jamesbrock

Why doesn't he just tell them he's too sick to attend court? That's apparently a valid excuse...

I always love it how the rich and famous are released on bail even after they have been found guilty and convicted.

What was the point of the trial exactly?

Pretence and face. Nothing more, nothing less.

Another day, another release of fact-less propaganda by the NNT.

He said that authorities concerned should not wait for disasters to happen before implementing procedures

This must be why we've seen four years of large-scale flood mitigation efforts across the lower Chao Phraya watershed...

Oh, I just realised that first press release I linked to is dated one year ago - how many more "6 months" do they want to give before imposing "consequences"?

I think we should wait to read what the EU actually said.

The EC press release: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4806_en.htm

"Brussels, 21 April 2015

The European Commission has today put Thailand on formal notice for not taking sufficient measures in the international fight against illegal fishing (IUU).

As a result of a thorough analysis and a series of discussions with Thai authorities since 2011, the Commission has denounced the country's shortcomings in its fisheries monitoring, control and sanctioning systems and concludes that Thailand is not doing enough.

European Commissioner for Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Karmenu Vella, stated: “Our EU rigorous policy on a harmful practice such as illegal fishing, together with our genuine capacity to act, is paying off. I urge Thailand to join the European Union in the fight for sustainable fisheries Failure to take strong action against illegal fishing will carry consequences.”

Today's Decision starts a formal procedure of dialogue with the Thai authorities to make them take the necessary corrective measures. They will be given six months to implement a corrective tailor-made action plan.

Should the situation not improve, the EU could resort to banning fisheries imports from Thailand. Such measure was taken in the past with Belize, Guinea, Cambodia and Sri Lanka. Imports from Belize were banned last year but due to the reforming efforts of the authorities they are now allowed."

Thailand was also mentioned in two other press releases the same day. This: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1457_en.htm

Sri Lanka joins the growing list of countries (Ghana, Papua New Guinea, Korea, the Philippines, Fiji, Belize, Panama, Togo and Vanuatu) that have reformed their systems, following a warning by the EU.

In this context, the Commission attaches particular importance to the ongoing dialogue with Thailand. The country was warned with a yellow card due to its inadequate fisheries legal framework and poor monitoring, control and traceability systems. Like all pre-identified countries, Thailand was proposed an action plan to address shortcomings. The Commission is currently evaluating progress. The dialogue is proving difficult and there remain serious concerns about the steps taken by Thailand to fight IUU fishing activities. This means that further action by the Commission cannot be ruled out. A meeting with the Thai authorities in May will be a new opportunity for them to show their good will and commitment.

And this fact sheet: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-1460_en.htm

The main shortcomings that led to Thailand's pre-listing were: inadequate fisheries legal framework, with sanctions that failed to deter; poor monitoring, control and traceability systems; and problematic fisheries management.

Associated problems include human trafficking and slave labour in the fisheries sector. While the EUIUU Regulation does not address human trafficking and working conditions on-board fishing vessels, improvements in the fisheries control system will also improve the control of labour conditions in the seafood industry. At the same time, several Commission services continue to work on the issues of human trafficking and slave labour in Thailand.

Of course, you can make numbers do anything when they're little more than educated guesses to begin with.

It's interesting how one person can see the HRW site as "aggressive" and the Reuters article balanced, and someone else, namely me, can see the HRW site as spot on and the Reuters article as though it's straight out of the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs ‘cheat sheet’ they released the other week.

The difference is the HRW site is written by non-Thais, and the Reuters article was written by Thais...

Here is another non-Thai article as an example of what the rest of the world thinks: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachael-willis-/the-world-weighs-in-on-th_b_10001664.html

When the HRW writes

"(Geneva) – The Thai government’s pledges to the United Nations Human Rights Council to respect human rights and restore democratic rule have been mostly meaningless, Human Rights Watch said today. ....

they are aggressive and give the impression of being right and Thailand should immediately change itself.

What is wrong with HRW being "aggressive"? Do you believe that people (governments) that violate human rights should be criticized in a passive way?

How is HRW wrong in their assertions? Are they being non-factual? (I would note their report cites numerous examples of human rights violations in present-day Thailand)

Why should Thailand delay in correcting human rights violations? Why can't the Junta establish an improved human rights situation immediately?

Tjeez, now James will be disappointed as he didn't think the HRW aggressive.

BTW I did say I think them aggressive. Such attitude is just as wrong as some tell me about the junta here. Also there is a difference in a qualification like 'aggressive' and a qualification like 'truthful, spot on'. I would have thought native English speakers knew that.

Now back to democracy as the EP commission on Foreign Affairs did come to Thailand to hear Ms. Yinglucks view on democracy. There's another EP commission for Human Rights and commissions tend to jealously guard their territory.

Not putting words into phoenixdoglover's mouth, but I took his question as being rhetorical, not as an affirmation of your claim.

Claiming that the Thai government’s pledges have been "mostly meaningless" when every single piece of evidence affirms that claim, isn't aggressive in any way at all. It obviously hurt your delicate feelings, but the truth is the truth.

Good to see it's not just an ever-diminishing portion of the Thai population that believes the junta's hype.

Strangely the EP commission on Foreign Affairs has no relation to the UN.

As for the UN and Human Rights it's interesting is that where the HRW site is aggressive Reuters gave a more balanced view

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-un-rights-idUSKCN0Y2095

BTW in 2011 with the first review the Thai government acknowledged 136 out of 172 'recommendations'. It would seem no one is able to tell us what happened since. We only know that this time the UN commission had near 70 issues.

There is no easy way to know whether the balanced view was that provided by HRW or by Reuters. I would not assume Reuters was more balanced unless I had access to primary sources, or personal knowledge.

(As an aside, this question of "balance" is a serious issue in the conduct of corporate style media. There is a tendency for these organizations to create a false balance, as if this is necessary for ethical journalism. It is not. Rather, "true and accurate" are the requirements.)

The previous review cycle is officially documented online. Study of those documents would reveal "what happened".

My guess, given the overwhelming circumstantial evidence regarding human rights practices in Thailand, is that there have been several very significant issues that have not changed much over time from cycle 1 to cycle 2: Trafficking, slave labor, infringement of citizen rights, overlaid with recent actions of the Junta.

Also, to correct a misperception, it is not the UN raising the issues, it is the member nations raising them directly through a facilitated process.

It's interesting how one person can see the HRW site as "aggressive" and the Reuters article balanced, and someone else, namely me, can see the HRW site as spot on and the Reuters article as though it's straight out of the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs ‘cheat sheet’ they released the other week.

The difference is the HRW site is written by non-Thais, and the Reuters article was written by Thais...

Here is another non-Thai article as an example of what the rest of the world thinks: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachael-willis-/the-world-weighs-in-on-th_b_10001664.html

After the referendum yes vote sails through, now we have that confirmed. Does seem a rather pointless and costly exercise.

And after the elections giving the current ptb the same power as the Myanmar military have just given up allowing the coutry to move out of the dark ages.

After what elections? Unless it was mis-translated, he couldn't even say whether there "will be an election or not" - not when a election might occur, but whether one will take place at all.

That's either an unfortunate mis-translation, or a pretty big Freudian slip from the man who's promised to restore democracy ever since overthrowing democracy.

I agree that his statement suggests that the outcome of the referendum is a fait accompli, but the biggest take away from the PM's statement is whether there will be an election or not.

Of course, this Freudian slip comes as no surprise to a lot of spectators - regardless of the outcome of the referendum, the factions the allowed him to seize the country won't allow him to give it up until his being in power has served its purpose - even if it takes a decade. There is no way they will accept the risk that the 'other mob' is in control of the country at some impending juncture, there is simply too much to lose.

Waiting for the few usual suspects to spin these two statements as, lost in translation or a miss understanding on both statements.

But as per usual the same few stay very very quiet when their hero of the nation has once again flapped his mouth and put his foot in it.

Seems he has some super special info on the sailing through of referendum, wow guy's impressive huh?

Such a shame he hasn't got the same info on an election,, Now just how many times has the date been changed? but now not even sure when there will be one.

So c'mon you lot that defended this bloke, defend him and his statements now....

Now not even sure if there will be one - that's a very important distinction.

Wasn't this story posted yesterday?

After the referendum yes vote sails through, now we have that confirmed. Does seem a rather pointless and costly exercise.

And after the elections giving the current ptb the same power as the Myanmar military have just given up allowing the coutry to move out of the dark ages.

After what elections? Unless it was mis-translated, he couldn't even say whether there "will be an election or not" - not when a election might occur, but whether one will take place at all.

That's either an unfortunate mis-translation, or a pretty big Freudian slip from the man who's promised to restore democracy ever since overthrowing democracy.

I agree that his statement suggests that the outcome of the referendum is a fait accompli, but the biggest take away from the PM's statement is whether there will be an election or not.

Of course, this Freudian slip comes as no surprise to a lot of spectators - regardless of the outcome of the referendum, the factions the allowed him to seize the country won't allow him to give it up until his being in power has served its purpose - even if it takes a decade. There is no way they will accept the risk that the 'other mob' is in control of the country at some impending juncture, there is simply too much to lose.

Independent First World research on both cloud seeding and hailstorm prevention says these are both effective mainstream tools.

I'm disappointed that so many posters think Thais can't handle the science. They've been doing it a long time.

Search the web a little. I'm not confident to post links to non Thai sites regarding this gracious Royal Project.

I would love to hear from those on the ground in the areas concerned. Does it work?

"Independent First World research on both cloud seeding and hailstorm prevention" actually concludes "There is no scientifically credible evidence that hail can be suppressed" You obviously missed my post where I linked to this independent first world research.

The report I linked to in that post goes on to say that, "since 1980 operational and research glaciogenic seeding experiments for rainfall enhancement based on the dynamic seeding concept have been conducted in Thailand. Exploratory analyses of these experiments have indicated precipitation increases on the scale of individual clouds or cells with varying levels of statistical support. The evidence for area-wide effects, although suggestive of precipitation increases, is weak and lacking in statistical support. No one has yet run a definitive area-seeding experiment.

More recently, according to a report presented at the 7th WMO Scientific Conference on Weather Modification in Chiang Mai in 1999, a randomised convective cloud-seeding experiment was conducted on mixed-phase clouds in Thailand, based on the dynamic seeding concept. The sample consisted of 62 units, and while the statistical results indicated increases in rainfall, the results were not statistically significant.

In recent hygroscopic seeding experiments conducted in Thailand and reported on in 2003, statistical analyses indicated increases in rainfall, but they appeared later in time than anticipated and did not conform to the original hypothesis. Dynamical effects, which were not included in the original hypotheses, were invoked to explain the results. The statistical analyses thus led to the development of new hypotheses to explain the experimental results.

The results of these, and many other international studies, have led the US National Research Council to go conclude:

The Committee concurs with the conclusion from Silverman (2001) that: “Based upon a rigorous examination of the accumulated results of the numerous experimental tests of the static-mode and dynamic- mode seeding concepts conducted over the past four decades, it has been found that they have not yet provided either the statistical or physical evidence required to establish their scientific validity.” This statement was made specifically in reference to glaciogenic seeding of convective clouds. With the possible exception of winter orographic clouds, it applies to virtually all efforts aimed at precipitation enhancement or hail suppression. This does not challenge the scientific basis of cloud-seeding concepts; rather, it is recognition of the lack of credible evidence that applying these concepts will lead to predictable, detectable, and verifiable results.

Thailand is one of many countries that has been attempting weather modification for many decades, but that does not mean the science is understood:

The science underlying weather modification is replete with uncertainties and knowledge gaps. These include fundamental microphysics, the effectiveness of seeding methodologies, and the verifiability of modification procedures. At the most basic level important questions remain regarding liquid and ice nuclei numbers and nucleation processes; the presence, concentration, and location of supercooled water in clouds; droplet and hydrometeor evolution processes; and the natural variability of all these factors.

Methodological uncertainties are related to the effectiveness of particular seeding materials, the dispersion of seeding materials in clouds, interactions between clouds and cells within the same cloud system, effects outside of seeded areas, separation of the seeding effects from natural effects, and the use of surrogate measurements such as radar reflectivity factors to observe cloud and precipitation changes.

If cloud seeding worked in places other than were it would have rained without intervention, then why is Thailand currently wracked by drought?

Of course people on the ground see effects in some—not all—instances, but as found by this independent first world scientific study, the effects often appear later in time, and outside the seeded area:

For example, in recent large particle hygroscopic seeding trials involving warm-base convective clouds in Thailand and Texas, increases in rain were reported 3 to 12 hours after seeding was conducted, well beyond the time at which direct effects of seeding were expected and possibly outside the target area.

Some argue that increasing precipitation in one region could reduce precipitation downwind (by “stealing” the atmospheric water vapor), or conversely, could enhance precipitation downwind (by increasing evaporation and transpiration and thus providing more moisture for clouds). Such claims, however, currently belong to the realm of speculation, as no quantitative studies of this issue have been conducted. This is a challenging issue to address, due to the current limitations of quantitative precipitation forecasting.

The need to predict what would have happened had there been no weather modification (which is especially important in the context of attempts to modify hazardous weather) places an enormous burden on prediction. Predictive numerical models are required to accurately assess what would have occurred in the absence of any intervention, in order to assess both the magnitude and the potential consequences of the change. However, model development and physical understanding are interdependent, thus advances in both are slow and iterative.

Finally, it should be noted that one can patent anything claiming it can do anything that one likes, as long as no one else has made the same claims before. There is zero requirement for an idea to be even possible, let alone demonstrate predictable, detectable, and verifiable results in order for a patent to be granted.

“But I cannot give the answer if you ask me whether there will be an election or not after the draft charter sails through the referendum because we have not reached that point yet,”

Enough said.

This very interesting report, 'Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research,' by the Committee on the Status and Future Directions in U.S Weather Modification Research and Operations, National Research Council, (http://www.eenews.net/assets/2014/12/17/document_gw_01.pdf) concludes:

There is no scientifically credible evidence that hail can be suppressed. Lack of knowledge and ability to observe the details of a large hailstorm limits our ability to target observations or to design experiments that can detect induced changes. Insurance data showing reduced crop damage in areas of hail suppression activity may serve to motivate the operational programs, but they do not constitute scientific proof that hail fall can be reduced.

It continues:

The need to predict what would have happened had there been no weather modification (which is especially important in the context of attempts to modify hazardous weather) places an enormous burden on prediction. Predictive numerical models are required to accurately assess what would have occurred in the absence of any intervention, in order to assess both the magnitude and the potential consequences of the change. However, model development and physical understanding are interdependent, thus advances in both are slow and iterative.

For example, in recent large particle hygroscopic seeding trials involving warm-base convective clouds in Thailand and Texas, increases in rain were reported 3 to 12 hours after seeding was conducted, well beyond the time at which direct effects of seeding were expected and possibly outside the target area.

GHB has released 56 million baht in loans so far this year...

So what happened to the 20 billion baht the government gave you earlier this year? The 20 billion baht to enable low income earners to have their own houses? The 20 billion baht you expected to be "fully applied in two months?"

Edit: didn't get 'billion' and 'million' mixed up this time!

The American made tank is better.. but I wonder how many times more expensive. These things are not cheap.. and even Hitler found out that its not always quality that matters but numbers. The tanks going up against the Pantzers were not as good the American tanks were inferior back then but numbers made up for it.

So the question is how many tanks could be bought for the same price and is it then still inferior numbers might make a difference.

I am always quite against military spending, as i prefer a world without war (and military toys are expensive). However that is a nice dream and not realistic. Even in Europe I thought we had seen the last of war but now Russia and the US are heating things up again.

Anyway.. IMHO Thailand spends too much on military. (and many other countries too)

According to the same article that valued the Chinese tanks at $4 million a piece, the M1 Abrams costs around $6.9 million.

http://defence-blog.com/army/china-offers-100-vt4-main-battle-tanks-for-peru.html

The RTA has budgeted $150 million for the purchase of 28 VT4's ($5.4 million each) - so they could theoretically get 21 M1 Abrams for the same cost as 28 inferior thanks that are "reliable but not too effective in combat"

What a F scam !!!!!

Please elaborate on your thoughtful post.

Is every purchase by any government an F scam?

Pretty much, yes.

saying that the opportunity is so that all stances can be considered

I wonder why he's suddenly Putin it that way?

28 tanks at 188 billion baht a piece - lots of scope for personal enrichment there!

It's million, not billion, but yeah still great potential to line someones pockets!

188 millions baht? around 5 millions USD, they are made in wood?

Each.

"According to news agency Bloomberg, the cost per unit is US$4 million compared to US tank Abrams, US$6.9 million."

http://defence-blog.com/army/china-offers-100-vt4-main-battle-tanks-for-peru.html

I'm sure that 35 million baht difference—per tank—is purely a result of the exchange rate...

28 tanks at 188 billion baht a piece - lots of scope for personal enrichment there!

It's million, not billion, but yeah still great potential to line someones pockets!

Good pick up.

28 tanks at 188 billion baht a piece - lots of scope for personal enrichment there!

Pol Lt-Gen Sanit asserted that the case could not be distorted in favour of the suspects simply because two of them were children of policemen in Chokechai and Bang Chan police stations.

I'm pretty certain that the fact that four 'children of policemen' has inexplicably become two 'children of policemen' proves the case has already been distorted in favour of the suspects...

Investigate them? No, never, surely: they are the very best of "the good people" who were so supportive of efforts to rid Thailand of that wicked clan that had led the country down the wrong path ( aka a path that didn't lead to offshore tax shelters in a Central American banana republic)

Because he did not need to as a PM he made sure that he did not have to pay tax on the sale of his telecom company. Why put things in a tax haven if you can just change the law so you don't have to pay any tax.

But, of course, there is a link to him (or at least his clan) in the Panama Papers: his brother-in-law, and co-conspirator in the Ratchadaphisek land purchase fraud case...