2 minutes ago, sanemax said:

There is a difference between an actual video and the numeral code .

You can provide a video as evidence in Court , you cannot use 00100011 as evidence in Court .

   We are talking about providing evidence for a prosecution , had they downloaded the video , they could get charged with possession .

   If they just had 00001100010 on their computer , that wouldnt be enough evidence in Court 

I hate to agree with KiwiKiwi but everything on your computer is build around zero's and ones. If you put them in a certain order you got your video file. 

11 minutes ago, robblok said:

Not really, this is an assumption i can make because even when your Thai Thai law text is quite hard reading. I doubt that you studied Thai to that level. Its an assumption that has a really high probability. 

No it isn't, but even if it is, it;s wrong. My next door neighbour is a lawyer. A Thai lawyer. I asked him.

 

So kindly get back in your box and stop it with the assumptions. An assumption is what an ignoramus makes when he doesn't know something. The ignoramus often thinks it is better to be wrong than to confess to not knowing.

Edited June 27, 20188 yr by KiwiKiwi

8 minutes ago, sanemax said:

There is a difference between an actual video and the numeral code .

You can provide a video as evidence in Court , you cannot use 00100011 as evidence in Court .

   We are talking about providing evidence for a prosecution , had they downloaded the video , they could get charged with possession .

   If they just had 00001100010 on their computer , that wouldnt be enough evidence in Court 

 

You said it, I didn't. You were wrong and I was correct. And you're wrong again. Any undecoded binary data displayed in count would comprise 0' and 1's. Only.

 

Stop digging, the hole's getting deeper.

4 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

No it isn't, but even if it is, it;s wrong. My next door neighbour is a lawyer. A Thai lawyer. I asked him.

 

So kindly get back in your box and stop it with the assumptions. An assumption is what an ignoramus makes when he doesn't know something. The ignoramus often thinks it is better to be wrong that to confess to not knowing.

So you did not read it yourself.. assumption right, my friend is studying to be a lawyer and she tells me the Thai laws are often complex. Also you just listened to a lawyer his interpretation of the law. I think your actually not as bright as you think you are. Because if laws were always so clear we would not need lawyers and judges to interpert them and there would be no law cases as the interpretation was always clear.

 

Ill stop debating with you because its pointless.

11 minutes ago, robblok said:

Its a true statement, i studied law, normal and fiscal law. 

And...? I note you say you 'studied' law. Not that 'you're a lawyer'.

 

I wonder if that's significant?

 

I studied quantum mechanics but you cannot point to where I claim to understand it all, or where I claim to be a physicist.

Edited June 27, 20188 yr by KiwiKiwi

1 minute ago, robblok said:

So you did not read it yourself.. assumption right, my friend is studying to be a lawyer and she tells me the Thai laws are often complex. Also you just listened to a lawyer his interpretation of the law. I think your actually not as bright as you think you are. Because if laws were always so clear we would not need lawyers and judges to interpert them and there would be no law cases as the interpretation was always clear.

 

Ill stop debating with you because its pointless.

 

Excellent, That ought to up the signal-to-noise ratio in here by a fair bit.

 

17 minutes ago, robblok said:

Your so funny and so wrong on so many levels. 

 

First of my Dutch reference is to make fun of Dutch people.. not really racist at all shows I don't care much about nationality.

The bodybuilder pic is an inside joke that you only get if you workout, its poking fun of bodybuilders. 

 

Next time try harder. 

 

 

Ooh. You make fun of Dutch people yet you're not a racist? OK if you say so.

 

And bodybuilders too.... ooh, the quinella. Tribalism at it's finest.

 

Carry on. But I'm out of this pointless exchange.

 

 

1 minute ago, robblok said:

I hate to agree with KiwiKiwi but everything on your computer is build around zero's and ones. If you put them in a certain order you got your video file. 

Yes, that is the way computers work and I am not disagreeing with that

But we are talking about this case in particular .

The viewers would not have had the footage on their  devices (unless they recorded it)and the only traces would be 0's &1's and that isnt accepted by Courts as evidence and that is why the viewers didnt get prosecuted.

22 hours ago, cyberfarang said:

Not parents, they`re Thais. What does that mean? There have been several high profile cases of parents brutalities to their children in America lately, including the UK. You sound racist to me. If you stay in Thailand, why?

Perverts are everywhere in UK even to their top Government "officials". Why do you think Tommy Robinson is in jail?

17 hours ago, sanemax said:

Which laws did they break ?

 

Whatever laws in Thailand that prohibit the possession of kiddy-porn. They do exist, go look 'em up.

Edited June 27, 20188 yr by KiwiKiwi

13 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

No it isn't, but even if it is, it;s wrong. My next door neighbour is a lawyer. A Thai lawyer. I asked him.

 

Go and ask him what laws the viewers broke .

Ask him to tell you which laws were broken .

 

6 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Yes, that is the way computers work and I am not disagreeing with that

But we are talking about this case in particular .

The viewers would not have had the footage on their  devices (unless they recorded it)and the only traces would be 0's &1's and that isnt accepted by Courts as evidence and that is why the viewers didnt get prosecuted.

But they would be able to trace the data-stream that contained the file to the users. To view it you must click on it and then data transmission happens. Still I get your point I can't say I am 100% sure if it is enough it depends how possession is interpreted (because the law is in Thai and we only got an English translation and in the end its up to the judge to interpret the law) Thailand does not have jurisprudence (at least not binding)  as far as i know so each judge gets to make its own interpretation. 

 

https://www.thailandlaw.org/overview-of-thailand-laws.html

3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Go and ask him what laws the viewers broke .

Ask him to tell you which laws were broken .

 

 

No I don't think I will. The payload not worth it. But I did ask him and he assures me the relevant laws are on the Thai statute book. He's one of the very few Thais I trust, so I'm prepared to believe him.

 

What you think and do is up to you.

 

Anyway, that's it for me, dead horse flogging is not my style.

Just now, KiwiKiwi said:

 

No I don't think I will. The payload not worth it. But I did ask him and he assures me the relevant laws are on the Thai statute book. He's one of the very few Thais I trust, so I'm prepared to believe him.

 

 

TBH, I dont believe you 

4 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Go and ask him what laws the viewers broke .

Ask him to tell you which laws were broken .

 

Oh dear!

Did you move to Thailand last week?

Are you ACTUALLY telling me, you have not enough fantasy/ experience, to even imagine, that the RTP is making up $41t for various reasons, one of them being laziness?

Another one being, one or two "high- up's" in the viewing crowd, who are a) untouchable or b ) payed an significant amount, to let this investigation end, before it began?

You can not even in the slightest, imagine, that this" they broke no laws" is just made up crap?

 

There must have been quiet a few people, watching this filth happening and NONE OF THEM filed or recorded it?

Seriously?

How naive are you?

 

15 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Yes, that is the way computers work and I am not disagreeing with that

But we are talking about this case in particular .

The viewers would not have had the footage on their  devices (unless they recorded it)and the only traces would be 0's &1's and that isnt accepted by Courts as evidence and that is why the viewers didnt get prosecuted.

 

The hairs you're splitting are already fine enough. I believe you'll argue the toss until the cows come home before you admit you're wrong. Which is what I think everyone else on here already knows. Digging stop.

 

Just now, DM07 said:

You can not even in the slightest, imagine, that this" they broke no laws" is just made up crap?

Once again  , which laws were broken ?

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

TBH, I dont believe you 

 

Up to you. Everyone determines their own level of belief.

 

Personally I don't care what you believe , don't care what you think either.

1 minute ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

The hairs you're splitting are already fine enough. I believe you'll argue the toss until the cows come home before you admit you're wrong. Which is what I think everyone else on here already knows. Digging stop.

 

Its not splitting hairs at all .

Its the difference between what is acceptable as evidence in Court and what isnt acceptable .

   There needs to evidence , like a photo or video , that can be used as evidence , simply having 0011100011 will not be accepted as evidence

34 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Once again  , which laws were broken ?

Once again: this question has already been answered!

I could tell you, what I would like you to go and do to yourself, but it is not worth loosing my posting rights to guy, who seems to have an agenda of some kind.

At best, defending the RTP, by deflecting, splitting hairs, asking the same repeated question again and again, that has been answered at least twice, if my count was correct!

At worst...well... 

On ‎6‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 7:39 AM, robblok said:

You download the data when you watch something.. do you think things magically appear without data transfer ? Download does not mean save to your device. I find it a weak excuse from the police to do nothing.

If there was any desire to charge the voyeurs I am sure it could be done.  How about failure to report a crime for starters because by watching the rape of a child you are witnessing a crime.  Or by watching you are condoning the act and therefore contributing to the crime.  You are not a voyeur, you are a participant if you knowingly encourage the crime to be committed.  Etc. Etc.  I know this is Thailand where charges can be invented at the drop of a hat, but with no financial incentive the cops are unlikely to bother too much.

1 hour ago, DM07 said:

Oh dear!

Did you move to Thailand last week?

Are you ACTUALLY telling me, you have not enough fantasy/ experience, to even imagine, that the RTP is making up $41t for various reasons, one of them being laziness?

Another one being, one or two "high- up's" in the viewing crowd, who are a) untouchable or b ) payed an significant amount, to let this investigation end, before it began?

You can not even in the slightest, imagine, that this" they broke no laws" is just made up crap?

 

There must have been quiet a few people, watching this filth happening and NONE OF THEM filed or recorded it?

Seriously?

How naive are you?

 

 

Surpassingly, apparently.

 

Still, I will not be replying to any more of his naivety. Life's too short.

 

Sadly, in my version of reality, there are very few excesses or perversions which Thais will not embrace with impunity - especially if there's a buck to be made out of it. The current topic is indicative of the worm at the core of Thai society.

 

In my view it is a thoroughly unwell (in a psychological sense) society. It is the house that Jack built, and Jack was very well pleased with it.

 

I wouldn't be but Jack was.

Edited June 27, 20188 yr by KiwiKiwi

For the following of this subject, I hesitate between a noisy kindergarten playground and a fight of cockerels in a barnyard? 

On 6/26/2018 at 2:13 PM, KiwiKiwi said:

 

Not parents, they're Thais.

 

Not people, they're the opposite of people.

 

 

 

For the benefit of any thickos and dullards who may have been reading, that comment was an attempt at humour. Misplaced it may have been, but 'twas not out of context with the news item.

 

I regret the lack of sensory acuity on the part of those who weren't able to tell if was serious or not.

 

4 hours ago, dunroaming said:

You are not a voyeur, you are a participant if you knowingly encourage the crime to be committed.  Etc. Etc.  I know this is Thailand where charges can be invented at the drop of a hat,

Yes, good point . They could charge them with being an accessory to the crime .

(BTW Thailand does have laws and they cannot invent laws as they go along)