Judge in Yingluck case ruled her ‘not guilty’

[Baerboxer]

11 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

So there's still benefit of doubt that she was guilty and no political expediency at work. What the junta wants, they get. 

 

7 to 1 Eric. And Thaksin was 3-2 not guilty, with one judge later admitting he thought he was guilty but voted not guilty because he'd just been elected PM and deserved another chance!

 

Sometimes it works for you, sometimes against. Not really balanced.

[Baerboxer]

7 hours ago, Becker said:

And if that is the case it's yet another example of how rotten things are in Thailand  - despite the fact that your beloved junta is in charge.

If you can't see that then you definitively are what you claim the judge is.

 

I'm sure he isn't an idiot. Most judges aren't. But, his opinion. is not shared by the 7 judges who thought differently.

 

But it suits some posters agenda to pretend that his and only his opinion is valid. They are treating the rest of us as idiots hoping we believe them.

 

Btw - misleading headline. There were 8 judges and 7 found her guilty.

[Baerboxer]

5 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

 

 

As do all politicians in every country :

 

• sometimes their policies are unintentionally harmful
• sometimes they fail to prevent stupidity
• sometimes they make mistakes
• sometimes they do not realize, until hindsight, that they made bad policy

No where do they get prosecuted, if elected legally, after they leave office or lose an election. Only in Thailand.

 

Do you know of any example where a PM appointed themselves to chair meetings of their government's flag ship policy and then never bothered ever actually turning up?

 

Or perhaps examples of where government ministers have been sacked over corruption issues but the deals still be allowed to happen.

 

If she had been working hard to ensure the scheme was implemented properly, without rampant corruption and taken decisive action when alerted to issues; and ensured correct financial accounting of the scheme was presented to parliament, then I'd agree with you.

 

But she didn't. She avoided it, lied about aspects of it and failed to take any action of the corrupt G2G deal. That is willful negligence, not even carelessness.

[Golden Triangle]

I am so glad that I fast forwarded from page 1 to page 5, the first few posts on page 1 were exactly as expected and (as I write, Baerboxer's post ) is exactly the same as it has been throughout this whole process beginning with the end of the trial and the day before the sentencing.

 

Please people, give it a rest, I don't like the junta too much, Thaksin bought his votes and Yingluck wasn't as sharp as she could have been - but they were elected, the people like them and they did some good stuff for this country, admittedly they could have been better  But all you lot are doing is regurgitating the same old stale, well worn arguments that no longer make this an interesting topic.

 

Now we have a demigod  whose only interest is in buying Chinese Junk(s) in the shape of Subs, Tanks, Missiles and other shit and not concerned about the lack of hospital beds, appalling education and sub standard care of the elderly. 

 

[Dogmatix]

3 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

7 to 1 Eric. And Thaksin was 3-2 not guilty, with one judge later admitting he thought he was guilty but voted not guilty because he'd just been elected PM and deserved another chance!

 

Sometimes it works for you, sometimes against. Not really balanced.

 

Actually Thaksin's acquittal in his 2001 assets concealment case was a complete fix.  There were 15 judges, not 5, and he was acquitted by 8 judges to 7.  Of the 8 that found him not guilty 4 defied the instruction of the president of the Constitutional Court that they must find the defendant either guilty or not guilty on the evidence presented and were not permitted to find him not guilty based on their personal opinions that either that court had no jurisdiction over the case or that their was no case to answer.  They did just that and found him not guilty on the basis of their personal opinions that the court had no jurisdiction. So if the votes of the four judges who effectively spoiled their ballots had been excluded, Thaksin would have been found guilty by a majority vote. Of the other four that found him not guilty, two later admitted that they could not bring themselves to find him because he had just elected prime minister, regardless of evidence.  One the latter judges had only been appointed to the trial about two weeks earlier and therefore had missed most of the hearings.  

 

Of the assets concealment case, it is now generally accepted that this was a complete travesty of justice. The evidence of his asset concealment was extremely blatant and, even if one were really to believe his argument that his wife did it all for him without his knowledge, concealment done by his spouse should have still rendered him guilty. 

 

The civil case in which his assets were confiscated for policy corruption was a different matter.  The argument in favour of confiscation was somewhat convoluted and the calculation of how much to confiscate was even more so, displaying huge ignorance of finance.  Like they used to say at school, if you were beaten for an offence you didn't commit that would make up for another offence you got away with.           

[sjaak327]

18 hours ago, robblok said:

Yes real proof it was rigged and no other opinions allowed. Plus it shows how hard it is to really convict someone. Everyone knows here that the rice trader was close to Thaksin (as proven with pictures). Now its a small step to connect the dots. This judge however did not see it that way. Thankfully the other judges did. 

 

But at least this shows it was not a show process and that they really did follow the law and discussed it extensively. Just one of the 9 thought the proof was not sufficient, the others were more clear minded and accepted Thaksin his friendship with the rice trader as proof. Its good otherwise an other criminal shin action would have gone unpunished. 

But merely accepting Thaksin's friendship as proof of wrongdoing by Yingluck is of course no proof. Thus the notion that this was rigged is just further enforced. according to the verdict of this judge they did not follow the law. And if the connection as you claim is the major proof, the only judge that was clear minded is the one that we are discussing here. But I understand, your hatred for anything bearing the name Shinawatra is more important than a fair and transparent trial.

 

 

[halloween]

1 minute ago, sjaak327 said:

But merely accepting Thaksin's friendship as proof of wrongdoing by Yingluck is of course no proof. Thus the notion that this was rigged is just further enforced. according to the verdict of this judge they did not follow the law. And if the connection as you claim is the major proof, the only judge that was clear minded is the one that we are discussing here. But I understand, your hatred for anything bearing the name Shinawatra is more important than a fair and transparent trial.

 

 

Apichart was given preferential treatment by both in government rice deals. Yingluk gave him preferential access to closed door rice deals netting hundreds of millions AFTER his company went bankrupt owing the government and banks billions.

That is not just photos, or friendship, it is preferential business dealings with a man proven to be totally corrupt - Apichart and Thaksin.

[sjaak327]

2 minutes ago, halloween said:

Apichart was given preferential treatment by both in government rice deals. Yingluk gave him preferential access to closed door rice deals netting hundreds of millions AFTER his company went bankrupt owing the government and banks billions.

That is not just photos, or friendship, it is preferential business dealings with a man proven to be totally corrupt - Apichart and Thaksin.

And the proof that Yingluck did do what you claim was presented at the court ? Does that evidence even exist ? Both people you mentioned were not sentenced to five years in prison YIngluck was. 

 

The way I read the actual conviction, she was NOT convicted for negligence, as that was not proven (and is of course very difficult to prove) she was convicted for her failure to stop the rice deals, even though she did sack the responsible minister. Wondering exactly what evidence was brought to table to prove that. 

 

Surely it's not merely a photo or alleged connection as Rob seems to claim. 

[halloween]

4 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

And the proof that Yingluck did do what you claim was presented at the court ? Does that evidence even exist ? Both people you mentioned were not sentenced to five years in prison YIngluck was. 

 

The way I read the actual conviction, she was NOT convicted for negligence, as that was not proven (and is of course very difficult to prove) she was convicted for her failure to stop the rice deals, even though she did sack the responsible minister. Wondering exactly what evidence was brought to table to prove that. 

 

Surely it's not merely a photo or alleged connection as Rob seems to claim. 

Yes the evidence exists, he was the (unnecessary) dealer in the 300,000t G2G sale to Indonesia that netted him B900 million, which I have linked to many times. He was also the dealer in the G2G deal with Iran where he stole the rice and the money. HE was sentenced on multiple counts and is serving more than 48 years, Thaksin avoids charges by being absent.

Any reasonable due diligence would have eliminated him from dealings with government. That he wasn't reeks of corruption.

 

[sjaak327]

15 minutes ago, halloween said:

Yes the evidence exists, he was the (unnecessary) dealer in the 300,000t G2G sale to Indonesia that netted him B900 million, which I have linked to many times. He was also the dealer in the G2G deal with Iran where he stole the rice and the money. HE was sentenced on multiple counts and is serving more than 48 years, Thaksin avoids charges by being absent.

Any reasonable due diligence would have eliminated him from dealings with government. That he wasn't reeks of corruption.

 

The question was not about him and what he did, it was about Yingluck, did she arrange for him to be involved, and what evidence has been brought to the table to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, not forgetting that she was convicted for her failure to stop the fake rice deals. She was not convicted for anything else..

[halloween]

2 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

The question was not about him and what he did, it was about Yingluck, did she arrange for him to be involved, and what evidence has been brought to the table to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, not forgetting that she was convicted for her failure to stop the fake rice deals. She was not convicted for anything else..

As he was heavily involved in the fake rice deals, for which he received the 48 year sentence, his actions and his access to government deals is very much relevant. She didn't stop the deals which netted him even more profits, profits that I strongly suggest were shared with the Shin family in return for preferential access.

If it could be proved she didn't stop the deals for personal/family gain, then she should be sharing sentences with Boonsong and Apichart. My hope is one or the other will give evidence in return for leniency.

[sjaak327]

37 minutes ago, halloween said:

As he was heavily involved in the fake rice deals, for which he received the 48 year sentence, his actions and his access to government deals is very much relevant. She didn't stop the deals which netted him even more profits, profits that I strongly suggest were shared with the Shin family in return for preferential access.

If it could be proved she didn't stop the deals for personal/family gain, then she should be sharing sentences with Boonsong and Apichart. My hope is one or the other will give evidence in return for leniency.

You suggest but don't provide any proof. the lone dissident judge seems to have it right. Yingluck's conviction stinks. I have yet to see relevant evidence that she was complicit or even knew what was going on in the first place. 

[Bill Miller]

20 hours ago, quandow said:

I don't know the rules here - does this mean she's free to come back?

No. One voice of dissent does not change the majority ruling.

I imagine her lawyers could use this in an appeal, but that would be a whole other process.

Not sure if she will bother if granted asylum in the UK.

[The Teacher]

Good on him for sticking to his gun;s, However he will be turned to the dark side soon also. Or never to be heard off again. You can be your bottom dollar on that one.....................

[tifino]

 

pity they'll rid of him, now that he didn't tow the line...

 

 

governments come and government go... as does the tide

But, the corrupt public servants doing all the dirty work,

 will stay,

and they will carry on doing whatever they want,

simply under a new boss (and it won't matter whatever colour shirt he/she is wearing)

 

[metisdead]

A post containing off topic deflection comments has been removed.   This has nothing to do with Bush/Blair or WMD's.

[ramrod711]

On ‎10‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 7:44 AM, webfact said:

the offence must be accompanied also by ill intention, or ill intention to cause loss to others.

And how would  the court prove intention? The public has a right to be protected from incompetent, half witted administrators of the public purse regardless of intention. The law should be amended immediately, intention my arse.

[LannaGuy]

2 minutes ago, ramrod711 said:

And how would  the court prove intention? The public has a right to be protected from incompetent, half witted administrators of the public purse regardless of intention. The law should be amended immediately, intention my arse.

 

So sack all governments. You reveal a complete lack of understanding of how governments work. Some polices will succeed and others will not but ALL are subject to protection from the viciousness of retribution of those that follow them (especially unelected Military Junta's).

[ramrod711]

2 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

So sack all governments. You reveal a complete lack of understanding of how governments work. Some polices will succeed and others will not but ALL are subject to protection from the viciousness of retribution of those that follow them (especially unelected Military Junta's).

Remember? "who knows what evil lurks within the hearts of men, the Shadow knows" There is no way for a judge to read what is in her mind, only what she did, and what she did was irresponsible and harmful to people, some who committed suicide.

[AGareth2]

11 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

is not shared by the 7 judges who thought differently.

thought it was 8

at law it is always interesting to read dissenting judgements

that is how the law develops

[LannaGuy]

14 minutes ago, ramrod711 said:

Remember? "who knows what evil lurks within the hearts of men, the Shadow knows" There is no way for a judge to read what is in her mind, only what she did, and what she did was irresponsible and harmful to people, some who committed suicide.

 

The standard, in democratic and developed nations, is that decisions taken whilst in elected office cannot be submitted to prosecution after the event. Elections are the way to rid of incompetent leaders not courts. 

[Dogmatix]

1 hour ago, LannaGuy said:

 

So sack all governments. You reveal a complete lack of understanding of how governments work. Some polices will succeed and others will not but ALL are subject to protection from the viciousness of retribution of those that follow them (especially unelected Military Junta's).

 

That argument is applicable in the case of the rice pledging policy itself. The court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to rule whether the policy was good or bad, despite the losses caused by buying rice below the market price. This caused losses to the state but benefitted many farmers. Yingluck was not convicted for presiding over government policy. She was found guilty of taking actions that effectively permitted corruption on a huge scale to continue and go unpunished by allowing the guilty to investigate themselves, knowing full well that, if wrongdoing were taking place, it would be covered up, as it was.

 

this may be unprecedented in Thailand and it may well never happen again but that does not diminish the fact that under Section 157 of the Penal Code and the evidence presented to the court, Yingluck was clearly guilty and the majority ruling was entirely sound.

Edited October 20, 2017 by Dogmatix

[LannaGuy]

14 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

 

That argument is applicable in the case of the rice pledging policy itself. The court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to rule whether the policy was good or bad, despite the losses caused by buying rice below the market price. This caused losses to the state but benefitted many farmers. Yingluck was not convicted for presiding over government policy. She was found guilty of taking actions that effectively permitted corruption on a huge scale to continue and go unpunished by allowing the guilty to investigate themselves, knowing full well that, if wrongdoing were taking place, it would be covered up, as it was.

 

this may be unprecedented in Thailand and it may well never happen again but that does not diminish the fact that under Section 157 of the Penal Code and the evidence presented to the court, Yingluck was clearly guilty and the majority ruling was entirely sound.

 

and so... to follow your logic all the Thai Junta should resign if any corruption is found?  did Yingluck benefit?  take part in any corruption?  or she was just the PM of a country where corruption is endemic at EVERY level?  what about the 'amulet seller' who got 20m for 'advising' on statues?  to me that's much plainer than the Yingluck case but, no  doubt, his shirt colour is different.

[Becker]

12 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

I'm sure he isn't an idiot. Most judges aren't.

True. Now, the poster OTOH.....

You do realize my post was a reaction to the ugly and revealing schadenfreude the poster displayed when imagining the possible future problems for the judge and not the verdict?

[robblok]

35 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

and so... to follow your logic all the Thai Junta should resign if any corruption is found?  did Yingluck benefit?  take part in any corruption?  or she was just the PM of a country where corruption is endemic at EVERY level?  what about the 'amulet seller' who got 20m for 'advising' on statues?  to me that's much plainer than the Yingluck case but, no  doubt, his shirt colour is different.

No the Thai junta should resign if it is proven that they willingly allowed corruption to take place and were informed about said corruption. Don't twist it keep the facts clear.

[robblok]

26 minutes ago, Becker said:

True. Now, the poster OTOH.....

You do realize my post was a reaction to the ugly and revealing schadenfreude the poster displayed when imagining the possible future problems for the judge and not the verdict?

The judge should be free to vote as he wants and as he sees it. Unless he is incompetent that is a different story but i don't think he is. This judge just did his job how he saw fit. 8 others saw it differently they all did their job, this is a good example of how it was a free and fair vote. 

[LannaGuy]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

No the Thai junta should resign if it is proven that they willingly allowed corruption to take place and were informed about said corruption. Don't twist it keep the facts clear.

 

I am very clear that Yingluck reported concerns, as she should have, and that no action was taken. I am very clear that a MILITARY Junta court found her guilty and THAT is the problem. No twist just facts.

[LannaGuy]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

The judge should be free to vote as he wants and as he sees it. Unless he is incompetent that is a different story but i don't think he is. This judge just did his job how he saw fit. 8 others saw it differently they all did their job, this is a good example of how it was a free and fair vote. 

'free and fair vote'  you jest and that lone, ethical, just man will pay the price for not following the Junta 'plan'

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

I am very clear that Yingluck reported concerns, as she should have, and that no action was taken. I am very clear that a MILITARY Junta court found her guilty and THAT is the problem. No twist just facts.

What military court.. this was not a military court.. your twisting things again. Its a normal court nothing military about it at all its a civil court. Get your FACTS straight. 

[LannaGuy]

Just now, robblok said:

What military court.. this was not a military court.. your twisting things again. Its a normal court nothing military about it at all its a civil court. Get your FACTS straight. 

 

You thinks the courts are not military?  really???  seriously???  you astound me and I did not have you down as 'naive' just right wing