Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, Matrosen said:

No but they are getting fed up with how guests in their country behave!

I think they are getting fed up with drunk tourist near all year round, but they need them to earn a living.

The hi-so farangy's are a different matter, they try it on as being a hi-so, but when the hi-so is cornered, THAT"S when Thai folk show their disdain, take kicker Dave, for instance, trounced by the Thai public and more........😢

 

Which is a lesson for any farangy hi-so wannabe out there.......🤭

  • Confused 2
Posted
33 minutes ago, Matrosen said:

No but they are getting fed up with how guests in their country behave!

Have you done a survey?  I would have thought the average Thai is too busy trying to make a living for themselves and their family, to be concerned with these so called 'hiso' people. 

  • Like 1
Posted
7 hours ago, transam said:

I saw a vid where Dave's foot was at the back of the lady, and he even admits it....😂

Are you trying to cover for Dave, by any chance.......🤭

No you have not and no he did not admit it

he said he tripped which is heard in the video 

but then again your son is a policeman who earns more than any other policeman , so safe to assume you do have vivid imagination 

  • Agree 1
Posted

A tour of Afghanistan is stressful not sitting on a Swiss blokes steeps.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Posted

Did our "hero" pay any fine for insulting a Thai lady from scientific community?

Thai court ought to take immediately actions taking in to consideration that :

Penalties are intended to punish the offender.

The Measures  are primarily intended to protect society from the commission of future crimes and potentially dangerous behavior.

......according to Swiss Law "gentlemen" and "ladies" because you implement "therapeutic" measures to "large" E.U citizen from Swiss territory.....and we omit his misogynic unacceptable stance against to Thai lady from scientific community.

Source:

https://www.penalex.ch/en/your-rights/what-are-the-sanctions-in-swiss-criminal-law/

Banning for 5 years otherwise if he visits Thailand earlier then he outght to pay €20.000 fine.

Posted
On 4/3/2024 at 11:42 PM, bob smith said:

talk about melodramatic! 

 

bob.

She deserves  compensation, 20,000 dollars would suffice for PTSD ,diagnosed professionaly.

  • Haha 1
Posted
On 4/4/2024 at 5:42 AM, BigStar said:

 

Let's see. Sitting on some stairs watching the night sky on the beach isn't "classy." Resenting being suddenly kicked in the back by an big arrogant Swiss nutter shows no class or control. If YOU were kicked in the back then you'd just wai and slink away.

 

Seems the ANF Poster Boomerang Principle applies: it's actually the poster himself who lacks class and control. Class is sitting on a bar stool.

Are you ill, off medication, or have reading comprehension difficulty? Her lack of control does not apply to her initial reaction to the kick, it is her susequent (obvious to anyone paying attention) reaction that she now is claiming PTSD. What a freaking drama queen, with said lack of class and control.

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
38 minutes ago, Silencer said:

Are you ill, off medication, or have reading comprehension difficulty?

 

LOL. I seem to be on the few on the forum healthy and fit enough to need no meds, thank you. 

 

38 minutes ago, Silencer said:

Her lack of control does not apply to her initial reaction to the kick

 

OH. It does NOT, in that narrow case.🙂 But YOU have determined it DOES apply when she hasn't expressed politely and gently--according to your standards of "class" and "control"--her mental distress and subsequent legitimate request for due compensation.

 

Correct now? Hee.   

 

Now the concept of tort was broached in Gladstone's Commentaries and has been a branch of law for more than a hundred years. The Brit legal system, formerly ruled by men, was traditionally reluctant to recognize the concept for what they termed "women's maladies." After all, women do express their "maladies" vociferously at times, unlike tough guys such as yourself.

 

Now the courts certainly do, however, in the UK and the USA, as suggested by the recent fine of 93 million imposed on a prominent figure in the US for crying claims of trauma over an imagined incident nearly 30 years ago with no hard evidence. Widely applauded here, BTW. In that case, perfectly understandable, LOL. Call her a drama queen if you like. 🙂 

 

38 minutes ago, Silencer said:

it is her susequent (obvious to anyone paying attention) reaction that she now is claiming PTSD. What a freaking drama queen, with said lack of class and control.

 

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a mental health condition caused by very stressful, frightening or distressing events.

     --https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd/overview/

 

Though you may have your womanly side, you don't really know how stressful it was for her to be suddenly kicked in the back at night by a big foreigner and cursed out, with possibly much worse to come. Clearly it was quite a shock.

 

And you can't definitely say the event, and subsequent events, didn't cause lingering emotional distress for this lady that could be described as at least mild PTSD. Could she have nightmares? Not a far-fetched idea. Does she have the right to let a court decide the matter? She does. But your "class" and "control" would have her just suck it up as you would have, if kicked in the back in the dark by, say, Taylor Swift on public land in Hawaii. In reality your PTSD would have come on much, much sooner, LOL. 

 

Typically in such legal cases the plaintiff will put forth the "best" case. We see similar in claims for GoFundMe by all these Brits injured on their scooters. Nothing unusual here, really. Including Boomerang posts such as your own. 

 

  • Like 1
Posted

Now we waiting for a lowsute against her perpetrator , i think she needs millions to recover......

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
On 4/4/2024 at 8:51 AM, klauskunkel said:

Actually, as it turned out, she was sitting on public property. The owner of the house had encroached on the beach building the steps there. Those steps were then demolished. So legally, as a Thai citizen, she was sitting on her property and got kicked by the Swiss man...

The builder of the property did the missteps not the renter. He had every reason to think they were on his rental land and not public land. 

  • Agree 1
Posted
1 hour ago, animatic said:

The builder of the property did the missteps not the renter.

I clearly said "the owner of the house", I did not mention the renter. So, don't quote my post to promote your narrative. Try to understand what you are reading.

  • Thumbs Up 2

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...