Thaksin And Pojaman Apply For Asylum In England

[chameleon1977]

Maybe we could capitalise on this and grant him asylum if he give us a few hundred million to help out with the credit crunch.

Edited October 6, 2008 by chameleon1977

[robee]

I'll publicly burn my UK passport outside the Bangkok Embassy if they are granted asylum.

cool ima be there for that

[PoorSucker]

When the UK government gives Thaksin his political asylum, Gordon Brown should offer him a post in the government he should fit in well with the re-appointed Peter Mandleson.

Maybe that is exactly why he was advised to apply for political Asylum, they need a clever man to line their pockets!?

Or will he be the first President of the UK?

No, he's dream is to be King.

[KKK]

your third paragraph is totally inaccurate. the act of union was between england and wales only. scotland and northern ireland are countries within the uk.

the original post got it spot on.

Oh dear here we go again. England = Britain = UK. England = England.

Sad that English people are the only nationality in the world who do not know their own country's name or borders.

Bulls**t.....I'm British and know it. I was born in England of a half English, half Scottish father and a half English, half Irish mother.

My passport is issued by "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" commonly known as "The UK" and inside it says Nationality: British Citizen.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain consists of a Union between England, Scotland and Wales plus some outlying islands making up the geographical area "British Isles", "Britain" or "Great Britain".

You are always British first, English, Scottish or Welsh etc. second.....

But why we don't have a national British football team beats me and sadly here in Thailand most Thais only seem to know names of countries football teams hence the use of "I'm English" or "I'm Scottish" and never "I'm British". And if I'm getting my history timeline correct "The English" aka Angrit came to Thailand before the forming of the United Kingdom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_Kingdom states:

The history of the United Kingdom—British history— as an unified sovereign

state begins with the legistlative union between the kingdoms of England and

Scotland on 1 May 1707. England and Wales and Scotland had been in personal

union since the Union of the Crowns in 1603, when James VI of Scotland succeeded

his cousin Elizabeth I as James I of England. In the ensuing century powerful

sectarian and political differences divided the kingdoms, however under the Acts

of Union 1707 England and Scotland were unified as the Kingdom of Great Britain,

sharing a single constitutional monarch and parliament at Westminster.

There was a UNION between England and Scotland in 1707 as well as a prior UNION between England, Wales and Scotland in 1603. There never was a separate England and Wales only union. And are you trying to say Wales is not a country? I'm sure a few million Welsh would disagree with that.....

So you are wrong........

[TEFLMike]

Perhaps Thaksin will get all these questions about the history of England or the UK prior to getting Asylum. RE: The Good Citizens Test.

Edited October 6, 2008 by TEFLMike

[PoorSucker]

perhaps Thakin will get all these questions about the history of England or the UK prior to getting Asylum. RE: The Good Citizens Test.

Thaksin:

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, is that the poor provinces where it's easy to by votes?

[citizen33]

The thing that comes to mind in reading this thread is whether events since the coup - the new Constitution, the PAD demonstrations, the idea of the 'New Politics', the stance of the military, the Samak episode, etcetera - have made it more or less likely that Thaksin will gain political asylum. I suspect that the British government will see these things differently from most posters here. It will be interesting to see what arguments are deployed.

[auserb]

They let everybody else live in the UK,Terrorists,etc,so why not two on the run as well.

I am sure our stupid government will give them a British Passport,and of course 24 hour Police protection,not forgetting they will be able too claim every State Benefit going,all at our taxpayers expense.

Send them both back to Thailand too face the music.

What is wrong with Mr. Taksin??? I ask you he is well off, has family well respected in Thailand but not with PAD. geeee I love him.

But for England . huh, they sure love him coz he has money (am I wrong or am I wrong ) England will take anybody , sure as long as they can benefit from them. Ask yourself would Mr. Taksin be welcome if he was broke???? haaaaaaaaaaaa. nopeee

[alenhan]

maybe the thai govt issues many warrants for him,

but i love to see him live there forever.

he is unwanted here as a free man.

however, the prison here would happy to have a him.

i would be so sorry if eng govt would grant him his request.

that shows eng doesn't care what a person has done in other place.

that's truely sad.

[OzMan_Bkk]

I am inclined to think along the lines of a couple of posts here and question whether the government of Thailand will actively pursue Thaksin and his missus. At least until the Charter is changed to suit them.

I think we should all be a little suspicious about the delay in withdrawing the special passports they carry. Well now they have signalled their intention to seek protection from the British government that passport question is mute. Cancel them, if the Thailand government is fair dinkum. At least give the appearance of being upset.

It will be interesting to watch this thing play out.

[thaikahuna]

I'll publicly burn my UK passport outside the Bangkok Embassy if they are granted asylum.

I hasve your matches ready.....the UK governments history is in favor of low lifes...why should they change now on who they let stay.

[Thai at Heart]

It would appear that someone has told the powers that be that this is quite enough of this nonsense.

Chamlong is arrested, Thaksin applies for asylum.

Face is given, taken away, favours earned and owed in the blink of an eye. What odds that very shortly PPP gives way "partially" to PAD requests so that the country appears to get back to some kind of normality?

[bangkokrick]

They let everybody else live in the UK,Terrorists,etc,so why not two on the run as well.

I am sure our stupid government will give them a British Passport,and of course 24 hour Police protection,not forgetting they will be able too claim every State Benefit going,all at our taxpayers expense.

Send them both back to Thailand too face the music.

What is wrong with Mr. Taksin??? I ask you he is well off, has family well respected in Thailand but not with PAD. geeee I love him.

But for England . huh, they sure love him coz he has money (am I wrong or am I wrong ) England will take anybody , sure as long as they can benefit from them. Ask yourself would Mr. Taksin be welcome if he was broke???? haaaaaaaaaaaa. nopeee

Get your facts right auserb. Britain do not only take people that they can benefit from.

Asylum applications to the UK

Under UK immigration rules, asylum is granted only in cases where refugees can prove that if they return to their country of origin they will be persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular group, or political opinion. This is in accordance with the 1951 United Nations (UN) convention relating to the status of refugees (and its 1967 protocol), and article three of the European convention on human rights. The rules exclude the vast majority of refugees currently allowed to stay in the UK under exceptional leave.

During 1999 there were 71,000 applications for political asylum in the UK, involving chiefly Kosovar refugees from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and, in fewer numbers, Somalis, Sri Lankan Tamils, Afghans, Turkish and Iraqi Kurds, Albanians, and Chinese. By January 2000, there were 105,000 asylum seekers (not counting dependants) who were awaiting a decision on their status or who were appealing expulsion orders. Home Office statistics suggested that 36% of asylum applicants processed in 1999 were genuine refugees, but a further 11% were allowed to remain in the UK on compassionate grounds. Other figures suggested that fewer than 10% of those refused permission to stay had actually been deported (left the country), the remainder having disappeared into the population. New legislation came into effect in the UK on 1 April 2000, which, among other changes, provided for the ‘fast track’ processing of non‐complex cases, replaced welfare benefits with a food voucher system, worth £35 a week for an adult, and allowed asylum seekers to be forcibly dispersed into accommodation around the UK. The new measures enabled the numbers awaiting a decision to fall to around 90,000 by May 2000. However, the indirect and direct cost to the UK of supporting asylum seekers soared to £900 million in the 1999–2000 financial year.

Not too many rich people here. Also Taksin has the right to apply on the grounds that he stated that he has had threats on his life in Thailand, be it true or not.

By the way i think that he should be sent back to Thailand for trial.

Cheers, Rick

[wrecker]

I'll publicly burn my UK passport outside the Bangkok Embassy if they are granted asylum.

Good, I personally give them my thumbs up when they give him exile. He has done a lot good for the people of Thailand, unlike Chuan, Chavalit, Banharn and lots of others who only filled their pockets. Best joke of it all is that the son of Thailand most corrupt prime minister ever Choonhavan, is lecturing people like you about being an honest politician. I suppose only you believe in them. But never w=mind have a good dream and go for the people of the PAD who are the biggest undemocratic criminals of all.

[hammered]

This appears to be the best SIMPLIFIED definition I could find from UNHCR for a reason to consider political asylum.

"Unjustly exiled from their home country, refugees are persons forced to migrate to a new country for security and protection. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (the UN refugee agency) legally defines refugees as “people who are outside their countries because of a well-founded fear of persecution based on their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or social group.”"

UK Immigration also say:

"While many come to UK in the hope of finding sanctuary, others realise only after arrival that circumstances in their country have changed and that it would not be safe for them or their families to return."

I will be interested in seeing the arguement about how asylum is needed when your own brother-in-law hand picked by yuo is PM and the whole government are your own puppets. Usually asylum is to escape government persecution. Surely Chamlong would have a better case. The charges against Thaksin are mostly criminal too.

No doubt in the end money will win out and Thaksin and family will be able to mix with the Russian oligarchs. However, this wont be an asylum case the British government will enjoy. The precedent of asylum being granted when you have your own people in power could have ramifications the government wont like too.

Edited to add: When was the last time the Brits also granted asylum to an ex-leader of a government linked to a policy of extra-judicial killings that resulted in sevral thousand deaths (info on this from HRW and Amnesty). Another reason the British government wont like this request.

Edited October 6, 2008 by hammered

[auserb]

They let everybody else live in the UK,Terrorists,etc,so why not two on the run as well.

I am sure our stupid government will give them a British Passport,and of course 24 hour Police protection,not forgetting they will be able too claim every State Benefit going,all at our taxpayers expense.

Send them both back to Thailand too face the music.

What is wrong with Mr. Taksin??? I ask you he is well off, has family well respected in Thailand but not with PAD. geeee I love him.

But for England . huh, they sure love him coz he has money (am I wrong or am I wrong ) England will take anybody , sure as long as they can benefit from them. Ask yourself would Mr. Taksin be welcome if he was broke???? haaaaaaaaaaaa. nopeee

Get your facts right auserb. Britain do not only take people that they can benefit from.

Funny you never mentioned Pinochet....

Asylum applications to the UK

Under UK immigration rules, asylum is granted only in cases where refugees can prove that if they return to their country of origin they will be persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular group, or political opinion. This is in accordance with the 1951 United Nations (UN) convention relating to the status of refugees (and its 1967 protocol), and article three of the European convention on human rights. The rules exclude the vast majority of refugees currently allowed to stay in the UK under exceptional leave.

During 1999 there were 71,000 applications for political asylum in the UK, involving chiefly Kosovar refugees from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and, in fewer numbers, Somalis, Sri Lankan Tamils, Afghans, Turkish and Iraqi Kurds, Albanians, and Chinese. By January 2000, there were 105,000 asylum seekers (not counting dependants) who were awaiting a decision on their status or who were appealing expulsion orders. Home Office statistics suggested that 36% of asylum applicants processed in 1999 were genuine refugees, but a further 11% were allowed to remain in the UK on compassionate grounds. Other figures suggested that fewer than 10% of those refused permission to stay had actually been deported (left the country), the remainder having disappeared into the population. New legislation came into effect in the UK on 1 April 2000, which, among other changes, provided for the 'fast track' processing of non‐complex cases, replaced welfare benefits with a food voucher system, worth £35 a week for an adult, and allowed asylum seekers to be forcibly dispersed into accommodation around the UK. The new measures enabled the numbers awaiting a decision to fall to around 90,000 by May 2000. However, the indirect and direct cost to the UK of supporting asylum seekers soared to £900 million in the 1999–2000 financial year.

Not too many rich people here. Also Taksin has the right to apply on the grounds that he stated that he has had threats on his life in Thailand, be it true or not.

By the way i think that he should be sent back to Thailand for trial.

Cheers, Rick

[tmd5855]

Oh dear here we go again. England = Britain = UK. England = England.

Sad that English people are the only nationality in the world who do not know their own country's name or borders.

Off-topic, but what is the name of the island? Britain? Great Britain? If the latter, is there a non-great Britain, too?

This can be very complicated to explain to people that are not from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But here goes.

The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom are the only two sovereign states. Ireland and Great Britain are both islands. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are constituent countries of the United Kingdom.

You have the basic idea. There are many other islands in the British Isles. Most of these are politically part of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland, with the exceptions of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which are British crown dependencies and not part of the UK (or ROI) at all.

Complications

The UK's full name is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Citizens of the UK are called "British". One British person is called a Briton.

The ROI's full name is "The Republic of Ireland" (if you are speaking English) or "Éire" (if you are speaking Irish). Citizens of the ROI are called "Irish".

Irish citizens are not British citizens. British citizens are not Irish citizens. God help you if you forget this when you encounter an Irishman.

Ethnically:

People from England are called English.

People from Scotland are called Scottish.

People from Wales are called Welsh.

People from Northern Ireland are called Northern Irish.

People from Ireland are called Irish.

There is no such thing as English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish citizenship. English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people almost always hold British citizenships. Of course, anybody, living anywhere in the British Isles, can have any ethnicity, and hold any citizenship.

Many people living in Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK) are Irish citizens. Some British citizens living in Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK) classify themselves as Irish-ethnic. Some people living in Northern Ireland would even like Northern Ireland itself classified as Irish i.e. made part of the ROI instead of the UK. This is a contentious point.

The ROI is not British. However, the "British Isles" include both the UK and ROI. Irish citizens and Irish-ethnic people hate this, but there is no consensus on what to call it instead.

So where is Taksin appyling for Asylum. LOL

Cheers, Rick

This will fan the flames or inflame the fans .

United Kingdom came about in 1603 when King James IV of Scotland ascended the English throne. Uniting two kingdoms under one crown as King James I.

Wales was at that time and still is legally, under English law a Principality.

The above was attempted by the Plantagenet King, Edward I but he failed. His son Edward III rescinded the claim in 1328 (Treaty of Northampton)

That was the United Kingdom of Great Britain. (Great Britain is the largest island in the British isles)

The political union came about in 1707 when the Scottish and English parliments joined. You then had the flag of the Union.

Comprising

St Andrews = Scotland. (White saltire on a blue background)

St George = England. (Red cross on a white background)

In 1801 it changed to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The Union flag, then had added, the Irish flag of:

St Patrick = Red saltire on a white background

The British Monarch ruled over Ireland, until 1922

In 1922, 26 of Ireland's 32 counties attained independence to form a separate Irish Free State.

The remaining truncated (political) kingdom has therefore, since then been known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Irish flag (St Patrick) was kept in the Union flag.

Northern Ireland took up the cross of St George (England) with a red hand in the middle.

Not believe??? Check Wilepedia

Edited October 6, 2008 by tmd5855

[sprq]

I read the first two dozen posts and assume the whole lot continue in the same way: Britain is a terrible place for giving Thaksin asylum, and even for allowing him in.

1) Anybody of his wealth who has not been convicted of a crime is usually allowed into the UK, and can continue to live there as long as they like. That is the law, applied across the board.

2) He has simply applied for asylum; he has not been granted it. In my opinion, he won't get it. In fact, I would be amazed if he got it. That is how I perceive UK asylum law and the way it is administered.

All you ranters slagging off Britain understand very little.

[younghusband]

This appears to be the best SIMPLIFIED definition I could find from UNHCR for a reason to consider political asylum.

"Unjustly exiled from their home country, refugees are persons forced to migrate to a new country for security and protection. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (the UN refugee agency) legally defines refugees as “people who are outside their countries because of a well-founded fear of persecution based on their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or social group.”"

UK Immigration also say:

"While many come to UK in the hope of finding sanctuary, others realise only after arrival that circumstances in their country have changed and that it would not be safe for them or their families to return."

I will be interested in seeing the arguement about how asylum is needed when your own brother-in-law hand picked by yuo is PM and the whole government are your own puppets. Usually asylum is to escape government persecution. Surely Chamlong would have a better case. The charges against Thaksin are mostly criminal too.

No doubt in the end money will win out and Thaksin and family will be able to mix with the Russian oligarchs. However, this wont be an asylum case the British government will enjoy. The precedent of asylum being granted when you have your own people in power could have ramifications the government wont like too.

I think the argument would be based on the politicisation of the judicial system in Thailand, not too difficult for a few razor sharp QCs to demonstrate.The almost comical contrast between the sacking of the PM for a trivial TV cooking show and the blatant defiance of the law by the PAD leadership has already sunk into the international consciousness.However my guess is that it won't come to the British courts, not least because apart from a few crazies no elite Thai in a position of authority wants Thaksin back in Thailand.

[auserb]

They let everybody else live in the UK,Terrorists,etc,so why not two on the run as well.

I am sure our stupid government will give them a British Passport,and of course 24 hour Police protection,not forgetting they will be able too claim every State Benefit going,all at our taxpayers expense.

Send them both back to Thailand too face the music.

What is wrong with Mr. Taksin??? I ask you he is well off, has family well respected in Thailand but not with PAD. geeee I love him.

But for England . huh, they sure love him coz he has money (am I wrong or am I wrong ) England will take anybody , sure as long as they can benefit from them. Ask yourself would Mr. Taksin be welcome if he was broke???? haaaaaaaaaaaa. nopeee

Get your facts right auserb. Britain do not only take people that they can benefit from.

Funny you never mentioned Pinochet....

Asylum applications to the UK

Under UK immigration rules, asylum is granted only in cases where refugees can prove that if they return to their country of origin they will be persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular group, or political opinion. This is in accordance with the 1951 United Nations (UN) convention relating to the status of refugees (and its 1967 protocol), and article three of the European convention on human rights. The rules exclude the vast majority of refugees currently allowed to stay in the UK under exceptional leave.

During 1999 there were 71,000 applications for political asylum in the UK, involving chiefly Kosovar refugees from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and, in fewer numbers, Somalis, Sri Lankan Tamils, Afghans, Turkish and Iraqi Kurds, Albanians, and Chinese. By January 2000, there were 105,000 asylum seekers (not counting dependants) who were awaiting a decision on their status or who were appealing expulsion orders. Home Office statistics suggested that 36% of asylum applicants processed in 1999 were genuine refugees, but a further 11% were allowed to remain in the UK on compassionate grounds. Other figures suggested that fewer than 10% of those refused permission to stay had actually been deported (left the country), the remainder having disappeared into the population. New legislation came into effect in the UK on 1 April 2000, which, among other changes, provided for the 'fast track' processing of non‐complex cases, replaced welfare benefits with a food voucher system, worth £35 a week for an adult, and allowed asylum seekers to be forcibly dispersed into accommodation around the UK. The new measures enabled the numbers awaiting a decision to fall to around 90,000 by May 2000. However, the indirect and direct cost to the UK of supporting asylum seekers soared to £900 million in the 1999–2000 financial year.

Not too many rich people here. Also Taksin has the right to apply on the grounds that he stated that he has had threats on his life in Thailand, be it true or not.

By the way i think that he should be sent back to Thailand for trial.

Cheers, Rick

Yes Ricky, as I sai ....Funny you never mentioned Pinochet and in this dialog we are talking about individuals not the whole of the nation my dear friend.. I love Taksin and his govrnment.. I am most probably only individual who supports people from remote Thailand and Isan

[Thai at Heart]

I read the first two dozen posts and assume the whole lot continue in the same way: Britain is a terrible place for giving Thaksin asylum, and even for allowing him in.

1) Anybody of his wealth who has not been convicted of a crime is usually allowed into the UK, and can continue to live there as long as they like. That is the law, applied across the board.

2) He has simply applied for asylum; he has not been granted it. In my opinion, he won't get it. In fact, I would be amazed if he got it. That is how I perceive UK asylum law and the way it is administered.

All you ranters slagging off Britain understand very little.

There have been enough stories thrown about in the press about whispered threats to his life that I think he has an excellent chance of getting asylum.

[johnwills]

I am British, but sometimes(most of the time) I get pi*sed off with how our government operates, this is just another example of things that make me angry. Why doesn't the British government look at the things he/she has done over here, how about their racist attitude towards westerners.

How about making laws reciprocal with other countries, i.e visas, property ownership, business ownership etc etc. It seems if you have enough money you are welcomed with open arms otherwise, screw you.

Sorry, rant over.

[bangkokrick]

They let everybody else live in the UK,Terrorists,etc,so why not two on the run as well.

I am sure our stupid government will give them a British Passport,and of course 24 hour Police protection,not forgetting they will be able too claim every State Benefit going,all at our taxpayers expense.

Send them both back to Thailand too face the music.

What is wrong with Mr. Taksin??? I ask you he is well off, has family well respected in Thailand but not with PAD. geeee I love him.

But for England . huh, they sure love him coz he has money (am I wrong or am I wrong ) England will take anybody , sure as long as they can benefit from them. Ask yourself would Mr. Taksin be welcome if he was broke???? haaaaaaaaaaaa. nopeee

Get your facts right auserb. Britain do not only take people that they can benefit from.

Funny you never mentioned Pinochet....

We are all aware of Pinochet so why mention him. I simply stated the laws on political asylum and the rights of those who wish to apply. Maybe the British Government will deport the Taksins to Australia as they have done with so many in the past.

Cheers, Rick

[hammered]

This appears to be the best SIMPLIFIED definition I could find from UNHCR for a reason to consider political asylum.

"Unjustly exiled from their home country, refugees are persons forced to migrate to a new country for security and protection. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (the UN refugee agency) legally defines refugees as “people who are outside their countries because of a well-founded fear of persecution based on their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or social group.”"

UK Immigration also say:

"While many come to UK in the hope of finding sanctuary, others realise only after arrival that circumstances in their country have changed and that it would not be safe for them or their families to return."

I will be interested in seeing the arguement about how asylum is needed when your own brother-in-law hand picked by yuo is PM and the whole government are your own puppets. Usually asylum is to escape government persecution. Surely Chamlong would have a better case. The charges against Thaksin are mostly criminal too.

No doubt in the end money will win out and Thaksin and family will be able to mix with the Russian oligarchs. However, this wont be an asylum case the British government will enjoy. The precedent of asylum being granted when you have your own people in power could have ramifications the government wont like too.

I think the argument would be based on the politicisation of the judicial system in Thailand, not too difficult for a few razor sharp QCs to demonstrate.The almost comical contrast between the sacking of the PM for a trivial TV cooking show and the blatant defiance of the law by the PAD leadership has already sunk into the international consciousness.However my guess is that it won't come to the British courts, not least because apart from a few crazies no elite Thai in a position of authority wants Thaksin back in Thailand.

I dont think it will come to court too. Dont the Home Office decide on asylum cases anyway? However, I dont think it is a slam dunk that he will get asylum. Not only is the puppet government arguement difficult and precedent setting, but also the arrest of his enemies doesnt exactly mark the courts as bias. On the other hand I think he will be able to stay in the UK forever and I agree there are many elite who dont ever want to see him back again. There are even quite a lot of non-elite who dont want him back anymore.

[Ricardo]

There have been enough stories thrown about in the press about whispered threats to his life that I think he has an excellent chance of getting asylum.

Personally I would hope that, since he believes himself to be a target for assassins and too afraid to go to matches at his former football-club, he might be seen to be a potential source of trouble if he stays in the UK, so the government might see it as too dangerous to let him stay in the UK.

Keep the streets of London & Manchester safe for home-grown muggers & beggars !

[phaethon]

I don't care what you say, Scotland will NEVER be part of England. I don't care how much they cry and wail to be English, how hard they hammer on Hadrian's wall or chuck haggis and porridge over at us begging to be let in, or how long or loud Sean Connery and Billy Connolly bemoan the misfortune of their birth. No people who sport beards and frocks simultaneously can be granted Rhodes' first prize in life's lottery.

[auserb]

They let everybody else live in the UK,Terrorists,etc,so why not two on the run as well.

I am sure our stupid government will give them a British Passport,and of course 24 hour Police protection,not forgetting they will be able too claim every State Benefit going,all at our taxpayers expense.

Send them both back to Thailand too face the music.

What is wrong with Mr. Taksin??? I ask you he is well off, has family well respected in Thailand but not with PAD. geeee I love him.

But for England . huh, they sure love him coz he has money (am I wrong or am I wrong ) England will take anybody , sure as long as they can benefit from them. Ask yourself would Mr. Taksin be welcome if he was broke???? haaaaaaaaaaaa. nopeee

Get your facts right auserb. Britain do not only take people that they can benefit from.

Funny you never mentioned Pinochet....

We are all aware of Pinochet so why mention him. I simply stated the laws on political asylum and the rights of those who wish to apply. Maybe the British Government will deport the Taksins to Australia as they have done with so many in the past.

Cheers, Rick

My dear friend..... if we are talking about depportation ???? England, to my recolection never depported rich people......Firstly they will grant Mr. Taksin visa.....I guaranty you milion to one..........later, they are going to deport him back to Thailan when they know there is no more use of him.....no pain no gaim.... About Australia, my friend Mr. Taksin was welcome to Australia and Australian people was sorry to see him go..

Chears,

auserb

[Artisi]

a great scenario would be - asylum on the condition that his diplomatic passport is surrended - then see how far he can travel - most countries in the western world require Thai's to have a visa to enter - and they won't grant visa's if you are on the run from the law or are a convicted crim who has skipped bail (pokeman) so they may be stuck in dreary old UK for the rest of their days or come back to Thailand and face the music - oh how the wheel turns.

[hammered]

They let everybody else live in the UK,Terrorists,etc,so why not two on the run as well.

I am sure our stupid government will give them a British Passport,and of course 24 hour Police protection,not forgetting they will be able too claim every State Benefit going,all at our taxpayers expense.

Send them both back to Thailand too face the music.

What is wrong with Mr. Taksin??? I ask you he is well off, has family well respected in Thailand but not with PAD. geeee I love him.

But for England . huh, they sure love him coz he has money (am I wrong or am I wrong ) England will take anybody , sure as long as they can benefit from them. Ask yourself would Mr. Taksin be welcome if he was broke???? haaaaaaaaaaaa. nopeee

Get your facts right auserb. Britain do not only take people that they can benefit from.

Funny you never mentioned Pinochet....

We are all aware of Pinochet so why mention him. I simply stated the laws on political asylum and the rights of those who wish to apply. Maybe the British Government will deport the Taksins to Australia as they have done with so many in the past.

Cheers, Rick

My dear friend..... if we are talking about depportation ???? England, to my recolection never depported rich people......Firstly they will grant Mr. Taksin visa.....I guaranty you milion to one..........later, they are going to deport him back to Thailan when they know there is no more use of him.....no pain no gaim.... About Australia, my friend Mr. Taksin was welcome to Australia and Australian people was sorry to see him go..

Chears,

auserb

Silly old me thinking that Australian people respected the idea of rule of law and all that goes with it, and believed in fair play and all that kind of nonsense. I stand corrected, auserb, that the Australian people actually support extra-judicial execution on a mass scale as practiced by that hero of Australia ex-Thai PM Thaksin.

I think not.

[unclekleef]

Thaksin Shinawatra seeking political asylum in Britain

Former Manchester City owner Thaksin Shinawatra is seeking political asylum in Britain.

The Home Office has confirmed the ex-Thailand Prime Minister, 59, and his wife Pojaman have both applied to stay.

They returned here in August after skipping a Bangkok court hearing, prompting Thai officials to issue arrest warrants.

Dr Shinawatra, who last month sold the Premier League to an Abu Dhabi group for £210million, was ousted from power in a military coup in 2006.

He faces probes over alleged corruption and abuse of power. In July his wife was sentenced to three years for evading taxes. Dr Shinawatra, who denies any wrongdoing, has said he feels he cannot get a fair trial in Thailand and fears for his life.

--Sunday Mirror UK, 2008-10-05

Thaksin who has done nothing for the UK (except buy and sell a football team) is allowed to stay in total luxury, with ALL the benefits (including health!) whilst the Ghurkhas who died for the UK get treated like crap - I dont trust potiticians.