Nisa

I guess all cabbies cannot be of the type to return possessions found in their cabs.

Thai news say he had two wives and a gambling problem to support. Also had a bum leg which I am sure helped the passengers feel sorry for the guy and help push.

But stealing a women's dog???

They ought to try to some lessons from a countries that know how to settle differences and not increase tensions with those who already are upset with them ... unless of course the goal is to keep the problems in the south going for many decades to come.

Such as?

And you wonder why they stick to soap operas.

Although we just read elsewhere they just censored one of those too. Honestly, I really wonder what these people think they hope to achieve by censoring this stuff? There will be a thousand internet links to it within days, and people will be happily downloading it, having had its notoriety raised 1000% by censoring this stuff. Aside from all of the other issues in Thailand, this type of thing really makes me sad. It is really a patrician attitude to the people, believing that they are incapable of learning or seeing anything that isn't mainstream or bland.

Very very stupid reaction

Now you might want to start a thread asking for definitions of democracy......... I suspect most of it would be filled with dross.

do you really think that "banning" of films is the only or even a good yardstick for democracy?

I can't condone Thailand for banning this film even if I don't know the actual content of the film and what is objectionable. Bottom line censorship is censorship and trying to pretend it is not because you find the subject bad means you (we) are missing the point and no different than those censoring things we don't agree with.

Thailand without any rational argument is a democracy but democracy has little to do with censorship and democracy certainly isn't fair to all ... if 51% of the people decide a film shouldn't be shown that leaves 49% percent of the population disenfranchised (no different than voting for leaders). In fact judging by the way the majority vote in many democratic society's there is little doubt in my mind that a good dictator would be better for them. As for communism and democracy they are not at all opposites and now a days it seems many people confuse democracy to mean capitalism or freedom when both couldn't be further from the truth.

Although Thailand without doubt can be more restrictive in terms of censorship than my own country, I find Thailand as a whole provides considerable more freedom as an individual.

If you want to make a film successful, Just get it banned. Banning may have worked 50 years ago, but not now.

Bottom line it is a shame anything like this can be banned. If the government felt the material was untrue or illegal then they should use the court system to try and block it and not ban it under the guise of national security. It is a shame governments can get away with using National Security as the reason to take what normally would be an illegal action without court approval but the banning of documentary????

Most Thais I know wouldn't watch it anyway. It would tear them away from their soaps.

Most people don't go see any movie but this seems more about the company you keep than this movie.

I am not sure how reporting the arrest of somebody in the media (Facebook) could be illegal. Also not sure why it matter that it is posted on Facebook as opposed to a Newspaper or Twitter or other form of mass communication. In some more modern countries you lose your license if you get arrested for Drunk Driving even before you are convicted and in many places get your car impounded ... this would seem illegal as your being punished without conviction but reporting on an arrest doesn't really seem illegal regardless of where the news is being published. The have TV shows such as cops showing people getting arrested and various internet sites showing mug shots of non-convicted people.

As for being an effective tool to discourage drunk driving, I'm guessing it must help but just not sure it is appropriate but I have never had a family member killed or crippled by a drunk driver and bet most who have would think this an appropriate deterrent.

Here is a little help, why I think it makes a hell of a difference;

one side: media, often pixelating faces, reporting on news.

the other side: a rouge deputy- chief, posting pictures on Facebook.

Get it?

I don't get your point at all since I am not aware of newspapers pixelating pictures of people arrested (except in rare circumstances such as being underage) and the information the newspapers get about the person arrested is generally from the police. Nor would I get too worried about somebody having a Facebook account who already has a hell of a lot of of power and legally carries a gun and can take away your freedoms --- especially when every posts on Facebook can be tracked.

Let me just put it simple, okay?!

You see no difference between a reporter of a newspaper, issuing a story about a crime/ alleged crime and a police- officer, who takes the law into his own hand and issuing pictures of alleged lawbreakers on his Facebook- page?

And it is okay for you, that the sentence (if any) of these alleged criminals says nothing about having their picture published by said officeron a social- network?!

That is totally fine with you?

Nisa...I could tell you what you are, but I like posting here too much!

If you thought more before reacting, took things less personal or used basic reading comprehension skills then you would know that I have made clear I am not in favor of this

The real point is that your arguments against this make no sense Again, reporting who has been arrested is not taking the law into one's own hands and unless people are idiots they already should know that being arrested falls under public information and isn't covered by some doctor patient (in this case) police confidentiality.

Your concern over a Major General using Facebook to post pictures of people who were not arrested for some personal vendetta also seems a bit off too since this is a very public forum that is tracked (even if posts are deleted) and doing such a thing would be easy for the victim to prove at the expense of the police. You are talking about a cop who can easily arrest you on trumped up charges and take away your freedom. If he wanted to put somebody's face on Facebook he didn't like and say they were arrested for drunk driving then he would simply have them arrested for drunk driving. I'd more concerned with whose pictures they are not posting that were arrested.

Absolutely nothing illegal about police issuing press releases that include the identities of people arrested regardless if they do it on their own website, facebook or through printed material to the press. If the police issue a press release tot he press saying somebody has been arrested who hasn't then that will run in the newspapers too because there is a certain level of trust that happens and to my knowledge there has never been any real concern for police publicly reporting people who have been arrested who have not in order to satisfy some personal grudge ... especially in a country where libel is crime.

It doesn't sit right with me that they are doing this but I don't see anything illegal about it and they are simply being creative in using available tools as their means to try to reduce drunk driving ... probably a thing you have accused them of not doing many times.

How can we be sure that all these people with their photos on Facebook are guilty of the alleged crime of drinking while under the influence of alcohol?

Who is saying these people are convicted as opposed to being arrested?

Are you against the police releasing and the media reporting the names of anyone arrested until they are convicted? I am not saying I agree with posting photos of those arrested or who blow over the limit but most of the arguments I am seeing against it don't seem reasonable.

Where do you lose your license before you are convicted? Certainly not in the UK. You will only lose your license when you have a conviction.

Numerous places including areas of the US, Canada and Australia.

I don't like the idea of the Facebook thing but I just don't see anything illegal about it and it seems to just be a tool being used to try to deter people from drinking and driving. In a perfect world (suspected criminal rights wise) nobody would know the identity of anyone arrested before conviction nor would anyone be held in jail prior to conviction even if doing so was in the public interest because in doing so there is some indication the person committed the crime be it drunk driving. child molestation or terrorism.

I am not sure how reporting the arrest of somebody in the media (Facebook) could be illegal. Also not sure why it matter that it is posted on Facebook as opposed to a Newspaper or Twitter or other form of mass communication. In some more modern countries you lose your license if you get arrested for Drunk Driving even before you are convicted and in many places get your car impounded ... this would seem illegal as your being punished without conviction but reporting on an arrest doesn't really seem illegal regardless of where the news is being published. The have TV shows such as cops showing people getting arrested and various internet sites showing mug shots of non-convicted people.

As for being an effective tool to discourage drunk driving, I'm guessing it must help but just not sure it is appropriate but I have never had a family member killed or crippled by a drunk driver and bet most who have would think this an appropriate deterrent.

Here is a little help, why I think it makes a hell of a difference;

one side: media, often pixelating faces, reporting on news.

the other side: a rouge deputy- chief, posting pictures on Facebook.

Get it?

I don't get your point at all since I am not aware of newspapers pixelating pictures of people arrested (except in rare circumstances such as being underage) and the information the newspapers get about the person arrested is generally from the police. Nor would I get too worried about somebody having a Facebook account who already has a hell of a lot of of power and legally carries a gun and can take away your freedoms --- especially when every posts on Facebook can be tracked.

Must be a slow crime day for a city of around 10-million for a rock thrower to be making the top headlines.

I am not sure how reporting the arrest of somebody in the media (Facebook) could be illegal. Also not sure why it matter that it is posted on Facebook as opposed to a Newspaper or Twitter or other form of mass communication. In some more modern countries you lose your license if you get arrested for Drunk Driving even before you are convicted and in many places get your car impounded ... this would seem illegal as your being punished without conviction but reporting on an arrest doesn't really seem illegal regardless of where the news is being published. The have TV shows such as cops showing people getting arrested and various internet sites showing mug shots of non-convicted people.

As for being an effective tool to discourage drunk driving, I'm guessing it must help but just not sure it is appropriate but I have never had a family member killed or crippled by a drunk driver and bet most who have would think this an appropriate deterrent.

Not sure I agree with this but interesting to see people who often scream the loudest about lack of consequences for drunk drives being so against a consequence that has been used in numerous places ... though not sure if it helps but assume the more consequences will equal a reduction in those who choose to drink and drive.

Considering this matter is about temple, a so-called house of God, although I doubt if God would be allowed in there without a permit, or by having to prove his allegiance to one side or the other, perhaps he could show his hand, create an earthquake in the area and demolish the building completely?

I`m sure that would solve the problem.

Which God are you talking about? Although it originally started out as as a Hindu Temple around the 9th Century, most of it and what still remains was built around the 11th century in the name of Buddhism which doesn't have a God.

You`re got me here.

I`ve been trying to remember his name. Arry somebody or other I think?

Got it, Harry Krishna, third cousin four times removed of John the Baptist. Harry was one of the almighty powerful , but unfortunately hopeless at creating earthquakes.

Who cares what God? My point is that if the building was destroyed by some sort of natural disaster, it would stop the dispute and the bickering would stop.

It is a serious of buildings and not just one building and they already are in ruins but understand the point you are trying to make on a subject you appear to know little about. However, why not take it a step further and just destroy the entire planet to end all disputes.

I don't see any jokes here. Only a couple of posts pointing out the lack of training and common sense that so often costs lives.

They have since have been deleted without comment..

The other paper reports that it actually occured after they believed it had been defused and had returned to the base with the bomb.

Presumably this is why they carry out controlled explosions in situ.

This report says they same thing. Although it says they brought it to the base to retrieve and dispose of the explosives, it is my guess they brought it back to examine it and get clues as to who planted it and possibly had some guys around who wanted to see the device in case they came up upon a similar one. No doubt they screwed up by not realizing the bomb was actually booby trapped but explosives are found all over an army base and mistakenly they simply thought they were just dealing with explosives that had no ignition source.

No matter what the case ... pretty sick that some here (not you) take the need to feel superior to the level of making jokes about the dead and injured who have a very dangerous job and risk their lives to save others.

I am not feeling superior about it, but it explains why there may have been so many "experts" at the same place. I can't imagine a more dangerous job in the world, and whilst i am sure they are well equipped the odds that they are as well equipped as some better funded armed forces is pretty unlikely.

At the end of the day, retrieving the bomb versus a controlled explosion at what appeared to be a remote area, is a decision to be made. Presumably, they will go down that path more often now, instead of trying to defuse these things to try to recover evidence.

This was obviously something they hadn't encountered before, i.e. a device with two triggers. Very tragic and sad.

Agree 100% and to be clear I did say "not you" in my comment about feeling superior and cracking jokes about a tragic even like this. I replied to your post because it was rational and on topic. It was the posts above yours (I hope are deleted) that were just so disrespectful and in all honesty make me ashamed to be part of a group (foreigners) who view these Thai victims as a joke but no doubt would not dare make such comments publicly had an incident like this happened in their own country but no doubt they believe they and their countrymen are above mistakes.

Nothing wrong with second guessing, speculating or having opinions as to what might have happened but if the motivation is simply to feel superior and paint others, especially these types of people, as only being worthy of a joke in their death then to me it seems an indication of incredible feelings of inferiority. Nobody has to express feelings of remorse towards these folks or their kids or loved ones but to crack jokes, especially this soon, just not right.

Here is a summary of the 1962 ruling ... http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=284&code=ct&p1=3&p2=3&case=45&k=46&p3=5

I wouldn't say Thailand lost on a technicality but it is interesting to note that the Temple was meant to be in Thailand as per the treaty agreement ... assuming the water line put it in Thailand as claimed but not considered by the court.

Reminds of a women I knew years ago who fought her ex-husband over the house which she purchased before they were married but ended up having to sell and split the money with him all because while on the stand she called it their home a number of times. Every document showed she paid for the home herself but by calling it their house after being married she got screwed just as Thailand screwed itself by accepting maps for decades showing the temple in Cambodia. Hard pill to swallow for the women I know as it must be for Thailand but at some point you got to accept things and move on.

The other paper reports that it actually occured after they believed it had been defused and had returned to the base with the bomb.

Presumably this is why they carry out controlled explosions in situ.

This report says they same thing. Although it says they brought it to the base to retrieve and dispose of the explosives, it is my guess they brought it back to examine it and get clues as to who planted it and possibly had some guys around who wanted to see the device in case they came up upon a similar one. No doubt they screwed up by not realizing the bomb was actually booby trapped but explosives are found all over an army base and mistakenly they simply thought they were just dealing with explosives that had no ignition source.

No matter what the case ... pretty sick that some here (not you) take the need to feel superior to the level of making jokes about the dead and injured who have a very dangerous job and risk their lives to save others.

The world press reports on the front page what will interest people and the trouble in Southern Thailand doesn't interest most of the world because it has no impact on their lives. The BBC, Fox and CNN along with the others did report this incident but it falls under World or International news. Regretfully there is worse things going on around the world that also don't rise to the interests of most people in the west.

This is all true and to be expected. I suppose it would be quite different if these events were happening in Bangkok on a regular basis, as that would certainly have more impact on much of the world. It might also be reported differently if the Thai government started acting as though these incidents in Southern Thailand were a matter of national security and responded to them as such.

Without a doubt if this or anything remotely close was happening on any regular basis in Bangkok it would be much different in Thailand and Globally. I think if it was happening in the North it would also be much more significant. I wouldn't say the Thais outside the south are not interested but I think they also would rather not hear or think too much about this. It is just kind of a different world in that small region down there that people seem to rather keep out of site and out of mind .... maybe just enough top rated misery out there to mentally want to give it too much attention.

As for national security ... I am guessing it hasn't been viewed as a larger one because if they take the fight and bombing out of that region and into somewhere like Bangkok I think they know it would be the start of a very quick end to their plight. But that wouldn't stop a radical from acting on their own if he had the means and beyond luck it is usually hard to do much about stopping people acting alone.

Isn't it good to know, that after the Boston bombing, the police in Bangkok is on full alert???

I think you are on the wrong thread.

Considering this matter is about temple, a so-called house of God, although I doubt if God would be allowed in there without a permit, or by having to prove his allegiance to one side or the other, perhaps he could show his hand, create an earthquake in the area and demolish the building completely?

I`m sure that would solve the problem.

Which God are you talking about? Although it originally started out as as a Hindu Temple around the 9th Century, most of it and what still remains was built around the 11th century in the name of Buddhism which doesn't have a God.

Aaaaaaahhh...so you do not even understand humor!

Any statistics to back up your claim?

Humor used to comment on a subject needs to include some reality or understanding of the subject and not based on something that makes no sense. But if you found that one funny then how about this ... Since motorbikes are built for God I bet even he/she would be required to pay 200 baht if he didn't have a license on him.

But in reality what you incorrectly think was a joke is actually sarcasm, even if based on an incorrect assumption, and for some reason you need to tell the world you let you panties get bunched up once again by posting non-relevant and inaccurate information over something not directed at you and which was simply correcting somebody's misunderstanding of a subject.

Try the ignore feature if you can't control yourself after reading my posts .... it works for others.

The world press reports on the front page what will interest people and the trouble in Southern Thailand doesn't interest most of the world because it has no impact on their lives. The BBC, Fox and CNN along with the others did report this incident but it falls under World or International news. Regretfully there is worse things going on around the world that also don't rise to the interests of most people in the west.

I wonder if the pantie thief has changed his M.O. and moved onto shoes after being busted twice for stealing underwear.