2 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

I would respond but I have no idea what you're on about.

 

But I don't see many honest politicians about.

Sorry to confuse, my comment was directed at el - eric loh.

 

 

2 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Sorry to confuse, my comment was directed at el - eric loh.

 

 

 

Okey dokey! Thanks,

14 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Law is indeed law Eric. So you agree that the convicted Shin siblings should come back and serve their time? And in one's case face all those outstanding serious cases?

First let me know if retroactive and abstential laws are just.  

4 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

First let me know if retroactive and abstential laws are just.  

 

Thaksin wasn't convicted by a retroactive law, nor was he convicted in absentia.  So you're happy with that sentence.

 

As for Yingluck, the democracy champion who vowed to fight till the end before doing a cowardly runner just like her lovely brother, well, you might care to read up on the growing use and support for trials in absentia for politicians who do runners.

16 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

First let me know if retroactive and abstential laws are just.  

In my book, can be, to ensure a family receives justice, where there is absolute clear evidence of guilt.

 

But perhaps other folks don't love their families o the same extent.

 

 

10 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Thaksin wasn't convicted by a retroactive law, nor was he convicted in absentia.  So you're happy with that sentence.

 

As for Yingluck, the democracy champion who vowed to fight till the end before doing a cowardly runner just like her lovely brother, well, you might care to read up on the growing use and support for trials in absentia for politicians who do runners.

 

Ahh yes I remember that one;  'I cannot step down, I must stay to protect democracy', really meaning whilst there is a 1% chance of an amnesty I'll keep hanging on, regardless of what unethical mischievous lies I tell. 

The revolution awaits.

 

Time will tell.

14 hours ago, robblok said:

He is influencing the party anyone thinking that he is not in charge is deluded. Sorry Eric even you know he is in charge and flaunting the law. All they need to do is prove it and with Thaksin his remarks in the past its easy to see he is in charge. So lets wait for the courts.

 

Its of course crazy that someone like Thaksin who has been convicted can run a party while others cannot after they have been convicted. Thaksin is not bound to any of the laws governing other party leaders that is also flaunting the law. For instance other party leaders need to show their interests and possessions while Thaksin does not have to do that because on paper he is not their leader. So he is breaking the rules for sure. All the other laws governing leaders of parties for checks and balances dont appy because he is not their leader. So its unfair for him to act like a leader without all the checks and balances that come with it. So yes that is flaunting the law and cheating.. on par for him of course.

just like to mention how is the watch saga going.   ----   have the receipts of ownership been verified. and offered for scrutiny   ---   just asking

8 hours ago, cookieqw said:

just like to mention how is the watch saga going.   ----   have the receipts of ownership been verified. and offered for scrutiny   ---   just asking

The watch saga, you should read more of my posts on that one.. its a damm shame and one of the many reasons I don't like the junta. But not liking the junta does not mean that i have to like Thaksin. You can if your not bias dislike all crooks in power.