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

[jdinasia]

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.

Actually, there is documentation that some of those killed were not involved in the drug trade at all.

The fact that they were victims of extra-judicial killings at the hands of the state AND that some people seem to condone this is quite telling (both about domestic politics AND about foreigners in Thailand calling for "justice" for the reds but not for those murdered under Thaksin's "war on drugs".

[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.

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.

Of course, may be they are innocent but some one used war against drug dealers just as a cover. Anything is possible. As those killed in protest also could be killed by an explanation(as cover) they were armed, they were shooting to the army...etc. If i think deeper - we know nothing.

[SomTumTiger]

So, Jatuporn promised to reveal "Solid Evidence" that PM is a Brit.

Did he?

No.

Ergo - Jatuporn is (yet again) a liar.

Case

just like this topic should be

[Arkady]

Abhisit clearly has the right to British citizenship which he may or may not have exercised. (I wonder if his daughters have exercised their own rights to it). Technically, you could say he is British but so what. Is the ICC going to indict him for acting as prime minister of Thailand, a job only open to Thai nationals from birth, on the grounds that he is entitled to British nationality. Obviously not. Would they indict him, even if Thailand were a state party to the ICC? No. The argument is purely political and seems to indicate that the red shirts and Pheua Thai are painfully short of material for the upcoming no confidence debate to be led by the ineffectual Mingkwan. There is nothing in the Nationality Act that prevents Abhisit from being British as well as Thai and there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent a dual national from being prime minister, or a minister or MP. However, Jatuporn obviously believes that any kind of racial aspersions will go down well with his audience, having noted the wonderful foot clapper applause that red shirt orators got from the stage, simply by declaring that Abhisit was in fact a "Yuan" or Vietnamese.

Although it makes no difference, Abhisit's denials are actually not very convincing but may be better than nothing in response to nonsensical accusations. His argument that paying overseas student fees at Oxford makes little sense as he could have simply chosen not to apply for the domestic rate to avoid hassle. Today a UK citizen with parents abroad wouldn't qualify for the domestic fee rate and I think it might have been the case then too, as it was tied up with application for a grant from one's Local Education Authority which Abhisit wouldn't have had, if his parents were back in Thailand by then which I think they were. Also getting visas for the UK or right of abode in a foreign passport was easy in the past for UK dual nationals but since 2006 has only been possible, if the applicant doesn't have a UK passport. Note that current UKBA regulations only specify that the applicant mustn't have a UK passport, not that he shouldn't be entitled to one, if he wants to apply for one. The irony is that, in order to renounce his UK citizenship, Abhisit would have to exercise it, if he hasn't already, since the embassy would required evidence of his UK citizenship in the form of a British passport in order to process his renunciation application - LOL.

Meanwhile, Thaksin is a definitely a citizen of Montenegro, a state party to the ICC, and is rumoured to be a citizen of two other state parties, Fiji and Uganda. There are also a significant number of other senior Thais who are also either citizens of other countries or entitled to be, including some connected to a high institution. So it is not clear where things will lead, if Jatuporn tries to turn this into a general witch hunt for Thais entitled to dual nationality.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Arkady

[SomTumTiger]

Abhisit clearly has the right to British citizenship which he may or may not have exercised. (I wonder if his daughter's have exercised their own rights to it). Technically, you could say he is British but so what. Is the ICC going to indict him for acting as prime minister of Thailand, a job only open to Thai nationals from birth, on the grounds that he is entitled to British nationality. Obviously not. Would they indict him, even if Thailand were a state party to the ICC? No. The argument is purely political and seems to indicate that the red shirts and Pheua Thai are painfully short of material for the upcoming no confidence debate to be led by the ineffectual Mingkwan. There is nothing in the Nationality Act that prevents Abhisit from being British as well as Thai and there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent a dual national from being prime minister, or a minister or MP.

Although it makes no difference, Abhisit's denials are actually not very sensible. His argument that paying overseas student fees at Oxford makes no sense. If I remember rightly exemption from overseas fees at the time came through registration with your Local Education Authority for a maintenance grant which was impossible for overseas students at boarding school in the UK without a family home there and I don't think his parents were still living in the UK at that time. Even if they were, choosing not to apply for an LEA maintenance grant and voluntarily paying the overseas fees wouldn't prove lack of UK citizenship. Also getting visas for the UK in a foreign passport was easy in the past but since 2006 has only been possible, if the applicant doesn't have a UK passport. Note that UKBA regulations only specify that the applicant mustn't have a UK passport, not that he isn't entitled to one, if he wants one. The irony is that, in order to renounce his UK citizenship, Abhisit would have to exercise it, if he hasn't already, as the embassy would required evidence of his UK citizenship in the form of a British passport LOL.

Meanwhile, Thaksin is a definitely a citizen of Montenegro, a state party to the ICC, and is rumoured to be a citizen of two other state parties, Fiji and Uganda. There are also a significant number of other senior Thais who are also either citizens of other countries or entitled to be, including several people connected to a high institution.

You mean Thaksin? or Takki Shinegra?

[hammered]

Has anyone ever met many rich or even just moderately rich thai persons who hasnt had a second nationality and isnt ashamed to mention it to a foreigner?

[Arkady]

So, Jatuporn promised to reveal "Solid Evidence" that PM is a Brit.

Did he?

No.

Ergo - Jatuporn is (yet again) a liar.

Case

just like this topic should be

I think he "solid evidence" is the copy of Abhisit's birth certificate he held up on the red shirt stage which any one can obtain from the UK registry. More solid evidence that than either way would I think be hard to come by without co-operation from Abhisit. The British Home Office will for a fee provide a confirmation of residence status in the UK (e.g. UK citizen, indefinite leave to remain, student visa etc) at the request of the resident but not at the request of other parties (except police, Interpol etc) and not normally retrospectively to some one who is no longer resident (except to police etc). Jatuporn seems now to have shot his bolt on this absurd accusation and will now probably have to resort to more earthy racial slurs which is difficult without also insulting his "Big Boss" and nearly all of Pheua Thai's MPs, top executives and financiers at the same time.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Arkady

[Robby nz]

So, Jatuporn promised to reveal "Solid Evidence" that PM is a Brit.

Did he?

No.

Ergo - Jatuporn is (yet again) a liar.

Case

just like this topic should be

I think he "solid evidence" is the copy of Abhisit's birth certificate he held up on the red shirt stage which any one can obtain from the UK registry. More solid evidence that than either way would I think be hard to come by without co-operation from Abhisit. The British Home Office will for a fee provide a confirmation of residence status in the UK (e.g. UK citizen, indefinite leave to remain, student visa etc) at the request of the resident but not at the request of other parties (except police, Interpol etc) and not normally retrospectively to some one who is no longer resident (except to police etc). Jatuporn seems now to have shot his bolt on this absurd accusation and will now probably have to resort to more earthy racial slurs which is difficult without also insulting his "Big Boss" and nearly all of Pheua Thai's MPs, top executives and financiers at the same time.

Jatuporn apparantly produced (could that be the correct word) something which he claimed to be a copy of the PM's birth Cert.

If it was it would be in English which most of the hoard could not read even if they got a close up look.

I presume if he indeed had a copy of said B C he would have been wanting to show it to the press to get max coverage from his triumph.

Has this happened?

Or did he in fact wave a bit of paper which could have been anything?

I have serious doubts that it is possible to easly get a copy of someone elses BC, for once it is in your hands you can then apply for a passport or bank accounts and get credit or commit all sorts of crime in someone elses name.

OK you could get a copy of your own, but someone elses?

[scorecard]

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.

So if your wife, one of your children or close relatives or close friends just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and got murdered by the police, then you would just respond with 'never mind, it's quite OK!'

[scorecard]

Abhisit is a qualified and experienced lawyer.

Yes he was born in UK, but i cannot believe other than he has checked all of this very carefully in the past to fully understand his own case and status in regard to UK and to Thailand.

He's already said categorically that he his nationality is Thai and Thai only.

Somehow I doubt that he would have deliberately told a lie in this regard, especially knowing that he would be caught out in a very short time.

[Insight]

Abhisit is a qualified and experienced lawyer.

Yes he was born in UK, but i cannot believe other than he has checked all of this very carefully in the past to fully understand his own case and status in regard to UK and to Thailand.

He's already said categorically that he his nationality is Thai and Thai only.

Somehow I doubt that he would have deliberately told a lie in this regard, especially knowing that he would be caught out in a very short time.

It doesn't matter if Amsterdam finds "evidence" Abhisit is one of David Icke's shape-shifting lizards. I'm pretty sure the reason Abhisit isn't bothering to refute this nonsense any further is because it's seriously not worth giving it any more media coverage than the red shirts are attempting to give it.

He looks like a Thai, he speaks Thai, he claims to be Thai. I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of Thais are convinced Abhisit is a Thai! And whatever Amsterdam manages to "prove", it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the ICJ accepting the case of not. As a lawyer, Amsterdam is a complete waste of cash. As a publicist, the jury is out IMO.

[ianf]

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.

Actually, there is documentation that some of those killed were not involved in the drug trade at all.

The fact that they were victims of extra-judicial killings at the hands of the state AND that some people seem to condone this is quite telling (both about domestic politics AND about foreigners in Thailand calling for "justice" for the reds but not for those murdered under Thaksin's "war on drugs".

There is huge evidence that many of those killed/murdered by Thaksin were not drug dealers. First of all some were political opponents and secondly some (many) were users undergoing rehab and counselling at drop in centres. And besides if the fascists who posted on this board saying that it was OKto bump 'em off because they were drug dealers, they should think again. Extra judicial killings, as so often has been proven in Burma and such like, spreads to all sorts of people: Women and kids who have been raped by the military to give just one current example. So I don't really want to hear this stuff.

[phiphidon]

Abhisit is a qualified and experienced lawyer.

Yes he was born in UK, but i cannot believe other than he has checked all of this very carefully in the past to fully understand his own case and status in regard to UK and to Thailand.

He's already said categorically that he his nationality is Thai and Thai only.

Somehow I doubt that he would have deliberately told a lie in this regard, especially knowing that he would be caught out in a very short time.

It doesn't matter if Amsterdam finds "evidence" Abhisit is one of David Icke's shape-shifting lizards. I'm pretty sure the reason Abhisit isn't bothering to refute this nonsense any further is because it's seriously not worth giving it any more media coverage than the red shirts are attempting to give it.

He looks like a Thai, he speaks Thai, he claims to be Thai. I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of Thais are convinced Abhisit is a Thai! And whatever Amsterdam manages to "prove", it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the ICJ accepting the case of not. As a lawyer, Amsterdam is a complete waste of cash. As a publicist, the jury is out IMO.

Sure he's a Thai. The interesting part is if he is also still a UK citizen. If he is not the ICC will throw the case out immediately as Thailand is not a signatory and it will therefore not be an admissable case. If he has not renounced his citizenship then it may be possible to bring a case to the ICC for hearing. They may still throw it out even then. However if they do decide to hear the case I would imagine the first thing they would do would be to find out whether Abhisit was still a UK citizen or not.

You would have thought that if Abhisit had renounced his UK Citizenship he would come right out and say it to stop any other chatter going on (as it has). He hasn't, one of his aides said that he did but Abhisit has only said that he is Thai and was classified as a foreign student whilst at Eton and Oxford. Well, guess what, if your main place of residence is outside of Britain (even BRITISH students living abroad as their main residence are of the same status) you qualify as a foreign student even if you are a UK citizen so that didn't prove anything.

Even if the ICC do not accept this case Amsterdam has done what he set out to do - Publicise the White Paper.

[tw25rw]

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.

In the eyes of the UK govt, he is a British citizen. He doesn't have to apply for that status. He only has to prove his identity and pay a fee and the passport is his. However, that's just what the British law says. If he's in Thailand, it's Thai law that counts. If he's never held a British passport identifying him as a British citizen, there's no reason for him to have to prove anything more.

[crazydrummerpauly]

Does that mean he's also 10 points down on the maturity development index?

I transferred from US school system to the British school system when I was mid-teens. Sorry to say, it felt like I was stuck with a group of 10 year olds.

Don't worry, it was just a language-problem ( 2 nations divided by a common language etc )

[yoshiwara]

[/quote

Nothing really new, he is not Thai anyway but Chinese and just of the few elite Chinese that been running Thailand and hold most of the wealth and have a trickle down effect to the native Thais.

So if you want to use race and ethnic origin as a prejudicial argument against Abhisit, do you also recognise Thaksin's Chinese ethnicity and wealthy, elite family upbringing?

The red cheerleaders like to play the anti-Chinese card to pump up their supporters, but unfortunately they all suffer from selective amnesia when it is pointed out that Thaksin also comes from a Chinese background. Since they like to argue that theirs is a liberation struggle (don't laugh) all inconvenient facts are discarded if they are not useful. The red lie machine is getting revved up.

[Siam Simon]

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.........

Well, i happen to agree with you about Abhisit being the best man for the job. I just won't give him a free pass, the same as I would never give any politician anywhere a free pass. If I think he's made an error of judgement or is telling lies I will say so, especially on something as important as a large-scale human rights abuse. If you don't give a toss about him covering up such an abuse..... well.....best not go there otherwise we'll be creating work for the mods.

Surely the point of a bunch of (mostly) foreigners having internet discussions about the politics of a country in which they can't even vote is to try to get to the bottom of the issues, and to look at things from as many different angles as possible? Most of the discussion on here is way too partial, almost like football fan debate, just cheering one's 'side' and deriding any and all opposition.

And I don't agree with you about Abhisit's handling of the troubles last year: The CRES ran that show and he was not on the CRES team.

[Insight]

Abhisit is a qualified and experienced lawyer.

Yes he was born in UK, but i cannot believe other than he has checked all of this very carefully in the past to fully understand his own case and status in regard to UK and to Thailand.

He's already said categorically that he his nationality is Thai and Thai only.

Somehow I doubt that he would have deliberately told a lie in this regard, especially knowing that he would be caught out in a very short time.

It doesn't matter if Amsterdam finds "evidence" Abhisit is one of David Icke's shape-shifting lizards. I'm pretty sure the reason Abhisit isn't bothering to refute this nonsense any further is because it's seriously not worth giving it any more media coverage than the red shirts are attempting to give it.

He looks like a Thai, he speaks Thai, he claims to be Thai. I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of Thais are convinced Abhisit is a Thai! And whatever Amsterdam manages to "prove", it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the ICJ accepting the case of not. As a lawyer, Amsterdam is a complete waste of cash. As a publicist, the jury is out IMO.

Sure he's a Thai. The interesting part is if he is also still a UK citizen. If he is not the ICC will throw the case out immediately as Thailand is not a signatory and it will therefore not be an admissable case. If he has not renounced his citizenship then it may be possible to bring a case to the ICC for hearing. They may still throw it out even then. However if they do decide to hear the case I would imagine the first thing they would do would be to find out whether Abhisit was still a UK citizen or not.

You would have thought that if Abhisit had renounced his UK Citizenship he would come right out and say it to stop any other chatter going on (as it has). He hasn't, one of his aides said that he did but Abhisit has only said that he is Thai and was classified as a foreign student whilst at Eton and Oxford. Well, guess what, if your main place of residence is outside of Britain (even BRITISH students living abroad as their main residence are of the same status) you qualify as a foreign student even if you are a UK citizen so that didn't prove anything.

Even if the ICC do not accept this case Amsterdam has done what he set out to do - Publicise the White Paper.

There's nothing "interesting" about it. Nobody (who isn't a red shirt) really gives a toss! UK Citizen or not, it is not a game changer, as much as Amsterdam and the red shirts like to make a lot of noise that it is.

And as for the "white paper", there's much more comparable white paper at your local Tesco's available for a fraction of the price. It's a bit smoother on the arse too.

[phiphidon]

Sure he's a Thai. The interesting part is if he is also still a UK citizen. If he is not the ICC will throw the case out immediately as Thailand is not a signatory and it will therefore not be an admissable case. If he has not renounced his citizenship then it may be possible to bring a case to the ICC for hearing. They may still throw it out even then. However if they do decide to hear the case I would imagine the first thing they would do would be to find out whether Abhisit was still a UK citizen or not.

You would have thought that if Abhisit had renounced his UK Citizenship he would come right out and say it to stop any other chatter going on (as it has). He hasn't, one of his aides said that he did but Abhisit has only said that he is Thai and was classified as a foreign student whilst at Eton and Oxford. Well, guess what, if your main place of residence is outside of Britain (even BRITISH students living abroad as their main residence are of the same status) you qualify as a foreign student even if you are a UK citizen so that didn't prove anything.

Even if the ICC do not accept this case Amsterdam has done what he set out to do - Publicise the White Paper.

There's nothing "interesting" about it. Nobody (who isn't a red shirt) really gives a toss! UK Citizen or not, it is not a game changer, as much as Amsterdam and the red shirts like to make a lot of noise that it is.

And as for the "white paper", there's much more comparable white paper at your local Tesco's available for a fraction of the price. It's a bit smoother on the arse too.

20 pages of "discussion". No, you're right, "nobody (who isn't a red shirt) really gives a toss".

[Insight]

Sure he's a Thai. The interesting part is if he is also still a UK citizen. If he is not the ICC will throw the case out immediately as Thailand is not a signatory and it will therefore not be an admissable case. If he has not renounced his citizenship then it may be possible to bring a case to the ICC for hearing. They may still throw it out even then. However if they do decide to hear the case I would imagine the first thing they would do would be to find out whether Abhisit was still a UK citizen or not.

You would have thought that if Abhisit had renounced his UK Citizenship he would come right out and say it to stop any other chatter going on (as it has). He hasn't, one of his aides said that he did but Abhisit has only said that he is Thai and was classified as a foreign student whilst at Eton and Oxford. Well, guess what, if your main place of residence is outside of Britain (even BRITISH students living abroad as their main residence are of the same status) you qualify as a foreign student even if you are a UK citizen so that didn't prove anything.

Even if the ICC do not accept this case Amsterdam has done what he set out to do - Publicise the White Paper.

There's nothing "interesting" about it. Nobody (who isn't a red shirt) really gives a toss! UK Citizen or not, it is not a game changer, as much as Amsterdam and the red shirts like to make a lot of noise that it is.

And as for the "white paper", there's much more comparable white paper at your local Tesco's available for a fraction of the price. It's a bit smoother on the arse too.

20 pages of "discussion". No, you're right, "nobody (who isn't a red shirt) really gives a toss".

The magic of PR.

Ahem.

[Mosha]

Where did the native Thai people come from in the first instance

China

I thought we all came from Africa.

[mca]

There's nothing "interesting" about it. Nobody (who isn't a red shirt) really gives a toss! UK Citizen or not, it is not a game changer, as much as Amsterdam and the red shirts like to make a lot of noise that it is.

Unless the scenario occurred that the PM never renounced his British citizenship and Thai law stated that a PM must be a Thai citizen only. There's a big can of worms!

[bkkjames]

What's next: Jataporn is gonna try to get the PM impeached for being a supporter of Newcastle United? <deleted> give it a rest and come up with a few policy ideas for your followers and see you at the next election (may or march).

[Buchholz]

There's nothing "interesting" about it. Nobody (who isn't a red shirt) really gives a toss! UK Citizen or not, it is not a game changer, as much as Amsterdam and the red shirts like to make a lot of noise that it is.

And as for the "white paper", there's much more comparable white paper at your local Tesco's available for a fraction of the price. It's a bit smoother on the arse too.

20 pages of "discussion". No, you're right, "nobody (who isn't a red shirt) really gives a toss".

The magic of PR.

Ahem.

and amply supplemented by 18 pages of off-topic discussion of events going back four years.

[termad]

Probably not worth getting too into this but I know many Thais with dual passports. Look at almost any Thai child where the father is a westerner. The US also allows for dual passports BUT if you actually read the oath taken for US citizenship you will see you must renounce any foreign allegiance. This is common in many countries but it is more of a technicality and something I have never heard being enforced as (at least in the US) they know there are convenient reasons to have two passports. But I also know in the US you cannot be granted a secret level clearance working with the government if you have dual citizenship.

The real point here is that Abhisit is the PM and if he still has a valid UK passport ... nobody is going to give a crap as his allegiance to Thailand is not going to be questioned. I personally would think he doesn't have a "valid" UK passport anymore but given the history of Thailand and what happens to its PMs then if I were him I would certainly hold on to mine from my days of living there

"I personally would think he doesn't have a "valid" UK passport anymore"

Did he ever have a UK passport?

He was born on Newcastle, England and he holds a British birth certificate as produced in the Thai parliament a few days ago. If he never held a British passport how did he travel in his younger years i.e. did his wealthy parents never take holidays or trips outside of the U.K.?

Was he issued with a Thai passport in U.K. without ever having been in Thailand? Unlikely.

Also,when accused in the past of never having completed Thai Military service his reply was he was excused Military service because he gave a series of Law lectures to Thai troops. (Obviously they must have been Special Forces to receive such dangerous knowledge).

Edited February 22, 2011 by termad

[whybother]

He was born on Newcastle, England and he holds a British birth certificate. If he never held a British passport how did he travel in his younger years i.e. did his wealthy parents never take holidays or trips outside of the U.K.? Was he issued with a Thai passport in U.K. without ever having been in Thailand? Unlikely.

Unlikely?? I would say very likely.

I know plenty of people (not from Thailand) who have had kids here and got a passport through their embassies in Thailand.

It would have been just as easy for Abhisit's parents (probably easier) to get a Thai passport for him than to get a British passport.

edit: what does giving law lectures have to do with him being a British citizen or having a British passport?

Edited February 22, 2011 by whybother

[scorecard]

Where did the native Thai people come from in the first instance

China

I thought we all came from Africa.

Or perhaps we should be asking "Where did the Chinese people come from?"

[siampolee]

Truth of the matter is that both Amsterdam and Thaksin are somewhat miffed they can't get British passports.

Thaksin for his passport and nationality collection.

Amsterdam for his self satisfaction and ego boosting.

[termad]

He was born on Newcastle, England and he holds a British birth certificate. If he never held a British passport how did he travel in his younger years i.e. did his wealthy parents never take holidays or trips outside of the U.K.? Was he issued with a Thai passport in U.K. without ever having been in Thailand? Unlikely.

Unlikely?? I would say very likely.

I know plenty of people (not from Thailand) who have had kids here and got a passport through their embassies in Thailand.

It would have been just as easy for Abhisit's parents (probably easier) to get a Thai passport for him than to get a British passport.

edit: what does giving law lectures have to do with him being a British citizen or having a British passport?

what does giving law lectures have to do with him being a British citizen or having a British passport?

If he did not do his Thai military service it has everything to do with his being a Thai citizen.

It would have been just as easy for Abhisit's parents (probably easier) to get a Thai passport for him than to get a British passport.

As I understand it both his parents worked for years as surgeons in the U.K. and as such would have had no problem in getting U.K. passports - maybe they did.

[whybother]

what does giving law lectures have to do with him being a British citizen or having a British passport?

If he did not do his Thai military service it has everything to do with his being a Thai citizen.

There is no question about his Thai citizenship.

It would have been just as easy for Abhisit's parents (probably easier) to get a Thai passport for him than to get a British passport.

As I understand it both his parents worked for years as surgeons in the U.K. and as such would have had no problem in getting U.K. passports - maybe they did.

Maybe they did get a UK passport for him ... which is a lot different than "Was he issued with a Thai passport in U.K. without ever having been in Thailand? Unlikely."

Do you even know when he first came to Thailand?

Edited February 22, 2011 by whybother