Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
56 minutes ago, roo860 said:

Quite possibly in his wife's name.

 

I think I read that somewhere too, but I didn't want to post that to Mr MeeSeeks because I had no proof!

  • Like 1
Posted
On 3/8/2024 at 5:43 AM, Skipalongcassidy said:

You advocate putting the victim in jail too... what drugs are you taking that have destroyed your mind to this point?

Kicking a woman for no reason is not punishable by law with a time in the BKK Hilton?  By the way just having a drink not any other drugs.

  • Like 1
Posted
30 minutes ago, sambum said:

 

"He said that the Swiss national, whose visa was revoked yesterday, will face charges of illegal possession of firearms and carrying firearms in public."

 

I presume that "illegal possession" means that he DIDN'T have a licence? 

From Wikipedia:-

 

"The Thai laws applicable to firearms regulation are the Act Controlling Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, Fireworks and Imitation of Firearms, B.E. 2490 (1947)[4][5] and Amendments to the Act Controlling Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, Fireworks and Imitation of Firearms, B.E. 2490 (2017).[6]

Gun ownership in Thailand is restricted to Thai citizens

 

Unless he is a Thai citizen, can we stop with the lies and exaggerations, please?

 

 

He had licences for both handguns according to earlier reports.

  • Haha 2
Posted
1 hour ago, roo860 said:

Quite possibly in his wife's name.

 

If that was the case, how could they charge him with illegal possession, given that they legally belong to his wife?

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

If that was the case, how could they charge him with illegal possession, given that they legally belong to his wife?

Transporting them to the range. Without his wife being with him.

Edited by roo860
  • Thanks 2
Posted
1 hour ago, sambum said:

 

I think I read that somewhere too, but I didn't want to post that to Mr MeeSeeks because I had no proof!

He is a bit of a muppet. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

He was forced to apologise. 

 

When the incident originally occurred, he refused to apologise, claimed the ambilance driver was at fault, and the ambulance driver was facing charges of defamation and for contravening the computer crimes act. 

 

Anyway, the ambulance was not on an urgent mission and there was no-one in danger of dying as you claimed earlier. 

 

He cut in front of another vehicle, and gave the driver the finger. That is all we know for sure.

And we know the case was resolved by mutual agreement of all parties

Ambulance driver fined B1,000 for insulting Swiss guy fined B,1000 for insulting and B,4000 for reckless driving

https://www.khaophuket.com/จับปรับเดวิดคนดัง-มอบช่อดอกไม้ขอโทษคนขับรถพยาบาล-ตัดหน้าให้นิ้วกลางด่าทอบนถ-10883.php

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
1 hour ago, roo860 said:

Transporting them to the range. Without his wife being with him.

 

It was reported that two licences for handguns were in his name.

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

It was reported that two licences for handguns were in his name.

Link please.

Edited by roo860
  • Thanks 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

Not only his visa, they are taking his elephant sanctuary licence from him now too. 

 

 

 

Some media outlets are reporting that the elephant sanctuary licence will be revoked other media outlets such as BP are reporting that the elephant foundation created in 2021 its license will be revoked 

In this article it states

Authorities have already withdrawn the licenses for a pistol and rifle. Mr Fehr owned the pistol, while the Elephant Foundation owned the rifle.

https://www.chiangraitimes.com/news/elephant-sanctuary-in-phuket/

  • Thanks 1
Posted
14 hours ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

He had licences for both handguns according to earlier reports.

Maybe the earlier reports had some kind of "difficulty in translation"? "Mistaken identity"?

 

If he did have licences, why is he being charged for not having licences? :- "......face charges of illegal possession of firearms and carrying firearms in public."

  • Like 1
Posted
On 3/9/2024 at 8:19 AM, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

You are only done with it because you don't like me stating the facts. 

 

 

OK, I'm back, challenge accepted.  No, it's because you're a total idiot who has a hard-on for the Swiss guy.  Each response you have done literally exactly what I said you did.  And you continue to do so.

 

How's that, smart@ss?

  • Confused 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, sambum said:

Maybe the earlier reports had some kind of "difficulty in translation"? "Mistaken identity"?

 

If he did have licences, why is he being charged for not having licences? :- "......face charges of illegal possession of firearms and carrying firearms in public."

Shhhh, don't try to confuse him.

  • Haha 1
Posted
12 hours ago, bannork said:

When people slip, they invariably utter an instinctive sound or word- 'oh', 'aaah', etc. 

I'm not sure what sound Swiss people emit but I'm fairly sure it's not ' fluck off' repeated.

MeeSeeks thinks that's what they say.

  • Haha 2
Posted
15 hours ago, transam said:

How do you know, plus his firearm licence will have a name on, let's not jump to conclusions, eh...😉

Jumping to conclusions -- and then defending those erroneous conclusions in the face of all logic and data -- is the only exercise MeeSeeks gets.  Let's not take that away from him.

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

He was forced to apologise. 

 

When the incident originally occurred, he refused to apologise, claimed the ambilance driver was at fault, and the ambulance driver was facing charges of defamation and for contravening the computer crimes act. 

 

Anyway, the ambulance was not on an urgent mission and there was no-one in danger of dying as you claimed earlier. 

 

He cut in front of another vehicle, and gave the driver the finger. That is all we know for sure.

If you are going to quote somebody at least have the decency to quote them correctly - I did not claim that "someone was in danger of dying" - what I said was:- "Yes, anybody who acts as he does is a threat to society - from kicking a woman in the back, to impeding an ambulance that may be a contributing factor in causing someone's death."

 

So he refused to apologise, then he did, he cut in front of an ambulance, thereby impeding it, but you claim he did not impede it?

 

Are you a friend/relative/legal representative of this guy? Because you certainly seem to be going out of your way to justify his despicable behaviour!  

Edited by sambum
  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, sambum said:

If you are going to quote somebody at least have the decency to quote them correctly - I did not claim that "someone was in danger of dying" - what I said was:- "Yes, anybody who acts as he does is a threat to society - from kicking a woman in the back, to impeding an ambulance that may be a contributing factor in causing someone's death."

 

So he refused to apologise, then he did, he cut in front of an ambulance, thereby impeding it, but you claim he did not impede it?

 

Are you a friend/relative/legal representative of this guy? Because you certainly seem to be going out of your way to justify his despicable behaviour  

Guilty as charged on all accounts seems to be the prevailing opinion, followed by all sort of suggestions about the just punishment - from sending him to years in prison to transporting him back to Switzerland inside the wheel well.

Would it be too much to ask awaiting the outcome of the upcoming trial before rendering judgement?

  • Like 1

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...