Timesonline Refuses To Release Thaksin Interview Tape To Thailand

[Steve2UK]

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.

All good stuff - I also recommend the much-missed Sir Humphrey's way with language (but he gets it right ): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSkWkAXdSyI

[lopburi3]

Flame removed - please do not make personal attacks - thanks.

[rixalex]

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.

If this sort of pompous condescension isn't considered flaming, i really don't know what is.

[justanothercybertosser]

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.

If this sort of pompous condescension isn't considered flaming, i really don't know what is.

Filthy language is against the rules, but since when is being pompous and condescending against them?

Anyhow...

...does anybody have anything remotely interesting to say about the topic, or do we have to continue with these sissy fits?

[rixalex]

Filthy language is against the rules, but since when is being pompous and condescending against them?

Well flaming is against the rules, and to do so does not require the use of impolite words. You of all people should know that.

[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.

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.

Did you ever hear any Nick Clarke interviews? He made Paxman and Humphreys sound like amateurs.

[Publicus]

[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...

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.

None of your 'long words' have taxed my little head. On the contrary your post proves my point.

[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.

None of your 'long words' have taxed my little head. On the contrary your post proves my point.

I'm not sure your post or for that matter mine proves anything at all other than we have too much time on our hands.But Orwell's advice on the clear and honest use of English remains compelling.

I fully agree your comments on Nick Clarke who died far too young - polite, analytical and completing free of the Paxman/Humphreys bluster.But I listened to him only on the radio.Did he do TV?

[rixalex]

it's best that comments are made concisely and clearly with a minimum of words borrowed from other languages,

Non sequitur I'm afraid on your part.

[caf]

it's best that comments are made concisely and clearly with a minimum of words borrowed from other languages,

Non sequitur I'm afraid on your part.

Jayboy said "minimum"

Anyway ... Does not enhance the thread one bit of course. The Times is under no legal obligation to release anything. Just people playing little diplomatic games

[Publicus]

Don't know the Thai law about whether the Timesonline interview as it was 'published' is admisible in court as evidence (or proof). I've only ever met one Thai lawyer so don't have decent sources to call on in this. With the government saying it will charge Takki for LM and all, it couldn't do so unless it could get something Thaksin said from somewhere on which to base a cause of action (litigation) or as evidence during a judicial proceding.

[justanothercybertosser]

Don't know the Thai law about whether the Timesonline interview as it was 'published' is admisible in court as evidence (or proof). I've only ever met one Thai lawyer so don't have decent sources to call on in this. With the government saying it will charge Takki for LM and all, it couldn't do so unless it could get something Thaksin said from somewhere on which to base a cause of action (litigation) or as evidence during a judicial proceding.

This is getting funny. First you had your "....own reasonable and rational analysis of likely events at the Times predicated on my professional experience, academic credentials and real life knowledge. " in addition to a staggering 10 years in Thailand. And with all that experience you have only ever met one single Thai lawyer, have admittedly no decent sources, and still you do proudly declare that the interview does fulfill the requirements of proceeding with a lese majeste case in Thailand?

...excuse me if i have to

[hammered]

While we can debate to death whtehr somehting is LM or not, I think the more interesting issue is that even Abhiosit hasnt rushed into demanding an LM case although I think the comical Kasit may have. Right now it seems confrontation is being played down.

Right from the start it was obviosu the Times wouldnt release anything and even the government knew this. It was equally obvious that Thaksin wasnt going to sue the Times whatever he said.

The issues were more around appropriateness and timing than any slam dunk LM case and the poltics has been played and now we move on to no red rally and no CM visit. Later in the month there will no doubt be anohter issue or two.

In the meantime what are the yellows up to? They seem a tad quiet and they lack th emomentum of the reds so they cant really afford to be sitting back

[justanothercybertosser]

In the meantime what are the yellows up to? They seem a tad quiet and they lack th emomentum of the reds so they cant really afford to be sitting back

Lets wait and see. The wind has been taken out of the sails right now - but the next confrontation will come soon. Nothing has been solved, and still no solution in sight.

[Publicus]

Don't know the Thai law about whether the Timesonline interview as it was 'published' is admisible in court as evidence (or proof). I've only ever met one Thai lawyer so don't have decent sources to call on in this. With the government saying it will charge Takki for LM and all, it couldn't do so unless it could get something Thaksin said from somewhere on which to base a cause of action (litigation) or as evidence during a judicial proceding.

This is getting funny. First you had your "....own reasonable and rational analysis of likely events at the Times predicated on my professional experience, academic credentials and real life knowledge. " in addition to a staggering 10 years in Thailand. And with all that experience you have only ever met one single Thai lawyer, have admittedly no decent sources, and still you do proudly declare that the interview does fulfill the requirements of proceeding with a lese majeste case in Thailand?

...excuse me if i have to

You say there's no LM violation. As I've said, this exchange of declarative statements could continue indefinitely unless someone has the good judgement to let go of it. That you don't practice law in Thailand either hasn't held you back from having your opinons on everything and anything to include legal matters. Or maybe you practice law in Thailand, or maybe you're a lawyer. I don't and I'm not.

Some of us recall the old saying about argument: When you have the facts pound on the facts, when you don't have the facts pound on the table. When you don't have a defense then distract, misdirect or reroute the discussion and focus.

You're reaching, searching and grasping.............ever so desperately.

[jayboy]

While we can debate to death whtehr somehting is LM or not, I think the more interesting issue is that even Abhiosit hasnt rushed into demanding an LM case although I think the comical Kasit may have. Right now it seems confrontation is being played down.

Right from the start it was obviosu the Times wouldnt release anything and even the government knew this. It was equally obvious that Thaksin wasnt going to sue the Times whatever he said.

The issues were more around appropriateness and timing than any slam dunk LM case and the poltics has been played and now we move on to no red rally and no CM visit. Later in the month there will no doubt be anohter issue or two.

I think this is a sensible summing up of the situation.What I personally find disgusting is the enthusiasm of a very few foreigners on this forum to use this anchronistic and divisive law to score political points against Thaksin.God knows there are enough genuine reasons to pursue him without having to resort to this pernicious and self defeating nonsense.As you suggest Abhisit is playing this very coolly and I suspect it will soon become a non-issue.

[wilbert]

Right from the start it was obviosu the Times wouldnt release anything and even the government knew this. It was equally obvious that Thaksin wasnt going to sue the Times whatever he said.

Whatever became of that? The last I recall, he had personally directed his lawyer to sue Times Online for defamation for saying he said the things that he actually did say, which, even for him, is a bit twisted.

[LaoPo]

Don't know the Thai law about whether the Timesonline interview as it was 'published' is admisible in court as evidence (or proof).

Neither do I, but to me it would be odd if the prosecutor would present the Times Interview as "evidence" to the Court, knowing it was forbidden to have it published in Thailand.

How can one present evidence if it's forbidden material ?

Yeah, I know: TiT.

LaoPo

[endure]

Is it just me or is there a small flaw in the lese majeste law?

Why is it that normal folks can bring charges towards another normal folks citing this law?

Shouldn't it be the Royal house that brings formal charges after accusations with solid backup have been made?

If the law was amended so that only the Royal Household could lay complaints of lese majeste it would immediately remove the use of LM for political purposes.

[Publicus]

Is it just me or is there a small flaw in the lese majeste law?

Why is it that normal folks can bring charges towards another normal folks citing this law?

Shouldn't it be the Royal house that brings formal charges after accusations with solid backup have been made?

If the law was amended so that only the Royal Household could lay complaints of lese majeste it would immediately remove the use of LM for political purposes.

Agreed, which is why the law won't be amended and which is why the law exists to begin with. To be clear, I share the view the law is, shall we say, overused.

[Publicus]

Don't know the Thai law about whether the Timesonline interview as it was 'published' is admisible in court as evidence (or proof).

Neither do I, but to me it would be odd if the prosecutor would present the Times Interview as "evidence" to the Court, knowing it was forbidden to have it published in Thailand.

How can one present evidence if it's forbidden material ?

Yeah, I know: TiT.

LaoPo

LM procedings are star chamber procedings if I'm not mistaken. Again if I recall correctly the high profile LM charges of recent note have been conducted behind closed doors with only the conviction and sentence announced publicly after the closed procedings have concluded. The specifics involved to include the statements made or actions taken are not publicly disclosed, debated or known, at least not exactly. For all we know, a conviction could be made on hearsay, an allegation or simply on the basis of an unspecified charge. I'm not sure the accused is entitled to or allowed to present a defense or at least an effective one.

[caf]

Don't know the Thai law about whether the Timesonline interview as it was 'published' is admisible in court as evidence (or proof). I've only ever met one Thai lawyer so don't have decent sources to call on in this. With the government saying it will charge Takki for LM and all, it couldn't do so unless it could get something Thaksin said from somewhere on which to base a cause of action (litigation) or as evidence during a judicial proceding.

Correct. It would be admissible in Thai law but many lm cases are held in camera of course.

Good post though, Publicus, and on topic.

[JetsetBkk]

<snip>

...does anybody have anything remotely interesting to say about the topic, or do we have to continue with these sissy fits?

Please continue (with the sissy fits).

Very entertaining.

[Publicus]

<snip>

...does anybody have anything remotely interesting to say about the topic, or do we have to continue with these sissy fits?

Please continue (with the sissy fits).

Very entertaining.

I think the common use is hissy fits but maybe there are sissy fits too more or less.