.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Ferangled
-
Posts
1,351 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Downloads
Quizzes
Posts posted by Ferangled
-
-
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.
-
2
-
-
Clearly had I meant to caste any aspersions on Thaksin's status as a fugitive I would have said "whether or not Thaksin is a fugitive is debatable" I didn't, why would I? It's blatantly obvious to all that he is a fugitive!
I actually said "whether or not Thaksin is a fugitive is irrelevant"; If Pitak Siam really have falsified a recording and incriminated another (I don't care if it's Thaksin, a monk or a someone in prison facing a death sentence), the law should protect them as it would in most other countries the world over. IMHO being guilty of another crime doesn't and shouldn't leave you open to be the victim of other crimes without recourse. If you feel otherwise so be it, but don't attack me just for having a different opinion and please don't take my post and apply a meaning that's not conveyed by my actual words. That's as disingenuous as making a fake recording and passing it off in public...
I didn't even touch on the fact that most of the international community seem to welcome the man and as a fugitive he seems to be enjoying relatively free international travel with no threat of extradition. 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?
The responses on here are absurd. One takes my post as a staunch show of loyalty for Thaksin and goes off on an irrelevant rant, another misses the point entirely and wrongly accuses me of silly nitpicking about English, missing the obvious point that the first response was written by someone who took my post completely the wrong way through a miss comprehension of the fairly basic English used. The next suggests I am Thaksin and adds some personal critique of me without ever actually having met me, and another simply resorts to childish jibes...
Are you so totally blinkered in your hate of this individual that reason escapes you? It's becoming reminiscent of the Spanish inquisition on here... "she's a witch, burn her!" Get a grip guys...
-
2
-
-
Plain English is obviously not one of your strong points... rant away...
Methinks, Pot, kettle, black !!!
And quite evidently not one of yours...
-
If this charge holds any water I think it's entirely justifiable that Thaksin be allowed to sue, regardless of whether or not he is legally a fugitive.
There is no "whether or not" about it. He is a fugitive. He committed a crime, the court sentenced him to jail, he ran away. He refuses to accept what the law and the courts of the land decided regarding his own actions. What right on earth does a man who does this, have to request the law act for him against someone else? No moral right that is for sure. Complete and utter hypocrisy... as usual.
Plain English is obviously not one of your strong points... the point was that his status is irrelevant not to suggest he isn't a fugitive... oh forget it, rant away...
-
1
-
-
When the Thai defamation law is used to sue people who've made statements about others that are in fact true but are deemed to have negatively effected their image I think it's absurd.
That said making an offensive but trivial comment about someone in public is one thing, broadcasting recordings in public and passing them off as others, thereby falsely incriminating them is another. Surely that aspect of the defamation law is in accordance with similar laws that most societies have for the protection of all?
If this charge holds any water I think it's entirely justifiable that Thaksin be allowed to sue, regardless of whether or not he is legally a fugitive. Playing a voice only recording while displaying images of the man does seem disingenuous to me... how are they meant to have obtained this recording in the first place, a phone tap, hidden recording device? All a bit cloak and daggers...
-
1
-
-
So back to the actual discussion do you want to answer the points raised or just stick to pointing fingers and calling people names?
I'll stick to taking the p*ss and offending people thanks
Whatever floats your boat, you're in good company on here. Perhaps you and Nickymaster could form some sort of club, you could award each other gold stars and pat each other on the back from time to time
-
The usual stunning literary response. Care to actually answer the questions raised?! Then no one would have to guess, venture or speculate as to what you really think...
As it is we can only go on what you write but when you contradict yourself from thread to thread don't be surprised if people are confused over where you really stand. To me it seems pretty obvious that you are blindly loyal to Abhisit and the Dems to the point that you fail to question anything. You seem to be blinkered to the point of blindness, unquestioning and zealous in your views.
When both sides employ remarkably similar underhand tactics one easily becomes unstuck by deploring the actions of one while showing unfaltering support for the other. I think this post serves as a good example of how this selective reasoning is applied and just how easily double standards manifest themselves.
If I am mistaken please clear it up by answering the three rather simple questions I responded to your post with.
To me it seems pretty obvious that you are blindly loyal to Thaksin and the Reds to the point that you fail to question anything. You seem to be blinkered to the point of blindness, unquestioning and zealous in your views.
Would you care to answer for Nickymaster?
If you take the time to actually read all of my posts you'll see I'm critical of Thaksin, the Red shirts, Abhisit & the Yellows. I also like to play Devil's advocate and counter irrational posts when I read them. Label me whatever you want but if you have no actual relevant contribution to the points raised or the topic please stick to PMs rather than derailing the thread. I'm building up quite a store of interesting PMs from some of our less sane members on here...
So back to the actual discussion do you want to answer the points raised or just stick to pointing fingers and calling people names?
-
The way to deal with this is to have the Taksin court cases investigated by an independant commission to see whether the correct legal processes and laws were followed.
Now there are people that say: Let Thaksin come back as a free man first and do all his cases again (that would take 10 years and during those 10 years he is a free man). Funny, that is exactly what Yingluck said to CNN the first day she took office: We have to look at my brothers’ cases again. Thaksin would then be innocent until proven guilty. Such a scenario would be the joke of the century.
Independent commission? In a country where EVERYTHIING is politicized? That is virtually impossible, and you know that. And if such a commission could ever be set up, 99% of all Thai politicians and officials would be guilty of any sort of crime.
In this perfectly legal (Thai) country who would be the government?
And do you honestly believe that Thaksin could be cleared of all the dozens of cases against him (by this independent commission)? The answer would (most probably) be no and therefore Thaksin is only interested in an amnesty. He will never come back before this amnesty is in place.
I just noticed that my post has little in common with the thread topic. The Mods are free to delete it.
Everything is politicised...except when it relates to Thaksin?
99% of politicians are guilty for some sort of crime but ignoring that and making a scape goat out of the main opponent to your favoured party is acceptable?
I guess, given your take on independent commissions in Thailand, that you also accept the reluctance of many to accept the findings of the independent commission set up by the Dems to investigate the deaths in 2010?
Don't guess.
The usual stunning literary response. Care to actually answer the questions raised?! Then no one would have to guess, venture or speculate as to what you really think...
As it is we can only go on what you write but when you contradict yourself from thread to thread don't be surprised if people are confused over where you really stand. To me it seems pretty obvious that you are blindly loyal to Abhisit and the Dems to the point that you fail to question anything. You seem to be blinkered to the point of blindness, unquestioning and zealous in your views.
When both sides employ remarkably similar underhand tactics one easily becomes unstuck by deploring the actions of one while showing unfaltering support for the other. I think this post serves as a good example of how this selective reasoning is applied and just how easily double standards manifest themselves.
If I am mistaken please clear it up by answering the three rather simple questions I responded to your post with.
-
This is Thailand. No one who's rich and/or powerful is ever held judicially accountable for anything.
You seem to be forgetting Thaksin...
Double standards?
Yes it appears so...
hypocrisy
Yes, I'd say so!
-
The way to deal with this is to have the Taksin court cases investigated by an independant commission to see whether the correct legal processes and laws were followed.
Now there are people that say: Let Thaksin come back as a free man first and do all his cases again (that would take 10 years and during those 10 years he is a free man). Funny, that is exactly what Yingluck said to CNN the first day she took office: We have to look at my brothers’ cases again. Thaksin would then be innocent until proven guilty. Such a scenario would be the joke of the century.
Independent commission? In a country where EVERYTHIING is politicized? That is virtually impossible, and you know that. And if such a commission could ever be set up, 99% of all Thai politicians and officials would be guilty of any sort of crime.
In this perfectly legal (Thai) country who would be the government?
And do you honestly believe that Thaksin could be cleared of all the dozens of cases against him (by this independent commission)? The answer would (most probably) be no and therefore Thaksin is only interested in an amnesty. He will never come back before this amnesty is in place.
I just noticed that my post has little in common with the thread topic. The Mods are free to delete it.
Everything is politicised...except when it relates to Thaksin?
99% of politicians are guilty for some sort of crime but ignoring that and making a scape goat out of the main opponent to your favoured party is acceptable?
I guess, given your take on independent commissions in Thailand, that you also accept the reluctance of many to accept the findings of the independent commission set up by the Dems to investigate the deaths in 2010?
-
- Popular Post
The worst thing that could happen to PT is if AV goes to jail. His awkward, unlikeable demeanour and complete lack of ability to relate to the lower classes is one of the main reasons the Dems are perennial losers. PT should be fighting tooth & nail to keep him out of jail.
PT made a huge error (assuming they can control DSI
). Now AV is playing the role of the victim in front of the international press and at the same time is blaming Thaksin for all this injustice. The moment the Dems have been waiting for. And trust me that they will rub it in. Expect non-stop interviews, just as Thaksin was doing.Going after AV and Suthep is a desperate and stupid move.
(And......if AV would also have billions (stolen from the hard-working Thai taxpayers) hidden in offshore bank accounts, the lower classes would also relate to him).
Unfortunately the people want someone to be found accountable for the deaths in 2010. PT have to show their supporters that they aren't abandoning them now they are in power. I very much doubt this move is A. expected to result in a guilty verdict or B. meant to remove AV and Suthep from the political arena. It smacks of appeasing the reds, those that took to the streets and campaigned to have their voice heard, those that lost family members.
During the interview Abhisit kept harking back to the findings of the "independent" commission but with no acceptance of the fact that so many people struggle to see a commission set up by the Democrat Government to investigate the deaths of protesters under their watch as independent. I found the comment at the end of the interview about accepting any verdict, even the death penalty to be in very bad taste. When talking about an incident that claimed the lives of so many this show of mock bravado was misplaced; the protesters, bystanders and journalists that were shot in the streets had no choice but to accept their "sentence", they had no trial, no chance of appeal and no voice.
I think Abhisit knows full well he won't be sentenced to the death penalty even if found guilty, which let's face it is a very remote possibility and to make such comments shows a distinct lack of empathy with his own people. It was a very cheap and obvious shot across the bows of Thaksin when the situations are not really comparable. He would have gained far more credibility in my eyes if he had used the interview as a platform to express his deepest regret over the events of 2010 and acknowledge that the Thai people need some closure, some justice even if he feels that pointing the finger at him is misplaced.
The talk of amnesties to white wash crimes with no mention of the rewrites to the constitution that achieved remarkably similar aims for the Dems also came across as an incredibly cheap and hypocritical shot...
"Article 37 - The granting of amnesty to the junta for executing the coup"
"When talking about an incident that claimed the lives of so many this show of mock bravado was misplaced; the protesters, bystanders and journalists that were shot in the streets had no choice but to accept their "sentence", they had no trial, no chance of appeal and no voice."
You keep on mentioning this part. All I want to say is that they had a choice NOT to be there. Most were not just bystanders; they choose to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Election was ALREADY promised (before the whole thing really went out of control), and would happen within 6 months. I believe that most of us (and the international world) thought that was a fair solution out of the crisis. Unfortunately, A FEW didn’t accept that proposal and choose to keep on fighting. The famous clips where Nathawut and Arisman tell their followers to burn the city happened AFTER AV promised an election.
We're straying off topic here but I'd like to point out that not only did the protesters, bystanders and journalists have a choice to be there, they had a RIGHT to be there. Similarly they had a RIGHT to protection from the authorities and not aggression. They had a right to be protected from any violent elements not simply branded as terrorists because a minority were acting like them.
Elections hadn't been promised prior to the protests and a late change of heart by Abhisit, only when faced with a mass occupation of the city, to grant the citizens their democratic right to vote (but only at a time of his choosing) didn't appease the situation.... perhaps too little, too late?
I'd also like to point out that I made a single post that actually addressed the topic at hand and gave my thoughts on Abhisit's interview with the BBC. Please don't disingenuously suggest that I'm repeating myself. This is the first time that I have written about Abhisit's show of mock bravado during the BBC interview being in bad taste given the deaths of so many in 2010 who didn't have the luxury of a trial or a platform to explain their motivation or actions.
-
5
-
- Popular Post
The worst thing that could happen to PT is if AV goes to jail. His awkward, unlikeable demeanour and complete lack of ability to relate to the lower classes is one of the main reasons the Dems are perennial losers. PT should be fighting tooth & nail to keep him out of jail.
PT made a huge error (assuming they can control DSI
). Now AV is playing the role of the victim in front of the international press and at the same time is blaming Thaksin for all this injustice. The moment the Dems have been waiting for. And trust me that they will rub it in. Expect non-stop interviews, just as Thaksin was doing.Going after AV and Suthep is a desperate and stupid move.
(And......if AV would also have billions (stolen from the hard-working Thai taxpayers) hidden in offshore bank accounts, the lower classes would also relate to him).
Unfortunately the people want someone to be found accountable for the deaths in 2010. PT have to show their supporters that they aren't abandoning them now they are in power. I very much doubt this move is A. expected to result in a guilty verdict or B. meant to remove AV and Suthep from the political arena. It smacks of appeasing the reds, those that took to the streets and campaigned to have their voice heard, those that lost family members.
During the interview Abhisit kept harking back to the findings of the "independent" commission but with no acceptance of the fact that so many people struggle to see a commission set up by the Democrat Government to investigate the deaths of protesters under their watch as independent. I found the comment at the end of the interview about accepting any verdict, even the death penalty to be in very bad taste. When talking about an incident that claimed the lives of so many this show of mock bravado was misplaced; the protesters, bystanders and journalists that were shot in the streets had no choice but to accept their "sentence", they had no trial, no chance of appeal and no voice.
I think Abhisit knows full well he won't be sentenced to the death penalty even if found guilty, which let's face it is a very remote possibility and to make such comments shows a distinct lack of empathy with his own people. It was a very cheap and obvious shot across the bows of Thaksin when the situations are not really comparable. He would have gained far more credibility in my eyes if he had used the interview as a platform to express his deepest regret over the events of 2010 and acknowledge that the Thai people need some closure, some justice even if he feels that pointing the finger at him is misplaced.
The talk of amnesties to white wash crimes with no mention of the rewrites to the constitution that achieved remarkably similar aims for the Dems also came across as an incredibly cheap and hypocritical shot...
"Article 37 - The granting of amnesty to the junta for executing the coup"
-
4
-
The way to deal with this is to have the Taksin court cases investigated by an independant commission to see whether the correct legal processes and laws were followed.
That would seem a prudent way forward especially given the seemingly unlimited appeals and extended bail (even after sentencing) that others enjoy in the Kingdom.
What Thaksin said actually rings true - reconciliation can only happen when the law is enforced in a fair and equal manner, unfortunately forgetting the fair and equal manner it would be a miracle if the law was actually enforced at all in Thailand.
The law is very selectively enforced here and it's quite clear that wealthy and powerful individuals only get prosecuted when other wealthy and powerful individuals are pushing it as an agenda, usually a political one. This works for both sides of the political spectrum. In everyday life, politics aside, the rich generally act with impunity and the poor get shafted, that is the unwritten law of the land.
It's high time Thaksin returned, it's the only way any sort of reconciliation will take place and if it needs a retrial/ independent investigation of the original trial then fine, let's get on with it and move Thailand forward, better than continually moving in circles...
-
I'm sorry but when cause and effect are so clearly outlined for all to see it crosses from the realm of speculation into probable cause... I think a distinct minority are holding them entirely responsible for the unfortunate incident but denying that they played any part is sheer lunacy and I tend to think it is that which people really object to.
I'm sure they played a part in it. But I think it was probably more the stress of the attention of the British media after it, than the incident itself.
I tend to agree with you. I think the radio prank initiated the situation and then external factors came into play; I'm sure the pressure of the British media amplified matters, as did the fact it was a royal patient and I believe the background and cultural beliefs of the poor girl also played a part. Rarely can we point to one factor as the sole cause in such an unfortunate incident however we can all quite clearly see what provided the initial spark without which events would not have gone down this tragic path.
The radio DJs could not have foreseen how this would pan out but had they thought the matter through just from an ethical perspective this prank should not have gone ahead. Making fun out of a situation where a young girl has been hospitalised during the early stages of pregnancy is not in the best taste is it? It is a private family matter and boundaries should be drawn. With the backdrop of Diana you would have hoped the media would be on best behaviour. Most criminal fraternities even know where to draw the line and hospitals, pregnant women and nurses are usually off limits... I guess not to today's press.
-
Here are a few more cases of a "harmless prank" going wrong. I feel quite certain the pranksters felt what they were doing was humorous as well.
It happens more often than our apologists think.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia...._Tyler_Clementi
http://en.wikipedia...._of_Megan_Meier
Actually the examples you give are of Cyber Bullying. There is a very huge difference between a woman taking a 5 second telephone call at her place of work and transfering that call to the appropriate person, to teenagers who had been harrassed, tormented and teased on social networks like facebook for months. Tragic are the examples that you give but you can't compare.
There is nothing to suggest that the poor woman in this topic took her own life simply due to a phone call she answered. It is speculation and unfounded. From what I have read she had moved into the nurses quarters why was that?
I don't know, are you asking us to make more unfounded speculation as to why she moved into the Nurses quarters and the bearing that may have had on her suicide?
There is everything to suggest that this poor woman took her own life as a direct result of this incident but for some reason you seem to be clutching at any and every straw that presents itself as reason for the hoax call not having an effect on her emotional outlook when it seems pretty clear it did. Is it the sole factor? I doubt it but what bearing does that have on the matter?
Whether legally the radio DJs should or shouldn't be found liable for the death of this poor woman is beside the point. If they don't feel some moral responsibility for the reactions brought about by their actions there is something very wrong here.
"are you asking us to make more unfounded speculation as to why she moved into the Nurses quarters and the bearing that may have had on her suicide?"
But it's OK for the unfounded speculation that it was the DJs fault that she committed suicide?
I'm sorry but when cause and effect are so clearly outlined for all to see it crosses from the realm of speculation into probable cause... I think a distinct minority are holding them entirely responsible for the unfortunate incident but denying that they played any part is sheer lunacy and I tend to think it is that which people really object to.
-
Just to let you know the radio station has committed to donating A$500k to the deceased family.
Perhaps it would be taken as a genuinely heartfelt attempt to reach out to the family if it was announced prior to the revelation that they're losing c.A$150,000 a day in advertising revenue to the companies that pulled the plug... What was the initial reaction to that? The radio station responded by removing all advertising in the short term in a pretty thinly veiled attempt at retaining other advertising deals.
It really is all about money and legality these day's isn't it? If it's legal and you can make money do it, morality be damned, hell if it's illegal and makes money do it anyway just with the aid of a strong legal team to tie up any court action until those bringing charges run out of money... Then we see these pathetic public shows of "morality" which are actually of course just sound financial advice... cheaper to pay off the family publicly than lose yet more advertising deals. What's A$500,000 actually mean to them? About 3 days ad revenue... probably even less.
To all those that harp on about the corruption in Thailand and the way the good old civilised Western societies conduct themselves, take note. This is true Western style business manoeuvring and the reality is far more brutal and callous than most under the table deals in Thailand.
So are your saying that they should give nothing or that they should give more?
No, neither, I'm saying that their motivation is at best questionable, especially given the specific order to which these decisions have been made.
Consider this... If they really cared about the family and wanted to make a donation to them to show their support with no ulterior motive why do so publicly? Could they not have done so privately to respect the privacy of the family (as specifically requested by them)? No far better to make a big, public donation, appease their critics and let the family worry about the fallout from such a public transfer of a large sum of money to them...
-
This case would prove that statement rather false... perhaps rather than brushing this off as a "prank" we should call it what it really is, bullying; emotional bullying for the sake of getting a few laughs, not that far removed from what promotes most playground bullies.
There is bullying all of over the world, particularly evident in most schools. Most children shrug it off and deal with it but others don't. In some it creates life long issues of insecurity in others promotes them to become bullies themselves. A boy in my class at school decided to end his life as a direct result of the same sort of bullying that almost all of us were subjected to as children. There were no physical assaults involved, just daily name calling & teasing, all to gain a rise out of the other children and make the bully feel superior by getting a few laughs.
Was it then this boys fault that he was overly sensitive or ill equipped to deal with bullying or was his death a direct result of the bullying itself? A rational mind would perhaps conclude it was a combination of both but it's undeniable that the actions of one boy led to the death of the other. It may seem acceptable to some because those doing the bullying in this case are media personalities but whenever you make the conscious decision to make fun of someone else with that decision must come some acceptance of the responsibility for the actions that your humour leads to.
If someone made fun of a large, strong man and received a punch in the face for making them the butt of their jokes, we'd all pretty much accept it as "som num na", you were asking for it. Why is it that if an individual less well equipped to defend themselves is made the butt of a joke we tend to absolve all responsibility when an opposite outcome is provoked? Perhaps part of our "survival of the fittest" make up...
It's only a harmless prank when no one is harmed as a result and if someone feels they need to end their own life as a result of being the butt of your joke it would be a pretty soulless individual that could absolve themselves of all responsibility... legalities aside there is a moral compass that guides most of us and it's usually when devoid of one we look to the other to guide us.
Except that she wasn't bullied by the DJs. She was half a world away.
It seems that the DJs are getting bullied far more than the nurse was.
The first point you make is mute. What has proximity got to do with anything here? I take it you understand the concept of the internet given that you are posting on here and presumably the telephone is a device you are also familiar with? Just because you can't see the person at the other end of the line doesn't mean that you can't have a profound effect on their life, negatively or positively. Are you aware of the Samaritans?
As to your second point, let me help you out; "It seems to me that the DJs are getting bullied far more than the nurse was." would be more appropriate given that to countless others it seems pretty obvious that the DJs are simply dealing with the reactions to their ill thought out actions. Perhaps before reaching out to effect the daily life of a nurse, 1000s of miles away they should have considered the possible ramifications?
-
Just to let you know the radio station has committed to donating A$500k to the deceased family.
Perhaps it would be taken as a genuinely heartfelt attempt to reach out to the family if it was announced prior to the revelation that they're losing c.A$150,000 a day in advertising revenue to the companies that pulled the plug... What was the initial reaction to that? The radio station responded by removing all advertising in the short term in a pretty thinly veiled attempt at retaining other advertising deals.
It really is all about money and legality these day's isn't it? If it's legal and you can make money do it, morality be damned, hell if it's illegal and makes money do it anyway just with the aid of a strong legal team to tie up any court action until those bringing charges run out of money... Then we see these pathetic public shows of "morality" which are actually of course just sound financial advice... cheaper to pay off the family publicly than lose yet more advertising deals. What's A$500,000 actually mean to them? About 3 days ad revenue... probably even less.
To all those that harp on about the corruption in Thailand and the way the good old civilised Western societies conduct themselves, take note. This is true Western style business manoeuvring and the reality is far more brutal and callous than most under the table deals in Thailand.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Here are a few more cases of a "harmless prank" going wrong. I feel quite certain the pranksters felt what they were doing was humorous as well.
It happens more often than our apologists think.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia...._Tyler_Clementi
http://en.wikipedia...._of_Megan_Meier
Actually the examples you give are of Cyber Bullying. There is a very huge difference between a woman taking a 5 second telephone call at her place of work and transfering that call to the appropriate person, to teenagers who had been harrassed, tormented and teased on social networks like facebook for months. Tragic are the examples that you give but you can't compare.
There is nothing to suggest that the poor woman in this topic took her own life simply due to a phone call she answered. It is speculation and unfounded. From what I have read she had moved into the nurses quarters why was that?
I don't know, are you asking us to make more unfounded speculation as to why she moved into the Nurses quarters and the bearing that may have had on her suicide?
There is everything to suggest that this poor woman took her own life as a direct result of this incident but for some reason you seem to be clutching at any and every straw that presents itself as reason for the hoax call not having an effect on her emotional outlook when it seems pretty clear it did. Is it the sole factor? I doubt it but what bearing does that have on the matter?
Whether legally the radio DJs should or shouldn't be found liable for the death of this poor woman is beside the point. If they don't feel some moral responsibility for the reactions brought about by their actions there is something very wrong here.
-
3
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Do you know anymore than us? If so please tell us. From the various news reports, hosptial and neighbours comments there is nothing to suggest any other signifcant problem. Thereore it is reasonable to think that this call and the follow up to it had such an affect.
We will probably never know - but we do know for sure how these idiots behaved. People react differently and have different fears and trigger points. What is insignificant to you may be a matter of life and death to another.
These types of pranks are done all the time all over the world. People don't commit suicide over them.
This case would prove that statement rather false... perhaps rather than brushing this off as a "prank" we should call it what it really is, bullying; emotional bullying for the sake of getting a few laughs, not that far removed from what promotes most playground bullies.
There is bullying all of over the world, particularly evident in most schools. Most children shrug it off and deal with it but others don't. In some it creates life long issues of insecurity in others promotes them to become bullies themselves. A boy in my class at school decided to end his life as a direct result of the same sort of bullying that almost all of us were subjected to as children. There were no physical assaults involved, just daily name calling & teasing, all to gain a rise out of the other children and make the bully feel superior by getting a few laughs.
Was it then this boys fault that he was overly sensitive or ill equipped to deal with bullying or was his death a direct result of the bullying itself? A rational mind would perhaps conclude it was a combination of both but it's undeniable that the actions of one boy led to the death of the other. It may seem acceptable to some because those doing the bullying in this case are media personalities but whenever you make the conscious decision to make fun of someone else with that decision must come some acceptance of the responsibility for the actions that your humour leads to.
If someone made fun of a large, strong man and received a punch in the face for making them the butt of their jokes, we'd all pretty much accept it as "som num na", you were asking for it. Why is it that if an individual less well equipped to defend themselves is made the butt of a joke we tend to absolve all responsibility when an opposite outcome is provoked? Perhaps part of our "survival of the fittest" make up...
It's only a harmless prank when no one is harmed as a result and if someone feels they need to end their own life as a result of being the butt of your joke it would be a pretty soulless individual that could absolve themselves of all responsibility... legalities aside there is a moral compass that guides most of us and it's usually when devoid of one we look to the other to guide us.
-
3
-
The problem on here is that there are so many people who believe in the red cause that they cannot accept when the red shirts are wrong. They believe in the people. Not the actions.
Whereas there are so few pro yellows among the anti PTP/UDD posters that the attempts to brand anyone who doesn't fly the Shinawatra flag as a PAD followers whereas they are far from that.
Followers of morals versus followers of colour
Really? I see the problem "on here" being posters of your ilk who leap to branding people with colours and labelling other members with political affiliations over any differences of opinion. This thread was refreshingly bereft of this until your post. Yours seems to be the first to attack this thread with your red shirt/ yellow shirt bile. Are you being deliberately dense or is this intended irony given the message the article is trying to convey?
Similarly another major issue with this forum are those that prefer to act childishly and call people names deliberately detracting from any valid discussion... You know, the sort of people that derail a thread with inane playground one up man-ship and finger pointing...
"
Maybe I need to draw poor Hugo a picture...""Excellent idea. Can I help colour it in?"
These sort of childish antics really help to narrow the divide and focus the mind on constructive debate...
-
Wonder what will happen to the boss? (Not really, I suspect nothing will)
He may sue the victim for defamation?
Right on cue!
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
What always gets me reading such articles are the notable absence of any arrests or charges brought against those responsible. We have the name of the victim and a photo, even the name of the hospital that he's recovering in but no names of his ex boss, ex company or the thugs that botched his murder.
So his aggressors know that A. He has told the police who was responsible. B. To expect police attention. C. Where to go to silence the only surviving witness to their attempted murder.
Way to go Thai media and police. You guys are truly amazing. Rather than naming and shaming the victims and witnesses why not name and shame those responsible, plaster their pictures all over the media, publish the addresses where they can be found so that the public can protect themselves by not getting involved with such murderous b@st@rds...
Not sure I agree with this. Right now, the 'boss' is accused on the basis of zero evidence beyond the say-so of one individual. No, I'm not saying that he's making a false accusation, but I am uncomfortable if we starting publishing the names of accused persons when there is no corroborating evidence (yet). That would be something that could be massively abused by people with ill intent. Of course, the police need to do thorough follow up, and if corroborating evidence is found and charges laid, then it will be time to name names....
Aye and that's where a functional defamation law would help... you know the sort where if you allege something that is actually true you're not liable to be imprisoned for making a truthful statement about someone.
-
3
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
What always gets me reading such articles are the notable absence of any arrests or charges brought against those responsible. We have the name of the victim and a photo, even the name of the hospital that he's recovering in but no names of his ex boss, ex company or the thugs that botched his murder.
So his aggressors know that A. He has told the police who was responsible. B. To expect police attention. C. Where to go to silence the only surviving witness to their attempted murder.
Way to go Thai media and police. You guys are truly amazing. Rather than naming and shaming the victims and witnesses why not name and shame those responsible, plaster their pictures all over the media, publish the addresses where they can be found so that the public can protect themselves by not getting involved with such murderous b@st@rds...
This is only one side of the story. It should be investigated before handing out names to the press. Good job you're not a judge because you'd be finding everyone guilty without even seeing any evidence.
Yes, one side of the story, that of a man who's been beaten and hung from a bridge, made a lucky escape and given a witness statement to the police. Now his name, his location and his story are plastered all over the media but Thai laws protect the same from happening with his alleged attackers. Not saying they should be found guilty before a fair trial (although feel free to apply whatever leaps of logic you like Dave...) but that victim and witness protection and identity/ location secrecy should come before that of the suspects... crazy stuff.
His witness statement would be enough in virtually every civilised country the world over to obtain an arrest warrant for the suspects. That would be enough substance in most to release a public notice that such and such is wanted for questioning in relation to such and such and public beware that they've been known to act violently and throw people off bridges etc.
But you're totally right Dave, protecting the rights of the alleged murderers is of paramount importance and the rights of victims, witnesses and the public as a whole are insignificant in comparison...
-
5
Thaksin Sues Pitak Siam Leader Boonlert, M P For Defamation
in Thailand News Headlines
Posted
Yes and some believe that the world is flat but that would seem a tad irrelevant to the comments that have actually been made on this thread... the replies seem to bear no relation to the actual posts such is the fervour on here!
Can you actually provide a single quote from anyone. anywhere that has actually denied that Thaksin is a fugitive from Thailand? The rights and wrongs of the matter are irrelevant, the truth of the matter is quite plain to see. Thaksin is a fugitive from Thailand, he stays abroad and will not return to face a sentence that he believes is politically motivated. The man himself doesn't deny he's a fugitive <deleted>!