RJRS1301

however not Thailand

and you still do not get it, it is about Thai law, not your mis-interpretation of English law

Thank you Lord Denning

Read the legislation as per the Parliament as posted However your interpretation of UK legislation is irrelevant to Thai law and judgements, irrespective of your viewpoint

Aspire

and never see a zebra

Telecommunications

Looks like unpaid labour to me

Yes, that ius an adventure all of it's own,make sure you have few locals either side of you and use them as cover

However these are English and Australian laws, from my research the "there appears to be nothing in Thai law pertaining to silence. Adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where before or on being charged, the accused fails to mention a specific fact that he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention. If this failure occurs at an authorised place of detention (e.g. a police station), no inferences can be drawn from any failure occurring before the accused is allowed an opportunity to consult a legal advisor. Section 34 of the 1994 act reverses the common law position[7] that such failures could not be used as evidence of guilt.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales The changes below mention nothing about the presumption of guilt when one remains silent, what can happen is they may charged if they withhold information which they later rely on in court, nothing about presumption of guilt Effect of accused’s failure to mention facts when questioned or charged. (1)Where, in any proceedings against a person for an offence, evidence is given that the accused— (a)at any time before he was charged with the offence, on being questioned under caution by a constable trying to discover whether or by whom the offence had been committed, failed to mention any fact relied on in his defence in those proceedings; or (b)on being charged with the offence or officially informed that he might be prosecuted for it, failed to mention any such fact, [F1; or (c)at any time after being charged with the offence, on being questioned under section 22 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (post-charge questioning), failed to mention any such fact,] being a fact which in the circumstances existing at the time the accused could reasonably have been expected to mention when so questioned, charged or informed, as the case may be, subsection (2) below applies. (2)Where this subsection applies— F2( a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F3(b)a judge, in deciding whether to grant an application made by the accused under[F4 paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998] (c)the court, in determining whether there is a case to answer; and (d)the court or jury, in determining whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged, may draw such inferences from the failure as appear proper.https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/part/III/crossheading/inferences-from-accuseds-silence

Glad you know more than the actual legislation and the courts They came from the courts, verbatim That is the Parliamentary Legislation

Read the posts about the ACTUAL law not your interpretation.

Are these the same people we see sometimes riding 3 up in uniform without helmets??

Correct.

Thats some upset, now banned for sometime I suspect

However these are English and Australian laws, from my research the "there appears to be nothing in Thai law pertaining to silence. Adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where before or on being charged, the accused fails to mention a specific fact that he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention. If this failure occurs at an authorised place of detention (e.g. a police station), no inferences can be drawn from any failure occurring before the accused is allowed an opportunity to consult a legal advisor. Section 34 of the 1994 act reverses the common law position[7] that such failures could not be used as evidence of guilt.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales The changes below mention nothing about the presumption of guilt when one remains silent, what can happen is they may charged if they withhold information which they later rely on in court, nothing about presumption of guilt Effect of accused’s failure to mention facts when questioned or charged. (1)Where, in any proceedings against a person for an offence, evidence is given that the accused— (a)at any time before he was charged with the offence, on being questioned under caution by a constable trying to discover whether or by whom the offence had been committed, failed to mention any fact relied on in his defence in those proceedings; or (b)on being charged with the offence or officially informed that he might be prosecuted for it, failed to mention any such fact, [F1; or (c)at any time after being charged with the offence, on being questioned under section 22 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (post-charge questioning), failed to mention any such fact,] being a fact which in the circumstances existing at the time the accused could reasonably have been expected to mention when so questioned, charged or informed, as the case may be, subsection (2) below applies. (2)Where this subsection applies— F2( a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F3(b)a judge, in deciding whether to grant an application made by the accused under[F4 paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998] (c)the court, in determining whether there is a case to answer; and (d)the court or jury, in determining whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged, may draw such inferences from the failure as appear proper.https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/part/III/crossheading/inferences-from-accuseds-silence

If you properly assert your right to remain silent, your silence cannot be used against you in court. If your case goes to jury trial, the jury would be given a specific instructions not to consider your silence as an admission of guilt. In 1983 the High Court described the privilege as follows:

Is silence an admission of guilt UK? The right to silence in England and Wales is the protection given to a person during criminal proceedings from adverse consequences of remaining silent. It is sometimes referred to as the privilege against self-incrimination. Is silence an admission of guilt UK? The right to silence in England and Wales is the protection given to a person during criminal proceedings from adverse consequences of remaining silent. It is sometimes referred to as the privilege against self-incrimination. The right to silence in England and Wales is the protection given to a person during criminal proceedings from adverse consequences of remaining silent. It is sometimes referred to as the privilege against self-incrimination. It is used on any occasion when it is considered the person(s) being spoken to is under suspicion of having committed one or more criminal offences and consequently thus potentially being subject to criminal proceedings.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales

In many western countries "beyond reasonable doubt " is stipulated and announced to juries at the beginning of trail and when juries are sent to consider verdicts. No such stipulation exists in Thai Law. It is "given the benefit" which is different. As for the legal system, "based on civil law" that is how it is stipulated in the legal language of law schools here. It is based on civil not common law principals Common law is defined as a body of legal rules that have been made by judges as they issue rulings on cases, as opposed to rules and laws made by the legislature or in official statutes.(Civil Law) I should stated NOT spelt out in law, I missed the "not " in my post.

Pride Month????️‍???? is why this was posted, relief from the of war. Ukrainian LGBTQ soldiers started wearing the unicorn insignia after Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea LGBTQ Ukrainian soldiers take to wearing unicorn patch on uniforms https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-02/lgbtg-ukrainian-soldiers-unicorn-patches-russian-invasion/101119450?utm_campaign=abc_news_web&utm_content=mail&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_source=abc_news_web

The concept of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" is not the yard stick here as in many western countries: Although the principal is alluded to, it is spelt out in such words The legal system of Thailand is based upon civil law. Under Thai criminal law, an accused is innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof rests with the public prosecutor. The defendant must be given the benefit of the doubt. Should an accused be convicted of committing an offence, he or she will be subject to the punishment as prescribed by law. The basic provisions governing criminal offences can be found in Thailand’s Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code.

Perhaps as she "fell" he leaned out to grab here and she grabbed his hair?? We can only speculate. Always surprises me how death occur here from balconies , yes many do have lower (than I am used to safety rails) , but being taller than some locals unsure of the building regs also

Liquid

Neither crack nor fighting have been mention, yes hair in her hand, how it was there we do not know for sure, however I am not an investigator nor a speculator, I like evidence. Yes they were not there however none of us know why or how this occurred, or how we react in similar circumstances. Facts I have found are better than speculation

The women are possibly fleeing the Putin regime and the rapist soldiers back home??