I've we would involve the police for every angry comments he made; there would be soon no more guest...O yeah is covid time so no guest anyway...

If his Mum is Thai, then he is Thai.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2020 at 2:06 PM, Accidental Tourist said:

It's just hysterical...words in personal anger forward a Counter girl which replied in anger too.

Anger management advised for both... I've we would involve the police for every angry comments he made; there would be soon no more guest...O yeah is covid time so no guest anyway...

Counter girl. That designation in and of itself is demeaning and rude.  A little respect and civility goes a long way. 
How do you know the “counter girl” responded in anger? You were there?

 

Rudeness from clients who often have an over inflated opinion of their own importance is never acceptable. Also there is power imbalance at play in this scenario , this behooves the client to act with courtesy 

 

Edited by RJRS1301
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article:

 

Lt Col Kaken confirmed that Mr Wilms has been changed under Section 22 of the Act on Certain Offences Against Air Navigation, which stipulates: “Any person notifying messages or sending information known to be false, and such act causes or is likely to cause persons in the airport or persons on board an aircraft in flight to be in panic, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine not exceeding B200,000, or both.”

“If such an act endangers the safety of an aircraft in flight, such person shall be liable to imprisonment of five to 15 years or a fine of B200,000 to B600,000, or both.”

 

1. I don't see anything in what he said that would cause panic. Offence maybe but not panic.

2. Nothing he said would endanger the safety of the aircraft in flight.

 

Under the letter of the law, he has not commited any criminal offence but this being Thailand, it could be made to fit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

From the article:

 

Lt Col Kaken confirmed that Mr Wilms has been changed under Section 22 of the Act on Certain Offences Against Air Navigation, which stipulates: “Any person notifying messages or sending information known to be false, and such act causes or is likely to cause persons in the airport or persons on board an aircraft in flight to be in panic, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine not exceeding B200,000, or both.”

“If such an act endangers the safety of an aircraft in flight, such person shall be liable to imprisonment of five to 15 years or a fine of B200,000 to B600,000, or both.”

 

1. I don't see anything in what he said that would cause panic. Offence maybe but not panic.

2. Nothing he said would endanger the safety of the aircraft in flight.

 

Under the letter of the law, he has not commited any criminal offence but this being Thailand, it could be made to fit.

 

That is up to the court to decide if the prosecution proceeds ,learned counsel 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

That is up to the court to decide if the prosecution proceeds ,learned counsel 

In a real (civilised) court, its not up to the court at all.  A court can't prosecute someone who has not commited an offence unless there is evidence that suggests they have. Under the wording of the laws supplied by the police - he shouldn't have even been charged. He has not done anything that breaks those laws.

 

Courts decide on whether someone is guilty - they don't (shouldn't) adjust the law to fit the crime. I can't be prosecuted for doing 25mph in a 30mph limit just because a policeman thinks I'm going too fast.

 

I have no idea who decides whether or not to prosecute in Thailand but in the UK its the Prosecution Service. If the law in the UK was worded in the way that the law in this case is, the matter wouldn't get past the prosecutor's office. One caveat, a court can be asked to determine the meaning of a law as a matter of process but not in order to make a prosecution. Cases must be judged by the law applicable at the time of the alleged offence.

 

However, as I've suggested before, its Thailand so anything is possible.

 

Before you ask, no I am not a solictor but I have had legal training and I am conversant with the basics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

                                   

 

                                      This reminds me of a guy in Heathrow, having a violin case (or a guitar case),

                                      exclaiming he had a machine gun inside(!?), and wanted the case to be going 

                                      onboard as a carry on!  Well, surprise! He did not go anywhere, with a flight!

                                      He went straight to the police station cells, for a few days, and had to pay

                                      alot to the airline company, for delaying the departure of the plane, could it

                                      be more than him.  Banned for life on this airline company! Serves him well!

                                      You don`t joke about this things, when it comes to airports and airplanes.

                                     

                                      If the departure is delayed, deal with it, have another beer and relax. You are

                                      not alone! 

 

                                                            Cheers! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

Charged with what?

 

In legal terms there is a significant difference between saying "I'm going to bomb your company" or "I will bomb your company" and saying "your company should be bombed". The first 2 contain a threat the last one is purely saying what a person thinks should happen.

 

I may think the Prime Minister of a certain country should be placed before a firing squad for his actions - if I say so am I suggesting it will happen?

 

There are of course, some countries that seem to be able to 'adjust' the interpretation of their laws in order to fit the crime. This man may well find himself prosecuted for his outburst.

 Serious Crime Act 2007 statutory offences of encouraging or assisting crime. Previous to that it was a common law criminal offence of incitement. Just Like in Thailand this can be interpreted by the police the interpretation depends on how aggressive and intimidating the person is when they say it I think the Thai police decided to to make an example of a stupid and aggressive man who tried to intimidate airport staff British police can do the same

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

In a real (civilised) court, its not up to the court at all.  A court can't prosecute someone who has not commited an offence unless there is evidence that suggests they have. Under the wording of the laws supplied by the police - he shouldn't have even been charged. He has not done anything that breaks those laws.

 

Courts decide on whether someone is guilty - they don't (shouldn't) adjust the law to fit the crime. I can't be prosecuted for doing 25mph in a 30mph limit just because a policeman thinks I'm going too fast.

 

I have no idea who decides whether or not to prosecute in Thailand but in the UK its the Prosecution Service. If the law in the UK was worded in the way that the law in this case is, the matter wouldn't get past the prosecutor's office. One caveat, a court can be asked to determine the meaning of a law as a matter of process but not in order to make a prosecution. Cases must be judged by the law applicable at the time of the alleged offence.

 

However, as I've suggested before, its Thailand so anything is possible.

 

Before you ask, no I am not a solictor but I have had legal training and I am conversant with the basics.

You either did not read or comprehended what you responded to. 
I stayed up to the court decide( guilt/innocence) If the prosecution roceeds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Long story short - don't make idiot remarks that may be construed as threatening to aircraft safety. Most of us understand this simple rule. Nearly all countries have strong laws about such behavior because of the harm that actual terrorism can cause to aircraft.

There are always going to be airport staff or members of the travelling public, who will react, or over react, when hearing such remarks even if the words were just motivated by frustration or meant jokingly.

This fool will no doubt receive a fine when he gets to court and the matter will be quickly forgotten.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

You either did not read or comprehended what you responded to. 
I stayed up to the court decide( guilt/innocence) If the prosecution roceeds.

Typos discovered.

I stated up to the courts, ( decide innocence or guilt) If the prosecution proceeds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...