Timesonline Refuses To Release Thaksin Interview Tape To Thailand

[caf]

I know in the US a newspaper article per se is not admissible in a court of law as evidence. I dunno the law in Thailand (or the UK) on this point, to include the transcript or the tape. The rationale of course is that a news story, editorial or opinion piece happens to be the take of a given writer of a situation, person etc. We know a transcript can be mistaken or, in this instance, misinterpreted or erroneously translated and that a tape can be doctored (and that technically any doctoring can be detected). Libel laws do apply however.

Thaksin anyway hasn't given any serious indication he is going to sue.

In the Uk at least if a newspaper printed an article stating a man had stolen a chicken that would not be evidence of the crime. It would be hearsay evidence. If a newspaper printed an article based on an interview with a person that would certainly be admissible as it is not hearsay. The interview is their evidence of what is printed in the article. It would not have to have been taped.

The Times is obviously not losing any sleep on this as, if there is a paper version, they would have cleared it with counsel who no doubt listened to the tape. No person or entity seems to be sueing in a UK court on this.

Much of this seems to be for consumption of the Thai populace. who are being given a particular spin.

T's remarks were not imo very well chosen but were not lese majeste

[Publicus]

Yeah, I'm sure the Times considers the Thaksin interview flap a minor matter and recognizes that the Thai government is pursuing its political agenda in the aftermath of the interview and story just as Thaksin was pursuing his political agenda in his interview statements.

The interviewer, as Asia Bureau Chief (in Tokyo), whether a Brit or not, has a department head position for a newspaper in a country that is a constitutional monarchy and would be expected to be aware of constitutional relationships in such similar countries of East Asia, especially in Thailand which is one of the many such constitutional monarchies to have the Westminister model (with a SPQR 'Senate' rather than a Brit House of 'Lords').

I'm confident Mr. Parry went from Tokyo to Thaksin in Dubai (or perhaps via London) with hot questions, expecting an interview that would produce controversy and realized his fullest expectations just as a journalist worth his salt would do. A topic of mild interest in the UK (i.e., a coup deposed then corruption convicted PM claiming to be a democrat, the Kingdom of Thailand etc) is explosive stuff in LOS, of general interest in East Asia and of special interest in SE Asia. Acordingly, Mr. Parry has pulled off his own coup of sorts.

I reiterate my view that the Times likely 'cleaned up' Thaksin's English because his English in the Times transcript is unusually clear and, well, fairly clean. In all of his other interviews I've read Thaksin has mangled syntax and has murdered flow, connectivity and coherence to the point that few outside of Thailand could recognize most of his meanings or references, especially concerning his use of "they" but in so many other ways.

If the Times did clean up Thaksin's English, that would be another reason the paper wouldn't allow the tape, which is its sole and exclusive property, to be viewed by others. It could open the proverbial can of worms as to exactly, precisely the statements Thaksin said or may have said, or could be seen to have said, or could be seen to have meant to have said etc etc.

I know I read in the interview what after ten years in Thailand strike me as LM violations of the clearest and most indisputable sort.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Publicus

[jayboy]

I know I read in the interview what after ten years in Thailand strike me as LM violations of the clearest and most indisputable sort.

As a matter of interest what gives you expertise by virtue of ten years residence?If you have any special insight into this very vexed subject which baffles and infuriates many educated Thais it would be interesting to know.I have been here more much longer than you, until recently in senior managerial positions, and am reasonably confident that LM, though with an honourable purpose which most Thais respect -as I do, has been consistently abused for political purposes.The Times Online interview is a case in point where no discernible offence is apparent even under this discredited law.Of course most well informed people, regardless of their politics, know precisely why LM is particularly sensitive now.

Anyway it may well be you have some specialised knowledge to justify your apparently absurd claim,perhaps as a lawyer or an academic.If so perhaps you would elaborate and I am very ready to reconsider my first reaction that you were blathering nonsense.

[Bagwan]

What is getting my goat over this comic affair is that any alleged LM offence took place outside the borders of Thailand. Why should there be a legal hooha in LoS?If a person commits a crime and then flees the country the only recourse should be to request extradition so that person may be brought to justice. A US man was recently convicted of heinous crimes against young boys in Thailand. Who wouldn't applaud him being sent back to the country where it occurred to rot in a prison that Himmler would have been proud of? After he had been weighed off for possessing banned and abhorrent material of course. How many ex-pats hiding here here in LoS would be less than enchanted to be returned to their own countries to face the music for the error of their ways?

It seems to me that diplomatic niceties and legal wrangles serve to protect the guilty. I understand that the UK would not extradite a drug trafficker to Thailand because Thailand still administers the death penalty, at least it is still on the books. So what if the prison conditions are inhumane if not primeval? Although these facts may cause a degree of anguish they are not germane to the core of the matter. What business of the the UK is it to pass judgment on Thai jurisprudence? Isn't that interfering with the domestic affairs of another country?

I know that my feelings are the product of black and white thinking when in fact life comes in various shades of grey but it does seems that there is little justice in the world.

[aussiejosh]

I've taught journalism at the university level for six years running now, and one of the units I teach is regarding government control and censorship of the media. Disturbingly, each year I have more and more current examples of problems in Thailand to share with my students. In that time, I've had editors at the Bangkok Post and producers at Channel 11 tell me that they have no choice but to tow the government line on most controversial issues. As a westerner, it's a continual shock to me. My students handle it better than I do--like water off a duck's back--it's normal to them.

Peforming content analysis of the NY Times before the Iraq invasion reveals equally troubling conclusions. The propaganda supplied by what is seen as a free media is far far more effective than the propaganda supplied by what is seen as a partially censored media which in turn is far far more effective than the propaganda supplied by a totally controlled media system.

The western media isnt as free as people think it is. The Thai media is worse. The important thing is to understand the reality of it all and not accept the myths.

Saying that happened in the west doesn't make it any more right.

Who watches the news anymore anyway? Turn on CNN right now, you'll hear some crap about mumbai last year, and something terrible is happening far away from you... Every time. OOOOO BUT OBAMA HOSTED SINGH IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!! international news at its best, especially the Larry King live yesterday where they spent 30 minutes talking about the food presented in the white house... informative.

I guess I watch the news, but unlike Thai's (no offence) I am more likely to look outside the box and question it, and I guess the issue here from the OP is about the Thai government making a fool out of itself...

[justanothercybertosser]

I know I read in the interview what after ten years in Thailand strike me as LM violations of the clearest and most indisputable sort.

A few more years exposure might give you a more reasonable view on things.

[caf]

I know I read in the interview what after ten years in Thailand strike me as LM violations of the clearest and most indisputable sort.

As a matter of interest what gives you expertise by virtue of ten years residence?If you have any special insight into this very vexed subject which baffles and infuriates many educated Thais it would be interesting to know.I have been here more much longer than you, until recently in senior managerial positions, and am reasonably confident that LM, though with an honourable purpose which most Thais respect -as I do, has been consistently abused for political purposes.The Times Online interview is a case in point where no discernible offence is apparent even under this discredited law.Of course most well informed people, regardless of their politics, know precisely why LM is particularly sensitive now.

Anyway it may well be you have some specialised knowledge to justify your apparently absurd claim,perhaps as a lawyer or an academic.If so perhaps you would elaborate and I am very ready to reconsider my first reaction that you were blathering nonsense.

The answer to your question in your first sentence and to Justanothercyber's post can be found in his very own words.

"..... of my own reasonable and rational analysis of likely events at the Times predicated on my professional experience, academic credentials and real life knowledge. "

[MrHammer]

The western media isnt as free as people think it is. The Thai media is worse.

I had to laugh at this juxtaposition of western with Thai media. At least Americans aren't living in a country where five of the six nationwide TV stations are owned by the military. That ownership alone puts a Grand Canyon chasm between the two.

The New York Times towing the US government line in the pre-Iraq invasion days was just a lazy regurgitation of government press releases. Here, towing the government line is a necessity for survival. Just witness the scores of village radio stations shut down every year by Thailand's current military-installed government, especially in the pro-Thaksin northeast and north.

If you really believe that then I question your judgement.

There are many taboos in Western media, most dealing with supranational organizations such as the Council For Foreign Relations, The Bilderberger Group, the IMF, the World Bank and also the shady dealing of the Fed.

Don't you for example think that it would be relevant for the European people know when their democratic elected leaders meet in secret with the top of industry, business, media and lobbyism in the Bilderberger conference?

Why is an event that is a literal who's who of the worlds most powerful people not covered in the media? You can't even find a notice in a newspaper. In fact it's totally ignored that 150 of the worlds royalty, business tycoons, media moguls and politicians meet every year.

How is that a free media?

Censorship in the West works by appointing editors favorable to certain agendas. You are kidding yourself if you don't think the government, intelligence agencies and other groups don't plant stories in the media.

[Publicus]

I know I read in the interview what after ten years in Thailand strike me as LM violations of the clearest and most indisputable sort.

As a matter of interest what gives you expertise by virtue of ten years residence?If you have any special insight into this very vexed subject which baffles and infuriates many educated Thais it would be interesting to know.I have been here more much longer than you, until recently in senior managerial positions, and am reasonably confident that LM, though with an honourable purpose which most Thais respect -as I do, has been consistently abused for political purposes.The Times Online interview is a case in point where no discernible offence is apparent even under this discredited law.Of course most well informed people, regardless of their politics, know precisely why LM is particularly sensitive now.

Anyway it may well be you have some specialised knowledge to justify your apparently absurd claim,perhaps as a lawyer or an academic.If so perhaps you would elaborate and I am very ready to reconsider my first reaction that you were blathering nonsense.

Clearly we cannot discuss specifics stated by Thaksin in the interview, or even certain questions posed by the journalist, so there isn't much any one of us could present to critique the substance of the government's claim of LM. We're hidebound to simply make declarative statements of yes he did or no he didn't violate LM. All else is the blithering of nonsense so go right ahead and continue as I've made my declarative statement but don't plan to dwell on it.

At the risk of possibly going a little far afield, I'd say most of us share the view that the law has been too frequently applied of late and too often at whim or for less than legal purposes and intents. Most laws in LOS anyway exist to be abused, exploited and manipulated to benefit the elites in various ways and at various times depending on which of the elites is in authority.

Regardless of how many passports Thaksin has secured, he remains a national of Thailand and subject to its applicable laws while abroad. If someone here bought a newspaper ad tomorrow to advocate the overthrowing of his/her home government and/or that the leader of the home country be terminated with extreme prejudice, the person would be liable under the applicable laws at home (and probably in the host country as well), and thus subject to an extradition request. An issue we can discuss (!) is whether or not the government can charge Thaksin with LM, which of course it can (and should).

[Publicus]

I know I read in the interview what after ten years in Thailand strike me as LM violations of the clearest and most indisputable sort.

As a matter of interest what gives you expertise by virtue of ten years residence?If you have any special insight into this very vexed subject which baffles and infuriates many educated Thais it would be interesting to know.I have been here more much longer than you, until recently in senior managerial positions, and am reasonably confident that LM, though with an honourable purpose which most Thais respect -as I do, has been consistently abused for political purposes.The Times Online interview is a case in point where no discernible offence is apparent even under this discredited law.Of course most well informed people, regardless of their politics, know precisely why LM is particularly sensitive now.

Anyway it may well be you have some specialised knowledge to justify your apparently absurd claim,perhaps as a lawyer or an academic.If so perhaps you would elaborate and I am very ready to reconsider my first reaction that you were blathering nonsense.

The answer to your question in your first sentence and to Justanothercyber's post can be found in his very own words.

"..... of my own reasonable and rational analysis of likely events at the Times predicated on my professional experience, academic credentials and real life knowledge. "

My mother told me to say that.

I'm well aware there are farang in Thailand who have been here 20+ years or 30+ years so years present in Thailand are not an absolute qualification to speak of things Thai (five years might add some gravitas to one's observations in contrast to, say, two of fewer).

I'm still interested in who initiated the interview, Thaksin or Parry. If Parry had the idea, that would be one thing. But if Thaksin initiated the interview then it would be clear that he intended to say what we read he said, and said it with diabolical intents and purposes, especially given that he shortly afterward airlifted himself to Cambodia.

[jayboy]

I'm well aware there are farang in Thailand who have been here 20+ years or 30+ years so years present in Thailand are not an absolute qualification to speak of things Thai (five years might add some gravitas to one's observations in contrast to, say, two of fewer).

I totally agree but you were the one that raised the issue by announcing your 10 years residence as though that had some great significance.

I know one or two foreigners (well educated as well) who have been here over 20 years but still think in very simplistic and superficial terms about Thai politics, society and culture.I know others, quite young, who have only been here for a year or so who are astonishingly well informed and astute on these aspects.

[jayboy]

I know I read in the interview what after ten years in Thailand strike me as LM violations of the clearest and most indisputable sort.

As a matter of interest what gives you expertise by virtue of ten years residence?If you have any special insight into this very vexed subject which baffles and infuriates many educated Thais it would be interesting to know.I have been here more much longer than you, until recently in senior managerial positions, and am reasonably confident that LM, though with an honourable purpose which most Thais respect -as I do, has been consistently abused for political purposes.The Times Online interview is a case in point where no discernible offence is apparent even under this discredited law.Of course most well informed people, regardless of their politics, know precisely why LM is particularly sensitive now.

Anyway it may well be you have some specialised knowledge to justify your apparently absurd claim,perhaps as a lawyer or an academic.If so perhaps you would elaborate and I am very ready to reconsider my first reaction that you were blathering nonsense.

Clearly we cannot discuss specifics stated by Thaksin in the interview, or even certain questions posed by the journalist, so there isn't much any one of us could present to critique the substance of the government's claim of LM. We're hidebound to simply make declarative statements of yes he did or no he didn't violate LM. All else is the blithering of nonsense so go right ahead and continue as I've made my declarative statement but don't plan to dwell on it.

At the risk of possibly going a little far afield, I'd say most of us share the view that the law has been too frequently applied of late and too often at whim or for less than legal purposes and intents. Most laws in LOS anyway exist to be abused, exploited and manipulated to benefit the elites in various ways and at various times depending on which of the elites is in authority.

Regardless of how many passports Thaksin has secured, he remains a national of Thailand and subject to its applicable laws while abroad. If someone here bought a newspaper ad tomorrow to advocate the overthrowing of his/her home government and/or that the leader of the home country be terminated with extreme prejudice, the person would be liable under the applicable laws at home (and probably in the host country as well), and thus subject to an extradition request. An issue we can discuss (!) is whether or not the government can charge Thaksin with LM, which of course it can (and should).

Your Para 1

Several other countries have ridiculous, barbaric or antiquated laws dealing with for example female circumcision, stoning adulterers to death or imprisoning dissidents etc.I expect they too have some creepy foreign support.You seem to be saying we should be taking LM law seriously, indeed seem positively enthusiastic for it to be implemented in this case.

Your Para 2

You are right to point out the abuse of LM in your first sentence.Your second sentence is however bewildering and seems completely over the top.You cannot dismiss the Thai legal system in such a throwaway manner, particularly since it on the whole works reasonably well.

Your Para 3

Here you seem to have completely lost it.To analyse the silliness further would be unkind.All I can say is that there are plenty of arguments to marginalise Thaksin in perpetuity without invoking an absurd and anachronistic law that actually often has the opposite effect of its perfectly honourable intent

[Publicus]

I know I read in the interview what after ten years in Thailand strike me as LM violations of the clearest and most indisputable sort.

As a matter of interest what gives you expertise by virtue of ten years residence?If you have any special insight into this very vexed subject which baffles and infuriates many educated Thais it would be interesting to know.I have been here more much longer than you, until recently in senior managerial positions, and am reasonably confident that LM, though with an honourable purpose which most Thais respect -as I do, has been consistently abused for political purposes.The Times Online interview is a case in point where no discernible offence is apparent even under this discredited law.Of course most well informed people, regardless of their politics, know precisely why LM is particularly sensitive now.

Anyway it may well be you have some specialised knowledge to justify your apparently absurd claim,perhaps as a lawyer or an academic.If so perhaps you would elaborate and I am very ready to reconsider my first reaction that you were blathering nonsense.

Clearly we cannot discuss specifics stated by Thaksin in the interview, or even certain questions posed by the journalist, so there isn't much any one of us could present to critique the substance of the government's claim of LM. We're hidebound to simply make declarative statements of yes he did or no he didn't violate LM. All else is the blithering of nonsense so go right ahead and continue as I've made my declarative statement but don't plan to dwell on it.

At the risk of possibly going a little far afield, I'd say most of us share the view that the law has been too frequently applied of late and too often at whim or for less than legal purposes and intents. Most laws in LOS anyway exist to be abused, exploited and manipulated to benefit the elites in various ways and at various times depending on which of the elites is in authority.

Regardless of how many passports Thaksin has secured, he remains a national of Thailand and subject to its applicable laws while abroad. If someone here bought a newspaper ad tomorrow to advocate the overthrowing of his/her home government and/or that the leader of the home country be terminated with extreme prejudice, the person would be liable under the applicable laws at home (and probably in the host country as well), and thus subject to an extradition request. An issue we can discuss (!) is whether or not the government can charge Thaksin with LM, which of course it can (and should).

Your Para 1

Several other countries have ridiculous, barbaric or antiquated laws dealing with for example female circumcision, stoning adulterers to death or imprisoning dissidents etc.I expect they too have some creepy foreign support.You seem to be saying we should be taking LM law seriously, indeed seem positively enthusiastic for it to be implemented in this case.

Your Para 2

You are right to point out the abuse of LM in your first sentence.Your second sentence is however bewildering and seems completely over the top.You cannot dismiss the Thai legal system in such a throwaway manner, particularly since it on the whole works reasonably well.

Your Para 3

Here you seem to have completely lost it.To analyse the silliness further would be unkind.All I can say is that there are plenty of arguments to marginalise Thaksin in perpetuity without invoking an absurd and anachronistic law that actually often has the opposite effect of its perfectly honourable intent

Pedantic.

[justanothercybertosser]

I know I read in the interview what after ten years in Thailand strike me as LM violations of the clearest and most indisputable sort.

As a matter of interest what gives you expertise by virtue of ten years residence?If you have any special insight into this very vexed subject which baffles and infuriates many educated Thais it would be interesting to know.I have been here more much longer than you, until recently in senior managerial positions, and am reasonably confident that LM, though with an honourable purpose which most Thais respect -as I do, has been consistently abused for political purposes.The Times Online interview is a case in point where no discernible offence is apparent even under this discredited law.Of course most well informed people, regardless of their politics, know precisely why LM is particularly sensitive now.

Anyway it may well be you have some specialised knowledge to justify your apparently absurd claim,perhaps as a lawyer or an academic.If so perhaps you would elaborate and I am very ready to reconsider my first reaction that you were blathering nonsense.

Clearly we cannot discuss specifics stated by Thaksin in the interview, or even certain questions posed by the journalist, so there isn't much any one of us could present to critique the substance of the government's claim of LM. We're hidebound to simply make declarative statements of yes he did or no he didn't violate LM. All else is the blithering of nonsense so go right ahead and continue as I've made my declarative statement but don't plan to dwell on it.

At the risk of possibly going a little far afield, I'd say most of us share the view that the law has been too frequently applied of late and too often at whim or for less than legal purposes and intents. Most laws in LOS anyway exist to be abused, exploited and manipulated to benefit the elites in various ways and at various times depending on which of the elites is in authority.

Regardless of how many passports Thaksin has secured, he remains a national of Thailand and subject to its applicable laws while abroad. If someone here bought a newspaper ad tomorrow to advocate the overthrowing of his/her home government and/or that the leader of the home country be terminated with extreme prejudice, the person would be liable under the applicable laws at home (and probably in the host country as well), and thus subject to an extradition request. An issue we can discuss (!) is whether or not the government can charge Thaksin with LM, which of course it can (and should).

Well, and that stands in contrast to my declarative statement that the interview does not contain anything that can be possibly prosecuted under present lese majeste laws.

DSI is investigating the issue, but that means only that several professors for English language will get the job of translating the 12 pages. A similar case where all and sundry cried wolf is Jakrapop's speech at the FCCT, where the prosecution has for months now delayed the decision to bring the case to court.

The comments of especially Kasit on Thaksin's interview are a typical case of how lese majeste accusations are abused for political gains. The irony here is that, whatever else Thaksin has done wrong (of which there is much), he actually is a royalist.

[Bagwan]

If someone here bought a newspaper ad tomorrow to advocate the overthrowing of his/her home government and/or that the leader of the home country be terminated with extreme prejudice, the person would be liable under the applicable laws at home (and probably in the host country as well), and thus subject to an extradition request. An issue we can discuss (!) is whether or not the government can charge Thaksin with LM, which of course it can (and should).

As you stated in a previous post, you are not familiar to UK law. I can assure you that merely saying that I was going to assassinate the incompetent Brown might well bring me to the attention of the forces of law and order but unless there was evidence that I was actually planning to do so or inciting others to do the deed I would, at worst, just be written off as a crank. Evidence the separatists in Northern Ireland whose declared aim was to overthrow the legal Government and amalgamate the 6 counties, an integral part of the UK with the majority of the local populace wishing to remain so, with Eire. Anybody charged? Nope. Charged with terrorist offences? Most certainly.

Isn't the declared aim of the red shirts the overthrow of the existing Thai Government?

[ableguy]

Kudo's to Timesonline. There is no obligation whatsoever.

"request again and ask the daily to "reply officially" as the article had hurt the feelings of the Thai people...."

what a bunch of bluff & hearsay. what the government wants to do with the tape is falsely accuse the Times.

The Thai officialdom feels that 'outside' press need to adhere to the norms of info distribution here. Suppression, censorship, manipulation, and control.

Agree does anyone recall when Thaksin cut off BBC world news after his interview on hardtalk?

[Publicus]

I'm well aware there are farang in Thailand who have been here 20+ years or 30+ years so years present in Thailand are not an absolute qualification to speak of things Thai (five years might add some gravitas to one's observations in contrast to, say, two of fewer).

I totally agree but you were the one that raised the issue by announcing your 10 years residence as though that had some great significance.

I know one or two foreigners (well educated as well) who have been here over 20 years but still think in very simplistic and superficial terms about Thai politics, society and culture.I know others, quite young, who have only been here for a year or so who are astonishingly well informed and astute on these aspects.

Nothing much beats stating obvious realities of everyday life. Your statement is true and common knowledge so why presume you are being informative or particularly sage or wise?

[jayboy]

I'm well aware there are farang in Thailand who have been here 20+ years or 30+ years so years present in Thailand are not an absolute qualification to speak of things Thai (five years might add some gravitas to one's observations in contrast to, say, two of fewer).

I totally agree but you were the one that raised the issue by announcing your 10 years residence as though that had some great significance.

I know one or two foreigners (well educated as well) who have been here over 20 years but still think in very simplistic and superficial terms about Thai politics, society and culture.I know others, quite young, who have only been here for a year or so who are astonishingly well informed and astute on these aspects.

Nothing much beats stating obvious realities of everyday life. Your statement is true and common knowledge so why presume you are being informative or particularly sage or wise?

Must I really belabour make the same point again? Obvious and trite though it may apparently be now, you were the one that started trumpeting your ten years residence as something of great significance.It isn't.

[Publicus]

I'm well aware there are farang in Thailand who have been here 20+ years or 30+ years so years present in Thailand are not an absolute qualification to speak of things Thai (five years might add some gravitas to one's observations in contrast to, say, two of fewer).

I totally agree but you were the one that raised the issue by announcing your 10 years residence as though that had some great significance.

I know one or two foreigners (well educated as well) who have been here over 20 years but still think in very simplistic and superficial terms about Thai politics, society and culture.I know others, quite young, who have only been here for a year or so who are astonishingly well informed and astute on these aspects.

Nothing much beats stating obvious realities of everyday life. Your statement is true and common knowledge so why presume you are being informative or particularly sage or wise?

Must I really belabour make the same point again? Obvious and trite though it may apparently be now, you were the one that started trumpeting your ten years residence as something of great significance.It isn't.

An overreaction is commonly more of a problem than the statement (or action) itself. You never fail to disappoint.

[justanothercybertosser]

An overreaction is commonly more of a problem than the statement (or action) itself. You never fail to disappoint.

Yes, and this gets a bit boring.

You embarrassed yourself sufficiently already, can we now get back to the point of the times online interview, its refusal to hand the tape to the Thai government, lese majeste laws, etc.

[Bagwan]

Kudo's to Timesonline. There is no obligation whatsoever.

"request again and ask the daily to "reply officially" as the article had hurt the feelings of the Thai people...."

what a bunch of bluff & hearsay. what the government wants to do with the tape is falsely accuse the Times.

The Thai officialdom feels that 'outside' press need to adhere to the norms of info distribution here. Suppression, censorship, manipulation, and control.

Agree does anyone recall when Thaksin cut off BBC world news after his interview on hardtalk?

I was unaware of this but am not at all surprised to learn of it. I'd love to watch Takki being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman. Takki being Paxoed. Delicious thought.

[endure]

Paxman and Humphreys are over-rated. They bludgeon their interviewees to death. The best interviewer the Beeb has had recently is the now deceased Nick Clarke. He'd gently gently lead them on until they impaled themselves on their own deceit.

[Publicus]

If someone here bought a newspaper ad tomorrow to advocate the overthrowing of his/her home government and/or that the leader of the home country be terminated with extreme prejudice, the person would be liable under the applicable laws at home (and probably in the host country as well), and thus subject to an extradition request. An issue we can discuss (!) is whether or not the government can charge Thaksin with LM, which of course it can (and should).

As you stated in a previous post, you are not familiar to UK law. I can assure you that merely saying that I was going to assassinate the incompetent Brown might well bring me to the attention of the forces of law and order but unless there was evidence that I was actually planning to do so or inciting others to do the deed I would, at worst, just be written off as a crank. Evidence the separatists in Northern Ireland whose declared aim was to overthrow the legal Government and amalgamate the 6 counties, an integral part of the UK with the majority of the local populace wishing to remain so, with Eire. Anybody charged? Nope. Charged with terrorist offences? Most certainly.

Isn't the declared aim of the red shirts the overthrow of the existing Thai Government?

The reds are in a period of remission from the openly stated goal you reference and that we're all aware of. There's no question the malignancy will return given the opportunity of government weakness or if the reds believe they can overcome the ISA, succeed, or perhaps create conditions of martial law, coup, bloodshed, violence, mayhem and so on.

The separation of Chiang Mai from Thailand can be seen as the fallback positon of the worst reds given their backdown from threatened actions in the capital that had been planned. I've discussed at another thread what should be the government's response to this week's developments in CM. Meantime, I'd like to believe someone in the government is proceding in an investigation with their clear eye on prosecution of Thaksin for his blatantly LM statements in the Times interview.

[jayboy]

The separation of Chiang Mai from Thailand can be seen as the fallback positon of the worst reds given their backdown from threatened actions in the capital that had been planned. I've discussed at another thread what should be the government's response to this week's developments in CM. Meantime, I'd like to believe someone in the government is proceding in an investigation with their clear eye on prosecution of Thaksin for his blatantly LM statements in the Times interview.

I'm not sure what is more ridiculous - this fellow's theory that the reds propose to detach Chiangmai from Thailand or his blissfully ignorant avowal of absurd LM proceedings that worry most educated Thais regardless of their political position..His previous posts confirmed on the subject of LM he doesn't really know what he thinks, as well as his contempt for the Thai legal system.On the plan to hive off Chiangmai he has yet to develop his preposterous theory.In any his ignorance and absurdity is evident.

[endure]

This thread gets more like the Bangkok Post Postbag every day. We have posts which use more and more convoluted language to say less and less. Here's a clue girls. - little words make big impressions - big words bore us to tears...

[jayboy]

This thread gets more like the Bangkok Post Postbag every day. We have posts which use more and more convoluted language to say less and less. Here's a clue girls. - little words make big impressions - big words bore us to tears...

Perhaps you could identify some of the "long words" which have taxed your little head.Oddly enough it's a complaint my ten year old sometimes makes.I give you the same advice as I normally give her, .... go and look it up sweetheart.If you were in fact struggling, albeit in a somewhat halting and inarticulate way, to say that it's best that comments are made concisely and clearly with a minimum of words borrowed from other languages, I would fully agree with you.Only the other day I was recommending to a similarly challenged member some invaluable advice in one of Orwell's last essays on this very subject.

[mca]

Only the other day I was recommending to a similarly challenged member some invaluable advice in one of Orwell's last essays on this very subject.

And deep down in your heart you knew you were flogging a dead horse jayboy. Or as that particular poster would have it

" flagellate a member of the equidae family of mammalia."

Edited November 28, 2009 by mca

[Bagwan]

Only the other day I was recommending to a similarly challenged member some invaluable advice in one of Orwell's last essays on this very subject.

And deep down in your heart you knew you were flogging a dead horse jayboy. Or as that particular poster would have it

" flagellate a member of the equidae family of mammalia."

Ahem. You omitted any mention of an advanced state of necrobiosis. Maybe the less erudite would prefer a more commonly used term to express morbidity in which case I direct them to viewing the famous parrot sketch from a Monty Python episode.

[Bagwan]

Paxman and Humphreys are over-rated. They bludgeon their interviewees to death. The best interviewer the Beeb has had recently is the now deceased Nick Clarke. He'd gently gently lead them on until they impaled themselves on their own deceit.

In 1996 Paxman received BAFTA's Richard Dimbleby Award for "outstanding presenter in the factual arena." Two years later he won the Royal Television Society's Interviewer of the Year Award for his somewhat notorious Newsnight interview (see above) with Michael Howard, as well as the Broadcasting Press Guild's award for best "non-acting" performer. He got another Richard Dimbleby Award in 2000 and was nominated for the award in 2001 and 2002. He won the Royal Television Society TV journalism presenter of the year award in 2002 and 2007.

Paxman was given an honorary doctorate by the University of Leeds in the summer of 1999 and in December that year received an honorary degree from the University of Bradford. In 2006 he received an honorary doctorate from the Open University. Among those at the ceremony were three members of the Open University's 1999 University Challenge team. Paxman is a Fellow by special election of St. Edmund Hall, and an Honorary Fellow of his alma mater, St. Catharine's College, Cambridge.

Not overrated by some it would seem, and it appears that he has a large following including a significant number of academics and other members of the intelligentsia. The world needs people with the wit and large pins to deflate the posturing delusional dickheads whose actions impinge on us all. Bringing our representatives to book when necessary is a blood sport, probably the only one that I enjoy. I care not one whit if Paxman bludgeons panjandrums to death or they commit Seppuku by their exposed conceit. I, for one, will support anybody who will climb into the rascals in Westminster who pad out their expense claims, sometimes fraudulently, while freezing my State Pension (which I have paid for) just because I choose to live outside the boundaries of a country that I no longer recognise as being essentially English and all that that means, or rather, used to mean.

Click on the site below for an example of the mealy mouthed crap that we are as a matter of routine presented with. This sketch appeared on BBC TV 2 years before the Big Crash occurred. The reality of it makes it hilarious. The butt of the humour is of course 'the suits' who got the world in such a mess.

[mca]

Only the other day I was recommending to a similarly challenged member some invaluable advice in one of Orwell's last essays on this very subject.

And deep down in your heart you knew you were flogging a dead horse jayboy. Or as that particular poster would have it

" flagellate a member of the equidae family of mammalia."

Ahem. You omitted any mention of an advanced state of necrobiosis. Maybe the less erudite would prefer a more commonly used term to express morbidity in which case I direct them to viewing the famous parrot sketch from a Monty Python episode.

Truly I have been vanquished by a more versed belletrist!