pastitche

Referring to the annual royal pardon for the convicts to be set free Dec 5 as part of the celebrations of the king's birthday, Mr Chalerm said "some 26,000 convicts are eligible to be granted royal pardon this year"

So tell me Pro Thaksinites and Red Shirts,where does this include Thaksin,a known absconder from Justice who has never served a day in Jail,as being eligible for this Pardon?

who up to now has never been a Convict? even though he should have been,according to the Thai Judicial Sentences passed against him,

And please no more B***S*** about the sentences were Politically motivated,and don't count,just keep replies to the issues, i.e pure and simple..... THEFT! & CORRUPTION CONVICTIONS, for which he didn't have the courage to stay and face, and proved his guilt by doing a runner! as cowards are apt to do.

The fact that he has absconded in order to avoid imprisonment does not mean that he has not been convicted. He is therefore a convict but not a prisoner

Of course that Thaksin is a huge political issue is going to make this heated but reality is that without resolving the Thaksin issue, there will never be reconcilliation, and increrasingly more people who dont like Thaksin realise that an accomodation is needed.

Why doesn't Thaksin just show up, face his charges in court, use the best legal team he can, and act like he, to use the colloquial, has a pair?

All his wordy mouthing off from afar, his attempts to create mob rule, all the political lobbyists he has on his payroll....the vast cost of all that surely would be less than just getting a good lawyer and having his day in court.

If he thinks he doesn't get justice...he can always appeal. Or assemble some donut boxes/lynch mobs pre verdict as he has (alledgedly) done in the past.

Certainly, he wasn't nearly as suspicious of the justice system when he and Shin attempted to sue pretty much everyone in sight back in the day.

Reconciliation starts with him acting a little more like a man, and a little less like a

scaredy cat

scaredy cat

sitting on a (can someone finish this one for me, I want to say monkey trap, but really 'flooded big bag' would be more relevant in these heady days where the PT government orders hundreds of big bags from (probably) ItalThai, a PT supporter, with no independent oversight as to costs or effectiveness)

man up pal - you got a divorce to protect your assets, you helped your son get away with cheating at university...for once in your life act like a MAN.

Because he has the political power to make it all go away or destroy those who oppose him. It also isnt helped by his enemies not being very good at politics, PR, marketing or even being very democratic, so that he has skillfully positioned himself as a champion of the people and garnered international sympathy.

The only way people will ever realise Thaksin is an exploitative so and so is if he does return and shows it without his poltical opponents trying to thwart everything he does. Thaksin has played a brilliant poltical game and is easily the most skillful politician Thailand has ever seen and by far the most popular politican Thailand has ever seen (even in absence). What opposes him cannot compete and is undermined by their own past excesses and lets be honest manipulations not exactly disimilar to Thaksins. Of course he and his mates just wanted to become the new elite and boot the old one out. Now it has all got tied up in other stuff linked to huge masses of people who have been on the receiving end of inequality for too long and who have little trust for courts or traditonal parties or traditional media mouthpieces. Great at manipulating a position and using people is Thaksin, or maybe we get to the point where they use him

I am glad to read your post, hammered, because I believe that it describes perfectly why continued attempts to keep him out of the country are counter-productive. He has built a massive support-base that is well beyond anything that the opposition could muster and has shown that, although he cannot be directly involved, that support will line up behind any party associated with him. This situation exists because his opposition are naive and do not appreciate that they need the support of the masses that Thaksin has transfixed with his smoke and mirrors show. The resounding success of PTP in the last election shows that the Democrats are not regarded as a party who represent the popular will. ( I expect the usual wailings that PTP did not get the majority of the vote, but that is a nonsensical argument in a "First Past the Post system" as most of them are aware but conveniently ignore).

Thaksin has exploited the weaknesse of the Thai system, appointments to what should be non-political positions in the police, military, judiciary and ministries should not be within the gift of any administration but if it has been done to his detriment then he is returning the favour.

With no serious political opponents ( their only recourse being attempts at impeachment after they could not find a reason to have the election nullified) his only threat is the army. They have shown recently that they are a major resource for the country in disasters and have gained huge popularity as a result.

I really do not believe that the Thai military are in any way seriouly considering a coup; it is relatively simple to roll tanks into Bangkok but where would that lead? Nowhere that any of us want to go

Bucholz - screwed the quotes thing again; forgive me. 25 years in IT management will do that to a guy

I assume perhaps wrongly that you are referring to the infamous OJ Simpson case. Civil action there was taken after a failed criminal trial, not before nor as an alternative. If the aggrieved person in this case feels that a criminal offence has been committed he should be agitating for criminal action to be taken. To use "the language referred in the penal code" to bolster his case would mean providing evidence that he does not have and would not be able to obtain since he has no official standing. So he is left with only the option of saying " they should have done better". Whilst this is a legitimate position, it is obviously open to allegations of political intent and IMO is unlikely to be successful because it would be difficult to convince a court that there is fault if the defendant can say "I was acting on the best available information at the time"

I believe that there is a better way to resolve this issue that would be less party political ie to hold a Public Enquiry with a wide-ranging remit to investiagate the reasons why this disaster occurred. In an open enquiry, under an impartial judge, it should be possible to establish why an event that was foreseeable for decades was able to happen without a planned response being available or action having been taken to ensure that it never happened. It would also address the performance of the government as the crisis progressed.

All politicians will be "economical with the truth" but an open enquiry would be able to ensure that the technical advice they were given was also verified from the people who gave it being required to appear. They would also be less likely to hide behind the UK minister's arguments that they were only accountable for policy and not operational practice - described as "sophistry" in one enquiry.

As things stand at the moment there is a sacrificial lamb/ scapegoat waiting in the wings; this might suit all parties but is not the answer

However, if it targets governmental departments and BMA for not doing specific things they are mandated to do as agencies, it could find targets. If the purpose is to get a judge to make a political decision on whether the elected government or elected Bangkok governor didnt do their job, that is a different matter though. That is the decision of the voters to decide how the job was done unless a specific law has of course been broken, and of course there are other constitutional ways in which elected people can be punished. For example the BKK governor can be removed by the government although I wouldnt think they would want to, ministers can be impeached or reshuffled and government censured or no confidenced by the legislature and finally the PM can decide to seek a new mandate from the people which they may give or reject.

Malfeasance in office is absolutely the domain of the judiciary and is not merely an electoral issue for the voters.

While varying levels of other repercussions can be implemented, such as impeachment by Parliament, or a no-confidence debate there, the criminality of malfeasance, and the damages emerging from it, is definitely within the purview of the Courts to determine.

I said unless a specific law is broken. Judges cannot state whether a government preformed well or not. Thay can take cases of unlawful things done in official capacity (malfeasance) but that as I said is breach of specific law. It isnt about judging performance or whether one action was right over another. That is under the people and the legislature and we shouldnt forget that in a parliamentary system the legislature in the final analysis as the body directly representing the people is considered the supreme body not the government or the judiciary so the legislature has wide powers to check and control government in this system

Malfeasance is what is being addressed in the lawsuit.

Thai Penal Code Sections 147 – 166 prescribe various grounds for malfeasance in office including: misappropriation, abuse of power/coercion, bribery, vote-buying, self-dealing, dishonesty, wrongful exercise or non-exercise of duty, destruction or damage of property, concealment or destruction of documents, wrongful use of state seals, forgery, bearing false witness or falsification of records, unauthorized eavesdropping and interference with communications, disclosure of state secrets, obstruction of justice, and willful abandonment of duty.

.

Malfeasance in public office is a criminal offence and accordingly it is the responsibility of he prosecuting authorities; it is my understanding that this is a civil case, so the Sections of the Penal Code quoted have no relevance

Thaksin is doing the right thing in staying quiet through this apart from expressing sympathies. Needless distractions are not needed now and everyone should be working together to get the country back up and running ASAP and putting aside political differences however difficult that is. Unfortunately this isnt happening on other fronts but I doubt even the most ardent Thaksin hater would criticize him for this quiet approach

I really don't understand your fervent support of this tyrant!!!. He has been nothing short of a DISASTER for Thailand (since birth probably) and ONLY does things to benefit himself.

Stop kidding yourself and see things "as they really are". Do you think he is being kind by keeping a low profile??? If he could keep a low profile at all other times - beyond this flood disaster, then Thailand would be a better place for everybody (including those poor Thais who put his sister into government to oversee this catastrophe with such calamitous consequences)!!

Rid this family of any Shinawatra influence and THAT will get Thailand back on its feet again to its rightful position in South-East Asia and not perceived as being a third world country.

I see that Thaksin's clone has gone (finally) and Italy should reap the rewards despite the mess it has been left in - now kindly leave Thailand alone K. Thaksin so that normallity can return, pleeeease!!!:jap:.

Rid this fmily of any Shinawatra influence? What on earth do you mean - change their name to Smith?

I am clearly in the presence of some serious and knowledgeable imbibers of beer, so may I respectfully ask the following: I usually drink bottles of Leo and Singha (at home and in Pattaya bars). I have seen the brands Tiger and Chang but my Thai wife is quite (if not very) adamant that I do not try those two. My question: is there any valid reason to avoid Tiger and Chang? This is a serious question for my learning curve. Thanks to all who reply.

I'm sure about the vaidity of this, but I vaguely remember hearing that at least one of these 2 beers (Chang I think) being the Thai equivaent of "Stella Artois".

Stella Artois is sometimes referred to as "wife beater" - if true, this might just be the reason!!! Why don't you ask her????

By the way, I drink Leo myself as it is a bit sweeter than "Bia Singh" and less gassy, which appeals as the lesser of 2 evils to a hardened CAMRA buff!!:jap:.

A CAMRA buff marooned in Thailand - you poor soul. What did you do before? Mormon missionary in Vatican City? Nah they don't drink...

Nonetheless there other good reasons for being here

I am clearly in the presence of some serious and knowledgeable imbibers of beer, so may I respectfully ask the following: I usually drink bottles of Leo and Singha (at home and in Pattaya bars). I have seen the brands Tiger and Chang but my Thai wife is quite (if not very) adamant that I do not try those two. My question: is there any valid reason to avoid Tiger and Chang? This is a serious question for my learning curve. Thanks to all who reply.

If you can drink Leo, you shouldn't have any problem with Tiger and Chang.

Maybe she doesn't like the companies that produce them.

I don't drink Chang because she doesn't like the smell, a small sacrifice to make considering........

Reduced stocks in supermarkets in this part of Issaan (Kantharalak SiSaket), but the beer box shops and local stores still run at their normal grossly overstocked levels!

Sounds like a good excuse to evacuate Bangkok to me

Well we are not sharing in Chiangmai, you mexicans down south can find your own beer supplies. It's a dog eat dog world when it comes to beer. Just tugging your chains cobbers, we Aussies fully understand what it's like to be as dry as a dead dingo's donger.

Hope this cheers you all up...............

http://www.youtube.c...e&v=hxpxU6H2WYA

There's nothing so lonesome, morbid or drear......................."

Yes one thing that you colonials did get right is a true appreciation of what makes life worthwhile

I genuinely cannot tell from this photograph how old the individuals might be. Can you?

I explained before that I assumed that they were young men and as such their intention was not malign. You may have matured early but I can recall my student days when many of us indulged in behaviour that could be deemed reprehensible after our teenage years. We have different life experiences; that does not mean that either one of us is right or wrong

I never said that I believed the stickers were cool and I don't "buy into" that idea; my only point is that I believe that they were injudicious but may well have been mischievous rather than malicious.

You and I have both benefitted from a western education; it is unlikely that the people who displayed these stickers had such an advantage in life so would they be likely to analyse their behaviour and appreciate that it might have a negative effect on their political opponents in the present crisis? And would their political opponents take seriously the message from the stickers if they needed assistance?

I'd like to point out to both you and Yoshiwara that I have never taken sides in the political mess that is Thailand. As far as I can judge all parties/factions are equally distasteful

When talking of this crew, the word rebellion isn't solely meaning the teenagers.

...and dressing something unpleasant up as a young and thoughtless rebellion is yet another lame effort to manufacture a get out of jail card for the reds. Social Workers 'R Us.

I see that you have a distaste for sociologists and social workers; I am neither.

I get the impression that you are, however, a forensic psychologist since you consider yourself capable of assigning to me the role of attempting to "manufacture a get out of jail card for the reds". I was completely unaware that was my motivation. Thank you for your invaluable insight; I'm sure that it will change my life

To help you with your psychological profiling you might want to know that I long ago became disillusioned by politics and politicians in the country I left and I find politicians and politics in Thailand an affront to democracy. I am also and intend to remain firmly in the "A plague on both your houses" camp.

And I will continue to be a neutral observer of The Internecine War of The Farangs on TV

Your whole premise is predicated on the notion that rebellious teens are responsible for the stickers.

From where do you get this notion?

Certainly not from the available photos.

.

At no time did I mention "teens". I said that I assumed that they were young men and I see nothing in the above photograph (which is not the one that caused the furore) to contradict that assumption. My point was and remains that it is more likely that this was thoughtlessness than malice; however you are entitled to disagree, having no more evidence than I and ignoring the interview that Nick N reported.

It's the photo of the group that Nostitz went and talked to and is apparently responsible for the stickers. Don't recall they ever being referred to as young men. I presumed you meant teenagers when you described the rebellious behavior earlier (which I personally left at my teenage years and not later).

The stickers themselves indicate malice rather than thoughtlessness or "coolness" that Nostitz cites. If you buy into them being "cool" and not abhorrent in their message... up to you.

.

I genuinely cannot tell from this photograph how old the individuals might be. Can you?

I explained before that I assumed that they were young men and as such their intention was not malign. You may have matured early but I can recall my student days when many of us indulged in behaviour that could be deemed reprehensible after our teenage years. We have different life experiences; that does not mean that either one of us is right or wrong

I never said that I believed the stickers were cool and I don't "buy into" that idea; my only point is that I believe that they were injudicious but may well have been mischievous rather than malicious.

You and I have both benefitted from a western education; it is unlikely that the people who displayed these stickers had such an advantage in life so would they be likely to analyse their behaviour and appreciate that it might have a negative effect on their political opponents in the present crisis? And would their political opponents take seriously the message from the stickers if they needed assistance?

I'd like to point out to both you and Yoshiwara that I have never taken sides in the political mess that is Thailand. As far as I can judge all parties/factions are equally distasteful

]

Your whole premise is predicated on the notion that rebellious teens are responsible for the stickers.

From where do you get this notion?

Certainly not from the available photos.

.

At no time did I mention "teens". I said that I assumed that they were young men and I see nothing in the above photograph (which is not the one that caused the furore) to contradict that assumption. My point was and remains that it is more likely that this was thoughtlessness than malice; however you are entitled to disagree, having no more evidence than I and ignoring the interview that Nick N reported.

I used to think that many Thailand expats of a "certain age" were ex-hippies and survivors of the sixties; apparently I was wrong. Doing something that you think is cool and affronts the older generation is a part of the transition from adolescence to adulthood. Were any of you guys who are appalled at the boat stickers never in any way rebellious? Was your hair too long? Did you listen to music that was a cacophony to your parents? Did you experiment with alcohol and soft drugs (perhaps you didn't inhale)? Did you lust after young women? I could go on but I don't expect to convince any of you that there was unlikely to be a malign intent in what these silly individuals did , merely the thoughtlessness of young adulthood

Nice perspective. I agree about the likeliness of mal-intent. I felt that way before there was a first-hand account, mostly because human nature is strongly aligned in the opposite direction, and in a time of crisis, people are almost always generous and helpful even toward complete strangers.

Trying to make a link between the Thai reds and 1960s hippies is no doubt an opportunity for an aspirant sociology postgrad somewhere but to others smacks of yet another limp effort to whitewash the unacceptable. Keep em coming chaps.

You completely misunderstand, which given your assumed omniscience is understandable. I was trying to suggest that there was a likelihood that this was no more than simple thoughtlessness by a group of (I assume) young men - the hippie analogy was merely a reminder that we were all young once and most of us did things which did not meet with universal aaproval from pompous old farts

What is it about Brits - some get hopping mad so quickly? Ok, granted, people from all nationalities are capable of that. But I've personally been the brunt of it in recent weeks. A couple Brits and an Aussie (part of the commonwealth, eh chums?) individually got raving mad at me for the slightest inference (on my part). I won't go in to detail (I could, but you'd have to contact me for that), but the usual pattern is: slight misunderstanding (from my perspective), then full bore postal raving punk vomiting rage from them. Maybe it has to do with their empire getting whittled away for the past 220 years (?) I don't know. What I do know is: one measure of a man's maturity is his ability (or lack thereof) to control his anger. Grow up Brits. Getting angry is a lose lose scenario.

What an interesting obervation. I don't know anyone in GB who would call himself "British" except on official documents; we are all English, Scots or Welsh. The only person I have met who insisted on that designation was from Northern Ireland and called herself "Bruttish" - a reflection of the problems that beset that benighted province at that time.

Australia is a completely different country with its own different identities - there's a world of difference between a Cane Toad and a Cockroach. But ask them about Poms and you might get similar replies!

However the situation you have described has only one common factor - you were there and you provoked hostility. I wonder why that could be

It's what happens when you allow Hollywood to recreate history, you end up believing it and make ignorant comments that get people's back up.

May I point out that the Empire hadn't even started 220 years ago.

Some people consider that the conquest of Ireland in the seventeenth century marked the start of empire.

I call myself British unless people ask if I'm English, in which case I assume that they want a more specific answer

SC

I am sure that you do but what I said was that I don't know anyone who uses that description; Ok now I do - you are the first!

What is it about Brits - some get hopping mad so quickly? Ok, granted, people from all nationalities are capable of that. But I've personally been the brunt of it in recent weeks. A couple Brits and an Aussie (part of the commonwealth, eh chums?) individually got raving mad at me for the slightest inference (on my part). I won't go in to detail (I could, but you'd have to contact me for that), but the usual pattern is: slight misunderstanding (from my perspective), then full bore postal raving punk vomiting rage from them. Maybe it has to do with their empire getting whittled away for the past 220 years (?) I don't know. What I do know is: one measure of a man's maturity is his ability (or lack thereof) to control his anger. Grow up Brits. Getting angry is a lose lose scenario.

What an interesting obervation. I don't know anyone in GB who would call himself "British" except on official documents; we are all English, Scots or Welsh. The only person I have met who insisted on that designation was from Northern Ireland and called herself "Bruttish" - a reflection of the problems that beset that benighted province at that time.

Australia is a completely different country with its own different identities - there's a world of difference between a Cane Toad and a Cockroach. But ask them about Poms and you might get similar replies!

However the situation you have described has only one common factor - you were there and you provoked hostility. I wonder why that could be

Excuse me, but I don't know why he was sentenced for life. What does that do? He was angry and lost it. Anybody could have done the same thing if under enough stress and rage. A tragedy, yes, but throwing somebody in prison for the rest of their life solves nothing.

The truly said part of this story is that the child is now without a mother or father and will most likely wind up in foster care, scarred for life by this event..

A "life" sentence for murder is mandatory in the UK. However this normally means about 10 years or less if the convicted person behaves in prison and is not judged to be a threat to society, if released "on licence". In a case such as this where it is a domestic murder, it seems likely that he will be in prison for longer than 10 years

Sorry I meant NO longer than 10 years

Excuse me, but I don't know why he was sentenced for life. What does that do? He was angry and lost it. Anybody could have done the same thing if under enough stress and rage. A tragedy, yes, but throwing somebody in prison for the rest of their life solves nothing.

The truly said part of this story is that the child is now without a mother or father and will most likely wind up in foster care, scarred for life by this event..

A "life" sentence for murder is mandatory in the UK. However this normally means about 10 years or less if the convicted person behaves in prison and is not judged to be a threat to society, if released "on licence". In a case such as this where it is a domestic murder, it seems likely that he will be in prison for longer than 10 years

Biggest scam in history. Funny considering it is accepted as real by the overwhelming majority of global climate oriented scientists. To claim it is a scam is just a cynical political position that has nothing do with science.

And to claim that a benign and essential trace gas is 'imperiling the world', as John Reilly, the co-director of MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, said yesterday, is equally a cynical political position that has nothing do with science.

Truth is, the debate never was about science; most of the deep alarmism comes from dispossessed Marxists, who were homeless after the collapse of the USSR. The environment is the perfect cause to keep harassing the capitalists, so the global warming scam is, if you like, the downstream flooding from the defeat of Communism two decades ago.

Wow! There are some strange theories on this forum but this is the weirdest yet..... (that I have seen- you may know of another)

The convicts were transported to Australia and other places, not deported.

This pair have committed no crime (in this instance anyway) in Australia, so there is likely very little the Australian police can do. However I can almost guarantee they are now registered on insurance databases and will be watched very carefully in case of future claims or applications for insurance. They might even have any previous claims looked at again in light of their activities in Thailand.

Cheers

Wrong they attempted to defraud there Australian insurance company,which they did and where fined and deported for the crime .......who i should imagine are in Australia,how do you think these insurance scams are tracked down especially holiday insurance?

Many people are investigated by insurance company's on return from there travels after making claims to see if they are legitimate often many are not and the insurance company can prosecute.

The weakness in your case is that they did not get far enough in the process; they reported to the police that they had been robbed in order to get a crime report as evidence in their claim. They didn't make the claim so there is no offence against the Australian company. The insurance company at best will "blackball" them

Could that mean that the stickers are only on one side?

The original shot questioned by Monkfish was of the sticker on the other side. Then someone else posted a shot of the other side of the boat - which also had the sticker - to discredit Monkfish's allegation.

So they've probably taken it off. Or maybe they haven't. Depends how you feel, really.

You're right. The first picture (around post 100) had the stickers on the right hand side. The second picture (around post 200ish) had the sticker on the left.

I would assume that they removed the stickers from both sides.

I assume that these boat people are young men....

I used to think that many Thailand expats of a "certain age" were ex-hippies and survivors of the sixties; apparently I was wrong. Doing something that you think is cool and affronts the older generation is a part of the transition from adolescence to adulthood. Were any of you guys who are appalled at the boat stickers never in any way rebellious? Was your hair too long? Did you listen to music that was a cacophony to your parents? Did you experiment with alcohol and soft drugs (perhaps you didn't inhale)? Did you lust after young women? I could go on but I don't expect to convince any of you that there was unlikely to be a malign intent in what these silly individuals did , merely the thoughtlessness of young adulthood

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Sound familiar?

No - it sounds like an arrogant attempt at demeaning the poor and underprivileged by virtu of your higher level of education and attainment

Gee flood waters will be from 10cm to 1meter!!!! That's like saying the Packers will score between 3 and 50 points next game.... this is what happens when a madman like Thaks is able to put in anyone he wants... he could have put a monkey in as PM and the redshirts would have been nodding in agreement.... "redshirt people this monkey very lucky for Thailand... now do you understand I am acting in your best interests"

And on a side note Yingluck's english is absoulutely horrible and embarrassing - I suggest she speak in Thai and use an interpreter... which of you english teacher's here are responsible?

and you are an expert Thai linguist yourself?

Probably not, and likely not to be a native English speaker - absoulutely and ...teacher's here are responsible.

I love it when a smartass slips on a banana skin

She should take a few lessons from Margaret Thatcher on how to be a strong female PM.

Teary eyed? We need our leader to be strong or at least pretend to be strong. It's bad enough her government is incompetent but now we have to see her cry too. Way to reassure your frightened people.

That will be the Thatcher who left Downing Street in tears?

I have to admit to being a bit confused over the flooding of these important industrial estates . Many many thousand jobs will be lost , inflicting long term losses even after the water recedes. I used to build houses in Western Alaska, near the mouth of the Yukon river. This area is a massive flood plain, and everyone knew it. So if you built a house, you would research the highest water level for the past 100 years, and build the house on stilts a foot above that mark. So no problems no matter what flood came. .... With these industrial estates, billions of dollars are at stake. I simply cannot believe the developers of these estates, knowing full well they are located in a flood plain, did not build strong walls all around them at a height above the 100 year flood mark. I suspect there will be a lot of Japanese factory managers asking the same questions, as they plan where to move their factory. I think this will be a case of penny wise dollar foolish, saving money by building low walls that were easily breeched.

A report published by the United Nations' IRIN magazine last year said that flooding in Bangkok is likely to get so severe by the middle of this century that parts of the Thai capital may have to be abandoned.

"Subsidence and poor urban planning have resulted in Bangkok gradually sinking between 2cm and 5cm a year," the report quotes researchers in Thailand.

When I worked on the Solid Waste Master Plan for Bangkok following the 1995 floods, I put forward the proposal to reclaim the the land at the mouth of the river estuary which was being eroded severely by 660metres every 10 years. However this was thrown out because of corruption, since the land was free there was no "benefit" to the BMA.

There have been many Master Plans for Bangkok yet nothing seems to get progressed to fruition due to changes in Government, for this reason the latest Master Plan published in 2001 had a completion date of 2018, with the works being carried out in 3 stages.

The industrial estates in Ayuthaya were built on the flood plain and the designers and Government knew about the flood risk, but flood mitigation work was not implemented properly.

As far as I can see, had Thaksin been left in power in 2006, the major works could have been carried on and completed without these disasterous floods. The problem with Thailand prior to Thaksin, and after Thaksin due to the coup, there is no continuity of power and projects get suspended or held up.

That final para will have them spitting feathers...............

Probably true as well.

There is some truth in the statement but not for the reason you think. Ever since the coup, both the Land department and the Forest Department took it as an article of faith that he would be back someday. This had more to do with their belief in his ability to buy loyalties and thugs than whetether or not it might be justified. Most business came to a halt in those two departments for nearly 5 years. Thaksin had too much to lose they thought by not coming back.. There were literally hundreds of thousands, though some said millions of rai he and his cronies had in play down near Rayong and on the coast onshore near Ko Chang. Lots of anecdital accounts of forestry theft by frinds of Thaksin here in Chiang Mai and Pai as well. Everything becamr more or less frozen, with officials unsure how to proceed until they saw who their patron would be.

Well these revelations, if true, are surely dynamite! Two government departments doing nothing for nearly 5 years and nobody in authority noticed? How much of that statement and the rest of the allegations of your post can you substantiate? Or is it perhaps all "anecdital"?

"BANGKOK,October 17, 2011 (AFP) - The flood threat to Thailand's capital appeared tohave eased on Monday but officials warned the crisis was not over as militaryand civilian authorities battled the worst inundations in decades."

This part ofthe news really bothers me especially "worst inundations in decades" why didnot they learned from the past and are we going to have the same problem f I happensagain in the future.

I think someoneshould address this and I am sure the thai government will not say much sinceThaksin was in charge 10 years ago

There was a really good post on here yesterday from somebody involved in the decision-making at that time. Alledgedly PM Barharn vetoed the expenditure on flood protection, as he couldn't seehow to make money out of it.

All-in-all the Yingluck admisistration has done a pretty good job in a terrible situation. She's proved her metal as Prime Minister, in my opinion.

Hahahahaha yeah I guess you'd be pretty impress too if you saw a stray dog bark.

What a wonderfully intelligent and salient contribution :sleepy:

Irrelevant in your opinion....to support your belief that Thaksin is breaking the rules......but legally....I wonder...I will keep an open mind until more accurate information is forthcoming

No. Legally irrelevant. Thaksin is a Thai citizen.

If you can show me anything that suggests that Thaksin is NOT a Thai citizen, please do. Until then, it is irrelevant that he is a citizen of Montenegro in relation to him breaking Thai laws.

Last I heard he was a Montenegran citizen as confirmed by the Montenegran Police, you know different?

I didn't say he wasn't a Montenegrin citizen. That doesn't stop him from being a Thai citizen.

I am not sure whether he has dual nationality but I do recall looking at the relevant legislation on what a banned politician could not do and it appeared to me that it meant only holding a formal position within a party; if that is true, and the lack of any action to ban PTP seems to suggest that there is not a case to answer in Thaksin's obvious unofficial involvement then he can continue to "advise" to his heart's content. Breaking the law has to mean infringing what the law actually says, not what you think it should say.