inutil

well, theyve gone through the denial phase (how can you doubt us?), now its anger (how dare you doubt us?), so i assume next its bargaining.

Come on guys, just drop it. We realise some things in the RTP need reform, but lets not use this case as a red flag to demand change. After these criminals have been found guilty in a court of law we promise there will be an internal investigation and reforms of the way our local forces operate. We realise mistakes in the handling of this case have been made, but we have the right people in this instance. The international spotlight really has highlighted we need to change some practices and improve certain aspects of our training. We're here to serve and protect, just lets accept that this one is done so we can carry out those essential reforms in the right environment of love and trust.

Would that be the same phone that was caught on camera in the room with the evidence? So your turn, whose phone was that in the clip then that looks exactly like David's phone and i believe was stated as such by the friend standing in the background of that report and who left the island long before it turned up again smashed by a dude who clearly didnt comprehend that a) it was evidence against him, and it was worth money to him unsmashed if thats why he took it? Riddle me this batman.

I would imagine theyd say "oh, wow... how the hell... but... theyre like half the size of him?... what?... how on earth did they even do this? and seriously? They raped her and did that to her face because they saw them kissing and cuddling?... what the hell kind of motive is that? These dudes are clearly psychopaths. Glad theyre locked up"

Now how about your turn, what would the hang en high brigade say when it turns out that the DNA (at the second bite) was falsified (if at all tested), and that these guys clearly, despite all the prompting for the media didnt in fact have a clue what the hell they were supposed to be doing in that reconstruction despite the clear guiding hand of the RTP?

Will it be something like

Well of course they didnt do it. Did you see the size of them? What kind of ridiculous fantasist scenario would have these two tiny dudes take on a dude twice their size because they got 'horny' whilst the girl lay there completely passive and not in any way attempting to escape or raise an alarm? Was she drugged or something? Who the hell drugged her? Obviously not these dudes since this was apparently an opportunist spur of the moment thing if you believe the laughable notion that rape is about sex and not at all about power. And what kind of power would they have against what appears to be a GIANT of a man (if we're talking stature)? Lucky that hoe was around to bash his head in (despite no dna being present from the male victim on the 'murder weapon') and rape the stranger girl theyd never met instead of maybe picking on a couple of random girls or just going home like most people and having a wank because theyre not psychopaths who respond to their sexual urges with an orgy of unrestrained violence. Was this the first time they got horny? Obviously not. How strange then that anyone could or would choose to believe such complete and total bullshit based on nothing more than some kind of Stanley Millgram knee jerk response that because someone in a uniform told them it was true, it must be true. Did they not apply that education they received as a child or were they just always that stupid?

I ask out of deep contrition because i cant for the life of me understand why i would swallow such a bag of ridiculous ? I must have been on drugs or trolling. I was probably just trolling though because who the hell cares if two innocent people end up dead based on the flimsiest of fabricated stories. Its just the internet. Im off to laugh at my genius in suckering you morans into some spurious debate about how youre all obsessed about phones, motives, weapons, fingerprints, dna tests, stories about people fleeing from the BiB who actually turned out to be standing in a queue smiling as they submitted their DNA for testing in the first few days of this investigation. How stupid you all must feel for even listening to me. Thus i win the internet!

Police caught in a lie throw a red herring that we are still postulating on.

It was a plant. They want to create this confusion. It's the strategy of choice throughout. We have wisened up to this already no ?

In many ways you are right, but in one crucial way you are wrong.

For me, there have been so many announcements and so much mixing of information that with the impetus of social media and forums like these it becomes hard to keep track of clear stories.

For instance, to my recollection there were two DIFFERENT cigarette butts found. One at the log where the Burmese were apparently putting them at the scene, and one at the scene of the murder. To my mind the two are distnct. But gradually theres been some kind of process of attrition and im now confused about this. It seems people are even starting to state as fact that the DNA of both the victim and suspect have been found on one butt. Its not so much that its correct, its that its becoming muddied thats the issue here.

Take as well the guitar information. Apparently the person in the group of Burmese who could play the guitar was the one released. But ive just seen a reconstruction photo of one of them, clearly incapable of playing the guitar holding the guitar? Oh, he's playing the part of the guitarist, i hear you say? But er now we have the problem of number 3 being involved right up until the important decision to head over to the part of the beach with the victims.

Im not saying my memory here is infallible on any of those points. In fact its the problem with my memory being fallible that is at issue here. Which is why obfuscation is clearly working in the favour of the prosecution case. Too many crazy leads, too many statements mixed through three weeks of saturated coverage to keep a handle on it all. So its not NOW that obfuscation is playing its part. Its been playing the part since day 1. IN that regard i respectfully argue you declaration to be wholly accurate. Obfuscation, whether deliberate or not, has played a strong part in this case being both kept alive and the Burmese men being detained.

In the point that youre wrong though, i think the admission that the phone is not Hannah's has cleared away a lot of the debris. Now the police are directly stating it to be David's phone. If they are wrong now, then it will be a huge issue for the police. So long as no one confirmed or denied the identity of the telephone's owner, or confirmed or denied that there was a misunderstanding, then people could state that the two objects in two separate photographs taken before and after the murder were in fact, despite every part of my brain telling me otherwise, two totally different objects. Now theyre on the hook for a clear statement. They've corrected their 'mistake' so now it must be David's phone. Because if it didnt belong to him, then whose phone was it? They seem intent to double down every time. So the more emphatic they are, the worse it will end up becoming when they are shown, by their own admission or by witness testimony, to be wrong. And this begs the obvious question of how David's phone now got behind those bushes?

As far as i can see, the only logical way they can go from that point is to claim that it turned out it was just ANY phone and it just so happened to look exactly like the phone of one of the victims, hence their confusion. Either way, its soon done as a piece of evidence given that their own reports in the earlier days will have undermined this position.

So this leaves other things. and the noose, as one guy said, is tightening. Once the flight records are obtained, and once a photo is found of the (former) main suspect being on the island in that incredibly generous time window the CCTV supplied, then more questions will have to be answered about the investigation. If he really was on the island at that time, its simply a case of WHEN rather than if. He will have been photographed somewhere. All it will require is a few people interested enough to find the picture. And believe me, it seems a lot of people are interested in this case.

It seems fair. Should no picture appear, then clearly the guy has a legitimate alibi. Should the phone turn out to be David's and no one contradicts the police information that it was found behind the bushes, then it clearly was David's. So its in the interests of all concerned to call for people to speak up if they have information. Not just for the 'conspiracy theorists', but also the family of those who might be falsely accused and having their businesses tarnished as a result.

i would agree. I think the word might be unhappy. Which of course links to sad, but also pissed off and furious.

More money for the corrupt local mafia.

I dunno man. They could charge a bazillion US for all the difference it makes to me. What is so essential on Koh Tao that you cant get anywhere else? Diving? Arent there thousands of pokey islands a speed boat away? Is this the great barrier reef or something? It seems to be just some kind of moderately nice diving spot? Arent there plenty of them all over south east asia?

Im certainly never stepping foot on koh tao. Im also not stepping foot on Koh samui either since as far as im concerned, the money from koh samui tourism is propping up the place.

But heres the thing: Not one piece of news in a year has suggested that thailand is up for accommodating western tourism. I have a strong feeling that this isnt incompetence and general wholescale self-defeatist buffoonery. Im starting to feel it might be deliberate. Despite being a massive troll, gangthai or whetever the sock puppet is called, is hitting on the truth of this matter by accident: Thailand cannot afford to accommodate western tourism. It has inflated prices that belie its poor investment in its tourist industry. The two are not working together.

Prices are sky rocketing, but the infrastructure and amenities are not to a western standard. We expect more value for our money now and are instead given the same shitty service, protection and lifestyle as before. So we're not coming in the same numbers as before. Thailand cannot crack down on corruption on a means that would satisfy the ever demanding Westerner. (I would even dare say they wont since, (like the yakuza), its the cheapest way to keep crime organised and on a manageable scale in a corrupt society). We want all the luxury and standards of our culture and all the folksy prices and mischief of south east asia. But the tourist industry has been left to stagnate for decades and resentment has built. You can find it in the high street in places like Silom. You ask a thai person why they are charging such a ludicrous amount to farang and you get the simple answer: we expect to be haggled down.

It conveys the idea that rich westerners with money to throw around are cheap as shit and trying to exploit the Thai people. And tourists think that the market traders and the Thai people see only walking cash dispensers ready to be tricked and cajoled out of their hard won dollars. Its a culture of absolute mistrust thats been allowed to foster and grow unchecked. The inevitable consequence is xenephobia and resentment.

Thailand is waking up to the reality it cannot afford western tourism.

The clear reality is that they DONT want people like me. Sure, they want the very wealthy. But they dont want your average western tourist here for a few weeks in the sun. We're a pain in the ass. We need to be looked after. We post reports on tripadvisor, we make youtube videos about the dirt on our paradise beach. We use social media, and tell our friends why Thailand is ruined. We're savvy to the tricks, we know the prices, we know (some of) the scams. We stay informed. We look for value. We look to complain.

And so i think theyre shutting their doors. Or maybe less pessimistically, theyre looking to try something different. The old model is done. Asean, chinese and indian expendable income, mass tourism, easy visa, and massive group bookings and tours are in, and we are out (for the moment).

Then again, i dont live here. Maybe it is just much smaller. Maybe its just a massive joke on an insignificant non-descript island of which there are plenty all over south east asia (and with the extra notoriety of clearly being lathered in corruption). Charge whatever the hell you like, people. I'll never go anywhere near that cesspit so long as i breath. But perhaps im no longer welcome anyway?

A further question: Sean is neither an mma cage fighter or an octopus. How could he subdue TWO people (one of them very much bigger than him), without either of the other two raising an alarm or attempting to flee?

Oh yeah and er, that whole DNA thing...

Yeah, sectarianism was pretty well established in Glasgow before the referendum.

Salmond was gutted. Of course. He worked his ass off. But your interpretation of what i wrote was wide of the mark. The win spin is not that salmond wanted to lose the referendum. But was that AFTER he had lost, the decision was made to lock down SNP strongholds in the former labour strongholds of Glasgow and the regions around it.

He wasnt going to personally be able to do it because a resurgent gordon brown would probably have turned that tide back against him. He is still divisive, and no matter how well loved he is now, as the leader of the SNP he'd just lose momentum. (I say probably because my mam posted up a petition the other day with a picture of gordon brown calling him a traitor to scotland and asking for signatures). So he fell on his sword. Not because he lost the referendum. He fell on his sword so that the SNP could consolidate their gains, and keep the pressure on Westminster to deliver or force through another referendum.

Not in the next SPE in 2016... those will be built around holding Westminster to account, but in the 2020ish election, we might see it rear its head again. Which puts a vote thereafter sometime around 2024. Ah, the space age! No doubt if the SNP or the relevant party come to decide the day, they might pick September 18th if they felt they were betrayed by Westminster promises. Should the promises of course be delivered on, then i see absolutely no political will for a second bite. So thats the question...

As for england not getting a vote, honestly. If scotland wants to leave the union, thats for scotland to decide. We're not here in chains, we're in the union by a legal compact and thats it. Though we are not in chains, allowing the English the majority vote in deciding whether even allow scotland permission to consider leaving the Union might very well be forcing those chains on us. It can also be reasonably argued as well that the English people voted in Cameron who made that choice on their behalf as their elected representative. As such, again, if you dont like this agreement pr feel he over stepped his remit, please feel free to kick him out next year.

In addition, if England wants to have its own referendum and leave the union, it need only set up its own parliament, and have a party with a referendum in its manifesto win convincingly in any election. Theres nothing at all stopping England doing this except (i suspect) the complete lack of political will to do so. I certainly wont be calling for Scottish people to also vote in the referendum. England is not in chains to Scotland. If it wants to break up the union, it has my most express thanks.

Well, ive got 46.8 on the yes vote and 37.9% on yes (84.6% turn out, not 86% of 4,271,500 eligible voters rounded from the 84.6% that voted). So we're closing that margin of error. I would also argue that the youth and workers are less likely or too busy to turn up to the polls on poling day compared with grannies and grandads with nothing better to do and an army of volunteers to drive them, so again, maybe more pause for thought. Its all hypothetical and pointless though. Unless we introduce punishments for people who dont vote, you go with the people that turn up. Thirty eight percent of the entire population is enough to deliver landslide governments after all. Didnt blair get something like 30.8% in 1997? Yes, he did, i just did the sums

The point is that the math might stand on the figures we have. But this is superfluous to anything at all given that the terms of this vote set out that the total CAST votes be counted in the total percentages. What doesnt stand and cant stand is the interpretation of the voting intentions of those who failed (for whatever reason) to turn up and cast their vote. Thats just silly and self serving. We all have our feelings and ideas, but the only reflections we have are polling weights, margins of error, and assumptions about human behaviour. All of which are susceptible to being made up on the spot to suit our personal agenda. Come on now, lets be grown up. Its a silly dead end. I got sick of arguing this point in the thai news forums about the differences between direct and representative democracy and whether Yingluck had a mandate to govern. It seems extra daft, because no Yes supporter is seriously arguing (really) against the idea that the No side won. To further try and diminish their vote by rounding the proportion down to convey some kind of political lack of will seems spurious on top of it. The logic cuts both ways, and since NO failed to garner 50% of the total votes, perhaps we should all do this again and again until someone scores 50% of all possible votes plus 1.

Am I right in understanding there can't be another vote for 30 years?

You are not im afraid. Its at the whim of three things:

1. A manifesto pledge.

2. A mandate to deliver on that manifesto.

3. A British government in Parliament that agrees on such a thing.

There could be another mandate in as little as 2 years. There could be one if the UK EU referendum actually compels Scotland into leaving the EU in 2017. There could be one at the next Scottish parliament elections thereafter.

There even could be one if someone said "lets have a referendum!" and printed up a bunch of ballot papers (though without the actual chance of being endorsed by the UK government to make it a legally binding verdict, it would lack any participation and be a massive waste of time, money and effort).

Basically you follow those three rules at the top and we could have another one within 2 years (but Scotland would REAAAAAAALLLLLLYYYY have to want it to offset the sheer annoyance of dealing with this all again and grinding the country to a halt - people would be mad IN SCOTLAND if a second referendum comes without any good reason other than to try and get the vote the independence movement want). More than likely only if there was real cross party support against a yes vote to leave the EU would perhaps trigger another referendum. Failing that it will be argued that two years is far too short a time politically to insist on devo max pledges being fully honored and delivered. Maybe in about ten years though, the records can be checked again before the emotion on broken promises is enirely forgotten, but not so early that people think "this again!?!??!"

Lets not forget that UKIP received many scottish votes in the EU elections, gaining One of the Six Scottish seats, nearly getting a second.

If in the event of a referendum to leave the EU, and England,Wales and Northern Ireland all voted 51% to leave and then Scotland tipped the balance with one hundred % wishing to remain, then as a United democracy the three other areas of the UK should and would have to accept that democratic decision, like wise if the Scottish vote failed to turn that balance, then they also should accept the democratic decision of the whole country.

For me... thats democracy.

You can bitch and complain that your team won your region but the rest of the planet voted against you. But thats democracy! The EU vote shouldnt be a reason for scotland to bring out the indy referendum. However, cynicism suggests that a poor downtrodden scotland being steamrollered into compliance by their english masters might actually bring to the table an intervention from the meddling EU itself. I doubt it. But swift guaranteed EU membership (or rather non-revocation for an independent scotland) might be something that people would want to have a say on given that it was one of the main attacks against the independence movement. If scotland could preserve its EU membership by voting for independence, then it might bring the subject to the fore again.

45% Yes, 55% No.

But 14% of those eligible to vote didn't.

I think it's reasonable to conclude that those who didn't vote didn't really care; apart from a small percentage who were prevented from voting by illness or similar.

I think it's also reasonable to conclude that Yes supporters made sure they voted if at all possible.

So, if my maths is correct, only 38% of Scottish voters wanted an independent Scotland enough to go and vote for it.

Your maths is self serving and based on circumstances and assumptions you are pulling out of your arse. With respect.

Are you denying that 14% of voters didn't vote?

My conclusion is that they didn't do so because they didn't care enough to vote (apart from those who were prevented from doing so by legitimate reasons such as illness). If you disagree with that conclusion; what is yours?

Or are you saying my maths is incorrect?

Instead of the insults, why don't you provide your analysis of the figures?

How about this:

The turnout in Glasgow, one of the biggest YES votes was only 3/4 of the entire electorate. This means that the yes voter thought everyone was going to vote for them, so the rest of them didnt bother showing up. That means that theres at least another 100,000 votes right away we might just as well suggest were obvious yes votes. Should be mirror this "its going to be a yes vote, why bother?" throughout the rest of the country, then clearly the yes campaign stormed this with just over 53% of the vote!

So why did you only down grade the yes vote? Why not also the no vote and show that they only achieved 46.8% of the entire possible electorate either?

Be clear im not taking this point in any way serious. Its a self-serving interpretation of an unknown and UNKNOWABLE element to suit my personal agenda. Just as yours is.

The referendum was very clear. If you dont vote, it has no bearing at all on the result. It is 50% of total votes +1.

Am I right in understanding there can't be another vote for 30 years?

You are not im afraid. Its at the whim of three things:

1. A manifesto pledge.

2. A mandate to deliver on that manifesto.

3. A British government in Parliament that agrees on such a thing.

There could be another mandate in as little as 2 years. There could be one if the UK EU referendum actually compels Scotland into leaving the EU in 2017. There could be one at the next Scottish parliament elections thereafter.

There even could be one if someone said "lets have a referendum!" and printed up a bunch of ballot papers (though without the actual chance of being endorsed by the UK government to make it a legally binding verdict, it would lack any participation and be a massive waste of time, money and effort).

Basically you follow those three rules at the top and we could have another one within 2 years (but Scotland would REAAAAAAALLLLLLYYYY have to want it to offset the sheer annoyance of dealing with this all again and grinding the country to a halt - people would be mad IN SCOTLAND if a second referendum comes without any good reason other than to try and get the vote the independence movement want). More than likely only if there was real cross party support against a yes vote to leave the EU would perhaps trigger another referendum. Failing that it will be argued that two years is far too short a time politically to insist on devo max pledges being fully honored and delivered. Maybe in about ten years though, the records can be checked again before the emotion on broken promises is enirely forgotten, but not so early that people think "this <deleted> again!?!??!"

Your maths is self serving and based on circumstances and assumptions you are pulling out of your arse. With respect.

Come on, you can make these stupid arguments for any age group.

Perhaps then pensioners should be barred from voting because theres a decent chance theyll be dead before the changes on offer from the relevant parties have time to actually affect them. It makes them selfish, myopic and narrow and forces the rest of us us into kow-towing to their stupid brand of selfish conservatism because old people are clearly too stupid and doddery to deal with change or do the decent thing and DIE!!! Wait, that reminds me. Their brains arent working anyway. Who gave these people a vote? Madness. There should be an upper age limit. Lets make it pensioner age to be fair. Id reduce it to 60 as well, but my mum might shout at me what with her retirement age already going up.

Whenever you vote for i) a party campaigning for the setting up of a specific English parliament, and then ii) a party within that English parliament campaigning specifically on a manifesto proposal to offer a referendum on England staying in the Union. Of course youll probably need overwhelming support to force westminster to agree, but if scotland can do it, im sure england can as well.

Then again, you could of course push for a party in a general election voting exclusively on a platform of a national referendum on the break up of the union, and if they garner the seats, then sure, they could push it through. But im assuming that the whole of the UK would be in on that referendum given that it was the whole UK that voted on that manifesto. For best results (and to keep it an exclusively English decision) youll really need to set up your own parliament first and then win the election of that parliament.

Glad to help.

Well of course not, because then you might hit on something that the scottish labour supporter probably doesnt want to pay for. So it goes. We all have shit that taxes end up paying for that we dont want. But thats not how taxation works of course

Further, referendums are in integral part of any democratic nation. Not to mention that a great deal of this was paid for through donations. The cost will be marginal, and the conservative/lib majority government agreed to the structure and funding of it. So you know, vote THEM out if you think they wasted your money.

Salmond can retire and wait to see what happens next. He will never give up - only pause and watch how the cards fall in the next year or so. If Westminster are not seen as delivering on the promises recently made -- regardless of who's in power -- expect more independence rumblings.

I saw an interesting comment that blamed the pensioners in Scotland for tipping the vote into a NO, but I haven't been able to substantiate it. It might explain why Salmond extended the age limit downwards. If the same happens next time the YES result should be more achieveable.

Indeed - it's not "...if..." it's only "...when..."

Meantime Catalonia will have resolved the methods of becoming independent and getting into the EU

Of course it was. Every poll had the over 65s stubbornly stuck around 3-1 in favour of the union. Thats why the better together campaign kept banging the pension drum. For salmond the only likely movement was from core labour support. Its why i kept banging on about the west coast labour supporter. They really did hold the cards in this. And thats why he kept banging on about protecting the NHS and getting shot of westminster austerity.

Its why i think Gordon Browns intervention WAS so crucial. Without it, the Yes campaign were approaching a tipping point of labour support deciding that any change was better than none. Browns push on devo max with the three main parties gave them another choice. Though they dont believe it, they also likely didnt believe the vision salmond was painting either, and given the choice between a radical vision that risked everything versus a minor change with little risk, they went for the latter... obviously, because people are risk averse. That so many went with the former though does beg the logical question that if people are risk averse then why would they even contemplate this leap into the abyss? And this is the question Westminster has to address properly for the sake of democracy THROUGHOUT the UK.

What was the cost of all this?

I sure hospitals and schools facing cut-backs will understand all the money spent and achieving very little.

Did you know that there are actually more departments in westminster than just health and education?

Thats weird, i thought this was a referendum on scottish independence, and not in fact a scottish parliament election. Pop back in 2016 and ask me the same question if you like. Since youre asking though, im farily certain theyll want to keep him.