29 minutes ago, ttrd said:

You seems to have understood exactly the oppsite of what I tried to convey which must be regarded as a small achievement in itself ....

It is an achievement.  No offence, but I'm guessing you're not a native English speaker...so your sentences don't always have the clarity needed to convey the point you're trying to make. So no need to denigrate posters who innocently misinterpret you when your English is garbled....no-one is making fun of you when your syntax, grammar or spelling is off.

10 minutes ago, mgthom63 said:

It is an achievement.  No offence, but I'm guessing you're not a native English speaker...so your sentences don't always have the clarity needed to convey the point you're trying to make. So no need to denigrate posters who innocently misinterpret you when your English is garbled.

Yes - its correct that I am not an native English speaker

 

No - I dont take it as an offence

 

Yes - you may have misunderstood my original post you were refering to as it was written in a contradictionary half sarcastic way in combination with the fact that I am not an native English speaker which may as well have trigged your misunderstanding

 

No - my intention was not to denigrate you for not understand my post, but to point out that we actually have the same oppinion.

 

Pls do not continue to feel offended by my poor English...;)

2 minutes ago, ttrd said:

Yes - its correct that I am not an native English speaker

 

No - I dont take it as an offence

 

Yes - you may have misunderstood my original post you were refering to as it was written in a contradictionary half sarcastic way in combination with the fact that I am not an native English speaker which may as well have trigged your misunderstanding

 

No - my intention was not to denigrate you for not understand my post, but to point out that we actually have the same oppinion.

 

Pls do not continue to feel offended by my poor English...;)

No problem.  Your original reply wasn't actually to me, so I wasn't offended.  Your English is pretty good...it just occasionally gets a little confusing :)

On 3/2/2018 at 10:30 AM, ttrd said:

You seems to have understood exactly the oppsite of what I tried to convey which must be regarded as a small achievement in itself ....

you have acheived confusing many people cheers and at same time not answered my question above 

 

On 3/2/2018 at 10:25 AM, hottrader77 said:

So a rapist for instance who has raped 15 women before you say should not be taken into account when the offender is on trial for another rape c'mon ????? are you real or just trying to wind people up 

I am no lawyer but i think in the west it can not be admitted as evidence in the trial.

 

However if found guilty it can  be taken into account in the sentencing.

6 hours ago, William T said:

I am no lawyer but i think in the west it can not be admitted as evidence in the trial.

 

However if found guilty it can  be taken into account in the sentencing.

Its not about evidence - its all about risk based on previous and similar verdict in the period until the trial will be performed which will be emphasized in developed countries ....

Inflammatory post removed. 

 

On 3/3/2018 at 2:12 PM, William T said:

I am no lawyer but i think in the west it can not be admitted as evidence in the trial.

 

However if found guilty it can  be taken into account in the sentencing.

I was correct at least up to 2004 when the UK government were proposing to change the law for two types of offences. I dont know if the changes were approved.

 

" Juries in trials for a range of offences under the Theft Act or for child sex offences may be told if a defendant has previous convictions in the same group of crimes, under proposed legislation unveiled by the government yesterday.

Under an order laid before parliament, which has to be debated by both houses, judges will be able to order that juries should be told if a defendant standing trial for an offence in one of these groups had an earlier conviction for an offence in the same group. An offence for burglary, for example, would be considered relevant if a defendant was charged with theft.

 

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/oct/26/ukcrime.immigrationpolicy

 

7 minutes ago, hottrader77 said:

So if they caught hitler they could only put him on trial for killing the last of the 6 million jews ?? something has got to be wrong about the law 

I dont think that dead people can be charged with anything

So when's the court date?

I was staying at the Jack Tar bar when this brutality happened. Back in the UK now. So after all the bickering, speculation etc is there any true news about this mentally disturbing saga?

Multiple off topic posts trying to hijack the topic have been removed

12 hours ago, mr.buffalo said:

I was staying at the Jack Tar bar when this brutality happened. Back in the UK now. So after all the bickering, speculation etc is there any true news about this mentally disturbing saga?

Last (unsubstantiated) rumour was he'd fled the country and is back in Miami. 

A post with messed up quotes has been removed, please learn to use the quotes correctly, thank you.

3 hours ago, gordon g said:

Jose is residing in Pattaya and was seen in Soi 6 again last week. Despite not having a job, he does not appear to be struggling financially. He may have an export business that provides muscle growth products.

So rumours that he'd absconded to Florida were unfounded? 

Thanks for the updates, all too often these high profile stories just disappear with no real information as to the outcome. 

On 8/20/2018 at 12:46 PM, gordon g said:

Jose Polanco has been given a two year jail sentence by the Pattaya court. FULLY suspended.

 

Jose is residing in Pattaya and was seen in Soi 6 again last week. Despite not having a job, he does not appear to be struggling financially. He may have an export business that provides muscle growth products.

I'm confused.  He was given a 2 year jail sentence but is allowed to walk around Soi 6 still?

8 hours ago, AlexCanada said:

I'm confused.  He was given a 2 year jail sentence but is allowed to walk around Soi 6 still?

He was on bail and now with a suspended sentence his status is like parole, if I got this right.

On 8/20/2018 at 12:46 PM, gordon g said:

Jose is required to stay in Thailand until the sentence expires, so has been given a visa for that period.

Ah yes... the much sought after but rather exclusive JB visa.

So he kills a guy in a bar. Murder or at very best for him manslaughter and he doesn't get any jail time ? Just a 2 year suspended sentence. It's an F.ng joke. On top of this they give him a 2 year visa that many guys would love to have. How many millions of bahts tea money did he pay ?

On 2/23/2018 at 9:01 AM, observer90210 said:

Why is the murderer walking around free in the 1st place ?

 

Point number 2 :  often...(I said often and not always).... often the formula is : Bargirl = trouble !!

American drunk = trouble

I want to see his arse suffer , please keep us updated.

Suspended sentence you're having a laugh. Farcical and obscene.

7 minutes ago, Chivas said:

Suspended sentence you're having a laugh. Farcical and obscene.

A two year suspended sentence.

It comes with a two year visa.