Jump to content

Restaurateurs file class action suit against PM, others, demanding 50 million baht


snoop1130

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, RichardColeman said:

I hope they win, but I doubt they will.

 

If they do, the 'claim' flood gates will be so wide open that thailand wont have reserves to cover the the incoming claims avalanche.

No chance, the facts of a claim are very important in determining whether the government can be held liable for damage to your business. Generally, the government is not responsible for having a passive role in causing harm to a business. However, when damages are caused by the negligent act of someone working for the government and that act was within the scope of their employment, the government may be liable. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Mrs. Sor told the media this morning, at the Civil Court, that the group are seeking redress from the prime minister, finance, interior and public health ministries and the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, for their collective mismanagement of the efforts to contain the COVID-19 pandemic and in the issuance of restrictions, rendering damage to their businesses.

This'll be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, it is what it is said:

No chance, the facts of a claim are very important in determining whether the government can be held liable for damage to your business. Generally, the government is not responsible for having a passive role in causing harm to a business. However, when damages are caused by the negligent act of someone working for the government and that act was within the scope of their employment, the government may be liable. 

I think the U turns should prove enough. The times they were told they could open and postponed. That costs them food and other stuff that they bought and then could not sell. That would be one of the points.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mikebell said:

Prayuth & Co have given themselves immunity from the law so this action is merely grabbing a headline.

Immunity from personal prosecution, not this and this will hit the state coffers not them personal. So i doubt the protection covers it. However they do have a lot of influence in the courts and if this case goes against them its like a huge pie on the face as it shows they are responsible. That means people can blame them in public for stuff with this verdict.

 

So chances are not that high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, robblok said:

I think the U turns should prove enough. The times they were told they could open and postponed. That costs them food and other stuff that they bought and then could not sell. That would be one of the points.

the u turns happened in many other countries, even in the so-called first world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mikebell said:

Prayuth & Co have given themselves immunity from the law so this action is merely grabbing a headline.

most world leaders have full immunity for making those kind of hard decisions,

 

however, they can be taken to court if it's proven that they were negligent in their duty (see rice scandal case)

 

for covid, it will be hard to prove they were negligent, even though lockdowns could be argued to be "over-reaction" to a problem that has cost working people a lot of damage financially

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, cTay said:

the u turns happened in many other countries, even in the so-called first world

nobody knew what they were doing back then, the lockdowns were particularly unnecessarily harsh and to make things worse, they were all copying each other in their mistakes, as some kind of global consensus

 

this is the best protection they have if they go to court, "everybody else was doing it" ????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

nobody knew what they were doing back then, the lockdowns were particularly unnecessarily harsh and to make things worse, they were all copying each other in their mistakes, as some kind of global consensus

 

this is the best protection they have if they go to court, "everybody else was doing it" ????

Not sure where your from but lockdowns have proven to work to slow the virus down so healthcare did not get flooded. Worked pretty good for that. Then vaccines did the rest. 

 

Then again plenty of antivaxers and other idiots still deny it worked. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, EricTh said:

So they would rather be infected than to lose business?

infected doesn't mean they die automatically, but losing a business, can make you seriously ill or die

 

harsh choice, but covid was paid for by small and medium size businesses without compensation, not government aids

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

Not sure where your from but lockdowns have proven to work to slow the virus down so healthcare did not get flooded. Worked pretty good for that. Then vaccines did the rest. 

 

Then again plenty of antivaxers and other idiots still deny it worked. 

we have been through this before, the slowdown was marginal, and I am pretty sure new studies in the future will debunk the idea that lockdowns work. They never work, but they created plenty of new problems.

 

I don't call something "work" when the result is so "weak"

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, robblok said:

Not as often and crazy as in Thailand. Not on such short notice. 

wrong again, plenty of countries in Europe were as crazy as Thailand, but you are not there so you wouldn't know

 

the UK is one example with Boris doing 180 over 24H, France of course, and Australia and NZ are still in the madness game, they didn't get enough of it apparently ????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

we have been through this before, the slowdown was marginal, and I am pretty sure new studies in the future will debunk the idea that lockdowns work. They never work, but they created plenty of new problems.

 

I don't call something "work" when the result is so "weak"

 

Sure mate, keep on drinking the cool aid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, GrandPapillon said:

says that to the researchers who are working on the lockdowns case ????

 

you seem to believe everything a government tells you, a good customer ????

No I don't believe the government. I believe logic and science. Anyway i prefer not to get in too many arguments with your kind. 

 

Lockdowns work, unless you think limiting contact does not work. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

No I don't believe the government. I believe logic and science. Anyway i prefer not to get in too many arguments with your kind. 

 

Lockdowns work, unless you think limiting contact does not work. 

you are dreaming, and yes you have every right to believe in fairy tales

 

pointless discussions, it's like arguing with Talibans ????

 

Virus wasn't told about the "lockdowns" ????

 

like everything else in this crisis, we will know eventually the "facts" in the next 10 years, so let's agree that the jury is still out there ????

 

lockdowns were buying time, not "slowing down" the actual spread in numbers over a long period, which happened eventually as waves.

Edited by GrandPapillon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, GrandPapillon said:

we have been through this before, the slowdown was marginal, and I am pretty sure new studies in the future will debunk the idea that lockdowns work. They never work, but they created plenty of new problems.

 

I don't call something "work" when the result is so "weak"

 

how wrong you are,  Lockdowns do reduce transmission of the virus.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, GrandPapillon said:

you are dreaming, and yes you have every right to believe in fairy tales

 

pointless discussions, it's like arguing with Talibans ????

 

Virus wasn't told about the "lockdowns" ????

 

like everything else in this crisis, we will know eventually the "facts" in the next 10 years, so let's agree that the jury is still out there ????

 

lockdowns were buying time, not "slowing down" the actual spread in numbers over a long period, which happened eventually as waves.

Your really not that bright as slowing down and buying time is the same thing. That was the main strategy for lockdowns making sure that health care did not overflow. We seen countries where it happend also Thailand where people died on the street. That is what lockdowns are for slowing it down until enough vaccinations have been given. Most countries go out of lockdown once a certain number of people had vaccines. 

 

Nobody ever said lockdowns were a solution they were just there to slow stuff down. That is what every government said. They did  not see it as a solution. If you thought that you must have missed a lot of stuff.

 

Buying time and slowing down is the same. When in a battle an unit needs to buy down it has to slow down the enemy until other measurers are in place or until stuff has been doen.

Edited by robblok
Link to comment
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...