Baerboxer

1 minute ago, sjaak327 said:

We were dicussing the elections that YOU brought up, good that you finally admit that she indeed followed the law.

 

At no point in time did I ever claim what you seem to believe I claimed, namely that the Shinawatra family always act lawfully, there is ample evidence to suggest this is certainly not always the case.

 

However that does NOT mean it is justified to seize power illegally from them. There were ample instruments in place to depose them via legal means, as was witnessed when Yingluck was forced to resign from office (rightly or wrongly is besides the point). 

 

What we have witnessed with Suthep's demonstrations, and subsequent disruption of a general election mandated by the constitution and the subsequent coup is far, far worse than anything the Shinawatra family ever did. And Thailand is currently and in the next 30 years (short from another power seizure that invalidates the new constitution) far far removed from a real democracy, and whilst the 2007/1997 constitutions their flaws, there is no doubt they ensured a better democracy than the new one will ever ensure. 

 

But of course people warned those idiots beforehand, be careful what you wish for. 

 

 

 

Good that you see that the Shiniwattra family uses the law when it favors them or is useful; and breaks it or ignores it when it doesn't.

The initial protests, which were against Thaksin whitewashing himself, attracting many who, from people I know, were protesting just that. They also though the PTP government to be corrupt, but were not advocating a coup. That protest got hi-jacked as it provided a convenient starting point for those determined for force the Shiniwattra's out.

Many people I know applauded the coup to restore law and order. But as seen, time and time again, in many countries, those kicking out the crooks don't always want to go themselves, and are not always bothered about putting that to the vote either.

Anyone who thinks simply holding elections will somehow magically bring democracy to Thailand is naive in the extreme. It's need a lot more change than that. But nothing seems to be changing.

1 minute ago, HHTel said:

 

1 minute ago, HHTel said:

 

Thank you for your update. Can you please provide the source of your quote?

1 minute ago, sjaak327 said:

No, it would have benefited the other side too. That was how the bill was proposed. I deal in facts, not suspicions. Yes it is probably save to say that the main target indeed was Thaksin, but the facts were it did not only benefit Thaksin.

 

Now why do you not comment on the NCPO's amnesty, after all, the amnesty YL proposed never actually made it through, courtesy of a working democratic system, yet the NCPO amnesty is a reality, courtesy of the abolishment of said democracy. 

 

Dying to hear the answer to that one, but someone I think it will remain silent. 

Indeed. The version of the Amnesty Bill PTP wanted to get through was reported to have been of benefit to over 25k people at the time! And all because one man wanted it for himself. The crude attempts to blackmail Abhisit and Suthep were also part of that.

Actually wrong. All of the other versions of the bill, six I think from memory, were withdrawn. However, even though YL said all versions had been withdrawn, the one favoring her brother wasn't. Although rejected by the Senate it would have returned to the lower house in a few months, and could then have been voted into law without the need to refer back to the senate. Now perhaps you'll see the need for that election was so important to them? Or maybe not.

I comment on the Junta's amnesty above.

Just now, Bill Miller said:

Not what I asked.
Is INTERPOL likely to expend much effort and resource pursuing a bail jumper or non convicted negligent person?
We have seen what vigor the RTP and Interpol have expended on the Red Bull case, e.g.

Interpol don't pursue or arrest anyone. They are an information exchange. Google and read if your're interested.

I don't think Interpol can be blamed in anyway for the lack of progress on the Red Bull boy's case. The RTP were incredibly slow in completing the necessary request and have only asked for a blue notice.

4 minutes ago, Bill Miller said:

As sort of an aside to the debate is INTERPOL likely to get very excited about pursuing somebody who may or may not, as I have not heard a verdict yet, be officially guilty of negligence, which was the formal charge?
It DOES sound rather political, and I do not doubt she would be eligible for asylum in any of a number of nations.

 

She jumped bail. That's enough to request an Interpol notice.

18 minutes ago, HHTel said:

Usually decided by the law in the 'requested' country.  If the conviction in Thailand is not recognised by the country she is in, then extradition is highly unlikely.

 

Correct. It's not the conviction but the crime. They could freeze the verdict if they wanted to and apply for extradition on the grounds she jumped bail. The country's law she's in will govern. The offense she is accused of must be a crime under their law. If so, then they will look at the case and verdict and arguments put forward by her defense team. If they decide she jumped bail to escape a verdict because she knew she was guilty, then they will consider other reasons why she shouldn't be extradited. A county being run by a military Junta, technically still under martial law, which deposed the caretaker government she once headed, would not be seen as the most impartial and fair place to send her to!

11 minutes ago, binjalin said:

Why all this talk about shopping?  it's is mere deflection, one must infer, from the main 'game'. For that is what it is, a game. It amuses me no end to hear of the criticism of the attempt at amnesty yet the deathly silence for the governments success in appointing such an amnesty for ALL their transgressions, past, present and future. Surely that is of far more consequence?  

Indeed. But the Amnesty Bill was botched in it's implementation which drew attention to it and allowed focus on the version that was designed to ensure one man was whitewashed. And many non Yellow shirts reacted badly to that. Whereas the Junta slipped their complete blanket Amnesty through, for past, present and future, without really much of a ripple in comparison.

The real issue is that no one should be above the law. But then you also need a robust justice system to enforce that.

Just now, sjaak327 said:

So it is ok for you to call me a "shin" supporter, and not ok for me to accuse you of being biased ? Your posts certainly seem to indicate you have a strong bias. At the very least a strong bias against anything the Shinawatra family has done, even if they actually follow the law to the letter, as was the case with the election that was called.

 

As to return to a real democracy, the "approved" constitution has ensured Thailand will not return to a real democracy for decades to come (unless they find a way to change the constitution without the army staging yet another coup...)

So it's ok for you to accuse other of being childish and biased but you of course are always mature, fair and balanced?

I have no bias per se. She followed the law in calling the election. Shame she didn't make sure the law and parliamentary procedure was followed when she allowed the Amnesty Bill to be amended without following procedure to favor her brother; or her MP's to illegally vote for their absent colleagues; or illegally not allowing debate time; or illegally sending the opposition MP's home before changing the voting time etc etc etc etc. But as she rarely attending parliament she never really knew what was going on. The minions just acted as instructed.

Are you really trying to claim the Shiniwattra family are law abiding citizens who always act lawfully? Try checking just how many have convictions for starters. 

Do you think a situation where a criminal was allowed to pay a salary to the MP's of his family's political party to do his bidding real democracy? Note that PTP, whilst supporting an elected Senate, were against elected provincial governors preferring to appoint cronies. 

1 minute ago, sjaak327 said:

I never said they won't follow the procedure, I said they will not consider extraditing her. Yes they will handle the formal request, but don't expect them to actually extradite her. All in the name of diplomacy or smoke and mirrors. 

You can never assume anything with law courts. Especially in such cases. Their is a strong probability that they'd decline given the government is still not a democratically elected one. However, there is always a possibility they could decide that's not material to the context of the case.

But she has the wealth to go through all the appeals, including, at the moment, the ECCHR. So whilst it might cost her she would probably get to stay.

But all that is based on them actually requesting extradition, if that's where she is. Nothing to say she's there and nothing to say they will and how long it might take them to do.

2 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

I cannot speak for the international community. However the cries to return to democracy could hardly be described as an endorsement for the regime. Unless of course your bias plays tricks on you..

I'm not biased, that's your descent into childish argument.

Of course they all, well the democratic ones at least, call for a return to democracy. And possible apply unreported diplomatic pressure and encouragements to do so.

Not sure China, Russia, and a few others would be particularly bothered.

Only by return to democracy, they hope perhaps for real democracy. As do we all.

1 minute ago, sjaak327 said:

Oh I am certainly not an expert on UK Asylum laws. Howerver I doubt she would not be welcome there, and I am almost certain they would never consider extraditing her. The circumstances are just not right. That is, with the provision that she will be declared guilty next month, which I believe she will be. 

They currently welcome anyone with very large amounts of wealth; and she have very very large amounts. Easy to get through the immigration hoops with wealth.

You are however wrong. If they receive a formal extradition request, they will process it in accordance with the law and it will be considered in accordance with the law. What they will decide is speculation. But they will follow the correct procedure.

Hard for her to be found anything but guilty given what's been reported.

2 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

It is only legal, because the person concerned made it legal retroactively... And you call the Shins corrupt ? Thanks for the laugh..

He came to power through a coup. Not the first and maybe not the last. But the international community, whose opinions you seem to judge yourself an expert on, don't seem to think that makes him illegal?

Or would you like to prove otherwise?

5 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Of course the protests were not subsiding, they were never for something noble as "protecting the constitution" as Suthep initally claimed, they had just one goal, taking power without the Thai electorate having a say. He even wanted power handed over to him and his buddies, so they could change the constitution, the alternative was a coup which was eventually staged. 

 

I am not a pro "Shin" poster, that is just your childish mind playing tricks on you. I have seen a blatant attempt to sidetrack the Thai electorate, on the premises that they are uneducated and continue to elect corrupt politicians. The people doing the claim are equally corrupt, if not more so, as their actions did not have support from the majority of the electorate. 

 

The way Suthep and co disrupted the general election was a shameful display of exactly what I am talking about here. Of course he and his buddies are still free men, funny how you are so fanatic when it comes to prosecuting alleged "red criminals"  but remain silent when the other side breaks the law for all of us to see. 

 

Right or wrong, I have no problem with people being disposed from office because they misbehaved, I do have a huge problem with people trying to sidestep the electorate under dubious reasons. 

 

The UK will grant her assylum, there is no doubt about it, whether or not she actually goes there is anyone's guess.

Are you an expert on UK Asylum law?

The UK welcomes billionaires, without a doubt. Whilst the Thai government don't make a formal extradition request they won't consider it. If they do then they will decide based on their rules. They may well decide to grant asylum especially as finance will never be a problem!

Unless the Home Office poke their nose in for political reasons.

But then she will get away with her gross negligence. Nice you support democracy, shame you don't support justice.

9 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

You are right, Yingluck is not the last legitimate PM of Thailand, Niwatthamrong Boonsongpaisan is. 

Correct. Only he was the last caretaker PM prior to the coup to be precise.

And, regardless of whether you like it or not, the current PM is the last legitimate PM. Unless you include elected as a moderator to your statement.

11 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Why is it that the courts get all the respect when they come down on the side that bolsters an argument, and none if they don't?  

 

Either they're corrupt and corruptible, or they're not.  I'm not going to claim to know, but it can't go both ways.

 

That's a fair comment. Some on here avidly applaud them when they rule in favor of the Shins but of course curse them when they don't. And the opposite it true from others.

The decisions, or the way they are reported and translated, are often not in line with expectations based on Western law and logic. So like you say, it's difficult to actually know.

14 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Hold on, now holding mandatory elections according to the charter is something to be blamed on Yingluck ? She handled exactly as the 2007 constitution required her. The EC should not advise, but arrange an election, that is their duty. the unwillingness of the EC at the time, had only one reason, to prevent a possible re-election. That IS exactly how rotten this country is, 

 

Rest assured, no-one outside of Thailand takes anything you brought up seriously, and that just because their intelligence services know that what you just brought up is political propaganda and bullshit. 

And you think your comments are taken seriously by any other than pro Shin posters like yourself.

Dream on!

The protests were not subsiding, the violence increasing, the police and expensive CAPO useless etc etc. Just the right environment for an election.

And yes, I believe the UN, other countries and international organizations, recognize the Shins for the crooks they are.

10 minutes ago, habanero said:

By all rights. Yingluck is still the PM of Thailand. I know of no election that took place, where she was defeated. A coup is just that. An illeagal take over of the government.

 

No she isn't. She was removed by a court for an illegal act before the 2014 coup. She had dissolved parliament prior to being convicted so was the caretaker PM at the time she was dismissed.

But don't let the actual facts get in your way.

9 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

Bravo to the Nation for pointing this out! I must admit that I am a bit surprised...

 

There is an unwritten rule internationally that people toppled in a coup aren't extradited. 

 

Sometimes the best option is to do nothing. I hope that the Junta will heed this good advice.

 

Bravo - only they missed out that Yingluck was removed by a court for an illegal act PRIOR to the 2014 coup. And that Thaksin was illegally occupying the caretaker PM role when he was forced out.

Details - the devil is always in the detail, and sometimes so it the truth.

3 hours ago, Confuscious said:

"In April, 2009, gunmen in a pickup truck ambushed Sondhi's car at a petrol station in the Samsen area and fired M-16 and AK-47 assault rifle rounds at the car. The attackers escaped when Sondhi's followers in another car opened fire on them."

I think he wished a long time that the assault would have killed him.
A "short pain".

Why was he allowed to have armed followers acting as bodyguards?

16 hours ago, Wiggy said:

"Will work for democracy." Then start by electing a leader rather than appointing one.

There can never be democracy while a political party has MP's being paid a salary by a crook to do his bidding and who think lying and cheating are acceptable and that they're above all laws.

So PTP gonna change - I don't think so!

Just now, JAG said:

 

She was the last elected Prime Minister this country had before the coup, yes or no?

At the time of the coup she was standing, as leader of her party, in a general election, yes or no?

We all know well enough that you don't like her (putting it mildly) but those remain, inconveniently, facts. It is facts which will decide the matter of asylum applications in all but the most Mickey Mouse jurisdictions, not your, or my, likes and dislikes.
 

 

She was removed by a court for an illegal abuse of power - yes or no?

She was trying to hold a general election, despite the advice of the EC - yes or no?

I don't know her personally. However, I dislike hypocrisy and dishonesty, especially in politicians. Especially ones who pretend to support democracy but only while it suits them.

Yes. I did say that any asylum application will depend on the rules of the country she chooses to apply in. And being extremely wealthy she has the luxury to flee and choose not afforded to others. Just like her brother.

9 hours ago, candide said:

Is it surprising that the NACC makes no appeal above this hierarchical level? 

Guess who got picked to take one for the team!

4 hours ago, jayboy said:

Of course he doesn't disagree that it could be true, you dope.Why are you people so thick? Is it because that in any subject connected with Shinawatra you lose all power of rational thought. Of course Thaksin's support is possible even probable.However the point being made is that since Chalermchai is obviously clueless on every aspect of Yingluck's escape, how can he possibly make a definitive statement that Thaksin assisted.Moreover he is only guessing that Yingluck's exit was "well planned".Even Prayuth (see separate thread) has conceded security officials haven't the foggiest - probably a lie but at least intellectually consistent.

Indeed. Just as some people are so thick, or choose to be, they keep pretending Thaksin and his family are socialists who actually care about any but themselves!

17 minutes ago, manchega said:

yes they are boys, and yes they are only being convicted to prevent anyone losing face in the first instance of conviction.  Once one judge has decided the evidence is accepted it is accepted or all is wrong.  There will be no changing that decision.

At what age do you stop calling men boys? 

Just now, JAG said:

 

That rich little punk "Boss", murderer of a policeman, is no threat to those who believe Thailand is theirs to rule, in fact he is one of their own.
This political "criminal" and the faction which she represents are an existential threat to those who believe Thailand is theirs to rule.

 

So his her brother. And he's very visible. And they don't want him back either.

Too many people, who are very rich, have too much information that's best kept between themselves!

No one wants the minions to start believing justice is really for all.