jayboy

Yes, it only took the Italians 10 years to get rid of Silvio Berlusconi. The old Shin clan will go the same way.

Yes it's all about the Shins.Yawn

Did you notice the topic title ?

Somehow the antics of the Shin's seem like a repeat of Peron and his wife 50 years ago.

Argentina once among the most advanced and prosperous countries slid into mediocrity and failure.The Perons were a symptom of the political failure that led to this economic regression but not the cause.

Similarly Thailand has bitter social divisions and an unreformed unelected elite.You could blame Thaksin and Yingluck for this but you would not only be wrong you would be fatuous.

Still it's hardly a surprise when the simple minded come up with trite simple minded explanations.

Call an election any time you like and she will walk it, which is why they won't until they have rigged the deck. There is no way I would like her back in power, but it should about what the majority want, not just me.

Try providing viable political alternatives if you don't like them instead of just seizing power in a sulk.

The figures are of course nonsense.Call an election tomorrow without interference from the military, conduct it transparently with credible local and international observers.Hypothetically place Yingluck as head of the PTP and Abhisit as head of the Democrats.I can assure all - the perceptive know it already - that the result will not be level pegging.

The old order is unravelling before our eyes and there's a wind of change blowing in Thailand.It may take some time but the final outcome is inevitable.

Yes, it only took the Italians 10 years to get rid of Silvio Berlusconi. The old Shin clan will go the same way.

Yes it's all about the Shins.Yawn

Call an election any time you like and she will walk it, which is why they won't until they have rigged the deck. There is no way I would like her back in power, but it should about what the majority want, not just me.

Try providing viable political alternatives if you don't like them instead of just seizing power in a sulk.

The figures are of course nonsense.Call an election tomorrow without interference from the military, conduct it transparently with credible local and international observers.Hypothetically place Yingluck as head of the PTP and Abhisit as head of the Democrats.I can assure all - the perceptive know it already - that the result will not be level pegging.

The old order is unravelling before our eyes and there's a wind of change blowing in Thailand.It may take some time but the final outcome is inevitable.

there's a wind of change blowing in Thailand

we can hope, but honestly, if I decide to hold my breath for that, I suspect that it'll be for (more than) a few years ...

You are probably right but there can be no argument about the eventual outcome by which I mean the ability of the Thai people to determine for themselves who should be their representatives.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Was there any doubt about it.

Ordinarily, you would have raised a great deal of doubt over it.

That is your typical response in other poll threads.

But. somehow, with this poll thread, you've changed your tune completely.

Why do you differ now so much from your own earlier poll thread posts?

Such as:

North Korean polls also show a high support for it's leader, are we also to believe those poll?

Or, in a different poll thread:

These polls mean nothing.

It's interesting how someone who just join knows about post I made a month before he join Thaivisa. Or did you spend a day or two looking through all my post or better yet your have past experience here before you were suspended and reincarnated yourself.

Nice attempt at deflection.

This poll means nothing, right?

It means exactly what all such polls mean.But if an election was held under fair conditions the result would be a landslide for Yingluck.Awkward for you I know.

Call an election any time you like and she will walk it, which is why they won't until they have rigged the deck. There is no way I would like her back in power, but it should about what the majority want, not just me.

Try providing viable political alternatives if you don't like them instead of just seizing power in a sulk.

The figures are of course nonsense.Call an election tomorrow without interference from the military, conduct it transparently with credible local and international observers.Hypothetically place Yingluck as head of the PTP and Abhisit as head of the Democrats.I can assure all - the perceptive know it already - that the result will not be level pegging.

The old order is unravelling before our eyes and there's a wind of change blowing in Thailand.It may take some time but the final outcome is inevitable.

A very dispiriting thread in which a number of people - perhapd blinded by their political prejudices - have clearly lost sight of the troubling environment for human rights in Thailand.

One person who seems to understand the issues very well is the British Ambassador, Mark Kent.It's very pleasing to have British representation of this calibre in Thailand.

http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/markkent/2014/12/12/real-rights-for-real-people/

Wonder if he will hop over the border and give Kim Jong Un some tips.

LOL Why not. Seems Thailand is "cozzying" up to Russia and China. Might also include N. Korea into the "inner circle."

I wonder if the PM will wonder how it is that S. Korea has made such gigantic steps - in so many ways - in a relatively short time. Compare that to Thailand and conclude what?

Conclude that the South Koreans' willingness to bitch slap down an uppity military that continually interfered in politics to its functional and relatively lowly place under civilian direction and control may not have been South Korea's worst decision.Still South Korea is a nation that has pride in its image and has abandoned primitive habits.

Yu'p ZERO huh? then go and see what is happening to all the people wearing "shut down BKK" t-shirts, NOTHING!!!

Sorry mate those T-shirts are very much a political statement, so are they being confiscated? No'p, the people being arrested and re-educated? No'p

Ya seeing what so many here are seeing yet? bias on a massive scale and one sided application of the laws is a joke.

Ya can't have it both ways man, you support a no politics law, then it has to go both ways mate. that would be a fair go yeah.

Sorry, I missed where they're selling "shut down Bangkok" t-shirts.

Ok lets put it this way, if there was a person walking in the street wearing a "shut down BKK t-shirt and a person wearing a cartoon of a square face male t-shirt, who do you think will have the problem? Now do you see that one side of the people are being censored and the other let to do as they wish.

So it is very far from being "ZERO" isn't it.

You're right. It's not quite zero. But I've seen people wearing red shirts without being dragged away by the police, so I don't know where you're getting the "one side being censored ..." stuff. You're trying to compare people wearing "shut down ..." t-shirts with people SELLING Thaksin jam.

Beyond belief - the lengths some people will go to to justify heavy handed brute force.Not even the tiniest reservations about what is happening in Thailand these days? Even a teen weeny bit? No, not from this guy.

Leaving the foreign quisling element to the margin where they belong, one is much more encouraged at Thai civil sociey and initial supporters of the military intervention.It seems a real debate is at last taking place.

... ...

Turning to Thailand that is why Khun Yingluck had moral standing after a healthy electoral mandate and Khun Abhisit after the corrupt/grimy backdoor dealing really had very little.I know this reality is unwelcome to some but it's no more than the simple truth.The way to unearth these people is to watch for their spouting ignorant nonsense about MPs electing the PM.

With Abhisit 'favoured' by the Military in December 2008 and Ms. Yingluck selected by her brother, I'm really surprised you mention 'moral standing'.

Anyway we were discussion the pro and cons of letting the electorate elect a PM directly. Personally I think that IF that would be done, a lot of the rules and regulations on parliament, right/duties of MP, PM, cabinet members and lots of other things would need to be amended as well to make things fit.

As it is the PM as elected MP can vote in parliament, a voter elected PM could not. MPs selected by the PM for his/her cabinet can vote in parliament unless they relinquish their seat (or unless there's a case of 'conflict of interest'). If a PM is voter elected (s)he must also be able to select the cabinet otherwise the PM position would be hollow. A cabinet directly elected could created traumatic situations (in principle) and is therefor to be avoided.

Conclusion seems to be the continue with the cureent system, but maybe add some extra checks and balances. Strictly speaking with 'democratic' minded MPs extra measures may not be necessary.

Don't faint but I agree with all of that and I take your point on the Yingluck issue.I was really just trying to make out that there is a legitimacy for a leader that comes from national electoral endorsement.

The other point relates to the basic error - not yours I appreciate - that a PM is elected by MPs in the Westminster parliamentary system.I have pointed out this mistake a couple times.

You seem to completely misunderstand the Westminster system.It is based on political parties.After a general election the leader of the party with the largest number of MPs seeks to form a majority in the House of Commons.If he can do so he seeks the monarch's permission to form a government either with MPs of his own party only or if necessary in a coalition with another party/parties.The monarch's role is symbolic but crucial - he/she must appoint as PM the person most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons.The Prime Minister contrary to your schoolboy howler is not elected by MPs.He is however elected by members of his party prior to the election:the party members may or not be MPs - it depends on the rules of the political party concerned.Once a PM has formed a government he needs to ensure he can carry a majority in the House of Commons.

<snip>

That is a complete crock of sh11.

The PM IS elected by a majority the MPs. That's how the head of state knows that he can carry a majority of support in government.

It just happens that he is most often the leader of the party (elected by the party members) with the most MPs in parliament. But that could change during the term of the parliament (example Rudd and Gillard in Aus) and where defections lead to governments losing their majority support.

And it isn't necessarily the the party with the largest number of MPs that gets to form government. Look at many Australian Liberal governments for examples of that, and even a recent UK election.

And obviously Abhisit being elected PM is a perfect example of how wrong you are. Regardless of how his coalition was formed, he was elected PM in parliament by a majority of MPs.

I can't believe a condescending know-it-all such as yourself can make such a basic mistake.

I knew you would react badly to cold hard true facts which don't fit in with your narrative.

You are however utterly mistaken.Under the Westminster model the PM is not elected by MPs.The system is precisely as I describe it.Shall I repeat that for you since you keep repeating your folly? The PM under the Westminster model is NOT elected by MPs.

You are therefore also incorrect on the monarch's role.There is no election by MPs before the PM is invited to form a government and the monarch thus has a certain amount of discretion.An example was in 1964 where the monarch asked Sir Alec Douglas Home (there were others she could have asked) to form a government.In practice the monarch will ask the party leader with the most seats

Of course the PM needs to retain House of Commons support.If he can't - defections etc - he needs to call an election or hand over to someone who can keep the support of the House.In the latter event a general election is needed before long for reasons explained in my last post.

Obviously your objective is to give Abhisit some legitimacy given the grimy and corrupt way he was propelled to office.Save your breath.I know the parliamentary system a great deal better than you and I'm aware his assumption of office was legitimate - even though unlike Yingluck the Thai people have never electorally placed their confidence in him.The contrast between his shady manoeverings and Yingluck's clear legitimacy (moral and political) is obviously what has prompted your ignorant and incoherent post.

And just who is to say any given person would not be corrupted by power? This an incredibly stupid statement by someone who is already drunk with power. Mr. Abhisit - this is why a country's constitution is carefully crafted to create a balance of power between the various branches of the government to keep each one in check. Without the government being directly elected by the people you DO NOT have Democracy.

He is not saying that the government should not be directly elected by the people. He is saying the PM should not be directly elected.

With the system at the moment (Westminster, used in UK, Aus, NZ-I think), the people directly elect MPs and then the MPs elect the PM. What is being suggested, and what Abhisit doesn't agree with, is that the people directly elect the PM - similar to how the US President is elected (except the use the collegiate system which screws that up).

You seem to completely misunderstand the Westminster system.It is based on political parties.After a general election the leader of the party with the largest number of MPs seeks to form a majority in the House of Commons.If he can do so he seeks the monarch's permission to form a government either with MPs of his own party only or if necessary in a coalition with another party/parties.The monarch's role is symbolic but crucial - he/she must appoint as PM the person most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons.The Prime Minister contrary to your schoolboy howler is not elected by MPs.He is however elected by members of his party prior to the election:the party members may or not be MPs - it depends on the rules of the political party concerned.Once a PM has formed a government he needs to ensure he can carry a majority in the House of Commons.

I agree with Khun Abhisit's objection.There is however a practical sense in which the PM is in fact directly elected.By this I mean that he presents himself a a Prime Ministerial figure in the campaign before a general election (because he is party leader).The electorate knows that if it chooses that particular party its leader will be PM.That is an extremely important consideration in the voters' minds.Furthermore it gives the PM a legitimacy given that the electorate have endorsed him.Thus in the circumstances when a PM takes office (eg the resignation or death of an incumbent) without such direct electoral endorsement there is a need to recharge the mandate by calling another general election - even if he can still command a majority in the House of Commons.To be clear this recharging of the mandate is not a constitutional necessity but a practical requirement as to delay unduly sees political influence drain away.

Turning to Thailand that is why Khun Yingluck had moral standing after a healthy electoral mandate and Khun Abhisit after the corrupt/grimy backdoor dealing really had very little.I know this reality is unwelcome to some but it's no more than the simple truth.The way to unearth these people is to watch for their spouting ignorant nonsense about MPs electing the PM.

You contradict yourself.

"Dear Rubl, I am sure the guy isn't innocent. What this does show is that the guy is quite a bit smarter as the people who confiscated his goods and destroyed his stall."

"Again, if selling jam with a square faced guy is provocative to the junta, Pichit is guilty."

So, Pichit was expressly provoking the current government while the Nation is still under Martial Law. Under such law guilty, but still lucky, not charged.

Where exactly do I contradict myself ? You must have missed the part "if selling jam with a square faced guy is provocative".

I do not deem this provocative, and I am sure most sane people wouldn't either, which again speaks volumes about the Junta.

But of course we already know that if the Junta is concerned, you don't apply common sense and are trying to deflect the matter.

Oh come on Sjakie. You said "I am sure the guy isn't innocent". That would mean whatever he did he did on purpose or what he did was against the law, or both.

So, if football supporters provoke the police and end up not being able to watch the game, you would be the first to decry the lack of common sense ?

It's not a matter of applying common sense with some people.It's a slavish adherence which precludes any criticism even when as this case (though not frankly of much significance) there has been grotesque overreaction.

It's not a loss of face to argue the coup was necessary (if that's your view) but argue that the government and its agencies should think about doing some things differently.This blockheadedness seems a particularly foreign phenonomen.Well educated Thais supportive of this government are much more interesting and nuanced.Rather to my surprise there have been some excellent articles in the BP and The Nation in which well thought out criticisms have been made from parties who are sympathetic to the military government.Not exactly buyers' remorse (yet) but a definite sense of an administration unravelling and absurdly over sensitive.

But from our resident quisling group of foreigners nothing like this at all.As the Book of Proverbs puts it:

"As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly".

You're right.

Still if we keep asking the NCPO to do all these little things which somehow others didn't do, we might keep them too busy. Why, they might still (need to) be here for a few more years.

All in all it would seem that participation in reforms is getting essential. That should guarantee a more structured approach rather than the ad-hoc 'anyone can ask, NCPO will do'. IMHO

Bigger priorities at the moment. Do you realise there are still tourists out there getting hand jobs?

Rather than ask what the general has done in 6 months you could well ask what your lovely ex MP Yingluck did about getting him back to face charges in her two and a half years.

Or was she to busy tripping around the world and trying to work out how to get big brother amnesty.

Classic.It's all Yingluck's fault.Except in the minds of blinkered idiots like this most understand this is nothing to do with political leadership but rather the dysfunctional Thai judicial system.One could argue that politicians have been remiss in overhauling the problem - but this stretches back many decades over many administrations.

Another insulting post from the expert troll.

I was answering another poster who seemed to think that the present PM is responsible and should have arranged to have this criminal on the run brought back.

If as you say it has nothing to do with political leadership why are you not telling that poster ?

I'm telling you both.But the comic aspect needed commenting on - namely the profoundly silly and fatuous invocation of Yingluck in a matter where she has no relevance.Hardly trolling, simply highlighting stupidity.If cheerleaders for dictatorship such as yourself called on the current government to shake up the Thai judicial system to end corruption and political direction, there might even be a campaign where there would be common cause.

In case you haven't noticed the present administration has done more to combat corruption than the previous administration whose efforts included cutting the budgets of anti corruption organisations and attempting to forgive over 25,000 cases of corruption with their amnesty bill. which would also have absolved the would be dictator, who you support, from all his crimes.

I always wonder how long it will be before the mods get down on your continual insults.

What has that to do with the judicial system?

I don't think you can make foolish posts and then be surprised when they are pointed out.My advice is to do your research, avoid political blinkers and be prepared to argue your case.

You're right.

Still if we keep asking the NCPO to do all these little things which somehow others didn't do, we might keep them too busy. Why, they might still (need to) be here for a few more years.

All in all it would seem that participation in reforms is getting essential. That should guarantee a more structured approach rather than the ad-hoc 'anyone can ask, NCPO will do'. IMHO

Bigger priorities at the moment. Do you realise there are still tourists out there getting hand jobs?

Rather than ask what the general has done in 6 months you could well ask what your lovely ex MP Yingluck did about getting him back to face charges in her two and a half years.

Or was she to busy tripping around the world and trying to work out how to get big brother amnesty.

Classic.It's all Yingluck's fault.Except in the minds of blinkered idiots like this most understand this is nothing to do with political leadership but rather the dysfunctional Thai judicial system.One could argue that politicians have been remiss in overhauling the problem - but this stretches back many decades over many administrations.

Another insulting post from the expert troll.

I was answering another poster who seemed to think that the present PM is responsible and should have arranged to have this criminal on the run brought back.

If as you say it has nothing to do with political leadership why are you not telling that poster ?

I'm telling you both.But the comic aspect needed commenting on - namely the profoundly silly and fatuous invocation of Yingluck in a matter where she has no relevance.Hardly trolling, simply highlighting stupidity.If cheerleaders for dictatorship such as yourself called on the current government to shake up the Thai judicial system to end corruption and political direction, there might even be a campaign where there would be common cause.

Most people around the world are more than likely not aware of his name, or the fact he's the Red Bull heir.

Better if the NCPO took an interest and put out a warrant for his arrest, although it's highly unlikely he'd spend any longer than 20 minutes locked up, money talks, criminals walk.. simple as that.

You're right.

Still if we keep asking the NCPO to do all these little things which somehow others didn't do, we might keep them too busy. Why, they might still (need to) be here for a few more years.

All in all it would seem that participation in reforms is getting essential. That should guarantee a more structured approach rather than the ad-hoc 'anyone can ask, NCPO will do'. IMHO

Bigger priorities at the moment. Do you realise there are still tourists out there getting hand jobs?

Rather than ask what the general has done in 6 months you could well ask what your lovely ex MP Yingluck did about getting him back to face charges in her two and a half years.

Or was she to busy tripping around the world and trying to work out how to get big brother amnesty.

Classic.It's all Yingluck's fault.Except in the minds of blinkered idiots like this most understand this is nothing to do with political leadership but rather the dysfunctional Thai judicial system.One could argue that politicians have been remiss in overhauling the problem - but this stretches back many decades over many administrations.

No other news seems to be reporting this apart from NNT. The British ambassadors words got minced up recently, so I think a lot of the news should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Not exactly minced up but the British Ambassador's critical comments were simply omitted from the Thai official release.We are dealing with a pack of liars here and the sooner all realise this the better.

as DPM he was responsible for the security actions. Please don't tell me that you don't know that.

How does Suthep being in charge of security have anything do with the organisation of the "blue shirts"?

The Blue Shirt incident was in April 2009. As head of CRES (not as DPM), Suthep was responsible for security... in early- to mid-2010. And he got replaced in this position by Anupong Paojinda on Abhisit's orders mid April 2010.

Direct quote from The Nation on 1 May 2009: "most analysts believe that the new blue-clad political group was playing a game at making political changes." - i.e. they were trying to force Abhisit to resign (although it did also say that the Blue Shirts could have also been goading the Reds into violence). With Suthep as Abhisit's #2, it's fairly unlikely Newin cleared this with Suthep, and it's even more unlikely that Suthep was involved in the organising at all.

There's some real BS being thrown around in this thread. Even on this page, we have someone making reference to the non-existent jury system in Thailand, and others trying to back-peddle to try and make some point that the jury reference was some kind of metaphor. No it wasn't. It was someone who doesn't know what they're talking about making an ass out of themselves.

CRES, sure, that is understood - lack of attention to 'detail' in my writing. It was obvious that it was not part of the DPM responsibilities, but as DPM, he was in charge of the security at the time, etc, ... OK?

2009, that was already clear to the people discussing the topic. It can be hard to follow the thread discussion with the quote limits.

But are you quoting the Nation to make a suggestion that the blue shirts were some kind of political group and working against the AV government?

That would be a rather odd thing to say.

Yes, that is exactly what was suggested... not by me, by the way, by "most analysts" (according to Somroutai Sapsomboon of The Nation).

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/05/01/politics/politics_30101785.php

Not really odd to me either, as BJT are the epitome of opportunistic politics... they ditched PPP to get the Interior Ministry in a Democrat-led government, after all, so it doesn't sound like such a stretch of the imagination that they would try to use any situation to try and strengthen their position at the trough. All the Thai political dinosaurs who "control factions" tried to have some sort of say in the aftermath of the protests... Sanoh, Banharn, the list is very long, and their collective aim was to show how good they were as individual politicians by getting opposing sides to see eye to eye (or at least show the public they tried).

Also, the scope of responsibilities of DPM does not normally cover security. And, at the time, I don't think Suthep was in charge of security (in fact, as BJT got the Interior Ministry, I'm pretty sure one of the Chidchobs were - which probably explains why Newin tried to deny any involvement in the Blue Shirts, who were supposedly "civilian" but got their blue shirts directly from the Interior Ministry!). The only source I can find that anyone higher than the Interior Ministry was involved is a vague comment attributed to Nick Nostitz in Chris Askew's book "Legitimacy Crisis in Thailand"; I'm sure Nick's a nice guy, but I don't find him credible for reasons that I've put to him myself. But, hey, I don't find Michael Yon credible either and I get on fine with him.

I have a feeling I will regret posting this.But Nick Nostitz and Michael Yon are scarcely to be compared.Both make no secret of their allegiances.But one is a brave well informed reporter on the ground with considerable analytical capacity.The other is essentially a money minded huckster deplorably ignorant though with a certain feral cunning.Guess which one the Bangkok middle class adores.

Nothing wrong with sharing an opinion if it's honest, jayboy.

Personally I think they're both brave photojournalists, Yon brave enough to embed himself with US forces on the front line (I think he served as an Army Ranger too?) and Nostitz brave enough to put himself in harm's way during Thai political protests. In terms of impartiality, they're probably on a par with each other too.

I have no doubt that they both have had plenty of donations from political movements too, although I will give Nick the benefit of the doubt because I feel he doesn't disclose everything he witnesses because he believes in the Red Shirt cause a little too strongly. Yon is a little bit of a redneck, and that comes out when he talks about gun legislation, empowerment to police, and his views on the Gaza conflict, ISIS and the Comfort Women issue. But he clearly picks a side and sticks with it - maybe because that's what he's received payment for!

Fair enough.Perhaps there is a pre Thailand back story to Yon which casts him in a better light.But his record here is quite deplorable and his appeals for money turn the stomach - zero accountability.Essentially he is feeding on the gullible Thai middle class.Quite why an educated man like Abhisit finds time for him is one of those strange mysteries - possibly because no serious foreign journalist buys into the Democrat "case".

as DPM he was responsible for the security actions. Please don't tell me that you don't know that.

How does Suthep being in charge of security have anything do with the organisation of the "blue shirts"?

The Blue Shirt incident was in April 2009. As head of CRES (not as DPM), Suthep was responsible for security... in early- to mid-2010. And he got replaced in this position by Anupong Paojinda on Abhisit's orders mid April 2010.

Direct quote from The Nation on 1 May 2009: "most analysts believe that the new blue-clad political group was playing a game at making political changes." - i.e. they were trying to force Abhisit to resign (although it did also say that the Blue Shirts could have also been goading the Reds into violence). With Suthep as Abhisit's #2, it's fairly unlikely Newin cleared this with Suthep, and it's even more unlikely that Suthep was involved in the organising at all.

There's some real BS being thrown around in this thread. Even on this page, we have someone making reference to the non-existent jury system in Thailand, and others trying to back-peddle to try and make some point that the jury reference was some kind of metaphor. No it wasn't. It was someone who doesn't know what they're talking about making an ass out of themselves.

CRES, sure, that is understood - lack of attention to 'detail' in my writing. It was obvious that it was not part of the DPM responsibilities, but as DPM, he was in charge of the security at the time, etc, ... OK?

2009, that was already clear to the people discussing the topic. It can be hard to follow the thread discussion with the quote limits.

But are you quoting the Nation to make a suggestion that the blue shirts were some kind of political group and working against the AV government?

That would be a rather odd thing to say.

Yes, that is exactly what was suggested... not by me, by the way, by "most analysts" (according to Somroutai Sapsomboon of The Nation).

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/05/01/politics/politics_30101785.php

Not really odd to me either, as BJT are the epitome of opportunistic politics... they ditched PPP to get the Interior Ministry in a Democrat-led government, after all, so it doesn't sound like such a stretch of the imagination that they would try to use any situation to try and strengthen their position at the trough. All the Thai political dinosaurs who "control factions" tried to have some sort of say in the aftermath of the protests... Sanoh, Banharn, the list is very long, and their collective aim was to show how good they were as individual politicians by getting opposing sides to see eye to eye (or at least show the public they tried).

Also, the scope of responsibilities of DPM does not normally cover security. And, at the time, I don't think Suthep was in charge of security (in fact, as BJT got the Interior Ministry, I'm pretty sure one of the Chidchobs were - which probably explains why Newin tried to deny any involvement in the Blue Shirts, who were supposedly "civilian" but got their blue shirts directly from the Interior Ministry!). The only source I can find that anyone higher than the Interior Ministry was involved is a vague comment attributed to Nick Nostitz in Chris Askew's book "Legitimacy Crisis in Thailand"; I'm sure Nick's a nice guy, but I don't find him credible for reasons that I've put to him myself. But, hey, I don't find Michael Yon credible either and I get on fine with him.

I have a feeling I will regret posting this.But Nick Nostitz and Michael Yon are scarcely to be compared.Both make no secret of their allegiances.But one is a brave well informed reporter on the ground with considerable analytical capacity.The other is essentially a money minded huckster deplorably ignorant though with a certain feral cunning.Guess which one the Bangkok middle class adores.

participate in the boycott ? You mean the "would not attend based on advise" ?

As for 'doesn't mean he's right' now you're starting to ramble I'm afraid.

Anyway for highly intelligent people there is seldom a need to be politically suave. Mind you, fighting for budgets can lead to corruption of the soul.

Are you one of those who find it difficult to hold more than one thought at a time.Highly intelligent people can be politically naive; that's not rambling - it's historical fact whether the Western liberals duped by the Soviets or their modern equivalents duped by the Chinese.Point is Hawking's political views whether on Israel or Thailand (if indeed he has any) are the least interesting thing about him.

Well, if Prof. Hawkins might be a little bit political naive than that would indicate your statement on rejecting an invitation because of Thailand being a 'pariah state'.

Anyway it would seem Hawkins could be somewhat naive (for a supporter of the Labour Party) as he agrees with the GCHQ that internet surveillance is really needed.

"In his BBC interview, Prof Hawking also talks of the benefits and dangers of the internet.

He quotes the director of GCHQ's warning about the net becoming the command centre for terrorists: "More must be done by the internet companies to counter the threat, but the difficulty is to do this without sacrificing freedom and privacy.""

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540

Now that will gladden the local boys here in Thailand. Like the NSA and the GCHQ they can start with the snooping and worry about freedom and privacy later.

It will probably come as a surprise but I agree with you.I am not sure his views on Thailand or Israel are interesting or significant:I certainly wouldn't be swayed by him on either situation.

The point of my earlier post was simply to point out that given his recorded political views he would be unlikely to visit a country where a military takeover had destroyed democracy.

BS, my dear jayboy. you're still on the political track.

It would seem some organisation informed Prof Hawkins that it would be better he would decline the invitation and he agreed. As it is I might even wonder if the response to a possible invitation to Thailand would be answered favorable as Science here seems in dire need of improvements.

It's amusing you dismiss my case because I am on the "political track". Politics is in fact at the heart of set of reasons Hawking will never come to Thailand (though I grant his health probably prevents it anyway).Are you blind or are you not aware that Bangkok is "off the intinerary" for most distinguished foreign leaders?

My dear boy, I think Prof. Hawking will be perfectly capable to recognize pure subjective descriptions like "paria states" and "international shame". He would probably just accept it as confirmation that humanity is mostly humanities greater enemy.

BTW 'politics at the heart of a set of reasons' and 'distinguished foreign leaders' hardly seems to have any relation to a scientific mind like Hawkins. Politics have no meaning when talking about the universe and how it works.

You are wrong.His participation in the Israel boycott demonstrated that.Doesn't mean he is right since there is almost unlimited scope for highly intelligent people to be politically naive.

participate in the boycott ? You mean the "would not attend based on advise" ?

As for 'doesn't mean he's right' now you're starting to ramble I'm afraid.

Anyway for highly intelligent people there is seldom a need to be politically suave. Mind you, fighting for budgets can lead to corruption of the soul.

Are you one of those who find it difficult to hold more than one thought at a time.Highly intelligent people can be politically naive; that's not rambling - it's historical fact whether the Western liberals duped by the Soviets or their modern equivalents duped by the Chinese.Point is Hawking's political views whether on Israel or Thailand (if indeed he has any) are the least interesting thing about him.

BS, my dear jayboy. you're still on the political track.

It would seem some organisation informed Prof Hawkins that it would be better he would decline the invitation and he agreed. As it is I might even wonder if the response to a possible invitation to Thailand would be answered favorable as Science here seems in dire need of improvements.

It's amusing you dismiss my case because I am on the "political track". Politics is in fact at the heart of set of reasons Hawking will never come to Thailand (though I grant his health probably prevents it anyway).Are you blind or are you not aware that Bangkok is "off the intinerary" for most distinguished foreign leaders?

My dear boy, I think Prof. Hawking will be perfectly capable to recognize pure subjective descriptions like "paria states" and "international shame". He would probably just accept it as confirmation that humanity is mostly humanities greater enemy.

BTW 'politics at the heart of a set of reasons' and 'distinguished foreign leaders' hardly seems to have any relation to a scientific mind like Hawkins. Politics have no meaning when talking about the universe and how it works.

You are wrong.His participation in the Israel boycott demonstrated that.Doesn't mean he is right since there is almost unlimited scope for highly intelligent people to be politically naive.

as DPM he was responsible for the security actions. Please don't tell me that you don't know that.

How does Suthep being in charge of security have anything do with the organisation of the "blue shirts"?

The Blue Shirt incident was in April 2009. As head of CRES (not as DPM), Suthep was responsible for security... in early- to mid-2010. And he got replaced in this position by Anupong Paojinda on Abhisit's orders mid April 2010.

Direct quote from The Nation on 1 May 2009: "most analysts believe that the new blue-clad political group was playing a game at making political changes." - i.e. they were trying to force Abhisit to resign (although it did also say that the Blue Shirts could have also been goading the Reds into violence). With Suthep as Abhisit's #2, it's fairly unlikely Newin cleared this with Suthep, and it's even more unlikely that Suthep was involved in the organising at all.

There's some real BS being thrown around in this thread. Even on this page, we have someone making reference to the non-existent jury system in Thailand, and others trying to back-peddle to try and make some point that the jury reference was some kind of metaphor. No it wasn't. It was someone who doesn't know what they're talking about making an ass out of themselves.

Actually there's not much to disagree with in your first paragraphs though I'm unaware there are any serious people disputing there was an armed redshirt element.The questions I hope the trial clarifies are why it's taken so long to arrest them,who paid for them,who are they and what were they aiming to achieve.All this presupposes these are right people - very far from being proven.

You have got yourself in a muddle in your last paragraph.You might want to reread the relevant posts so you don't repeat the error.

If they show up at trial dressed as they are in this photo, I'm going to have to vote 'guilty'. I mean, really, don't they look like genuine 'men in black'? /sarcasm

Seriously, this is a good way to taint a jury pool.

There is no jury system here.

No there's not but the general point remains valid given the implicit assumption of guilt the ludicrous circus suggested.Still the details to be revealed at the trial will be fascinating.I retain an open mind.

If the trial or any parts of it are "closed" uncertainties will remain.

No the general point doesn't remain. There's no jury system to taint.

Don't be silly.There's no jury system but the absurd dressing up of the accused was prejudicial to their case, and was widely condemned at the time.The general point stands that this was bad practice.