2 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Hmm interesting analogy. The current reality in Thailand is such that if Prayuth and Yingluck both murder someone, Yingluck will be prosecuted and Prayuth will not. Now that little fact indeed means both should go free. Justice can only work if all people are subjected to it. 

Then I don't like your kind of justice as you let a murderer go free. But then again. I had not expected any different from your side. I prefer to have both murderers behind bars, but 1 is better as none at all. 

6 minutes ago, robblok said:

Then I don't like your kind of justice as you let a murderer go free. But then again. I had not expected any different from your side. I prefer to have both murderers behind bars, but 1 is better as none at all. 

My kind of justice is all men are equal before the law. When I have the choice between a kind of justice where some people placed themselves above the law, and at the same time subject their enemies to a show trial with the sole intention to render those enemies useless, and no justice at all, I choose no justice. 

 

Again a justice system where some people placed themselves above the law, and where tat very same system is used by the same people to render enemies useless, does not serve justice. It just serves revenge.

Edited September 30, 20178 yr by sjaak327

7 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

My kind of justice is all men are equal before the law. When I have the choice between a kind of justice where some people placed themselves above the law, and at the same time subject their enemies to a show trial with the sole intention to render those enemies useless, and no justice at all, I choose no justice. 

 

Again a justice system where some people placed themselves above the law, and where tat very same system is used by the same people to render enemies useless, does not serve justice. It just serves revenge.

Your kind of  justice lets guilty people go free. I guess you can live with that because they are on your side. You like making it poitical because you hate to admit she is a common criminal who did not stop the corruption because it benefited people close to her brother. I guess there is no point in debating with you as you are ok with letting people go. 

 

I am not ok that some people get away with corruption, but that should not mean others should too. I guess they should let the PAD then not pay the fines.. I mean why would they (I am all for punishing them but hey the reds did not pay for burning BKK). 

 

You know you get chaos if you have a law system that is not followed but that is ok as long as you can say YL should go free. 

 

In my book everyone corrupt should be in jail but an imperfect system still beats no system at all. Because that is what your suggesting only because you can't deny she is a criminal by helping friends of her brother to steal. 

1 hour ago, robblok said:

You just feel like she should get a free pas even though she knowingly let 30billion of corruption go on. Your only reason for this is because you like her. Face it she is a criminal, she just had to cancel those trades (but big brother would not be happy then) and then they had nothing on her. 

 

Your like.. she should get a free pass because others are not always convicted ... lets never ever convict anybody of crimes and watch how it turns out... She made her choices to not stop the trades as friends of her brother benefitted  and now she pays the price. Its pathetic to try to clear her. I had not expected any different from your side its always like this clear evidence... cant refute the charges.. oh lets go for the political angle. While the whole case would not be there if she had followed the law. 

 

That others get away with some crimes is a bad thing.. but that does not make her any less guilty. 

 

I am not denying that they are trying to get rid of her.. but its political when you make up evidence.. when you fabricate things. This is not the case her this is by her own (or her brothers) doing. 

 

When you know they want to get rid of you.. do you load a gun for them and hand it over to those that want to get rid of you or do you make sure they have nothing to to go after you for ?

 

More fantasy eh robblok?  let's face it, and the truth is, that if it were not the rice scheme they would have found something else to take her out of the game.  As Beria said:

 

"show me the man and I'll find a crime"  

 

BTW what about the failings of the airship?  statutes?  and countless others?  what about rice being sold now close to when Yingluck was there?  all very 'inconvenient truths' huh?  ah but I forgot they have AMNESTY

 

 

39 minutes ago, robblok said:

Your kind of  justice lets guilty people go free. I guess you can live with that because they are on your side. You like making it poitical because you hate to admit she is a common criminal who did not stop the corruption because it benefited people close to her brother. I guess there is no point in debating with you as you are ok with letting people go. 

 

I am not ok that some people get away with corruption, but that should not mean others should too. I guess they should let the PAD then not pay the fines.. I mean why would they (I am all for punishing them but hey the reds did not pay for burning BKK). 

 

You know you get chaos if you have a law system that is not followed but that is ok as long as you can say YL should go free. 

 

In my book everyone corrupt should be in jail but an imperfect system still beats no system at all. Because that is what your suggesting only because you can't deny she is a criminal by helping friends of her brother to steal. 

Yes of course, how could one jail one person, and let another one that does the same thing go free, that is NOT justice. That is point I am trying to make here. Why have laws if those laws don't target everyone.

 

You banging on about Yingluck being a common criminal, yet have no problem with the criminals in the NCPO, like it or not they ARE criminals, and the evidence against them simply overwhelms any evidence brought to the table against Yingluck. 

 

You are a not being honest here. IF yingluck or Thaksin would have put themselves into a position where they were above the law and totally unaccountable, you would scream bloody murder, yet Prayuth gets a free pass from you. Don't you dare suggest that there is no point in debating with me, because I am not supporting either side, I am merely pointing out the miscarriage of justice we are currently seeing. Like it or not, that point is simply unavoideable and a cut and dry fact. 

 

There is NO evidence she helped friends of her brother to steal, that is a gross exaggeration of the verdict that was unbelieveably thin on actual relevant evidence. A system which is being used by criminals to disable their political enemies is a system that should not be in place, and this is precisely the reason why Yingluck can go anywhere except Thailand. The rest of the world knows exactly what this is. It is unbelieveable you refuse to see it. But I am guessing it is either ignorance, or intend. 

On 9/30/2017 at 9:39 AM, robblok said:

Guess your one of those people who could not bother to read the verdict.. she is not convicted for the rice program. She is convicted because her top minister Boonsong did fake G2G deals (costing 30 billion).. She replaced the minister in 2013 when those allegations came out but did not stop the fake trades. That is negligence in stopping corruption you know about. 

So please don't confuse things. 

 

still a witch hunt, she would never have been charged in any decent country