19 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

But what is the guy on the left picking up and taking away, then? It looks like a glass of dark liquid (strawberry smoothie? What else could it be?).

The guy picks up an empty plastic container cup..... Same size as the yellow cup.

What 'looks like' a dark object I think is the table number marker - other tables have it too.

Its just been moved to the outside of the table as they put their belongings on the inside (I guess).

Thats why I think something doesn't add up with the story.

One cup remains full (yellow), one is empty (clear).

The empty one 'could' have been a strawberry milkshake that was consumed - and the cook has the story backwards.

Or another strawberry milkshake was ordered and the staff delivered a pineapple one which they refused to pay for - the story from the cook doesn't appear match the imagery.

Also - its the cook who dominant in telling the story to the reporter - but its the waiter or waitress who would have taken the order in the first place.

I'm guessing the staff or the cook might have made a mistake with the order and they've doubled down on their excuse of "bad foreigner" so their boss didn't subtract the 80 baht from their wages - then the story grew arms and legs and somehow media got involved.

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The guy picks up an empty plastic container cup..... Same size as the yellow cup.

What 'looks like' a dark object I think is the table number marker - other tables have it too.

Its just been moved to the outside of the table as they put their belongings on the inside (I guess).

Thats why I think something doesn't add up with the story.

One cup remains full (yellow), one is empty (clear).

The empty one 'could' have been a strawberry milkshake that was consumed - and the cook has the story backwards.

Or another strawberry milkshake was ordered and the staff delivered a pineapple one which they refused to pay for - the story from the cook doesn't appear match the imagery.

Also - its the cook who dominant in telling the story to the reporter - but its the waiter or waitress who would have taken the order in the first place.

I'm guessing the staff or the cook might have made a mistake with the order and they've doubled down on their excuse of "bad foreigner" so their boss didn't subtract the 80 baht from their wages - then the story grew arms and legs and somehow media got involved.

I was referring to 0:36 in the video in the OP, where the guy picks up what looks like a bottle (though it is difficult to tell and it could be a cup), but it is definitely not a table marker. It happens at a different time from your screenshots, as the woman is still sitting at the table.

In any case, this is absolutely plausible too:

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I'm guessing the staff or the cook might have made a mistake with the order and they've doubled down on their excuse of "bad foreigner" so their boss didn't subtract the 80 baht from their wages - then the story grew arms and legs and somehow media got involved.

11 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

She didn’t drink it. From the reports, she tasted it, realised it was loaded with sugar, and pointed out that the order was wrong.

If you ordered a pint of Heineken and the waiter brought you a large whisky instead, would you be expected to pay for it just because the staff had already poured it ?

Or more closely - if you ordered a zero-alcohol beer and they served you a normal alcoholic one, would you just shrug and pay for it anyway because “it’s only one drink” ?

Or, if you ordered a black coffee with no sugar because you’re diabetic, and the waiter brought you a sweet latte instead, would you still be expected to pay for it just because it had already been made?

The issue isn’t the 80 baht. The issue is that the order was wrong.

but the shop offered to rectify the mistake, if in fact there was a mistake, maybe the customer was a Karen