cocopops

Adventure sports are for people who live in the fast lane. Most of us don't play golf. We tend to live on the edge. And while we all say we want safety, what we really want is an element of danger. And sometimes we fall off that edge. “Live fast, die young and leave a good-looking corpse!”

Ziplining is not an adventure sport. It is an amusement park ride, nothing more. It offers the impression of danger, just as does a roller coaster or as a haunted house ride offers the impression of ghosts.

You seem to think that there is an acceptable death rate for ziplining and think that since it doesn't happen in Thailand often, that proves they are OK. No, this isn't OK, and this death was preventable.

I don't think ANY death is acceptable. How dare you suggest otherwise? The fact that it does occur is just that; fact. Please don't confuse your emotional response to the situation as anyone else's acceptance. You are hardly in any position to know what someone else thinks or feels.

Usually, when engaged in dialog, we assume that the other party's statements are reflective of how they think or feel with respect to the subject matter at hand. The alternative is to accuse them of lying or ineloquence. So you see when you say "what we really want is an element of danger", and then follow it up with "Live fast, die young and leave a good-looking corpse!” - a quote that for most people invokes the short and tragic life of James Dean - it is entirely reasonable to assume that you see "an acceptable death rate for ziplining".

If you have been misunderstood, then by all means correct that misunderstanding. But chastising other posters for interpreting your posts in the most straightforward way possible is ridiculous.

Given that they are being impeached for (amongst other things) using dubious methods to avoid an opposition filibuster, this does seem an apt reponse. I doubt the PTB will see it that way though.

"E" isn't particularly dangerous, addictive or destructive. Most truly civilized countries wouldn't be too concerned with this crime.

Well, there is evidence to say that it's neurotoxic, so some caution is advised.

Doesn't change your point though - it's not something that criminal law should be concerned with.

Less than $20 million USD? Why are we all pretending this is a significant amount of money?

Less than $20 million US? Pocket change.

This is surely not even the tiniest fraction of the cost of shutting down virtually all air traffic in and out of Thailand for however long it was (2 weeks?).

But this is coming from a country which also tramples on the rights of its own citizens, invades other countries on the flimsiest of excuses, detains citizens of other countries without trial and those persons only defenders are appointed by the the US military. Some of those people have been arrested in countries other than the USA and many of them have been awaiting trial for years.

It regularly sends drones to kill people in other countries and worries little if anything about "collateral damage" to that countries citizens.

Civilians in the USA are regularly killed by the police forces within the USA.

It supports freedom of speech but when it comes to Wikileaks it wants to prosecute to the nth degree those people that expose the truth.

It supports dictatorial regimes in some parts of the world.

When you live in a glass house it is not always a good idea to throw stones.

All of those things are sort of subjectively true. But note also that it is due to the work of other American institutions, both within and outside of the government, that you know this. Because of the broad American committment to fairness and reason, we are free to discuss such things and would be even within the United States itself. As a result real information, however unattractive it may be, is usually available. Concerned citizens like billd766, informed by this information, may agitate for change in either policy or leadership without fear of retribution from on high, and like-minded officials are largely free to join them. The ballot box ensures that in the long term they must be listened to.

Democratic systems are not perfect. Consider that well and truly proven. But they are self-correcting and capable of autonomous improvement. Which is a huge improvement over the alternative.

InvadeIT is the correct way to obtain computers and related items in Thailand.

The North-European guy who runs it - Thomas I *think* - is really helpful via email or phone too.

Obviously we all give our kids the best we can afford. Should go without saying.

That aside, it astonishes me that so many posts are based on the assumption that the average Thai life is not worth living. That even the remotest chance of it should be considered too great a risk to impose on an unborn child.

It would be fair to assume that his agreeing to reenact is an admission of guilt. The Thai reenact an police photo op is a preposterous circus. It's clear that they are merely after this guys money.

I think this is actually one of the few times we can be absolutely certain that the police in question are not trying to extort anything from the guy...

I feel sure that she was not a member of any legal state militia.

People also seem to ignore that the constitution's right to bear arms includes the phrase "well regulated" in it's reasoning. How about imposing some good regulations, then?

This phrase is from its era and has been settled many times by the US Supreme Count, going back to the beginning. It's pointless to debate it, but you are to be congratulated for being the 7 billionth person on earth to (erroneously) ask the question. You've won a prize of one bottle of Chang. (Empty bottle, LOL.)

Recently, Washington DC got its hands slapped by the Supreme Court for making it difficult for citizens to own guns.

The Oxford English Dictionary of 1709 says: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.” Well regulated was a common term and militia didn't mean the military.

You will be considered to be correct in your presumption when the US Supreme Court changes its tune and agrees with you. Meaning not in your lifetime, LOL.

Cheers.

I know the difference between militia and military.

I wonder if you have succumbed to urban myth? The first Oxford English Dictionary came out in 1884, so your reference to it's 1709 definition of "well-regulated" (sic), (which may be different to "well regulated"), is false.

1709 was the year Samuel Johnson, creator of the first modern dictionary for the English language, was born though.

I learned that from QI.

In this country it won't do you any good to "catch the culprit". You won't get through to the owner and you may actually make a dangerous enemy.

As the poster above suggested. Research different chemicals or powers such as some kind of chili powder you can pour or spread around so they quickly learn to find another place to do their thing.

http://pets.thenest.com/smells-repel-dogs-6274.html

In which country would that kind of confrontation be productive?

Just make the mimimum changes required to correct the English in the simple version. Avoid adding any complexity or new ideas to it.

Two individuals agree to a transaction of their own free will. One give the other a lottery ticket, the other hands over 90B. As a result the government demands that the vendor forfeit 10,000B or else.

Of the three players in our little pantomime, which are acting unethically?

The headline says something different, and I'm sure there are some who will find ways to distort the image, but I frankly can think of few things within this human experience of ours more wholesome and pure than young couples "kissing and hugging" in a park.

The most important thing IMHO is to reform the police before the next election so they are not under such tight political control and answer to some kind of ombudsman, not a politician. During the protests, they were like Pheu-Thai's private army.

If the Junta don't do it, the next government definitely will not. They are a very useful tool to have against opponents

While the RTP does need to undergo reform in many areas, it is incorrect to suggest they were puppets of PTP during the protests. Given the abject and miserable failure of the military to bprovide any security, the RTP was the legitimate arm of the government....that's appropriate in a democracy, although some, like the sleazy monk, believe it is the right of vagabonds, ruffians, thugs and hooligans to challenge, threaten and even interrogate under torture representatives of that arm of the elected govt.

Correct. Khun Suthep spent his first month on stage screaming that the police were the enemy of the people, all but guaranteeing that any attempt to manage the crowd using the police would lead to violence. For this reason they played little or no role in the entire saga, regardless of where their loyalties may have lain.

Disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

One thing I love about the convictions though, he was convicted without being present. How can you have a trial like that?

It's called trial in abstention and is used in almost every legal system throughout the world.

Note that in that particular instance he was convicted based on evidence that his legal team was not allowed to hear. Which is less common.

Silly me. I thought that Thaksin and his lawyers were present throughout the trial which would mean that they must have heard what was going on.

Do you have any link that says they were not present at the trial?

They were present at the trial. They were not allowed to hear or answer testimony from Pridiyathorn Devakula, then governor of the BOT. His testimony is significant as, on paper, it was him and not the Prime Minister who was the one with ultimate jurisdiction over the FIDF.

If you're trying to figure out what happened, maybe start with the pages linked from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potjaman_Na_Pombejra#Ratchadaphisek_land_purchase_controversy

Folks will make their own minds up I guess. Some more quickly than others.

Note that in that particular instance he was convicted based on evidence that his legal team was not allowed to hear. Which is less common.

Since the trial had been able to start with Thaksin present to hear and acknowledge charges and answer 'not guilty', it didn't matter that Thaksin jumped bail, or that a few of his lawyers were sentenced to six month jail time for 'contempt of court' in relation to lunchboxes. The court could continue, a new Thaksin legal team was present, they did whatever a legal team does and Thaksin was convicted, sentenced. His legal team could file appeal within one month, but didn't.

Now as to 'evidence not allowed to hear' please tell me some more. Iseem to have forgotten what that was about.

The evidence was given by Pridiyathorn Devakula.

Tell me more, especially tell me about the reasoning the court gave in their verdict and how that relates to information no one has seen or heard of?

Start with Wikipedia entries on the convict and his then wife? Then use the search terms you find there with Google?

I have no information apart from what I can find using those two sources. It seems likely that the secret evidence was what established that there really was a direct supervisory relationship between the accused and the government department from which his spouse purchased land at auction. Given that both the law and the public testimony of all concerned said so.

Also of interest is that nobody, but nobody (!!), alleges that the land was purchased under price. Or that the buyer gained any advantage whatsoever from her relationship with the former politician.

IMO it is possible to confidently say that there is at least one great crime in the fugitive's history, and a number of instances where the spirit of the law was quite brazenly violated. But everything I've read suggests that this wasn't that. This was nothing more than a technical legal error.

One thing I love about the convictions though, he was convicted without being present. How can you have a trial like that?

It's called trial in abstention and is used in almost every legal system throughout the world.

Note that in that particular instance he was convicted based on evidence that his legal team was not allowed to hear. Which is less common.

Since the trial had been able to start with Thaksin present to hear and acknowledge charges and answer 'not guilty', it didn't matter that Thaksin jumped bail, or that a few of his lawyers were sentenced to six month jail time for 'contempt of court' in relation to lunchboxes. The court could continue, a new Thaksin legal team was present, they did whatever a legal team does and Thaksin was convicted, sentenced. His legal team could file appeal within one month, but didn't.

Now as to 'evidence not allowed to hear' please tell me some more. Iseem to have forgotten what that was about.

The evidence was given by Pridiyathorn Devakula.

One thing I love about the convictions though, he was convicted without being present. How can you have a trial like that?

It's called trial in abstention and is used in almost every legal system throughout the world.

Note that in that particular instance he was convicted based on evidence that his legal team was not allowed to hear. Which is less common.

Covering his back. This guy's not stupid.

Regardless of your political views, Thaksin has been convicted of a crime, jumped bail and became a fugitive and has 15 serious court cases outstanding. The DSI now are after charging him with LM, which is considered gravely serious here. He also appeared on video links encouraging supporters to break laws.

<deleted> how many more coppers here have committed crimes but allowed to keep their rank, been transferred or just told off?

Next he'll try sending it back because they used the wrong colored ink or wrong weight of paper.

Maybe he should be allowed to retire early. A career as a stock broker and financial wizard could be waiting.

It's true that he was convicted. Details here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potjaman_Na_Pombejra#Ratchadaphisek_land_purchase_controversy

It really doesn't sound like she is in a good place either.

Consider that you and your wife might both need the same thing - a couple of mates to hang out with.

If that's the case, then perhaps it's fixable. And perhaps she will see it that way too. Although you may have to move somewhere that has others in your demographic to do so.

How wealthy is the guy? Building a single house worth half a million dollars over 13 years does not, in and of itself, seem extraordinary.

We may not like them, but anybody who becomes deputy leader of a major political party must have, to say the least, some people-skills. There's no reason to believe he wouldn't have made some savvy business decisions over the years.

On the surface, other circumstances mentioned in this thread seem much more worthy of investigation.

Seems like you missed the point : I'll explain it in simple terms for you:

He deliberately hid this house from his declared assets and cannot explain where the money came from to buy it.

That he could not explain how he paid for his house to the satisfaction of the NACC I understood. But thanks for the confirmation in simple terms.

But I would still like to know how wealthy he is, and how wealthy you need to be to be convicted of possessing unusual wealth.

Owning a $500,000 house is hardly an exceptional thing - it's probably true of 1 in 5 people who pass through Suvarnibhumi on any given day. Since that on it's own could not possibly have attracted attention, there must be a lot more, no? Where could one find out about that?

How wealthy is the guy? Building a single house worth half a million dollars over 13 years does not, in and of itself, seem extraordinary.

We may not like them, but anybody who becomes deputy leader of a major political party must have, to say the least, some people-skills. There's no reason to believe he wouldn't have made some savvy business decisions over the years.

On the surface, other circumstances mentioned in this thread seem much more worthy of investigation.

Wall Street Journal:

Hungary's Challenge to European Values

This is really quite interesting. Maybe the other 'Friends of Thailand' share similar views?

It is perhaps also quite telling that no SE Asian nations make up this dream team of nations.

Hungary is a curious one. All those other countries[1] are known for selling their UN votes or passports, registering dodgy seagoing vessels, helping dubious characters hide their money etc. Stuff you can do if you're technically a country.

Nauru made a few bucks allowing Australia to use its territory to dodge UN treaty obligations not that long ago for example. Taiwan used to pay at least a few of these places for diplomatic recognition before China outbid them. It would be interesting to know what Thailand is giving them in return.

This is pretty embarressing really. Especially for Hungary.

[1] the subset I know anything about, anyway.

Interesting how "competition" is seen as such a high value.

What does "competition" bring ???

Greater efficiency.

The role of government policy should be to redirect a part of that efficiency dividend produced by competition back to the people in general. Not to create environments in which inefficient operations thrive.