Nickymaster

Can we now conclude that this whole tablet thing is a joke and was only implemented to get (buy) votes?

Or is it still too early?

The game is to just re-apply until you get a friendly judge....

Or until the Justice Minister (oops and one of the guarantee letters is from him) appoints one to hear the case. "There is no conflict of interest here milaud" !

Puppet Pracha is doing what he is paid for. Whitewashing all Red criminals.

Then the parents who gave her a car and knew she was driving it should be punished right? Same when if you give your child a gun and she kills somebody.

The difference is that if I sent a 6yo to school with an AK47 and a full 30 shot magazine, it's unlikely that he'd kill 9 people.

Forget about the numbers. Whether it is 1 or 9 people sadly being killed is not relevant in this discussion. But what if the kid accidentally killed someone after he/she got the gun from the parent? A car in the wrong hands can easily kill people.

It is good to see that Thailand protects children and adhere's to the treaty on the rights of the child. Especially regarding youngsters the aim of the law is not to punish, but to correct wrong behaviour.

Let's not forget this isn't murder, as some seem to want to make out of it. It was a very, very tragic accident. And don't forget that driving by minors is not exactly rare in Thailand and it are often the adults who fail to act against it.

Then the parents who gave her a car and knew she was driving it should be punished right? Same when if you give your child a gun and she kills somebody.

Thaksin - I am not so stupid as to think that Thaksin was not somehow involved - but you have absolutely no more proof of that than I do - so that one gets chalked up to "common knowledge" without a stitch of proof.

As for your comment "The whole i demand concrete evidence thing is disingenuous nonsense used selectively", well, ... this is TVF, so allow me the liberty to say

Then there is this gem "You have no evidence that the government gave birth to the Blue Shirts"

But of course I do. It is well documented from various sources, but the most available as he has posted explicitly on this topic is Nick Nostitz. And Suthep has been directly linked to the birth and implementation of the Blue Shirts. Then there is the fact that the Blue Shirts were identified as Military Personnel and PAD guards.

You seem to struggle with the concept of what evidence is. Evidence is not what you read on wikipedia, or what you read in some bloke's book. Lawyers don't turn up in court and say, "i present to the court evidence exhibit A: this book i read last night", well not unless the book was used as a murder weapon and is covered in fingerprints of the accused.

The truth is that nobody here offers anything more than opinions. Not you, not me. We might on occasion be able to offer links to articles, books, publishings and such that help corroborate our opinion, but that's not evidence.

So for you to take the position that until i present to you evidence of how deeply Thaksin was involved in the red shirt protests, you will dismiss it as hearsay, whilst at the same time making some quite controversial claims concerning the blue shirts, based on what you have read in a book, and what you think constitutes evidence, is frankly ridiculous and absurd. Worthy indeed of a long line of laughing smilies, if one is inclined to that level of debate.

Isn't Thaksin the Red Shirt's main leader? Aren't Jatuporn, Weng etc sub-leaders? Most of the time Thaksin wears Red and has addressed (brainwashed) his followers at least 50 (yes 50) times the last 4 years. So if the Reds terrorize the country isn't Thaksin responsible?

I am really getting sick of people claiming the Thaksin is "not really that much involved with the Reds" or "proof it". Do we need more proof??!! Pfff. Guys who claim that Thaksin is not the real main Red Leader should look in the mirror if they want to be confronted with a real liar.

Sorry for being of topic but I had to say something concerning this nonsense.

" am really getting sick of people claiming the Thaksin is "not really that much involved with the Reds" or "proof it"."

be sick of it if you want, it is all in your head, because that is not what people here claim.

What has been acknowledge by me at least, is that people attribute everything to Thaksin without a thread of evidence. And in that context, it is just fine to ask if they have any informaiton or if it is just more of the same old same old.

You guys really need to bruch up on your reading comprehension...

"You guys really need to bruch up on your reading comprehension..." this is a BS statement!

I read this: "Thaksin - I am not so stupid as to think that Thaksin was not somehow involved - but you have absolutely no more proof of that than I do - so that one gets chalked up to "common knowledge" without a stitch of proof".

With the focus on: "Somehow involved" and "Common knowledge without a stitch of proof".

Thaksin has CREATED the Red shirts. How much more proof do you need?

You could find some common ground twisting stories with your twist buddy PPD.

Thaksin - I am not so stupid as to think that Thaksin was not somehow involved - but you have absolutely no more proof of that than I do - so that one gets chalked up to "common knowledge" without a stitch of proof.

As for your comment "The whole i demand concrete evidence thing is disingenuous nonsense used selectively", well, ... this is TVF, so allow me the liberty to say

Then there is this gem "You have no evidence that the government gave birth to the Blue Shirts"

But of course I do. It is well documented from various sources, but the most available as he has posted explicitly on this topic is Nick Nostitz. And Suthep has been directly linked to the birth and implementation of the Blue Shirts. Then there is the fact that the Blue Shirts were identified as Military Personnel and PAD guards.

You seem to struggle with the concept of what evidence is. Evidence is not what you read on wikipedia, or what you read in some bloke's book. Lawyers don't turn up in court and say, "i present to the court evidence exhibit A: this book i read last night", well not unless the book was used as a murder weapon and is covered in fingerprints of the accused.

The truth is that nobody here offers anything more than opinions. Not you, not me. We might on occasion be able to offer links to articles, books, publishings and such that help corroborate our opinion, but that's not evidence.

So for you to take the position that until i present to you evidence of how deeply Thaksin was involved in the red shirt protests, you will dismiss it as hearsay, whilst at the same time making some quite controversial claims concerning the blue shirts, based on what you have read in a book, and what you think constitutes evidence, is frankly ridiculous and absurd. Worthy indeed of a long line of laughing smilies, if one is inclined to that level of debate.

Isn't Thaksin the Red Shirt's main leader? Aren't Jatuporn, Weng etc sub-leaders? Most of the time Thaksin wears Red and has addressed (brainwashed) his followers at least 50 (yes 50) times the last 4 years. So if the Reds terrorize the country isn't Thaksin responsible?

I am really getting sick of people claiming the Thaksin is "not really that much involved with the Reds" or "proof it". Do we need more proof??!! Pfff. Guys who claim that Thaksin is not the real main Red Leader should look in the mirror if they want to be confronted with a real liar.

Sorry for being of topic but I had to say something concerning this nonsense.

If the interest is in having a debate on populist policies, then this definition above is completely wrong.

If the interest is propaganda mongering and shooting down existing policies, then this definition above is pretty good.

Easy to criticize someone else, so what is populism in your opinion? And what about populism in Thai perspective? Give us your opinion for once.

You have noticed it too. There are a few more of those around.

During Somchai's tenure it was the demonstrators, the Yellows, who were on the receiving end of the daily grenade attacks. During the yellow protests there were no 'men in black', nor were the police or army being slaughtered. Also, there were no incidents of body snatching, lpg tankers in residential areas, death threats to the PM, leaders asking their followers to bring a million bottles of gasoline to Bangkok, attacks on radio stations and hospitals, and go on and on..........

Typical BS

• At the Government House,Sondhi Limthongkul, however, stated demonstrations would continue: "I am warning you, the government and police, that you are putting fuel on the fire. Once you arrest me, thousands of people will tear you apart."
  
• Armed PAD forces "Srivichai Warriors" seized a government television broadcaster as well as several government ministries.
  
• the PAD formally renounced non-violence and vowed bloody revenge.
  
• the PAD blockaded Parliament prior to a crucial legislative session, used hijacked public buses to take control of the government's provisional offices
  
• The PAD was defiant. PAD leader Suriyasai Katasila announced that the PAD would fight off police.
  
• Suriyasai also threatened to use human shields if police attempted to disperse the PAD.
  
• the PAD was paying people to join them at the airport, with extra payment being given to parents bringing babies and children.
  
• At one checkpoint, police found 15 home-made guns, an axe and other weapons in a Dharma Army six-wheel truck taking 20 protesters to Suvarnabhumi airport
  
• Another checkpoint found an Uzi submachine gun, homemade guns, ammunition, sling shots, bullet-proof vests and metal rods. The vehicle had the universally recognised Red Cross signs on its exterior to give the impression it was being used for medical emergencies.
  
• another police checkpoint, about 2 kilometers from the airport, was attacked by armed PAD forces in vehicles, causing the police to withdraw.
  
• A plainclothes policewoman at the airport was identified and captured by PAD security forces and forced onto the main PAD stage inside the airport. Angry PAD protesters threw water at her and many tried to hit her.
  
• Police eventually regained control of the NBT building and arrested 80 of the raiders, seizing guns, knives, golf clubs, and drugs. The raiders were charged with causing damage to public property and illegal possession of weapons and drugs.
  
• Journalists at PAD-controlled Government House reported that they were intimidated, pelted with water bottles, and attacked with a metal pipe.
  
• A photographer from the Thai-language newspaper Thai Rath was attacked by PAD security forces after he took photos of them beating a man at Don Muang airport.
  
• A TNN television truck was repeatedly shot at by PAD security forces while lost in PAD-controlled Don Muang airport. Phanumart Jaihork, a TNN relay controller, said his truck came under heavy gunfire even though it carried the logos of the company and TV station on its sides and a microwave transmitter in its bed.
  

And the topic is: Former Thai PM Abhisit In Court Over 'red shirt' Protest death.

I think you are at the wrong please with your BS.

What he truly deserves is at least twenty years in the Bangkok Hilton fed maggot soup daily. This guy has no remorse at all for helping to create hatred by his firey speeches to the reds for over two months leading many of them to their deaths. Scum comes to mind.

2 months?! This guy has been spreading hatred for more than 2 years. He has pulled the whole country into pieces.

So, is it or is it not OK to block and threaten someone who wants to make a speech? By my book, in a democracy it is not. But we all know that reds are anything but democracy lovers, as they even don't know what this word means anyway

"it not OK to block and threaten someone who wants to make a speech" Same same to Thaksin just last week (the other way round). What's your excuse?

He was NOT blocked and was NOT threatened. Get your facts right and then you can comment

yeah sure that's why Chalerm told the Reds to stop.

Ok fine. The day will come that Yingluck will hunted down (assuming Thaksin is not in the country). The reds have proven time after time that it is ok to "attack" a politician.

And BTW, don't forget that this Police Farce only works for PT/Reds/Thaksin. They are the MAIN reason the country has no law and order. They work for money and power, NOT for the people.

The Democrat Government never had a chance to administer the country as the spent most of their energy fighting off the constant attacks from all who apposed them.

They had to contend with months of Red Shirt protests and riots, the UDD, the opposition party, Mr. T and a lot of other distractions, so I don't believe it is fair to judge their performance

against what might have been achieved if they had cooperation from all the parties and the general public.

Things may well have been very different if it were not for a concerted effort to destroy the Government at any cost.

Mr.T had taken an "If I can't have it, then nobody can" position.

Correct. Imagine how the performance of PT would be if the DEMS would do the same.

Even without interference, PT and Yingluck can't perform.

I have biting questions to Mr. Abhisit:

1. When you were in Office, where were you, when you were too busy NOT handling the accumulating flood problem measurements that were apparently to come months later, when you were dethroned by the Taksin organization?

2. What did he do to make the country better? Nothing??

So is he any better than Yingluck???

Whether he was better than Yingluck is irrelevant, Abhisit is in the opposition and his job is to counterbalance the government. Or in other words being critical. Yingluck's performance is laughable, she seems clueless and absent all the time. Her party PT made loads of promises before the election and is being called on them

Would you prefer that nobody questions this government?

100% agreed. IMO he is doing a good job as opposition leader. I would love a Television prime-time debate between him and Yingluck.

A debate with a dictatorial govenment. Dream on.

All very valid points, but the issue for PTT is an interesting conundrum.

As a shareholder, I would like to know does Mr. Abhisit suggest that it shouldn't be run to maximise profit within a regulatory framework, or is its job to provide cheap fuel to the people of Thailand?

Come to that matter, would he be complaining if Thai Airways made a profit, but tickets were above the purchase price of Thai people. Come to think of it, they make a loss, and the tickets are already beyond the reach of the vast majority of Thai people. In fact part of the reason they make a loss is because people like him are receiving subsidised tickets. I guess the shareholders should complain.

Doesn't PTT have a monopoly here in Thailand?

Doesn't that make it easy to have huge profits at the expense of the people?

Shouldn't the government intervene (like they do in many other countries in these kind of sectors)?

Impossible to compare it with Thai Airways.

Yeah let's turn this post into a personal attack on AV, kids!

Yes I know the truth hurts. You choose this 1-policy-puppet. Now live with it!

if mark is so smart, why is he not elected/appointed?

Because a majority of Thais preferred the election program of the inexperienced miss Yingluck and her henchmen Chalerm, Nattawut, Weng, Jatuporn, etc.....

Gullible comes to mind.

Don't forget all the money handouts uuhh funds.

Good points.

Don't feel too sorry. The death of the son probably saved some poor sap from being run over by him in the future, for which, as the son of a prominent politician he would undoubtedly walk away from without any negative personal ramifications.

What crap theory and assumptions! Like you know the son personally to know that he would take after the father! For Christ's sake, he is only 27 years! Life is just the beginning for him. Too cruel of you to be judging him on the merits of his father!! Get a life!

You have no idea what you are talking about. Why was the 27 year old boy carrying a gun? Why did the 27 year old boy shoot at the people who eventually killed him?

And now the police is supporting the father (who was earlier acquitted of a double murder) by making this look like an "accident".

If you don't smell something fishy here you better get a life.

SO you are the Judge, Jury and Executioner! Wow...I rest my case. "Argue with a F##L & nobody knows the Difference."

Don't get personal batty boy!

Many guys might recognize the accent.

A case of mistaken identity. I always feel sorry when someone's family member is killed or dies, but politicians live by their own rules and sometimes die by them.

Don't feel too sorry. The death of the son probably saved some poor sap from being run over by him in the future, for which, as the son of a prominent politician he would undoubtedly walk away from without any negative personal ramifications.

What an absolutely ridiculous, not to say moronic assumption.

Not when you know that the 27 year old boy was carrying a gun.

let me guess, decision delayed ?

Last warning...

A case of mistaken identity. I always feel sorry when someone's family member is killed or dies, but politicians live by their own rules and sometimes die by them.

Don't feel too sorry. The death of the son probably saved some poor sap from being run over by him in the future, for which, as the son of a prominent politician he would undoubtedly walk away from without any negative personal ramifications.

What crap theory and assumptions! Like you know the son personally to know that he would take after the father! For Christ's sake, he is only 27 years! Life is just the beginning for him. Too cruel of you to be judging him on the merits of his father!! Get a life!

You have no idea what you are talking about. Why was the 27 year old boy carrying a gun? Why did the 27 year old boy shoot at the people who eventually killed him?

And now the police is supporting the father (who was earlier acquitted of a double murder) by making this look like an "accident".

If you don't smell something fishy here you better get a life.

Someone has to answer for all those deaths and as he was the man in charge the blame should be laid on him. I really dont like him and have no doubt he was involved.

I watched a documentary where government troops fired into what was supposed to have been marked as a safe haven, killing many, including Thai nurses.

Its shocking what went on and somebody needs to be held accountable.

Interesting theory, "you dont like him" ipso facto he must have been invoved staggering logic.

<snip>

Just because i made two statements in one sentence doesnt have to mean that one is a basis of argument for the other.

But oh yes, thats exactly what it means because this is a forum and people unable to think before posting

I think you're missing the point. "I really dont like him" suggests that you're biased against him and "have no doubt he was involved" suggests that your conclusion came from that bias. If you would like to convince us that you're not biased, then it might've been a good idea not to mention your distaste for Abhisit. "But oh yes, thats exactly what it means because this is a forum and people unable to think before posting", since we can't read your mind we could only infer from your statements. So I would take your own advice and think before posting.

"Someone has to answer for all those deaths and as he was the man in charge the blame should be laid on him"

I partially agree with you but once again, you're overlooking the other possibilities. If you believe the reports that army equipment and uniform were stolen, then it's possible that there were imposters to frame the military. If you don't believe the reports and deny that such a scenario can possibly exist, then nothing can be done to show you the truth even if the former was true since you refuse to believe in it. By denying that military equipment were stolen, you would also deny that the red shirts and men in black were armed or perhaps they equipped themselves by some other means in which you would have to provide some more information.

You're ready to place all the blame on Abhisit but what about Thaksin? Shouldn't he be held accountable as well or do you deny that he's involved in the riots. I don't deny Abhisit's involvement since he was the PM of Thailand and in the country at the time (although he should've just went to make SomTam in Australia and deny any responsibility) so yes, he's involved. How much or how little, we don't know but let's not be quick to throw all the turd at him. If you heard from him directly or know exactly what orders were given, please share with us. As for the Red Shirt leaders inciting violence and burning of Bangkok, they cannot deny.

I'm remaining skeptical about media nowadays and it might do people some good to step back a bit. Too much red might make your eyes bloodshot.

How about the Police? They purposely disappeared from the "war zone" when the Reds arrived. Very well coordinated by... uhh.. someone. Police FAILED to control the crowd and when things got completely out of hand the army had to clean up the mess.

If someone should be blamed its the Police and the invisible hand controlling the Police for framing the army.

_{Don't expect too much from this hearing guys. History has taught us that whenever the Reds start threatening and blackmailing, they don't have things "under control". If they lay low and act cooperative, they must probably have a very good "feeling" of what the outcome will be.}