Liverpool Lou

That post from five month's ago accompanied by a meaningless comment (according to Google Translate) is proof that he's not there now? Really? Brilliant.

This makes me wonder why you are on a forum designed for the very speculation and discussion you so criticise and dislike so much. Who said that I dislike anything about this forum? Sometimes I wonder why you're here also but we both have that privilege, don't we, or would you prefer a forum full of ignorant "yes men" comments?

They can get that confirmation from the DoC that is in charge there. Patients can not have to be forced to allow visitors against their will, either in hospital (obviously) or prison. That committee does not have access to Thaksin's, or any other patients', medical records so they cannot make any medical comparisons.

We're all speculating on this thread.... The only one who isn't is you who simply resorts to inane arguing that everyones speculation is just speculation and they have no proof... And I'm 100% right! What's the inanity of that? Everyone's speculation is nothing more than that.

That's not infrequently the result of lengthy hospital treatment!

There have been a couple of published photos of him while he was there. If you have any proof of his not being there, I would be even more interested.

You'll have to explain rationally what "the hell" you mean, there's nothing wrong with me. If you don't approve of my responses to posts on this public forum, why don't you just say so?

You're welcome to that opinion. Is your assertion of naïveté on my part any worse than anyone else's ignorant speculation?

I have no reason to empirically disbelieve it. He is a 74-year old man and the chances of his having no issues are probably close to zero. I have never asked for "a link" to any of this, but, yes, official confirmation would be a lot better than AN posters' ranting speculation.

I believe they were never asked and the officials just showed up. Do you have any grounds, at all, for that belief? Speculate all you like, you have no idea.

at the Bangkok Police Hospital Ah, changing the parameters, now, eh? Why does it have to be restricted to the PGH, do other hospitals that treat inmate inpatients not count?

"...or do you also want proof of that" Also? I have not asked for proof of anything so I don't know where you got the "also" from.

Neither is it most certainly proof that he is not unwell.

I've never needed any Coconuts' confirmation, neither have I ever quoted Coconuts. Interesting that you seem to know so much about Coconuts.

Exactly.

I suppose all of them, I doubt they were asked to sign a privacy waiver, And just in case you didn't read it: I read it. Those receiving visitors in hospital (or prison) do not have to "sign waivers" they just have to agree to seeing visitors. And, just in case you did not read it properly, there was no indication that those patients/inmates were spoken to against their will.

The question you should ask is: Out of all of Thailand's inmate population there is not a single one requiring inpatient treatment? Really? Who said that out of all of Thailand's prison population there are none that require, or are receiving, inpatient hospital treatment?

Even if the CCTV was working it would not be revealing anything about the patients, they do not have cameras trained on them! "...as a government minister I would of thought they would be allowed to have a chat..." He would be allowed a chat if the patient agrees to the visit...patients make that choice, regardless of who the visitor is and a government minister has no more status in that situation than anyone else.

Exactly, not to mention, obviously.

Well said.

It's classic Asean Now poster lack of information and speculation.

They weren't "prevented from checking if he was there", they could do that through the DoC that controls that section. They were prevented from forcing themselves on a hospital patient who (like all of them) has the right not to receive visitors, either in the hospital or in prison. If he was in the prison they could only check with the prison authorities whether he was there, they could not force a visit on a prisoner if he declines it.

Fish head soup??? Why should PGH be serving "fish head soup" to patients?

Really? Where has that been reported, specifically? Since when are prisoners not allowed visitors, either in hospital or prison?

Which other inmates "were not entitled to privacy" and had that privacy violated, against their will? Which of those patients required inpatient treatment?