And precisely how much has Prawit achieved on his watch?

 

Or should I have said with his watches??

where, in this article, is there any indication that prawit is even contemplating resignation?

i see people saying he should resign, but no reports from him or anyone close to him saying that he has contemplated the action.

Can the rotten egg please leave the room for the replacement new rotten egg.

It seems that the only way out for Prayut is, if Prawit decides to fall on his sword and resign.  Their military "code of honour" seems to make firing his senior an impossibility, regardless of anything he may have done. If he did agree to go, he would probably want structures set up, so he could still control things from behind the scenes. 

2 hours ago, DoctorG said:

So, a friend lends you some watches. The friend dies. You just decide to keep the watches? No thoughts of returning them to the estate?

I agree.  If they were loaned to him and the lender dies then surely they become part of the deceased's estate.  To keep them has got to be theft whichever way you look at it.

Mickey Mouse wears a Prawit watch 

What a face losing disgrace - seriously! 

23 minutes ago, lincolnshire poacher said:

He may not have had sexual relations with Monica, but she had sexual relations with him

It's  that old gag Im afraid what he said was  "sack my  cook Monica"  just a misunderstanding a  bit  like Thailand really.

15 minutes ago, Megasin1 said:

Mickey Mouse wears a Prawit watch 

Did he win it in a  cracker? or  had the goldfish at the fair  run out?

Why so many people have problems with Prawit's 'dead guy defence'?

 

I use it all the time.

 

You should try it sometime.

Edited January 22, 20188 yr by NanLaew

A former military officer, however, is backing Prawit’s account of the origins of the watches that many people took as a poor joke – that the watches previously belonged to a friend who had subsequently died.

I thought I read that the watches were from friendS

not friend

Former deputy prime minister MR Pridiyathorn Devakula said yesterday that if he faced similar circumstances, he would have already resigned.

 

Hmm not sure, easy to say but as we very well know the way of the corrupt and entitled is to believe my misdeeds are OK but yours are corrupt.

 

Any way if watch boy retires will he be presented with a gold watch?

Ok while a watch is a strange thing to lend it's not that weird. Bear in mind the lender of the watches was probably very rich- doubt family gave a crap/ or knew when he died about a watch.

8 hours ago, darksidedog said:

If he had any sense of shame whatsoever, he would have gone already.

Given the level of corruption in this country, any sense of shame is the last thing you would expect from these people

I still think the way of the wealthy Thai or whoever is to trump their mates with something bigger, better, more exclusive and more expensive.

 

Borrowing just doesn't cut it in the world of oneupmanship. 

2 hours ago, 12DrinkMore said:

 

Are you trying to wind him up?

Not really, he should be doing time.

 

2 hours ago, gunderhill said:

did  she  have +20  pairs  valued  over 30  million?

The real question, is her and her family independently wealthy enough to afford twenty pairs of the aforementioned boots, or was she living on a military salary? A fair difference I think.

It's about TIME to leave...Lost face many TIMES...

I suspect when/if he steps down the reason he will

give is ill health,as he is never going to admit anything,

regards worgeordie

Quote: " the watches had been lent to him by a late friend "

 

Question: Was the friend late because he had lent out all his watches?

Please don't forget to take your boss with you. Thanks.

1 hour ago, gunderhill said:

1 hour ago, Megasin1 said:

Mickey Mouse wears a Prawit watch 

Did he win it in a  cracker? or  had the goldfish at the fair  run out?

He borrowed it off Donald Duck

14 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

I suspect when/if he steps down the reason he will

give is ill health,as he is never going to admit anything,

regards worgeordie

Perhaps he will say he's stepping down due to a problem with his 'ticker'.

4 hours ago, DoctorG said:

So, a friend lends you some watches. The friend dies. You just decide to keep the watches? No thoughts of returning them to the estate?

They have already been returned but perhaps the estate of his close friend allowed him to continue using the watches.

4 hours ago, toybits said:

“Pridiyathorn added that he believed Prawit (the most WATCHED General?) would resign soon because of the mounting pressure.”

 

 I am confused.  If there was no pressure, then Pridiyathorn would not believe it was necessary for Prawit to resign? So the only reason Prawit should resign is because of the pressure against him and NOT because he did anything wrong?  How much shallower can you get?

 

The Government Agency responsible for investigating this case is also tainted. Nothing reeks more of double-standard than this.

 

"So the only reason Prawit should resign is because of the pressure against him and NOT because he did anything wrong?"

 

What, so far, has he been proved to have done wrong?

3 hours ago, jacko45k said:

So he borrowed them and failed to return them to the estate or widow upon the guy"s death?

 

Or did I misunderstand?

No, you speculated.  Where have you read that "he failed to return them" which smacks of deliberately deceiving the estate?  Could he have been allowed to continue to wear them?

3 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

And of course the friend declared them in his assets ?

The friend doesn't have to, do you have to declare your assets here?

3 hours ago, eliotness said:

So if it's true that he was lent them by an extremely rich friend who has since died I would have thought not returning them to the deceased family is akin to stealing.

Maybe you should ask the family before making accusations of theft?

 

1 hour ago, HHTel said:

I agree.  If they were loaned to him and the lender dies then surely they become part of the deceased's estate.  To keep them has got to be theft whichever way you look at it.

Here's another way, how about looking at it from the point of view that he was allowed to continue wearing them?  That would not be theft, whichever way you look at It, but he hasn't been charged with theft and obviously the estate has not made a police complaint about it.

1 hour ago, cookieqw said:

A former military officer, however, is backing Prawit’s account of the origins of the watches that many people took as a poor joke – that the watches previously belonged to a friend who had subsequently died.

I thought I read that the watches were from friendS

not friend

You may have read that but it was never a quote of Prawit's, it was unconfirmed, from unnamed sources.