20 hours ago, jayboy said:

The letter appears to concede or at least to anticipate that Yingluck's offense is unlikely to qualify as an extraditable offense under the 1911 Treaty.It therefore invokes a discretionary clause which gives the British government (in this instance) power to extradite for an offense not otherwise covered.The actual wording of the provision is a little obscure but the ultimate meaning is, I think, quite clear.The letter concludes that if the British avail themselves of this provision, the Thais will reciprocate when receiving a British request that doesn't meet the stated criteria of the Treaty.

 

Does anyone read it differently? I'm not so much concerned - for now - at the underlying politics of this.Rather,I'm trying to understand exactly what the Thais are saying in this letter.

Just possibly, the Thai government hopes that the UK will comply and send her back for a 5 year jail term, which will then create massive demonstrations in the streets of Thailand, giving the junta  ample reasons,  in their perverted eyes, to delay the election even further.  On the other hand, if the UK, as seems likely, refuses the Thai request for extradition, then the Junta can claim "well, we tried", just as they have with the Red Bull heir. 

No problem to extradite political enemies but a real criminal, the Red Bull punk, they just ain't got the time to do. Follow the money.

Shes thick anyway. Reminds me of what many Ferangs have heard here.The Classic ... MY BROTHER SAID.. And as we all know about Thai Males never wrong.?[emoji481]


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

The UK could tease LOS with an offer for a swap of two Burmese for one Shinawatra

 

 

and then publicly set them dudes both free upon arrival

15 hours ago, robsamui said:

Well - as their children chant in school every morning . . . "we are the biggest and finest country in the world" . . . that being the case, I would imagine Thailand doesn't give a toss about the judgments of other nations.

Except when they need the help, products or assistance of another country.  But memories are short, and when it comes to remembering that foreigners helped on the cave rescue or foreigners provided assistance or a loan an infrastructure project, memories here particularly short. Poor record of honoring agreements = bad international credit = higher price.

Well I guess the UK might 'consider' if there is any reason to apply the laws of the treaty (is 1911 still applicable?) which might take a year or so and if there is a reason then another couple of years to study that reason/laws. If all in the affirmative another couple of years to study the case. Then they might say 'We would extradite but she isn't in England...sorry.'

I'm joking of course but then one never knows...snigger snigger.

15 hours ago, Briggsy said:

...it is a warning to the Shinawatras not to get involved in the election. ...

Her brother has already gone on record almost two months ago as saying Pheu Thai will sh!t it in (again) at the next election.

 

IMHO, it's all a bit hopeless when TWO genies get out of the bottle. Especially when you enabled it.

The fools cannot seem to understand but by doing this, which will be denied, simply shows them up for what they are, a military junta that is not the legitimate government. They cannot understand that they are drawing the unwanted attention to their illegitimate government purely by the fact that their claim will be rejected - like a kick in the face. They are so ridiculous and so arrogant, yet ignorant of the entire world outside of the little bubble they operate in that they probably believe their own garbage.

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

Cut the BS and check the actual facts. She was as negligent as hell.

Lets assume this is true.  So now a "negligent" policy decision is a crime?  You think a UK court is going to buy that argument?

 

The "negligent" policy decision here was to provide agricultural subsidies to poor farmers.  Of course a government is going to lose money when it does this. The US, EU and UK provide agricultural subsidies all of the time, but the courts in those countries cannot second guess the policy decisions of elected leaders and put them in jail because they decide that subsidy policy was negligent.  That would be considered ridiculous.  Something that a dictatorship would do.

 

And look at who is making this judgement.  A military junta that seized power at gun point.  Do you think a decision from them or a court they control is going to have any credibility outside of Thailand? 

 

When you add up what this is all about - negligent policies are crimes and the military gets decide what policies are negligent - Thailand looks ridiculous.  When the Thai elite try to assert their rules and judgments in the international arena they always come out looking like fools.   

Edited August 1, 20187 yr by Horace

Some off topic posts have been removed. 

47 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

A lot more UK criminals hiding here, the difference being that getting a visa is so easy here.

It's true, only rich Thai criminals can get a VISA to the UK.

Not that Yingluck was ever a criminal.

1 hour ago, Robbess said:

If Julian Assange committed a crime then so did the Jew York Times, The BBC, The Washington Post, and Fox News. Yingluck’s case is so far removed from that political nonesense, why bring it up?

Because they are both fugitives. 

Treated differently. And I thought it would be interesting to hear why that is so from other people. 

Thailand has found Yingluck guilty of "loosing" billions of dollars as a result of the Rice Subsidy scheme. I've no idea how much of this actually went to the farming industry or where the remainder, if any, went but she received a 5yr prison sentence as a result.

Meanwhile across the other side of the world, the USA government has just given a 12 billion dollar subsidy to its own farming industry, to help the export of farm produce.

I just wonder whether Ying Luck isn't a victim of unfair bias, on account of her family background?

Funny.... Good Luck with that Thailand

Interesting that they are willing to use the 1911 treaty to try to extradite Yinglik, but are totally unable to use the same treaty to extradite the Red Bull guy for "allegedly" killing a policeman. I guess Red Bull has better brown envelopes.

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Indeed. Removed by a Court for an illegal abuse of power.

what utter nonsense 

38 minutes ago, TonyR101 said:

Thailand has found Yingluck guilty of "loosing" billions of dollars as a result of the Rice Subsidy scheme. I've no idea how much of this actually went to the farming industry or where the remainder, if any, went but she received a 5yr prison sentence as a result.

Meanwhile across the other side of the world, the USA government has just given a 12 billion dollar subsidy to its own farming industry, to help the export of farm produce.

I just wonder whether Ying Luck isn't a victim of unfair bias, on account of her family background?

Obviously all country's give this subsidy it's not about rice it's about POWER.

Well with a new bus driver at the Home Office policies may have changed, I am sure the FO would have been sounded out on this before the formal letter sent. 

 

Many quote how much YS, TS and the clan spend in the UK, but that is a drop in the ocean compared to Thailand's defence procurement budget...  

 

Anyway who leaked this and why???

Flame posts with a touch of bickering have been removed.

3 hours ago, ResandePohm said:

As long as the treaty is in place then the UK needs to honour it.

Even if Thailand does not?!

My country to be exact, my county (Amphur) has outstanding extradition requests that Thailand has never honored, never will honor.. This goes for Prosecuting Attorneys up and done the west coast. It's more like a running joke. You file them but have no expectation they will be honored.

Yet the treaty remains, go figure.

The letter does leave the case open for doubt on severity of charges.Under British laws 'Extradition is usually decided by the judiciary', however Extradition Act of 1989 allows home secretary special powers under which he can forbid an extradition if it is "unjust or oppressive. the most important defense in these cases would be under  extraneous circumstances-( that warrant has in fact been issued to persecute someone, who would face prejudice upon return as a result of  race, religion, gender, sexuality or political beliefs)

13 minutes ago, Basil B said:

Well with a new bus driver at the Home Office policies may have changed,

Sorry seems to be the Foreign office affair, oh that should be fun the guy can not tell the the nationality of a woman he has been sharing a bed with for nearly ten years...

What a joke! Must be pain in the ass. 

They will never learn those buffons, morons and cronies...... 55555

23 hours ago, Raymonddiaz said:

UK will never extradite her because they don't believe in thai justice system. The so called justice by the people who did a bigger crime: Coup d'état. 

Then they agree with the Burmese 2 decision  if that is the case.

 

do not hold your breath as if extradition is going to happen she will visit brother and avoid.

also save face for UK.

 

Where is the Red Bull brat these days, why is he not facing extradition, Ying Luck is not as serious as him.:?:?:  ?

Britain has a good record with dealing with little Dictators like HITLER MUSSOLINI NAPOLEON, , so Thailand junta don't hold your breath on this 

Thaksin was brighter than most He never invaded, declare war, just bought the electorate and nearly stole the lot.Dam clever these Chinese Imegrants.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

I have not had a laugh like this since Laurel and Hardy still performed.

Since Thailand ignores any treaty they sign that doesn't suit them in any particular circumstance, it would be fitting that the UK ignored this nonsense too. It is all a game by Thai authorities to have a scapegoat to deflect blame from the arrangement to allow her to simply up and off with their assistance 

Yingluk in a Thai jail is a much bigger headache for the Junta than her out of sight out of mind abroad. Thai authorities are doing it for show.

 

And the UK does not extradite people to countries run by the army who has forcibly takes over the government from a democratically elected government in an illegal coup.

 

That the Junta sees itself as having the legitimacy to even request this provides a window into the minds of the generals.

5 hours ago, BobBKK said:

 

We don't extradite to non-elected. military led Juntas period. 

BS. Had they been ordinary somchais without the money these two have, they'd been kicked out long time ago.