Si Thea01

Is this story just poor reporting or are the police, in this instance, being inept.  I will praise them when it's due, however, a number of things concern me.  The victim has reported being raped, so the matter must be fully investigated before her version can be either proven or discounted.  It was initially reported that rape had been established by an examination at a hospital. 

If this is correct, and a rape test kit was used at the time of the initial examination, it can be established that forcible sex had occurred, however, the next step is to take DNA for possible confirmation and identification of offenders, should any be apprehended.  The latter takes some time, a couple weeks at the minimum, yet this is where is gets confusing as they're(police) are alleging they are waiting on rape test results.  Maybe this relates to DNA but given the standard of reporting in this matter, who would know.

 They have interviewed 5 persons who were in the immediate area and that they and their vehicles were being thoroughly investigated.  I hope that includes DNA from each person, which, when all the relevant tests that should have been undertaken and the results are forthcoming, those results can either establish someone's involvement or absolve them from any involvement.  Now they're on about a charge of false reporting not being ruled out.  Given that their investigation is incomplete then they are being premature in signifying that this could be a possibility. 

if the incident occurred as stated, and at this time, it appears there is no evidence to suggest it did not, then the amount of stress that it could place on the victim would be inexcusable and uncalled for.  However, this type of tactic is sometimes employed as a last resort to see if the fear of prosecution will result in a different version being proffered thus given rise to doubting the victim's allegations.  However, before this is reported on they should at least wait until the investigation is completed.     

1 hour ago, Basil B said:

May not work,  we have a similar situation in London, a fugitive is has been hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy for years...

Nothing like what is happening here.  Everyone knows where he is and that he was granted political asylum, so it's hardly hiding out, the cops just do not have jurisdiction.  In so far as this dear, they're not even sure if he is actually there.  He is just using the people and knows that if the police move in it is likely to cause more trouble, hence their unwillingness to enter but it will come to a head shortly.  Good or bad, only time will tell. 

1 hour ago, The man from udon said:

I wish my mrs would run off with the painter.i would give them a 10 gun salute and one way tickets.maybe if he had sat and thought about it,no don't think shoot first and think later.i once read about a Thai going into a beauty saloon and attacking the ex with a machete and taking her forearms off as she tried to defend herself.im sure Thai tempers and ways are similar to apache indians 300 yrs ago.it amazes me how we haven't heard of farangs being scalped.

When you read some of the posts on TVF, it appears many have been.

48 minutes ago, sweatalot said:

 

You are so wrong. There are a lot of alleged rape. German statistics say it might be over 50 %. It is so easy for a woman to pretend being raped and get innocent men into prison. If you dont' believe me I can give you plenty of sources (unfortunately in German) Nut I don't believe women in other countries are much different,

And just what would her motive be for saying she was raped if it did not occur?  What in the hell has she got to gain?

1 minute ago, jerojero said:

Good luck Leonardo. You'll need it to get anything of your agenda through Trumps thick skull.

We all know who has the thick skull.

1 hour ago, jaltsc said:

Rape is a legal term. 

Rape is rape no matter how you define it. And the non-legal term is?

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

1. Deal with Iraq made by agreement with G7+1 and US Congress

2. Re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba made as a recognized soveriegn country by the UN with whom the US previously had diplomatic relations.

3. Sale of weapons to Taiwan made with Congressional approval.

Compare:

POTUS-electTrump talks with Taiwan who not recognized anywhere as a soveriegn country (not even by Taiwan itself, without Congressional or State Department consultation, and in violation of US Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1999/04/the-taiwan-relations-act-after-20-years

 

 

1,2 and 3.  Doesn't make them right despite what Congress has to say.  Some of those guys receive financial support from dubious sources and vote the way the money flows.  As for the UN, Anything it is involved in would have to be treated with concern yet now there is all this hoo haa about a congratulatory phone call, Why?

Is dealing with a state that supports terrorists ok?  Was dealing with a Dictator and is brother who, over the past 50 years, have killed and imprisoned numerous citizens ok?  The Cuban Americans really rejoiced when he passed, shows how much they thought of that regime.

The bit about Taiwan and the link provided does not state that someone needs any consultation with government bodies to receive a phone call from that country, nor is it a violation of the act quoted.  If it is, and I have missed it, I'd be happy for you to point out the section.

The following link indicates that Taiwan is a sovereign state and contains comments made by Colin Powell, when he was Secretary of State that indicates from the perspective of international law, Taiwan ceased to be a part of China in 1895 and can be considered a nation in today's world and has evolved into a sovereign state independent of the PRC. 

He also went on to say that Taiwan is Taiwan, and China is China. They are different countries, and Taiwan is not a part of China. There has not been a single day in the 55 years since the establishment of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949 that China has had effective control of Taiwan.   I'd rather take his word than anything that comes out of the UN.

http://unpo.org/article/1410

On ‎8‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 2:29 PM, honu said:

It is a shame that any number of Hollywood actors could help explain what climate change is to Donald Trump, and why it makes sense to address it, and probably some could even go into how.  Meanwhile Trump is appointing a climate change denier that is paid by the oil industry to reject it's even happening to lead the EPA.  

 

Trump is a joke; Trump supporters are morons.  One can only hope that some good accidentally comes out of his idiocy and that he doesn't crash the US economy or start a trade war with China. 

Just out of curiosity how does climate change, global warming, the ozone layer, or whatever else they want to call it, when it suites them, affect you and how are you contributing to lessening the carbon dioxide, it's not carbon, pollution?

Have you stopped using a motor vehicle, stopped flying, stopped using base load electricity, stopped using gas, freezing in winter, hot in summer?  If you haven't then you're just as hypocritical as the idiots you support. But then wait, you're probably into the same scams and making a motza like the rest of the alarmists. 

I do not mind wind power, solar heating or any other renewables as long as they can stand on their own two feet and not require the huge subsidies to keep going.  This, in turn, increases the cost of electricity and gas to the extent that the poorer people can not afford to meet the costs.

In doing so, and not using these essentials of life, they are doing more to cut the carbon dioxide emissions than you or you like have ever done.  But they are being forced to, it is not voluntary, so please get off your high horse and stop calling people morons, they like you, are entitled to a reasonable life, which the alarmists are trying to deny them.  Just remember, we do not deny climate change only the scams and the scaremongering that have evolved from it. 

7 minutes ago, elgordo38 said:

It would be nice but again like here its all about the funding and of course loss of profit for big business which is sacrosanct. Yes we the people deserve a better environment but profits Trump that. 

Thanks for your response but why avoid what was asked, which is, why is it that  no one can or is willing to answer the question?

26 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

I give DiCaprio alot of credit for making an effort. Many are in denial. I see signs of climate change all around me. The smart ones in denial admit it is happening, but they deny man is involved. The really tone deaf ones, like the new EPA chief, is an ignorant man, capable of massive devastation of the planet. Use your judgment. Our atmosphere is so thin. It is all that keeps us from perishing, or leading greatly diminished lives, should the earths temperatures rise even a few degrees. So, why wouldn't you do everything you could to protect it? Why take that chance? You just cannot have nearly 7 billion people spewing an unlimited amount of junk into the atmosphere, and contemplate the possibility that it is not having an impact. It is just intuitive. Same goes for the seas. The consumption of plastic, etc, etc. To just say we can do anything we want to this rather amazing planet, and it will never have any consequences at all, seems quite bizarre to me. Now, alot of the initiatives like the carbon tax credit seem like sheer nonsense to me. There have got to be better approaches than that. 

 

The fact is that celebrities have voices, and those that are conscious make an attempt to try to use that voice. Others just collect the cash, and consume as much as they can, without giving anything back. So, I respect what DiCaprio is trying to do. I cannot even imagine what that conversation looked like.

 

DiCaprio: I know Mr. Trump you are only going to be in office for four years, but you do have the capacity to utterly decimate the planet in that time. Please don't do it. Please do not sell our 56 national parks. People really enjoy them. It is a really lovely planet, and we really need it. I know you care alot more about cash, than about the environment, but think of the 7 billion who really need to survive. You have never been in this position before, but alot of people are really dependent on your ability to make rational decisions for the next few years. 

 

Trump: I know alot. I know everything there is to know about the environment. I have considered it from all angels, with my huge brain. And I can tell you this, with absolute certainty. There is absolutely nothing we can do to this planet, that would harm it. It is a really strong planet, and the atmosphere cannot change, regardless of how careless we are. It is a really big planet. I know. I have traveled around. How can man affect such a big planet? And we really don't need the seas. We can just bioengineer seafood anyway. I am working on a factory in China right now, with just that intention. So, the sooner the fish die, the more money I will make on my invention of manufactured fish. As to the forests, the mountains, and the streams, well I have always felt nature is overrated. Buildings are much cleaner than nature, where you have to deal with dirt, dust, mud, and all of that crazy stuff. I make all of my money with buildings. What good is nature to me? We do not really need nature. I am sure of that. I have looked into it. I have asked the experts. All of my experts agree. We can live without nature, and we can make alot more money if we do not concern ourselves with it. Leo, I appreciate you stopping by. I really loved Titanic. I did not see the Revenant. As I said, I am not into that nature stuff. But, you are a decent actor. That Titanic boat was almost as big as my boat. But, just as is the case with Air Force One, my plane, and my boat is always bigger. And that is not the only thing that is bigger! 

Given the great monologue you have just presented maybe you should apply to become their speech writers on the environment.  Oh, and if I might also ask, what is the actual climate change you are seeing all around you, the operative words being ACTUAL and SEEING.

I do however, agree with you on the carbon tax, plastics in our rivers and oceans and that climate change is real, not the scaremongering that many are using in order to frighten the populace and scam money from others.  (wealth redistribution)

And yes, there are many options that could be used but cannot be because of certain people who oppose anything that does not fit with their beliefs.  However, as far as Mr Di Caprio is concerned, he is an actor, not a scientist and is only proffering what he is being told by others.

There is nothing Di Caprio can prove through any actual scientific facts of his own.  He should stick to his career, or maybe he was and with this little acting role is looking for his second Oscar. 

36 minutes ago, Saastrajaa said:

 

You're quite foolish and wrong.  The issue here is not what US policy toward China and Taiwan should be.  The issue is, did the reality-TV-figure-elect have ANY idea what the <deleted> he was doing when he took that call?  Spoiler alert: he did not.  We are all in grave danger.

If I may ask, why does accepting a phone call give rise to such an alarmist post?  You. like me, would have no idea of what was involved, only what we read and hear from others who are equally unaccepting as yourself.  And we all are and the grave danger is?  

14 hours ago, maewang99 said:

we have to be careful.... this topic is not something at all easily subject to thinking intuitively.... example only Einstein ever made any real headway in physics with that kind of approach and he never finished his life's work..

 

but here we go anyways....
 

Bill Gates says we must cut it 100%.

not 30%.
 

He'd have to have two, can't be that stupid with one. No carbon dioxide to produce oxygen.   

3 hours ago, honu said:

In this case the actors are repeating the concerns of climatologists, the universal consensus of all of the climate scientists around the world, except for those paid directly by oil companies and other fossil-fuel interests to express lies.  In general the point is valid though, and saving the world can become a bit of a comedy, especially when they are more a part of the problem than the average person.  

 

The real scandal is that the average guy on the street that isn't paid to have an opinion or hasn't been reading fake news sites or listening to Rush Limbaugh could possess the briefest awareness of the subject, and the accurate knowledge that of course climate change is occurring.

If the carbon emissions was lowered to say 30 percent that climatologists suggest, by how many degrees will the Earth's temperature alter by?   

6 hours ago, The Deerhunter said:

That is exactly what I meant when I said  "The girl has to be able to say no in every sense of the definition."  If she is drugged to prevent her from refusing the advance, then that is a serious crime.  Claiming she didn't protest is irrelevant if you disabled her to prevent that refusal.  (Not "you" personally, obviously.)

 My apology, misread your post. 

22 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yeah, should have edited that, but doubt you really didn't figure it out.

 

There original account was made Trump's role passive - he just received the call. That raises one set of questions.

The later account was that the conversations was prearranged well in advance. That raises another set of questions.

 

I seriously doubt that all your posts are strictly grounded in the factual, and never include opinions, assumptions and the like. Most of the posters do not shy away from airing their views and takes, which are not necessarily based on being privy to high level deliberations.

 

The president-elect took an action with foreign relations implications. Regardless of his motivations, I doubt his current responsibilities include making such decisions.

Of course, no matter what there will always be questions, some will be answered, others ignored but given what is being said one has to be wary given that it is coming from politicians and their advisers.  We all know how they react, it all boils down to what is needed at the time.  Doesn't matter which side either.

You are right, I do have opinions and I do assume sometimes but my assumptions come from a stronger base and from what has been stated rather than what I think someone one might have done or said.  I often air my views but I won't when it comes to hypotheticals.  If others want to, then that is their right but on many occasions they are lambasted, as I have been, for proffering a response that others define as being foolish, stupid or even childish. 

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Alright, I usually tend to be more discriminate with my "like" clicks, could cloud the way I read it.

 

If you accept that the call was planned long ahead, then the whole "she called him" angle doesn't hold water - and it does raise other questions. Claiming these ought to be addressed to Trump is an expected cop out.

 

Sorry but how can one accept that something, which happened in the past,  was planned long ahead?  To know, one would have to be privy to those details, which I can assure you, I was not.  And It is not a cop out, you have asked hypothetical questions of which the answers have to be based on assumptions, not facts, so one arrives at a generalised answer, which I won't

As I am unable to get into his head,  I am sorry but cannot respond to hypotheticals?  The only ones who think they're capable of that are those wonderful MSM reporters and the anchor know it all's, as well as those they drag along, in their attempts to sensationalise everything that they want to twist around to make out the President-elect has done something that he hasn't. 

22 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Because Obama formally notified Congress of the proposed sale a year after Congress passed legislation  APPROVING the sale.

The sale was no different from previous sales notifications by the administration totaling more than $12 billion under the Taiwan Relations Act. The Act provides for non-diplomatic relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-taiwan-arms-idUSKBN0TZ2C520151217

 

As President Trump would be violating US law by approaching Taiwan as an independent sovereign nation. But he's not the President yet, just a private citizen.

I am aware that it was approved by congress otherwise it could not occur.  My point was that Trump received a phone call, yet given that it was allegedly a congratulatory call, all hell broke loose, but despite the arms being sold, have not heard the same people decrying that action or anything coming out of China criticising it.  If I have missed that then I sure someone will tell me.

28 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Further (Mrs. broke my concentration with food)...,

 

If this was indeed a long planned move, then what was the point of Trump presenting it as otherwise? Or stressing that the phone call originated from Taiwan with himself merely "receiving"? Why the charade?

 

 

You need to eat, all the energy needed for posting and responding.

"The "experts" who formed US China policy for the past 50 years have done nothing but screw things up and empower China. Now it appears that people are so afraid of China that Trump can't make a phone call?

Trump did that phone call as a message to China which was essentially "If you don't like it, stick it in your ear. You're finished getting your way all of the time."

Trump is going to be very good for America and the American People.

Cheers"

This is why I clicked like, the main body of the post, not the heading, even though the poster indicated a number of times that Trump made the call.  I don't have to agree with everything within to like something. 

Whatever the Washington Post prints I take with a grain of salt but as the transition team and later CNN indicated it was received, I accepted that this was what occurred.  You then ask three questions, of which the only person who can answer would be Mr Trump.  You should direct them to him, not me or anyone else on here.

1 hour ago, The Deerhunter said:

Yes.  They were probably very silly girls and I am not trying to justify their stupidity, but there is a strong chance that they were drugged.   I believe Rohipnol and some other "date rape drugs" would have such an incapacitating effect including memory loss.  But it could also have been alcohol, knowingly self administered.   Young people (like we all were once) were and are notorious for feeling bulletproof.  It always might happen to the other person but not me!!!    And as Kingstonkid says, "rape is rape"  as defined by non-consensual sexual

connection of any type.  The girl has to be able to say no in every sense of the definition.

If a drug or alcohol is given to a person in a quantity that it renders them incapable of resisting then is becomes non-consensual sex, in other words, rape.  The point of a victim being able to say no is not taken into consideration under these circumstances.  There are a huge number of court cases that have set a precedent under those circumstances and the offenders found guilty of rape.

7 hours ago, IamNoone88 said:

Rapists returning a handbag and mobile phone? Thats a new one........

 

 

Maybe a new way of making merit.

8 hours ago, DM07 said:

What do you mean "in case"? He is resisting arrest for a while, already?


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

How does one resist arrest if no one has tried to arrest him?  The only thing I've seen him resist is their invitation, and unfortunately, that is not an offense, at least yet.

I thought it was the Taiwan President who made the call.  Why are some going off over him being contacted, if that's what happened, after all doesn't the current administration sell billions in arms to them?  I don't hear anyone going off the deep end about this. Or is it,  what is good for the goose, isn't good for the gander. China commented but no where near what some others have and if anyone has the right it would be them not the whiners who can't stop with their undermining escapades. 

25 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

The desperation, in my opinion, is in how you try to undermine what I am saying by implying that my different phrasing carry different meanings, they does not, hacking is a type of interference, and maybe and possibility mean rather similar things, is it pedantry that you want to demonstrate or something on topic?

 

The homeland report and the other post do not actually contradict each other at all, the former stating that it would be highly improbable to hack the system from afar, the latter stating that all it would take is someone physically reaching the system.

 

The overwhelming evidence, and really for the last time now, is that the election process was interfered with, in the way of hacking emails and releasing them at strategic moments, it is clear that Russia wanted and aided Trump.  That raised suspicion as to how far that aiding has gone, some have suggested that the polls show irregularities that could suggest outside interference, others have denied this due to the demographics of the voters, I say, why not check?

 

I fail to understand how anyone could think that a recount could not make any difference, if it was shown that Russia did interfere then that really would make a difference, it should, for one, change the systems integrity for the better in the future.  Nothing childish or winging about wanting the system to be secure from foreign interception, obviously, but to seek reasons not to check is another matter, that is plain idiocy.

 

The answer to all your question is above, learn how to read and you will answer the questions yourself, you seem unable to differentiate between when I am talking about the campaign and polls and keep mixing them freely, that is not my problem and I am not going to keep spelling it out to you like you are a young child.
 

There's many things you fail to understand so responding would just receive a rehash of your past comments given you've been so blindsided by the left's rhetoric.  You just go on believing what you want and when the BS you're proffering fails to make one iota of difference let's see what you will say at that time.  If you learnt to stop looking down your nose and brush of the arrogance, then maybe you could learn to be a little more realistic in your thoughts.   Bye     

14 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Number two is the best question considering you have wasted half your afternoon trying desperately to catch me out and demonstrate that there is no evidence of hacking of the polls, shame you didn't just read what  wrote in the first place, could have saved yourself some time.

Nothing desperate in what I have done, I've read all your posts and time is what I have plenty of and I can assure you that none of it's wasted.  I'll acknowledge that on a number of occasions you have indicated there is no evidence of hacking but in a number of posts you say there is no evidence, but then maybe there is; maybe there's a possibility; there could be, then later the wording goes from hacking to interference when referring to the polls.

I'm not trying desperately to show there is no evidence of hacking just how you're having bets all ways and that what you say is overwhelming evidence is not.  You raise doubt and suspicion, despite saying there is no evidence, and to back this up you use the report from Homeland Security but what the heck, don't worry about that and no one is worried about being in power, or that it won't change the result, so let's have a recount anyway, just to make sure.  Make sure of what?

You then provide a link to another subject which totally contradicts that of Homeland Security by telling one and all that the polling system can be hacked.  So what is it, your overwhelming evidence from Homeland or the other link that contradicts the Homeland report.  So, if there is no evidence, why are you pursuing the need for a recount.  Hoping someone will find something.  Be careful what you wish for.  It doesn't worry me one bit if there is a recount won't make any difference but it does highlight the childish antics of some sore losing whingers.

I thought I'd waste some more time, just checking your posts and maybe you can answer some questions or will you do, as you do on  some occasions, fail to answer and deflect?

ID22 "that Russia may have infiltrated the system!"  What System, Polling or DNC emails or both?"

ID72  "and there is a possibility that they also could have hacked the online polling stations"  Are you referring to the polling systems, remembering the two links you posted, one says no, the other yes, so which is it?

ID 74  "Which also raises the possibility that there COULD have been interference in the election."   What interference or are you only raising suspicion and doubt or is this one of your ifs , maybe or could be?

ID 76  "could Russia have infiltrated the proven pathetically weak security of some polling stations, probably."  So it's proven that some polling stations have pathetically weak security and Russia could probably have infiltrated it. Why mention Russia when you claim you did not mention them as they were irrelevant and why are you raising this when you overwhelming evidence from Homeland Security states it is highly unlikely to have occurred? 

ID 78   "just a raised suspicion which is clearly justified considering the evidence of interfering in the election in other ways."  And what are the suspicious other ways of interference?

ID 78   "due to the demographics of online voters matching those of paper voters, there has been a foreign hack to influence the election, this is serious stuff, nothing should be neglected in the investigation, particularly the election result."  No evidence, so why use the word hack, why say it is serious and nothing should be neglected in the investigation?  Homeland security's overwhelming evidence not good enough?

ID 78   "and everything to do with ensuring the system is secure from attack.  Do you not think that might just be a good idea?"  Homeland Security indicates that it is, don't you  accept their findings?

So what is it, there is no hacking, or maybe, it could be, it's suspicious, there is doubt? 

You are flip flopping all over the place that's why you number 2 question is BS and didn't warrant a response when you initially raised it, not me trying to desperately trying to prove there is no hacking.  Them's  your words.  My initial point was that you overwhelming evidence (Homeland Security) of an outsider (Russia) interfering in the campaign or election simply does not exist despite all your hoo haa that it does.  

10 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Wow, is this the forth time I have had to tell you that there is no evidence that the machines have been hacked, the only reason you could think I said that is if you couldn't read properly!  I never said they were, I never said there was any evidence to suggest they were, I said there is evidence that the process was interfered with and this has led people to worry that there could also have been tampering at the pols.  Got it yet?  I doubt it!

 

The fact is that they could be hacked, the report I originally posted says it is unlikely, great, lets check anyway, why not? 

 

By the way, you have repeatedly avoided all of my questions.  Here are some more.  What is it that you fear?  Why are you desperately trying to demonstrate that there is no evidence of hacking?  Why don't you want them to check?

 

,I've already answered one, Number two is a BS question not warranting an answer, number three, who said I didn't want a check, couldn't care less if it happens or not, it's not my time or money being wasted and it will prove that there was no interference.  As for the rest, you often forget what you bring up so there is no need for a response.  Have a goodnight Shaun.