Red Shirt Leader Jatuporn To Reveal 'Solid Evidence' Of Abhisit's UK Citizenship

[whybother]

...

Lets just wait and see if Amsterdam,can produce a copy of Abisits UK Birth Certificate,and more to the point,proof that Abhisit has taken up British Citizenship???

No one's denying that Abhisit was born in the UK and has a UK birth certificate. And if you are born in the UK you are entitled to British citizenship.

The question is did Abhisit renounce it.

But I agree with what Emptyset said above. The ICC won't take the case anyway.

From Robert Amsterdams Tweets - and well done the two of you for at least keeping with the OP

• If it is this hard to get a straight answer out of Thailand's PM about his citizenship, think how hard it is to get truth on the massacres.6 minutes ago via web
• Everyone's tired of Abhisit's obfuscation. He KNOWS it doesn't matter if he paid student fees, WE know he isn't Montenegrin. And??6 minutes ago via web
• Let's come up with an award for the first Thai journalist who can prove that 1) Abhisit is British, and 2) that he is lying about it.9 minutes ago via web

Hasn't Abhisit said "I am not a British citizen. That's a pretty straight answer isn't it?

[Siam Simon]

Hasn't Abhisit said "I am not a British citizen. That's a pretty straight answer isn't it?

It is if he provides subsantive proof that he renounced the British citizenship that he inherited by being born there from non-diplomatic stock. Otherwise, he's lying.

[whybother]

Hasn't Abhisit said "I am not a British citizen. That's a pretty straight answer isn't it?

It is if he provides subsantive proof that he renounced the British citizenship that he inherited by being born there from non-diplomatic stock. Otherwise, he's lying.

Why is it that if you don't prove something, that you must be lying?

[timekeeper]

Hasn't Abhisit said "I am not a British citizen. That's a pretty straight answer isn't it?

It is if he provides subsantive proof that he renounced the British citizenship that he inherited by being born there from non-diplomatic stock. Otherwise, he's lying.

Why is it that if you don't prove something, that you must be lying?

isn't that putting the cart before the horse?

if you don't prove you are innocent then you must be guilty?

Edited February 21, 2011 by timekeeper

[Siam Simon]

Hasn't Abhisit said "I am not a British citizen. That's a pretty straight answer isn't it?

It is if he provides subsantive proof that he renounced the British citizenship that he inherited by being born there from non-diplomatic stock. Otherwise, he's lying.

Why is it that if you don't prove something, that you must be lying?

Because you're the Prime Minister of a Sovereign Country, so transparency is god.

[timekeeper]

Hasn't Abhisit said "I am not a British citizen. That's a pretty straight answer isn't it?

It is if he provides subsantive proof that he renounced the British citizenship that he inherited by being born there from non-diplomatic stock. Otherwise, he's lying.

Why is it that if you don't prove something, that you must be lying?

Because you're the Prime Minister of a Sovereign Country, so transparency is god.

if that were true, it would follow that every prime minister in the world is a liar

[Siam Simon]

if that were true, it would follow that every prime minister in the world is a liar

I agree. But when a Prime Minister is caught out lying, their position has to be untenable. Just as Thaksin has little sympathy from the international political community because of his lying, why should Abhisit deserve better treatment? He lied repeatedly about the Rohingya human rights issue, and he won't come clean about his nationality status.

[whybother]

if that were true, it would follow that every prime minister in the world is a liar

I agree. But when a Prime Minister is caught out lying, their position has to be untenable. Just as Thaksin has little sympathy from the international political community because of his lying, why should Abhisit deserve better treatment? He lied repeatedly about the Rohingya human rights issue, and he won't come clean about his nationality status.

"Caught out lying" are the key words here.

He hasn't been caught out lying about his British citizenship.

The Rohingya issue is a different matter and he should be doing something about it.

[Siam Simon]

if that were true, it would follow that every prime minister in the world is a liar

I agree. But when a Prime Minister is caught out lying, their position has to be untenable. Just as Thaksin has little sympathy from the international political community because of his lying, why should Abhisit deserve better treatment? He lied repeatedly about the Rohingya human rights issue, and he won't come clean about his nationality status.

"Caught out lying" are the key words here.

He hasn't been caught out lying about his British citizenship.

The Rohingya issue is a different matter and he should be doing something about it.

Abhisit has been caught out lying about the Rohingya issue. Do you want me to post the video of that South China post interview with Greg Torode again? And Abhisit won't come clean about his nationality status. What is it about you forum right wingers and the truth? Why are most of you so uncomfortable with it?

[whybother]

"Caught out lying" are the key words here.

He hasn't been caught out lying about his British citizenship.

The Rohingya issue is a different matter and he should be doing something about it.

Abhisit has been caught out lying about the Rohingya issue. Do you want me to post the video of that South China post interview with Greg Torode again? And Abhisit won't come clean about his nationality status. What is it about you forum right wingers and the truth? Why are most of you so uncomfortable with it?

Geez ... you've got a reading problem. You're so blinkered, you look at the poster and ignore what is posted.

[simon43]

I can't be bothered to read all of the posts - too much for my eyes...

But from what I have read, Mark IS a British citizen by his automatic birthright that prevailed in UK law at the time of his birth. In order to dispense with his British citizenship, he needed to proactivly do so when he was at least 18 years old, (and there are no reports that he did so).

He does not have to hold or use a British passport in order to be a British citizen.

Clearly, Mark is also a Thai national, but I can see 2 reasons why Mr Amsterdam is pursuing this line of enquiry:

- By proving that Mark is a British citizen, this opens up the possibilty of registering legal charges against him, since Britain is a signatory of the ICC (and Thailand is not)

- By proving his dual nationality, this can create discord amongst his supporters and ammunition for his opponents, which may finally see him forced from office in a style a-la-Samak cooking fiasco

Simon

Edited February 21, 2011 by simon43

[Siam Simon]

"Caught out lying" are the key words here.

He hasn't been caught out lying about his British citizenship.

The Rohingya issue is a different matter and he should be doing something about it.

Abhisit has been caught out lying about the Rohingya issue. Do you want me to post the video of that South China post interview with Greg Torode again? And Abhisit won't come clean about his nationality status. What is it about you forum right wingers and the truth? Why are most of you so uncomfortable with it?

Geez ... you've got a reading problem. You're so blinkered, you look at the poster and ignore what is posted.

But Abhisit won't tell the truth about his British citizenship, nor will he tell the truth about the treatment of Rohingya refugees.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Siam Simon

[Ricardo]

Hasn't Abhisit said "I am not a British citizen. That's a pretty straight answer isn't it?

It is if he provides subsantive proof that he renounced the British citizenship that he inherited by being born there from non-diplomatic stock. Otherwise, he's lying.

I disagree, Jatuporn had promised to reveal 'Solid Evidence' of PM-Abhisit's UK citizenship, and has failed to do so, therefore it was Jatuporn who told the 'porky pie', as so-often before.

[animatic]

Hasn't Abhisit said "I am not a British citizen. That's a pretty straight answer isn't it?

It is if he provides subsantive proof that he renounced the British citizenship that he inherited by being born there from non-diplomatic stock. Otherwise, he's lying.

I disagree, Jatuporn had promised to reveal 'Solid Evidence' of PM-Abhisit's UK citizenship, and has failed to do so, therefore it was Jatuporn who told the 'porky pie', as so-often before.

Agreed.

The PM has only to meet the letter of the law to meet the criteria of his job description, he does not need to to disprove birther type allegations are false, except to state his legitimacy. The onus is for Jutuporn and Amsterdamn to provide proof of their allegations.

"Solid evidence" is apparently NOT in evidence. But that is so typical for Jutuporn.

How many times has he been caught out disseminating obviously false claims filled with innuendo and/or manufactured false 'evidence'? I am running out of fingers and toes to count on.

If being forced to disprove 'every potential false allegation' against you was the norm, no one would EVER get any work done, for having to 'disprove' thousands of fictitious charges. Innocent until proven guilty is logical and fair to all. So far attempting to try Abhisit in the court of public opinion has only been preaching to the reddened choir and has done nothing to prove Abhisit is not legally PM and IS a British citizen.

[Siam Simon]

Hasn't Abhisit said "I am not a British citizen. That's a pretty straight answer isn't it?

It is if he provides subsantive proof that he renounced the British citizenship that he inherited by being born there from non-diplomatic stock. Otherwise, he's lying.

I disagree, Jatuporn had promised to reveal 'Solid Evidence' of PM-Abhisit's UK citizenship, and has failed to do so, therefore it was Jatuporn who told the 'porky pie', as so-often before.

Hey, Ricardo, dont't let an idiot like Jatuporn get between you and the truth. You may have noticed that there are a lot like him in all walks of life in Thailand .

[Buchholz]

Even if somehow it is determined that Abhisit is a British citizen, and that's a big IF... the odds of the ICC accepting the case Amsterdam submitted are extremely small and all this Jatuporn/Amsterdam drama is wasted, similarly to the non-events like the American governmental commission Thaksin was going to testisfy with or the removal of the Democrat Party from its membership in Liberal International.

The "crimes against humanity" criteria are pretty rigid as the ICC Vice-President Hans-Peter Kaul elaborated on in a interview in the other paper last month and it would be a stretch to assign these criteria to the events in Thailand.

.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Buchholz

[whybother]

But Abhisit won't tell the truth about his British citizenship, nor will he tell the truth about the treatment of Rohingya refugees.

How do you know he is not telling the truth about his British citizenship?

[Buchholz]

Well, thanks

I feel extremely uncomfortable during firefights, especially at night, and generally try to avoid being too close to the bullets. These things are really scary.

Only fools don't know how to be afraid and those fools are the most likely to get you killed as well. I've served, but never in combat. Even 'life-fire' exercises are no substitute for the real thing I've come to understand. Seen enough 'instruction' films to get an idea. Payed attention with the 'first aid' lessons as well. Those were the days

What did the "C" etched on your face indicate, my friend?

*edited to add: it seems in quoting your post to reply the attached photo is no longer "attached"...

but it's back there on your original post.

p.s. you appeared to be quite the warrior.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Buchholz

[brahmburgers]

Even if somehow it is determined that Abhisit is a British citizen, and that's a big IF... the odds of the ICC accepting the case Amsterdam submitted are extremely small and all this Jatuporn/Amsterdam drama is wasted, similarly to the non-events like the American governmental commission Thaksin was going to testify with.....

Any fair-minded person who has been following the antics of Thaksin-Amsterdam tag team can clearly see what a couple of bumbling bozos they are. They can never deal straightforward with any accusation, but instead go charging off on tangents to 'world commissions' (the UN, the Hague, US congressional committees) every week or so - like a couple of naughty boys who keep running to authorities (with sob stories) instead of dealing with accusations head on. Jatuporn is simply a twisted parody of his paymaster and/or puppetmaster Thaksin. If Jatuporn really wants to dethrone Abhisit, he needs to hire some people with thinking ability.

[timekeeper]

if that were true, it would follow that every prime minister in the world is a liar

I agree. But when a Prime Minister is caught out lying, their position has to be untenable. Just as Thaksin has little sympathy from the international political community because of his lying, why should Abhisit deserve better treatment? He lied repeatedly about the Rohingya human rights issue, and he won't come clean about his nationality status.

"Caught out lying" are the key words here.

He hasn't been caught out lying about his British citizenship.

The Rohingya issue is a different matter and he should be doing something about it.

Abhisit has been caught out lying about the Rohingya issue. Do you want me to post the video of that South China post interview with Greg Torode again? And Abhisit won't come clean about his nationality status. What is it about you forum right wingers and the truth? Why are most of you so uncomfortable with it?

its not what we are uncomfortable with, it's what we are comfortable with

i enjoy some degree of political stablity in Thailand

i admire Abhisit's handling of the reds attempt at a revolution albeit he was slow to react

i admire Korns ability to keep the Thai financial sector on track who was not slow to react

i like the democrats being in charge of a relatively stable ship despite constant interference from reds and yellows

i do not like Thaksin, i never did and he has proved many times what he is

Amsterdam is a sheister who even brings the already sullied moral character of lawyers in general into even further disrepute

even lawyers must be ashamed to be associated with him

i know i would be

the truth is there is no credible alternative party able to form a government in this country

so personally i do not give a toss wether he lied about refugees or wether he is british

in my view, he is doing a great job in the face of extreme adversity

there's plenty of examples of liars in political office

didn't Clinton lie about the odd indiscretion ?

just a small soil against him?

did that lie make or break him or his US presidency?

No, and the clutching at straws ramblings of Jatuporn, Amsterdam or Thaksin won't break this prime minister either

he is made of much sterner stuff, he is a Brit after all isn't he?

stiff upper lip and all that?

in reality, if this is all the Reds can drag up with their huge financial resources as a reward to any whistle-blowers to taint his reputation, i would have to say that Kuhn Abhisit must have lived a rather exemplary life so far

i have done morally worse things in the last month that would stop me holding political office, never mind over the course a lifetime.........

[ianbaggie]

'crimes against humanity'!

the man did everything possible to stop the loss of life and keep everything peaceful. its the red shirt leaders that are responsible for the blood.

Yeah right, they shot they're self just to get thier 15 minutes of fame. :cheesy: :jerk:

Boyo - now listen look you!! them boots is shoes - them red shirts like - they shot themself and others look you!! now theres tasty look you!! llanfairpwllgwyngythllantisiliogogogoch!! Welsh rarebit look you!!

worabout then look you like the 40 people what the red shirts shot look you!!

[ianbaggie]

Simple siam Simon - the issues you mention are a vain attempt to scratch around for something to blame the Government for NOT even valid arguments - oh no j - ust a minute - bring thaksin back!! Hes a Thai - err chinese - err no Montenegrin!!

get real for goodness sake!!

[phiphidon]

'crimes against humanity'!

the man did everything possible to stop the loss of life and keep everything peaceful. its the red shirt leaders that are responsible for the blood.

Yeah right, they shot they're self just to get thier 15 minutes of fame. :cheesy: :jerk:

Boyo - now listen look you!! them boots is shoes - them red shirts like - they shot themself and others look you!! now theres tasty look you!! llanfairpwllgwyngythllantisiliogogogoch!! Welsh rarebit look you!!

worabout then look you like the 40 people what the red shirts shot look you!!

Am I right in translating that, ahem, "jocular" post that you are accusing the red shirts not only of shooting their own supporters but another 40 (presumably non red) people as well? I don't know, but this may not add to your credibility if that is the case..............

[Ricardo]

I disagree, Jatuporn had promised to reveal 'Solid Evidence' of PM-Abhisit's UK citizenship, and has failed to do so, therefore it was Jatuporn who told the 'porky pie', as so-often before.

Hey, Ricardo, dont't let an idiot like Jatuporn get between you and the truth. You may have noticed that there are a lot like him in all walks of life in Thailand .

Sadly not only in Thailand. :jap:

Edited February 21, 2011 by Ricardo

[Pi Sek]

The Yellow Shirt thing was to celebrate HM's birthday. I still wear them on Mondays and pain to point out even to some Thais that the shirt represent HM, not the PAD.

You are quite wrong again. The PAD took up Yellow Shirts (after the Sondhi Limthongkul protesters wore them already in late 2005). The yellow of the shirts celebrating the 60 year on the throne anniversary of the king (not his birthday) were a shade lighter than the PAD yellow shirts.

As you can see from the photos shown - even UDD protesters wore initially the same royal yellow shirts, but would have abhorred the PAD yellow shirts.

The "yellow shirts" were another name for the PAD, and not used for Thais that wore the royal yellow shirts.

Yes, I am quite wrong, it was for the 60th anniverary of his coronation, not his birthday. My mistake.

But you are quite wrong as well - the yellow shirts with the King's insignia were always representative of the King. That's why the UDD started wearing them, that's why the PAD started wearing them - a simple propaganda trick of deferring any of their intentions as "in support of the monarchy" and therefore for the perceived good of the country. I'm sure we all agree (or at least most of us), neither the PAD nor the UDD are good for the country. It is a very rude attempt to politicise the monarchy - an accusation branded about quite a lot at all sides. The King's shirt is the King's - that's all that matters. I repeat again - I wear a Yellow Shirt, but do not support the PAD. I do however support HM The King. And I am by no means alone.

If I'm wrong, and you're right, the PAD are the Yellow Shirts and so are the Red Shirts. But I don't buy that I'm afraid. As you say above, the Yellow Shirts in 2006 were the bones of the UDD. As you say above, the Yellow Shirts in 2005 were the bones of the PAD. As I say above, the Yellow Shirts in 2006-08 were a pretty broad coalition, much like the Red Shirts today - that's why the likes of Khattiyaa attended the 2008 PAD protests even though she didn't believe in much of what was being touted and that's why the PAD can only gather a couple of thousand these days.

[agord]

But the fact is, on that night, the red shirts had guns and grenades... were you on the front line.

Were you without a television?

We can argue all day about who fired first, we cant blame protestors and foot soldiers. We need to blame leaders, on both sides, if they have advocated or ordered violence.

What's with this "we" again?

We can't blame protesters?

You might not blame them. Others who believe it a crime to carry arms on the street, to take over parts of a city, to fire missiles, to set things on fire, might disagree that these people were all innocent victims.

We need to blame leaders, on both sides, if they have advocated or ordered violence.

On one side there were leaders advocating / ordering / inciting violence, and on the other they were simply trying to restore order. Doing so by force was the last option that ultimately they had no choice in making. There's only so long you can go on allowing a minority group to run riot in a city, and the protesters were given warning after warning, after more warning, that if they stayed they were likely to get hurt.

If you break the law and flee and a policeman tells you to stop running or he will shoot, you have two choices, and it's up to you what decision you make. No different from the protesters. They were told that they were breaking the law and that they should go home for their safety. Those who didn't go home and who got hurt have themselves to blame.

Exactly but you are using too much common sense

[agord]

Seeing as the security forces were useless in terms of controlling the red protesters, what makes you think they were capable of controlling any other group?

Because the soldiers stationed at Silom have not even attempted to block the protesters - on the opposite - the have mingled with the PAD protesters, have encouraged them, and have hindered the police in arresting some of the PAD protesters after the slingshot battle between both groups occurred, which was stopped after police managed to get between the lines in a lull.

I recall the same sort of behaviour happening at certain barricades with reds turning up and soldiers who were there to prevent passage, simply stepping to one side. Whether that was because they were supporting the reds or because they were useless at their jobs, i'm not sure.

Point is, why would you expect professionalism when we were where we were at?

I never expect professionalism, organization, competence, honesty, common sense here ....wow maybe time to get the hell outta Dodge?

[stepenwolf1958]

As a citizen of Montenegro can Thaksin be indicted by the ICC for the drug war killings?

Surely, as Montenegro, as yet formed an independent state, ratified the membership of the ICC.

So Monte Negro would follow her obligations. But for sure, Monte Negro would ask proof before extradite any her citizen but as far as i know there was no any trial for Taksin(Thaksin) about what you said so, no evidence.

And by the way, if it is truth, i just regret he didn't kill them all. Only dead drug dealer is"good" dealer.

[stepenwolf1958]

I was out of town for a couple of days and i don't know, after all, was there some solid(or not solid) evidence about PM's UK citizenship, at all?

Thai law says foreigners can not be members of any politic institution. That is said in law about So-so and so-jo positions( like Councillor in western systems) so i guess it is same for PM in Thailand.

Knowing reds, as few times before they didn't use advantage upon dems as they were unskilled in reactions in politic battles and debates, i would not be surprised if nothing happens, even if PM really have British passport.

So, anything happened?

[rixalex]

As a citizen of Montenegro can Thaksin be indicted by the ICC for the drug war killings?

Surely, as Montenegro, as yet formed an independent state, ratified the membership of the ICC.

So Monte Negro would follow her obligations. But for sure, Monte Negro would ask proof before extradite any her citizen but as far as i know there was no any trial for Taksin(Thaksin) about what you said so, no evidence.

And by the way, if it is truth, i just regret he didn't kill them all. Only dead drug dealer is"good" dealer.

No trial does not always equal no evidence. Sometimes no trial equals no justice.

As far as your regret that Thaksin didn't kill them all is concerned, you seem oblivious to the fact that there were no trials so those who were killed may have been guilty or may have been innocent. We simply don't know.