wandasloan

The fact is acknowledged that the plane flew over the Thailand south and it either wasn't picked up by miitary radar or they picked it up and didn't report, "because nobody asked" while their allies were using very expensive assets to search in the Thai backyard.

At least when the Thai military finally responded, it was with facts, none of which are contained in the above.

The flight never passed over Thailand. (That's why no one paid it much attention at the time; it wasn't relevant until later half a day later, when the Malaysians stopped their own delaying tactic.)

The flight was picked up on military radar and reported. (It wasn't relevant, but the contacts and report were filed, as with all radar. Because they are filed, they can be retrieved later and not depend on some person saying, "Oh, wait, let me think, yeah, maybe, I'm not sure but I possibly might have seen that" along the lines of a TV "report".)

Because it was picked up, and because it was reported, the military could go back, retrieve the "pickup" and the report, and pass it along.

THAT is what is acknowledged.

The part not acknowledged by pooyai is that this retrieval and passing-on of the sighting was late, perhaps careless, possibly lazy and definitely a controversial response.

.

Here are the facts, gents.

Forget Pattaya...that is just a sex circus town ...and athough it started as a r and r for American Soldiers,

No it didn't. This is not a fact. American soldiers from Vietnam did not go to Pattaya for R&R. THAT is a fact.

.

Poll does not suit your agenda? Ignore it. Call it stupid.

Fair enough.

So what would you call a poll which shows that 89 per cent of Thais nationwide "want (Yingluck) to meddle in court cases or abuse her power" while even more, 91 per cent, do not want her to work in the public image. It should not be ignored, and it is not stupid. So what is it?

.

You say it's highly disrespectful to bother the Monarchy when he made a stupid error, so how do you then justify every other person that has made an appeal to the Monarchy for their "stupid errors" such as murder, rape, drugs, lese majeste etc etc?

Every one of them EVERY one of them has been to trial, found guilty, been sentenced to prison, has gone to prison. Every one of them. Of course Mr Satish has not. His case is not serious enough even to take up the time of a judge. That is the LAW, and of course Mr Abhisit was as carefully attentive to this law as is Ms Yingluck, having deported foreigners in 2010 who had the temerity to make speeches on the red shirt stage.

Every Thai and every foreigner in prison on Thailand has the constitutional right to petition for amnesty or even a pardon, and probably most of them do, at least the ones in for serious crimes as you list. Mr Satish actually, by law, does not have this same right, specifically because he has not been sentenced and served time. In order to get the same right, he would have to undergo deportation, and try to convince legal authorities he has the right to do this from India. Of course he could plead guilty to various legal offences, go to prison and then appeal too.

Mr Satish is no come-lately tourist rabble rouser, but he IS a rabble rouser. It's against the law for foreigners to be one. Legally, he's history and no, by YOUR standards, he has no right to "appeal" (quite the wrong word you've chosen) to the Monarchy (quite the wrong word again). He only has this right AFTER his punishment has commenced and all (irony alert) appeals have ended.

The above is not just a good idea, it's the law.

.

was here at the last coup....no problem with martial law.

They removed the censorship on the internet....That was the only difference...

I do not understand why people continue to write this. It is the opposite of true. It could not be more wrong.

The day after the 2006 coup, the fifth official order by the new military junta specified that internet censorship would be continued. It intimated strongly (and proved to be correct later) that internet censorship would be strengthened and widened. It appointed an "official censor of the military junta" to ensure this.

Before the coup, censorship was comparatively mild, given what was in store, unless you were running a website with pornography, especially about "Thai girls". Betting sites, particularly in the UK were blocked. Clearly anti-monarchy sites were blocked. There was almost - almost - no political censorship.

Since then, just as General Sonthi Booyaratglin so clearly hinted, internet censorship has got progressively worse. I guess we could say the coup instigated a new, expanded round of censorship that still has not peaked.

You cannot be more wrong than that in the claim the military "removed the censorship on the internet".

All of the above and more is covered extremely well by the always interesting FACT (Freedom Against Censorship Thailand) in a post made exactly four months after the coup, "Thai website censorship jumps by more than 500% since coup!". It is available (irony alert!) and uncensored as I write at http://goo.gl/n2uHWi

.

I notice the respectable international Japanese and South Korean tv channels I watch were not running this story last night.

That's because the story was carried Dec 23 by Wen Wei Po, and Dec 24 by many, many others.

Posts containing links to Bangkok Post have been removed.

There were no links to the Bangkok Post in my post. There was a photo of the publicly available hard-copy, printed newspaper in my post. It showed that the Bangkok Post NEVER called this person Mister or he or him. And never has.

It said that while I have no idea why Aum Neko made her Facebook post, it is the policy, the unswerving policy of the Bangkok Post to refer to her and other transgender people -- unless one should request otherwise, which never has happened so far -- as "she", "her" and "Ms". The very story that Aum Neko linked proved that, and I posted the photo of the original, printed newspaper to back it up.

Contrary to the ridiculous, paranoid comment of a TV poster, the Bangkok Post changed *nothing* about the Aum Neko story, in print or online, at any time after initial publication.

Note that this post ALSO has no links to the Bangkok Post. But like Aum Neko and the paranoid poster, you can say whatever you want about it, truthfully or otherwise. You cannot, however, change the facts it contains.

.

This might come as a surprise to all the people in his constituency that voted for him! Look, if you don't like the system of parliamentary democracy, what do you suggest?

It would come as a surprise to know that Mr Abhisit was elected in a constituency.

.