halloween

2 hours ago, Becker said:

It's probably worth mentioning that after the attempted amnesty by the elected government of YL people were allowed to protest. After the actual amnesty the junta gave themselves people who had protested would have been jailed or worse. See the difference?

Well, as long as they didn't mind potshots and grenades being lobbed there way by loyal red shirts. Or don't you recall last weeks jailing of the killers of the 2 children?

Just now, calexapic said:

So what is your supposition?

I prefer to wait for evidence, but I seriously doubt any orders were issued to allow her to escape.

2 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

Fair enough. Now as Halloween seems to claim, she most definitely bribed her way out, once again showing the utter incompetence of the Junta. Oh would I want to be a fly on the wall in prayuth's office last friday. 

From the man who claims there is NO evidence against Yingluk when there is plenty, an immediate jump to accept as fact the junta's involvement when there is only supposition, followed by the false claim I stated anything " most definitely".

Hypocrite.

4 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Did she actually even jumped bail ?. It seem she was assisted by the authorities to leave a few days before the verdict was going to be announced. 

 

 

A theoretical situation endorsed by the reds because it suits their agenda; it sounds so much better than the filthy rich criminal bribed her way out.

Poor old Apichart, given another 48 years and hardly rates a mention. Let us not forget him, Thaksin's man given preferential treatment under his government, allowed to bankrupt one company B20+ billion in losses including B6 billion to the dpt of Commerce, still given preferential treatment by Yingluk including B900 million in one rice deal, and up to his neck in every dirty scam going including Boonsong's.

Seems like only the family members get the dodgy passports and the invite to Dubai. Those that front for the real criminals get hung out to dry, time after time.

11 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

"The Democrat Party is partly supported by its own MPs paying 10% of their salary to the party"

 

 

I bet that covers a lot of costs.

 

You have no idea at all.

 

But, But, But Thaksin...

 

 

You complain that you never get an answer, then when a polite logical response is givern you deride and dismiss it. Democrat funding is much the same as any other political party, the big  exception being  those bought and bribed by the Shinawatras.

Laughing won't change the inconvenient facts.

5 hours ago, ramrod711 said:

 

Thaksin Shinawatra was like the wallet for Pheu Thai, things will remain the same as long as he pays the bills. We love democracy, as long as the money rolls in.

I think they meant to say a word that be deleted if used, but generally abbreviated to AH.

12 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

Every time I see a post like this whingeing about Thaksin paying money, I have the same thoughts;

 

Who funds the Democratic party? Who funded Suthep and his mob?

 

And I never get an answer...

 

The reason it is difficult to answer is that nobody funding them demands to be PM and dictate policy. One of the Dem sources of funding is MP levies, rather different from drawing a salary, something illegal in most democracies.

Happy now?

BP reports 10 senior PTP members discussing the likely results of her absconding, with loss of popularity and possible factional splitting and defection.

UDD's Thida says no loss of popularity for PTP, so Thaksin obviously still paying.

2 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

The evidence should be that nothing happened, which is almost impossible to prove. Rest assured, she will be found guilty, in good Thai justice system tradition, ask the two lads from Myamar if you cannot grasp what I am talking about. Tired of this bullshit. 

 

why do you think the rest of the world already knows this is nothing but a political witchhunt ? Maybe you should go back to your home country and reflect on reality a bit.

 

Nothing happened? B500 billion went down the gurgler on her watch. The evidence missing is her stopping or reducing the mounting losses, or even making an attempt to do so.

6 hours ago, owl sees all said:

Three of the villagers that went to BKK returned last night. One said that although taken by surprise by the YinShin no-show they were proud that she was thinking of their (her supporters) wellbeing/safety. He went on to say their were hundreds of police and military present; all significatly armed to the teeth.

 

A fine example of deluded thinking, or do you believe her primary concern was the welfare of her supporters. Security forces are allowed to be armed, it's the propensity of her supporters to show up armed and to be violent when disappointed that causes them to be there.

Just now, sjaak327 said:

How do you know no changes have been implemented  to reduce loses ? I need evidence, not your word.

Evidence of something that didn't happen? Did she bring up the changes she made in her defence statement? Do you know of any? Or am I supposed to believe, like fairies at the bottom of the garden, that they exist, not because of any evidence, but because somebody assures me they do?

8 hours ago, ikke said:

No, as there is no legal system , how can you compare ?

 

You might note, they are not here either.

5 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

How do you know she did nothing ? Yes she did not stop the scheme, that much is certain, and again that is a political decision she was fully entitled to take. However where is the evidence she did absolutely nothing ? Me thinks that to be almost impossible to prove, but this is the Thai justice system, so in that case, even if there is no proof, she could still be found guilty of negligence. 

 

The rest of the world recognizes this for what it is, a witch hunt. used to ensure Yingluck cannot play a role in politics anymore. After all, her five year ban from politics does not run very long anymore. 

 

 

Oh and just so we are clear:

 

"Vicha said investigators were initially unsure if Yingluck should be charged with negligence, so they spent a lot to time looking into the details. The investigators later concluded that there were irregularities in the rice-pledging project and the sale of pledged rice through G-to-G deals.

 

“It was the responsibility of the government head to stop the project. The ministers responsible could not do so because they were frequently replaced,” he said."

 

Straight from the OP.

How do we know she did nothing? Quite simply by the fact that no changes were implemented. That is her job, to take due diligence in the management of government policy and taxpayer's funds.

If any changes to reduce the losses had been taken, she had a defence, rather than the claptrap you and her supporters throw up.

Just now, sjaak327 said:

Nope but that anology is flawed. What happened with the rice scheme in Thailand is happening all over the world. Including in my own country. It's called democracy.

Which of your government's policy was continued despite huge losses? The analogy is spot on, it is an expectation to continue despite observed risk after a promise to proceed.

5 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

Actually the conclusion that Yingluck as PM should have stopped the scheme, is not a conclusion I share. She had every right to continue the project, despite the huge loses. It's called a mandate. I know, something very alien to the current lot, but alas, she did have an undisputed mandate. 

 

If this is their case, I expect a full acquittal,

if a bridge is out, do you expect the bus driver to keep going because you have bought a ticket?

6 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

By the committee appointed to investigate the scheme, that was the figure they gave.  The percentage of the annual budget having relevance as the loss was covered by the tax payer, and I really just included it to give a sense of scale as billions is quite meaningless unless you know how many billions a country managing off.

Whose committee would that have been? Yingluk's or Chalerm's?

2 hours ago, binjalin said:

 

Yes ultimately the 'head' is responsible but in my role as SVP I had many 1000s staff and many committee's and meeting's I did not attend. Through appraisal and monitoring we can hope to know the 'general' feel of things but not the detail. I have read that Yingluck did raise concerns, I can't remember to whom, but I am of the firm belief that no PM can know the details you are expecting  nor govern perfectly without mistakes.

The democratic system is designed so that the electorate, effectively, sacks the PM at elections and that if there is wrong doing the courts can make judgments via impeachments etc. There is NO precedent for political witch hunts after a PM leaves office based on 'mistakes' or 'miscalculations' whilst in elected office. No one would serve if that was the case!  Most of the views I have perused on here are opinion based on political 'leaning' only.

"Did raise concerns" are you serious? She was the PM, it's not her job to "raise concerns" it is her job to ensure something is done. and yes, she attempt to lower the price paid, then withdrew the move under political pressure from her supporters. that not only shows awareness of the problem, it highlights the total lack of ACTION.

2 hours ago, binjalin said:

It often happens scorecard that senior figures in the corporate world or the governmental world do not, of themselves, attend but are named 'chair' and delegate those responsibilities. This also happens in the political world with committees and sub-committees so I would not over stretch that particular point.

Of course you wouldn't because it is damning when it comes time to prove she wasn't negligent.  It might well be normal to miss an occasional meeting, but not to attend ANY over a 2.5 year period when the committee is overseeing a major government policy attracting huge criticism and with even larger losses is far from that.

28 minutes ago, rijb said:

A judgement?  Not hardly.  A fair sentence carried out to the end?  That would be a first.

First, they would have to get them back from Dubai.

Just now, rijb said:

It would have been a historic first.

No, the historic first should have happened on the 25th but has been delayed.

2 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

IMHO he is talking about an entirely different thing as mentioning Thaksin would help him with his captors.

 

This is not a  "but... but... Thaksin moment"   but far, far Deeper State than that. Nothing more can be discussed here and he doesn't want to end up another 'suicide in custody'.  We know only a fraction of the true story. 

Riiiight, the SECRET conspiracy theory. It wasn't Boonsong and associates who stole the money, it was actually..........

1 minute ago, rijb said:

Accepted figure?  Sounds like a movie.  Bank robbers get away with 5 million.  Bank claims it was 50 million, to cover their embezzlement.

You are right, there should be an accurate accounting, and the failure to keep accounts of government expenditure of such scale should be considered negligence and malfeasance in office.

20 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

Much more to this than the Junta lovers know.  I sincerely hope no more 'accidents' and 'suicides' with CCTV's  'under maintenance'

 

Mr Suranand, Former Prime Minister's Office secretary-general,  expressed compassion for his close friend Boonsong via his Facebook, saying:

 

"Some stories 'must die with us'. We can't talk about them. I truly understand and I 'sympathise' with my friend who is bound by that 'condition'. 

 

IMHO he is talking about how Thaksin organised this part of the scam, and took his cut. Revealing that would be a death sentence.

1 hour ago, LannaGuy said:

 

Where has it been proved that anyone stole "billions'?  any links?  evidence?  or this is just more of your 'made up' stuff?  

What is this thread about? Boonsong's conviction for stealing billions, and his subsequent sentence.

I know you Shin sycophants like to change history to suit, but the next day is a bit too soon.