Yingluck has nothing to win by coming to court Sept 27: Democrat leader

[Becker]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

Ignoring the irrelevant and inaccurate  "PTP won every election for decades" BS, are you claiming she is innocent of negligence, or just trying to skip that detail?

Actually, it's you who ignore the wish of the electorate so the BS you claim you can smell a mile away is certainly something you sprout on a daily basis.

[Chip Allen]

Smart answers

 

[rixalex]

15 minutes ago, Chip Allen said:

Yingluck was aided and abetted by the Junta. She could not have escaped from Thailand without their help.

One minute the junta are hapless and inept, the next, a woman who has unlimited financial means couldn't have possibly crossed the border without the help of these hapless and inept people.

[Ron19]

A number of off topic posts as well as some flames have been removed.

 

This topic is about " Yingluck has nothing to win by coming to court Sept 27: Democrat leader ".

 

It is not about Aung San Suu Kyi.

 

 

[Srikcir]

8 hours ago, halloween said:

That's nice, but the charge isn't incompetence, though she had plenty of that, it is negligence. To wit " to find negligence proved, there must be a duty of care, the defendant must have breached that duty, and that breach must have caused the loss or damage sustained by the plaintiff. "

.

Not sure why you discuss negligence as her crime. It is but half of the charge against her and by itself legally irrelevant.

The other half was malfeasance as in "negligence by malfeasance." She was charged with violating Section 157 on malfeasance. To wit she allegedly and deliberately ignored warnings by the NACC, the Auditor General’s Office and the Democrat Party and took no action as PM to mitigate or prevent financial losses from the program. In fact if Yingluck was proven purely incompetent as PM to safeguard the security of the program, malfeasance wouldn't be an issue.
 

[halloween]

4 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Not sure why you discuss negligence as her crime. It is but half of the charge against her and by itself legally irrelevant.

The other half was malfeasance as in "negligence by malfeasance." She was charged with violating Section 157 on malfeasance. To wit she allegedly and deliberately ignored warnings by the NACC, the Auditor General’s Office and the Democrat Party and took no action as PM to mitigate or prevent financial losses from the program. In fact if Yingluck was proven purely incompetent as PM to safeguard the security of the program, malfeasance wouldn't be an issue.
 

Try to obfuscate the issue as much as you can, there is no claim of incompetence.  The charge is that she had a duty of care to manage the assets of the people of Thailand, did not do so and caused losses of those assets. When she was warned that losses were mounting to levels of serious concern she had a duty to act and did not. The addition of malfeasance only indicates that this was a deliberate act of criminal negligence, that she chose not to do anything.

That claim is supported by the move to reduce the price paid for rice that she initiated, and then rescinded before implementation.

[Srikcir]

21 minutes ago, halloween said:

Try to obfuscate the issue as much as you can, there is no claim of incompetence. 

 

22 minutes ago, halloween said:

The addition of malfeasance only indicates that this was a deliberate act of criminal negligence

You made an important omission in identifying the charge as criminal negligence. My so-called obfuscation better explained the charge. I further did not say there was a claim of competence. Please refer to the word "if."

[4MyEgo]

Me reckons she doesn't rock up, as that would be plain stupid, and the verdict will be "not guilty", therefore embarrassing the idiots. 

[sjaak327]

16 hours ago, halloween said:

Ignoring the irrelevant and inaccurate  "PTP won every election for decades" BS, are you claiming she is innocent of negligence, or just trying to skip that detail?

PTP or incarnations of that party has won ALL general elections since 2001, no bullshit but cold hard facts. The remark is very relevant, as it is the main reason for this whole soap opera. 

 

You trying to be a crusader against alleged criminals cannot be taken seriously as you support the current lot, who are most definitely criminal, the proof is overwhelming. not attending a few meetings is all the evidence against Yingluck, here 'failure to stop the scheme' cannot possibly be a ground for a conviction, as it was here democratic right to do so, as she and her government secured a 300/500 mandate. you know one obtained through the electorate instead of via the barrel of a gun....

[Damrongsak]

7 hours ago, Srikcir said:

... In fact if Yingluck was proven purely incompetent as PM to safeguard the security of the program, malfeasance wouldn't be an issue.

That would be more like nonfeasance.  Or maybe she's a candidate for Miss Feasance Thailand 2017.

[Sydebolle]

I beg to disagree but she has nothing but to win.

If she is declared guilty, then the establishment created the martyr of the Red shirts. 
If she is innocent, then the establishment instigated the coup 3 ½ years ago without reason.

The only way to deal with this situation is that she flees or - either - is fled; go figure! 

[steven100]

Yingluck showing up at court ...    .....    i think not ..   guilty your honor  !!

[rixalex]

12 minutes ago, Sydebolle said:

If she is declared guilty, then the establishment created the martyr of the Red shirts. 
 

I always thought that part of being a martyr was self-sacrifice. No?

 

Yingluck fleeing before she even knows how light or heavy the punishment is, if indeed there is any punishment, doesn't exactly shout martyr, does it?

[LannaGuy]

Just now, rixalex said:

I always thought that part of being a martyr was self-sacrifice. No?

 

Yingluck fleeing before she even knows how light or heavy the punishment is, if indeed there is any punishment, doesn't exactly shout martyr, does it?

 

Same Dalai Lama escaping China? or countless other heroes escaping Military Junta jail cells?  you seriously think it's not a good decision?  wow

[Sydebolle]

6 minutes ago, rixalex said:

I always thought that part of being a martyr was self-sacrifice. No?

 

Yingluck fleeing before she even knows how light or heavy the punishment is, if indeed there is any punishment, doesn't exactly shout martyr, does it?

She has to be guilty; see the rest of my comment. The establishment had to avoid that she would become a martyr (if found guilty) while, at the same time, they had to avoid running out of reasons for the coup in May 2014 (if found innocent)! They always hoped she would do a runner - which did not happen. She stayed on - on her own accord or following the puppet master - we don't know. 

Lets see in a few weeks what happens next! 

[halloween]

6 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

PTP or incarnations of that party has won ALL general elections since 2001, no bullshit but cold hard facts. The remark is very relevant, as it is the main reason for this whole soap opera. 

 

You trying to be a crusader against alleged criminals cannot be taken seriously as you support the current lot, who are most definitely criminal, the proof is overwhelming. not attending a few meetings is all the evidence against Yingluck, here 'failure to stop the scheme' cannot possibly be a ground for a conviction, as it was here democratic right to do so, as she and her government secured a 300/500 mandate. you know one obtained through the electorate instead of via the barrel of a gun....

Is that the red version then? No mention of position responsibility, no duty of care, forget about warnings of huge losses, and ignore the fact that she deliberately decided not to act to reduce losses?

I suppose ignoring the evidence makes it easier to claim political persecution.

Edited September 27, 2017 by halloween

[Rimmer]

A troll post has been removed

[halloween]

3 minutes ago, Sydebolle said:

She has to be guilty; see the rest of my comment. The establishment had to avoid that she would become a martyr (if found guilty) while, at the same time, they had to avoid running out of reasons for the coup in May 2014 (if found innocent)! They always hoped she would do a runner - which did not happen. She stayed on - on her own accord or following the puppet master - we don't know. 

Lets see in a few weeks what happens next! 

You do know that Yingluk had been removed from office before the coup right? Saying that removing her was an excuse for the coup is a puerile chronological error.

[LannaGuy]

6 minutes ago, halloween said:

Is that the red version then? No mention of position responsibility, no duty of care, forget about warnings of huge losses, and ignore the fact that she deliberately decided not to act to reduce losses?

I suppose ignoring the evidence makes it easier to claim political persecution.

 

So you think Bush, Blair, Thatcher and EVERY leader in the world should be prosecuted after their democratic elected period ends?  damn the voting electorate?  damn ballots?  we just take them all to court after their term of office expires?  we scrutinize all their decisions?  no Parliamentary Privilege? 

 

The Army takes over and wants to lock up the previous ELECTED leader?  disgusting,  immoral, unethical thinking and you should be ashamed

[rixalex]

4 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

Same Dalai Lama escaping China? or countless other heroes escaping Military Junta jail cells?  you seriously think it's not a good decision?  wow

If you want to paint yourself as a martyr, fleeing what is unlikely to be more than a suspended sentence, to go live on some luxury estate in the middle-east or wherever, i think is not a good decision.

 

Yingluck being sent behind bars, accepting that fate and declaring that she wouldn't leave her people behind - in the unlikely event that that is what the courts decided - would have made such a big statement. Publicity gold for the red shirts and a nightmare for the junta. All it needed was for Yingluck not to flee.

[halloween]

33 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

So you think Bush, Blair, Thatcher and EVERY leader in the world should be prosecuted after their democratic elected period ends?  damn the voting electorate?  damn ballots?  we just take them all to court after their term of office expires?  we scrutinize all their decisions?  no Parliamentary Privilege? 

 

The Army takes over and wants to lock up the previous ELECTED leader?  disgusting,  immoral, unethical thinking and you should be ashamed

Yes, but only,  if they are proven negligent in their duties of office. Being elected is not a licence to waste taxpayers money by deliberately not acting when things go bad, nor is it a licence to abuse your position to enrich yourself, illegally promote cronies and family, to direct state banks to issue loans, or to organise back room deals paying huge commissions.

Stop whining about elections, they have nothing to do with the prosecution of crime.

Edited September 27, 2017 by halloween

[owl sees all]

On 25/9/2560 at 9:11 PM, oxo1947 said:

Were not talking about a hugh sentence here--- if the lady really believes in what she stands for--(like her counter part in Burma) then go to jail, the world would be on your side. Her brother only got 2 years---he is possibly thinking he may have made the wrong move now in legging it.

She proably didn't fancy suicide or natural causes death in the cage. Her brother maybe thought the same.

 

But I do get your point 0X0.

[LannaGuy]

30 minutes ago, halloween said:

Yes, but only,  if they are proven negligent in their duties of office. Being elected is not a licence to waste taxpayers money by deliberately not acting when things go bad, nor is it a licence to abuse your position to enrich yourself, illegally promote cronies and family, to direct state banks to issue loans, or to organise back room deals paying huge commissions.

Stop whining about elections, they have nothing to do with the prosecution of crime.

Ok so you don't think 1000s of lives in Iraq chasing WMDs was 'negligent' hmmm interesting or thatchers Poll Tax shambles?  or 1000 other leaders mistakes???  prosecute them ALL?  leaders are given EXEMPTIONS for decisions whilst in elected office if not illegal (i.e. corruption).

 

But you, and a few others, seem to think a Military Junta court's are ok to prosecute for the policies of their predecessors.  

[LannaGuy]

39 minutes ago, rixalex said:

If you want to paint yourself as a martyr, fleeing what is unlikely to be more than a suspended sentence, to go live on some luxury estate in the middle-east or wherever, i think is not a good decision.

 

Yingluck being sent behind bars, accepting that fate and declaring that she wouldn't leave her people behind - in the unlikely event that that is what the courts decided - would have made such a big statement. Publicity gold for the red shirts and a nightmare for the junta. All it needed was for Yingluck not to flee.

 

I think a 'suspended' sentence was highly unlikely and more likely than not CCTV's would be under 'maintenance' as this is the modus of this Junta

[halloween]

5 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

Ok so you don't think 1000s of lives in Iraq chasing WMDs was 'negligent' hmmm interesting or thatchers Poll Tax shambles?  or 1000 other leaders mistakes???  prosecute them ALL?  leaders are given EXEMPTIONS for decisions whilst in elected office if not illegal (i.e. corruption).

 

But you, and a few others, seem to think a Military Junta court's are ok to prosecute for the policies of their predecessors.  

No I don't. Grasping at straws, are you? Deliberately refusing to act is Criminal negligence, and it IS illegal.

[Ron19]

A flame post has been removed.

[rixalex]

3 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

I think a 'suspended' sentence was highly unlikely and more likely than not CCTV's would be under 'maintenance' as this is the modus of this Junta

One minute the junta is so terrified of the public backlash from sentencing "heroine Yingluck" that they orchestrated her escape... and the next, "heroine Yingluck" is in such great peril of being bumped off from the junta, and were she behind bars, they would arrange for her to have "an accident".

[Becker]

47 minutes ago, halloween said:

Yes, but only,  if they are proven negligent in their duties of office. Being elected is not a licence to waste taxpayers money by deliberately not acting when things go bad, nor is it a licence to abuse your position to enrich yourself, illegally promote cronies and family, to direct state banks to issue loans, or to organise back room deals paying huge commissions.

Stop whining about elections, they have nothing to do with the prosecution of crime.

The fact that the junta is unelected and hence call the shots wrt what the outcome of the trial will be has everything to do with the prosecution of any potential crimes.

Whining about elections?? The chief junta fan-boy strike again...

 

[halloween]

2 minutes ago, Becker said:

The fact that the junta is unelected and hence call the shots wrt what the outcome of the trial will be has everything to do with the prosecution of any potential crimes.

Whining about elections?? The chief junta fan-boy strike again...

 

So it your opinion that the court's decision will be directed by the junta despite overwhelming evidence of her innocence? Would you care to share that evidence, or will you stick with the futile claim they had no right to prosecute?

[Sydebolle]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

You do know that Yingluk had been removed from office before the coup right? Saying that removing her was an excuse for the coup is a puerile chronological error.

Not quite, it just looks like that; the official coup happened a few days after her removal - sort of underlying, why she was removed just before and by who - as well as to give the country a government again. Unlike some South American versions there were no tanks, smoke grenades etc. necessary.