Phoenix boat owner’s lawyer calls for ‘fairness’

[webfact]

Phoenix boat owner’s lawyer calls for ‘fairness’

By Kritsada Mueanhawong

 

 

The lawyer of the owner of Phoenix filed a letter to the Phuket Provincial Police Commander for ‘fairness’ in legal action being taken against the boat’s owner.

 

At the Phuket Provincial Police Station the lawyers for the boat owner, Nalin Intarasombat and Nipit Intarasombat, spoke to the press after handing a letter to Phuket’s Police Commander.

 

Lawyer Nipit says, “the boat owner has been charged with a reckless act causing death. We are wondering what evidence police have that they can charge her with that. If police say the boat has been modified, have any of them dived to check the boat?”

 

Full story: https://thethaiger.com/news/phuket/phoenix-boat-owners-lawyer-calls-for-fairness

 

-- © Copyright The Thaiger 2018-08-15

[billd766]

So the (nominee) owner admitted to breaking the law simply by being the legal? owner of the boat.

 

She clearly has no idea of the condition of the boat and/or the safety equipment that should be/had been fitted.

 

The lawyer wants fair treatment for her, conveniently omitting the "fair" treatment of the Chinese tourists who died.

 

I have little sympathy for her. If she understood that being a nominee was illegal she deserves punishment. If she didn't she can always claim stupidity which will be believed.

 

She could always name the real owner though that may not be a healthy choice.

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, billd766 said:

So the (nominee) owner admitted to breaking the law simply by being the legal? owner of the boat.

 

She clearly has no idea of the condition of the boat and/or the safety equipment that should be/had been fitted.

 

The lawyer wants fair treatment for her, conveniently omitting the "fair" treatment of the Chinese tourists who died.

 

I have little sympathy for her. If she understood that being a nominee was illegal she deserves punishment. If she didn't she can always claim stupidity which will be believed.

 

She could always name the real owner though that may not be a healthy choice.

The real owner is known.

 

And I think she does have a point, as it stands chances of a fair trial are not good. And yes, salvage of the boat for the 10 mio that she is charged now is way, way over the top. On top of that, I am not sure on the law about recovery of the boat, is that really a requirement in this case?

[worgeordie]

"Fairness" !!!, lawyers have no shame.

regards Worgeordie

[sammieuk1]

In fairness some did survive?

[billd766]

24 minutes ago, sammieuk1 said:

In fairness some did survive?

But far too many died. 

 

Not so fair for them or their relatives was it?

[billd766]

40 minutes ago, stevenl said:

The real owner is known.

 

And I think she does have a point, as it stands chances of a fair trial are not good. And yes, salvage of the boat for the 10 mio that she is charged now is way, way over the top. On top of that, I am not sure on the law about recovery of the boat, is that really a requirement in this case?

 

Unless the boat is salvaged nobody will know the cause or what safety measures were available and left on board.

[stevenl]

38 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Unless the boat is salvaged nobody will know the cause or what safety measures were available and left on board.

But is the owner legally liable for that, that was the question.

 

AFAIK the only legal responsibility to salvage a wreck is if it is in a shipping lane or otherwise poses a danger, which is not the case here.

[billd766]

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

But is the owner legally liable for that, that was the question.

 

AFAIK the only legal responsibility to salvage a wreck is if it is in a shipping lane or otherwise poses a danger, which is not the case here.

 

If she was the legal owner of the boat, of course the responsibility is hers.

 

Just because was a nominee does not excuse her from that.

 

She took the money so it is her problem. That is what responsibility is all about.

 

If she is looking for sympathy, it comes between sh*t and syphilis in an English dictionary. 

Edited August 15, 2018 by billd766
edited for bad spelling after I had posted it.

[AhFarangJa]

I thought the boat was going to be salvaged yesterday.

[quadperfect]

It wont be fair. Because fair would mean hundreds go to jail. But since this is a third world country with complete corruption this girl is not going home. And you can see it on her face in both storys pictures today. She looks like she knows exactly what is waiting for her. She is the sacrifice.

[hotchilli]

“the boat owner has been charged with a reckless act causing death".

 

Possibly the reckless act was ordering the vessel out to sea in what was obviously dangerous sea conditions..

irrelevant to the condition of the vessel that's another matter all together!!

This is just another legal wriggle concerning wording rather than actions..

[stevenl]

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

If she was the legal owner of the boat, of course the responsibility is hers.

 

Just because was a nominee does not excuse her from that.

 

She took the money so it is her problem. That is what responsibility is all about.

 

If she is looking for sympathy, it comes between sh*t and syphilis in an English dictionary. 

So you're saying she is legally responsible for salvaging the boat. You base that on which part of the Thai law?

[Darcula]

Let's see how this one plays out.

 

Look-up One-Two-Go flight 269 incident for an indication where this is going.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by Darcula

[happy chappie]

55 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So you're saying she is legally responsible for salvaging the boat. You base that on which part of the Thai law?

I think it's the same as if I dropped my scooter in the sea.i would be lagally responsible to retrieve it.the boat should be salvaged for 2 reasons 1 to inspect it for any modifications that may contribute to this disaster and 2 it will pollute the environment with all the oils and fuel.its not a battle ship 2 miles down.as for Thai law,they make it up as they go.

Edited August 15, 2018 by happy chappie
Added comment

[happy chappie]

1 hour ago, Darcula said:

Let's see how this one plays out.

 

Look-up One-Two-Go flight 269 incident for an indication where this is going.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good reading that report.if they do that sort of crap in the air then then what can they get away with at sea.lets not even mention the roads.

[Oziex1]

Sound like the RTP and the Thai justice system in top gear,  grab a scapegoat look no higher. Where is her husband in all this?  

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, happy chappie said:

I think it's the same as if I dropped my scooter in the sea.i would be lagally responsible to retrieve it.the boat should be salvaged for 2 reasons 1 to inspect it for any modifications that may contribute to this disaster and 2 it will pollute the environment with all the oils and fuel.its not a battle ship 2 miles down.as for Thai law,they make it up as they go.

You think. I think there is no legal responsibility from the owner, and asked if that is correct yes or no.

Your thinking adds as much as my thinking, nothing.

[ratcatcher]

25 minutes ago, Oziex1 said:

Sound like the RTP and the Thai justice system in top gear,  grab a scapegoat look no higher. Where is her husband in all this?  

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30349744

[peperobi]

The guy is a killer, what is please fair in killing?

[stevenl]

Just now, peperobi said:

The guy is a killer, what is please fair in killing?

What guy?

[peperobi]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

What guy?

 

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

What guy?

That guy that let his lawyer ask for fairness!

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, peperobi said:

 

That guy that let his lawyer ask for fairness!

That would be that woman.

[billd766]

4 hours ago, stevenl said:

So you're saying she is legally responsible for salvaging the boat. You base that on which part of the Thai law?

What part of responsibility don't you understand?

 

Is she is the owner of the boat or not?

 

If the answer is yes then it is her problem and her responsibility.

 

If she is not the owner then it is the owners responsibility.

 

It is a simple yes or no answer.

Edited August 15, 2018 by billd766
added extra text

[stevenl]

7 minutes ago, billd766 said:

What part of responsibility don't you understand?

 

Is she is the owner of the boat or not?

 

If the answer is yes then it is her problem and her responsibility.

 

If she is not the owner then it is the owners responsibility.

 

It is a simple yes or no answer.

What part of legally don't you understand?

[billd766]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

What part of legally don't you understand?

 

This is Thailand.

 

What part of legally or justice do you not understand?

 

Can you not answer a simple yes or no question without deviating from the subject?

[stevenl]

13 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

This is Thailand.

 

What part of legally or justice do you not understand?

 

Can you not answer a simple yes or no question without deviating from the subject?

I asked a question, you pretend to answer but didn't answer, and now want to turn it around.

If you can't answer that's ok, I don't know the answer hence the question, but please don't pretend to answer.

[spidermike007]

I agree. There must be fairness. Fairness to the victims of this tragically incompetent woman, and the owner or the boat. Fairness to their families to get justice. She and the owner of the boat should spend the rest of their lives in prison. 46 counts of manslaughter. Or negligent homicide. When money is the only driving consideration in your life, and nothing else means anything, mistakes are made, and someone has to be held to account. Lock her up!