Former Thai PM Yingluck left Dubai on Sept. 11 for UK, source in UAE says

[Ossy]

39 minutes ago, Thian said:

not one but hundreds of them and they were all stolen.

Has this been proved? We knew that Customs had impounded 'hundreds' of elite cars, pending investigations into the suspiciously low invoice values, in order to minimise import taxes. That the cars were 'all stolen' opens up a whole new can of worms which, I have to say, I'm surprised hasn't made the headlines, even during this last month's theatrics.

[Thian]

27 minutes ago, baboon said:

...a valid point of view you are perfectly entitled to. I just think that few higher up in the food chain than us are all that bothered: she gets to remain wealthy and at liberty, they get to crack on with their fascist dystopia, so everyone's a winner...

Well i guess the Brits (and their insurances) also like to know how hundreds of their sportcars could disappear in containers to other continents. And so does the EU me thinks, maybe the UK has become the gateway for stolen cars?? Maybe their customs are even involved in the crime???

 

It seems the UK is becoming a new home for many criminals, they refused Thaksin so why allow his sister?

And if red Bully is still in London while being searched by Interpol why not extradict him? The UFO-monk might be there as well, who knows??

 

 

[candide]

1 hour ago, baboon said:

I seem to have missed the 'spies' thread. Could somebody please point me in the right direction? 

In the article in which Prayuth announced he knew YL was in Dubai, he proudly added that he knew it because he had spies! Ah! Ah!

It must be in the Nation and/or BP.

[baboon]

24 minutes ago, candide said:

In the article in which Prayuth announced he knew YL was in Dubai, he proudly added that he knew it because he had spies! Ah! Ah!

It must be in the Nation and/or BP.

OK. Cheers!

[mrfill]

8 hours ago, Happyman58 said:

Ok they might of stole money which is not right But my question is " How do the Thais feel about all the money this government has wasted on military equipment

About the same as Americans feel about the vast amount (2015 - over $600bn) their governments have wasted on military equipment and failed invasions?

Thailand's military budget for 2017 is $6.1bn.

 

And it is 'would have'

[lvr181]

4 hours ago, Ossy said:

Has this been proved? We knew that Customs had impounded 'hundreds' of elite cars, pending investigations into the suspiciously low invoice values, in order to minimise import taxes. That the cars were 'all stolen' opens up a whole new can of worms which, I have to say, I'm surprised hasn't made the headlines, even during this last month's theatrics.

'Corruption' is a selective terminology? 

[lvr181]

2 hours ago, mrfill said:

About the same as Americans feel about the vast amount (2015 - over $600bn) their governments have wasted on military equipment and failed invasions?

Thailand's military budget for 2017 is $6.1bn.

 

And it is 'would have'

Military spending drives U.S. industry. Thailand just spends the money for grandiose purposes. Same with the little short guy from North Korea, just has to 'big note' himself. Has an inferiority complex.

 

BTW - I am NOT a U.S. citizen.

[lvr181]

4 hours ago, Thian said:

Well i guess the Brits (and their insurances) also like to know how hundreds of their sportcars could disappear in containers to other continents. And so does the EU me thinks, maybe the UK has become the gateway for stolen cars?? Maybe their customs are even involved in the crime???

 

It seems the UK is becoming a new home for many criminals, they refused Thaksin so why allow his sister?

And if red Bully is still in London while being searched by Interpol why not extradict him? The UFO-monk might be there as well, who knows??

 

 

And the moon is made of cheese?   Who knows? Who cares? It is a Thai problem - political (not other country's problem) or criminal (maybe another country's problem).

[Monomial]

5 hours ago, SoulWater said:

I don't really get it - did she get 5 years for mismansging a policy (something that politicians do on a daily basis) I can't find anything saying she would benefit personally from seeing the scheme call

 

Smoke and mirrors nothing to do with me anyways

 

It doesn't matter whether she benefited from it or whether anyone benefited from it.  She was convicted because she did not perform her fiduciary responsibilities and the state clearly suffered for it. The beneficiary of her fiduciary neglect is not relevant to the judgement.

 

The same rules hold true for any lawyer, accountant, or government official. People in these positions assume the responsibilities of their positions. If they neglect them, they are guilty. Even if it was accidental, you are still guilty. Everyone knows this. In her position, Yingluck knew this. Many things that have come out of the Thai courts are questionable rulings at best, but this one is very clear and is not in any way political. Any court, anywhere in the world, would convict her for what she did. About the only thing that a reasonable person could argue is that the sentencing is too harsh, given that similar failures by others are not punished in a similar way.

 

The judgement itself however is beyond reproach.

 

[lvr181]

Incompetent and perhaps corrupt yes - criminal? 

[candide]

30 minutes ago, Monomial said:

 

It doesn't matter whether she benefited from it or whether anyone benefited from it.  She was convicted because she did not perform her fiduciary responsibilities and the state clearly suffered for it. The beneficiary of her fiduciary neglect is not relevant to the judgement.

 

The same rules hold true for any lawyer, accountant, or government official. People in these positions assume the responsibilities of their positions. If they neglect them, they are guilty. Even if it was accidental, you are still guilty. Everyone knows this. In her position, Yingluck knew this. Many things that have come out of the Thai courts are questionable rulings at best, but this one is very clear and is not in any way political. Any court, anywhere in the world, would convict her for what she did. About the only thing that a reasonable person could argue is that the sentencing is too harsh, given that similar failures by others are not punished in a similar way.

 

The judgement itself however is beyond reproach.

 

The key issue is not that they have not been punished in a similar way, it is that they have not been punished at all. No PM or president has ever been convicted for legally implementing flawed policies voted in Parliament, in Thailand or elsewhere.

As for the judgement being beyond reproach, we'll see soon  how democratic countries will consider it.

[Monomial]

2 minutes ago, candide said:

The key issue is not that they have not been punished in a similar way, it is that they have not been punished at all. No PM or president has ever been convicted for legally implementing flawed policies voted in Parliament, in Thailand or elsewhere.

As for the judgement being beyond reproach, we'll see soon  how democratic countries will consider it.

The judgement is sound. The argument her lawyers will take is that bringing the case to trial was politically motivated.

 

Keep in mind. There is no doubt. She is guilty. But there are other issues that need to be considered. It is these other areas she will try and argue. Nobody will say she is innocent. Even a Western court would find her guilty.

[candide]

1 minute ago, Monomial said:

The judgement is sound. The argument her lawyers will take is that bringing the case to trial was politically motivated.

 

Keep in mind. There is no doubt. She is guilty. But there are other issues that need to be considered. It is these other areas she will try and argue. Nobody will say she is innocent. Even a Western court would find her guilty.

Can you give us a few examples of western courts convicting PMs or Presidents for implementing flawed policies voted in Parliament?

[Monomial]

Just now, candide said:

Can you give us a few examples of western courts convicting PMs or Presidents for implementing flawed policies voted in Parliament?

No.

 

I can not give you any example of that anywhere in the world, including Thailand. That was not what Yingluck was convicted of. She was convicted of neglecting her fiduciary responsibilities. There are thousands of cases of that. Look at any IRS tribunal where the accountant was sentenced. There are so many examples that it would be ridiculous to even try to list them.

 

Again, it is important to discuss the reality of what happened...not the political spin people want to put on it. This was a sound legal judgement. I would like to say it happened because the Thai courts finally realized that giving sound legal judgements was a better option than allowing injustice to fester....I would like to, but I don't believe that any more than you do.

 

It just so happened that the sound legal judgement in this instance did not happen to be at odds with political expediency.

 

 

Edited September 29, 2017 by Monomial

[Jack Mountain]

6 hours ago, mrfill said:

About the same as Americans feel about the vast amount (2015 - over $600bn) their governments have wasted on military equipment and failed invasions?

Thailand's military budget for 2017 is $6.1bn.

 

And it is 'would have'

You mean they are as stupid as Americans? That  goes a bit too far ....

[Ricardo]

On 28/09/2017 at 10:52 AM, wgdanson said:

If my daughter, not that I've got one' posted a photo of me, being a fugitive ex PM and Man City owner, on Instagram, I would imeeditely confiscate her phone, give her a good slap, and send her back to LOS.

 

Just in case nobody else mentioned it  (I haven't read the whole thread)  Man City has been owned since 2008 by a group of investors from Abu Dhabi, hence the sponsorship since 2009 by Etihad, who bought it from the fugitive ex-PM and have had considerable success since then.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_City_F.C.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Ricardo

[Jonah Tenner]

15 hours ago, lvr181 said:

"The ruling junta has promised to hold an election in 2018, though changes to the constitution has ensured the military holds onto some role governing the country."

 

Some role? The controlling role!  There goes 'democracy' that the PM has openly stated that he is the great protector of! It seems now that he has told not only his people but also the world, a lie. 

 

Karma is waiting for its day.

Thais love democracy so much that they don't want to share it, especially not with other Thais...

[sjaak327]

6 hours ago, Monomial said:

 

It doesn't matter whether she benefited from it or whether anyone benefited from it.  She was convicted because she did not perform her fiduciary responsibilities and the state clearly suffered for it. The beneficiary of her fiduciary neglect is not relevant to the judgement.

 

The same rules hold true for any lawyer, accountant, or government official. People in these positions assume the responsibilities of their positions. If they neglect them, they are guilty. Even if it was accidental, you are still guilty. Everyone knows this. In her position, Yingluck knew this. Many things that have come out of the Thai courts are questionable rulings at best, but this one is very clear and is not in any way political. Any court, anywhere in the world, would convict her for what she did. About the only thing that a reasonable person could argue is that the sentencing is too harsh, given that similar failures by others are not punished in a similar way.

 

The judgement itself however is beyond reproach.

 

The trouble is, she was found NOT guilty in the case of "criminal neglicence" she was found guilty on the following grounds:

Quote

 

The court yesterday found Yingluck guilty as she had acknowledged the illegality of the government-to-government rice deals and had failed to stop nominal rice deliveries to a non-existent Chinese state-owned enterprise. 

 

 

The phoney government-to-government rice sales were conducted by her former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom, who was jailed for 42 years last month. 

 

The court ruled that the deal involved ill-gotten gains and the dishonesty in the discharge of official duties.

 

“Favouring Boonsong and other accomplices, Yingluck allowed them to buy rice at lower than the market price while also receiving a surplus of goods, resulting in damage to the state budget, which is an act of malfeasance,” the court said.

 

“The defendant [Yingluck] was found guilty of the offences under Section 157 of the Criminal Code and Section 123/1 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption 1999 and was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment,” a statement from the court read. 
 

 

Sorry but this is very very questionable. And of course this trial was politically motivated. Including use of article 44 to confiscate belongings of the defendant WELL before she even was found guilty. And the rest of the world sees it as politically motivated, judging from pretty each and every foreign (and national) new articles. The reason why they see it as politically motivated, because the evidence for it is so overwhelming it cannot be denied.

 

Does this mean Yingluck is not guilty as charged ? No, does it make the conviction useless, you bet your ass it does ...

 

As I said before, the Junta cannot do anything right, this trial and the subsequent "escape " from Yingluck are just one example of their utter incompetence.

 

Rest assured, after they are finally gone, the damage to the state coffers will be a multitude of what the rice scheme did "cost". And unless there is another coup, no-one will ever be held accountable. 

 

This point, further invalidates Yingluck's conviction of course. Justice should apply to everyone, including the NCPO and Prayuth. 

Edited September 29, 2017 by sjaak327

[wakeupplease]

3 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

This point, further invalidates Yingluck's conviction of course. Justice should apply to everyone, including the NCPO and Prayuth. 

Yep the last two especially, I am surprised his so called mates are not cooking something up for that lot now

[sjaak327]

25 minutes ago, wakeupplease said:

Yep the last two especially, I am surprised his so called mates are not cooking something up for that lot now

It does not matter, eventually they will loose and they will loose big time. You just need to look at history to know they are doomed. It's just they themselves haven't found the clue yet....

 

The Thai electorate will regain the country. It is just a matter of time.

[Stargeezr]

I am just happy that Yinguck is like her brother and is having to spend her own money to

live and eat these days.  Billionaires are people that I have no sympathy for when they

have fallen fom their high horses

Geezer

[HHTel]

5 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

The Thai electorate will regain the country. It is just a matter of time.

But with the changes to the constitution, the army remain in control regardless of which party wins an election.

[Ossy]

15 hours ago, Monomial said:

 

It doesn't matter whether she benefited from it or whether anyone benefited from it.  She was convicted because she did not perform her fiduciary responsibilities and the state clearly suffered for it. The beneficiary of her fiduciary neglect is not relevant to the judgement.

 

The same rules hold true for any lawyer, accountant, or government official. People in these positions assume the responsibilities of their positions. If they neglect them, they are guilty. Even if it was accidental, you are still guilty. Everyone knows this. In her position, Yingluck knew this. Many things that have come out of the Thai courts are questionable rulings at best, but this one is very clear and is not in any way political. Any court, anywhere in the world, would convict her for what she did. About the only thing that a reasonable person could argue is that the sentencing is too harsh, given that similar failures by others are not punished in a similar way.

 

The judgement itself however is beyond reproach.

 

I need a good lawyer . . . how're you fixed?

[Ossy]

15 hours ago, candide said:

for legally implementing flawed policies

Not a legal eagle, but always interested to see both/all sides to an issue, I understood that it was YL's failure to properly implement the 'flawed' rice scheme, when, under her responsibility, it was found to be riddled with mismanagement and corruption. How can that be seen as legally implementing flawed policies?

 

Everything pointed towards disaster, from the impossible arithmetic of the rice subsidies - not to mention their justification - to the clear failure of YL to do her job. Bad plan - Bad Performance . . . something had to suffer for that sort of balls-up.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Ossy
wording

[HHTel]

I've wondered whether the rice subsidy would have been successful if Vietnam and India hadn't increased their exports to fill the gap caused by stockpiling in Thailand.  The government's speculation was based on stockpiling and because they controlled 30% of the world's rice, they could manipulate the prices worldwide.  They hadn't accounted for other rice exporters such as Vietnam and India stepping in.  A gross oversight at the time.

[Ossy]

7 hours ago, wakeupplease said:

Yep the last two especially, I am surprised his so called mates are not cooking something up for that lot now

Not sure who you mean by 'mates' and 'that lot', but if you mean 'the judiciary' and 'Prayuth's cronies', respectively, I agree 100%. Question is, that since P1 controls everything, it would mean pissing on himself. Heh . . . now that would make a good story!

Edited September 30, 2017 by Ossy
punctuation

[Jack Mountain]

2 hours ago, HHTel said:

I've wondered whether the rice subsidy would have been successful if Vietnam and India hadn't increased their exports to fill the gap caused by stockpiling in Thailand.  The government's speculation was based on stockpiling and because they controlled 30% of the world's rice, they could manipulate the prices worldwide.  They hadn't accounted for other rice exporters such as Vietnam and India stepping in.  A gross oversight at the time.

And that's the really dirty part of it, trying to manipulate the food prices by withholding the rice to the market. 

[candide]

3 hours ago, Ossy said:

Not a legal eagle, but always interested to see both/all sides to an issue, I understood that it was YL's failure to properly implement the 'flawed' rice scheme, when, under her responsibility, it was found to be riddled with mismanagement and corruption. How can that be seen as legally implementing flawed policies?

 

Everything pointed towards disaster, from the impossible arithmetic of the rice subsidies - not to mention their justification - to the clear failure of YL to do her job. Bad plan - Bad Performance . . . something had to suffer for that sort of balls-up.

Ok, you can choose the characterisation you think fits better this case!

Can you give us a few examples of PMs or Presidents convicted for failing to properly implement flawed (or not) policies? (From my experience there is a large number of cases of unproperly implemented policies to consider in Thailand or elsewhere, including in my country and probably in yours)

[Monomial]

17 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

The trouble is, she was found NOT guilty in the case of "criminal neglicence" she was found guilty on the following grounds:

Sorry but this is very very questionable. And of course this trial was politically motivated. Including use of article 44 to confiscate belongings of the defendant WELL before she even was found guilty. And the rest of the world sees it as politically motivated, judging from pretty each and every foreign (and national) new articles. The reason why they see it as politically motivated, because the evidence for it is so overwhelming it cannot be denied.

 

Does this mean Yingluck is not guilty as charged ? No, does it make the conviction useless, you bet your ass it does ...

 

As I said before, the Junta cannot do anything right, this trial and the subsequent "escape " from Yingluck are just one example of their utter incompetence.

 

Rest assured, after they are finally gone, the damage to the state coffers will be a multitude of what the rice scheme did "cost". And unless there is another coup, no-one will ever be held accountable. 

 

This point, further invalidates Yingluck's conviction of course. Justice should apply to everyone, including the NCPO and Prayuth. 

Sorry I couldn't get back to you last night. I had another appointment to keep. That said, please read section 157 of Thailand's criminal code. It is exactly the section that deals with neglect of someone's fiduciary responsibilities, so the court correctly found her guilty under this clause.

 

Criminal negligence is much harder to prove than fiduciary neglect, so it is not surprising she could be found innocent of one and not the other.

 

As I have said previously, the ruling is sound. I just wish we could rely on Thai courts to always issue such rulings, even when it conflicts with the wishes of TPTB.

 

We all know when that will happen...

 

[Eric Loh]

8 minutes ago, Monomial said:

As I have said previously, the ruling is sound. I just wish we could rely on Thai courts to always issue such rulings, even when it conflicts with the wishes of TPTB.

The judgement was not without controversy. There were allegations of political game by the NACC with an agenda to annihilate a political group by using double standard. The case was rushed through without taking into account important witnesses and evidence, which led to false conclusions. NACC has still not investigate Ahbisit's rice scheme corruption which was 7 years ago. Also Vicha who led the NACC in the investigation was also controversial as he was previously involved in Yingluck impeachment case. 

 

However most mystifying was the use of Article 44 to protect all officials involved in this investigation from future lawsuits. Why?

 

These are the reasons why her supporters felt hard done by the court verdict.