19 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

On what basis, for goodness sake?

'cause he's an <deleted>.

2 hours ago, d2b2 said:

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

That's just your opinion.   What I posted wasn't my opinion, it is fact, morals do not come into it although reasoning does, hence my reasoned reply.   Giving a child money is not "assisting him so that he may not be arrested" in the context that your translated Thai law section obviously means.

The law reads “or by assisting him by any means so that he may not be arrested”. 
how you can reason that sending money to your fugitive child so they may continue to remain a fugitive is anything other than assisting “BY ANY MEANS” is far from any interpretation of that statement. 
“oh I didn’t offer any assistance, except paying for their expenses”, does not hold up to any reasonable persons understanding of “by any means”. 

Giving your child money (if they did that, you think he hasn't got his own money?), is not "assisting him so that he may not be arrested".    I can "reason" [sic] that because that's not what it is in that context.  If he was working for a company that was paying him a salary while he was "away" do you really think that the company could be charged with aiding and abetting?  It'd be exactly the same thing.

Fake news!!!! In fact it's all (Red) Bull-shot (with vodka).

 

Thus, it never happened, and if it did, it happened in a dream, and if it didn't, it is too long ago, and why add salt to old wounds? And money counter at young innocent coke Mclovin Boss Bangkok mansion goes Brrrrr!

 

And time fixes almost everything in the Thai statute of limitations -except that one thing... 

20 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Giving your child money (if they did that, you think he hasn't got his own money?), is not "assisting him so that he may not be arrested".    I can "reason" [sic] that because that's not what it is in that context.  If he was working for a company that was paying him a salary while he was "away" do you really think that the company could be charged with aiding and abetting?  It'd be exactly the same thing.

If the company is aware that they are employing a fugitive, absolutely they are aiding and abetting a fugitive.not only by paying them, but by not disclosing the fugitive’s whereabouts. 

what part of “by any means” is ambiguous to you? 
by any means has no footnotes saying except allowance by mom and dad or except funds paid by a company to their fugitive employee. 
knowing the location of a fugitive and not disclosing that information  to authorities is aiding and abetting. 
withholding information from authorities  is aiding and abetting 
Providing lodging or money or assistance of any kind to a person who is known to be a fugitive is aiding and abetting.

“by any means” is unambiguous and clear.
 

A personal attack has been removed

On 7/28/2021 at 8:53 PM, Liverpool Lou said:

If he's not in Thailand it's irrelevant whether the RTP know where he is or not.   RTP have no jurisdiction outside Thailand!

Well, and how do foreign countries get their bad citizens arrested and extradited? With bi-/multilateral treaties or interpol - your call! 

1 hour ago, Sydebolle said:

On 7/28/2021 at 8:53 PM, Liverpool Lou said:

If he's not in Thailand it's irrelevant whether the RTP know where he is or not.   RTP have no jurisdiction outside Thailand!

Well, and how do foreign countries get their bad citizens arrested and extradited? With bi-/multilateral treaties or interpol - your call! 

Arrests would be up to the police in the country that the wanted person is in and they are under no obligation to do so with any case notified to them by Interpol (RTP has no say in the arrest, neither does it have any jurisdiction outside Thailand).     Interpol issues advisory notices regarding wanted people to member forces, that's all.  Interpol does not arrest, neither does Interpol conduct extraditions.

 

Extraditions have to be requested by one country's government to the other country's authorities (not by Interpol) and the exact location of the residence of the person they're interested in has to be notified to that other country's authorities.  Telling them, for instance, that the person may be at an F1 venue next week does not count.     

 

If that specific information is supplied, then an arrest pending an extradition enquiry can happen but it's not a given particularly when a government installed by a military junta is making the request.

12 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Arrests would be up to the police in the country that the wanted person is in and they are under no obligation to do so with any case notified to them by Interpol (RTP has no say in the arrest, neither does it have any jurisdiction outside Thailand).     Interpol issues advisory notices regarding wanted people to member forces, that's all.  Interpol does not arrest, neither does Interpol conduct extraditions.

 

Extraditions have to be requested by one country's government to the other country's authorities (not by Interpol) and the exact location of the residence of the person they're interested in has to be notified to that other country's authorities.  Telling them, for instance, that the person may be at an F1 venue next week does not count.     

 

If that specific information is supplied, then an arrest pending an extradition enquiry can happen but it's not a given particularly when a government installed by a military junta is making the request.

 

Well, all known and noted years ago. The boy was on the top ten of interpol, most likely on behest of the ever-so-active RTP. Quite obviously no bilateral extradition request by the RTP to their English counterpart was made - why?
Associated Press found Vorayuth Yoovidhya him on first attempt ???? 

 

1 hour ago, Sydebolle said:

The boy was on the top ten of interpol, most likely on behest of the ever-so-active RTP. Quite obviously no bilateral extradition request by the RTP to their English counterpart was made - why?
Associated Press found Vorayuth Yoovidhya him on first attempt

Who are you referring to?   "The boy", which case is that?

 

If you're referring to Vorayuth, the middle-aged man involved in this case, as I said, the Thai authorities have to know, specifically and correctly, the exact place of residence of the party that they're interested in and advise the British authorities of that information.    If they cannot do that, the extradition request will not be entertained by the UK.   

 

That AP managed to get a photo of him is meaningless in an extradition process, not only from the point of view that AP is not involved in the case, in any way, but also because a photo of him exiting a house is not confirmation of his actual address as required by the extradition treaties. There's also a pretty good chance that he'd no longer be living there. 

 

You are right implying that the RTP could have done the same thing and photographed him but simply supplying a photo of him outside a London house to the British authorities does not fulfil extradition request requirements, whether you like it or not. 

 

You say that it's "quite obvious that the RTP did not make a "bilateral extradition request" [sic] but, without your backing up that assertion, that is not "quite obvious".    Any extradition request from the RTP would not have been "bilateral", as only the Thai authorities would have been making the request, it would have been unilateral.   No other authorities were making the request.

23 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Who are you referring to?   "The boy", which case is that?

 

If you're referring to Vorayuth, the middle-aged man involved in this case, as I said, the Thai authorities have to know, specifically and correctly, the exact place of residence of the party that they're interested in and advise the British authorities of that information.    If they cannot do that, the extradition request will not be entertained by the UK.   

 

That AP managed to get a photo of him is meaningless in an extradition process, not only from the point of view that AP is not involved in the case, in any way, but also because a photo of him exiting a house is not confirmation of his actual address as required by the extradition treaties. There's also a pretty good chance that he'd no longer be living there. 

 

You are right implying that the RTP could have done the same thing and photographed him but simply supplying a photo of him outside a London house to the British authorities does not fulfil extradition request requirements, whether you like it or not. 

 

You say that it's "quite obvious that the RTP did not make a "bilateral extradition request" [sic] but, without your backing up that assertion, that is not "quite obvious".    Any extradition request from the RTP would not have been "bilateral", as only the Thai authorities would have been making the request, it would have been unilateral.   No other authorities were making the request.

Why dont you take over the investigation, if you know everything better? Or are you a major shareholder of that Red Bull sludge sold in overpriced cans all over the planet allowing that little pr1ck to think that he's on top of the world. 

Honestly, I could not care less about this story but it makes Thailand look worse than it actually is. The AP report was not a photo but on TV and he is travelling into/out from the UK and must pass immigration - I assume. 

The Thai authorities have done zilch to nail "the boy". 

33 minutes ago, Sydebolle said:

Honestly, I could not care less about this story

Hahahahahahaaa...your many comments would suggest otherwise!

An inflammatory troll post and the related replies have been removed.