rockingrobin

26 minutes ago, Grouse said:

It's not a coalition. It is a confidence and supply agreement which cost 1 billion to buy.

 

It will only take 7 Cons to cross the floor. Not impossible when you consider the Scottish Cons 

Not all Conservative MPs are members of the government, they belong to the same party as the current government.

There are approx 130 MPs who can be classified as being in the government , from cabinet ministers, departmental ministers , and whips, every other MP is just a member of parliament.

13 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

And as long as the current coalition has functionality, that means the government enacts laws, as smedly said.

No it does not

1 hour ago, baansgr said:

So why are some of the elected MPs not representing their constituents and totally ignoring them.

MPs are given a mandate from their constituents , but not a monopoly on views

1 hour ago, smedly said:

it is the "current" remit of the elected government to enact law - leaving the EU changes nothing except the scope and range that needs to be covered. The job of the elected government doesn't change from what it is now.

It is the elected parliament who has the remit to enact law.

27 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I am sure those hard core remainers will try their best to denounce anything Nigel Farage says but what he says here is actually spot on, especially from a bankers point of view. Makes perfect sense.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/848885/Brexit-news-Nigel-Farag-rips-into-Lib-Dem-Brexit-bill-BBC

 

Let’s be absolutely clear Sarah, Article 50 makes it clear that the withdrawing member state, once Article 50 has been concluded, has no further obligations – that’s what the treaty says

 

“I accept that we have obligations till the middle of 2020, I accept that there’s an on-going pension commitment of about 20,000 people that work for the European Commission… That is the full extent of our obligations and there is nothing more than that. 

“Against that we are a shareholder in the club, including a £9billion investment in the European Investment Bank. I think if we are reasonable about our future obligation and they are reasonable about our stake of assets have – why not just call it quits?”

 

Ukip’s Brexit spokesman Gerard Batten said: “We won’t be paying twice over the odds when we shouldn’t be paying them anything.

“If they keep up this silly game,we will have every right to demand back our net contribution of £185billion which we paid to the EU since we joined.”

I dont see in Art 50 where it mentions further obligations, or obligations at all.

It does state that the treaties will cease

23 hours ago, greenchair said:

It was not enough to form a complete profile. 

And correct if I am wrong, according to pornthip it was a partial match to the 2nd defendant. It was not Able to be used as evidence in the court. 

The hoe had been washed and used by the gardener after the crime and before it was sent for testing. Even so, they did manage to find both victims dna  on it. 

The witness testimony was there was 2 dna profiles on the hoe, 1 full , 1 partial neither matched the defendants

The partial profile means the lab was unable to obtain a full set of markers for each location. 

15 minutes ago, balo said:

He did a DNA test in public ,and we have CCTV from the university . Good enough for me. I don't buy the rest of theories , that he might have been on the island. And that the RTP in Bangkok were faking the DNA test.   No evidence at all.  So many other suspects in this case . 

 

 

In court the investigator testified that after requesting Nomsod's test results and report , he never received them .

2 minutes ago, bannork said:

I think the underage girl incident was mentioned much much later, some girl Sean met in the UK on the internet a few years before if I remember right. What the headman or bar owner brought up was the blood on the guitar which Sean claimed was due to a motorbike accident a few days before.

An expert looking at the spray pattern might be able to throw further light on that claim.

If the above poster is right then why would Sean remain silent now? 

Of course if Sean was involved, his continual silence is more understandable, if still morally repugnant.

Mon claimed an employee had helped to wash blood of Sean on the night of the murders, and this prompted the  questioning of Mcanna by Mon and off duty policeman in the bar

5 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

The court reasoning about the dna on the hoe

It is known that MR ' O ' used the hoe before and after the crime, it is also known that there is uknown dna on the handle of the hoe, but the court expects everybody to believe that Mr ' O ' dna was not tested

 

Is it not more reasonable that everyone who came into contact with the hoe , the murder weapon would have their dna tested , if only to eliminate them, 

19 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Well, I agree. But it would not say in court records people that were tested and it excluded. I imagine they did know the dna which belonged to Mr o. And they talked about there being some dna that matched Wei Phyo and partial dna of an unknown male 

The court judgement specifically mentions Mr 'O' dna was not tested

4 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

That was the ruling of the Court.

which court and what ruling

9 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

The Justice said that these are the facts in the case.

Arguments are another matter.

From the paragraph you quoted, 

'They were arrested and charged by the Royal Thai Police (“RTP”) with the murders of Hannah and David.'

No mention of being charged with rape

9 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

Beats me but according to Mr. Justice Green the late Ms. Witheridge was raped.

But that statement as to be taken in context with paragraph 4

In order to explain my reasoning it has been necessary in this judgment to record the arguments of the accused in the Thai proceedings. I should make clear at the outset of this judgment that, in setting out arguments made by the parties and in particular the Claimants about the Thai criminal investigation and the proceedings, nothing that I say is intended to express any view by this Court whatsoever on the merits of the issues arising in the Thai courts or upon the conduct of those proceedings by the authorities there.

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

That is just not true. Again it was andies testimony that interpreted the UK autopsy report. And we all know what the judge said about that. 

He is not an expert on autopsy or analysis.

His testimony is not worthy of being taken into account. 

How do you account for the contradiction found in the court judgement at page 3 and 48

Page 3 , Hannah was beaten unconscious and then raped, unable to defend herself

Page 48 ,the tear was a result of enforced intercourse in which the deceased put up a struggle resulting in a longer tear

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

1. Judging by the dates, and information, it is likely the police interviewed the friends when they got home. At the time it was decided all the English witnesses could leave the country with the view they could be called back later or interviewed at home. It was a logical decision at the time. No need for any secret orders. 

 

At that time there were no suspects in the case. The Thai police were collecting evidence and searching for suspects, under immense pressure, to speed up the investigation. 

In my opinion, this caused the police to accuse people that were not involved, rush collection of evidence and generally make mistakes of protocol and procedures. 

 

The intelligence was given before the arrest and extensive evidence of the Burmese. at the time when police were looking for possible suspects. After the arrest of Burmese because of cctv footage, testimony, dna match and possessions of the victims, the incident in the bar was irrelevant. Because police were not able to find other evidence at the scene of anyone except the 2 men. 

 

The mistake was, even though there was no suspect, the uk police should have gotten approval to give it. And possibly there should have been assurances, in the event of an arrest the death penalty would not be sought. 

The information Other than the phone was irrelevant to the case and not used in court .

The IMEI of the phone was given approval at the end of the case to be used to convict the burmese. 

There are 2 occasions when intelligence was given after the B2 arrest.

The B2 was arrested on 3 Oct,

Intelligence was shared on 10 Oct, and  17 Oct, the intelligence sharing appears to have stopped at the same time as D.Cameron met the Thai PM and agreed to send the MPS as observers

15 minutes ago, greenchair said:

It was not enough to form a complete profile. 

And correct if I am wrong, according to pornthip it was a partial match to the 2nd defendant. It was not Able to be used as evidence in the court. 

The hoe had been washed and used by the gardener after the crime and before it was sent for testing. Even so, they did manage to find both victims dna  on it. 

Mr ' O ' testified that he did not follow the instructions to wash the hoe. Which raises another question , why did an experienced officer not seize the hoe as evidence instead of trying to clean the murder weapon

1 hour ago, AGareth2 said:

that is where your claim collapses

DNA of "an other" was on the hoe

the murder weapon

The court reasoning about the dna on the hoe

It is known that MR ' O ' used the hoe before and after the crime, it is also known that there is uknown dna on the handle of the hoe, but the court expects everybody to believe that Mr ' O ' dna was not tested

Is it not more reasonable that everyone who came into contact with the hoe , the murder weapon would have their dna tested , if only to eliminate them, 

6 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

How depressing is the above post - the people are pretty much irrelevant as power rests with parliament.

 

To look on the bright side, politicians have to be elected - and so can also  be not elected/lose their 'seat'.  Hence the confusion and scrambling, as MPs search for a way to nullify the brexit vote, whilst retaining their seats.

Why is it depressing, before that it lied with the King and land Barons

44 minutes ago, greenchair said:

The data is there already, they had information there was a conflict of some sort at a bar. The person might be a possible suspect to interview. 

It was well before the burmese were arrested. 

The RTP testified in court this was not investigated

1 minute ago, sjaak327 said:

They did ? On what grounds, they sure as hell haven't dropped the case for the by comparison minor incident in 2008, alltough magically the case against Prawit brother will not be appealed. 

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/01/07/thailand-new-whitewash-2010-political-violence

1 hour ago, seajae said:

everyone seems to be missing the point that these charges were dropped because the dsi(on orders from  guess who) instigated the charges when they were not legally able to, they simply were not legal so the judges had no course but to drop them. The stuff up was with the ptp telling the dsi to organize the charges, this has nothing to do with anything else or who did what, if they had of used the correct department to lay the charges they would be legal and still ongoing

Did the NACC not drop the case in 2015

39 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Well one date. Which asks the Thai to test dna of suspect. 

Which may refer to the person that had the conflict. 

Still irrelevant to the burmese case. 

I don't see anything in there, that would effect burmese case as their testimony stands. Unless they want to fess up. 

Without knowing further details, I cannot see how it can be concluded that it is not relevant to the B2 case, considering it was passed on with regards to the B2 case

3 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

The NCA provided the intelligence of " ...Mr Miller being involved in a dispute with certain persons on the island of Koh Phangan (10 October 2014)"

The B2 were arrested 3 October 2014.

You folks can infer and extrapolate as you wish.

Did the NCA volunteer the intelligence , or was it requested

Given the date who deemed it possibly material

17 minutes ago, greenchair said:

I   suspect the later. 

Still is irrelevant when looking at whole picture. 

While a strong possibility, it is rather surprising , considering, some of the info dates are beyond the frirst pre-trial hearing and the RTP written case

1 hour ago, JLCrab said:

I read it that the UK NCA determined on some basis that the late Mr. D. Miller had a dispute with persons on Koh Phangnan and they considered such fact to be or might be material to the investigation of his murder on Koh Tao. It does not say with just whom he might have been in dispute.

What we dont know with the exception of the phone, is who requested the information, all we know is information was passed by the NCA

It is known that the RTP asked the UK for Davids phone details and these were passed by the NCA 19 september

What is not clear is did the NCA inform the RTP about the dispute, argument, or did the RTP ask the NCA to enquire from the UK end

24 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Wrong Khun Han!!

The UK coroner said she was sexually assaulted and andy tried to pass that off as she was not raped. That's just rediculous. 

The b2 were arrested because extensive video footage show the 3 of them in the area of the crime, when no one else was in that area. 

Upon interviewing the burmese and their friends, the police were informed about David's phone. 

The rest is history. 

Surely it is reasonable to assume somebody else was present , otherwise the blond hair would not be on the victim