kimamey

I wasn't suggesting it would make any difference, or that most Thais probably won't protest. I was merely pointing out that some do protest and are willing to risk a prison sentence or go on hunger strike which sadly resulted in death. Quite a few died in 2010 during the Red Shirt protests as well, regardless of whether their protest was justified or not.

Thanks, I'll try that explanation. It might work.

I'm a bit confused. When this digital wallet was proposed at the last election it seemed as if it might be a good idea in principle, although I wasn't sure how much effect it would have. I was a bit surprised after the election to find that not only was there no money for it but seemingly no plan on how to fund it. The election was in May last year, and presumably the proposal was put forward some time before that. Well over a year later the only thing achieved is subcommittees, which Thai politicians can create endlessly very quickly, but little else. I can see Thaksin's reasons against it, although surely the fact the economy is struggling is why it was thought it was needed in the first place. But let's go with him on this, it's a bad idea and it should be dropped, which it most likely will be as he's the de facto leader of PT. De facto leaders seem very popular in Thailand right now. Since Thaksin was the de facto leader before, during and after the election, who came up with the idea for the digital wallet, and how come he didn't stop it at that time?

My wife is in civil government and has hated Thaksin for years but she did support MFP.

Not all of them have. Let's hope enough do at the next election.

I hope you're right but they said the last coup would never happen. The watermelon army they said. Green on the outside but red inside.

They'd just market it as an Expedia Experience. Immerse yourself in a real life coup. Pick your side. Select your weapon. Feel the adrenalin. I'm wasted here aren't I.

What's Frank got to do with all this?

Give me a break. I'm trying my best.

He may well still disappear, as Yingluck did.

Always worth having a butcher's at Wikipedia if you want to know something.

My wife has always hated him.

Were you and your wife looking at a possible prison sentence in an elite police hospital? No? Then you didn't have what he has. It's all in the details.

Not all of them by any means.

It probably does. Whether it's good or bad is another matter.

I think that often happens here.

I think that's a bit unfair. There are some who have protested and are in prison. I think one girl died as well.

There are Finnair flights to Heathrow via Helsinki, so that's not unusual. If he normally keeps in touch but hasn't this time then that's more of a problem. It looks like an issue for the police, mainly in Finland.

In one sense you're right, Thailand can do what it wants. The US, and any other country for that matter, can do what they want as well. If that negatively effects diplomatic engagement and trade with Thailand then that may not be so good for Thailand. But that is Thailand's decision to make.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't know all the details but it looks to me from the little I know that the Terrorism Act 2000 may well apply. Had he abided by the judgement regarding the video and repeating claims made in it which were deemed false then there probably wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately he doesn't seem to like doing that so the police have to act. Keep in mind that the police don't make the rules, they just have to use the rules they have but they can't use them if they clearly don't apply. I hope I'm not breaking any rules by posting this next section. (1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where— (a)the action falls within subsection (2), (b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and (c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause. (2)Action falls within this subsection if it— (a)involves serious violence against a person, (b)involves serious damage to property, (c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or (e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. My guess would be that they might be using using section 1 and in section 2 (d) possibly (c) From what I can see Robinson tries to inflame anger against Muslims. Clearly some are violent and dangerous people, but then so are some Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists etc. He doesn't seem so concerned about them.

He showed a film he was ordered not to by a British court. The film makes allegations about the schoolboy Jamal Hijazi which the court deemed false. That in itself wouldn't be so much of a problem if it weren't for threats made to Jamal Hijazi and his family which necessitated them moving house. I think the use of anti terror laws is based on the fact that what Robinson does and says can cause acts and threats of violence even if he isn't involved himself. The recent case of Anjem Choudary is based on what he said rather than what he did. The anti terror laws allow police greater scope to demand answers I believe. Of course this is just what I've read as I'm not involved. Tommy Robinson is an interesting person. Why call yourself Tommy Robinson when your name is Stephen Yaxley Lennon? Is it so he doesn't seem upper class. He's used other names as well. He also made a lot of money from his activities although I think that has reduced. He seems to have been involved in football violence as well.

Yes it could have a big impact on the driver even if it wasn't her fault. I was hit from behind when I was stopped in a queue of traffic in November 1994. Apart from back problems and the possibility I will suffer from arthritis early than normal it did affect my driving for some time afterwards. Whenever I slowed down to stop at the end of a queue or at traffic lights, I spent more time than normal checking my mirror to see if the vehicles behind me were going to stop.

I seem to remember it was Charlerm who made a statement saying that the army and it's leaders wouldn't be put on trial for the deaths during the Red Shirt protests as the army was only following orders. Which they weren't. Little chance any of these will ever be held accountable for any of their misdeeds.

It looks like a question to me, rather than a statement. I'm not sure it was serious either.

Who are they praying to? That would seem very like a religion to me. From what I've seen they are happy to kill something, or get someone else to do it, as long as it's so they can eat it. If it's to prevent suffering then they aren't so keen. Maybe it's because hunger affects them but the suffering doesn't. I've not had to contend with a sick pet that needs to be put down thankfully. You can see why many on here would be anti Buddhism, or at least the way way it's observed here particularly if they find themselves in the distressing position of wanting to help their pet but can't.