Thai PM Abhisit Says He May Be British

[random]

You seem to be "constitutionally unaware" that the UK doesn't have a constitution and even the head of state can be foreign born.

Actually the England does have a "consitution" its called the Magna Carta and been around a whole lot longer than the "consitution" in the Land "O" Free

Britain does NOT have a WRITTEN constitution, we work on the principle of statutes and precedence. The closest we have to a written constitution is the Human Rights Act.

[Ricardo]

You seem to be "constitutionally unaware" that the UK doesn't have a constitution and even the head of state can be foreign born.

Actually the England does have a "consitution" its called the Magna Carta and been around a whole lot longer than the "consitution" in the Land "O" Free

Britain does NOT have a WRITTEN constitution, we work on the principle of statutes and precedence. The closest we have to a written constitution is the Human Rights Act.

Correct, the Magna Carta was just a private deal between the then King & the powerful Lords/Barons, I guess a kind of English Amartya ? It said nothing about rights for us villains & serfs, as we didn't have any, but from time to time we did have things like the Peasants' Revolt, led by Wat Tyler, who lost his head over the affair ! Deja vue, anybody ?

[whybother]

The Mirror has hysterically posted a picture of Abhisit's father by mistake in its online edition.

http://www.mirror.co...15875-22951732/

It also says that Abhisit has held a British passport in the past but hasn't renewed it. This is what I expect to come out. Abhisit's denials have been extremely unconvincing all along and it defies belief that he didn't sensibly take advantage of his British birthright and use a British passport during his many years at school and university in the UK. It is certainly unbelievable that he didn't know he was British, even in the unlikely event The Mirror is wrong and he never had a British passport.

I think it would have been better to admit when this first came up that he was a Thai-British dual national and that neither the Nationality Act nor the constitution prevent that. He might at least have done a service for his fellow Thai dual nationals around the world, instead of being furtive about it and earlier hypocritically trying to claim that Thaksin had lost his right to Thai nationality due to naturalization as an alien. Alternatively, if he really thought it a conflict of interests to hold public office as a dual national, he should have renounced his British citizenship before he first became an MP, rather than just not renewing his British passport but keeping his British citizenship in his back pocket. His "plausible denial" tactic has not been effective at all as the story unravels piece by piece. A very disappointing performance that reflects badly either on his honesty or his intelligence. BTW the way I am not a Thaksin or red shirt supporter.

So, the only place that says Abhisit had a British passport can't even get his picture right. That makes it believable doesn't it !!

Given that Amsterdam hasn't said that Abhisit had a British passport, I would be inclined to believe that he didn't. If Amsterdam said that Abhisit did have a British passport I would be even more inclined to believe that he didn't.

[swerver]

so he was born and educated in england. He then moved to Thailand wouldn't that make him more British than Thai? Maybe the redshirts are just a lettle upset that a farang is in charge of the country.

I'm with you, its the farang syndrome.

So the bullshit about the passport is still on the forum.

So let’s throw one more monkey wrench into the gears. Called: SUBJECTS.

There are lots of British Passports in circulation that show in the box instead of CITIZEN it shows Subject.

Get the idea how undemocratic passports are by grading human beings like porkers or sheep for slaughter. But in the end citizen or subject they are all nothing but cannon fodder for the ruling elite who carry a different color passport and are permitted to come in through the executive immigration entrance at airports of entry.

If it wasn’t for Thai immigration insisting to have a passport to place their chops in, I wouldn’t want to have a passport.

Thaksin is a good example of passport bullshit. Thailand takes the Thai passport he had away from him, no problem, he just did fly to some banana republic and they issued him a passport.

No different when working for a major conglomerate and this conglomerate needs your expertise to do a job at a client in another country but that country has a hard on about your passport which is not from the major conglomerate’s country, so the major conglomerate gets you a passport from his country and off you go and everybody is dumb and happy. Then when you make the mistake not to renew the country of your birth’s passport and years later you want it back, you will find yourself shit out of luck. So you land up with a passport from a country of which you are not a citizens or subject.

My suggestion to Abhisit, forget the passport bullshit and devote your time to running the Thai government, and for the Red Shirts to go a take a flying F***.

[Deeral]

it sums up the level of debate here that someone who has criticised Abhisit has had to add the coda that they are not a Thaksin "supporter"

[hanuman1]

it sums up the level of debate here that someone who has criticised Abhisit has had to add the coda that they are not a Thaksin "supporter"

It's been like that for a long time. That's why you don't see posters who try to put forward a balanced view lasting long in the forum. They soon see the futility of debating with bigots. The funny thing is, once these posters realize they're wasting their time and leave, the bigots think they've gone because they 'lost' the 'argument'.

Oh well, at least TVF keeps these particular idiots off the streets.

[TAWP]

it sums up the level of debate here that someone who has criticised Abhisit has had to add the coda that they are not a Thaksin "supporter"

It's been like that for a long time. That's why you don't see posters who try to put forward a balanced view lasting long in the forum. They soon see the futility of debating with bigots. The funny thing is, once these posters realize they're wasting their time and leave, the bigots think they've gone because they 'lost' the 'argument'.

Oh well, at least TVF keeps these particular idiots off the streets.

If posters from the red is not the ones putting forward a balanced view, since they don't last long, atleast it is an admission as to where your posts land.

[hanuman1]

it sums up the level of debate here that someone who has criticised Abhisit has had to add the coda that they are not a Thaksin "supporter"

It's been like that for a long time. That's why you don't see posters who try to put forward a balanced view lasting long in the forum. They soon see the futility of debating with bigots. The funny thing is, once these posters realize they're wasting their time and leave, the bigots think they've gone because they 'lost' the 'argument'.

Oh well, at least TVF keeps these particular idiots off the streets.

If posters from the red is not the ones putting forward a balanced view, since they don't last long, atleast it is an admission as to where your posts land.

Thank you for illustrating my point far more eloquently than I ever could. Do carry on.

[Siam Simon]

it sums up the level of debate here that someone who has criticised Abhisit has had to add the coda that they are not a Thaksin "supporter"

It's been like that for a long time. That's why you don't see posters who try to put forward a balanced view lasting long in the forum. They soon see the futility of debating with bigots. The funny thing is, once these posters realize they're wasting their time and leave, the bigots think they've gone because they 'lost' the 'argument'.

Oh well, at least TVF keeps these particular idiots off the streets.

If posters from the red is not the ones putting forward a balanced view, since they don't last long, atleast it is an admission as to where your posts land.

Thank you for illustrating my point far more eloquently than I ever could. Do carry on.

It is soooo wearing. I just want to try to get to the bottom of things. But there are so many posters (from both sides) who are obsessed with hammering a political agenda.

[Siam Simon]

it sums up the level of debate here that someone who has criticised Abhisit has had to add the coda that they are not a Thaksin "supporter"

I think the word you were looking for is 'paranoia'. I consider myself to be an Abhisit supporter, but if his government and/or it's backers step out of line (particularly on my pet issue of human rights abuses) I will call foul. That seems to make me a red shirt/red-leaning amongst the right wing extremists on TV forum.

[mca]

In my humble opinion it's quite detrimental to the forum when the ghost of Thaksin or one of his Fraggle Rock crew is raised by comparison in a completely unrelated topic about the current government or whatever rather than let the situation stand on it's own merits and then the thread deteriorates into yet another banal " reds vs government" back and forth.

It's a bit like me being before the judge for murder and my only defense is " Well David Berkowitz killed 6 people and I only killed 1"

[Siam Simon]

In my humble opinion it's quite detrimental to the forum when the ghost of Thaksin or one of his Fraggle Rock crew is raised by comparison in a completely unrelated topic about the current government or whatever rather than let the situation stand on it's own merits and then the thread deteriorates into yet another banal " reds vs government" back and forth.

It's a bit like me being before the judge for murder and my only defense is " Well David Berkowitz killed 6 people and I only killed 1"

Yes, it's like we can't discuss issues on their own merits. It's an awful point of reference: "Yeah but it'd be worse if he were in charge". Well, he isn't, much as he'd like to be. The current lot are, and they have to stick their hands up for good and bad. And there are both. Responsibility, and all that.

[Arkady]

So, the only place that says Abhisit had a British passport can't even get his picture right. That makes it believable doesn't it !!

Given that Amsterdam hasn't said that Abhisit had a British passport, I would be inclined to believe that he didn't. If Amsterdam said that Abhisit did have a British passport I would be even more inclined to believe that he didn't.

I suspect that he has had a British passport in the past, just because it would have been an eminently sensible thing for some one going to school and university in the UK and coming from a country whose nationals need visas to go to the UK. I am not sure where Amsterdam could have looked for evidence that he had had a passport. I am sure the UKBA will not let outsiders inspect their files on passport issuance. Airlines are unlikely to have stored information about passenger lists from years ago. I don't think the Oxford University register or the Eton's old boys list records the nationality of students. UK driving licences don't record nationality. Banks don't ask for proof of nationality when opening an account. The UK doesn't have a system of demanding photocopies of passports for everything people do like Thailand and there is no national ID card. I think Amsterdam would have to either get into the UKBA's records, break into Abhisit's house or cosy up to friends or family members who travelled with him when he was a student. Not that easy but Jathuporn says he has already cracked it and will show evidence in the no confidence debate, although I am not holding my breath.

Edited March 1, 2011 by Arkady

[TAWP]

I suspect that he has had a British passport in the past, just because it would have been an eminently sensible thing for some one going to school and university in the UK and coming from a country whose nationals need visas to go to the UK.

If he had one he wouldn't have had to get VISA's, pay the overseas-fee etc. Which he reportedly did. And no-one has found anything to even question that.

Edited March 1, 2011 by TAWP

[Siam Simon]

I suspect that he has had a British passport in the past, just because it would have been an eminently sensible thing for some one going to school and university in the UK and coming from a country whose nationals need visas to go to the UK.

If he had one he wouldn't have had to get VISA's, pay the overseas-fee etc. Which he reportedly did. And no-one has found anything to even question that.

Whether or not he ever possessed a British passport, he was entitled to one, so getting foreign visas has been choice, not necessity. The same goes with overseas student fees. My understanding is that he used visas when he returned to live in Thailand. We still don't know on what basis he travelled when resident in the UK, and if he prevaricates like he did over the nationality issue we won't for some time.

Edited March 1, 2011 by Siam Simon

[Nisa]

I suspect that he has had a British passport in the past, just because it would have been an eminently sensible thing for some one going to school and university in the UK and coming from a country whose nationals need visas to go to the UK.

If he had one he wouldn't have had to get VISA's, pay the overseas-fee etc. Which he reportedly did. And no-one has found anything to even question that.

Whether or not he ever possessed a British passport, he was entitled to one, so getting foreign visas has been choice, not necessity. The same goes with overseas student fees. My understanding is that he used visas when he returned to live in Thailand. We still don't know on what basis he travelled when resident in the UK, and if he prevaricates like he did over the nationality issue we won't for some time.

IF he never used his British citizenship and/or never knew he had it then a court could very likely rule he is not a British citizen in terms of applying any consequential laws regarding his Citizenship.

Consider if the US wanted to charge a Thai citizen for sex crimes they are committing in Thailand .. they could simply grant this person US Citizenship and then charge them under US laws as they do US citizens that commit sex crimes over seas. (just an example -- not getting into the US laws regarding sex tourism)

Clearly he is a Thai Citizen and has acted as a Thai Citizen solely (his claims) his entire life. Just because a foreign nation considers him to be a citizen doesn't necessarily mean sh@t if he doesn't recognize it. A person cannot be expected to check with each country they visit or live to see if that nation has them a citizen. According to him he was simply born there but lived his entire life as a Thai citizen and didn't gain any benefit or use the British citizenship even though it would have made it extremely less costly to go to school as well as travel.

I believe there is a saying in the legal community that makes many issues like this simple and it goes something like .... If it walks, talks and acts like a duck then it is a duck.

[hyperdimension]

Related topic:

Thailand's PM Abhisit Clarifies British Nationality

Follow this link:

Why did you have to create a new thread? You could have simply put the content of that article in your post that I'm now replying to in this thread.