jayboy

Can't YOU people read and comprehend? Start from the beginning, one syllable at a time "I disagree with your scenario." Geddit?

Huh?

"Continuing with the analogy, it's more like the disciples deciding they're a bit short on numbers, and asking Judas if he would consider coming back."

As I said comically askew - your comment is very pertinent to the Abhisit administration but meaningless in relation to the current government which is not short of numbers.

I disagree with your scenario. Continuing with the analogy, it's more like the disciples deciding they're a bit short on numbers, and asking Judas if he would consider coming back.

The Nation's report is just talk.The Government doesn't need Newin and I imagine there is still a measure of bitterness towards BJT.The suggestion that the Government would bribe - images of Judas and thirty pieces of silver - BJT to join is comically askew since that was exactly what had to be done to form the army backed Abhisit administration.Don't you people have any memory at all of recent Thai politics?

It only took 4 days, but finally, cofirmation from a source that's not an employee or a DNA recipient.

Shinawatra was in the cheap seats on Monday night and happily mingled with fans who asked for photographs and autographs.

Read more:

http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1tZSDXq9V

Sometimes it makes more sense to take reports at face value than waste everybody's time specualating whether the reported event is true or not.Obviously a few can't bear the thought of the UK allowing Thaksin access - since it makes their narrative on the subject look ridiculous.

Reminds me very much of the former member who kept on endlessly querying whether the late Samak had liver cancer or not, only ceasing when the poor fellow actually expired .

Thailand is clearly a wonderful country, when the Foreign Minister can spare the time, to show such a detailed knowledge and take such an interest in the travel-problems of one ordinary citizen.

Keep repeating ... "It's not all about Thaksin" ... ""It's not all about Thaksin" ... "No really, etcetera ... "

Not questioning your assessment, but at least one can say that Surapong seems to be devoting less of his time to the subject than the Foreign Minister in the last government, the ridiculous little yellow shirt Kasit with whom it was almost be a full time occupation.

I'm not now saying in this hypothetical that the ordinary Thai does have a political case against him, i was saying that from the beginning with what i thought was a fairly basic and easy to understand hypothetical of a "Thaksin set of circumstances, or similar" in a UK visa application case, minus the money and wealth.

Anyway, by your admission above that the said "ordinary" applicant would have to prove themselves, i think we have successfully established that "ordinary" people and "rich wealthy elite" people likely get treated differently by British Authorities when it comes to dishing out visas.

Shall we call it a day as this is becoming a bit tedious (I don't exclude myself from blame)?

I think I have answered all your points.Incidentally anybody regardless of wealth and position seeking political refuge has to prove their case.I don't know why you think "we have successfully established" the British authorities treat different wealth categories differently.Perhaps they do but the matter hasn't even been discussed on this thread.Off the top of my head if you are correct surely Thaksin wouldn't have been denied a UK visa a few years ago.Can't have it both ways.

And of course, over the course of the past 5 years, it's only because he's just never "liked" to visit the UK, where he has property and business interests, that he's not returned in that span of time.

No idea.He was certainly denied a re-entry visa by the UK at one point for reasons that were never made clear.

However since you were the foremost proponent of the case on this forum that he was only welcome in dumps like the Congo, Guinea-Bissau and Liberia a period of quiet reflection might be in order before exposing yourself to further humiliation.

The hypothetical requires for you to, for one moment, put aside the difficulty you have in understanding why an ordinary Thai would be pursued for reasons of political vindictiveness, and imagine that an ordinary Thai was in just that circumstance, and then speculate on whether British Authorities would be ignoring basic visa rules for that ordinary Thai.

Sorry I'm trying to engage but am having difficulty following you.You are now saying in this hypothetical that the ordinary Thai does have a political case against him.The answer is that he would have to prove it but in the instance of the UK he would certainly be granted a visa.Most foreigners, granted visas who are being pursued by their own governments for political reasons are neither wealthy or influential.

The looney tunes element would be the one suggesting that were Thaksin a "normal" Thai of modest means, British authorities would still be ignoring very plain and clear visa application rules on the matter of criminal convictions, that apply to all except the wealthy elite.

I don't think a normal Thai of modest means would be pursued for reasons of political vindictiveness, so your comment doesn't make much sense.

The question isn't whether you think it would be likely for a Thai of modest means to be pursued for reasons of political vindictiveness - though i understand your interest in pursuing that line of arguing - the question is what would happen if such a case did exist and was presented to British Authorities?

Not sure I really follow you.If you are asking whether an ordinary Thai without any political angle would be denied a visa if facing criminal convictions, the answer presumably would be yes.So what?

So much for the rule of law.

The rule of money trumps it.

Tricky dilemma for the usual suspects.Until recently they were maintaining the governments of the world (and Interpol) were co-operating to hunt the fugitive Thaksin down, and that he was restricted to shady business trips to various African hell holes.No civilised country would receive him.It was always of course complete nonsense, and in practice Thaksin travelled where he liked.The barmy component of the Thaksin haters (Kasit being the best example) was never able to demonstrate the charges against Thaksin weren't politically motivated, and the Wikileaks disclosures have confirmed that - not suggestiong of course there are not genuine abuses to be dealt with.It doesn't however surprise me the loony tunes element is now suggesting the British Government has been compromised by Thaksin's money.

"never able to demonstrate the charges against Thaksin weren't politically motivated"

So what?, nobody can break the law unless he is accused by someone without political bias?

The "political motivated charges" mantra doesn't stop being a red herring no matter how many times is regurgitated; trying to conflate accusation with conviction.

It's very far from being a red herring because if political motivation can be demonstrated that in itself is enough for a foreign government to deny extradition requests for example.I have made it clear that Thaksin needs to face charges in Thailand so need to tilt at non existent windmills.In hindsight the enemies of Thaksin would have been better advised to simply let the law take its course without seeking to manipulate the process.This is Thailand of course so perhaps that's asking too much.It's all very well for us dopey expatriates to blather on but facing devestatating courtroom forensics at the hands of a top class British QC, the Thai Governments's case was hopeless - and apart from the ridiculous little Kasit I suspect they knew it.

The looney tunes element would be the one suggesting that were Thaksin a "normal" Thai of modest means, British authorities would still be ignoring very plain and clear visa application rules on the matter of criminal convictions, that apply to all except the wealthy elite.

I don't think a normal Thai of modest means would be pursued for reasons of political vindictiveness, so your comment doesn't make much sense.

Internal reports are often like that.

As is the tendency of zealots to refuse to accept any conclusion that doesn't meet with their own views.

And to repeat, this attempt of blame shifting from red thugs who perpetrated the invasion, onto doctors and nurses and other hospital staff, is as pathetic an argument as that being made by your foes on the other side of the political divide who seek to shift blame from the PAD onto the AOT, for the shutting of the airport.

I hope I don't embarrass you but you have made an excellent point.As to the airport closure there are even now on this forum those who blame the PAD's criminality on the AOT.As to the hospital incident the only honest response is to affirm the redshirts should have stayed outside.

On a related matter I understand, from a letter from an anti-BBC campaigner John Shepherd in the other paper, the BBC has now completed an internal investigation on its Bangkok reporting in 2010.Overall the reporting was found to be fair and objective though with room for improvement at the margin.

His "eminence" remains intact,

his intentional relaxation of the reigns of control in his retirement years

is a natural progression in life. But without a doubt, he raises one finger and people snap to.

If you seriously believe that Prem's barami, quite apart from his advancing years, remains at pre-coup levels there's not much futher to say.I'm not saying he doesn't have significant influence, simply that it is very much diminished

I think animatic was just pointing out that the picture shows clearly who's boss. During Thaksin's time, he felt that he was boss, and hence did not feel the need to consult Prem on affairs. The fact that Yingluck has now "requested permission to consult" him on affairs of state may suggest that Thaksin now realizes that ignoring him can have dire consequences.

Thaksin was as deferential as anyone when he came acoss Prem though obviously post coup the situation changed.Nevertheless he was very polite to Prem on his brief return from exile.Nevertheless you are correct to say that Thaksin as PM was perceived by some as setting up a rival base of influence, and again as you suggest there were dire consequences for Thaksin.However the situation has totally changed and despite the current rituals Prem is a shadow of his former eminence.Nobody will admit this openly but everybody knows it's true.

Body language in Thailand is very important as signals and responses culturally.

The supplicants come to see Prem have definitely submissive demeanors.

Even to the point of maintaining a Semi-Wai position, with inclined heads,

clasped hands, eyes focused on him.

While Prem is completely up right and gesticulating with his hands, and looking away.

And what's your point? Obviously she is the lower-status between them according to Thai culture - female, younger, his being the monarchy's representative. . .

Nothing to do with anything but that.

Precisely.Odd how some feel qualified to pontificate on complex political matters when they even absorbed the elementary basics of everyday Thai courtesy.A more mean spirited person might suggest this simply reflects the rather limited Thai circles they move in.

Again with respect you miss the point because like so many others you are obsessed with Thaksin.The real issue is Thaksin's catalytic effect namely that for his own agenda certainly he was at least partly responsible for letting the genie out of the bottle.The outcome is actually rather unpredictable and not necessarily at all one that will favour Thaksin's interests.Old patterns of deference are dying fast and the fairy tales are being questioned.Nothing unusual since it has happened before in many countries.My hunch is that the end result (but the endgame will be protracted and undisciplined) won't be too cataclysmic.Sino -Thai business interests will continue to dominate and the armed forces will retain political influence, but the working class and lower middle class majority will be the political driving force, and can no longer ignored and patronised.

I do find Thaksin intriguing, much like a villain in a fictional movie. It's not often nor everywhere that we are able to witness the actions and statements of an uncouth and corrupt megalomaniac and his henchmen in real life. But I am also aware of the bigger picture and of the power games with the old elites. I do give Thaksin some credit for awakening the masses of Thailand even though it was more for selfish purposes than for truly altruistic reasons. It was a turning point in history, so in the big and long-term picture, the awakening was a good thing. But in the short term, this awakening has allowed him to deceive the people enough for him to grab hold of power over Thailand, which is not good when considering his character and past behavior. My hope is that the majority ordinary people of Thailand realize that they have been deceived, and that in future, through their newly-found political awareness, they are not so easily deceived or bought, seek abolishment of patronage systems and draconian Lese Majeste laws, speak out against meddling by unelected elites, and seek much higher standards in the people whom they elevate into power.

Perhaps I wouldn't quite put it this way (but in a forum like this there will always be different perspectives).But your comments are perfectly fair and on essentials you say nothing with which I would disagree.

You 'don't do metaphor' I guess.

I point out misplaced and misleading ones.

Without funding from the Shinawatra clan, would the Red Shirt movement have been as large and powerful? I'd doubt it, as the costs of their frequent and prominent activites would have been huge. Thaksin and his clan would have considered those costs as investments in marketing and social engineering. As long as Thaksin was funding it, it was all about him and his interests.

Whatever happened to Sombat's group? I'm thinking that they received no funding from Thaksin and were therefore sidelined. Without large funding in the future, the Red Shirts' power will decline.

Many Red Shirts who were hoping to move towards true democracy would now realize that they have simply been used for one man's greed for power. Their efforts had nothing to do with democracy, as Thaksin does not operate in a democratic way and seeks to hold onto power for as long as he can. Most of us here could see it for a long time, but it appears that the useful idiots are only realizing it now.

Again with respect you miss the point because like so many others you are obsessed with Thaksin.The real issue is Thaksin's catalytic effect namely that for his own agenda certainly he was at least partly responsible for letting the genie out of the bottle.The outcome is actually rather unpredictable and not necessarily at all one that will favour Thaksin's interests.Old patterns of deference are dying fast and the fairy tales are being questioned.Nothing unusual since it has happened before in many countries.My hunch is that the end result (but the endgame will be protracted and undisciplined) won't be too cataclysmic.Sino -Thai business interests will continue to dominate and the armed forces will retain political influence, but the working class and lower middle class majority will be the political driving force, and can no longer ignored and patronised.

But what of the grumblings of the red multi-headed hydra that Thaksins incantations have caused to rise from the primordial ooze and slither across the land. Will it be consigned to the dustbin of history after a time, or is it too far entrenched and out of control? They clearly must be realizing they have been used.

What you describe as a multi headed hydra would be seen by others quite differently, specifically the emergence of a political platform for ordinary working people entirely comparable with the emergence of the Independent Labour Party in the UK and its equivalents in other European countries.It does require some historical perspective to grasp this.Thaksin is of course just a catalyst and over time will become more marginal.The sight of Yingluck paying her respects to Prem can quite reasonably be seen by some reds as a betrayal, but it can hardly be unexpected given the compromises involved in power.At this stage all is in flux but remember it was not so long ago the usual suspects were arguing that the red movement had no reality beyond the needs of its paymaster.How fatuous and ignorant this seems now.

Spooner is what is he is. Unreliable.

Not easy to have a discussion on Spooner on TV so won't attempt to.

Having said that I partly agree with you on his unreliability not so much on his source material (much of which - not all by any means - is beyond questioning as more and more evidence accumulates) but his tendency to give way to histrionics and, fatal weakness for a commentator, simply doesn't know when to stop droning on.Nobody, even natural sympathisers, can be bothered for long with someone with a bee in his bonnet.Some of us on the forum might usefully ponder this truth - but I don't think for a moment they will.

When I first saw this news item, I thought perhaps it was the PM making a remote video appearance herself...

Classy comment

So try to be less tedious, no one here will object.

Caliban raging at his own reflection in the mirror.Get googling.

We'll just let the politicians do the false flag attacks first.

But not before a bunch of farang oldsters with too much time on their hands get their tedious thoughts to the world.

No real evidence of that... but given the Andrew Spooner source, it's not surprising.

Probably best wait for an official conclusion on the evidence before following your usual approach of attacking the messenger.

At this stage frankly it really just looks like someone's cock up - to use a slightly inappropriate expression - rather than being of any political significance one way or the other.