1 minute ago, stephen tracy said:

Prayut is a thief protecting thieves.  Go tell the people rotting in jail or those summoned for AA for speech crime that Prayut is nothing like Hun Sen.  Give it time.  Go ask Prayut why no one can question his "unusual wealth" or face jail time for defamation. 

 

So who do you think is rotting in jail unfairly then?

 

The people in charge usually protect, the people in charge. That doesn't mean the previous lot were any better. You seem to imply the Shins and their various regimes weren't thieving corrupt and oppressive - well, they were. Just different beneficiaries.

6 hours ago, webfact said:

Thailand seeks to prosecute ousted PM Thaksin in absentia in two graft cases

He wasn't ousted as PM.

6 hours ago, webfact said:

The former telecommunications tycoon was ousted in a 2006 coup

No he wasn't.

4 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

There is no doubt that the two BKK based Reuters reporters usually put a favorable bias on their reports regarding anything to do with the Shins. I doubt anyone withing Reuters pays too much attention to it. AFP and the BBC (not always) do this too. 

Just little things, leaving out some detail, choosing certain words, can present a desired picture in the minds of those who aren't too familiar with the detail.

 

It isn't fake and neither is he claiming it is as such. Just presented to give one impression rather than another.

 

 

You just don't like what they report. As a result you call it biased. 

7 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

So who do you think is rotting in jail unfairly then?

 

The people in charge usually protect, the people in charge. That doesn't mean the previous lot were any better. You seem to imply the Shins and their various regimes weren't thieving corrupt and oppressive - well, they were. Just different beneficiaries.

There's a long list. Pai Dai Din to start and very recently, rubber farmers summoned for the AA.  Any "government" than implements such a disgusting and absurd piece of legislation has no credibility whatsoever. I don't support one gang of crooks over another, they're all the same in that they are all looting the coffers. But now we have the current crooks and I prefer to focus on the present. As do major international news agencies. 

I don't agree with any of that and I think you have money envy issues. This government will do anything short of committing mass suicide to get rid of the Shinawatras. Why? Because they know full well that its supporters only want to see agents of change disposed of in order to protect their own privilege. Prayuth has promised to see off the Shins and he hasn't been able to. Nor (I suspect) will he be able to. 
 
The sands of time are running very low for Mr Prayuth and he knows it, so he's becoming increasingly desperate. He wants to retrospectively convict Thaksin, not as a victory over Thaksin, but in the forlorn hope that his supporters will be disillusioned with Thaksin and think that the good general is, after all, a jolly good egg and worth voting for. Good luck with that buddy, the expression 'if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck then its a duck' was made for Prayuth, only people don't think he's a duck.
 
I suppose we'll see if the strategy is successful or not but I suspect it won't be. I suspect the majority of people would just as soon see Prayuth dangling at the end of a rope as see Thaksin convicted without due process. As would I.
 

Stupid assumption that i have money envy. My point was that he has enough money to affort good lawyers and a good defence.

Its great if he is convicted because then people see him for what he is a corrupt criminal. The case he is convicted for could be looked at as minor. The other cases waiting for him are not.

That some people like Thaksin is irrelevant for his crimes.


Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

6 hours ago, webfact said:

 

"Public prosecutors put in a request to the supreme court today to proceed with the two cases without presence of the accused, in accordance with the new law,"

If they went after boss instead they could gain more public credence.

 

3 hours ago, robblok said:

So you think Thaksin should get away with his crimes ? He can pay for the best lawyers money can buy to contest his innocence.

Its true they will never get him extradited but it will shut all the defenders of Thaksin up if he is convicted in a few more substantial vases with good evidence. Then it gets harder to deny he is a criminal now they often cite that he is only convicted for a minor crime.

I have no pitty with guys like him he can use his money to defend himself from a distance. Others dont have that luxury.

I do not agree that this law is only for political office holders. It should apply to all, fleeing a country should not mean you get an advantage over those that dont flee or cant flee.



Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
 

Applying a new law retroactively is not justice. Nothing more needs to be said. He will NEVER be extradited, because in the rest of the world even alleged criminals have the right to a fair trial. 

 

In the Thai justice system, evidence does not play a role. And as long as Prayuth and co are above the law, this is just window dressing. Make no mistake, they are without a doubt much worse criminals. But cannot be touched. You arw a hypocrite for demanding justice for Thaksin, but not for Prayuth....

29 minutes ago, robblok said:

Stupid assumption that i have money envy. My point was that he has enough money to affort good lawyers and a good defence.

Its great if he is convicted because then people see him for what he is a corrupt criminal. The case he is convicted for could be looked at as minor. The other cases waiting for him are not.

That some people like Thaksin is irrelevant for his crimes.


Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
 

OK. Excellent. Well done.

 

 

3 hours ago, robblok said:

So you think Thaksin should get away with his crimes ? He can pay for the best lawyers money can buy to contest his innocence.

Its true they will never get him extradited but it will shut all the defenders of Thaksin up if he is convicted in a few more substantial vases with good evidence. Then it gets harder to deny he is a criminal now they often cite that he is only convicted for a minor crime.

I have no pitty with guys like him he can use his money to defend himself from a distance. Others dont have that luxury.

I do not agree that this law is only for political office holders. It should apply to all, fleeing a country should not mean you get an advantage over those that dont flee or cant flee.



Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
 

" it will shut all the defenders of Thaksin up if he is convicted in a few more substantial vases with good evidence."

The Burmese boys were convicted by a Thai court.

3 hours ago, Sid Celery said:

I don't agree with any of that and I think you have money envy issues. This government will do anything short of committing mass suicide to get rid of the Shinawatras. Why? Because they know full well that its supporters only want to see agents of change disposed of in order to protect their own privilege. Prayuth has promised to see off the Shins and he hasn't been able to. Nor (I suspect) will he be able to. 

 

The sands of time are running very low for Mr Prayuth and he knows it, so he's becoming increasingly desperate. He wants to retrospectively convict Thaksin, not as a victory over Thaksin, but in the forlorn hope that his supporters will be disillusioned with Thaksin and think that the good general is, after all, a jolly good egg and worth voting for. Good luck with that buddy, the expression 'if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck then its a duck' was made for Prayuth, only people don't think he's a duck.

 

I suppose we'll see if the strategy is successful or not but I suspect it won't be. I suspect the majority of people would just as soon see Prayuth dangling at the end of a rope as see Thaksin convicted without due process. As would I.

 

What a load of rubbish. You know nothing about this country. Thaksin should have been tried in absentia years ago. His  crimes were not politically motivated but the result of pure greed on his part. And you cant accept the fact that Prayuth still has a lot of support from the majority of Thais. Of course, you are completely ignorant of the justice system here. The cases against Thaksin were initiated before the coup.  I  dont support the coup, but I dont like reading ridiculous comments on this forum.

4 minutes ago, hugh2121 said:

" it will shut all the defenders of Thaksin up if he is convicted in a few more substantial vases with good evidence."

The Burmese boys were convicted by a Thai court.

 

The more they push shit onto him the more the people will reject it if history is right and history is always right.

 

The Burmese boys were convicted by a>>>>>>>>>>>> Thai court.

 

you forgot Rubber Stamp

This is a b8llshit story about b8llshit.  Give it a rest and get on with things that really matter.

There must be a law in the Thai consitution that prosocutes personsons that over throw governments , try that one.

There was. They tore up that constitution. Then they gave themselves an amnesty.

 

Sent from my KENNY using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, gamini said:

What a load of rubbish. You know nothing about this country. Thaksin should have been tried in absentia years ago. His  crimes were not politically motivated but the result of pure greed on his part. And you cant accept the fact that Prayuth still has a lot of support from the majority of Thais. Of course, you are completely ignorant of the justice system here. The cases against Thaksin were initiated before the coup.  I  dont support the coup, but I dont like reading ridiculous comments on this forum.

Unfortunately the dislike by some people for Prayuth, even though it has nothing to do with 99.99% of non Thais completely blinds them of any sense. 

26 minutes ago, gamini said:

What a load of rubbish. You know nothing about this country. Thaksin should have been tried in absentia years ago. His  crimes were not politically motivated but the result of pure greed on his part. And you cant accept the fact that Prayuth still has a lot of support from the majority of Thais. Of course, you are completely ignorant of the justice system here. The cases against Thaksin were initiated before the coup.  I  dont support the coup, but I dont like reading ridiculous comments on this forum.

Yes, I'm sure you're right.

Stupid assumption that i have money envy. My point was that he has enough money to affort good lawyers and a good defence.

Its great if he is convicted because then people see him for what he is a corrupt criminal. The case he is convicted for could be looked at as minor. The other cases waiting for him are not.

That some people like Thaksin is irrelevant for his crimes.


Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

If he is convicted people, here and abroad, will see him as a former (twice elected) prime minister, ousted by a coup to prevent another re-election, who has been convicted, in absentia, by a retrospective law introduced by a military junta.



Sent from my KENNY using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

41 minutes ago, gamini said:

What a load of rubbish. You know nothing about this country. Thaksin should have been tried in absentia years ago. His  crimes were not politically motivated but the result of pure greed on his part. And you cant accept the fact that Prayuth still has a lot of support from the majority of Thais. Of course, you are completely ignorant of the justice system here. The cases against Thaksin were initiated before the coup.  I  dont support the coup, but I dont like reading ridiculous comments on this forum.

Calm down kind sir.

 

Deep breaths.

 

It'll all be OK...

2 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

"Justice should apply equally, fairly, and without bias and favor to all. It doesn't. Not in any country I've lived in. And certainly not here."

 

Agreed. 

 

So tell me again why there needs to be a new trial(s)?

 

 

None so blind as those that don't want to see and who have an obvious bias.

 

New trial(s)?  Not true, many of his cases haven't yet been processed, so lets get on with the initial process. 

 

And lets' get on with the process for all outstanding cases regardless of colour or linkage to the elites (whatever that means, a convenient phrase trotted out again and again. Every time in the past I've asked for an explanation of what it means - silence). 

48 minutes ago, Artisi said:

Unfortunately the dislike by some people for Prayuth, even though it has nothing to do with 99.99% of non Thais completely blinds them of any sense. 

Interesting idea.

 

Here is something your own signature says about drawing conclusions about things you don't know vbery much about:

 

"It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts""  

 

Interesting if a touch ironic really.

3 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

None so blind as those that don't want to see and who have an obvious bias.

 

New trial(s)?  Not true, many of his cases haven't yet been processed, so lets get on with the initial process. 

 

And lets' get on with the process for all outstanding cases regardless of colour or linkage to the elites (whatever that means, a convenient phrase trotted out again and again. Every time in the past I've asked for an explanation of what it means - silence). 

Because you're not allowed to mention them by name on this forum.  To close to home, if you know what I mean. What is conspicuous is that whenever I've asked the pro-junta members how they presume Prayut got so rich, and why he won't allow anyone to question it, this is met with silence.  Can't face facts I suppose. Or my gang of thieves isn't as bad yours syndrome.

42 minutes ago, JAG said:

If he is convicted people, here and abroad, will see him as a former (twice elected) prime minister, ousted by a coup to prevent another re-election, who has been convicted, in absentia, by a retrospective law introduced by a military junta.



Sent from my KENNY using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

What rubbish... how many times are you and eric loh et al going to trot out this silly unproven hogwash. 

 

You really think large numbers of foreigners analyse / think seriously about the Thai situation?

 

How many Americans realize their so called 'perfect democracy' is in fact way way short of perfection from a number of angles, including massive lobbying (vote buying), and more?

 

 

1 minute ago, stephen tracy said:

Because you're not allowed to mention them by name on this forum.  To close to home, if you know what I mean. What is conspicuous is that whenever I've asked the pro-junta members how they presume Prayut got so rich, and why he won't allow anyone to question it, this is met with silence.  Can't face facts I suppose. Or my gang of thieves isn't as bad yours syndrome.

 

Diversion, diversion, stick to the argument. Guess you can't...

1 minute ago, scorecard said:

 

Diversion, diversion, stick to the argument. Guess you can't...

I don't want to be charged with LM. You, on the other hand, could not be charged  for addressing my question.  Diversion? That's exactly what you and the other junta-philes do on a daily basis. It's always, but, but, but Thaksin, red shirts etc.... we're discussing the here and now, and the here and now is the junta..... but, but, but

12 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

None so blind as those that don't want to see and who have an obvious bias.

 

New trial(s)?  Not true, many of his cases haven't yet been processed, so lets get on with the initial process. 

 

And lets' get on with the process for all outstanding cases regardless of colour or linkage to the elites (whatever that means, a convenient phrase trotted out again and again. Every time in the past I've asked for an explanation of what it means - silence). 

 

As I recall, the charge for which Thaksin received a jail sentence, had to do with a plot of land somewhere near Fortune Town, which his wife bough.

It was widely reported in the press at the time that Thaksin played no part in the purchase, that approval or otherwise was the responsibility of an external agency, and that in fact Potjaman paid more than the expected price for the land. 

 

None of that made any difference, he was found guilty of abuse of power. Not corruption or theft, abuse of power (as I recall).

 

In my opinion, this was a put-up job from start to finish, the first put-up job I had ever come across from within the judiciary of any country, so was was sort of shocked at what appeared to be malfeasance. I do not think that anyone who has sincerely read the reports of the time could be in any doubt that as much as Thaksin was dishonest (Chinese Thai so the odds are high that he would be dishonest), the guilty verdict was pre-arranged and absolutely against tha facts in the case.

 

If I understood it all correctly of course.

 

Odd how some things appear when you don't look deeply enough into them and just uncritically believe what other people say. People perhaps close to one? With whom one has a 'special' relationship... if you see what I mean.

Your wasting time and tax payers money He is gone never to come back There will be no benefit to anyone other than

the prosecutors ego for prosecuting it

Their you have it  “ winning staunch support with populist policies that raised living standards, especially among the rural poor “ to me he can’t be judged against his opponents as they are all at it - but if the statement above is true he deserves proper recognition 

Ah well. All good for Thaksin. Keeps him in the public eye at no expense to himself and will no doubt be some help to Yingluk in her asylum application. Win win for the Shinawatras again.

27 minutes ago, Sid Celery said:

he was found guilty of abuse of power

I believe it was for conflict of interest that he allegedly negotiated the sale de facto as PM to his wife.

At face value a very weak charge.

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

I believe it was for conflict of interest that he allegedly negotiated the sale de facto as PM to his wife.

At face value a very weak charge.

Actually he did not even negotiate anything as it was a blind bid and his wife did bid more than other bidders.

Additionally, despite the fact that there was an official text stating that the selling organisation was not under the PM's office authority, the court overrode it by declaring that he was de facto supervising it as PM.

It's all detailed in the wikipedia page on his wife.