gdgbb

On 30/03/2017 at 7:29 PM, rkidlad said:

A certain member who likes to tell us that the rich and elite here also suffer the consequences of the law is eerily quiet on this story. 

 

He was all over the story yesterday using semantics over morals. Quiet today. Strange that. 

Who do you mean?

On 30/03/2017 at 4:34 PM, JustNo said:

You're obviously missing the main point here, there should not be a double standard, justice should be equal to everyone and not dependent on race or wealth. What if that was you brother or your father that was killed, would you still be saying 'good for him'? I'm not sure if someone can be this ignorant and moronic, or maybe you're just trolling; I hope so 

"What if that was you brother or your father that was killed, would you still be saying 'good for him'?"

Of course he would because he would have accepted the compensation.

On 30/03/2017 at 1:27 PM, steelepulse said:

Can everyone use the "unfair treatment" defense to never have to show up in court and face any consequences?

Yes, they can.

On 29/03/2017 at 9:42 PM, ricku said:

I use Uber all the time, and i highly recommend everyone here to do so.

Grab is my alternative when there aren't any Uber-cars available.

Why would you recommend uninsured vehicles?

On 30/03/2017 at 2:19 PM, siam2007 said:

 

Most likely 76% of the respondents own cars or at least motocys and never use any sort of Taxis anyway.

So, yes, this is VERY representative

You are speculating about that, so, no, the survey was an unrepresentative farce.

On 30/03/2017 at 0:53 PM, elgordo38 said:

Interesting comment one must wonder which horse he is backing in the political race. 

I wonder why you didn't copy what I actually said which was, "Maybe he has justified his assets and the sources and nothing amiss was found?"  That one word that you deliberately omitted makes a big difference.

On 30/03/2017 at 9:38 AM, Notadoctor said:

The population size for he area is probably quite accurate.

 

What?  Nowhere does it say that 18 is the population size!

On 30/03/2017 at 6:17 AM, ChidlomDweller said:

Just one case is hardly evidence that the bad old days of hi-so impunity are over.   Not even you believe that yourself, although you'll argue otherwise.

I didn't say that those days were over.  And there are many more cases than just this one, although you and others will argue otherwise.

On 30/03/2017 at 6:15 AM, edwinchester said:

No they weren't. The American husband and wife who paid the bribes were tried and sentenced in the US.

That's who I was talking about.

12 hours ago, edgarfriendly said:

 

shes not that rare of a specimen to be quite honest.

That is actually not honest of you.  She is rare, very rare.

On 30/03/2017 at 10:02 AM, Bangkok Barry said:

'A taxi driver with a record for having threatened passengers with a knife ...'

 

And she's still allowed to drive a taxi? Falang no unnerstan Thai ways.

No she's not, that's the point of part of the report, she's doing it illegally!

On 30/03/2017 at 9:49 AM, anotheruser said:

Well it is reasonable if you consider I only ever take them from Nana. When you look at it that way it all makes sense. :)

No it doesn't.

On 30/03/2017 at 8:32 AM, klauskunkel said:

makes me wonder why Uber is getting more and more popular

What makes you think that she couldn't be a Uber driver?

9 hours ago, little mary sunshine said:

I'm sure they are no where in Thailand.....Hello Dubai! 

Funny that, they were in court for the verdict.

5 hours ago, fruitman said:

After the 62 million is confisticated will they give it back to the rightfull owners of the filmfestival?

 

Who are the "rightful owners"?  Do you mean the corrupt, guilty and jailed American couple who paid the bribe?  No one gets their bribe returned if the receiver is caught!

By the way, the owners of the film festival were the Thai government, I believe, as they, through TAT, were the ones awarding the contract.

6 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Very harsh sentences. Somethin' doesn't smell right here. Why don't they name the Americans. Surely those who give and those who take are both culpable.

They were jailed also in the US some time ago.

7 hours ago, onemorechang said:

50 years in jail !!!!!!!!!!!!! for corruption.

What you get for murder here ?     oh,  maybe that depends who you murder and who you are.

Crazy country,  

No sense of proportion about anything !!!!!!!!!! 

11 charges of corruption.  Each.

7 hours ago, docshock13 said:

They won't do time.

Did they get bail?

9 hours ago, tubby johnson said:

They'll appeal, the courts save face by going through the motions of prosecuting them, the case drags on for a decade and expires.

 

They're too 'hiso' and special to ever see the inside of a jail cell.

If they didn't get bail to appeal after the guilty verdict they'll be admiring jail decor right now.

5 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

Good point, but given that nobody knew they were there, it's likely to be only a small population (<50) rather than a large population (>100). For isolated small populations, inbreeding depression apparently kicks in after a certain number of generations, and give that they have already been isolated for some time, this population might have 25 years max.

 

Catching and relocating them to Huai Kha Khaeng to increase the gene pool there, then giving them complete protection at that place, might be the best chance of Thailand keeping a viable wild population going.

"... it's likely to be only a small population (<50) rather than a large population (>100)."

Not that likely.  As you said yourself, who knows?...you certainly aren't in a position to determine the number.  Neither are you in a position to determine how many of them are unrelated, it's a big jungle out there, one reason that they haven't been caught on film before.  If no one knew that they were there why did they set up cameras?

5 hours ago, saakura said:

The bribes were taken in 2005, it has taken several years for the lowest court to give a judgement. Then there is the appeals court and finally the supreme court which could take many more years. They will be out on bail and can abscond like many others have done before and live a comfortable life overseas. I would hold my clapping for until they are both actually inside a proper prison and been there for 2 years at least without falling seriously ill in a few days and shifted to a well furnished hospital room, like the ex Mayor of Pattaya.

Doesn't matter how long the trial took, they still got 94 years between them and lost B62,000,000.  So far they're not out on bail, although that could happen if the court allows it, neither have they absconded to live overseas.

Congratulations on being so negative, just as you would have been if they have been found not guilty.  Thailand can't win with some people, can it?

6 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

Don't get your hopes up. The population is too small to be viable, due to inbreeding. They won't last long.

How big is the population?  18 is the number identified on camera, that doesn't mean that there are only 18 in the Park.

1 hour ago, chickenslegs said:

 

 

But, in a way, you are correct. Yes the "family's" decision is what is preventing charges - just not the family of the dead police officer.

The Red Bull family is not preventing charges being made, that's why an acknowledgement of those charges is due tomorrow.

41 minutes ago, upena said:

Why does the Thai Government think they are entitled to the 62 million baht?

Who else should benefit from it?  Do you think they should be allowed to keep it?  The government collects all other seized funds, there is no reason for it not to do so in this case.

53 minutes ago, yellowboat said:

There is no greater merit than saving others lives.  What a good kid. 

What a good family.