jamesbrock

17 minutes ago, jonclark said:

Bet some of the kids robbed a couple of bricks when the cops weren't looking. 

Bet some of the cops robbed a couple of bricks when the cops weren't looking!

2 minutes ago, ALLSEEINGEYE said:

They aren't blaming her for the floods!!! Read the article!! They are blaming her for "It held former prime minister Yingluck responsible for malfeasance, corruption in spending the flood management funds".

 

That she could and should be held accountable for.

Yes, apologies for my hastily written reply - I realise they weren't blaming her.

The point I was trying to make was the floods were beyond anyone's control, with rainfall in March of 2011 alone being 344% above the mean.

I agree that she should be held accountable for any malfeasance or corruption in spending the flood management funds.

28 minutes ago, keith101 said:

so the flood was caused by the democrats and not the huge amount of rainfall in the north ?

Apparently so...

In 2011, monsoons started in May and brought the highest levels of rainfall in Thailand in the previous 50 years. Major flooding began as Tropical Storm Nock-ten raged through 14 northern provinces, killing 7, from 31 July. Then, instead of the wet season ending as usual in October, La Niña precipitated heavier and longer downpours for the rest of the year.

It was 3 August when Drainage and Sewerage Department Director Sanya Shenimitra said that overall, there is nothing to be worried about as the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration is capable of handling the flood situation, and expressed confidence that Bangkok would not be severely affected by the swelling river flow.

Yingluck took office on 5 August 2011

Sure, her response was bumbling and mostly incompetent, but to blame her for the floods—indeed to blame any government for the floods—is idiotic.

Oh for crying out loud.

Here we go again with two of the most ridiculous laws in the land demonstrating how the Thai legal system is, or should be, an international laughing stock.

The country will never move forward until these, and another anachronistic law, are relegated to the dustbin of history.

7-Elevens better put on extra staff for the next few days...

17 minutes ago, trogers said:

EV is not the answer. The bicycle is...

Bicycles would be as quick, if not quicker, for a lot of commutes.

More propaganda heavy on alleged praise but light on actual details of efforts... 

I'd like to see the transcript of the actual conversations of environmental ministers from the ASEAN member countries praising and thanking Thailand.

20 minutes ago, webfact said:

"They also agreed that drivers and law enforcement were at the heart of the problem."

 

"These would look at the law and its enforcement,"

 

"the committee looking into law and enforcement"

They keep omitting one very important term before the word 'enforcement'... 

2 minutes ago, waldroj said:

Now Error 404!

Click the green down arrow beside the word 'news' to access the cached version.

42 minutes ago, waldroj said:

Out of the waffle fed to the UN comes this gem of obfuscation:

"...The government came in to oversee the situation during a period of transition, to bring about order and security and to pave the way towards sustained political governance..."

 

Might I suggest the following three observations about it:

• It was NOT the government, it was the army that came in (by way of a coup d'etat).
• This so-called "period of transition" is all about maintaining the status quo of the influential elite, and calming their anxieties about the very real uncertainties that lay ahead!
• As for paving the way for "sustained" political governance - the antithesis is the case - orchestrating an election outcome that will see:
  • a House of Reps made up of a weak and ineffective coalition of minor parties (all pushing their own agendas);
  • an entrenched junta-appointed Senate; and,
  • a prime minister of questionable political affiliation.

Speaking of transition, Euronews website appeared to jump the gun yesterday with a new deleted (but still available on Google's web cache) story that would've shocked the world.

8 minutes ago, NongKhaiKid said:

Got to have sympathy for the unfortunates who had to attend the speech.

Apart from having to sit through the ramble they would do so in the realization they don't rate highly in their delegation's pecking order because if they did somebody else would be sitting there instead of them.

I wonder if the good General is jealous at Obama's audience...

51 minutes ago, tbthailand said:

 

So "and vice-versa" that would be the Junta's secret sauce, ... such as

 

"violated, abused, and disregarded are human rights"

 

Saw this interesting quote attributed to him this morning:

"Why do people only think of human rights or liberty? It prevents the country from progressing."

Before I posted it I had to verify it as accurate - the only source I could find is direct from the horse's mouth (at 2:44): https://youtu.be/fCSwNDefJwE?t=2m44s

2 minutes ago, manarak said:

 

actually, I understand that Hall was not a co-signatory claiming co-authorship for the report, but he was a researcher and conducted the interviews. I don't know though if he personally wrote passages in the report and gave his okay for publication, which would make him a de-facto co-author, and as such liable under the Law.

More information is needed to establish the facts, but journalists don't provide the information.

"I don't know though if he personally wrote passages in the report and gave his okay for publication" - that's what I'm arguing should be proved before they press charges, let alone require him to prove the allegations.

1 hour ago, manarak said:

not in defamation cases. the burden of proof lies with publishers of accusations, which is IMO only logical.

But he wasn't the publisher of the information. He conducted some interviews.

Punishing someone who conducted some interviews is akin to prosecuting the guy who put gasoline into a car who's driver later went on to break a law.

1 hour ago, manarak said:

the interviewees would have to repeat their accusations in court or record an official testimony.

Before they even got to the point of whether the information was true or not, don't you think the authorship of the information should be proved?

1 hour ago, manarak said:

I'm not saying the NGO report was lying, I say I would like to know why they could not prove the contents of the report or why the evidence wasn't accepted in court, or alternatively why Hall's legal team chose another defense strategy, such as for example "good faith".

 

Any journalistic report on the case that doesn't include that kind of information is a waste of space IMO.

My point was they needed to prove he was the publisher of the information, and not just someone who received a credit, but, as usual, justice takes a back seat in order to for someone to save the face. 

I think the statement by the vile human rights abuser, Virat, proves what this was really about: "No foreigner should think they have power above Thai sovereignty."

1 hour ago, manarak said:

Thai law says that if the allegated facts in the report were proven in court, the the accused go free.

I would like to know why the defense was not able to prove the truth of the report ?

So Finnwatch had to prove the alleged facts in court, even though the man on trial was only responsible for conducing some interviews? 

Shouldn't the burden of proof be on Natural Fruit Company - to prove that Hall was responsible for the authorship of the report and the allegations contained therein?

2^nd in the world in "relationships"??

If they were all as good as mine, sure, but I get the impression—not only from TV—that relationships such as ours are the exception rather than the rule.

52 minutes ago, webfact said:

They said that this is what was stated on Facebook though this flew in the face of what was reported in the Thai press yesterday quoting the actual Facebook post.

Wait, a detail that was stated on Facebook flew in the face of reports quoting the actual Facebook post? Am I missing something?

Murkier and murkier.

So they have spent 21 day investigating this, but they have not interviewed the director of Mongkutwattana General Hospital nor studied its CCTV footage? Surely if this guy is saying he has proof his ribs weren't broken, nor his liver ruptured, when he was first brought to the hospital, and this contradicts your conclusion thus far, it would be something you'd tick off before going to the press?

With these trucks, and the 160 million baht they spent on those 20 Polaris mini-trucks, Bangkok is shaping up to have the most well-equiped, expensive fire truck fleet in the world...

The Polaris Ranger 6x6 that those mini-trucks are based on start at US$12,599 (442,000 baht), but the BMA paid 8,000,000 baht a piece for them. I recall Sukhumbhand arguing that it was worth it because they each had a pump, small water tank and two fire extinguishers fitted... 

The latest official population figures (2015) can be found here (in Thai): http://stat.dopa.go.th/stat/statnew/statTDD/views/showZoneData.php?rcode=8493&statType=1&year=58

Officially the population of Thesaban Nakhon Ko Samui last year was 64,720 - whether this includes foreigners or Thais registered elsewhere is anyone's guess. In 2011, the last time I checked, it was 61,318.

Population of each sub-district (2011 figures in parentheses):

• Tambon Bo Phut - 18,471 (18,169)
• Tambon Ang Thong - 12,372 (10,763)
• Tambon Maret - 8,900 (8,877)
• Tambon Mae Nam - 8,719 (8,220)
• Tambon Taling Ngam - 6,003 (5,573)
• Tambon Lipa Noi - 5,228 (4,945)
• Tambon Na Mueang - 5,027 (4,771)

For interest's sake, the official population of Amphoe Ko Phangan is 9,671 (8,977)

• Tambon Ko Pha-ngan - 4,243 (4,061)
• Tambon Ban Tai - 3,202 (3,210)
• Tambon Ko Tao - 2,226 (1,706)

Edit: I understand that this does not answer your question...

Just now, ratcatcher said:

Repairs on 176 trucks estimated cost of 181 million baht or in excess of 1 million baht per truck. 

To apparently just replace tyres... 

Is this in addition to the 176 fire trucks that reports from late August said were being repaired? Or have the numbers changed?

In August, reports said officials will check the roadworthiness of 176 trucks before a company is hired to repair them with a budget of 181 million baht. They also said that an initial check found 52 of them were in driving condition, but the rest "must have their tyres replaced," according to the city's Finance Department.

Now this story says all up 140 trucks have been or are being repaired - and the budget is now 153 million baht...

7 hours ago, jayboy said:

Of course it would be nice if the forum hardliners publicly recognised they had shown poor judgement - but human beings are frail vain creatures and it takes intellect, self confidence and character to admit error.

But who knows? We may be surprised.

I made the mistake, back in April, of admitting that I, like many others, was relieved when the farce that was the Yingluck "government" came to an end, and wildly optimistic in the very early days after Prayuth took over, and how that optimism soon faded, along with Thailand's democracy, economy, freedoms, and international reputation - I was pounced upon as a "Pollyanna" that had lost "any future credibility in my politically-inclined jewels of wisdom on this forum."

Note that my optimism lasted mere days, I can't imagine how hard it would be to 'come out' after cheering for them for over 2.5 years!