Pi Sek

No need to have an argument, if the proper procedure of a full exam had been conducted. I suggest that the exam was intentionally forgone. Anything observed was not noted, intentionally. There is a reason why police forces in much of the world where abuse is illegal photograph suspects when taken into custody. It is intended to counter false allegations. The failure to document the intake procedure on a prisoner of this importance speaks volumes.

Your post is very fair, and you're right that there's no need to have an argument (regardless of whether any particular procedure was followed or not). However, I see intentionally misrepresenting the truth (lying) as one of the more odious sins, so I don't like lies in principle; and when someone suggests I am twisting the truth, they are suggesting I am lying and I will take offence if, on reflection, I am not. And when they are twisting the truth, then you can expect me to point this out as I did rather indignantly above. But I stand by my comment.

I agree that in an ideal world, pictorial evidence would be recorded upon arrest and after release... but I can tell you this rarely happens in Thailand, and I'm not even sure if it is "proper procedure". There is a form saying you weren't abused that you're required to sign as you're released from the holding cell and formally indicted at court instead. None of those in that situation whom I know refused to sign this form, so I can't say anything about what might happen if someone objected to this.

You are right, the failure to document the intake procedure on a prisoner of this importance does speaks volumes... but what does it speak volumes about?

Nonetheless, you have your opinion that the exam was intentionally foregone and are entitled to it khrap-phom. Kudos for not trying to misrepresent this as a fact, unlike some of our less ethical members.

"pictorial evidence" - I suppose you are suggesting the camera never lies? - In evidence seeing is most definitely NOT believing.

Allegations of torture are confirmed or allayed by a proper, unbiased inquiry - something that is simply not possible in Thailand given the relationships between judiciary legislative and executive in this country.

No I'm not suggesting that, but I agree with GeriatricKid that it's probably better to have pictorial evidence than not. "Payan lai bak di-kwa mai mi payan" - it's better to have lots of documented evidence than none.

Londonthai says... there are pix as an evidence http://prachatai.org/english/node/4880

Pi Sek says... That's evidence? He claims "he was slapped on the face, punched on the base on the sternum and in the ribs, trampled on, and electrocuted on his thighs. He was electrocuted almost 40 times, he recounted."

I call bullshit, because this "evidence" shows more proof of not washing than any form of abuse. He should have been more clever and said he'd been waterboarded or denied sleep or something else that doesn't need to show injuries. But then, he follows up description of his "brutal abuse" (that seems to have given him about 10 pimple-size rashes over his torso and legs) with "I support and admire Sinn Féin, Martin Luther King. I don’t believe in violence." Obviously thick as two planks.

but he wasn't water boarded or denied sleep, he was punched in the stomach, ribs, solar plexus, kicked, slapped on the face, trampled.

bruises on the abdomen and burned wounds on the legs are not from not washing. You are trying to twist the facts for political reason

I am not twisting any facts, I am stating an opinion that I do not believe the images you showed demonstrate that there was any torture. The image that you showed did not show bruising as far as I could tell. It looks like he has a rash to me. That is my opinion, and not facts.

I believe you are twisting the facts. You are talking about the "fact" that the "victim" is "bruised". I do not think this is a fact, because I don't see any bruising; I think this is your opinion, which I expect is twisted for political reason, like most of your posts. You, sir, are a hypocrite... there's a fact for you.

Others are able to form their own opinion by clicking on your link. I won't attack them for forming their own opinion... will you?

No need to have an argument, if the proper procedure of a full exam had been conducted. I suggest that the exam was intentionally forgone. Anything observed was not noted, intentionally. There is a reason why police forces in much of the world where abuse is illegal photograph suspects when taken into custody. It is intended to counter false allegations. The failure to document the intake procedure on a prisoner of this importance speaks volumes.

Your post is very fair, and you're right that there's no need to have an argument (regardless of whether any particular procedure was followed or not). However, I see intentionally misrepresenting the truth (lying) as one of the more odious sins, so I don't like lies in principle; and when someone suggests I am twisting the truth, they are suggesting I am lying and I will take offence if, on reflection, I am not. And when they are twisting the truth, then you can expect me to point this out as I did rather indignantly above. But I stand by my comment.

I agree that in an ideal world, pictorial evidence would be recorded upon arrest and after release... but I can tell you this rarely happens in Thailand, and I'm not even sure if it is "proper procedure". There is a form saying you weren't abused that you're required to sign as you're released from the holding cell and formally indicted at court instead. None of those in that situation whom I know refused to sign this form, so I can't say anything about what might happen if someone objected to this.

You are right, the failure to document the intake procedure on a prisoner of this importance does speaks volumes... but what does it speak volumes about?

Nonetheless, you have your opinion that the exam was intentionally foregone and are entitled to it khrap-phom. Kudos for not trying to misrepresent this as a fact, unlike some of our less ethical members.

there are pix as an evidence http://prachatai.org/english/node/4880

That's evidence? He claims "he was slapped on the face, punched on the base on the sternum and in the ribs, trampled on, and electrocuted on his thighs. He was electrocuted almost 40 times, he recounted."

I call bullshit, because this "evidence" shows more proof of not washing than any form of abuse. He should have been more clever and said he'd been waterboarded or denied sleep or something else that doesn't need to show injuries. But then, he follows up description of his "brutal abuse" (that seems to have given him about 10 pimple-size rashes over his torso and legs) with "I support and admire Sinn Féin, Martin Luther King. I don’t believe in violence." Obviously thick as two planks.

but he wasn't water boarded or denied sleep, he was punched in the stomach, ribs, solar plexus, kicked, slapped on the face, trampled.

bruises on the abdomen and burned wounds on the legs are not from not washing. You are trying to twist the facts for political reason

I am not twisting any facts, I am stating an opinion that I do not believe the images you showed demonstrate that there was any torture. The image that you showed did not show bruising as far as I could tell. It looks like he has a rash to me. That is my opinion, and not facts.

I believe you are twisting the facts. You are talking about the "fact" that the "victim" is "bruised". I do not think this is a fact, because I don't see any bruising; I think this is your opinion, which I expect is twisted for political reason, like most of your posts. You, sir, are a hypocrite... there's a fact for you.

Others are able to form their own opinion by clicking on your link. I won't attack them for forming their own opinion... will you?

there are pix as an evidence http://prachatai.org/english/node/4880

That's evidence? He claims "he was slapped on the face, punched on the base on the sternum and in the ribs, trampled on, and electrocuted on his thighs. He was electrocuted almost 40 times, he recounted."

I call bullshit, because this "evidence" shows more proof of not washing than any form of abuse. He should have been more clever and said he'd been waterboarded or denied sleep or something else that doesn't need to show injuries. But then, he follows up description of his "brutal abuse" (that seems to have given him about 10 pimple-size rashes over his torso and legs) with "I support and admire Sinn Féin, Martin Luther King. I don’t believe in violence." Obviously thick as two planks.

Maidee by name, mai dee by nature.

It's all over twitter now with a video on youtube. She was being held in military custody. Tweet by @KhaosodEnglish

'Missing' witness of 2010 crackdown deaths was in military custody after all. Footage: Details forthcoming.

Thanks for that video. Shows very clearly that she was indeed in (military? - I only see police) custody.

Interesting to note however her zeal to use the 3-finger salute - obviously not a fan of the army, which may be a result of her detention (maybe her detention was the result of criticising or even slandering the army). Either way I would wonder how impartial/true her witness account would be, although the 3-finger salute doesn't necessarily mean she is affiliated with the Red Shirts.

As we don't know why she was detained, we don't know much really. All we know is she was one of those going on record saying the army was firing into the temple. (There are also witness accounts saying the MiB and RTA had a firefight nearby earlier in the day.) I somehow suspect she was picked up by the RTA because they know something about her that we don't yet know. She has "defiance" written all over her - understandable given the circumstances at face value, but this defiant look might also be a long-standing hatred of Thaksin opponents. We all know how much love, trust & tears your average UDD supporter puts into supporting the Shin crowd.

Still though, "abduction of key witnesses" is obviously not in the best interests of transparency or justice. I have to wonder why the RTA initially denied it.

For one there seems to have been no abduction as the latest report state the family said the lady was arrested by five soldiers.

Also apart from identifying the lady as being 'a key witness' there is no explanation why that should have any relation with her being arrested. The possible relation with people involved in the recent bomb attacks seems a more likely reason.

PS excuse my sense of humour. Looking at the lady, apart from a three finger salute she might also provoke with underboob selfies

Ah, so the abduction was done with an arrest warrant? Well surely it's not an abduction in that case?

And yes, I've noticed a little news that she may not have been picked up because she was a witness, but for "something else"... which suggests to me her witness testimony might not have been entirely truthful. But then, as I say above, we don't know anything for sure.

Toch wel, the Dutch sense of humour. But shouldn't it be NederBooben? Blijf swingen, dude!

It's all over twitter now with a video on youtube. She was being held in military custody. Tweet by @KhaosodEnglish

'Missing' witness of 2010 crackdown deaths was in military custody after all. Footage: Details forthcoming.

Thanks for that video. Shows very clearly that she was indeed in (military? - I only see police) custody.

Interesting to note however her zeal to use the 3-finger salute - obviously not a fan of the army, which may be a result of her detention (maybe her detention was the result of criticising or even slandering the army). Either way I would wonder how impartial/true her witness account would be, although the 3-finger salute doesn't necessarily mean she is affiliated with the Red Shirts.

As we don't know why she was detained, we don't know much really. All we know is she was one of those going on record saying the army was firing into the temple. (There are also witness accounts saying the MiB and RTA had a firefight nearby earlier in the day.) I somehow suspect she was picked up by the RTA because they know something about her that we don't yet know. She has "defiance" written all over her - understandable given the circumstances at face value, but this defiant look might also be a long-standing hatred of Thaksin opponents. We all know how much love, trust & tears your average UDD supporter puts into supporting the Shin crowd.

Still though, "abduction of key witnesses" is obviously not in the best interests of transparency or justice. I have to wonder why the RTA initially denied it.

I am certainly not pre-judging the outcome of any forensic examination, but this thoroughly reprehensible process by which the RTP forces to pose alongside alleged evidence PRIOR to any charges being laid or court proceedings taking place is nothing short of an attempt to pervert justice.

Shameful behaviour but not untypical of a lawless, third-world country..................

Are you serious, do you think the rifles/bomb making equipment dropped out of the sky!!!!!! These Muslim scum want to take over the world, they've tried to do it twice before without success. I presume you don't think it's shameful to cut people's heads off, throw gay people from building's, stone women to death......open your eyes to what's going on!

With all due respect, I believe it is you who should open his eyes.

The rifles/bomb making equipment didn't drop out of the sky. The police have issued a statement that the weapons were found outside the area of the madras, and there is no evidence that links the weapons with Marobi at the moment.

I am not aware that Marobi has cut anyone's head off, thrown any gay people off buildings or stoned any women to death. You seem to me to be suffering from some form of paranoia-induced affliction mixed with a little bit of bigotry.

She's a human rights activist according to last nights BP.

They have plenty of reasons to bomb criminal courts , the ongoing case in Koh Tao amongst many others are reasons enough to do what they did.

Are you suggesting a Thai HR activist would suddenly bomb a court? With no previous HR activist ever doing such a thing here? With no previous or post announcement to claim responsibility and get the publicity for the points they were trying to make?

Or that anyone has a justifiable reason to bomb a court?

As others have said - "clutching at straws".

Is there an organization that has a track record at throwing bombs at courts, judges, protesters, especially at times when a certain family members are facing court trials? Much too obvious, must false flag, conspiracy, or some never before violent anonymous fringe group. Anyone but the Shin gang - their non elected leader have denied it and they wouldn't lie would they........... Oops that's another track record - lying.

Precedents aside, there is nothing that any of us know that tells us the court attack was instigated by the Red Shirt movement.

But the precedents are there, and logic would suggest what you are alluding to. This is most unfortunate for the Red Shirt movement... but then, I suppose, if they have a problem being labelled as arsonists, grenade throwers or whatever else, maybe they should have thought about that earlier.

Ah, that was bothering the hell out of me. The man who initially proposed the 30-Baht healthcare scheme was Dr. Sanguan Nitayarumphong, Deputy Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Public Health, commonly referred to amongst non-Red Shirts as "The Father of Universal Healthcare" (Red Shirts will swear blind Thaksin was the originator of this scheme - he just put it into premature action and nearly bankrupted state healthcare). Poor guy died of cancer in 2008.

Well I'm not an expert, but I do work in Government hospitals every week. It doesn't take a MP to know why there are substantial losses. If the money that was taken by the directors was actually put into the hospitals, they would have really nice facilities.

If Thaksin's scheme wasn't viewed as economically sustainable, perhaps some reforms could be implemented to preserve medical care for the bulk of the population.

It was never viewed as economically sustainable. That's why the Chuan Leekpai government didn't action the proposal in the late 90s... it had been proposed initially by a doctor (can't remember who) in 1995.

Good article from The Economist here, which touches on the lack of clarity on this as well as with the other populist policies, from before the time when Sam Moon publicly announced he was working for Thaksin to restore his image after the UK rejected his asylum claim:

www.economist.com/node/476652

"Mr Thaksin has reinforced the message with some cleverly directed promises... Health care will be available at clinics for a token 30 baht a visit... Quite how any of this is to be paid for is left a mystery.

"The trouble with Mr Chuan was that, in his readiness to dispense long-term medicine, he failed to convince ordinary Thais that he cared about their immediate problems."

<snip>

If you take time to to do a bit of research you may find TS has more +'s than -'s.

</snip>

Or you may not. I suppose it depends on how seriously you take his -'s and his +'s.

Personally I'm very happy that he will be brought to account for his crimes if he ever decides to return. But he needs the odds stacked in his favour first, and that didn't even happen when his own people were running the government, and despite the biscuit tins of cash. That's why he'll remain a fugitive forever, that and the refusal to lose face and own up.

Seems everyone is convinced that this attack is either UDD-affiliated or a false flag operation by the Junta government. I don't think it would be wise to assume anything... could well be either.

But with names coming out, the timing with last week's Criminal Court activities and the very familiar MO seen whenever else Thaksin and his network have something to shout about, my opinion is slanting slightly towards yet another idiotic shoot-yourself-in-the-foot reaction by another member of the violent minority in the Red Shirt movement with probable support from at least one of the UDD power brokers.

As a quasi-fascist, I apologise if my opinion offends other fascists who may want to suppress dissent towards the Square Faced Prophet. I see there are quite a few here.

Not all red-shirts are thugs, just a few of them are.

They have the same rights as the yellows, who despice poor people. See it on the road every day.

Where is all the talk about democracy?

Not all yellow shirts despise poor people, just a few of them. Much like the red shirts, yellow shirts are people too.

I'd be interested to know how you noticed yellow shirts in particular despising poor people on the road. Personally I've seen all sorts of rich people, including red shirts (as it happens they didn't have a red shirt on that day but I know him), drive without any consideration to anyone else.

More Nakorn Sri Thammarat natives causing carnage.

Ask any thai what they think of native people from that province and you'll get a unflattering opinion nine times out of ten.

Ask any Thai what they think of native people from, well, anywhere except for where they're from and you'll generally get an unflattering opinion.

Ask any Nakhon Sri native what they think of people from Udon.

Nakhon has a reputation, given, but who doesn't? I'd far prefer to live in Nakhon Sri Thammarat than to live in Phuket.

And, of course, Abhisit and the Yellow Shirts were perfect angels, weren't they?

Notwithstanding the irrelevance of your post (please feel free to enlighten me if you feel I've missed something), why would you make the link between Abhisit and the Yellow Shirts?

The Yellow Shirts have been very critical of him on several occasions, including calls for his resignation... even though the majority of them were pretty happy when he was elected Prime Minister by his peers in Parliament.

The other newspaper lists the pub as Solo Bar. A prime place to get involved in some unnecessary juvenile machoism.

75% of Samui is still lovely, unfortunately Chaweng is a complete and utter poo-hole, no better than Patong or Pattaya.

Still though...

- why did the guard have a shotgun?

- how did the guard get multiple shotgun shots off and the Turk didn't if the Turk pulled first?

- why aren't there a couple of hundred witnesses (as Solo Bar is still heaving at 2am)?

- if this guy was "notorious" to police, surely it follows he has been here a while and got himself involved in police affairs. Why is he still mentioned as a "tourist"? If he was on an expired tourist visa, how come this wasn't picked up on the last time he involved himself in police affairs.

I do not see Thailand as a reliable military ally, or necessary for USA security interests.

China can have them.

You've obviously never played the boardgame "Risk". Thailand has a very strong strategic location.

Thailand's military is also a very good customer to USA security interests. The relationship between the US and Thai militaries is very reliable for this reason - not really as "allies", more like "trading partners".

Whilst I'm generally happy with him, Prayuth's understanding of democracy is a little flawed. It doesn't have anything to do with income brackets, true democracy is more about majority rule whilst not being unacceptable to the minority (which is why Thailand's never had one).

I beg you people to understand the meaning of democracy more thoroughly. Good democracy is a system that takes all people alike whether they are rich or poor or in the middle income bracket.

But then after saying that, he then goes on to say he doesn't "take all people alike". Sorry, General, that was a blooper!

Whatever the people may say, I think about the poor first,” said General Prayut.

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Funeral-held-Sam-Austin-campaign-bring-body-home/story-25777596-detail/story.html

Just an update on this tragic story, still seems very unclear how he died

Sam died on November 13, 2014, after falling from a skytrain bridge in Bangkok. He had moved to Thailand to start a new life there.

Thanks for the link.

As the friend mentions in the article, the circumstances leading up to his fall are unclear, but I don't think it's fair to assume anything untoward in this instance. It could have been a tragic accident, maybe because he wasn't sober, could have been pushed, could have decided to give up (all of which could happen anywhere).

Sad story, whatever the circumstances.

<snip>

Another thing is, that the Bandidos clowns, that was running all those "fake land deals". Was arrested AND convicted years ago, as far as i know they are not a big player anymore. They did bribe their way to better "accommodation" in prison, but they are still there.

Yes, they were arrested, but I don't know if they were all convicted or even charged. Of the three people publicly mentioned (Peter Jones, Crispin Paton-Smith and Kim Nielsen), I happen to know one of them very well, as he was and still is an active businessperson on Koh Samui, and I personally believe him to be a gentleman.

The DSI held him without charge for 13 months. The judge angrily threw the case out and gave the DSI a firm courtroom dressing-down when the DSI was asking to extend their detention to "allow them time to complete their investigation", because the only evidence against this person was a set of unsubstantiated ramblings leveled at a whole bunch of legal businesses by a disgruntled former business partner of one of the accused, commonly referred to as the "5 Cs" report. This report tried to point the finger at almost every Web business in Samui, a whole load of real estate agents, and even the Bank of Ayudhya... it was madness. (However, speculation was rife that this investigation was to deflect criticism that the PM-of-the-time's wife or sister was building a resort on forest land on Koh Pha Ngan... hence the DSI stepping in.)

But actually, the article only mentions the Bandidos in the last paragraph, even though the Samui Times drew attention to it from their headline.

I've lived on Samui for 13 years. I have seen bikers, but NEVER have I seen or heard of them committing crimes in Thailand. I know some of them have their fingers in a lot of dirty pies abroad and I have heard many of them choose Thailand as a place to wash their ill-gotten gains, but is this really a problem for Thailand?

as DPM he was responsible for the security actions. Please don't tell me that you don't know that.

How does Suthep being in charge of security have anything do with the organisation of the "blue shirts"?

The Blue Shirt incident was in April 2009. As head of CRES (not as DPM), Suthep was responsible for security... in early- to mid-2010. And he got replaced in this position by Anupong Paojinda on Abhisit's orders mid April 2010.

Direct quote from The Nation on 1 May 2009: "most analysts believe that the new blue-clad political group was playing a game at making political changes." - i.e. they were trying to force Abhisit to resign (although it did also say that the Blue Shirts could have also been goading the Reds into violence). With Suthep as Abhisit's #2, it's fairly unlikely Newin cleared this with Suthep, and it's even more unlikely that Suthep was involved in the organising at all.

There's some real BS being thrown around in this thread. Even on this page, we have someone making reference to the non-existent jury system in Thailand, and others trying to back-peddle to try and make some point that the jury reference was some kind of metaphor. No it wasn't. It was someone who doesn't know what they're talking about making an ass out of themselves.

CRES, sure, that is understood - lack of attention to 'detail' in my writing. It was obvious that it was not part of the DPM responsibilities, but as DPM, he was in charge of the security at the time, etc, ... OK?

2009, that was already clear to the people discussing the topic. It can be hard to follow the thread discussion with the quote limits.

But are you quoting the Nation to make a suggestion that the blue shirts were some kind of political group and working against the AV government?

That would be a rather odd thing to say.

Yes, that is exactly what was suggested... not by me, by the way, by "most analysts" (according to Somroutai Sapsomboon of The Nation).

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/05/01/politics/politics_30101785.php

Not really odd to me either, as BJT are the epitome of opportunistic politics... they ditched PPP to get the Interior Ministry in a Democrat-led government, after all, so it doesn't sound like such a stretch of the imagination that they would try to use any situation to try and strengthen their position at the trough. All the Thai political dinosaurs who "control factions" tried to have some sort of say in the aftermath of the protests... Sanoh, Banharn, the list is very long, and their collective aim was to show how good they were as individual politicians by getting opposing sides to see eye to eye (or at least show the public they tried).

Also, the scope of responsibilities of DPM does not normally cover security. And, at the time, I don't think Suthep was in charge of security (in fact, as BJT got the Interior Ministry, I'm pretty sure one of the Chidchobs were - which probably explains why Newin tried to deny any involvement in the Blue Shirts, who were supposedly "civilian" but got their blue shirts directly from the Interior Ministry!). The only source I can find that anyone higher than the Interior Ministry was involved is a vague comment attributed to Nick Nostitz in Chris Askew's book "Legitimacy Crisis in Thailand"; I'm sure Nick's a nice guy, but I don't find him credible for reasons that I've put to him myself. But, hey, I don't find Michael Yon credible either and I get on fine with him.

I have a feeling I will regret posting this.But Nick Nostitz and Michael Yon are scarcely to be compared.Both make no secret of their allegiances.But one is a brave well informed reporter on the ground with considerable analytical capacity.The other is essentially a money minded huckster deplorably ignorant though with a certain feral cunning.Guess which one the Bangkok middle class adores.

Nothing wrong with sharing an opinion if it's honest, jayboy.

Personally I think they're both brave photojournalists, Yon brave enough to embed himself with US forces on the front line (I think he served as an Army Ranger too?) and Nostitz brave enough to put himself in harm's way during Thai political protests. In terms of impartiality, they're probably on a par with each other too.

I have no doubt that they both have had plenty of donations from political movements too, although I will give Nick the benefit of the doubt because I feel he doesn't disclose everything he witnesses because he believes in the Red Shirt cause a little too strongly. Yon is a little bit of a redneck, and that comes out when he talks about gun legislation, empowerment to police, and his views on the Gaza conflict, ISIS and the Comfort Women issue. But he clearly picks a side and sticks with it - maybe because that's what he's received payment for!