News Forum - Expat gets hit in the head at Bangkok zoo, apparently for taking his mask off to eat

[RampantRabbit]

3 minutes ago, Fluke said:

No, I do believe that the Swedish guy in the story went to the Dolphin show last week in BKK , although I am highly doubtful that you also went there to the Dolphin show in BKK last week , like I don't really believe that you did go there 

Dunno where I saidI went to any show, I would  never  patronise these  exploitating bastards and their mis treatement in many cases of their animals for  human pleasure

[Stonker]

5 minutes ago, RampantRabbit said:

ive already STATED that one person doesnt have to in a  car, Im questioning why two  marrie d people and more judging  by the photos at safari world  can remove a mask but once in a  car they MUST BY LAW all wear a   mask

... and you've been given the answer.

Several times.

In Safari World they're not putting anyone else at risk - there's no possibility of it.

In a car, they might or might not be - there's no room for any argument between a taxi driver, passenger, or a Grab driver as the law applies to everyone, no exceptions.

Both avoid anyone else being put at risk.

Fat boy Swede was breaking the law and annoying those around him. He refused to put his mask on even when confronted, and to annoy others even more his wife's only response was to take a photo of those who he was most annoying, making it deliberate. He was lucky to get away as lightly as he did.

[RampantRabbit]

whilst im  pissing many of you  off also why not have 2  metre  spacing between seats in their auditorium I mean they wanted to do this  on planes  didnt they , or  has  this  all been abandoned  now?

[Manu]

8 minutes ago, RampantRabbit said:

ive already STATED that one person doesnt have to in a  car, Im questioning why two  marrie d people and more judging  by the photos at safari world  can remove a mask but once in a  car they MUST BY LAW all wear a   mask

"when stupidity governs, intelligence becomes a crime" (Henry de Montherlant).

They do not ask you to question anything anymore, they ask you to follow the law and be stupid.

[Stonker]

5 minutes ago, RampantRabbit said:

so are the family holding their breath while  the photos  are  being  done

Why would they need to?

Nobody else is "in close proximity" so nobody else is at risk.

That doesn't apply to the Swede.

Source: his wife.

"Proof": his wife's photos, on facebook.

[RampantRabbit]

9 minutes ago, Stonker said:

... and you've been given the answer.

Several times.

In Safari World they're not putting anyone else at risk - there's no possibility of it.

In a car, they might or might not be - there's no room for any argument between a taxi driver, passenger, or a Grab driver as the law applies to everyone, no exceptions.

Both avoid anyone else being put at risk.

Fat boy Swede was breaking the law and annoying those around him. He refused to put his mask on even when confronted, and to annoy others even more his wife's only response was to take a photo of those who he was most annoying, making it deliberate. He was lucky to get away as lightly as he did.

im  not inetersted if the  swede  (ill  refrain from the fatboy  insult) part im interested and still  dont have a satisfactory explanation to is   on the photo non mask wearing,no one asks or  checks  if  they are  married and that was the reason you state for  wearing in a  car, in fact they are putting more  people at risk at safari worlkd as the staff in the photo even though they  may be two metres  away  will  not be present in their  car therefore there has to be more  risk....and all for what "a  photo" its  hardly critical is it.

Edited December 13, 2021 by RampantRabbit

[RampantRabbit]

2 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Why would they need to?

Nobody else is "in close proximity" so nobody else is at risk.

That doesn't apply to the Swede.

Source: his wife.

"Proof": his wife's photos, on facebook.

cpouldnt care  less  about the swede am questioning the sanity of the rules which make  no sense its  either  all or not , not a pick and choose, i mean selling food   where you cant eat it at a venue is  plain nuts, making two  married  people wear a  mask in a car is  nuts, taking a photo with no masks  on is  nuts, cuz  if  i get  with the  2  metres  rule this  would  mean as long as I stay 2m away form anyone then I dont have to wear a  mask ever, i mean its good  enough for a photo, I guess people think  popping the  mask off for a minute or  two is  just fine is what Im getting at

[Stonker]

2 minutes ago, RampantRabbit said:

whilst im  pissing many of you  off also why not have 2  metre  spacing between seats in their auditorium I mean they wanted to do this  on planes  didnt they , or  has  this  all been abandoned  now?

No, probably not "pissing many off", just becoming rather boring.

People are asked to observe spacing - that's what the sign says - and told to wear masks.

What's unreasonable about that, to try to balance giving people as much normality as possible while being as safe as possible?

[Fluke]

5 minutes ago, RampantRabbit said:

whilst im  pissing many of you  off also why not have 2  metre  spacing between seats in their auditorium I mean they wanted to do this  on planes  didnt they , or  has  this  all been abandoned  now?

You tell us whether they had spacing in-between the seats at the Dolphin show , after all , you claimed to have went there last week to the same Dolphin show and saw food being sold in the vicinity , didn't you 

[Stonker]

6 minutes ago, Manu said:

"when stupidity governs, intelligence becomes a crime" (Henry de Montherlant).

They do not ask you to question anything anymore, they ask you to follow the law and be stupid.

No, they ask you to follow the law and consider others.

[RampantRabbit]

5 minutes ago, Fluke said:

You tell us whether they had spacing in-between the seats at the Dolphin show , after all , you claimed to have went there last week to the same Dolphin show and saw food being sold in the vicinity , didn't you 

LOOK try to get yer FACTS  right, I  have never  said or ever  been to one of those disgusting shows

[RampantRabbit]

8 minutes ago, Stonker said:

No, probably not "pissing many off", just becoming rather boring.

People are asked to observe spacing - that's what the sign says - and told to wear masks.

What's unreasonable about that, to try to balance giving people as much normality as possible while being as safe as possible?

observe spacing, the photo  looks  like  no one has observed it, they are crammed  in, its  a disgrace

Edited December 13, 2021 by RampantRabbit

[Stonker]

28 minutes ago, RampantRabbit said:

and? it  makes  no sense to remove a  mask for any reason at  all and they shouldnt be  selling   food either and if having a photo ( not at all necessary or  needed) is a  reason to remove a  mask for even 1  second then it  really does make no sense, no sense at  all.

No, it "makes sense" to allow people to remove masks when they're not "in close proximity" to others who may be affected.

It's striking a balance between what's normal and what's safe.

You just seem unable to grasp that.

14 minutes ago, RampantRabbit said:

im interested and still  dont have a satisfactory explanation to is   on the photo non mask wearing,no one asks or  checks  if  they are  married and that was the reason you state for  wearing in a  car, in fact they are putting more  people at risk at safari worlkd as the staff in the photo even though they  may be two metres  away  will  not be present in their  car therefore there has to be more  risk....and all for what "a  photo" its  hardly critical is it.

You've had countless explanations, but you seem incapable of comprehension or saying what you don't understand or you disagree with.

Nowhere do I ever suggest that "checks  if  they are  married and that was the reason you state for  wearing in a  car". What I said was the reverse - that the law on wearing masks in a car applies regardless of being married or anything else to keep things quick and simple and stop delays at checks for everyone else.

The staff  "in the photo" aren't at risk as they aren't "in the photo" but are two metres away, outdoors, and masked, so not "in close proximity".

What part of that do you disagree with or can you not understand?

 

[RampantRabbit]

3 minutes ago, Stonker said:

No, it "makes sense" to allow people to remove masks when they're not "in close proximity" to others who may be affected.

It's striking a balance between what's normal and what's safe.

You just seem unable to grasp that.

You've had countless explanations, but you seem incapable of comprehension or saying what you don't understand or you disagree with.

Nowhere do I ever suggest that "checks  if  they are  married and that was the reason you state for  wearing in a  car". What I said was the reverse - that the law on wearing masks in a car applies regardless of being married or anything else to keep things quick and simple and stop delays at checks for everyone else.

The staff  "in the photo" aren't at risk as they aren't "in the photo" but are two metres away, outdoors, and masked, so not "in close proximity".

What part of that do you disagree with or can you not understand?

all of  it, it makes  no sense in anyway

[RampantRabbit]

4 minutes ago, Stonker said:

You've had countless explanations

they dont make any sense to me at  all

[RampantRabbit]

8 minutes ago, Stonker said:

No, it "makes sense" to allow people to remove masks when they're not "in close proximity" to others who may be affected.

you see you cant have it both ways, the law  says outside  your  house mask to be worn at all tyimes  unless  drinking eating exercising..........now  if they had soemthing to eat in the photo it  would make sense ( not that it really does  anyway) what the law doesnt say is its  ok to remove your masks for a photo which is really   uneccessary

Edited December 13, 2021 by RampantRabbit

[Stonker]

21 minutes ago, RampantRabbit said:

cpouldnt care  less  about the swede am questioning the sanity of the rules which make  no sense its  either  all or not ,

No it's not "either all or not" - it's a balance between safety and normality.

 

22 minutes ago, RampantRabbit said:

not a pick and choose,

Exactly - but the Swede decided to pick and choose.

 

23 minutes ago, RampantRabbit said:

, i mean selling food   where you cant eat it at a venue is  plain nuts,

Why "plain nuts"?

You can remove your mask and eat when not in close proximity to others and not annoying others.

What's "plain nuts" about that?

25 minutes ago, RampantRabbit said:

making two  married  people wear a  mask in a car is  nuts,

Why "nuts" if you consider the alternatives?

How does anyone doing a check know if the two are married or a Grab driver and passenger?

What about couples who aren't married but living together?

What about LGBT who can't be married?

The combinations and permutations are endless, and if checks were made they'd need every car with more than two in it who were unmasked to be checked to be stopped and checked, delaying and inconveniencing everyone else.

Far better for everyone else to not allow any exemptions on any grounds and treat everyone the same.

What part of that do you disagree with?

30 minutes ago, RampantRabbit said:

taking a photo with no masks  on is  nuts,

Why "nuts"?

The person taking the photo is two metres away and masked so at minimal / no risk.

What part of that do you disagree with?

32 minutes ago, RampantRabbit said:

cuz  if  i get  with the  2  metres  rule this  would  mean as long as I stay 2m away form anyone then I dont have to wear a  mask ever, i mean its good  enough for a photo,

Yes, that would be "good enough" and "fine" - but that wasn't what the Swede did, nor is it what most people can do when they go out. How, in Safari World or anywhere else where there are other people around can you make sure you "stay 2m away form anyone"?

If you can, fine, no-one will object.

36 minutes ago, RampantRabbit said:

I guess people think  popping the  mask off for a minute or  two is  just fine is what Im getting at

Well, that's what the Swede thought. It wasn't "just fine" with others as he didn't " "stay 2m away form anyone", but he did it anyway and continued to do it even after others objected.

Can you genuinely not see what's wrong with that?

[Stonker]

14 minutes ago, RampantRabbit said:

they dont make any sense to me at  all

No sense to you?  That's increasingly obvious.

It would help if you said what you disagree with or don't understand, but that seems too much to ask.

[RampantRabbit]

5 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Exactly - but the Swede decided to pick and choose

couldnt care  less  about him my  point is  taking a mask off  for a photo is agaisnt the rules is  it  not, mask should be worn outside  at  ALL  times unless  eating drinking exercising...doesnt include photos

[RampantRabbit]

7 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Yes, that would be "good enough" and "fine" - but that wasn't what the Swede did, nor is it what most people can do when they go out. How, in Safari World or anywhere else where there are other people around can you make sure you "stay 2m away form anyone"?

If you can, fine, no-one will object.

But that IS  NOT he laws according to the law If  Im outside my home I must wear a  mask.even though I live in a field in the  boonies I cannot  accroding to the law not wear a  mask

4 minutes ago, Stonker said:

No sense to you?  That's increasingly obvious.

It would help if you said what you disagree with or don't understand, but that seems too much to ask.

Ive answered it already

[Stonker]

14 minutes ago, RampantRabbit said:

you see you cant have it both ways, the law  says outside  your  house mask to be worn at all tyimes  unless  drinking eating exercising..........now  if they had soemthing to eat in the photo it  would make sense ( not that it really does  anyway) what the law doesnt say is its  ok to remove your masks for a photo which is really   uneccessary

There is no having it "both ways" - masks are to be worn when in close proximity to others except in specific circumstances designed to strike a balance between safety and normality.

In the photos you're talking about they're not in close proximity to others apart from their own group, so there's no issue and "the law" doesn't need to make an exemption whether it's "uneccessary" or not as it's permitted.

[RampantRabbit]

18 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Can you genuinely not see what's wrong with that?

yes of course I can BUT the law does not say you can take  off  your mask and take a photo for  no good  reason at  all in fact Id say  taking it  of is  not  only  illegal but totally  uneccessary as it says worn outside at all times it  doesnt say its  ok if  everyone is 2  metres  away form you it says at all times unless  eating drinking exercising, this is a photo , and we  have to go with the story as  thats what it is HE SAID he was doing   eating and another poster said FOOD was being sold INSIDE the dolphin show, they shouldnt be  selling food is another subject entirely.

It doesnt say as far as I can find that you can ONLY  take a  mask off when eating in a  restauarant but not  when taking a photo

Edited December 13, 2021 by RampantRabbit

[RampantRabbit]

9 minutes ago, Stonker said:

so there's no issue

but there is, the law says wear a mask at ALL time unless  eating drinking exercising....or  has it been changed

[RampantRabbit]

10 minutes ago, Stonker said:

There is no having it "both ways" - masks are to be worn when in close proximity to others except in specific circumstances designed to strike a balance between safety and normality.

In the photos you're talking about they're not in close proximity to others apart from their own group, so there's no issue and "the law" doesn't need to make an exemption whether it's "uneccessary" or not as it's permitted.

Ok so if  i walk down the road with a camera and stay 2  metres  away from anyone wherever I am in Thailand I can take a photo of my self de masked....and no one will arrest me/fine me? I dont think so

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, RampantRabbit said:

you  aint getting  this are you, so in a  car two  people  have to wear masks, according to you beacause its  too  difficult to prove they are  married........

Jesus H Christ.

Maybe if you read what's written rather than what you'd like to be written you'd understand things a little more. Maybe not, though .....

According to me two people have to wear masks in a car not because "its too difficult to prove they are married" but because if there was such an exemption it would not only be inequitable and unjustifiable but it would inconvenience everyone else with the delays it would cause if checks were enforced.

 

1 hour ago, RampantRabbit said:

BUT at safari world two  people who may or  may  not be married  can remove their masks for a photo, there is  no sense in it

 

The "sense" is that they're not inconveniencing anyone or putting anyone at risk.

How can there be "no sense" in that?