Ferangled

To be fair when discussing the issue of women's equality and improving the media image of women, it is a tad disingenuous to focus purely on the current Government and Yingluck especially. Certain people seem to be missing the obvious, namely the first woman premier in Thailand's history came into power as a direct result of the current administration - what more could one party do in one easy step to improve the standing of women in the country?

Playing devil's advocate I suppose that the response to the "Four Seasons" story that broke, how certain members on here responded to it and how the entire story broke in the Thai media is now irrelevant? Some would do well to remember their own fairly sexist comments on those threads, easily quotable and relevant to this story. Does no one else find this article somewhat at odds with the Nation's own reporting of that incident? What's the saying, those in glass houses...?

It's not even a microbe ingenious to focus on Yingluck when she is the one mouthing on about women's rights - did you read the article? She is Thaksin's clone and has never denied it & I would be the first to congratulate her when she is her own boss.

The Four Seasons episode is classic 'but, but, the opposition'. I never accepted the sexist accusation but I did agree with the impropriety of a secret (but whistleblown) meeting with selected business leaders that she initially tried to lie her way out of.

I did read the article but it seems that you did not. Yingluck is not the one mouthing on about women's rights. The article is actually about a three-day media sensitisation programme organised in Bangkok by the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women; Yingluck only gets a mention in the last line and isn't mouthing off about anything... the group paid her a courtesy call, that's it! It appears that you are so quick to cry foul of anything to do with Thaksin or Yingluck that you failed to read the article that you reference and as such your comments hold little water... mouthing on about what exactly? Where did you get this from?!

With that in mind I'm afraid your post holds little merit and as to your recollection of how the Four Seasons "scandal" was handled, well let's just say it comes across as pretty blinkered. Let's ignore the crude allegations made by members of the opposition at the time, together with the even more crude comments on TV, let's even forget the obvious that if it was a male PM there would have been no scandal and the obvious sexist implications that led to the focus on the non-incident in the first place... I think that's referred to as convenient memory loss!

To be fair when discussing the issue of women's equality and improving the media image of women, it is a tad disingenuous to focus purely on the current Government and Yingluck especially. Certain people seem to be missing the obvious, namely the first woman premier in Thailand's history came into power as a direct result of the current administration - what more could one party do in one easy step to improve the standing of women in the country?

Playing devil's advocate I suppose that the response to the "Four Seasons" story that broke, how certain members on here responded to it and how the entire story broke in the Thai media is now irrelevant? Some would do well to remember their own fairly sexist comments on those threads, easily quotable and relevant to this story. Does no one else find this article somewhat at odds with the Nation's own reporting of that incident? What's the saying, those in glass houses...?

The 'lower' classes are highly uneducated, and many have alcohol problems. In other words, dangrously unpredictable, and easily led.

And recent history shows just how much better behaved the "higher" classes are and how well they use their elevated positions to lead the rank & file down the correct path...

For once I agree with you. Whether these factory workers can be termed lower-class is very much debatable. The upper-classes have the funds & contacts to get away with far worse than this. E.G. The Ferrari 'killer'.

We had to agree to on something I guess! I actually had exactly the same incident firmly in mind when I wrote the post...

The 'lower' classes are highly uneducated, and many have alcohol problems. In other words, dangrously unpredictable, and easily led.

And recent history shows just how much better behaved the "higher" classes are and how well they use their elevated positions to lead the rank & file down the correct path...

How was a mentally disabled man, able to acquire a gun of which one type was illegal to own in that state?

The gun could have been stolen. The kid could have bought it second hand. You are assuming he bought it from a store.

I thought it was widely known that the guns were legally owned by his mother, one of a number of Americans who are taking it upon themselves to stock pile weapons, ammunition and supplies in preparation for some imagined collapse of society. In this respect it mirrors the vast majority of gun homicides in the US, in that the weapons used were owned legally.

While the NRA and other pro-gun nut-jobs like to spread the misconception that arming yourself is a necessary precaution to combat "all those criminals with illegal firearms" the reality is that they are actually used to kill ones neighbours, friends, family and loved ones. You are nearly 3 times as likely to be shot and killed if you own a gun & 5 times as likely to shoot yourself (fatally).

Why, with an armed police force that are paid to combat crime the need to arm yourself? Simply call 911 and those that you pay to protect you with your taxes will do it for you; they are also appropriately trained and the statistics support that you are more likely to expose yourself and your family to danger by opting for the vigilante, protect yourself method.

It struck me that many of those advocating free and easy access to firearms justify this by saying that the guns are necessary for protection. Indeed statistics show that 2/3 of gun owners cite protection as the reason for owning the guns. With that in mind this makes interesting reading... minutes of a radio discussion about firearms.

"A study that was done to look at whether having a firearm in your home actually does protect you, or whether it puts you at greater risk, showed that families and homes in which there was a gun, not only were they not protected against homicide, but the risk of gun homicide to people in those households was 2.7 times greater than the households without a gun."

"And the risk of suicide in those households was 4.8 times greater in the households with firearms. So it looks like, in terms of this very important question of protection, that having a firearm in the home doesn't protect you, but it puts you at much greater risk."

http://www.npr.org/2...nd-what-we-dont

Now I understand that statistics can be manipulated to serve purpose but there really seems to be no denying the fact that by having a gun in your household you are actually putting your family and those around you at greater risk. You are increasing the likelihood that you or one of your family will get shot.

Reinforcing this point is the fact that the overwhelming majority of homicides are committed by people known well by their victims, at a ratio of 3 - 1. The same goes for non lethal assaults & rapes. It is not the stereo typical "your not from round these parts" stranger that you need to protect yourself from, it's your own peers, family and friends and the best way it seems to do that is not allow them ready access to firearms.

Despite the incredibly callous sensation I feel when saying it at the moment, I can't imagine further legislating the ownership of guns as being the answer. The cat is out of the bag, and we have to deal with the fact that there are more guns in America than people. If we truly wanted to prevent these increasingly prevalent acts, we would have examined the culture that failed these children. Given that these acts have been historically perpetrated by intelligent, albeit poorly adjusted, males, it's difficult to say that removing guns from the equation would change the outcome. Guns have only been a means to an end for these deeply troubled young Americans.

Several deviations from the norm lies a very unnoticed and potentially dangerous segment of society that warrants more attention. We can either address this segment, or try to further tighten the lid of the proverbial "cookie jar" of weapons. Given the emotional impulses of my countrymen, and the desire for immediate action, I doubt we will see the necessary introspection. Rather, I suspect these attacks will continue despite the increased regulation of guns. Expect to see an ever increasingly puzzled and fearful American public, one that fails to see the violence as byproduct of its culture, and more of a failure of not enough force.

Agree with much of what you say and yes it was an overly simplistic and naive comment given the reality of how widespread guns are in American society. In a way that's my clumsy point; if guns weren't so widely available you wouldn't have these issues; lock 10 men in a box with 10 guns, someone would likely get shot, 10 men in a box with a video game, beer and some crisps and they'll probably have a good time. It really is a 2+2 =4 situation but the solution clearly isn't anything like as simple and straight forward.

I don't believe that American society is inherently morally corrupt, all societies have mentally unstable people within them, but not all societies have such cheap, ready access to guns and widespread gun ownership as a result. We see such tragic incidents in many different countries, as has been mentioned on here, but not with such devastating frequency as we see in the US.

We have two other current threads running at the moment on here concerning public shootings in the US, one opening fire on Xmas shoppers in a mall, another in the lobby of a hotel casino. Surely it's about time to at least recognise that there is a problem and start seriously considering how to begin to address it. These sorts of incidents rock the entire world, let alone the effect to those close to the events, and if they start a dialogue about the issue one can only hope that change is brought about as a result, some positive from all the devastation and misery caused.

Echoing the sentiments of others on here, my heart goes out to the families and loved ones of those lost, may they rest in peace.

In a way, this thread needs to act as a release for everyone. There is little point disagreeing and slagging each other off over different viewpoints. In our own way, many of us need to grieve, because this is all far too close to home for many folks who frequent this board. I would almost ask that if we disagree with a view point just let it go and state your own point of view. In the last 24 hours, many innocent lives have been taken, and you know, no matter what the reason, it will never be good enough to satisfy anyone. It is impossible to try and understand why this has happened, because 99.9999999999% of us never can, because despite our differences and our online anonymous combatative ego's, we are all generally decent people.

This event will shake lives all over the world. I replied to this OP pretty much as soon as it came up last night as I was doing a final check of mails and admin before leaving home for a week. As soon as I read it, I welled up, I could not tell my wife lay next to me as I knew she would never sleep, nor could I return the intent of her warm embraces, feigning tiredness as my mind battled with the trauma being faced by so many parents, so far away, yet so close. Our small children safely asleep in the next room.

I was touched today to see a President stand up and deliver a press conference as a stately man and a Father. I care not for political persuasions at a time like this and think he represented the feelings of the vast percentage of American people. To be honest I hope nobody disagreed with what he said, and it showed a true compassion in a world where we so easily overlook it, due to our differences.

The town of Newtown will forever bear a scar that will never be removed. Theblether mentioned earlier in the thread how the small and beautiful village of Dunblane, Scotland showed that the soul of a nation resides in some of its smallest components, and the day the children were slaughtered there, was a day as dark as there has ever been. I remember a few years ago staying in a magnificent hotel in the Western Isles in Scotland, having breakfast looking out over the ocean in a small room, where the guests were all chatting table to table in what can only be described as a perfect occasion. An old couple sat closely on the table next to us and as we chatted away they asked where I was from and what i did, and I then returned the question, asking where they were from. The old woman aged 78 said 'Dunblane' and with that the small room fell silent. The old woman and her Husband immediately welled up and I touched and held her hand straight away, she just said 'Thank you Son'. We all realised the pain of these two, both born and bred and living in that town for 78 years and all moved on to the wonder and beauty of the sunrise and the day. They knew, and we knew. Now the residents of Newtown USA will experience the same, for decades and maybe more.

With that tale and this, it reminds me, that as theblether reminded me, we are mostly common with common feelings. theblether is a man whom I have recently fallen out with over a couple of threads on TV due to an embedded difference of view in both of us. Despite us communicating well on skype beforehand we let an issue that was proven today to be unimportant on the grand scale of things come between us, so to that end Blether, I offer unconditional apologies for my entrenched opposition to your entrenched opposition to our mutual views. As a big picture thing our difference is irrelevant compared to what people have experienced in the last 24 hours, so my hand is out and I hope we renew our friendship.

I am sat at swampy waiting to go far away and miss my family already. Of course there is never a good time of year for this to happen, but right now, with the focus on family and friends, the sensory overload of this tragedy is even more acute if you can understand that statement. Right now, gun laws and constitutions are irrelevant as I imagine the terror in the hearts of the teachers, guardians and of those terrified young children who were all shot down. Nothing else matters. I am a true Hitchins at heart, but tonight sees me praying for a truth in the reality and justice of a heaven and hell.

Sorry for going on, I needed to grieve and nobody in the lounge will listen, but some of you old dogs just might.

Love those close to you tonight just a little bit more, and put your differences both political and personal in perspective.

Got to love ThaiVisa for these posts.

2nd that, brilliant post GentlemanJim. Helps renew faith in our fellow man.

Is it to much to ask that the US goes the same way as the UK , apparently so.

Let's hope something positive can come from this tragedy such as a ban on gun ownership in the USA.

The Yanks really need to follow the UK's example and end these needless massacres.

No can't do that. It's all about the constitution. The Right to Bear Arms. That's how we were able to defeat England in the War of 1812.

What a bizarre comment. In the annuls of British history these events are scarcely even remembered , eclipsed by the scale of the Napoleonic Wars in Europe raging at the time. The right to bear arms? No actually it was down to the French...

A terrible tragedy to which the responses on here range from the strange to the totally insane. Take away the guns and people will stop shooting people. It really is that simple.

I think about time we clear up this obvious confusion over what the term fugitive actually implies...

A fugitive (or runaway) is a person who is fleeing from custody, whether it be from private slavery, a government arrest, government or non-government questioning, vigilante violence, or outraged private individuals. A fugitive from justice, also known as a wanted person can either be a person convicted or accused of a crime, who is hiding from law enforcement in the state or taking refuge in a different country in order to avoid arrest in another country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive

Thaksin is by his own admission a fugitive. No one has suggested on this thread that he isn't. Does the term imply any actual guilt moral or legal? No, actually it doesn't. It merely implies that you are on the run.

Clearly Thaksin believes he is a fugitive from political persecution and clearly others believe he is a fugitive from justice, a convicted felon on the run. Either bloody way it's perfectly clear to all and sundry that the man is a fugitive!!! How and why he is treated by other countries, or indeed how you perceive this is totally irrelevant both to my post and the subject at hand.

Is that plain enough English for you?! Do I have to spell it out in any other languages? Parles vous Francais? Espanol? Double Dutch perhaps?!

Ferangled, I'm going to enter this discussion. What is it you're trying to say? State it clearly.

Do you know the timeline and story-line of the Thaksin saga, from before he was ousted until present day? If you do, then you've probably got one of two opinions about the man. You can either see him as politically persecuted, or you can see him as a disruptive scoundrel. There are many more descriptive adjectives which could be applied to his conduct. Yet, that's basically why he's such a divisive force for Thais. Add to that, he's mega-selfish, worships money and power, and always wants to be on the front pages of Thai newspapers. If he wasn't super rich, he wouldn't be any more important than the guy who runs the fishing pond at the end of the dirt lane. The sooner he fades away, the sooner Thailand can dust itself off and get on the path to putting its affairs together.

As for divisiveness. Actually, Thai people of all stripes get along quite well with each other (with some exception with Muslims in the far south). It's the politicians, particularly Thaksin-controlled PT members, who keep causing rifts. It's to their advantage to polarize the populace, that's why they're witch hunting against Abhisit and Boonlert, and others in the opposition.

Please tell me that's sarcasm. Perhaps because I wasn't focused on taking sides or venting about Thaksin my point slipped past your radar...

My thanks for your personal views on Thaksin, you may have noticed that I wasn't venturing any and hadn't asked for the opinions of others. Only allowed one of two opinions on the man? I'm afraid it's that very thinking that has brought this rift, not any one man. Actually I'd have to say there's some weight to both perspectives you offer, I'd venture Thaksin has been both politically persecuted and a disruptive scoundrel but again, irrelevant to the point I was making which focused not on the man himself but the actual topic.

If your still struggling to grasp what I was saying before my post was hijacked by the Shina-wafflers, try reading post 80, it doesn't get much clearer than that.

Again don't let reality prevent you from adding your own imaginative embellishment of the facts...

He isn't compelled to present himself, neither is he having his rights denied nor is he complaining about it. I haven't either, you it seems are... your point is what exactly? That you don't think he should be able to defend himself as a fugitive or simply because he's Thaksin, the bogeyman?

My point is that on the run criminals should not be allowed to "post in" their legal grievances. If they want to complain, they should be required to present themselves to the police. It doesn't seem to be asking much, does it? Nobody's rights are being denied. That is my opinion of how the law should work. If it doesn't work this way, then well that's great news for on the run criminals.

Yeah, well that's just like your opinion man... seriously couldn't you have just stated that to start with rather than latching onto my posts and applying your Thaksin raged rants to them?!

Mine, as I tried to state originally, is that anyone should be able to take legal recourse to defend themselves against criminal acts. No matter if they're a convicted criminal, a nut job or whether they or someone else perceives them to be a fugitive from justice, a fugitive from political persecution, racial oppression, whatever.

Point being that in writing laws that try to protect the rights of everyone you can't tailor them to act how you'd like them to for one specific individual. The crimes and actions of one man shouldn't be used as a reason to ignore the crimes of others.

Whether or not a fugitive or convict should be free to defend themselves legally against criminal acts is debatable. I have made my position quite clear that I believe all should have the recourse of defending themselves.

Recourse to defend yourself should be granted the moment you step within the law, the moment you start following the law yourself. All the time you are acting outside it, which Thaksin does every single day by remaining on the run, he has no right to send other people to the police to submit complaints on his behalf. If he wants to complain about something, nothing is stopping him from coming to Thailand and walking in to the police station with his grievance. He chooses not to. Fine, but then he has to accept he loses certain rights. Nobody is stopping him from having those rights back again. Wouldn't take more than a few hours to get on a plane and come back, and then, hey presto, he can sue everyone he wishes to. What is so difficult about that?

That my friend is your opinion, try venturing it as such. It is certainly not a legal or IMHO moral fact.

In my own opinion guilt (or indeed conviction) of one crime should not and thankfully does not preclude any individual from using the very same legal constraints that tried and sentenced them against those that seek to commit crimes against them, regardless of whether or not they accept the sentence passed on them or the motivation behind it or what country they currently reside in.

Of course your stand on this legal and moral debate is not in anyway clouded by the individual this actual thread is about, at least that's abundantly clear from your posts! No bias here whatsoever... if you have been found guilty of any crime or are a fugitive for any reason you should legally and morally be open to any and all criminal attack with absolutely no recourse to defend yourself... does that sum up your position or do you feel the laws should be doctored specifically with Thaksin in mind?

I am not for one moment advocating that Thaksin be denied the right to defend himself. I am advocating that the process of lodging a complaint against someone else, should require that person to present themselves to authorities with their grievance, unless there are mitigating circumstances like being bed ridden with illness.

In my view, running from a conviction is not a mitigating circumstance. He should be compelled to present himself. If he doesn't want to, don't twist that into him having his rights denied... it isn't.. it is him being a two faced hypocritical coward.

Again don't let reality prevent you from adding your own imaginative embellishment of the facts...

He isn't compelled to present himself, neither is he having his rights denied nor is he complaining about it. I haven't either, you it seems are... your point is what exactly? That you don't think he should be able to defend himself as a fugitive or simply because he's Thaksin, the bogeyman?

I doubt that this was even the "initial trigger".

Of course the call was the trigger for this specific chain of events. That's blatantly obvious. This specific chain of events wouldn't have existed without the call.

Obviously you got the point but felt the need to split hairs about it... why?

How and why he is treated by other countries, or indeed how you perceive this is totally irrelevant both to my post and the subject at hand.

It's irrelevant to your post and the subject at hand, and yet you were the one who first posted about it!

So you can mention it, but the moment someone else does, in response to you bringing it up, you gloss over it and dismiss it as irrelevant?! Deary me...

Yes it was totally irrelevant to the point of my post and totally irrelevant to the subject but you managed to focus on that one piece of irrelevance and respond with a absolute rant, all the while missing the actual points raised entirely. Well done.

It's quite simple really. I say something then you respond to what I actually said. Go back and read my first post, then read your response.

Actually what I said (in a subsequent post made after your first irrelevant reply) was "There is certainly a political nature to his convictions although similarly it seems certain the man must be guilty of something and if the charges really hold any water why not suspend his sentence and welcome him back for a fair re-trial in an openly scrutinised fashion so that no one can cry foul if the convictions are upheld?"

You then carefully snipped this into a statement and used it as an excuse to launch on another speculative and totally irrelevant rant. The rules are quite simple really; if you want to engage me in discussion, discuss the points I have made don't twist them or imply they actually mean what they do not. Will you be offering your services to Pitak Siam? Your tactics certainly seem to match those that they are allegedly employing...

I was discussing a point you made. I didn't twist anything.

A question not a statement... there was a clue... ?

Whether or not a fugitive or convict should be free to defend themselves legally against criminal acts is debatable. I have made my position quite clear that I believe all should have the recourse of defending themselves.

Recourse to defend yourself should be granted the moment you step within the law, the moment you start following the law yourself. All the time you are acting outside it, which Thaksin does every single day by remaining on the run, he has no right to send other people to the police to submit complaints on his behalf. If he wants to complain about something, nothing is stopping him from coming to Thailand and walking in to the police station with his grievance. He chooses not to. Fine, but then he has to accept he loses certain rights. Nobody is stopping him from having those rights back again. Wouldn't take more than a few hours to get on a plane and come back, and then, hey presto, he can sue everyone he wishes to. What is so difficult about that?

That my friend is your opinion, try venturing it as such. It is certainly not a legal or IMHO moral fact.

In my own opinion guilt (or indeed conviction) of one crime should not and thankfully does not preclude any individual from using the very same legal constraints that tried and sentenced them against those that seek to commit crimes against them, regardless of whether or not they accept the sentence passed on them or the motivation behind it or what country they currently reside in.

Of course your stand on this legal and moral debate is not in anyway clouded by the individual this actual thread is about, at least that's abundantly clear from your posts! No bias here whatsoever... if you have been found guilty of any crime or are a fugitive for any reason you should legally and morally be open to any and all criminal attack with absolutely no recourse to defend yourself... does that sum up your position or do you feel the laws should be doctored specifically with Thaksin in mind?

many have blamed the D.J's 100% for her death and had hung quartered and cremated.

I just don't believe this is the case.

Rightly the finger has been pointed as the initial trigger for these sad events but no one in their right mind could hold them solely responsible. Like you say the Radio station would have to accept their own fair share of the blame as their employers and ultimately having the decision over A. If the call took place initially and B. Whether or not to air it.

Similarly the hospital should share some blame as they should have been able to identify that one of their employees was suffering from such stress and emotional turmoil as to be suicidal and clearly shouldn't have been working. That said however is anyone that had worked in the medical profession knows how stressful the job is by it's very nature. The fact that they rank amongst the highest rates of suicide & depression tells a tale and adds even more weight to the opinion that this "prank" was extremely ill conceived. I'm sure family and friends of the poor girl are also feeling some measure of culpability rightly or wrongly, as is common with suicides.

Whatever the content of these notes, I find it hard to completely exonerate the DJs or Radio station. It was a foolish, ill thought out and illegal "prank" call, badly timed and in the worst possible taste. That said stupidity and bad taste do not equate to malice. The end result was quite clearly not their intention.

"Rightly the finger has been pointed as the initial trigger for these sad events"

I doubt that this was even the "initial trigger". She wouldn't have gone from "no issues what so ever" to suicide in 3 days.

I would think that she had issues, and the event and the pressure following it pushed her over the edge.

It's easy to say that "if the DJs hadn't called" she wouldn't have committed suicide, but maybe the call just brought it forward.

I believe you are splitting hairs purely for your own amusement. Perhaps the initial trigger for her own emotional state was being a bottle not breast fed baby eh?

I meant the trigger for this specific chain of events and I think that is blatantly obvious. Good to see that such a sensitive topic can be such a great source of amusement for those that revel in absurd discussion.

Rixalex again, respond to my actual posts not some hidden meaning that you have invented from them...

Can you please explain what hidden meaning i invented from "why not suspend his sentence and welcome him back for a fair retrial". I took that to mean you were suggesting he have his sentence suspended and come back for a retrial. Obviously not. Excuse my stupidity and humour me with an explanation of what you did mean.

You took that from my first post? Wow, I thought that was made in response to your irrational reply and was posed as a question to which you responded with yet another rant about Thaksin and applied a bunch of speculative assertions about what I want and believe based purely on your own imagination.

What difference does it make whether the comment was made in your first post or your last? You made it: "why not suspend his sentence and welcome him back for a fair retrial", i responded. I didn't rant. I didn't accuse you of anything, of being irrational, of inventing anything.

So because it wasn't made in your first post, it is off bounds to be responded to? Please help me. I am trying to understand and follow your peculiar rules of debate, but you'll have to explain them first.

It's quite simple really. I say something then you respond to what I actually said. Go back and read my first post, then read your response.

Actually what I said (in a subsequent post made after your first irrelevant reply) was "There is certainly a political nature to his convictions although similarly it seems certain the man must be guilty of something and if the charges really hold any water why not suspend his sentence and welcome him back for a fair re-trial in an openly scrutinised fashion so that no one can cry foul if the convictions are upheld?"

You then carefully snipped this into a statement and used it as an excuse to launch on another speculative and totally irrelevant rant. The rules are quite simple really; if you want to engage me in discussion, discuss the points I have made don't twist them or imply they actually mean what they do not. Will you be offering your services to Pitak Siam? Your tactics certainly seem to match those that they are allegedly employing...

I think about time we clear up this obvious confusion over what the term fugitive actually implies...

A fugitive (or runaway) is a person who is fleeing from custody, whether it be from private slavery, a government arrest, government or non-government questioning, vigilante violence, or outraged private individuals. A fugitive from justice, also known as a wanted person can either be a person convicted or accused of a crime, who is hiding from law enforcement in the state or taking refuge in a different country in order to avoid arrest in another country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive

Thaksin is by his own admission a fugitive. No one has suggested on this thread that he isn't. Does the term imply any actual guilt moral or legal? No, actually it doesn't. It merely implies that you are on the run.

Clearly Thaksin believes he is a fugitive from political persecution and clearly others believe he is a fugitive from justice, a convicted felon on the run. Either bloody way it's perfectly clear to all and sundry that the man is a fugitive!!! How and why he is treated by other countries, or indeed how you perceive this is totally irrelevant both to my post and the subject at hand.

Is that plain enough English for you?! Do I have to spell it out in any other languages? Parles vous Francais? Espanol? Double Dutch perhaps?!

Rixalex again, respond to my actual posts not some hidden meaning that you have invented from them...

Can you please explain what hidden meaning i invented from "why not suspend his sentence and welcome him back for a fair retrial". I took that to mean you were suggesting he have his sentence suspended and come back for a retrial. Obviously not. Excuse my stupidity and humour me with an explanation of what you did mean.

You took that from my first post? Wow, I thought that was made in response to your irrational reply and was posed as a question to which you responded with yet another rant about Thaksin and applied a bunch of speculative assertions about what I want and believe based purely on your own imagination.

Chooka ask yourself one question before continuing your commendable defence of the Australian Radio station... Had the DJs not played the illegal prank on the nurse, would she still be alive today?

You seem to be lashing out at every possible scape goat to detract from any negative attention the DJs or Radio station are getting as a result of their misguided prank. Attention has been turned to the hospital? The hospital staff would have had nothing to complain about had the prank not been aired in the first place! Did they handle the incident badly? Perhaps but you are not in possession of the facts and your continual speculation helps no one involved.

Very few people are denying that other factors contributed to this unfortunate incident but there is no escaping the obvious initial spark. Your deliberate twisting of events through deliberately biased prose is becoming nauseating and is in bad taste given the real suffering this has caused. Have a thought for the family of both the nurse, the staff at the hospital & even the DJs themselves - your continual rehashing of events with the evident motive of detracting any culpability of the DJs is doing all involved more harm than good and stirring up more negative sentiment to the DJs and radio station if anything.

People tend to respect and sympathise with those that stand up and be counted, take responsibility for their actions and accept their mistakes.

many have blamed the D.J's 100% for her death and had hung quartered and cremated.

I just don't believe this is the case.

Rightly the finger has been pointed as the initial trigger for these sad events but no one in their right mind could hold them solely responsible. Like you say the Radio station would have to accept their own fair share of the blame as their employers and ultimately having the decision over A. If the call took place initially and B. Whether or not to air it.

Similarly the hospital should share some blame as they should have been able to identify that one of their employees was suffering from such stress and emotional turmoil as to be suicidal and clearly shouldn't have been working. That said however is anyone that had worked in the medical profession knows how stressful the job is by it's very nature. The fact that they rank amongst the highest rates of suicide & depression tells a tale and adds even more weight to the opinion that this "prank" was extremely ill conceived. I'm sure family and friends of the poor girl are also feeling some measure of culpability rightly or wrongly, as is common with suicides.

Whatever the content of these notes, I find it hard to completely exonerate the DJs or Radio station. It was a foolish, ill thought out and illegal "prank" call, badly timed and in the worst possible taste. That said stupidity and bad taste do not equate to malice. The end result was quite clearly not their intention.

@rixalex - just ignore him, he loves to argue and pick fights here under the guise of reasoned discussion. You'll see the same thing on all the threads he posts in.

I guess this was your own contribution to a reasonable discussion eh Tatsujin?!

Methinks perhaps that ferangled is actually Mr T himself . . . the inability to let go of things, an incessant need to always be right, quick to criticise others faults when their own are blatantly obvious . . . the list goes on

This is in response to me voicing an opinion that was neither supportive of Thakisn nor critical of anyone. Just pointing out that anyone, irrespective of their legal status should be permitted to defend themselves.

Reasonable? What suggesting that another poster is actually Thaksin? Right-o.

Reasonable? To cite faults in another without basis or example, based purely on the fact that they have voiced an opinion you don't agree with?!

Please don't make any pretence that you guys are even trying to have a discussion. Your comments make truly pathetic reading.

Rixalex again, respond to my actual posts not some hidden meaning that you have invented from them...

At least that is what you seem to imply.

I must admit to glossing over your post as a bunch of speculative nonsense written with a very one sided agenda and, yet again, totally irrelevant to my actual post. Replying to something you have assumed is there but in actual fact is not is a sure sign of a zealot.

Please feel free to bring out your soap box but please don't rant off about Thaksin when he is, as my very first post quite clearly stated in English, IRRELEVANT to my actual comment! Whether or not a fugitive or convict should be free to defend themselves legally against criminal acts is debatable. I have made my position quite clear that I believe all should have the recourse of defending themselves.

All my comments related directly to what you posted. My comments were i think both reasoned and respectful. If the best you can do is to gloss over my post and to dismiss it all as nonsense, with not a single shred of reasoning as to why, well then i believe you are trolling.

Quite clearly I am trolling speculative replies to my own initial post! Shred of reasoning? No it seems not. To reply directly to someone without actually directing your comments to the actual content of their post, indeed only at a speculative viewpoint you have created out of thin air is, IMHO, nonsense.

If I ventured my opinion on world peace and you wrote in response I enjoy bungee jumping and eating croissants, it would be similarly irrelevant to the actual topic.

At least that is what you seem to imply.

I must admit to glossing over your post as a bunch of speculative nonsense written with a very one sided agenda and, yet again, totally irrelevant to my actual post. Replying to something you have assumed is there but in actual fact is not is a sure sign of a zealot.

Please feel free to bring out your soap box but please don't rant off about Thaksin when he is, as my very first post quite clearly stated in English, IRRELEVANT to my actual comment! Whether or not a fugitive or convict should be free to defend themselves legally against criminal acts is debatable. I have made my position quite clear that I believe all should have the recourse of defending themselves.