Fifteen people arrested in Pattaya restaurant after police raid, were allegedly drinking alcohol and violating Covid-19 rules

[Kerryd]

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Meanwhile, I had 13 people in my house for dinner last week…  is that ok ?? Is it only frowned upon if we had wine & beer ? 

According to the rules, you can have "gatherings" of up to 25 people - however - only ONE person is allowed to drink alcohol.

So basically, if there are 5 of you, 1 person can have a drink. When they are done another person can have a drink (and so on). But if 2 or more are drinking at the same time, you are in violation of the rules.

(When they eased the limit on "gatherings" they did not change the previous alcohol rule.)

[richard_smith237]

8 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Meanwhile, I had 13 people in my house for dinner last week…  is that ok ?? Is it only frowned upon if we had wine & beer ? 

Sounds as though you and your friends were contravening the Covid-related restrictions on "gatherings" if the guests didn't all normally live there with you, regardless of the alcohol presence. 

 

I’m in Bangkok so no gatherings of more than 25 people. So within the law, but perhaps not within the moral tolerance of some who take a Zero sympathy view of socialisation within the current climate. 

 

Quote TAT: Public and private organisations as well as people are asked to avoid any activities prone to the spread of disease where the number of attendees exceeds 25 people (from 5 people in the previous Order).

 

https://www.tatnews.org/2021/09/thailand-eases-covid-19-restrictions-from-1-september-2021/

 

 

8 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

The restrictions apply regardless of vaccination status, being vaccinated doesn't prevent the vaccinated from infecting others or contracting the virus.

 

Agree and disagree

- "Restrictions apply regardless of vaccination" - Thats understandable, although I find the logic behind some of the restrictions flawed (we are not always going to agree with various laws and regulations). 

- "Being vaccinated doesn’t prevent the vaccinated from infecting others or contracting the virus" - Thats an over simplification, being vaccinated significantly reduces the risk of both contraction and transmission, but the risk is not eliminated. 

 

All of that said: Lowering the standards of isolating behaviour and taking a cavalier attitude towards social isolation just because we are vaccinated is wrong - I don’t do that, but I don’t lock myself away at home either. 

 

I think the way forwards is ‘managed risk’...  Its ok to go to a restaurant, then its also ok to have a couple of beers at that restaurant. From the going out perspective, its safer to have a few friends round for dinner - its amazing how the optics change (For some people) when having friends around for dinner is switched out with having friends over for drinks.... but really, nothing actually changes. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Boarn]

1 hour ago, keith101 said:

I have ZERO sympathy for people who feel the need to go out to eat/drink when they can safely do it at home , they all need to be fined the maximum amount .

Thats in my opinion like/dont like dont care .

Yes I know, these vile cretins should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, how dare they! I'm very happy to see the police concentrate on making sure they catch the worse of the worse.......

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, Kerryd said:

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Meanwhile, I had 13 people in my house for dinner last week…  is that ok ?? Is it only frowned upon if we had wine & beer ? 

According to the rules, you can have "gatherings" of up to 25 people - however - only ONE person is allowed to drink alcohol.

So basically, if there are 5 of you, 1 person can have a drink. When they are done another person can have a drink (and so on). But if 2 or more are drinking at the same time, you are in violation of the rules.

(When they eased the limit on "gatherings" they did not change the previous alcohol rule.)

 

Oh... we definitely broke that law... I should turn myself in - despicable alcoholic !

[Dmaxdan]

1 hour ago, ikke1959 said:

the xenophobia alcohol laws........ and alcohol doesn't give you any infection. Only if you drink out of the glass... So why the ban?

There isn't a ban on alcohol, just drinking alcohol in restaurants.

And it isn't about alcohol infecting you with the virus, it's about people getting drunk and lowering their guard.

Rules are rules, you either obey them or face the consequences.

 

[smedly]

18 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Rules versus laws. I have absolutely no sympathy for those that can't tell the difference either.

 

Get a grip. Thailand isn't like an Orwelian, Sharia or Islamic Fundamentalist State or any other nonsense that the overly dramatic @richard_smith237 mentioned.

 

you have proven time and time again that I am wasting my time seeing your posts - welcome to my ignore list

 

Byeeeeeeeeeeee

[richard_smith237]

15 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Get a grip. Thailand isn't like an Orwelian, Sharia or Islamic Fundamentalist State or any other nonsense that the overly dramatic @richard_smith237 mentioned.

 

I agree with you NanLaew.....  pointing out that the response is Orwellian, Sharia or Islamic Fundamentalist State in nature is overly dramatic... Its a highly exaggerated comment deliberately placed to point out the highly exaggerated police response to a few people having a drink. 

 

This highly exaggerated police response and corresponding tone of reporting has continued for over a year, the hypocrisy is tiresome. 

 

 

 

 

[hotandsticky]

34 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Yes (dual vaccinated), except for the children. 

 

They’d have to get access to the house first !.... 

 

 

The regulations for Bangkok state no gatherings of more than 20 people.

 

 

My point is with the manner in which these regulations are being handled - its the faux-outrage which these situations are being dealt with and reported on...  Its as if Alcohol is some illicit substances which shows the poor moral character of these law-breakers who deserve punishment.... 

 

.... its the ’tone’ of each and every one of such similar reports that I read which highlight how ‘when alcohol’ is involved those ‘consuming’ are portrayed in a despicable manner which is then mirrored by some on this forum...  inevitably the phrase ‘alcoholic’  comes up.

 

 

------

 

In the past 3 weeks I’ve only had two meals (at home or out) where I could not get a beer with my dinner. 

 

(nearly) Every restaurant is serving beer with the ’theatre’ of masking the beer in a coconut or in mug...  yet when a restaurant is reported to be serving beer its done so in a manner of far greater gravitas than the harmless non-event it really is. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To pick up your last point.....................ironically it appears to be Thais grassing up THais.

[norfolkandchance]

Saudi, here I come again.

[richard_smith237]

4 minutes ago, Dmaxdan said:

1 hour ago, ikke1959 said:

the xenophobia alcohol laws........ and alcohol doesn't give you any infection. Only if you drink out of the glass... So why the ban?

There isn't a ban on alcohol, just drinking alcohol in restaurants.

And it isn't about alcohol infecting you with the virus, it's about people getting drunk and lowering their guard.

Rules are rules, you either obey them or face the consequences.

 

 

But there isn’t any law to preventing 20 people getting three sheets to the wind at home, then going out to a restaurant and eating, just so long as they are not drinking booze !... 

 

 

The law already covers the issue with its continued closure of ‘entertainment venues’.... 

 

Banning booze in restaurants is just a little bit silly, even when understanding the social lubrication and people lowering their guard. 

 

 

 

[hackjam]

1 hour ago, baansgr said:

J bar ?

Dont think so, think it was actually Soi Welcome.

[robblok]

34 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

You have zero sympathy for people who go out and support local businesses by eating in their restaurant ?

 

Restaurants are now open. The government has made the decision that its ok to go to a shopping mall, its ok to to a restaurant etc....   

 

The only difference is one cannot have a beer with dinner (officially). 

 

In your zero sympathy world - Is punishable office of having a beer with a burger in a restaurant any less safe than having a glass of water with a burger in a restaurant ???

 

 

 

 

 

 

Richard, 

 

You know and I know its not about that one beer with your lunch. Its to make sure that restaurant licenses are not used as a front to sell beer. Now you could say then they have to catch them in the act. That is a hard thing to do so from an enforcement point of view it works much better to ban it 100%.

 

Is that fair to those that really just drink a beer or a glass of wine, no it is not but its always that some people who are innocent will face problems because others misbehave. If they don't ban it 100% its just much harder to enforce. That is the rationale nothing more nothing less. 

[EVENKEEL]

Should have used the magic coffee cups. That fools the coppers everytime.

[ikke1959]

18 minutes ago, Dmaxdan said:

There isn't a ban on alcohol, just drinking alcohol in restaurants.

And it isn't about alcohol infecting you with the virus, it's about people getting drunk and lowering their guard.

Rules are rules, you either obey them or face the consequences.

 

Rules are rules I agree, but in Thailand there are many stupid rules like no drinking alcohol in a restaurant... Nothing wrong to drink a beer with your meal or a glass of wine  I suppose...Same for wearing a mask if you have sex, or in  a car with your wife.... We sleep together but not driving in the same car... Stupid laws....as I said..

[theoldgit]

28 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Food doesn't contain alcohol.

 

You've clearly never tasted my grandmothers Christmas Puddings ????

[poskat]

they have been busting these "parties" and taking in the supposed miscreants for a long time.

 

is there any actual evidence based on the testing of these people that covid is actually being spread in these situations?

 

or is it still just a "the sun moves across the sky, so it must be revolving around the earth"  intuitive without any real facts type of hypothesis?

[CG1 Blue]

10 minutes ago, robblok said:

Richard, 

 

You know and I know its not about that one beer with your lunch. Its to make sure that restaurant licenses are not used as a front to sell beer. Now you could say then they have to catch them in the act. That is a hard thing to do so from an enforcement point of view it works much better to ban it 100%.

 

Is that fair to those that really just drink a beer or a glass of wine, no it is not but its always that some people who are innocent will face problems because others misbehave. If they don't ban it 100% its just much harder to enforce. That is the rationale nothing more nothing less. 

How about they don't ban alcohol at all? There is no scientific evidence that an alcohol ban improves the Covid stats. Why take away one of life's few pleasures in these already depressing times? 

[richard_smith237]

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

Richard, 

 

You know and I know its not about that one beer with your lunch. Its to make sure that restaurant licenses are not used as a front to sell beer. Now you could say then they have to catch them in the act. That is a hard thing to do so from an enforcement point of view it works much better to ban it 100%.

 

Is that fair to those that really just drink a beer or a glass of wine, no it is not but its always that some people who are innocent will face problems because others misbehave. If they don't ban it 100% its just much harder to enforce. That is the rationale nothing more nothing less. 

 

I understand the rationale, I understand why it is necessary, I understand the mindset that leads to such a situation, there lies the basis of my gripe with the moronic regulations. 

 

They are set in place not provide us the public with any greater safety, but to further enable the laziness of the police. 

 

The issue of course is that for years its been much easier to get a restaurant licence than an entertainment licence - thus, the continued ’short cuts’ and ’side tracking’ has as always resulted in dumb blanket regulations rather than doing some work and dealing with the real issues at hand - adequate and effective enforcement. 

 

This is an issue which has spread through all facets of Thailand - Through lack of enforcement, encroachment beyond the boundaries of perfectly reasonable limits, regulations and laws has lead to sweeping laws which do not directly address the issue at hand. 

 

Take the 2-5pm ban on buying alcohol - the rule is idiotic, but was placed as a general ban on everyone to prevent schools kids from buying booze !!! - this just circumnavigates the real issue, that shops are selling to kids... instead do some effective police work and catch those selling booze to kids instead of fining a place for selling a beer to an adult between 2-5pm. 

 

The same goes for the restaurant booze ban - don’t penalise the restaurants and people eating in them.

But if bars are going to have 100 ppl crowded, deal with that facet of socialisation. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

How about they don't ban alcohol at all? There is no scientific evidence that an alcohol ban improves the Covid stats. Why take away one of life's few pleasures in these already depressing times? 

There is proof that it does improve covid stats. You forget that they closed bars all over the world. So i disagree. In the Netherlands the moment they opened bars and such there was a rise in cases. So what your saying is not true.

 

 

 

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I understand the rationale, I understand why it is necessary, I understand the mindset that leads to such a situation, there lies the basis of my gripe with the moronic regulations. 

 

They are set in place not provide us the public with any greater safety, but to further enable the laziness of the police. 

 

The issue of course is that for years its been much easier to get a restaurant licence than an entertainment licence - thus, the continued ’short cuts’ and ’side tracking’ has as always resulted in dumb blanket regulations rather than doing some work and dealing with the real issues at hand - adequate and effective enforcement. 

 

This is an issue which has spread through all facets of Thailand - Through lack of enforcement, encroachment beyond the boundaries of perfectly reasonable limits, regulations and laws has lead to sweeping laws which do not directly address the issue at hand. 

 

Take the 2-5pm ban on buying alcohol - the rule is idiotic, but was placed as a general ban on everyone to prevent schools kids from buying booze !!! - this just circumnavigates the real issue, that shops are selling to kids... instead do some effective police work and catch those selling booze to kids instead of fining a place for selling a beer to an adult between 2-5pm. 

 

The same goes for the restaurant booze ban - don’t penalise the restaurants and people eating in them.

But if bars are going to have 100 ppl crowded, deal with that facet of socialisation. 

 

Richard,

 

You might be right but its not really practical what your saying some things just cant be enforced the way you like it.

 

For instance like you i dislike the 1400-1700 rule too. However its far easier to check and see if no alcohol has been sold with cash registers then to make sure that no alcohol has been sold to minors. Especially in Thailand where people don't really care about rules and will flaunt them. How would you practically make sure kids don't buy alcohol ? Put a cop in each shop to check (would never work). 

 

Only reason it works in the west is that shops are more law abiding and that there might be some undercover people around. I don't really see that working either. Maybe force them to have a video installed in front of the cashier with time code ect. Its just not that easy.

[Kaopad999]

With all these raids happening, why are these people still taking the risk by breaking the law? When will these people learn? why not just have a drink at home with their fiends?  I just don't get it! 

[Tanomazu]

22 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

How about they don't ban alcohol at all? There is no scientific evidence that an alcohol ban improves the Covid stats. Why take away one of life's few pleasures in these already depressing times? 

Oh you think government decisions are made on the basis of scientific evidence? I'm sure that's what they told you....

 

So how come rules are different in each country? Is the scientific evidence different in each country?

[richard_smith237]

4 minutes ago, Kaopad999 said:

With all these raids happening, why are these people still taking the risk by breaking the law? When will these people learn? why not just have a drink at home with their fiends?  I just don't get it! 

In the past 3 weeks every single restaurant I have been to (except 2) have served me beer with food. 

 

All (nearly all) of the restaurants are doing the same thing - A mug of beer, a tea-cup of Wine, a coconut of Chang etc etc...   It is all ’Theatre’... a game.....  the police know exactly what is going on, everyone knows exactly what is going on..... 

 

This is why I find it so hypocritical that when one business is targeted the ‘faux outrage’ shown and the ‘high crime’ manner in which the news is presented is extremely sanctimonious. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

1 minute ago, Tanomazu said:

27 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

How about they don't ban alcohol at all? There is no scientific evidence that an alcohol ban improves the Covid stats. Why take away one of life's few pleasures in these already depressing times? 

Oh you think government decisions are made on the basis of scientific evidence? I'm sure that's what they told you....

 

So how come rules are different in each country? Is the scientific evidence different in each country?

 

Perhaps the rules are different in Thailand because they are not following any scientific evidence. 

 

 

[Tanomazu]

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Perhaps the rules are different in Thailand because they are not following any scientific evidence. 

 

 

They're following it as much as everywhere else. Meanwhile in the actual world of science Professor Dame Sarah Gilbert, the creator of the Astra-Zeneca vaccine, speaking yesterday on a Royal Society of Medicine webinar, has said that the virus is going to be just like a common cold going forward.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/covid-19-will-just-end-up-causing-a-cold-says-oxford-vaccine-creator-sarah-gilbert-npkds93zd#top

 

They all pretend they're making decisions based on science, to claim the kudos of science.

 

However, when you consider how the world was shut down for a virus which only 2.9 % of the world's population actually have, for which the Lancet says that 80% of those who do get it will survive, and only 2.2% will go to the ICU, I'd say it's not you being overdramatic. This whole freakin' courtroom is being overdramatic!!!! I've long given up on governments actually following the science. I mean if governments followed the science then in 2015 when the Robert Koch Institute warned of the consequences of a coronavirus pandemic the government, to whom the evidence was presented, would have followed that advice and prepared. Of course they did not. If they don't do it in Germany, what hope for the rest of the world?

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00074-0/fulltext

Edited September 23, 2021 by Tanomazu

[mrfill]

23 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

They're following it as much as everywhere else. Meanwhile in the actual world of science Professor Dame Sarah Gilbert, the creator of the Astra-Zeneca vaccine, speaking yesterday on a Royal Society of Medicine webinar, has said that the virus is going to be just like a common cold going forward.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/covid-19-will-just-end-up-causing-a-cold-says-oxford-vaccine-creator-sarah-gilbert-npkds93zd#top

 

They all pretend they're making decisions based on science, to claim the kudos of science.

 

However, when you consider how the world was shut down for a virus which only 2.9 % of the world's population actually have, for which the Lancet says that 80% of those who do get it will survive, and only 2.2% will go to the ICU, I'd say it's not you being overdramatic. This whole freakin' courtroom is being overdramatic!!!! I've long given up on governments actually following the science. I mean if governments followed the science then in 2015 when the Robert Koch Institute warned of the consequences of a coronavirus pandemic the government, to whom the evidence was presented, would have followed that advice and prepared. Of course they did not. If they don't do it in Germany, what hope for the rest of the world?

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00074-0/fulltext

If you follow the science quoted from The Lancet, then if 80% survive, 20% die.

 

Is that true ?

[Tanomazu]

3 minutes ago, mrfill said:

If you follow the science quoted from The Lancet, then if 80% survive, 20% die.

 

Is that true ?

No, darling, 14.2% go to hospital, 2.2% go to the ICU, 7.5% died. It's in the article I posted.

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00074-0/fulltext

[hotchilli]

2 hours ago, keith101 said:

I have ZERO sympathy for people who feel the need to go out to eat/drink when they can safely do it at home , they all need to be fined the maximum amount .

Thats in my opinion like/dont like dont care .

I like it.

[bbko]

Anyone have 1st hand knowledge of the actual fine these folks had to pay? We all know the possible maximum, I'm looking for the amount these guys paid. 

[poskat]

1 hour ago, Victornoir said:

I have spent my life avoiding preachers, politically correct, lesson-givers and other hypocritical advisers.

Let us bless these forums which allow us to know their opinions without ever meeting them.

praise the Lord, and hit that ignore button...