Consumer injured by glass in spaghetti at Thai pizza chain

[Yagoda]

4 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

I guess you never saw the classisc Jeff Bridges movie? 

Is that Lloyd Bridges kid? Dude with the beard and bowling shirt? Guy that copied me and said "dude" a lot? I dont think I saw that one.

[sqwakvfr]

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

Is that Lloyd Bridges kid? Dude with the beard and bowling shirt? Guy that copied me and said "dude" a lot? I dont think I saw that one.

Yes and brother of Beau.  Currently starring in the FX series "The Old Man". One of my favorites of 2024.

[richard_smith237]

5 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Translation: Im going to give up now because I dont know what Im talking about and Im getting more and more hysterical.

 

I love that you can quote Mark Twain but not the defamation laws.

 

Nope - you're just a trollish time waster - I've seen this with your content in plenty of other threads too.

 

As mentioned - Thailands defamation laws are incredibly easy to fine...  you've been spoon-fed the sections - if you're too stupid to find them thats your issue - I'll not waste my time with fools.

[Yagoda]

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Nope - you're just a trollish time waster - I've seen this with your content in plenty of other threads too.

 

As mentioned - Thailands defamation laws are incredibly easy to fine...  you've been spoon-fed the sections - if you're too stupid to find them thats your issue - I'll not waste my time with fools.

Translation: You truly embarrassed me so Ill try to get the last few insults in before I fall to the ground in the foetal position and begin wailing.

 

PS. I dont care enough to look, but I seem to recall you were one of the Harris gang. If so, I give you credit for sticking around

[Liverpool Lou]

5 hours ago, Henk Langeweg said:

'Vimtim' lucky day, can sue for the big notes ... or is it a setup?

Perhaps you can't read what was clearly stated in the OP?

[Davedub]

4 hours ago, Olof Karlsson said:

How can it be violent to the defamatory laws to tell where they served glass?

 

The problem with the defamation laws is that they are enforcable even if what is said is true. 

 

[Liverpool Lou]

5 hours ago, sqwakvfr said:

Does "Pizza The Hut" serve chicken?   Can asking a general question be considered as defamation in the Land of Smiles? 

Why didn't you include "Pizza The Company"  which also serves chicken?

[Liverpool Lou]

3 hours ago, mdr224 said:

I was served raw chicken at one of those popular jeffers steak restaurants in a mall. Surprised i didnt get sick and would be surprised if it didnt happen alot

Raw chicken?   Why did you eat it and not return it?

[Liverpool Lou]

2 hours ago, watchcat said:

 

No. Idon't want to get injured on glass eating a meal that'll cost you 3-4 times the worth of the food.

You think that restaurants should charge at their cost price?    Where do you get the food that your wife prepares - somewhere that doesn't make a profit? 

[Yagoda]

12 minutes ago, Davedub said:

 

The problem with the defamation laws is that they are enforcable even if what is said is true. 

 

If that is true, what would the rationale be in light of Thai society and their social and political philosophy?

[Yagoda]

5 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Raw chicken?   Why did you eat it and not return it?

In the USA thats a special category of dish called "Payday"

[Liverpool Lou]

2 hours ago, KannikaP said:

Or maybe the chicken ate the small bit of glass whilst pecking about , and it somehow got into its meat. 555

Since when does spaghetti peck about eating?

[topcat333]

5 hours ago, sqwakvfr said:

Does "Pizza The Hut" serve chicken?   Can asking a general question be considered as defamation in the Land of Smiles? 

The article starts out by stating "a well-known Thai Pizza Chain", Pizza, The Hut, as you call it is hardly a Thai Pizza Chain, or I guess we can imagine that it's now a Thai pizza chain if it makes you feel better. 

[MalcolmB]

6 hours ago, Yagoda said:

You're not Thai, you don't speak Thai, you don't read thai, you weren't raised in thailand, so with that comment, continue your diatribe against Thailand laws.

Bigots can not help themselves

[metisdead]

Some posts with derogatory trolling comments toward Thai people have been removed:

• 14. You will not post slurs, degrading, or overly negative comments directed towards Thailand, Thai people, Thai culture, Thai institutions such as the military, judicial or law enforcement system, or specific locations within Thailand.

 

As to the defamation laws in Thailand, this forum rule is in line with the Thai law:

 

7. You will not post defamatory or libelous comments. Defamation is the issuance of a statement about another person or business which causes that person or business to suffer harm or loss. A statement does not have to be false to be defamatory. Libel is when the defamatory statement is published either as a drawing, picture, painting, motion picture, film, or letters made visible by any means or by broadcasting, dissemination or propagation by any other means. Defamation is both a civil and criminal charge in Thailand and elsewhere in ASEAN.

[worgeordie]

You never here about food product recalls here , in the West it's everyday ,

pleased to know Thai food products are soooo safe .....🙄

[Yagoda]

12 minutes ago, MalcolmB said:

Bigots can not help themselves

Especially when they have never read or studied whatever they are expounding on. 

[Liverpool Lou]

19 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

defamation laws protect the establishment.

Not so...

"Criminal Code, Section 330. Truth as a Defense
In case of defamation, if the person prosecuted for defamation can prove that the imputation made by him is true, he shall not be punished. But he shall not be allowed to prove if such imputation concerns personal matters, and such proof will not be benefit to the public".

 

Section 329. Good Faith Statement
A person, in good faith, expresses any opinion or a statement:

1.  By way of self-justification or defense, or for the protection of a legitimate interest;
2.  In the status of being an official in the exercise of his functions;
3.  By way of fair comment on any person or thing subjected to public criticism; or
4.  By way of fair report of the open proceeding of any Court or meeting
shall not be guilty of defamation.

[richard_smith237]

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Not so...

"Criminal Code, Section 330. Truth as a Defense
In case of defamation, if the person prosecuted for defamation can prove that the imputation made by him is true, he shall not be punished. But he shall not be allowed to prove if such imputation concerns personal matters, and such proof will not be benefit to the public".

 

Section 329. Good Faith Statement
A person, in good faith, expresses any opinion or a statement:

1.  By way of self-justification or defense, or for the protection of a legitimate interest;
2.  In the status of being an official in the exercise of his functions;
3.  By way of fair comment on any person or thing subjected to public criticism; or
4.  By way of fair report of the open proceeding of any Court or meeting
shall not be guilty of defamation.

 

Then why has the chain not been named ????....

 

The answer is a simple one - all those concerned and reporting on this issue are aware they could face charges when making a public comment which names the chain.

 

 

Precedence exists - though the ruling was ultimately overturned due to the negative international publicity the case received: 

 

In 2013, British labor rights activist Andy Hall faced multiple defamation lawsuits filed by Thailand's Natural Fruit Company. These legal actions stemmed from a report by the Finnish NGO Finnwatch, which alleged labor rights abuses at Natural Fruit's factory, including underage labor, passport confiscation, and unpaid overtime. Natural Fruit pursued both criminal and civil defamation charges against him, seeking substantial damages. In 2016, a Thai court found Hall guilty of criminal defamation and violations of the Computer Crimes Act, sentencing him to a suspended prison term and a fine. However, in 2018, the Thai Court of Appeals overturned this conviction, acquitting Hall of all charges. This case drew significant international attention, highlighting concerns over the use of defamation laws to suppress investigations into labor rights violations.

 

Though the above example concerns labour rights, the issue highlighted how 'truth' may not be considered a defence and that Defamation laws are abused in Thailand. 

 

[Liverpool Lou]

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

20 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Not so...

"Criminal Code, Section 330. Truth as a Defense
In case of defamation, if the person prosecuted for defamation can prove that the imputation made by him is true, he shall not be punished. But he shall not be allowed to prove if such imputation concerns personal matters, and such proof will not be benefit to the public".

 

Section 329. Good Faith Statement
A person, in good faith, expresses any opinion or a statement:

1.  By way of self-justification or defense, or for the protection of a legitimate interest;
2.  In the status of being an official in the exercise of his functions;
3.  By way of fair comment on any person or thing subjected to public criticism; or
4.  By way of fair report of the open proceeding of any Court or meeting
shall not be guilty of defamation.

Expand  

 

Then why has the chain not been named ????....

 

The answer is a simple one - all those concerned and reporting on this issue are aware they could face charges when making a public comment which names the chain.

Yes, the answer is simple...there are exceptions, laid out in the Criminal Code, that exclude certain circumstances from criminal penalty.

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Yes, the answer is simple...there are exceptions, laid out in the Criminal Code, that exclude certain circumstances from criminal penalty.

 

I'd hope so - such events 'need naming and shaming' for the greater good of the public - but this does not happen.

[Liverpool Lou]

12 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Precedence exists - though the ruling was ultimately overturned due to the negative international publicity the case received: 

 

In 2013, British labor rights activist Andy Hall faced multiple defamation lawsuits filed by Thailand's Natural Fruit Company. These legal actions stemmed from a report by the Finnish NGO Finnwatch, which alleged labor rights abuses at Natural Fruit's factory, including underage labor, passport confiscation, and unpaid overtime. Natural Fruit pursued both criminal and civil defamation charges against him, seeking substantial damages. In 2016, a Thai court found Hall guilty of criminal defamation and violations of the Computer Crimes Act, sentencing him to a suspended prison term and a fine. However, in 2018, the Thai Court of Appeals overturned this conviction, acquitting Hall of all charges. This case drew significant international attention, highlighting concerns over the use of defamation laws to suppress investigations into labor rights violations.

 

Though the above example concerns labour rights, the issue highlighted how 'truth' may not be considered a defence and that Defamation laws are abused in Thailand. 

You're right, precedence does exist and your quote so conveniently confirms the exceptions...he was acquitted of all charges on appeal!

[richard_smith237]

11 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

You're right, precedence does exist and your quote so conveniently confirms the exceptions...he was acquitted of all charges on appeal!

 

In the end...   he still faced the prospect of Jail - Charges brought in 2013, convicted in 2016, acquitted on appeal in 2018...   after spending how much on defence and appeals ????

 

Additionally, it was widely known that the acquittal arose from international pressure and the power of support from international media - this same pressure does not exist for a customer publicly shaming a restaurant for glass in pizza....   

This is why Thailands defamation laws are so widely criticised, both domestically and internationally.

 

 

I'm also quite sure that someone with your intelligence is not in favour of Thailands defamation laws as they currently stand - thus, you are clearly arguing for arguments sake. 

[bbi1]

20 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

 

 

A shocking discovery of glass fragments in a dish of spaghetti at a popular pizza chain led to a consumer’s injury, sparking safety concerns. The incident, which occurred yesterday, November 28, has raised alarm among consumers and prompted discussions about food safety.

 

What is the name of this pizza restaurant so people can avoid them like a plague. Stupid reporting without even letting us know.

[sqwakvfr]

58 minutes ago, topcat333 said:

The article starts out by stating "a well-known Thai Pizza Chain", Pizza, The Hut, as you call it is hardly a Thai Pizza Chain, or I guess we can imagine that it's now a Thai pizza chain if it makes you feel better. 

"Thai Pizza Chain" could mean different things. I believe the Hut in LOS is owned and operated by a local company. 

[KannikaP]

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Since when does spaghetti peck about eating?

Please read what I posted again. Spaghetti....peck........eating???

[terryofcrete]

2 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Who is Lebowski??

Big Man

[Liverpool Lou]

16 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I'm also quite sure that someone with your intelligence is not in favour of Thailands defamation laws as they currently stand - thus, you are clearly arguing for arguments sake.

Your assertion regarding what you think my opinion of the Thai laws should be is incorrect and your characterisation of my factual comments as "arguing for argument's sake" is equally fatuous.   I've read the laws regarding defamation and have posted them here, I have no issue with them, the laws cover protection for legitimate complaints/issues/comments.

[Jonathan Swift]

8 hours ago, Yagoda said:

You're not Thai, you don't speak Thai, you don't read thai, you weren't raised in thailand, so with that comment, continue your diatribe against Thailand laws.

Last time I checked it wasn't illegal to have an opinion in Thailand. A lot of people who have been here a long time and do in fact speak Thai do actually agree with the commenter, as do I.

[Yagoda]

Just now, Jonathan Swift said:

Last time I checked it wasn't illegal to have an opinion in Thailand. A lot of people who have been here a long time and do in fact speak Thai do actually agree with the commenter, as do I.

Really? Have you read Thai laws re defamation?