EC Accepts Failure In Thai Democrat Cases

[Bagwan]

I think what ChiangMaiFun is trying to say is "unless something goes as I want, there is no rule of law".

No-matter if that means opposing both guilty verdicts and non-guilty verdicts...all depending on who the charged person is.

I just think he is missing the clue on what "rule of law" means and how it is an essential pillar of democracy. Law here is fully developed. Sadly, sometimes it may not be as impartial as one would want (looking back to 2001) but it is developed. Those that think that rule of law is less important tend to think that "innocent until PROVEN guilty" is less important.

I again suggest that CMF does a bit of reading about "rule of law" and the pillars of democracy. One of the requirements of rule of law is that prosecutions be technically correct. Another is that prosecutions not be made under duress/threat.

"Law here is fully developed. Sadly, sometimes it may not be as impartial as one would want (looking back to 2001)"

My god, JD, that statement is impugning the Thai judiciary. Not only is that against TV Forum rules, it's against Thai Law!

Not so. It might well be if the message had been the application of the law is not impartial. Whether the law itself is impartial or not is down to the law makers - and nobody in their right mind would call them impartial.

The judge who, in the concealment of assets case, stated that he was not going to rule against somebody who received a lot of votes needed to read his job description.

[Siam Simon]

I think what ChiangMaiFun is trying to say is "unless something goes as I want, there is no rule of law".

No-matter if that means opposing both guilty verdicts and non-guilty verdicts...all depending on who the charged person is.

I just think he is missing the clue on what "rule of law" means and how it is an essential pillar of democracy. Law here is fully developed. Sadly, sometimes it may not be as impartial as one would want (looking back to 2001) but it is developed. Those that think that rule of law is less important tend to think that "innocent until PROVEN guilty" is less important.

I again suggest that CMF does a bit of reading about "rule of law" and the pillars of democracy. One of the requirements of rule of law is that prosecutions be technically correct. Another is that prosecutions not be made under duress/threat.

"Law here is fully developed. Sadly, sometimes it may not be as impartial as one would want (looking back to 2001)"

My god, JD, that statement is impugning the Thai judiciary. Not only is that against TV Forum rules, it's against Thai Law!

Not so. It might well be if the message had been the application of the law is not impartial. Whether the law itself is impartial or not is down to the law makers - and nobody in their right mind would call them impartial.

The judge who, in the concealment of assets case, stated that he was not going to rule against somebody who received a lot of votes needed to read his job description.

From Thai Visa Forum rules:

15) Not to use ThaiVisa.com to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. You also agree not to post negative comments criticizing the legal proceedings or judgments of any Thai court of law.

[hanuman1]

I just think he is missing the clue on what "rule of law" means and how it is an essential pillar of democracy. Law here is fully developed. Sadly, sometimes it may not be as impartial as one would want (looking back to 2001) but it is developed. Those that think that rule of law is less important tend to think that "innocent until PROVEN guilty" is less important.

I again suggest that CMF does a bit of reading about "rule of law" and the pillars of democracy. One of the requirements of rule of law is that prosecutions be technically correct. Another is that prosecutions not be made under duress/threat.

"Law here is fully developed. Sadly, sometimes it may not be as impartial as one would want (looking back to 2001)"

My god, JD, that statement is impugning the Thai judiciary. Not only is that against TV Forum rules, it's against Thai Law!

Not so. It might well be if the message had been the application of the law is not impartial. Whether the law itself is impartial or not is down to the law makers - and nobody in their right mind would call them impartial.

The judge who, in the concealment of assets case, stated that he was not going to rule against somebody who received a lot of votes needed to read his job description.

From Thai Visa Forum rules:

15) Not to use ThaiVisa.com to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. You also agree not to post negative comments criticizing the legal proceedings or judgments of any Thai court of law.

Time for jdinasia to start thinking of a new username, methinks. Or have I broken TV rules regarding the pre-empting of moderator actions? :jap:

[Tatsujin]

Don't all these people realise that you can fools some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time? what a farce

From what I've seen here in Thailand in the last 5 years, you can actually fool all of the people all of the time . . .

[ChiangMaiFun]

Don't all these people realise that you can fools some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time? what a farce

From what I've seen here in Thailand in the last 5 years, you can actually fool all of the people all of the time . . .

Now this IS true

[jdinasia]

Not so. It might well be if the message had been the application of the law is not impartial. Whether the law itself is impartial or not is down to the law makers - and nobody in their right mind would call them impartial.

The judge who, in the concealment of assets case, stated that he was not going to rule against somebody who received a lot of votes needed to read his job description.

From Thai Visa Forum rules:

15) Not to use ThaiVisa.com to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. You also agree not to post negative comments criticizing the legal proceedings or judgments of any Thai court of law.

Time for jdinasia to start thinking of a new username, methinks. Or have I broken TV rules regarding the pre-empting of moderator actions? :jap:

An intelligent man always uses a caveat

Hence the use of the words "may not be as ..." , nor was I critical of a particular ruling or member of the judiciary.

In fact those of you that actually do break that rule fairly regularly might want to learn from my post

[jayboy]

Not so. It might well be if the message had been the application of the law is not impartial. Whether the law itself is impartial or not is down to the law makers - and nobody in their right mind would call them impartial.

The judge who, in the concealment of assets case, stated that he was not going to rule against somebody who received a lot of votes needed to read his job description.

From Thai Visa Forum rules:

15) Not to use ThaiVisa.com to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. You also agree not to post negative comments criticizing the legal proceedings or judgments of any Thai court of law.

Time for jdinasia to start thinking of a new username, methinks. Or have I broken TV rules regarding the pre-empting of moderator actions? :jap:

An intelligent man always uses a caveat

Hence the use of the words "may not be as ..." , nor was I critical of a particular ruling or member of the judiciary.

In fact those of you that actually do break that rule fairly regularly might want to learn from my post

His hypocrisy is astonishing.Fortunately since his tactics (baiting and goading members) were exposed long ago, few take him seriously.

[jdinasia]

Thanks Jayboy!

There is a major difference between us Jayboy. That is; I speak to the posts and you talk about the posters.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Time for jdinasia to start thinking of a new username, methinks. Or have I broken TV rules regarding the pre-empting of moderator actions? :jap:

An intelligent man always uses a caveat

Hence the use of the words "may not be as ..." , nor was I critical of a particular ruling or member of the judiciary.

In fact those of you that actually do break that rule fairly regularly might want to learn from my post

His hypocrisy is astonishing.Fortunately since his tactics (baiting and goading members) were exposed long ago, few take him seriously.

indeed... he takes himself seriously though my view is we can debate and argue and disagree but I have no time for anyone who tries to get a fellow farang poster into trouble - there is no need for it and it is well below the belt.

[jayboy]

Thanks Jayboy!

There is a major difference between us Jayboy. That is; I speak to the posts and you talk about the posters.

I suggest others be the judge of that.

[jdinasia]

Thanks Jayboy!

There is a major difference between us Jayboy. That is; I speak to the posts and you talk about the posters.

I suggest others be the judge of that.

Suggest away!

That in the post where my statement is being used (that does not directly violate any rule or law) has some of the standards that encompass what "rue of law" is, yet you are talking about me .... tells it all really Not speaking to the content of the post and yet speaking about the poster

[animatic]

Thanks Jayboy!

There is a major difference between us Jayboy. That is; I speak to the posts and you talk about the posters.

Yes, and the content is much more important than the personalities involved.

Admirable or loathsome; as broad as that range of may be.