halloween

Hard to defend Apichart (Thaksin's bag-man) and his family, these stooges weren't even elected. The normal response will be to change the subject.

14 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

So you think she should have stopped the scheme due to mounting losses ? Because that what this boils down to. I maintain that it was her democratic right to ignore those, as she did have a mandate. I know a total alien concept for the current lot, you know the ones that cannot possibly be held accountable for anything. Good to see you still don't aknowledge that little fact. 

 

Do carry on, it's amusing reading stuff. 

 

 

You think a mandate over-rides duty of care, that once elected a PM can waste money when it is clear it's objectives are not being met?

Here is a new term for you, "responsible government".

Your whole argument is based on your dislike of the junta, which is irrelevant to me and the court.

Just now, sjaak327 said:

But her brother was not on trial. Yingluck was on trial, and there is no evidence she benefitted from the scheme in any way. the verdict is a downright disgrace. The fact that the current lot is exempted from prosecution is of course very relevant. This has nothing at all to do with justice. This verdict is null void and inconsequential, and apart from a few Junta fanboys, no-one will take it seriously. 

 

 

If you still have trouble understanding the point I (and many others I might add) is trying to make, might I suggest you lookup what justice stands for. 

Again you avoid anything to do with the offence with which she is charged - criminal negligence. Are the terms "duty of care", "mounting losses", "refusal to act" and 'criminal negligence" unfamiliar to you? Courts around the world understand them very well, and accept them as legitimate.

1 hour ago, sjaak327 said:

The rice scheme was a political decision, the costs are peanuts in the grand scheme of things. in fact, I know of schemes that cost the same amount of tax payer money each and every year, yet subsequent governments all have done nothing to stop the scheme, because doing so would be political suicide. none of the PM's or ministers have ever been charged, because they carried a mandate. 

 

Unless I am misinformed, there is no evidence Yingluck enriched herself. the current administration ran a deficit the first six months, that was on par with the alleged 'costs' of the rice scheme, and the way things are going, that could only be the tip of the iceberg. Of course none of these people will ever be charged as they have amnesty. Apparently if you cannot secure a mandate, there seems to be a need for an amnesty, not only for staging the coup, but for everything after the fact as well. be quiet, your anger is selective. very easy to scream red and ignore the blatant double standards....

Most of what you is true, and totally irrelevant to the subject. You would rather talk about anything else than the real subject, her duty of care and her refusal to act to stem the losses being incurred. The policy was a dismal failure in its stated objectives, and hundreds of billions of baht are not sums to be dismissed lightly.

The corruption issues I mentioned were her brothers. Would you like to discuss whether HE was profiting from the rice scam, his links to Apichart, and the huge commissions being handed out behind closed doors? Probably not.

Just now, Thechook said:

Actually the speed cameras are operated by a private company, Serco (British I believe) under contract for the state government not the police.

I'm sure it's quite a profitable arrangement.

9 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

Halloween,are you an ex copper,or have you been read your rights

so many times you know it by heart.

regards worgeordie

The 3rd alternative is, can I use google?

8 minutes ago, Becker said:

She will be found guilty/not guilty at the pleasure of the junta/old elite. Trying to claim otherwise is just disingenuous (I'm being polite here).

What we have is a difference of opinion, the main difference being your inability to discuss evidence.

1 hour ago, wvavin said:

Does this meeting make any difference? The expenses of such could have been used as a small donation to the locals and probably this is more meaningful.

Do you apply the same logic to Yingluk's 42 country VIP world tour?

5 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

It is withholding and not volunteering information as you try to deflect. Back pedaling will not help you fortify your flimsy argument. 

You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions.

Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law.

You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.

If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.

Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

Do those rights, or some equivalent, not extend to somebody NOT being questioned?

7 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

You say this not long ago "Deliberately refusing to act is Criminal negligence, and it IS illegal". What ever suit your narrative Halloween? 

It certainly is, where there is a duty of care. But you forgot to answer, which law says it is a criminal offence to not volunteer information to the police?

Just now, Becker said:

Share the evidence? They took power in a coup, gave themselves the mother of all amnesties as well as god-like powers through article 44 and you're asking me for evidence that they will get whatever outcome of the trial they want??

You know, halloween - sometimes I worry about you.....

The topic is Yingluk and whether she will appear in court. Apparently that topic is uncomfortable for you and you would prefer something, anything, else. She will be found guilty because that is what the evidence proves, despite your biased and baseless claims of a directed verdict.

Worry about someone that can't understand the topic, can't present a logical argument, dives off into a fantasy world driven by bias, and has to resort to casual insults for content.

2 minutes ago, Becker said:

The fact that the junta is unelected and hence call the shots wrt what the outcome of the trial will be has everything to do with the prosecution of any potential crimes.

Whining about elections?? The chief junta fan-boy strike again...

 

So it your opinion that the court's decision will be directed by the junta despite overwhelming evidence of her innocence? Would you care to share that evidence, or will you stick with the futile claim they had no right to prosecute?

5 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

Ok so you don't think 1000s of lives in Iraq chasing WMDs was 'negligent' hmmm interesting or thatchers Poll Tax shambles?  or 1000 other leaders mistakes???  prosecute them ALL?  leaders are given EXEMPTIONS for decisions whilst in elected office if not illegal (i.e. corruption).

 

But you, and a few others, seem to think a Military Junta court's are ok to prosecute for the policies of their predecessors.  

No I don't. Grasping at straws, are you? Deliberately refusing to act is Criminal negligence, and it IS illegal.

1 minute ago, 4MyEgo said:

I have not used it overseas but my  EX does (another story), she tells me it does not cost her anything.

 

ING will charge you if you withdrawal money from any ATM machine in Thailand, so I think your EX is wrong, ING are like any other bank and will charge for international withdrawals on your debit card

Not quite "any bank". Unity Bank, formerly MMPCU, does not charge me for Thailand ATM withdrawals. There is a slight difference in exchange rate between ATM and over-the-counter withdrawals exactly equivalent to the Thai B220 ATM fee.

BTW VISA debit card.

3 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

But but you and I and all TVF posters doesn't know where Yingluck is but someone came out and stupidly boasted he knows and refused to disclose. That's a criminal offence for withholding information of a fugitive. But fear not; he is Prayut and has amnesty. The untouchable crook. 

55555, off in red fantasyland again. Which law says it is a criminal offence not to volunteer information to the police?

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Can somebody tell me why they want to kill the ACA?  Starting back when Obama was in office?  Pure BS politics? 

 

Give it up guys.  Focus on something better.  Get something done.  Like reforming congress. LOL.  An approval rating of 20% or less is pretty bad.

Why did Yingluk reinstate the B30 charge on the Thai health system? Because in 2 party politics you can't let the other side have a milestone win.

2 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Is it criminally liable for someone who knows the whereabout of Yingluck but withhold the disclosure. 

Of course it is Eric. Don't you know there are arrest warrants out for you, me all TVF posters and 58 million Thais who know that Thaksin is in Dubai?

33 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

So you think Bush, Blair, Thatcher and EVERY leader in the world should be prosecuted after their democratic elected period ends?  damn the voting electorate?  damn ballots?  we just take them all to court after their term of office expires?  we scrutinize all their decisions?  no Parliamentary Privilege? 

 

The Army takes over and wants to lock up the previous ELECTED leader?  disgusting,  immoral, unethical thinking and you should be ashamed

Yes, but only,  if they are proven negligent in their duties of office. Being elected is not a licence to waste taxpayers money by deliberately not acting when things go bad, nor is it a licence to abuse your position to enrich yourself, illegally promote cronies and family, to direct state banks to issue loans, or to organise back room deals paying huge commissions.

Stop whining about elections, they have nothing to do with the prosecution of crime.

3 minutes ago, Sydebolle said:

She has to be guilty; see the rest of my comment. The establishment had to avoid that she would become a martyr (if found guilty) while, at the same time, they had to avoid running out of reasons for the coup in May 2014 (if found innocent)! They always hoped she would do a runner - which did not happen. She stayed on - on her own accord or following the puppet master - we don't know. 

Lets see in a few weeks what happens next! 

You do know that Yingluk had been removed from office before the coup right? Saying that removing her was an excuse for the coup is a puerile chronological error.

6 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

PTP or incarnations of that party has won ALL general elections since 2001, no bullshit but cold hard facts. The remark is very relevant, as it is the main reason for this whole soap opera. 

 

You trying to be a crusader against alleged criminals cannot be taken seriously as you support the current lot, who are most definitely criminal, the proof is overwhelming. not attending a few meetings is all the evidence against Yingluck, here 'failure to stop the scheme' cannot possibly be a ground for a conviction, as it was here democratic right to do so, as she and her government secured a 300/500 mandate. you know one obtained through the electorate instead of via the barrel of a gun....

Is that the red version then? No mention of position responsibility, no duty of care, forget about warnings of huge losses, and ignore the fact that she deliberately decided not to act to reduce losses?

I suppose ignoring the evidence makes it easier to claim political persecution.

2 hours ago, Thechook said:

Patrol cars? They look more like mini  vans than a patrol car.    These are police patrol cars.

 

 

 

 

Without the side windows and top lights, they would look a lot like the 85 speed camera vans Victoria Police use, and the hundreds in other states.

4 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Not sure why you discuss negligence as her crime. It is but half of the charge against her and by itself legally irrelevant.

The other half was malfeasance as in "negligence by malfeasance." She was charged with violating Section 157 on malfeasance. To wit she allegedly and deliberately ignored warnings by the NACC, the Auditor General’s Office and the Democrat Party and took no action as PM to mitigate or prevent financial losses from the program. In fact if Yingluck was proven purely incompetent as PM to safeguard the security of the program, malfeasance wouldn't be an issue.
 

Try to obfuscate the issue as much as you can, there is no claim of incompetence.  The charge is that she had a duty of care to manage the assets of the people of Thailand, did not do so and caused losses of those assets. When she was warned that losses were mounting to levels of serious concern she had a duty to act and did not. The addition of malfeasance only indicates that this was a deliberate act of criminal negligence, that she chose not to do anything.

That claim is supported by the move to reduce the price paid for rice that she initiated, and then rescinded before implementation.

Updates from BP - the theft was reported on Dec28 2016, not 2006. The guy has been in custody for 200 days, and is eligible for B500/day for wrongful imprisonment.

2 hours ago, Sumarianson said:

Nobody asks, why is it illegal to carry gold? Why is it?

Paper currency isn't worth crap in a crisis. You can carry currency if you declare it. Mind you have to trust those low paid customs officers dont rob you. Can anyone ecplain why it's illegal? Gold was always shipped all over the world to pay for goods a hundred years ago.

India has laws restricting import of gold and silver. Don't know the full story, but this might help https://www.immihelp.com/travel-to-india/import/gold-silver.html

33 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

The three officers have been accused of using illegally registered cars, but they have not been charged as the suspected escape occurred before an arrest warrant was issued for Yingluck on August 25.

A judicial source speaking on condition of anonymity said the three officers were not guilty of helping Yingluck evade justice given the absence of an arrest warrant.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30327662

So really not an escape. No evasion from an arrest warrant.

Just an unannounced road trip within Thailand in the safety of a police escort.

Strangely enough, you seem to have got it right. They helped her move from BKK to Sa Kaew and her bail didn't restrict her movements within Thailand. Those that then took over and helped her across the border face immigration charges, and possibly charges relating to assisting her skip bail.