jayboy

case proven that the above has nothing whatsoever to do with your usual exaggerations that you assign to others, but that no one actually says...lying.

Jayboy's claim of what others post...that he left out

The usual suspects have a mantra that the political problems of the last few years are entirely about Thaksin - his corruption, his crimes , his lust for power.If the cancer of Thaksin was removed along with his dupes (who are only in it for pay) the difficulties would entirely disappear.There are no other major problems.

Same old suspect doing the same old exaggerations aka lying.

No where can he quote what he says others have posted, certainly isn't in the above quote he cites.

Slightly surprised you have come back, albeit rather incoherently, when so comprehensively skewered.

The point I made was a very simple one, namely that it is illogical to suggest that one cannot be antipathetic to Thaksin and yet be sympathetic to the forces trying to change the social order, particularly the entrenched unelected Elite.

I quoted a comment you made illustrating a typical sneer.I don't have any objection to sneers if backed by some logic.Yours didn't.

"skewered"

your cock-eyed assessments are always so laughable.

You wrote 2 paragraphs of exaggerations ( I reposted only one of the longer diatribe above).... than you quote my post which had absolutely nothing to do with what you posted while inferring it somehow did.

Now that your lie is exposed for what it is, you change the content and now say your point is something different about the feigned efforts of the Thaksin apologists. I quoted the typical feigned neutrality that everyone on the forum has noticed and frequently witnessed. It's happened so many times, the quoted is now a classic cliche.

.

I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about.You seem, along with your hysterical and and absurd accusations about " lies",to be suggesting that you should be able to determine what point I was making.

Take it from me nobody has the slightest interest in all this, and the case closes here and now.

case proven that the above has nothing whatsoever to do with your usual exaggerations that you assign to others, but that no one actually says...lying.

Jayboy's claim of what others post...that he left out

The usual suspects have a mantra that the political problems of the last few years are entirely about Thaksin - his corruption, his crimes , his lust for power.If the cancer of Thaksin was removed along with his dupes (who are only in it for pay) the difficulties would entirely disappear.There are no other major problems.

Same old suspect doing the same old exaggerations aka lying.

No where can he quote what he says others have posted, certainly isn't in the above quote he cites.

Slightly surprised you have come back, albeit rather incoherently, when so comprehensively skewered.

The point I made was a very simple one, namely that it is illogical to suggest that one cannot be antipathetic to Thaksin and yet be sympathetic to the forces trying to change the social order, particularly the entrenched unelected Elite.

I quoted a comment you made illustrating a typical sneer.I don't have any objection to sneers if backed by some logic.Yours didn't.

Didn't miss your point at all. You said:

All the comments you make could have been applied to the deaths of street protestors in N.Ireland on Bloody Sunday

I said you can't make direct comparisons about situations in different places, in different times, in different circumstances. Not unless you are being very simplistic.

Of course all situations are different, and - yet again - I stress I'm only talking about street level activity..You made some comments earlier about redshirts being aware of armed figures in their midst, and thus were to blame for their fate - death in many cases.I pointed out that on Bloody Sunday there was a similar armed element behind the protesting crowd.It's directly relevant.

Yes there are similarities but there are also glaring differences. In the case of the red shirt protests, the situation had escalated and was ongoing over weeks and weeks, and the facts were quickly established early on and known to all that there was a violent militant element amongst the protesters that was engaging with an army that was quickly running out of patience. It reached the point where the army actually stated: we have ran out of patience, we are going to forcibly disperse, it won't be pretty, go home if you care for your safety, here are buses to take you there - or words to that effect.

It was after this declaration that most of the red shirt deaths occurred. All that leads me to believe that these people had the oppurtunity to preserve their safety but chose not to. I wasn't in Ireland in 1972, and nor have i studied in great detail the events of Bloody Sunday, but my suspicion is that the way those 26 people were killed, it might be fair to imagine they had little clue or warning as to exactly how much danger they were putting themselves in.

To take this discussion any further however, no matter how relevant you think it to be, is waste of everyone's time. It will simply be deleted.

I take your point entirely on why the comparison doesn't hold up.Probably best end this diversion I agree.

You miss my point completely.I'm not talking of rights and wrongs of what's happening in Thailand or elsewhere.I'm referring to a need for a precise comprehension of exactly what happened on the street - it's not a political issue.

Didn't miss your point at all. You said:

All the comments you make could have been applied to the deaths of street protestors in N.Ireland on Bloody Sunday

I said you can't make direct comparisons about situations in different places, in different times, in different circumstances. Not unless you are being very simplistic.

Of course all situations are different, and - yet again - I stress I'm only talking about street level activity..You made some comments earlier about redshirts being aware of armed figures in their midst, and thus were to blame for their fate - death in many cases.I pointed out that on Bloody Sunday there was a similar armed element behind the protesting crowd.It's directly relevant.

I have a different take.If one looks at the comments on this and other threads it's striking that perceptions of what happened on the ground are generally determined by the posters' political view.

With respect i don't think your take really is that much different.

And as far as your belief that some people's perceptions of what happened on the ground are determined by their own political views, it could equally be argued that your belief about them is the product of your own political view. It is after all no great secret that you do, like the rest of us mortals, possess a political view.

Perhaps though you consider yourself one of the unique few able to rise above politics and see things with total neutrality...

I will say though, I do agree with your closing sentiments, about establishing what happened first, albeit it somewhat stating of the obvious. Sometimes stating the obvious is indeed required...

Actually I have made an effort not to become involved in discussing the details of what happened on the streets.It's pointless on this forum.

I do try to be fair minded, and admit mistakes - both mine and those with whom I sympathise politically.

Yes I was perhaps just saying the obvious, the point being however that understanding what happened on the streets in those terrible days in 2010 is not a primarily political matter.I am thinking that what's needed is some version of an independent judicial enquiry.Though whether that is possible Thailand is certainly a concern.

Earlier in this thread we had someone wanting to make direct comparisons with what is happening in Syria now, as with what happened in Bangkok in 2010. Each situation is highly complex and different in its own way. Same goes for the events in N Ireland 40 years ago. I'm happy to discuss the rights and wrongs of what is happening in Syria, or the rights and wrongs of what happened in N Ireland, but not here.

You miss my point completely.I'm not talking of rights and wrongs of what's happening in Thailand or elsewhere.I'm referring to a need for a precise comprehension of exactly what happened on the street - it's not a political issue.

I despair to think that any rational educated westerner can consider for one moment that the army and the Government were in the wrong. It is a mind boggling!

I agree with all of your post but just to pick you up on your last sentence, i agree that the army and the government weren't in the wrong, but that's not to say that the army and the government didn't make mistakes. They did. It was at times an extremely chaotic situation in which soldiers, who i think it is fair to say have perhaps not had the best training in the world, were reacting under the unique stress levels that only being in serious fear of your life bring. The consequences of these mistakes, however unintentional they may have been, should be atoned for and those who suffered should be given answers and compensation. I'm referring to those who had no choice in being in that dangerous environment. Those who suffered but who were there entirely of their own free will, have themselves only to blame.

Returning however to the matter of mistakes made by the army and the government, these should not be used, as indeed they have been repeatedly since 2010 on here by all the red flag wavers, as evidence of the army and the government being wrong in the actions they took. Soldiers are humans and whenever they are engaged in battle, no matter how well trained they are, mistakes will be made. It's an unavoidable cost. Good advice would be, stay out of the way of any soldier who is engaged in battle. Advice that was of course given hundreds of times over all those weeks to protesters. Those who ignored that advice, have to take personal responsibility.. instead what happens is they get rewarded with 7 odd million baht. Or at least that seems to be the plan.

Great first paragraph, sadly let down by the second paragraph. If you had only stopped writing half way through you would have hit the nail on the head.

The second paragraph only really reiterated what was said in the first. How you can agree with one, but not the other, i don't know.

Anyway, it's good to know you agree with: Those who suffered but who were there entirely of their own free will, have themselves only to blame. So why not stop bleating and sympathising then with red shirts who you say were unarmed (and i agree it is possible they may have been) but who were there entirely of their own free will and there also in the knowledge that there were those in their midst who certainly were armed and were likely to be targeted, thus putting everyone in great danger?

It's like listening to someone bleating and sympathising with the drunk driver who kills himself, and blaming it all on the evil brewery that made the beer. Brewery makes the beer but nobody forces you to drink it and get in your car. Soldiers shoot guns when in battle but nobody forces you to stand on the battle field amongst those fighting against the soldiers. How much common sense is required to understand this sort of stuff? Unbelievable.

I thought your earlier post was quite sensible but you have lost that sure touch here.All the comments you make could have been applied to the deaths of street protestors in N.Ireland on Bloody Sunday at the hands of the Paras (there is some very convincing evidence IRA snipers were present).It took decades for the responsibility to be worked through ending with an apology from David Cameron in the House of Commons.Lord knows how long it will take in Thailand.

I have a different take.If one looks at the comments on this and other threads it's striking that perceptions of what happened on the ground are generally determined by the posters' political view.Thus the swivel eyed redshirt supporters argue it was entirely the fault of the army.The usual suspects (the more reasonable majority of them anyway) argue the army was simply doing its job and despite "fog of war" mistakes the redshirts should not have tolerated the presence of MIB.(I am ignoring the tiny psychotic band that argues the army was blameless, has never been guilty of any crime or brutality, and on this occasion the redshirt dead "walked in to" bullets)

I would have thought the first step would be to establish exactly what happened - free of value judgements and political axe grinding.Not easy but not impossible.One thing's for sure - it won't happen on this forum!

The same tired exaggerations from the usual suspect.

No one has said the things this poster has assigned to them aka lying about other's posts.

Huh?

From the same poster just a few minutes ago:

"It's the same as the disingenuous "I'm no fan of Thaksin, but.." posters that preceded this latest newcomer by the dozens, all espousing neutrality that rang equally hollow."

Case proven and closed

The usual suspects have a mantra that the political problems of the last few years are entirely about Thaksin - his corruption, his crimes , his lust for power.If the cancer of Thaksin was removed along with his dupes (who are only in it for pay) the difficulties would entirely disappear.There are no other major problems.The more subtle among them would say there are no major problems which have not been exploited by Thaksin and which could not be dealt with by considered political and social reform.

When it is pointed out that even if Thaksin was eliminated there would be still be deep social and political fissures they object strongly.It is not possible to talk about the cruelty, greed and violence of the unelected elites without being a stool pigeon for Thaksin.Sometimes the usual suspects with rage, sometimes with sarcasm, sometimes with a world weary smile.

To be fair the more intelligent Thai opponents of Thaksin do not take this view.One example would be the almost wholesale adoption of Thaksin's "populist" programme in the Democrats election manifesto.

I doubt anyone thinks that with Thaksin gone all the problems would be solved.

What it would do is allow the red shirts and other poor people to start fighting to fix their own problems, rather than fighting to fix Thaksin's.

Many anti-red shirts on this forum agree that the poor need a better deal. But, they also believe that bringing back Thaksin won't help with that.

Sent from my shoe phone

Fair points sensibly made (though I believe it is rather more than the poor needing a better deal.The Thai poor have actually done rather well in the last 30 years)

My intervention was really just to note the lack of logic of chipping in that it's not possible to express concern about these divisions yet at the same time distancing oneself from Thaksin.

The usual suspects have a mantra that the political problems of the last few years are entirely about Thaksin - his corruption, his crimes , his lust for power.If the cancer of Thaksin was removed along with his dupes (who are only in it for pay) the difficulties would entirely disappear.There are no other major problems.The more subtle among them would say there are no major problems which have not been exploited by Thaksin and which could not be dealt with by considered political and social reform.

When it is pointed out that even if Thaksin was eliminated there would be still be deep social and political fissures they object strongly.It is not possible to talk about the cruelty, greed and violence of the unelected elites without being a stool pigeon for Thaksin.Sometimes the usual suspects with rage, sometimes with sarcasm, sometimes with a world weary smile.

To be fair the more intelligent Thai opponents of Thaksin do not take this view.One example would be the almost wholesale adoption of Thaksin's "populist" programme in the Democrats election manifesto.

Obviously Thailand has huge infrastructure, law-enforcement and human-rights work including economic-equality and basic meritocracy, that is essential for it to become a healthy 21st century democracy. Removing Thaksin and sister and the rest of their nepotist gang from the corridors of power would not immediately cure Thailand's crime or inequality or degraded infrastructure. You are very correct in that.

However. For Thailand to become successful it needs an honest leadership with a serious law-and-order stance. That is the first step. If Yingluck was campaigning on a purely law and order reformist platform, and putting all her effort into priority bills in parliament for uprooting corruption at all levels from state down, then we would have a government who can take the first small step to fulfilling Thailand's amazing and hitherto squandered potential.

But that is the problem with your theory. You can not eradicate corruption or be tough on law enforcement, when your brother is an on-the-run convicted criminal, or when most of your cabinet ministers have a criminal record or are out on bail, and your main policy bill is trying to overturn a supreme court conviction along nepotist lines. Having a law-abiding government, with a very strong rigorous policy platform on law and order, and a zero tolerance policy on corruption, is the 'only game in town', without such a government things will only get worse than they already are.

I'm not denying that Thaksin is a poisonous influence.At the same time though not part of the traditional elite he shares many of their values.Picking up Whybother's point you could even argue he has been a restraining influence (hard to credit in early 2010 but very credible now).If he was eliminated, given the tinderbox that is Thailand, it's not quite clear whout rough beast would slouch its way to Bethlehem to be born.

put a neutral head for a minute

If you mean that, then I have to say that really you are very partisan in your posts, which is totally OK, everyone is allowed to have party loyalties, but really its a bit much to support one side like you do and then claim neutrality.

It's the same as the disingenuous "I'm no fan of Thaksin, but.." posters that preceded this latest newcomer by the dozens, all espousing neutrality that rang equally hollow.

.

The usual suspects have a mantra that the political problems of the last few years are entirely about Thaksin - his corruption, his crimes , his lust for power.If the cancer of Thaksin was removed along with his dupes (who are only in it for pay) the difficulties would entirely disappear.There are no other major problems.The more subtle among them would say there are no major problems which have not been exploited by Thaksin and which could not be dealt with by considered political and social reform.

When it is pointed out that even if Thaksin was eliminated there would be still be deep social and political fissures they object strongly.It is not possible to talk about the cruelty, greed and violence of the unelected elites without being a stool pigeon for Thaksin.Sometimes the usual suspects with rage, sometimes with sarcasm, sometimes with a world weary smile.

To be fair the more intelligent Thai opponents of Thaksin do not take this view.One example would be the almost wholesale adoption of Thaksin's "populist" programme in the Democrats election manifesto.

Every MP has already signed an undated letter of resignation, which is kept by him.

Are you sure about that? Can you prove it?

As to your post, despite the ratty tone, I'm not sure there's anything new there.I wouldn't quarrel with the general diagnosis but it's hardly unusual for ambitious politicians to use their parties for personal advancement.Lust for power goes with the territory.Putting feelers out to possible allies is hardly unusual, nor is the denial of such feelers when rejected - as seems to be the case here.I can think of umpteen examples in other countries.What's interesting to me is the presumption that the unelected elites might be interested in compromise - don't really buy the Shaun Crispin line.I

It might be comforting to defenders of the status quo that the Redshirt movement would wither and die without Thaksin's cash and organising ability.Too early to say in my view.

The Democrats and most educated people were opposed to General Sujinda's attempt to hold onto power in 1992.

The same people, to a large extent ,supported the coup in 2006 as they recognized the corruption and authoritarian nature of the Thaksin regime.

Those same people hate Thaksin even more now for the destruction he has caused to Thailand.

Actually the coup in 1991 wasn't seriously opposed, eveyone recognized the corruption of Chartchai's buffet cabinet.

It was Sujinda's u-turn to accept the premiership that sparked the discontent.

The Democrats won 11 million votes in the last election- that is not an 'ineffective grouping'.

Not much of substance I disagree with here but some points to make.

1.All educated people are educated but not all educated people are Democrats and all Democrats are certainly not all educated people.

2.The very use of the word "educated" in this context is very Thai.I don't think it would be used this way in any other democracy or even in countries like China or Russia.Semantics perhaps but the increase in higher education among the Thai working and lower middle class makes definitions harder to pin down.

3.Slightly facetiously, the use of the word "educated" in Thailand (often from people of very dubious scholastic achievement) is used to distinguish themselves from those they deem "uneducated".Comical examples of this were the barely literate banners carried on some of the PAD marches sneering at "uneducate" rural people.I think the confusion is avoided by simply using the term "middle class" instead of "educated".

4.The irony is that in Thailand those who are truly "educated" - by which I mean the finest intellects with appropriate academic pedigree tend to be on the centre left or left.In many countries there is an equivalent intellectually powerful grouping on the right but that doesn't appear to be the case in Thailand.I suppose the mandatory rquirement to believe in fairy tales must be something of a disincentive.

5.I agree your comments both on the Suchinda episode and the 2006 coup.What you fail to mention is that, middle class views apart, there was very powerful elite support for Suchinda which only ebbed away when it became clear he was compromising their security.Much myth making about that period which will have to wait a few years before being dispelled.As for 2006 you fail to mention that middle class support for the coup-which I agree - dropped off very quicky in reaction to the incompetence, indolence and sheer mediocrity of the junta's puppet government.

6.You seem confused about the Democrats' position.It is perfectly possible to win millions of votes and still be an ineffective grouping.Abhisit's leadership has been disastrous and the party is no nearer to becoming a credible successor to the current government.

I think perhaps a general reply makes more sense to points raised because I have no wish to get into slanging matches.

1.Its very evident that some have virtually no understanding of Thailand business history nor how Thaksin became so wealthy.That could be remedied by reading one of several excellent books on the subject - but no that's too much like hard work for some.Easier to rant about Thaksin as the source of all evil.

2.Yes I do believe that there are those who wittingly or unwittingly are prepared to risk Thailand's prosperous and democratic future if their place at the feeding trough is jeapordised.

3.Business practices in Thailand have not been of a high standard.Thaksin was no exception.However he cannot be singled out as worse than many others.And yes I can think of others who have benefited equally from influence and quasi monoplistic practices.That doesn't mean I approve or condone this kind of behaviour.

So you both reply with the same tired old BS - you farang you no understand how we do things in Thailand.

Sorry, it doesn't wash with me. Just because "little Somchai" gets away with it doesn't stop me from looking at a corrupt thief and calling him what I see.

I see nothing in his actions since he became a billionaire from robbing the Thai people to change that view.

Abusing members personally and repeating your simplistic discredited views doesn't alter the facts.You are clearly not able to deal with detailed arguments because you don't understand the background.It was for your benefit I quoted a relevant passage from the Pasuk/Baker book on Thaksin.I have seen nobody holding a candle for poor Thai business practices.Thaksin is certainly guilty of monopolistic practices and exploiting political influence.However he is by no means unique in this.If you talk about robbing the Thai people there are multiple targets far more insidious than Thaksin who was above all an astute businessman.

The same could be said of Tony Montana or Al Capone but they were not allowed to hold a nation hostage for a decade.

Don't be absurd.The comparison is not with American gangsters but Thai corporates, investment institutions and tycoons - who cling to monopolies and influence.

So you both reply with the same tired old BS - you farang you no understand how we do things in Thailand.

Sorry, it doesn't wash with me. Just because "little Somchai" gets away with it doesn't stop me from looking at a corrupt thief and calling him what I see.

I see nothing in his actions since he became a billionaire from robbing the Thai people to change that view.

Abusing members personally and repeating your simplistic discredited views doesn't alter the facts.You are clearly not able to deal with detailed arguments because you don't understand the background.It was for your benefit I quoted a relevant passage from the Pasuk/Baker book on Thaksin.I have seen nobody holding a candle for poor Thai business practices.Thaksin is certainly guilty of monopolistic practices and exploiting political influence.However he is by no means unique in this.If you talk about robbing the Thai people there are multiple targets far more insidious than Thaksin who was above all an astute businessman.

Now grasp - he was given a concession valued at billions, He didn't have to buy it, though I'm sure shares were handed out and/or sold cheaply. It was a monopoly - nobody was allowed to compete. if you wanted a mobile phone, you bought it from AIS and paid their premium. If you wanted to use it, you paid AIS rates. AIS was allowed to overcharge with no oversight, both phones and rates well above other countries. Are claiming that is normal business practice?

I never said anything about "normal" business practice: clearly the monopolistic approach is neither normal nor acceptable in most modern business jurisdictions.I was talking about business practice in Thailand where Thaksin's record in telecomms is mirrored in other sectors by other institutions (including one we cannot discuss here) and Sino Thai tycoons.If you don't understand these basics a period of quiet reading might be recommended (or more fantasising about the current government's legitimacy if that seems more fun)

Many of the fissure you refer to are based on lies and propaganda. The whole 'judicial coup" BS is an attempt to disguise that he and his proxy parties refuse to comply with electoral law, even when harsh penalties were introduced.

If PTP is disbanded for the blatant breaches in the 2011 election, it will almost certainly lead to bloodshed. Given that those breaches were so blatant, IMHO that was the intent. Having elected a government that promised so much the

You didn't see the PTP slogan "Thaksin thinks - PTP acts" or are you unaware that the use of banned politicians contravenes electoral law?

Are you also unaware that the EC has resolved most of the complaints against PTP into 3 major cases, one concerned with the above, and 2 related to appointment of unsuitable candidates? Any one of the 3 cases could see PTP disbanded.

There is a recent thread on those 3 cases.

More evidence that the usual suspects end up demolishing their own positions.Incredibly this one is still fantasising about the legtimacy of the last general election.

Every time I critise PTP on this forum somebody pipes up "it is the will of the Thai people" and you have no idea how inaccurate, regressive and ugly that type of statement really is.

Not at all.It is entirely legitimate to criticise the PTP led government.Indeed I do so myself.

If some give carte blanche to the government simply because they won the last general election, that clearly is unacceptable.

Equally unacceptable is the suggestion that somehow the current government does not have a legitimate mandate from the Thai people.It does and it is rock solid and not compromised in the way the previous government was.

And what is more to the point, it helped get rid of a Thaksin proxy government, so was probably cheap at twice the price. Or do you forget how much that slimeball stole from the Thai people?

Given half a chance the usual suspects will fatally incriminate themselves as this one has in the example above.

He is arguing that any crime can be tolerated if it gets rid of a "Thaksin proxy government".Clearly the current government falls into this category so it follows that any action which undermines it can be tolerated regardless of itsl egality or the clearly known wishes of the Thai people.The slight puzzle is that while this attitutude can be understood, if not approved, when coming from entrenched Thai interests, why rootless foreigners might wish to adopt it.

ANY crime? Do I condone armed insurrection as a political tool, random and targeted murders, or mass arson?

Actually, I consider the airport occupation as unnecessary. But putting a money value on it and saying that is a measure of its evil, deserves a comparison to the likely corruption it prevented.

Having raised a Thai family, and since being in a stable relationship for the last 6 years, I don't consider myself "rootless" in any sense of the word. The fact that you can't understand why somebody from a western background deplores the actions of a family who have achieved astronomical wealth by stealing from those with the least, says more of your values than mine.

BTW FYI Thaksin's fortune is based on corruption, from his contract to supply computers to the police, to his cable TV licence granted by Chalerm, to his monopoly on mobile phones valued at billions handed to him on a plate. His voracious venality doesn't even allow for a modicum of altruism to disguise his nature.

If you are going to back pedal it makes sense to address the issues.Your earlier post was quite clear about endorsing any criminality that might get rid of a proxy Thaksin government.

Your understanding of Thaksin's weath accumulation is defective.Nobody suggests Thaksin is pure as the driven snow but in business methods he is not much different from countless other Sino-Thai tycoons, just infinitely more successful.If you regard political influence as corruption, it is not just Thaksin in the firing line but the full panoply of Thai business including sectors that cannot be discussed on this forum.I know you prefer to deal in childish cartoon like ideas but I'm sure there are more serious minded members who would like to know rather more about how exactly Thaksin bevcame so wealthy.I can do no better than recommend as a starting point Pasuk Phongpaichit and Chris Baker's "Thaksin".I will quote one relevant passage.

" The fortune Thaksin made over five years beginning in 1990 was quite extraordinary.The booming economy, and the state';s abysmal failure to expand either landline or mobile networks had created enormous unfulfilled demand.The monopolistic concession structure allowed the new mobile suppliers to charge high prices with enormous profit margins.The TOT constructed a built in market advantage for Thaksin because it suited them in their competition with CAT.Finally the stock market pumped up by financial liberalization and a worldwide enthusiasm for emerging marketrs translated the high profits into higher net worth..

His enormous success inevitably inspired rivalry.Competitors understood that Thaksin's success was grounded on political linls, and hence competition was as much political as commercial.Thaksin -and his rivals - were pulled deeper into politics by the nature of their business and by the logic of intensifying competition"

If Thaksin had retired and gone to clip coupons,

like all other deposed proto-dictators in Thailand when they fell,

then NONE OF THIS WOULD BE AN ISSUE.

He likely would have kept most of his money and have returned and be an elder statesman.

But he couldn't let it go. That mindset he has is EXACTLY why he can't gain hands on

control for long without screwing up and without inadvertently calling PAD or an equivalent,

back into action to stop him.

I know you hold this position sincerely and in fact so do many decent Thais.Some of the leading Democrats I respect (ie excluding people like Suthep) hold very much the same view.

However I think it is profoundly wrong.If Thaksin disapperared today that would certainly eradicate a poison from the system.However the deep fissures in Thai society were not created by Thaksin:he simply exploited them.There would still be a profound division and that would need to be dealt with.

And what is more to the point, it helped get rid of a Thaksin proxy government, so was probably cheap at twice the price. Or do you forget how much that slimeball stole from the Thai people?

Clearly the current government falls into this category so it follows that any action which undermines it can be tolerated regardless of itsl egality or the clearly known wishes of the Thai people.

Do you mean the same "Thai people" whose home addresses were given out to an enraged baying mob recently by the virtuous PTP Govt. Or some different Thai people?

Maybe you shoud suffix that phrase with "those Thai people currently not being threatened with state violence and intimidation at their home addresses".

I'm not sure your woolly rant is designed to be answered.However the wishes of the Thai people would be accepted by most people as those reflected in the last general election when the current government was given a solid mandate.

And what is more to the point, it helped get rid of a Thaksin proxy government, so was probably cheap at twice the price. Or do you forget how much that slimeball stole from the Thai people?

Given half a chance the usual suspects will fatally incriminate themselves as this one has in the example above.

He is arguing that any crime can be tolerated if it gets rid of a "Thaksin proxy government".Clearly the current government falls into this category so it follows that any action which undermines it can be tolerated regardless of itsl egality or the clearly known wishes of the Thai people.The slight puzzle is that while this attitutude can be understood, if not approved, when coming from entrenched Thai interests, why rootless foreigners might wish to adopt it.

Democrats haven't won an election in 30 years. Maybe the Thai people's voice should be respected?????

I would point out a small factual error there, but it wouldn't fit the propaganda you are being fed, so probably little point in doing so.

No harm would have been done if you had pointed out the error.It would also have underlined that once the Democrats were a truly popular national party and not the current compromised and ineffective grouping they are now, dependent for success on the whims of military, courts and feudalists - not the judgement of the Thai people.However notwithstanding the error the poster's main point holds good - ie that for many years the Democrats have been unable to command the electoral support of the Thai people.That's not a matter of being fed propaganda, simply the unvarnished truth.

I've no idea of the quality and I can't remember other school names or the number of them mentioned in the conversation, but social standing wise this is apparently one of two maybe three girls schools at the top. I'm told.

Love the idea of schools' "social standing" not having any relationship to academic quality, only in Thailand 8-) Well I guess if you know the family fortunes are so well entrenched in the corrupt mafia-run economy that no one has to actually do anything to earn money for at least a half-dozen generations out. . .

No other suggestions?

If not actual school lists, then ideas/links towards getting more?

I'll see if I can find out.

Your description is rather fitting. The above was described to me by a Thai friend as something like:

" It's Thailands Eton for girls. A school where the countries richest girls go to be turned into perfect little ladies to marry the countries richest young men". Obvioulsy not everyone that goes there fits that description though, but will have a succesful family business. If it's true.

Your Thai friend has a warped idea about Eton which ,apart from a few Prince Harry types is an academic power house these days not a finishing school.

There are no girl school equivalents of Eton.Mater Dei is however a very good school; a UK equivalent might be St Paul's girls in London, though that also is full of ambitious and brainy girls who don't have any prime ambition of landing a husband any time soon