jayboy

Perhaps it's just a concidence that someone, also named (Pauline) Pornpimol Kanchanalak like this article's author, faced criminal charges in the US.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1277609.html

Look at the message jayboy.

The message of the article, if that's what you mean, is just the usual reactionary trash typical of the semi educated Sino Thai plutocracy.Thus not worthy of serious consideration.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Sociopaths are unable to accept responsibility for anything. Others are always blamed by these people. I am sorry but Thaksin is mentally ill and the cause of all the problems here in Thailand. The guy is a monster and should be removed from all influence if he cannot remove himself. What ruddy arrogance to demand that others respect the law when he has done everything he can for so many years to flout it. Not only Thai law, but international law too. I'm fed up of this man who ruins so many lives and I am fed up of those sycophants here who support him.

A mentally ill sociopathic monster who is the sole cause of all the problems in Thailand.There are two interpretations of this statement.The first is that it is true, and thus all steps necessary to remove him should be taken.The second that it is a hysterical, buffoonish and ignorant rant ignoring the complex political and social issues that have brought the country to its present pass.I have my own views on the applicable interpretation but others must make up their own minds.

I base my personal assessment of Thaksin as a sociopath from my wide experience of working with mental health issues as well as having a sociopath in the family. I have been fascinated by the similarity in behaviours between Thaksin and other sociopaths such as Lance Armstrong, Berlusconi & idi Amin to name just three. It is not only the lies repeated ad nauseum but the manipulation that goes with them. If you search the internet for the traits of a sociopath, you may come to the same conclusion as I have.

I have no interest in your nonsensical theories culled mindlessly from the internet.Thaksin like many politicians is self regarding and ruthless but the comparison is with other Thai power players.Of your ludicrous examples only Berlusconi warrants serious consideration - and in any event that example is rather stale having been in circulation at least a decade.

In any event Thaksin's state of mind is irrelevant to your original proposition namely that he is responsible for Thailand's current difficulties.As previously noted the witless proponents of this argument are oblivious to the complex patterns at work in Thailand.They could overcome their pitiful ignorance by some hard study and reading - but this of course they will never do.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

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

Thaksin IS the root problem here despite repeated protestations by his boot lickers to the contrary.

He will never truly leave politics, he will always try to have some puppet under his control that will do his bidding. Anyone found to be doing the bidding of a fugitive ( in the same way PT have not to mention TRT, CTP, BJT and whatever other Thaksin proxy parties there have been ) should be put in jail, stripped of assets and banned from politics for life. Politics should be for the people, by the people and done by people who are here and not fugitives on the run with huge sums of money on a power trip....

So anyone who questions whether Thaksin is the root cause of Thailand's problems is a "bootlicker".Somehow I'm surmising your grasp of the fundamentals is not very profound

Since Abhisit, Korn and many other educated opponents of Thaksin have accepted that Thailand's political problems are entrenched and predate the rise of Thaksin, does that place them in the bootlicking category as well?

Many, perhaps most, folks with long-term knowledge of all of this would agree.

That doesn't mean that the paymaster is innocent, far far from it.

Human rights atrocities can never ever be glossed over by 'past precedent'.

Now you go on with 'he's never been charged.....'.

I don't think any sensible person would claim Thaksin is an innocent.

Nor is his human rights record a good one.The fact he has not been charged is nothing to do with "past precedent".It has everything to do with the fact that those who want to destroy him were enthusiastic followers of his drugs war/Southern policies, and in many cases their endorsement is on record.

Anyway my main point is really non controversial, namely that despite his errors Thaksin was not the cause of Thailand's problems - though he has astutely exploited them.

A mentally ill sociopathic monster who is the sole cause of all the problems in Thailand.There are two interpretations of this statement.The first is that it is true, and thus all steps necessary to remove him should be taken.The second that it is a hysterical, buffoonish and ignorant rant ignoring the complex political and social issues that have brought the country to its present pass.I have my own views on the applicable interpretation but others must make up their own minds.

I base my personal assessment of Thaksin as a sociopath from my wide experience of working with mental health issues as well as having a sociopath in the family. I have been fascinated by the similarity in behaviours between Thaksin and other sociopaths such as Lance Armstrong, Berlusconi & idi Amin to name just three. It is not only the lies repeated ad nauseum but the manipulation that goes with them. If you search the internet for the traits of a sociopath, you may come to the same conclusion as I have.

Many politicians are unpleasantly self centred but that isn't the point.You suggested Thaksin was the cause of all Thailand's problems,a ludicrous statement which could only be made by someone either blinded by factionalism or wholly ignorant of the complex background to the current situation.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

He is a convicted criminal on the run, absolute fact. He is also wanted for additional charges, fact. The country is in a terrible mess, of course a fact.

Can you please summarize for me why he should not be viewed in a very bad light, and for the ignorant people like me try and explain a little of the background and complex issues that I don't understand that would change my mind about him.

It seems that haters of Thaksin very often state clear facts and have a firm grasp of the situation, and yet supporters are always vague claiming everyone else is ignorant of the "subtleties" of the situation that shed a very different light on this man.

So, please enlighten me, I genuinely want to hear what I don't understand.

There's no reason why Thaksin should not be viewed in a bad light.He isn't a very admirable person.Nor are most other prominent Thai politicians.

I am afraid I haven't noticed that the "haters of Thaksin" have a clear grap of the facts.Indeed they often seem incoherent.In any event they are very diverse and include high level operators terrified of losing influence given Thaksin's electoral muscle, their mainly Sino Thai middle class "useful idiot" acolytes and of course the thuggish element like Suthep together with his Southern ruffians.

I am at a loss to advise you on remedying your complete ignorance (by your own admission).There are some excellent publications, blogs, articles which would help you.Oddly enough the one thing ignoramuses never want to do is a little research.Unfortunately internet forums like this are not a very useful way of advancing knowledge.

Thaksin IS the root problem here despite repeated protestations by his boot lickers to the contrary.

He will never truly leave politics, he will always try to have some puppet under his control that will do his bidding. Anyone found to be doing the bidding of a fugitive ( in the same way PT have not to mention TRT, CTP, BJT and whatever other Thaksin proxy parties there have been ) should be put in jail, stripped of assets and banned from politics for life. Politics should be for the people, by the people and done by people who are here and not fugitives on the run with huge sums of money on a power trip....

So anyone who questions whether Thaksin is the root cause of Thailand's problems is a "bootlicker".Somehow I'm surmising your grasp of the fundamentals is not very profound

Since Abhisit, Korn and many other educated opponents of Thaksin have accepted that Thailand's political problems are entrenched and predate the rise of Thaksin, does that place them in the bootlicking category as well?

Sociopaths are unable to accept responsibility for anything. Others are always blamed by these people. I am sorry but Thaksin is mentally ill and the cause of all the problems here in Thailand. The guy is a monster and should be removed from all influence if he cannot remove himself. What ruddy arrogance to demand that others respect the law when he has done everything he can for so many years to flout it. Not only Thai law, but international law too. I'm fed up of this man who ruins so many lives and I am fed up of those sycophants here who support him.

A mentally ill sociopathic monster who is the sole cause of all the problems in Thailand.There are two interpretations of this statement.The first is that it is true, and thus all steps necessary to remove him should be taken.The second that it is a hysterical, buffoonish and ignorant rant ignoring the complex political and social issues that have brought the country to its present pass.I have my own views on the applicable interpretation but others must make up their own minds.

I base my personal assessment of Thaksin as a sociopath from my wide experience of working with mental health issues as well as having a sociopath in the family. I have been fascinated by the similarity in behaviours between Thaksin and other sociopaths such as Lance Armstrong, Berlusconi & idi Amin to name just three. It is not only the lies repeated ad nauseum but the manipulation that goes with them. If you search the internet for the traits of a sociopath, you may come to the same conclusion as I have.

Many politicians are unpleasantly self centred but that isn't the point.You suggested Thaksin was the cause of all Thailand's problems,a ludicrous statement which could only be made by someone either blinded by factionalism or wholly ignorant of the complex background to the current situation.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

These guys have a wonderful example of what can happen when you put all your faith in one man one vote and hope that law and order will somehow look after itself. The German general election of 1936 was ostensibly fully democratic respecting everyone's votes and produced a result that had a profound effect on the world.

Perhaps these Social Democrats should stick to battling the Greens.

Another ignorant post from someone who clearly has never read any serious German history.Even a nodding acquaintance with the historical background would have informed him that the 1936 plebiscite was not "ostensibly fully democratic".But for these people it's simply not an option to take some time to educate themselves.They only regurgitate what feather brains on the internet state as a "known fact", namely the Nazis achieved power through one man one vote.

I have read about that period of German history. You missed the sarcasm in the "ostensibly fully democratic". Thai elections are also "ostensibly democratic" but the reality is far from that. Look at the recent Senate elections where many Northern and Northeastern provinces had only red shirt sponsored candidates running as everyone else was intimidated or was no one else genuinely interested in running in those provinces? That is one man one vote in the National Socialist and Communist systems where all other parties are either prohibited or crushed. In fact other parties were banned after the 1936 German elections.

So you also believe elections in Thailand are undemocratic or are you are suggesting the current government is emulating the anti democratic measures of the Nazis? In the fruitcake world some inhabit anything goes I suppose and the facts are to be ignored or manipulated.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Interesting how the intellectually challenged resort to calling anyone with a different view a 'fruitcake" or dismiss their views as ignorant.

Go on read Mr. Kershaw's book again, or even different authors and do some research.

Pray tell us, what is you qualifications in history. political science or any related academic field that gives you the impression you can so arrogantly and rudely dismiss the comments of others?

Enlighten us - tell us how you think Hilter came to power?

I have been accused of many things but not yet " intellectually challenged".Sir Ian Kershaw is as respected an authority as any other on the Nazi rise to power.Suggest you familiarise yourself with the background before making more of an idiot of yourself.Sadly however the one thing these people will never do is buckle down to serious research.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

These guys have a wonderful example of what can happen when you put all your faith in one man one vote and hope that law and order will somehow look after itself. The German general election of 1936 was ostensibly fully democratic respecting everyone's votes and produced a result that had a profound effect on the world.

Perhaps these Social Democrats should stick to battling the Greens.

Another ignorant post from someone who clearly has never read any serious German history.Even a nodding acquaintance with the historical background would have informed him that the 1936 plebiscite was not "ostensibly fully democratic".But for these people it's simply not an option to take some time to educate themselves.They only regurgitate what feather brains on the internet state as a "known fact", namely the Nazis achieved power through one man one vote.

I have read about that period of German history. You missed the sarcasm in the "ostensibly fully democratic". Thai elections are also "ostensibly democratic" but the reality is far from that. Look at the recent Senate elections where many Northern and Northeastern provinces had only red shirt sponsored candidates running as everyone else was intimidated or was no one else genuinely interested in running in those provinces? That is one man one vote in the National Socialist and Communist systems where all other parties are either prohibited or crushed. In fact other parties were banned after the 1936 German elections.

So you also believe elections in Thailand are undemocratic or are you are suggesting the current government is emulating the anti democratic measures of the Nazis? In the fruitcake world some inhabit anything goes I suppose and the facts are to be ignored or manipulated.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

These guys have a wonderful example of what can happen when you put all your faith in one man one vote and hope that law and order will somehow look after itself. The German general election of 1936 was ostensibly fully democratic respecting everyone's votes and produced a result that had a profound effect on the world.

Perhaps these Social Democrats should stick to battling the Greens.

Another ignorant post from someone who clearly has never read any serious German history.Even a nodding acquaintance with the historical background would have informed him that the 1936 plebiscite was not "ostensibly fully democratic".But for these people it's simply not an option to take some time to educate themselves.They only regurgitate what feather brains on the internet state as a "known fact", namely the Nazis achieved power through one man one vote.

Another farang who don't understand Thai people.Thai people don't want or need any election. Election is a farang culture, not applicable or suitable for Thailand.Unlike farang, Thai people respect and listen to our elder.

Obviously mindless trash but I am wondering whether I am missing the mischievous intent.Very frequently on this forum when political issues are discussed it's hard to know what is seriously intended and what is parody.In the case of the moronic nature of the above post the stupidity,ignorance, lack of perception is raised to such a level that I am tempted to believe someone is having a laugh.In which case I must apologise for failing to grasp the joke more quickly.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Thaksin can't bear the thought of Yingluck resigning because he has no one to replace her with. Surapong or Yaowapa on the campaign trail kissing babies will only result in infants traumatised for life.

Yingluck has limited intellectual ability but that doesn't matter upcountry.Just look pretty and smile is all that is required.

We all have limited intellectual ability because none of us are super beings.However there's no evidence at all that Yingluck is other than a smart woman, and what is more with the charm and poise that many of her critics lack.You have of course made the same mistake as many in confusing intellect with education.Her university is of course less starry than that of Abhisit but that's a different matter.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Sorry.Cancelled my post - excessively off topic.

What was happening over at the RBSC during the Thai alliance with Japan and occupation by Japan during WWII?

The British, who had dominated the club since it was founded, and other allied nationals were interned by the Japanese and Mom Ratchada Pisek took over as the first Thai chairman. Ratchada moved that the memberships of the allied nationals should be permanently revoked and the motion was carried, despite a vociferous minority who argued they should be only temporarily suspended. After the war the internees were released and insisted that the cancellation of their memberships was unconstitutional. They won the motion and returned to the club. Ratchada was ousted as chairman and the British contingent managed to reclaim the chairmanship continuously until 1960 when the second Thai chairman was elected by the general committee. Since then the club has been dominated by Thais and there has never been another foreign chairman.

The British Club on Silom Road was taken over as the Japanese military HQ. A released member went to the club to see what was going on and was confronted by a Japanese officer with drawn sword on the stairs but fortunately they managed to sort things out amicably. Since the club had mortgaged the property before the war to Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank which was taken over temporarily by German bankers, the title deeds survived intact and were redeemed from the bank after the war. Most of the club's records, however, were unfortunately destroyed by the Japanese.

To be fair, and I accept you are not suggesting otherwise, I don't think there would have been any objection in 1960 on the part of British members to the Thai membership taking over the key positions.One of the rather attractive aspects of the British expatriate community in the old days was a relative absence of the racism that could be found in Malaysia and India.Part of this lay in the different character of the British community then which if not exactly upper class was devoid of the lower middle class prejudices and was able to recognise gentlemanly characteristics in the Thais they came across in business and in social life.Many of their Thai friends if they had not attended decent English public schools and Oxbridge had the natural grace, charm and good manners that is associated with the Thai upper class.Perhaps less significantly many (I suspect a majority) of the British residents had a Thai girl or boy tucked away which provided a natural sympathy for Thais ways and customs.

The British presence in Thailand was simply an extension of their colonial presence in the rest of Asia. Trading companies and banks like Hong Kong and Shanghai and The Chartered Bank (now Stanchart) opened branches in Thailand to complete their regional networks. Nothing of consequence was manufacturered in Asia, so European exports of industrial and consumer goods were very important. In reverse there were Thai commodities to be exported like teak and rice, not to mention British shipping companies etc. As the colonial presence in the rest of Asia declined, so did the British commercial presence in Thailand. Previously the British were the dominate group in the club's membership but by 1960 the Thai membership had probably overtaken the European membership leading to the election of a Thai chairman.

Originally there were very few Thai members who were all of a noble disposition who regarded it as a British style club that they were happy to join as a privileged minority but had no interest in trying to run. They were probably even more keen than the British to keep it exclusive which in the pre-war days certainly meant keeping out the Chinese, except as club servants. In the old club photographs you certainly don't see any Chinese features amongst the members. This obviously changed sometime after the Second World War and perhaps by the early 60s.

Realistically the British and other foreigners had no choice but to accept the Thai nobility into the club was on royal land and obviously had no problem with the manners and English language skills of the noble Thai members. In the end it was simply a game of numbers as the European membership declined relative to the Thai membership. I don't really think playing around with Thai boys or girls made that much difference to the British perception of the culture. This was commonplace in most of the colonies too but didn't necessarily encourage greater respect for their cultures.

There was a difference between the relations (ie they were generally better) between the British and the Thais compared say with the position in Malaysia or (earlier on) Burma.My reference to the usefulness of concubines was facetious but it does contain a grain of truth.The change in the proportion of Thais and foreigners in the Club was certainly due to the factors you mention but also because of the decline of long term expatriate postings.The Chinese aspect is interesting and I suspect that there was more admixture than often maintained.Of course there was a social gap between the relatively recent arrivals from Southern China and the long established grandees.That's a distinction that still exists though less obviously.

Oh dear - very off topic

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Alas, Pheu Thai is not the only one fantasizing about conspiracy theories. The UDD has turned them into a cottage industry. UDD radio thrives on them. And Pheu Thai/UDD supporters thrive on them as well. The whole point of the conspiracy theories of Pheu Thai and the UDD and their supporters is that they underscore their true aim - and that is to somehow discredit the judgments and authority of the judicial agencies, and in so doing, manage to undermine the very legitimacy and authority of the rule of law itself. That's their aim. And they have somehow convinced themselves that's democracy.

So Scamper, in your view, the judiciary and courts are NOT corrupt at ALL? Comment?

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Nah, in the yellow paradigm, all of Thailand is a sea of corruption. Except the judiciary, through some fortunate happenstance.

Though there is financial corruption in the judiciary, it is not the main problem at present.See the useful analsysis below:

http://www.fairobserver.com/article/thailand-democracy-endangered-juristocracy-69712

What was happening over at the RBSC during the Thai alliance with Japan and occupation by Japan during WWII?

The British, who had dominated the club since it was founded, and other allied nationals were interned by the Japanese and Mom Ratchada Pisek took over as the first Thai chairman. Ratchada moved that the memberships of the allied nationals should be permanently revoked and the motion was carried, despite a vociferous minority who argued they should be only temporarily suspended. After the war the internees were released and insisted that the cancellation of their memberships was unconstitutional. They won the motion and returned to the club. Ratchada was ousted as chairman and the British contingent managed to reclaim the chairmanship continuously until 1960 when the second Thai chairman was elected by the general committee. Since then the club has been dominated by Thais and there has never been another foreign chairman.

The British Club on Silom Road was taken over as the Japanese military HQ. A released member went to the club to see what was going on and was confronted by a Japanese officer with drawn sword on the stairs but fortunately they managed to sort things out amicably. Since the club had mortgaged the property before the war to Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank which was taken over temporarily by German bankers, the title deeds survived intact and were redeemed from the bank after the war. Most of the club's records, however, were unfortunately destroyed by the Japanese.

To be fair, and I accept you are not suggesting otherwise, I don't think there would have been any objection in 1960 on the part of British members to the Thai membership taking over the key positions.One of the rather attractive aspects of the British expatriate community in the old days was a relative absence of the racism that could be found in Malaysia and India.Part of this lay in the different character of the British community then which if not exactly upper class was devoid of the lower middle class prejudices and was able to recognise gentlemanly characteristics in the Thais they came across in business and in social life.Many of their Thai friends if they had not attended decent English public schools and Oxbridge had the natural grace, charm and good manners that is associated with the Thai upper class.Perhaps less significantly many (I suspect a majority) of the British residents had a Thai girl or boy tucked away which provided a natural sympathy for Thais ways and customs.

yo dude.

Why did not suthep and abhisit change the constitution when they were in power????? Because they like all the power it gave them.

The fact is that Abhisit did nothing about reform when in power.As to his criticism of conspiracy theories, it would seem to be a little premature.It might make sense if an elected government was not overthrown by a partisan judicial system (with many judges installed on the back of a military coup).If the current government serves out its term and there is no imposition of an unelected "neutral" PM then Abhisit might have a point, and I would be the first to acknowledge it.In the meantime Abhisit should concentrate on making himself and his party less toxic to the Thai people so they might have a chance to win power fairly without resort to gangsters and compliant judges.

"Toxicity" doesn't have anything to do with it, obviously, with the last election winner being a party run by a self serving convicted criminal with thousands of deaths in his hands and supported by people that openly cheer the murder of innocents.

I presume by "murder of innocents" you are referring to the deaths of Southern Muslims and those executed in the Drugs War.The problem for your argument (and I'm afraid it completely eviscerates your case) is that these policies were enthusiastically supported by those most eager to destroy the present government.

On the contrary, it absolutely proves that the taint of being a contemptible human being has anything to do with electorability, to coin a term.

.

I have no idea what point you are making.Please try and express yourself clearly.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Wait....if PTP thinks that the political system is so rigged that "independent agencies", political parties, courts etc. can conspire to overthrow a democratically elected government that works on legal principles it surely means they're supporting reforms before elections?

At least then "we follow the democratic way" (still my favourite/most listened to comment of the good PM)

yo dude.

Why did not suthep and abhisit change the constitution when they were in power????? Because they like all the power it gave them.

The fact is that Abhisit did nothing about reform when in power.As to his criticism of conspiracy theories, it would seem to be a little premature.It might make sense if an elected government was not overthrown by a partisan judicial system (with many judges installed on the back of a military coup).If the current government serves out its term and there is no imposition of an unelected "neutral" PM then Abhisit might have a point, and I would be the first to acknowledge it.In the meantime Abhisit should concentrate on making himself and his party less toxic to the Thai people so they might have a chance to win power fairly without resort to gangsters and compliant judges.

"Toxicity" doesn't have anything to do with it, obviously, with the last election winner being a party run by a self serving convicted criminal with thousands of deaths in his hands and supported by people that openly cheer the murder of innocents.

I presume by "murder of innocents" you are referring to the deaths of Southern Muslims and those executed in the Drugs War.The problem for your argument (and I'm afraid it completely eviscerates your case) is that these policies were enthusiastically supported by those most eager to destroy the present government.

The caretaker PTP government dissolved parliament. Should they be re-elected in a new election they will start another 4 year term of office. They cannot complete their initial 4 year terms as they have dissolved it.

The courts and NACC must make all evidence and judgments transparent and public, regardless of what the decision is. Equally, PTP should "open the books" and show the reality. If they've been honest then they've nothing to fear and plenty to gain. If they've been lying, cheating and stealing then they should be prosecuted and if found guilty punished in accordance with the law.

Any government that puts itself above the law is not democratic, whether they came from election or not. Allow that to go unchecked will lead to a dictatorship. Accountability and transparency are key check and essential in any democracy.

It's disappointing there is no robust opposition challenging the caretaker government through political channels and the Democrats would do better to address their own failings to increase their appeal. But they received the second largest minority at the last full general election to PTP's largest minority and the gap wasn't mega, hardly a toxic reaction.

It's a very difficult situation though when a government cheats and abuses the parliamentary procedures, acts illegally, refuses to debate or provide information and openly defies court rulings.

I'm sorry but this really doesn't amount to a credible position.The whole world knows what is going on now - a slow judicial coup, showing contempt for the the Thai people by failed politicians and elites who can't win at the ballot box.

The Chicago Tribune (with no reason to take a partisan view) sums it up well.Nobody is being fooled here

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-thailand-protest-judiciary-20140402,0,3999001.story

And I'm afraid that those that sow the wind will reap the hurricane.

Pick that up in some western? Lol. Oooooooooo....here comes the hurricane!! Oooooooo. Brother that'll have 'em shakin' in their boots. You drama queens DO think alike.

Whatever the "world according to you" might think, most people understand what's really going on here, and it's not a "judicial coup" (unless you define that, as the shin-rouge tend to do, as those rascally judges sending down decisions that unfortunately don't allow them to continue their unashamed and obvious abuse of power). Points for repetition of the talking points, however. The more intelligent and objective throughout the land understand the Thaksin oligarchy however, and either see it as a big problem (that would be the anti-government protesters) or a crony-run feeding trough to be eaten out of (that's pronounced pee-tee).

Keep up the weather forecasts though. Very entertaining.

It's probably more effective to reference some established and non-partisan resources rather than resort to simple minded platitudes.Are you able to do that? Thought not.

I apologise if my reference to possible consequences was too hyperbolic.My point, as I thought would have been obvious, is that repression of democracy may end up having some very unpleasant consequences for the perpetrators.

Even after a judicial coup and unelected rule by self appointed "good people" Thailand will have to go through a general election.It's unlikely the Thai people will be in a forgiving mood.

Unless her actual election team did something wrong, she shouldn't logically be held liable for the mouths of others not actually working for her. Same for Sunkhumbhand or anyone else. Actually passing money or working to gain votes or control parties illegally is something else entirely.

But that doesn't seem to be the case in either of these cases.

Simply put someone else said something in support that might not have been proper,

but they were not working for here election committee, so how is she responsible?

The attempted spin to say it is a Dem Plot to make the EC look even-handed is truly an absurdity!

Perhaps the plot against Sukhumbhand is an absurdity.Who knows? We shall see.He is certainly seen as disposable and the appearence of even handedness would be cosmetically useful

The point most seem to be missing is that the Democrats have nothing to do with it.They are simply a tool.

I don't think Jaruvan is relevant one way or trhe other.

Indeed. He had more to lose than gain politically by doing it but went ahead anyway.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100265662/the-gay-marriage-fight-had-no-benefits-for-david-cameron-thats-why-he-should-be-proud-of-it/

Unfortunately the comments are typical Telegraph

Meaning what? The tired mantra of the Daily Torygraph is a little passé and there is now some excellent journalism in it.Incidentally in case you didn't know Dan Hodges is the son of Glenda Jackson!

Here's a few. BTW I had no idea who Dan Hodges was related to. Is that supposed to make a difference?

"Homosexual marriage goes against everything diversity and respect for individual rights stands for."

"In fact gay marriage is just PC gone mad. Nothing is supposed to be better or worse - just equal - and the vociferous gay lobbies have jumped onto the bandwaggon. We'll be having to change the dictionary next, to take out all qualifying adjectives so that we are left with "the same" (old!) and "equal". I think Shakespeare may be laughing."

"Perhaps also David had on his mind that timeless adage and truth 'Better a living bugger than a buried prime minister'."

"Rubbish, let's upset the applecart to please a minority of a minority of 1.5% , all because theEU said so, this is the end of Great Britain!"

"The man's insane if he believes that : the relationship between a same sex couple can ever be held as equivalent to that of a heterosexual couple. And to teach children that it is ,is the most regressive piece of legislation, I can think that has ever been passed.

We don't teach children that 1+1 = 3 or that 2+2 = 3, since it is only 1+2 or 2+1 that = 3."

"Well I suppose in these modern times we should all be more tolerant and compassionate. After all, buggers can't be choosers."

These quotes aren't from Dan Hodge's article just some nutty commentators.Most reader comments are bizarre; check out the Guardian for craziness.

My reference to Dan Hodge's mum was a fun fact only.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand