jayboy

Well, I stand corrected and disappointed

Maybe I'm just old (fashioned) but I do recall the BBC in better days when they DID try to achieve objectivity and give at least some air time to opposing views.

My information is not as parochial as you may think

I mix socially with all types here in Phuket and run a consultancy business (electrical engineering)

I also socialise in Bangkok (The British Club etc)

My wife's family are from Nakhon Phanon Province and we visit the wider family there frequently.

My son is married to woman from Buri Ram (who graduated from a top BKK university)

So, I think my sources are pretty eclectic

The Economist is also surprisingly weak on Thailand

I also think Aljazeera is pretty good.

All I'm asking for is some balance here.

Personally, I find JH way too shallow and simplistic. A bit too second rate university I imagine. A bit daily Mail if you like.

Sadly, that's the BBC these days. It may have been a bit too "Oxbridge" elitist in the past but frankly I preferred those Halcyon days.

Let's have some real analysis here

Well I'm going to throw my two pennyworth in here. I not only went to the same university as Jonathan Head, though not the same college, but also the same school. My own view about my fellow Old Alleynian is that he still has an axe to grind where Thailand in concerned and it has a tendency to show in some of his asides.

Then you will be interested to know that another Dulwich and Cambridge man told me a few years ago when I met him at an Ox and Cam dinner that Jonathan Head was one of the finest foreign journalists working in Thailand.He was fulsome in his praise and I am inclined to take his word rather than the criticism of various expatriates of unknown origin.My informant's name? Anand Panyarachun.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

People say the strangest thing to staff at dinner functions. It's often a combination of too much to drink and being in an exuberant mood. I wouldn't read too much into it mate.

Believe whatever you want.The fact you use the term "dinner function" is rather a give away though you probably don't understand why.Incidentally in Thailand cognoscenti agree the one time it's sensible to listen extremely carefully is when one's Thai friends are one sheet to the wind, in vino veritas etc.But these dinners are not really piss ups in the manner to which I expect you are accustomed.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Personally, I find JH way too shallow and simplistic. A bit too second rate university I imagine. A bit daily Mail if you like.

Sadly, that's the BBC these days. It may have been a bit too "Oxbridge" elitist in the past but frankly I preferred those Halcyon days.

Let's have some real analysis here

Head graduated from Pembroke College, Cambridge and SOAS London. There are many at both Cambridge and Oxford who find his views close to their own. Did you experience your own halcyon days beside the Cam or the Cherwell? It may not be quite as you imagine, though admittedly it was almost back in Abhisit's days as a student when I left.

Game,set and match!

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Erm, Kim Philby (Stanley), Donald Duart Maclean (Homer), Guy Burgess (Hicks) and Anthony Blunt (Johnson) - the Cambridge Four - were also Cambridge alumni, does say so much for honesty there then!

It says nothing relevant at all about honesty or indeed much else except perhaps the influence of Marxism among students during the rise of fascism in the 1930's, but the fact you apparently think it does tells a great deal about your level of intellectual sophistication.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Personally, I find JH way too shallow and simplistic. A bit too second rate university I imagine. A bit daily Mail if you like.

Sadly, that's the BBC these days. It may have been a bit too "Oxbridge" elitist in the past but frankly I preferred those Halcyon days.

Let's have some real analysis here

Head graduated from Pembroke College, Cambridge and SOAS London. There are many at both Cambridge and Oxford who find his views close to their own. Did you experience your own halcyon days beside the Cam or the Cherwell? It may not be quite as you imagine, though admittedly it was almost back in Abhisit's days as a student when I left.

Game,set and match!

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Thing are really getting out of context now.

There may have been 'a few more' dead because of the arson (e.g. body found in torched WTC?), but the main reason for the army to shoot was the militants amongst the peaceful protesters. Cowardly hiding behind older women and even children. cowardly emerging in the night to wreck havoc on all non-red-shirts.

BTW the first UDD supporters shot was only following after the first grenade attacks on non-red-shirts following the end of February 2010 court decision to confiscate 46 billion of Thaksin's ill gotten gains.

Now surely some international characters here seem to be alarmed in a growing manner.

"Cowardly hiding behind older women and even children." - would you make the same criticism of the PDRC, then? Because as I see they were also largely peaceful but also had a heavily armed group of militants who emerged during violent clashes with police & at Lak Si against the red shirts. If the MiB were justification for the army in 2010 to crackdown, why weren't the PDRC's armed militia justification for a forceful crackdown earlier this year? Of course scores would've died... just like in 2010. Difference in 2010 was Abhisit wasn't willing to dissolve house whereas Yingluck had already done that.

Why would I or even should I?

My dear empty, you waive a story full of holes, you suggest links which are not there.

1. The UDD sponsored violence started way before a crackdown and only really surprised all when the army was seen retreating under fire from 'unarmed peaceful protesters' on the 10th of April, 2010. That was moments after a colonel and staff got a few grenades lobbed on them.

2. The anti-(Yingluck-)government protesters were harassed from day one, shot at, got grenades lobbed on them. This may not completely justify those violent guards, but can be justified up to a point because of being targeted without the police being able (or willing) to offer protection.

3. The LakSI violence started with red-shirts looking for problems, starting to shoot and a few militants arriving to help protect the anti-government protesters.

4. The 2010 justification for the Army crackdown was the clear reluctance of the police to do something about the protesters. With the recent protests the police was more than willing to support the government, and seemingly also prepared to turn a blind eye on violence to anti-government protesters while really at it on violence by the protesters.

5. The dissolution of the House by Yingluck and the strong push by Pheu Thai for new elections was only meant to try to get another 'mandate' to break laws, push blanket amnesty bills and the like.

Obfuscation seems your game, but no set, no match.

Still stuck in the past with tired cliches and the usual bile.But the world has moved on -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-buffett/my-heart-breaks-for-thail_b_5440670.html

Didn't work on the Australian Government or it has done is get the coup leaders banned from entering Australia, blacklisted. Drove the wedge deeper.

Aussies always remain in the middle, looking good to both sides - or trying to. Never the balls to disagree with the US. Methinks Thailand doesn't give too much of a stuff about Aussie opinion over this one right now.

No your final sentence is quite incorrect.There is deep anger and surprise at the top at the Australian position not least because a milder reaction was expected.Despite annoyance with the US it was known that there was an inevitable negative response because of internal requirements.The strong Japanese reaction has also resulted in displeasure.It's a storm in a teacup really as these initial positions are soon forgotten, and all sides have to deal with each other.

A character he certainly is. Nobody who lives as long as we have is going to have a past path free of critics. Certainly some criticism is deserved. I lose patience when I see misinformed memes repeated about Yon, as I do know him quite well.

He makes no bones about his personal politics, and he is as entitled to his preferences as any of us. I will say that his personal views derive from a much deeper analysis than many realize. He is also quick to publish a correction or a retraction.

As for his personal finances, he is under no obligation to share that information with anyone. It is between him and the IRS. As for the sniping about Yon's "work permit," or his visa, the Royal Thai Government is acutely aware of his presence and his activities in the kingdom.

I thought it fascinating, in fact, that Yon remained unmolested by the former Puea Thai government, as his coverage of the Whistleblower protests continued. The Reds, who know him well in Chiang Mai, likewise left him be. When Yon visited the Red protest site, he was not abused in any way.

For all those critics of the coup who claim that the media is not free in Thailand, I will agree to the extent that lèse majesté is illegal. Aside from that, it is possible to publish just about anything here. I will add that I think that CNN and BBC both merit their sustained time-out on TrueVisions. I hope that it costs them both a ton of money. If they are smart, they will tighten up their editorial processes and pursue a more balanced and sober reporting from the kingdom.

As an American, I believe in a free press. But this is Thailand. The generals are now in charge. They are loyal to their people and to their King. Bottom line.

I would finally add that the press in America is not free. We believe that it is, but if the recent character assassination directed at Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden is any indicator, the mass media in America is outright owned by corporate America, the same malign actors that Ike warned about in his infamous address on the military-industrial complex.

There are efforts afoot, moreover, to bring the wild parts of the internet under control. We are living in historic times, in the infancy, still, of the internet, which only was born for practical purposes around 1995. Next year, the internet as most of us know it will be twenty years old.

I pray that it may never be regulated. The eruption of the net in the past twenty years has been the most momentous development in the history of the human race. Nothing matters more.

I hate spam.

Nonsense.There is no deep analysis from Yon.He is an opportunistic semi educated goon with no credibility at all with other than the gullible.Your remarks about the generals in charge are ridiculous and could have been borrowed from the Yonster.

What's sad is to see Americans who profess patriotism but despise the ideals of Jefferson and Founding Fathers..

And on his snake oil fund raising activities you are simply wrong.He is guilty of defrauding the public.

I disagree.

So now what?

Ok. I will play.

1. "No deep analysis from Yon." Did you bother to read his articles on the Whistleblowers on his magazine site? No one reported with more depth on the constituent organizations or their activities. Any journalist or academic that writes about recent events must either consult those articles, or be impoverished with a shallow understanding that leaves them regurgitating one another's drive-bys.

2. "Semi educated?" That must be why he has 240,000 fans on his Facebook. "No credibility?" Again, 240,000 fans, and a half million readers on a daily basis, must all be stupid. Oh, and "gullible." No need to substantiate any of these statements. This is the internet. Anyone can pontificate to their heart's desire. Please continue. What you write, and what you think, has swayed me not one iota.

3. My comments about the generals in charge are ridiculous? Again, illuminate me. I assure you that my words are my own. I borrow from no one.

4. How you get the idea that "Americans who profess patriotism but despise the ideals of Jefferson and Founding Fathers" mystifies me. Again, 'fess up and substantiate your ludicrous statement. I would love to hear it. Except that it might make my IQ drop.

5. "Defrauding the public?" "Snake oil?" I know that I am going to regret giving you the time of day, but I feel that such bitterness must be given an opportunity to explain itself.

So go ahead. You get five more minutes of my time. Then I am moving on.

I hate spam.

Save this mindless junk for the the bars where there are many veterans who ruminate endlessly on these US military trivia matters.There used to be places on Washington Square where ex US army drunks, some of them quite amiable wittered on endlessly in this manner.None of them as far as I know had been commissioned officers.

Yon is a fraud and a huckster, and knows nothing about Thailand beyond what he is fed..If you see him as informed or interesting, that's your privilege.

I have not read this whole thread but I'm going to say this -

I find it very disturbing the fact that representatives of the USA keep releasing these rather ill-informed inaccurate statements (another one today), it is neither helpful nor productive, they should either get their facts in order or say nothing at all.

The so called Democracy wasn't working here and has rightly been suspended with the support of over 75% of the Thai people, as far as I can see the Junta is doing a better job at running the country than any past government has.

Thailand is on a path to an election - let it run it's course USA and either support it or be silent

I don't say your view isn't widely shared among expatriates here but that doesn't make it right.To many what you call "ill informed statements" seem simplly undeniable statements of fact.

The figure of 75% support you attribute to the Thai people is simply not possible to know.An election would clarify matters but that is not going to happen of course.

It's not just the US Government which has condemned current developments in Thailand.It's the entire civilised world.Some governments (like Australia) have gone further and banned entry to the Junta.

Finally a word on the appalling Michael Yon.The exposure this joke person has achieved in the current crisis is because there are no repeat no credible foreign media or opinion sources giving the current regime a sympathetic view.Thus a huckster like Yon and a fruitcake like Tony Cartalucci serve some purpose even among people who should know better.To me a very sad sight was a highly educated man like Abhisit giving the Yonster the time of day.

A character he certainly is. Nobody who lives as long as we have is going to have a past path free of critics. Certainly some criticism is deserved. I lose patience when I see misinformed memes repeated about Yon, as I do know him quite well.

He makes no bones about his personal politics, and he is as entitled to his preferences as any of us. I will say that his personal views derive from a much deeper analysis than many realize. He is also quick to publish a correction or a retraction.

As for his personal finances, he is under no obligation to share that information with anyone. It is between him and the IRS. As for the sniping about Yon's "work permit," or his visa, the Royal Thai Government is acutely aware of his presence and his activities in the kingdom.

I thought it fascinating, in fact, that Yon remained unmolested by the former Puea Thai government, as his coverage of the Whistleblower protests continued. The Reds, who know him well in Chiang Mai, likewise left him be. When Yon visited the Red protest site, he was not abused in any way.

For all those critics of the coup who claim that the media is not free in Thailand, I will agree to the extent that lèse majesté is illegal. Aside from that, it is possible to publish just about anything here. I will add that I think that CNN and BBC both merit their sustained time-out on TrueVisions. I hope that it costs them both a ton of money. If they are smart, they will tighten up their editorial processes and pursue a more balanced and sober reporting from the kingdom.

As an American, I believe in a free press. But this is Thailand. The generals are now in charge. They are loyal to their people and to their King. Bottom line.

I would finally add that the press in America is not free. We believe that it is, but if the recent character assassination directed at Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden is any indicator, the mass media in America is outright owned by corporate America, the same malign actors that Ike warned about in his infamous address on the military-industrial complex.

There are efforts afoot, moreover, to bring the wild parts of the internet under control. We are living in historic times, in the infancy, still, of the internet, which only was born for practical purposes around 1995. Next year, the internet as most of us know it will be twenty years old.

I pray that it may never be regulated. The eruption of the net in the past twenty years has been the most momentous development in the history of the human race. Nothing matters more.

I hate spam.

Nonsense.There is no deep analysis from Yon.He is an opportunistic semi educated goon with no credibility at all with other than the gullible.Your remarks about the generals in charge are ridiculous and could have been borrowed from the Yonster.

What's sad is to see Americans who profess patriotism but despise the ideals of Jefferson and Founding Fathers..

And on his snake oil fund raising activities you are simply wrong.He is guilty of defrauding the public.

Added to which even a cursory reading of his piece shows him to be none too bright and none too literate.

In any case no foreigner living in Thailand is going to take a risk by writing a critical piece for publication - even if a publication is willing or able to accept the piece. So the Wons that are around have a clear run.

He is certainly an interesting character study.But I think you have identified a key point, namely a low IQ - he's rather thick and certainly poorly educated.

Yet he undoubtedly has a following among the Bangkok middle class - and it 's that - not the insignificant man himself - that is both illuminating and frightening.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Just read a blunt Financial Times leader of yesterday which spells it out. (You know, the FT - that wild eyed, ignorant, irresponsible newspaper prone to promoting chaos and criminality. Who anywhere in the world would take any notice its leaders?)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/804d7ebc-e59f-11e3-a7f5-00144feabdc0.html#axzz330vg34dh

Nothing personal, but I really dislike to get a pointer to an article and then need to register first before I can even see some of it.

Agreed.It would be good practice when showing a link to indicate by means of a £ sign that one needs to subscribe or register in order to read the full article.In the case of the FT it's straightforward to register and this allows access to a limited number of articles per month.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

This goes on all the time everywhere and always has.

Its illegal yes but its one of those grey areas, its hard not to act when you have information your going to lose money.

You have information on shares you own and you know your going to lose millions if you dont sell asap .... most will sell.

It's not actually a grey area.There are very clear rules on insider trading in Thailand as elsewhere.The difference in Thailand, and it's a difference of degree not an absolute one,is that corporate culture is often profoundly dishonest with a few well exceptions.I have little doubt that the charges were justified in this case.I have equally little doubt there is a political angle and that prosecutions would not be brought against those who are in political good favour.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

the blame in the PTP and Yingluck governments collapse. It lies fairly and squarely with Thaksin himself. It was his greed, arrogance and contempt for law and his opponents that led to the rice scams, amnesty fiascos etc. I would like to hear this said, some honesty pls.

The only HONESTY here is that Thaksin has no more contempt for law, no more greed and no more arrogance than any of the cronies now jousting to abolish Thai democracy and put themselves into power via a putsch/coup.

The only HONESTY is that Thanksin fell foul of Thai cronyism by relying on people power as a way to run the country. That scared the bejesus out of the traditional elite and neo-colonialist farangs who hate to see the Thai people rise up from their historically subjugated position.

The only HONESTY is that the obsessive farangs who keep posting hate against the current government here on ThaiVisa do so mainly because of government measures such as the "rice scheme" and the "Health care scheme" etc. ie. both measures that help ordinary Thais and risk leading to higher taxation for the rich. You wrap your opposition in terms such as "rice scheme" to make it seem as if this is somehow "corrupt" when in actual fact it is exactly the same as what democratic governments in the West did in the 19th century to hep their own people. But there is a strong contingent of people here on Thaivisa who seem to hate democratic progressivism in any kind of shape or form - whether it be Western democracy or Thai democracy. These posters prefer fascism pure and simple.

Oh. You are so wrong I am unable to laugh. Please take a rational look at your emotional outburst and consider some honesty yourself.

It's possible that some red and yellow posters prefer fascism. I think it's more likely not true.

While the rice scam did help some farmers in the short term, you must see that it's been an absolute disaster for thailand and not supportable in a short or long term. It also seems to have transferred a few hundred billion baht into pockets that have no right to the money. Oh yes, and the rice scam is just plain stupid.

Anyway, just because I disagree with you and you disagree with me over economic policies doesn't mean you need to fill yourself up with hate.

In person, I'm sure you are a nice person. It's easy to get carried away posting and get emotional and type things you wouldn't normally say.

I may have expressed the arguments somewhat differently and I have expressed reservations about the economics of the rice subsidy but on the substance of his three main points, Mark Thalford is undoubtedly correct, namely:

1.The greed, arrogance and lawlessness of those wishing to cripple democracy in Thailand

2.The threat that Thaksin presented to the entrenched unelected elites

3.The confusion in some peoples mind between an economic subsidy (albeit ill advised) and corruption.

Where I agree is that isn't necessary to get too personal, a lesson perhaps that applies to all of us (and that includes self satisfied passive aggression as well as the emotions that some of us feel on matters that are important to us)

This discussion is getting too long and bored. Please, mark the option(s) why you believe that this is a “judicial coup”, so we can arrive to a definitive conclusion:

1. I work for Amsterdam & Peroff, therefore it is my duty to defend the hand that feeds us.
2. I’ve got interests in a company of the Shin group. Corruption and cheating is OK, as far as it gives me benefit.
3. My girlfriend is a Redshirt, and her family will cut my balls if I disagree with them.
4. I hate Thailand and I want it to descend into lawless chaos.
5. Yingluck is pretty, she doesn’t deserve this.

I cannot think of other reasons! You can try as hard as you can, but I am sure that their origin will be inspired from those 5.

Ok that's taken care of the stupids.

For the rest of us ANU's Dr Blaxland summarises:

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/news-events/all-stories/coup-any-other-name%E2%80%A6#.U2sl5bS-Wzo

He just spouts the "judicial coup" mantra, he doesn't substantiate the argument. Besides that, PTP and their coalition is still in government, so where is the coup?

Don't like that one? Try this one from The Japan Times:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/05/15/editorials/short-circuiting-thai-democracy/#.U3WR5y9iuRH

I wonder if Robert Amsterdam's appearance on the red shirt stage has any implications for the case against Satish. Has the caretaker government now decided that foreigners should be encouraged to express their views on Thai policitics and the lese majeste law at political rallies?

I didn't know Robert Amsterdam had permanent residence like Satish nor that he was taking part in illegal activities against an elected government like Satish.Presumably RA has a valid visa and if he infringes its conditions he may not be issued with another one.I don't think there is a ban on foreigners expressing views on Thai politics including LM.I don't think Satish has been banned from the country (in the unlikely event he is ever actually deported) and is presumably able to apply for a visa whenever he likes.He can get a reduced subscription to the RBSC as an absentee member, one unanticipated bonus for him.Personally I think the whole episode was a joke and the government made a fool of itself.The old booby should be allowed to stay though his comments on his fate have been enough to make normal person retch.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

This discussion is getting too long and bored. Please, mark the option(s) why you believe that this is a “judicial coup”, so we can arrive to a definitive conclusion:

1. I work for Amsterdam & Peroff, therefore it is my duty to defend the hand that feeds us.
2. I’ve got interests in a company of the Shin group. Corruption and cheating is OK, as far as it gives me benefit.
3. My girlfriend is a Redshirt, and her family will cut my balls if I disagree with them.
4. I hate Thailand and I want it to descend into lawless chaos.
5. Yingluck is pretty, she doesn’t deserve this.

I cannot think of other reasons! You can try as hard as you can, but I am sure that their origin will be inspired from those 5.

Ok that's taken care of the stupids.

For the rest of us ANU's Dr Blaxland summarises:

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/news-events/all-stories/coup-any-other-name%E2%80%A6#.U2sl5bS-Wzo

Again with the "only guilty of appearing in a cooking show"

Hey, Just1Voice, read carefully now, OK?

Samak did not just appear on a cooking show, IT WAS HIS SHOW, HE WAS WORKING AND GETTING PAID FOR IT AT THE SAME TIME HE WAS A PM, then lied in court about it, both things being impeachable offences. You understood those written words there? Will you AGAIN come with the "removing a PM for one appearance on a cooking show" or will you show some intellectual honesty and stop it?

I am afraid it is you that must show some honesty.Samak certainly was paid a very modest amount for his appearences.Doubtless he shouldn't have during his time as PM though he was hardly hiding anything given the programmes were being broadcast.If he had been instructed to stop by a court (or better his own advisers), nobody would have thought it strange.But to be removed from the PM position by a politically partisan court was clearly absurd and ridiculous.Given the repeated pattern culminating in Yingluck being removed for transferring an insubordinate official, one would have to be a simpleton not to understand the reactionary judicial activism involved.So spare us your faux rage,spluttering and misplaced outrage.And for a helpful hint - don't quote Wikipedia in your defence.Only dim bulbs do that.

How about, instead of calling me a dim bulb, you disprove the facts quoted in the Wikipedia citation?

Don't bother AleG - your wasting your time. He always tries to imply that any poster with a different view to his own must be intellectually inferior. It helps hide the sophistry often found in his postings and is driven by an underlying self doubt and insecurity often associate with pretend intellectuals.

You are quite right. Samak broke the law. Had he apologized and shown remorse, maybe the court would have warned him. Who knows? But he chose to commit perjury, a much more serious offence, and lie to the court.

The fact that there is a repeated pattern of events in the history of Thaksin controlled political parties suggests they don't learn from previous mistakes. Stupidity, arrogance, or cavalier attitude to the law has consequences. They get caught, lie and get caught again. Never learn.

Again note how he tries to imply that Thawil was moved for insubordination. Yet there was no suggestion of this at the time of transfer or by Ms.Yingluck or her defense team. He also completely ignores the small issue of the bother of Thaksin's former wife benefiting considerably be being moved into the head of police role as a result. Clearly having a "family" member as head of police was the real motive to anyone with any sense.

There is nothing absurd or ridiculous about a PM and government caught acting illegally to facilitate nepotism and self benefit being removed from office, if, as in this case, the law permits it. What is insane, is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Something PTP/UDD and their great thinker have yet to learn.

He can't dispute your facts - because they are exactly that facts. But, as we have seen many times, PTP and their supporters here don't like facts.

Actually I welcome discussion with those of different views.Isn't that the main object of discussion on this forum, with the expectation that we might arrive at some common understanding? I'm not sure your personal insults advance that objective much and I'm afraid your own unlettered reference to "pretend intellecutuals" pigeon holes you more devastatingly than I ever could.

In any event your rather laboured comments seem to be beside the point.As already mentioned no informed person suggests the "offences" were invented, simply that the penalties exacted were absurdly disproportionate.They only can be explained in the context of the policy of judicial intervention already explained on this forum.

If you deny Thawil was an insubordinate official I'm not sure how you would explain the evidence to the contrary.In any case it's quite normal for Ministers to transfer obstructionist senior officials, in this case one very close to retirement anyway.The point that you fail to grasp is that the details are not of central importance.Even if a court ordered a reinstatement, that's not sufficient reason to dismiss the PM.

I don't really have a problem, or not too much of one, for the courts "guilty" verdicts. If you're guilty of violating the law, that's all there is to it. What I do have a problem with is their "sentencing" on those guilty verdicts. Come on, removing a PM for one appearance on a cooking show. I'm sure there were other "options" and sanctions that could have been imposed. But it's also difficult to observe them as "non-partisan" when they dissolve a party for "vote fraud", yet fail to even listen to charges against the Democrats for the same thing, citing the suit as frivolous, stating there was no evidence for it, without even reading the suit to begin with. They simply rejected it out of hand. Ok, sorry folks, but THAT is biased. And, to appearances, they go after anything connected to Thaksin in any way like starving Pit Bulls after a fresh steak, while allowing cases against the "royal elites", such as PAD and Dems sit and collect dust. Where are the cases on the PAD's occupation of Government House, or the take over of the airport and shutting down the country? Why has Sondhi, with 5 convictions against him, still free to walk the streets? Let the punishment fit the crime, and apply the law equally and fairly for all, which, often times, doesn't seem to be the case.

Again with the "only guilty of appearing in a cooking show"

Hey, Just1Voice, read carefully now, OK?

Samak did not just appear on a cooking show, IT WAS HIS SHOW, HE WAS WORKING AND GETTING PAID FOR IT AT THE SAME TIME HE WAS A PM, then lied in court about it, both things being impeachable offences. You understood those written words there? Will you AGAIN come with the "removing a PM for one appearance on a cooking show" or will you show some intellectual honesty and stop it?

I am afraid it is you that must show some honesty.Samak certainly was paid a very modest amount for his appearences.Doubtless he shouldn't have during his time as PM though he was hardly hiding anything given the programmes were being broadcast.If he had been instructed to stop by a court (or better his own advisers), nobody would have thought it strange.But to be removed from the PM position by a politically partisan court was clearly absurd and ridiculous.Given the repeated pattern culminating in Yingluck being removed for transferring an insubordinate official, one would have to be a simpleton not to understand the reactionary judicial activism involved.So spare us your faux rage,spluttering and misplaced outrage.And for a helpful hint - don't quote Wikipedia in your defence.Only dim bulbs do that.

How about, instead of calling me a dim bulb, you disprove the facts quoted in the Wikipedia citation?

I don't think I have disputed anything in your Wikipedia reference, nor in any case does its content affect the explanation and context of Samak's dismissal provided in my post.