rkidlad

8 minutes ago, dabhand said:

No, the BP article states 500 million boxes. Bit of a difference..........

The Bkk Post refers to the figure '112.5 billion'. Which is what I was referring to. 

1 minute ago, Forza2002 said:

The reporter on this story has obviously got his facts incorrect. If to be believed the 500 packs of gloves would be $3.6 billion, 1 pack $7.2 millions... Telephone numbers...

That's what I thought, but Bkk Post numbers are the same. 

1 hour ago, webfact said:

PWO's Bt112-bn glove deal being probed for alleged corruption

If these numbers are correct, this is absolutely nuts.

Someone got way ahead of themselves in how much they thought they could take. Wonder why they thought they could get away with this?

26 minutes ago, Hi Tea said:

But Pol Colonel Roongroj Phuthiyawat was nowhere near "the very top".

Isn't he? Can you explain more?

If he's not, then this whole thing is Just Weird. 

On 9/17/2020 at 10:29 AM, Hi Tea said:

Oh, yes? 

Did the compensation paid to the RTP officer's family in the Vorayuth case stop it going to court or was an arrest warrant issued for him regardless?

Did the compensation paid to the families of the two students killed by the speeding Merc driver stop it going to court or stop him from being jailed?

When did the Vorayuth case go to court? Must have missed that one. 

Funny - the house speaker, Chuan Leekpai, said that this was, and I quote, “a personal matter” when talking about the coalition MP looking at pornography. But when two males kissed in parliament, he demanded a fact-finding report so he could decide what punitive action to take against the people involved. 
 

PDA - he demands action to be taken. 
Pornography - mai pen rai. 
 

Must be hard to live a life where you have to pretend you’re very virtuous, but really you’re an absolute scumbag who has zero morals. 
 

32 minutes ago, SABloke said:

"When confronted by reporters Mr Ronnathep admitted looking at them – but made a bizarre excuse.

He claimed to have received the messages unsolicited on the app Line, from a girl who was apparently ‘asking for help’.

Mr Ronnathep told local media he had to view the pictures in detail because he needed to check the background to figure out if the girl was in danger.

He said he wanted to ‘observe the environment surrounding the girl in the picture’ as he feared she was ‘being harassed by gangsters who had forced her to take the pictures’."

 

Source: https://metro.co.uk/2020/09/17/mp-caught-looking-at-porn-on-his-phone-in-thai-parliament-13284203/amp/

I now know what to tell the missus if I ever caught caught looking at pornography.

It's like something out of a comedy sketch show. 

1 hour ago, mike787 said:

Its only porn...take it easy...who cares....suddenly everyone wants to be the enforcer/police...lay off and chill the heck out.

I think you've not understood the context of all of this. If he was at home, hell, even if he was in a coffee shop, etc, most of us wouldn't care. I know I wouldn't. But when you're in parliament as a representative, you've gotta show better judgement than this.

But read more about the story and the lies this coalition member is now saying. The man is clearly a piece of **** who'll say anything. The lies he's spewing are ridiculous to say the least. 

1 hour ago, FlyingThai said:

It's a messenger app. I wouldn't consider looking at images or clips in messages as "browsing porn" so not sure where all this outrage stems from?

I recommend reading the story on other news sources. You can see the images and hear the coalition politician's excuses.

2 minutes ago, steven100 said:

doesn't matter who he is or which party he belongs to .....  I'm not defending his actions, I'm saying how low and infutile the press have sunk.   enough said.  

Well, you won't mind finding out that he is a member of Prawit's coalition.

More honourable behaviour from the "good guys", huh? 

43 minutes ago, steven100 said:

The press have really sunk if this is all they can manage ....   losers  !!

I love the way (without actually knowing) you've subconsciously assumed it's a member of the coalition looking at porn; ergo, you're defending the action. 

Always trust your gut feeling, Steven. 

25 minutes ago, Don Mega said:

Read the post I replied to and all will be revealed.

I did. I don't get it. Can you explain?

23 minutes ago, Don Mega said:

My bad, clearly without the H you did not know who I was talking about.

 

Thanks for the history lesson though, now go back and read my reply in context of the message I qouted.

I guess billd776 is not the only one who was confused by your post - could you explain the context of the, "Taksin seems to be still doing ok !!" comment?

On 9/14/2020 at 9:42 AM, webfact said:

Daily News reported that foreigners who needed their visas processed were impressed with immigration's "mobile service".

Yes, I'm in a Line-group chat with many foreigners of different occupations, and we all very impressed how clandestine they kept this whole operation.

15 hours ago, webfact said:

Prime Minister and Defense Minister, Gen. Prayut Chan-o-cha, says the government doesn’t mind if it has to hold a constitutional referendum

Yea, but they also don’t mind lying through their teeth to get what they want or have people stop asking questions.

Funny how in real life you get mocked for believing ordinary people who are known to lie a lot, but when you do the same with a public figure, you get called negative my many. 

4 minutes ago, Don Mega said:

Burden of proof is on the prosecutor.

Not when it's so obvious. You don't get to run away from a hit and run . There's a reason people do it and there's a reason why the punishment is so severe.

Same as refusing to do a breathalyzer. You are heavily punished for it. 

36 minutes ago, Don Mega said:

It does not prove the alcohol was present at time of accident all it does is prove alcohol had been consumed at some stage prior to the test proceedure.

So don't do a hit and run and then drink alcohol. Any judge or jury would simply presume you were drunk at the time. 

You don't get to claim you got drunk after the fact and your alcohol blood level was so high that you couldn't possibly have been driving. That's why we do circumstantial evidence. You know, high on cocaine, speeding in the early hours of the morning and then dragging a cop's body along the road in your car will get you no benefit of the doubt. Quite the opposite, actually.

34 minutes ago, bluesofa said:

All I can say is wait for 'someone or other' bring on the men in black. Then the government can appear to claim no knowledge of who they are, or why they have intimidated or attacked protesters.

 

Having said, that now our illustrious leader's in charge they don't seem to worry about  hiding their identity.
Back in June 2014 it didn't stop some 'plain clothed' guys dragging off people eating sandwiches, because they were reading George Orwell's 1984. They were charged with 'eating a sandwich with political intent'.

What could the charge be this time - 'travelling in a subversive manner'?

 

 

They're already saying that if the protesters talk about that which cannot be talked about, there will be violence.

And they say that as if the people committing the violence will be validated in doing so and it will be the protesters' fault. So much for freedom of expression under a democratic regime. 

2 hours ago, Don Mega said:

blood alcohol test taken hours after the accident aint gunna stand up in court.

No, it would stand up. That's how blood alcohol tests work.  

Bit of advice - stop the cotton bud when there's resistance.