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

[Becker]

8 minutes ago, halloween said:

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?

Share the evidence? They took power in a coup, gave themselves the mother of all amnesties as well as god-like powers through article 44 and you're asking me for evidence that they will get whatever outcome of the trial they want??

You know, halloween - sometimes I worry about you.....

[halloween]

Just now, Becker said:

Share the evidence? They took power in a coup, gave themselves the mother of all amnesties as well as god-like powers through article 44 and you're asking me for evidence that they will get whatever outcome of the trial they want??

You know, halloween - sometimes I worry about you.....

The topic is Yingluk and whether she will appear in court. Apparently that topic is uncomfortable for you and you would prefer something, anything, else. She will be found guilty because that is what the evidence proves, despite your biased and baseless claims of a directed verdict.

 

Worry about someone that can't understand the topic, can't present a logical argument, dives off into a fantasy world driven by bias, and has to resort to casual insults for content.

[Becker]

24 minutes ago, halloween said:

She will be found guilty because that is what the evidence proves......

She will be found guilty/not guilty at the pleasure of the junta/old elite. Trying to claim otherwise is just disingenuous (I'm being polite here).

[halloween]

8 minutes ago, Becker said:

She will be found guilty/not guilty at the pleasure of the junta/old elite. Trying to claim otherwise is just disingenuous (I'm being polite here).

What we have is a difference of opinion, the main difference being your inability to discuss evidence.

[Becker]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

What we have is a difference of opinion, the main difference being your inability to discuss evidence.

No, this is not what we have but I am too polite to spell it out for you.

[sjaak327]

3 hours 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 rice scheme was a political decision, the costs are peanuts in the grand scheme of things. in fact, I know of schemes that cost the same amount of tax payer money each and every year, yet subsequent governments all have done nothing to stop the scheme, because doing so would be political suicide. none of the PM's or ministers have ever been charged, because they carried a mandate. 

 

Unless I am misinformed, there is no evidence Yingluck enriched herself. the current administration ran a deficit the first six months, that was on par with the alleged 'costs' of the rice scheme, and the way things are going, that could only be the tip of the iceberg. Of course none of these people will ever be charged as they have amnesty. Apparently if you cannot secure a mandate, there seems to be a need for an amnesty, not only for staging the coup, but for everything after the fact as well. be quiet, your anger is selective. very easy to scream red and ignore the blatant double standards....

[sjaak327]

3 hours ago, Sydebolle said:

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. 

Thailand HAD a government, it even had a PM as yingluck was replaced in accordance with the 2007 constitution. 

[halloween]

1 hour ago, sjaak327 said:

The rice scheme was a political decision, the costs are peanuts in the grand scheme of things. in fact, I know of schemes that cost the same amount of tax payer money each and every year, yet subsequent governments all have done nothing to stop the scheme, because doing so would be political suicide. none of the PM's or ministers have ever been charged, because they carried a mandate. 

 

Unless I am misinformed, there is no evidence Yingluck enriched herself. the current administration ran a deficit the first six months, that was on par with the alleged 'costs' of the rice scheme, and the way things are going, that could only be the tip of the iceberg. Of course none of these people will ever be charged as they have amnesty. Apparently if you cannot secure a mandate, there seems to be a need for an amnesty, not only for staging the coup, but for everything after the fact as well. be quiet, your anger is selective. very easy to scream red and ignore the blatant double standards....

Most of what you is true, and totally irrelevant to the subject. You would rather talk about anything else than the real subject, her duty of care and her refusal to act to stem the losses being incurred. The policy was a dismal failure in its stated objectives, and hundreds of billions of baht are not sums to be dismissed lightly.

The corruption issues I mentioned were her brothers. Would you like to discuss whether HE was profiting from the rice scam, his links to Apichart, and the huge commissions being handed out behind closed doors? Probably not.

[sjaak327]

9 minutes ago, halloween said:

Most of what you is true, and totally irrelevant to the subject. You would rather talk about anything else than the real subject, her duty of care and her refusal to act to stem the losses being incurred. The policy was a dismal failure in its stated objectives, and hundreds of billions of baht are not sums to be dismissed lightly.

The corruption issues I mentioned were her brothers. Would you like to discuss whether HE was profiting from the rice scam, his links to Apichart, and the huge commissions being handed out behind closed doors? Probably not.

But her brother was not on trial. Yingluck was on trial, and there is no evidence she benefitted from the scheme in any way. the verdict is a downright disgrace. The fact that the current lot is exempted from prosecution is of course very relevant. This has nothing at all to do with justice. This verdict is null void and inconsequential, and apart from a few Junta fanboys, no-one will take it seriously. 

 

 

If you still have trouble understanding the point I (and many others I might add) am trying to make, might I suggest you lookup what justice stands for. 

Edited September 27, 2017 by sjaak327

[halloween]

Just now, sjaak327 said:

But her brother was not on trial. Yingluck was on trial, and there is no evidence she benefitted from the scheme in any way. the verdict is a downright disgrace. The fact that the current lot is exempted from prosecution is of course very relevant. This has nothing at all to do with justice. This verdict is null void and inconsequential, and apart from a few Junta fanboys, no-one will take it seriously. 

 

 

If you still have trouble understanding the point I (and many others I might add) is trying to make, might I suggest you lookup what justice stands for. 

Again you avoid anything to do with the offence with which she is charged - criminal negligence. Are the terms "duty of care", "mounting losses", "refusal to act" and 'criminal negligence" unfamiliar to you? Courts around the world understand them very well, and accept them as legitimate.

[sjaak327]

3 minutes ago, halloween said:

Again you avoid anything to do with the offence with which she is charged - criminal negligence. Are the terms "duty of care", "mounting losses", "refusal to act" and 'criminal negligence" unfamiliar to you? Courts around the world understand them very well, and accept them as legitimate.

So you think she should have stopped the scheme due to mounting losses ? Because that what this boils down to. I maintain that it was her democratic right to ignore those, as she did have a mandate. I know a total alien concept for the current lot, you know the ones that cannot possibly be held accountable for anything. Good to see you still don't aknowledge that little fact. 

 

Do carry on, it's amusing reading stuff. 

 

 

[halloween]

14 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

So you think she should have stopped the scheme due to mounting losses ? Because that what this boils down to. I maintain that it was her democratic right to ignore those, as she did have a mandate. I know a total alien concept for the current lot, you know the ones that cannot possibly be held accountable for anything. Good to see you still don't aknowledge that little fact. 

 

Do carry on, it's amusing reading stuff. 

 

 

You think a mandate over-rides duty of care, that once elected a PM can waste money when it is clear it's objectives are not being met?

Here is a new term for you, "responsible government".

Your whole argument is based on your dislike of the junta, which is irrelevant to me and the court.

[sjaak327]

2 minutes ago, halloween said:

You think a mandate over-rides duty of care, that once elected a PM can waste money when it is clear it's objectives are not being met?

Here is a new term for you, "responsible government".

Your whole argument is based on your dislike of the junta, which is irrelevant to me and the court.

Yep, that IS democracy. that mandate just does that, a license to waste money, even if it is clear objectives are not being met. They rarely are by the way. And in most democracies, the responsible ministers are not being put on trial because of it. If they were, 80% of politicians would be in jail.

 

Responsible government, a nice goalpost, naieve to the extreme. One thing is for sure, that term is of no consequence for the current lot, that govern via the barrel of a gun, so I see no reason why it should be applied retroactively to Yingluck. 

[LannaGuy]

6 hours 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

Proved right again. 5 years by the Junta's court and worse the CCTV crew are on sabbatical but, maybe, can now return to work. Sad day for justice, sad day for Thailand.

[shanesox]

Sad day? Junta court? Can’t get over the fact The Siblings are both Fugitive criminals


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[sjaak327]

1 hour ago, shanesox said:

Sad day? Junta court? Can’t get over the fact The Siblings are both Fugitive criminals


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

And the only reason they are fugitives is because they did not grant themselves amnesty for past and future crimes, like the people that are currently running Thailand and brought about this show trial did. They are criminals too, but will never be punished. somehow I think they are therefore a few leagues worse than both Thaksin and Yingluck. Time to get over that little fact...

 

Maybe just maybe people that are talking about a sad day have a very big point there. Not that one would expect critical and logical thinking from people that support the current clowns running the show, they have shown to be gullible to the extreme. 

Edited September 27, 2017 by sjaak327

[rixalex]

15 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

Proved right again. 5 years by the Junta's court and worse the CCTV crew are on sabbatical but, maybe, can now return to work. Sad day for justice, sad day for Thailand.

Not really that sad though is it? Some lay person, completely innocent, being banged up, and without the means to fight the charge... that would be a sad day.

 

Someone being given a harsh sentence but for something that they are clearly guilty of, and that someone having the financial means and influence to never have to worry about actually serving a single day of jail time anyway, able to jet around the world first class, living a life of luxury... well, let's just say, there are some needier causes out there if you care to look (and didn't happen to be so besotted).

 

As for this nonsense charade of the great peril she was in, as evidenced by comments along the lines of, "she had to flee because she would have been bumped off", you really need to make sure the theories you make up, match up, and don't contradict each other, before you come out with them. The junta can't be one minute, the junta that was so desperately fearful of the backlash of sentencing Yingluck that they masterminded her escape and forced her to go along with it, and then the next, the junta that was poised and ready to switch off the CCTV and organize an "unfortunate accident" for her.

[rixalex]

11 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

And the only reason they are fugitives is because they did not grant themselves amnesty for past and future crimes, like the people that are currently running Thailand and brought about this show trial did. They are criminals too, but will never be punished.

You start by saying that they are only fugitives because they didn't grant themselves amnesty, but then go on to admit in your "they are criminals too" comment, that they are indeed criminals.

 

It would therefore be a lot more accurate to say, not that they are only fugitives because they did not grant themselves amnesty, but that they are fugitives because they committed crime and were unable to grant themselves amnesty.

[LannaGuy]

6 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Not really that sad though is it? Some lay person, completely innocent, being banged up, and without the means to fight the charge... that would be a sad day.

 

Someone being given a harsh sentence but for something that they are clearly guilty of, and that someone having the financial means and influence to never have to worry about actually serving a single day of jail time anyway, able to jet around the world first class, living a life of luxury... well, let's just say, there are some needier causes out there if you care to look (and didn't happen to be so besotted).

 

As for this nonsense charade of the great peril she was in, as evidenced by comments along the lines of, "she had to flee because she would have been bumped off", you really need to make sure the theories you make up, match up, and don't contradict each other, before you come out with them. The junta can't be one minute, the junta that was so desperately fearful of the backlash of sentencing Yingluck that they masterminded her escape and forced her to go along with it, and then the next, the junta that was poised and ready to switch off the CCTV and organize an "unfortunate accident" for her.

 

Well I admire your faith bro!  and not sure Maj. Gen. Pongsirin would concur with your optimism and took the same high road (and who can blame him). As for the others who had 'unfortunate' accidents...?  faced with that stark choice what would you do?

 

My whole premise, BTW, is not support for Yingluck or to say she was a great PM it is for the principal of 'Parliamentary Privilege' which is a corner stone of elected democracies and my views would be the same whoever was elected.

 

"Parliamentary privilege grants certain legal immunities for Members of both Houses to allow them to perform their duties without interference from outside of the House. Parliamentary privilege includes freedom of speech and the right of both Houses to regulate their own affairs."

[LannaGuy]

8 minutes ago, rixalex said:

You start by saying that they are only fugitives because they didn't grant themselves amnesty, but then go on to admit in your "they are criminals too" comment, that they are indeed criminals.

 

It would therefore be a lot more accurate to say, not that they are only fugitives because they did not grant themselves amnesty, but that they are fugitives because they committed crime and were unable to grant themselves amnesty.

 

So you support the current crowd having "immunity" from their illegal act of a coup?  or you claim it was 'legal'? 

 

IF the last government had claimed immunity you, and a few others, would have been SCREAMING from the rooftops!  be fair - that is a fact!   just imagine it:

 

"Yingluck announces her government are IMMUNE from prosecution"   

 

you and a few others would have been apoplectic with rage. 

Edited September 28, 2017 by LannaGuy

[rixalex]

1 minute ago, LannaGuy said:

 

So you support the current crowd having "immunity" from their illegal act of a coup?  or you claim it was 'legal'?

As usual, ignore my point and make a straw man argument.

 

Where have i said i support anyone?

[LannaGuy]

Just now, rixalex said:

As usual, ignore my point and make a straw man argument.

 

Where have i said i support anyone?

 

Last time I looked I posed a question not a statement but you seem intent upon your course...

 

...a souffle laced with bias.

[rixalex]

11 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

Well I admire your faith bro!  and not sure Maj. Gen. Pongsirin would concur with your optimism and took the same high road (and who can blame him). As for the others who had 'unfortunate' accidents...?  faced with that stark choice what would you do?

I'm not questioning that "unfortunate accidents" happen, i'm questioning your two contradicting theories. Theory one, there's the Yingluck who the junta fear so much they force her to escape because they daren't jail her. And then theory two, there's the Yingluck whose life is in great peril from being bumped off by the junta.

[rixalex]

18 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

My whole premise, BTW, is not support for Yingluck or to say she was a great PM it is for the principal of 'Parliamentary Privilege' which is a corner stone of elected democracies and my views would be the same whoever was elected.

LOL

Says the man who described her as a "heroine of democracy".

[LannaGuy]

Just now, rixalex said:

LOL

Says the man who described her as a "heroine of democracy".

 

She is. It was not a personal endorsement but a philosophical one.  

[rixalex]

10 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

Last time I looked I posed a question not a statement but you seem intent upon your course...

 

...a souffle laced with bias.

You posed a question that totally ignored my point and made a baseless assumption.

 

You are quite a one to talk about bias.

[LannaGuy]

4 minutes ago, rixalex said:

I'm not questioning that "unfortunate accidents" happen, i'm questioning your two contradicting theories. Theory one, there's the Yingluck who the junta fear so much they force her to escape because they daren't jail her. And then theory two, there's the Yingluck whose life is in great peril from being bumped off by the junta.

 

The two are not mutually exclusive. Better she were out the way as, possibly, if she were not the outcry would be so tremendous the CCTV would need their PPM.

 

Are you suggesting the Junta are 'innocent' of her departure?  (this is a question)

[LannaGuy]

1 minute ago, rixalex said:

You posed a question that totally ignored my point and made a baseless assumption.

 

You are quite a one to talk about bias.

 

Twas not an assumption, dear sir, but a question

 

noun

 

1. 1.

   a sentence worded or expressed so as to elicit information.

   "we hope this leaflet has been helpful in answering your questions"

   synonyms:

   inquiry, query;  interrogation "please answer my question"

[rixalex]

1 minute ago, LannaGuy said:

 

She is. It was not a personal endorsement but a philosophical one.  

"Philosophical endorsement"

 

You're a card.

[halloween]

1 minute ago, LannaGuy said:

 

The two are not mutually exclusive. Better she were out the way as, possibly, if she were not the outcry would be so tremendous the CCTV would need their PPM.

 

Are you suggesting the Junta are 'innocent' of her departure?  (this is a question)

I am, and the only thing you base your opinion on is clear bias. A corrupt politician uses corrupt police to help her skip bail and leave the country. Just where does the junta fit into that picture?