Liverpool Lou

"Reality, please", indeed! You recall his sentence?

Only in your mind does it "sound like that", nothing in the report suggests that to be the case.

...and was cleared of the bogus impeachment charges on both occasions.

The Biden investigation is far from over and Trump was convicted (and likely will be exonerated on appeal) for minor accounting missteps that did not make him millions of dollars.

So many posters need to read that part of the OP!

Why? The case against him was dismissed, as you'd know if you bothered to read the OP

This law was enforced but was dismissed on appeal according to the OP.

How can he be sorted out when there is no longer any case against him?

"Mr Thanachai Buachuang, president of the Pong Prasad SAO, acknowledged the long-standing issue. He explained that while the SAO had mediated discussions and acted in accordance with the law, Mathias’ lawyer appealed the case. A subsequent investigation by the Department of Health, Zone 5, in Ratchaburi found no aggressive dogs at Mathias’ property, leading to the case being dropped. In this case, the law was enforced by authorities and a ban issued but it was dismissed on appeal. It would appear that Thai law enforcement was, in fact not useless and incompetent in the defendant's favour.

How? The interest payments go to the lender, usually a bank. The bank/finance company pays substantial commissions to the dealer.

What is that supposed to be...Bangkok and a rear-engined bus with exhaust emitting directly over the driver's seat?

What do you know about law? Look up civil litigation. Why do you ask ridiculous questions? "What do you know about law?" Clearly more than you do. I know enough of the law to know that "justice for the widow" by the uninvolved family being penalised is complete nonsense, unless the family were sued but, in this case, there is nothing for his parents/siblings to be sued for.

Neither could the last President, or the last but one before that, who could only use ballpoints!

None sense was not was not requested, and not wanted. To prevent a neighbour being able to see into your home, drawing a curtain seems to me to be a perfectly rational answer. Maybe you, or someone else, can explain why, if the neighbour is doing nothing wrong, it is such a bad idea?

I agree.

Justice for the widow How could the injustice of punishing a family, that were not involved in this incident in any way, be "justice for the widow"? Does that happen in your country or do you just think that it should apply here?

Why not if that is the way that the legal system can work here and if both parties are in agreement?

He has been.

And we all know how successful that is generally. Who do you have in mind that was in that situation, i.e. banned from leaving but left anyway?

Let's see how your prediction turns out.

Its the norm when there is overwhelming evidence and the forthcoming sentence is definitely incarceration. In addition, most 'ordinary' Thai's couldn't put up 600K. No, it is not the norm, the opportunity for bail is the norm. "In addition, most 'ordinary' Thai's couldn't put up 600K". The "ordinary" Thais, who may not be a flight risk, probably would not have to put up B600k.

What else would I expect!? You asked for the answer, you got it, that you don't like it is neither here nor there.

When you refrain from looking at his property you will be in the position to ask him to not cover yours!

Draw the curtains.

Only where they have jurisdiction.