Dr B

I must first say that I feel very sorry for this lady, who has suffered a horrendous accident. Having said that, I would like to point out something that none of the KWs seem to have noticed, and to which even the media have paid little attention. Please look at the two photographs from The Mail article. The first shows one side of her "suitcase" with the wheels damaged, and the second allows a check of the scale against the very unfortunate woman's leg. That is a suitcase, so why is she in possession of it at that location in the airport. Not just Don Muang, but airports all over the world, are not designed for passengers to take suitcases onto aircraft. The concept is that passengers arrive at Departure Level, go to check in, and deposit their luggage. Thereafter (1) the luggage is transported by a baggage handling system, in which at the end of a conveyor, the luggage tumbles onto the next conveyor. This is happening all the time in airports around the world, works well, and is fine for bags, but not for people. As a result (2) the people only have "hand carry" luggage, which the airlines prescribe to generally be less than 7 kg, and within a set of dimensions so that it can fit within the overhead lockers. This also means that, when using escalators or travelators, you can step off at the end, carrying your hand baggage. This is what they are designed for, and the "scrapers" at the ends which seem to be a yellow plastic in this case, are there to prevent small items of rubbish from getting taken round into the mechanism and jamming it. They are not designed to scrape luggage or passengers off the travelator or escalator. It is easy to note that in both airports and supermarkets, where trolleys are used to carry loads on travelators, the trolleys always have quite large wheels, at least 75 mm in diameter, so that they can easily negotiate the ends of travelators. But also note that, in Airports, the luggage trolleys do not get past check-in, and the smaller hand carry luggage trolleys are normally banned from travelators. What has happened is that there is a growing number of passengers who do not want to check-in luggage, probably considering that it "wastes their time". We have all seen them struggling down the aisles of aircraft with too many and too large bags, and so heavy that they cannot even lift them into a locker without help. Airports are not designed for this. Obviously one cannot tell the weight of a suitcase from a photograph, but I would venture to suggest that the one in this case weighed well over 7 kg. Luggage manufacturers encourage this behaviour, fitting their suitcases with wheels, but generally very small ones. So I suspect from all the information available that the passenger was travelling on the travelator standing just behind her suitcase. At the end the small wheels, under heavy load, got jammed at the "scraper" for reasons which I do not know without mechanical examination, where the travelator starts to drop down. This would stop the progress of the suitcase, so the travelator would push the passenger into the suitcase causing her to fall over. The travelators are not designed for passengers lying on the floor, and it is likely that there was already some opening up of the scrapers caused by the wheels. That would allow the end of her jeans to get trapped into the same area, which would quickly pull the leg and foot in with it. There may be a need for changes in the future, but they will not come quickly. For now, to stay safe, simply follow the rules. Check in your suitcases, have only regulation hand carry on bags in terms of weight and size, and step off travelators and escalators carrying your bags as you do so. I did note that there was some reposting of information about a similar incident a few years ago involving a white Croc sandal. The wearer advised that he had managed to get his foot out of the sandal and was very lucky to avoid injury. However he also mentioned that he was "stepping off the travelator" at the time, and I have to doubt this. I do not believe it could have happened if he had stepped off. It is more likely that, perhaps because he was on his phone or otherwise distracted, he did not step off and was relying on the scarpers to transfer his body weight from the travelator to solid ground, for which they were not designed.

It is absolutely true. It was a British system called SCOOT. There were multiple sensors in the road surfaces, so that the system could measure traffic flows and also know how long queues were. The problem is that roads are complex networks, and optimising the flow through a complex network is way beyond the human brain. The system at the time, and presumably still now though I have not lived in Bangkok since 2006, was that policemen sat in small air conditioned huts at each intersection and spoke on radios to their colleagues on adjacent intersections. The idea of having to move out of their air conditioned boxes and actually do some traffic policing was just too much, so they cut the cables. Millions of baht wasted.

Not a bad analogy at all tomacht8, and actually a very good response to the previous comment from Purdey, who must have only read about 10% of the information on this issue. Might I just add to your analogy by suggesting that the father didn't actually leave the engine-less car to anyone, it was just part of his estate. One child was appointed BY THE COURT to be the executor of the estate. As the executor he has a duty to maximise the return on the unallocated assets of the estate and distribute it between the beneficiaries. Trouble is, it just isn't that easy to sell an engineless car sitting in your back garden.

Well written, and well argued, well done!

Noted and understood Eric, but there still seem to be some flaws. One, how does anyone know that Pita read the financial report to the DBD, or the minutes of the meeting which I believe it contained? Two, from my reading the "doctored" minutes failed to say that the company as not operating, but did say that it was operating in accordance with the registered objectives of the company. I take this to mean the articles of incorporation but, as I have stated before, there is no requirement for a company to be active in business in all areas for which it has registered objectives. I did see a previous post of an extract of a report to the DBD, maybe for 2022, which showed that iTV was active in advertising and PR, but nothing to do with media.

If I understand correctly, the EC has thrown out the complaints against Pita but is continuing with a possible criminal action that involves establishing that Pita "knew" that he would be ineligible. I find this very strange, because how can the EC establish, and I am careful not to use the word "prove", that he knew. How can anybody "know" what the EC will decide in the future, it seems to be a very movable target. I believe that I have read that Pita asked the EC about 4 years ago about this, and that the response was that, because of the way the EC is set up, it could only be decided if an official complaint was made. That being the case, how can anybody "know", especially if there are issues over the meaning of "ownership" in relation to a Court appointed Executor, and also issues over what constitutes a media company, especially in relation to a broadcast licence. From what I can see and read, everything that Pita has said and done suggests that he was confident that the EC would find in his favour, which would suggest to an ordinary person that he did not know, but then there has been evidence that the EC are not "normal people", (probably puppets and we may have our own ideas on who is pulling the strings) so we will just have to wait for the outcome.

It seems to me that there is a very dangerous legal precedent that I think has already been set by the Constitutional Court, and I also believe that there is no appeal against a Constitutional Court ruling. The dangerous precedent is considering what might be done. I think it is a fundamental principle of law internationally that you can only be charged and found guilty based on what you have done, not on what you might do. Any of us might commit a crime next week, and it impossible to prove that we would not. Even conspiracy, or intent to commit a crime, requires evidence that planning was taking place, not just thinking about it. I believe that, in one of the Thanaporn cases, he was found guilty because of what he, or the company, might have done in the future. As I have mentioned before, I am aware that a business cannot operate in areas not covered by its articles of incorporation, but it does not need to operate in all areas covered by its articles. It is therefore normal practice to include things that might be useful in the future. Similarly one may have TV Broadcasting in ones articles, but if your licence is revoked you may not operate. Surely it would be normal to continue to operate in other areas, such as advertising, if covered by the articles? To say that iTV could still become a media company again is ignoring the requirement for a licence, which I think is also required for publishing a newspaper. Any shareholders for whom that is a problem would need to divest the shares before those new operations commenced.

Agreed JensenZ. An expired passport can get you back in because it is still proof of identity and Nationality. An expired passport will not get you onto a flight. No passport is a different problem, as it begs the question "How did you get here?" A valid Thai passport is required for a Thai National to leave Thailand. I think I recall that Thaksin's passport was revoked. It seems reasonable to expect that issue of a Certificate of Identity, as a temporary replacement for a passport, might be restricted if you have had your passport revoked to prevent travel but still travelled. Temporary travel documents could still be provided, but would need some Government involvement, as in the recent case of the Norwegian going "home".

I am not sure that "share ownership information is public". That is certainly true for companies listed on the Stock Exchange, but I have read that ITV was delisted by the Stock Exchange some time ago. Many posts on this forum have suggested he should have got rid of the shares earlier, but again I am not sure that that is as simple as it sounds. (1) it has been stated and I cannot verify, that the shares were owned by his late father and part of his estate of which Pita is a trustee, (2) how do you go about selling shares in a non-listed company as there is no valuation (Pita has stated that they had no value as a result). (3) how can people say that ITV is a broadcasting and media company when its broadcasting licence was taken away by the Government in 2007? (4) I have seen reference to the fact that the articles of association include broadcasting but, in my experience, this means nothing. When I had an engineering consultancy business we included trading in the articles of association just in case we needed it at a later date. It costs nothing and means nothing. (5) the recent annual report for ITV showed that its business was advertising and PR. (6) the whole intention of the law preventing would be politicians from owning shares in a media company is to prevent those people from manipulating coverage in their favour. However that would have to be done by the management and/or board of the company. Shareholders can probably be split into two groups. Those who own lots of shares and are also board members/managers, and those who are just investors. Someone with management responsibility as an Executor for 1% of the shares in the company is not going to be able to use an ex-broadcasting company to manipulate an election. It certainly reads like someone is scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses not to endorse MFP.

I am not quite sure how you arrived at "everyone". 36% of votes cast on 14 May were for MF.

Can you please advise how much time you have spent being poor in Thailand, or in US/UK/DE etc, to allow you to reach such a firm conclusion?

As is often the case in the forum, the "facts" are very hard to establish. Still I note that you have referred to shares in iTV, as some others have, as "his shares". However I have also seen it suggested that (i) they were shares bought and held by his late father, and (ii) that he is an executor of his father's will. One would therefore need to investigate and understand probate law in Thailand. If it is similar to that in UK, and it may well not be, then I think being an executor may give one management rights over the assets on behalf of the estate, but not necessarily ownership, unless they were left to him. This would appear to be consistent with the suggestions by Khun Khemthong that he was trying to sell the shares, not as an owner but on behalf of the estate. It seems to me that, with what we know, there is at least a clear path via which he never has been the "owner" of the shares. Whether or not that is supported by the facts remains to be seen.

I believe that it is not that simple that he "broke the law". I read that his Father owned the iTV shares, which were in his will of which Pita is an Executor. I am not at all sure that that is the same as Ownership.

The OP states that she is the Principal, and not the School Director. Ask your step-daughter, but I think you will find they are not the same at all.

While I agree that "Thaksin was a very wealthy businessman before entering politics", I cannot agree with the rest of the sentence. He became very wealthy by selling overpriced computers to the Police and the Army, and then by obtaining a monopoly for satellite communications and sale of mobile phones at elevated prices. That was all robbing the Thai people. Unfortunately, as often seems to happen with the very rich, they can then never have enough, so Thaksin needed to continue to "rob the Thai people" to try to increase his already considerable wealth.

I believe that, if you go right back to the original press articles, they searched her bag where they found the e-cigarette, and also the cash. I am not sure where the idea that her boyfriend paid came from. I believe she had Bt 27,000 in cash, hence the amount requested. That is from memory, but I think you will find it is correct.

Doesn't seem that you were looking very hard when you report that "because he was .... talking on the phone", in common with many other posts. If you take the trouble to read the article from the Manchester Evening News you will find that he had stopped talking on the phone, but it was still connected in his pocket.

I was taught to drive over 50 years ago, and was taught something that does not appear to be understood in many places, Thailand and Australia included. That was that, regardless of any posted speed limit, you should not drive at a speed that means that you cannot stop within the distance you can see. It really is common sense. That includes round corners, over the brows of hills, past vehicles, and at night. Noting that the drivers of these 18 wheel trucks do not normally race into a U-turn, it would seem likely that the BMW driver could not stop within the distance that he could see.

Again not reading properly. The statement was "The arrest concerns complaints received and investigated upon by the authorities that millions of baht went missing from a 1.1 billion baht Groundwater Resource Management fund back in January 2018." So 1.1 billion baht was the sum "available", but there were complaints that "millions of baht went missing". As far as I am aware, complaints do not constitute evidence, and in any case this is only talking about 450,000 baht.

Maybe it is you who should read the story! "But the reality was that the three who had been paid 450,000 baht in total had arrived in Thailand in February 2017 and left the same month."

Nobody seems to have commented that the sums seem rather small. In simple round terms about $5,000 each. If they arrived in February 2018 and left the same month that would not be a lot for wages including air fares and accomodation. There doesn't seem to me to be any indication of anything out of the ordinary. Cannot comment on the "fees" of Bt 30,000 to Bt 40,000 for a webinar, but how do you produce evidence that it never took place. Remember, it is not hard to prove that you have been to Bangkok, but almost impossible to prove that you have never been to Bangkok (or anywhere else).

Obviously health conditions may not be visible, which is why disabled car parking permits are visible.

If you read the article to the end you will note that they were still in the process of putting out the cones. I am not aware of any cones which position themselves in the road when required.

As with many of the other posts, this seems to miss the point. Nobody is suggesting the John has a "Go Fund Me" page. He is in an ICU on a ventilator, and probably knows nothing about this, or the rate at which his bills are mounting up, and is powerless to do anything about it anyway. His family in UK are the ones footing the bill, and presumably trying the GFM option.

Duty free shops at international airports are basically for departing passengers, and not for immediate consumption. Is that so hard to understand?