nurofiend Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 rubl, show me one regular on this forum who would argue that every red shirt at the protest in 2010 was a peaceful protester...show me just one... or else stop with the 'peaceful protesters' baloney, please Good, then we all agree that what the army cleaned up was rioters, right? Maybe that's why the soldiers got flowers by the public for doing it... yeah, well done....very smart stuff there mate hopefully you patted yourself on the shoulder and laid back in your seat after posting that comment, if not... you should have done, amazing. it was an A+ retort to what i said. I work at Ratchaprasong and went there every day until end April. I heard the loudspeakers at full blast egging the crowd on, there was nothing peaceful about what I saw and heard My comment about rioters was based on my own daily observations your "Good, then we all agree that what the army cleaned up was rioters, right?" comment was a condescendingly smart alec way of changing completely what i was actually saying to suit your own agenda's it's this kind of child like responses and petty word twisting that we see from posters on this forum that over-shadows' peoples personality's to the point of people viewing them as not actually having the ability within them to have an adult debate on issues.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 how about this, i'll go talk to them about it when you decide to butt out and let others speak for themselves when they're in discussion.... deal? i thought not. rubl blatantly put 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists' in quotations to suggest that people who had a problem with the crackdown are of the opinion that they were all peaceful protesters...so show me one regular on here who claims such a thing! some of ye are all so black and white about things it's verging on the rrrrrrridiculous i'm interested in what rubl has to say, since that's who i was asking... thanks Rubl regularly (blatantly) uses the reference to the "Peaceful protesters. Not terrorists" sign when red shirts suggest just that. It's not the "regular"s on here who are claiming such things. It's the red shirts themselves. If you can point me to one place where one of the red shirt leaders has accepted that they (or even some of them) were violent and/or armed, that sign will lose some of it's relevance. Until then, the "Peaceful protesters. Not terrorists" sign will continue to be referred to by many people, including rubl. oh get out of it... are you saying the person/people holding this sign were terrorists and not peaceful protesters?? again we have the tar a massive amount of people with the one brush attitude that we are so used to seeing on this forum by most of ye. The sign was tied up on the stage for the whole time that they were at Ratchaprasong. Didn't you see it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lannarebirth Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 how about this, i'll go talk to them about it when you decide to butt out and let others speak for themselves when they're in discussion.... deal? i thought not. rubl blatantly put 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists' in quotations to suggest that people who had a problem with the crackdown are of the opinion that they were all peaceful protesters...so show me one regular on here who claims such a thing! some of ye are all so black and white about things it's verging on the rrrrrrridiculous i'm interested in what rubl has to say, since that's who i was asking... thanks Rubl regularly (blatantly) uses the reference to the "Peaceful protesters. Not terrorists" sign when red shirts suggest just that. It's not the "regular"s on here who are claiming such things. It's the red shirts themselves. If you can point me to one place where one of the red shirt leaders has accepted that they (or even some of them) were violent and/or armed, that sign will lose some of it's relevance. Until then, the "Peaceful protesters. Not terrorists" sign will continue to be referred to by many people, including rubl. oh get out of it... are you saying the person/people holding this sign were terrorists and not peaceful protesters?? again we have the tar a massive amount of people with the one brush attitude that we are so used to seeing on this forum by most of ye. The sign was tied up on the stage for the whole time that they were at Ratchaprasong. Didn't you see it? In English, for the benefit of the foreign media only. It's perception management, which is what Thaksin pays his PR firms for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 (edited) rubl, show me one regular on this forum who would argue that every red shirt at the protest in 2010 was a peaceful protester...show me just one... or else stop with the 'peaceful protesters' baloney, please "Peaceful Protesters. Not Terrorists". It was a red shirt sign. Go and talk to them about it. how about this, i'll go talk to them about it when you decide to butt out and let others speak for themselves when they're in discussion.... deal? i thought not. rubl blatantly put 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists' in quotations to suggest that people who had a problem with the crackdown are of the opinion that they were all peaceful protesters...so show me one regular on here who claims such a thing! some of ye are all so black and white about things it's verging on the rrrrrrridiculous i'm interested in what rubl has to say, since that's who i was asking... thanks I doubt you're really interested in what I have to say. Let's just suggest that some red-shirts put this large banner "peaceful protesters, not terrorists' prominently behind the main stage because obviously that looked 'cool', just like seeing (and hearing) k. Jatuporn talk about "We fight till the last drop of our blood" wearing a T-shirt with the image of Gandhi. Very 'cool'. Nothing personal and all that, but may I dust off one of my better curses for you? May you go to the lowest level of Hell, be bound to a stake next to Tantalus and forced to listen to PTV broadcasts 24 x 7 at full blast sound level with the volume knob just out of reach. Edited November 19, 2011 by rubl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulBax Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 The fact of the matter is that the charges which never seem to be defined in these types of print from the Nation, were ones that were committed by many others on both sides of politics. Only 4 out of the 5 charges were proven by a court directed by Mr T's opposing party. Corruption appears endemic in a form that westerners can't tolerate or understand in most parts of Asia. But most parts of Asia had good teachers from Colonial times. "were committed by many others on both sides of politics" - which other politicians approved their wife's land purchase from a government entity? "Only 4 out of the 5 charges were proven by a court" - and that's not enough? "by a court directed by Mr T's opposing party" - It was Mr T's party in power when the court made their decision. So often we hear this, why don't people seem to remember, it was Thaksin's PPP-led coalition-government in-power, and his relative former-PM Somchai as Prime Minister, in 2008 ? So if the courts are influenced by the government, as is often claimed, why don't they want to remember this ? It's only a few years ago, for heavens sake ! somebody told the courts to "deal with the then government! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorecard Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 (edited) The fact of the matter is that the charges which never seem to be defined in these types of print from the Nation, were ones that were committed by many others on both sides of politics. Only 4 out of the 5 charges were proven by a court directed by Mr T's opposing party. Corruption appears endemic in a form that westerners can't tolerate or understand in most parts of Asia. But most parts of Asia had good teachers from Colonial times. "were committed by many others on both sides of politics" - which other politicians approved their wife's land purchase from a government entity? "Only 4 out of the 5 charges were proven by a court" - and that's not enough? "by a court directed by Mr T's opposing party" - It was Mr T's party in power when the court made their decision. "Only 4 out of the 5 charges were proven by a court" - and that's not enough? Plus something like 11 more serious cases against T currently stalled in the courts. Edited November 19, 2011 by scorecard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulBax Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 rubl, show me one regular on this forum who would argue that every red shirt at the protest in 2010 was a peaceful protester...show me just one... or else stop with the 'peaceful protesters' baloney, please "Peaceful Protesters. Not Terrorists". It was a red shirt sign. Go and talk to them about it. how about this, i'll go talk to them about it when you decide to butt out and let others speak for themselves when they're in discussion.... deal? i thought not. rubl blatantly put 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists' in quotations to suggest that people who had a problem with the crackdown are of the opinion that they were all peaceful protesters...so show me one regular on here who claims such a thing! some of ye are all so black and white about things it's verging on the rrrrrrridiculous i'm interested in what rubl has to say, since that's who i was asking... thanks I doubt you're really interested in what I have to say. Let's just suggest that some red-shirts put this large banner "peaceful protesters, not terrorists' prominently behind the main stage because obviously that looked 'cool', just like seeing (and hearing) k. Jatuporn talk about "We fight till the last drop of our blood" wearing a T-shirt with the image of Gandhi. Very 'cool'. Nothing personal and all that, but may I dust off one of my better curses for you? May you go to the lowest level of Hell, be bound to a stake next to Tantalus and forced to listen to PTV broadcasts 24 x 7 at full blast sound level with the volume knob just out of reach. umm let me see! my party have won the last 5 elections but the Establishment will never accept our representatives! For me that is reason to mobilise! possibly violently. one thing that you keep conveniently forgetting is that they had the peoples mandate! Whose mandate do the Amarts and military have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 You seem to know very little of this! if your wife is Thai and buys land you have to sign or she cant buy it! All bids were sealed and the winning bid overvalued the land at the time. Who says so? The other bidders! The only screaming was buy people using any excuse they could to get at Thaksin. The bidding process was found to be legal and above board. There were two supreme court rulings from before Thaksin's tenure that ruled the relevant agency independent from government! If the bidding process was legal where is the corruption? The so called corruption is a man signing a paper giving his wife permission to buy a piece of land, as required by Thai law, where the bidding process was ruled legal! This is not an attempt to whitewash Thaksin but an example of how the law was circumvented and used retrospectively to get him and applies only to this case. Whether he is guilty or not of other things is a subjective issue. Most people scream for his head knowing very little about him or his time in government! To me it seems that the vast majority parked your brains at the airport when you came here! You cannot apply western values to Thailand and this is your biggest mistake. You think the news papers etc tell the truth when the do not by a long way! Read the news from outside of Thailand and you may actually get educated! Not as easy as it sounds because anything truthful about this country is usually banned! The law says that he had to sign for his wife's purchase. The law also found that as PM, they aren't allowed to be involved in buying state property. What "retrospective" (retroactive?) law was used? He was found guilty using a 1997 law. They found that he was the "de facto" supervisor of the fund that his wife bought the land from. As PM, he should have kept clear of any transactions related to the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparebox2 Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 You seem to know very little of this! if your wife is Thai and buys land you have to sign or she cant buy it! All bids were sealed and the winning bid overvalued the land at the time. Who says so? The other bidders! The only screaming was buy people using any excuse they could to get at Thaksin. The bidding process was found to be legal and above board. There were two supreme court rulings from before Thaksin's tenure that ruled the relevant agency independent from government! If the bidding process was legal where is the corruption? The so called corruption is a man signing a paper giving his wife permission to buy a piece of land, as required by Thai law, where the bidding process was ruled legal! This is not an attempt to whitewash Thaksin but an example of how the law was circumvented and used retrospectively to get him and applies only to this case. Whether he is guilty or not of other things is a subjective issue. Most people scream for his head knowing very little about him or his time in government! To me it seems that the vast majority parked your brains at the airport when you came here! You cannot apply western values to Thailand and this is your biggest mistake. You think the news papers etc tell the truth when the do not by a long way! Read the news from outside of Thailand and you may actually get educated! Not as easy as it sounds because anything truthful about this country is usually banned! The law says that he had to sign for his wife's purchase. The law also found that as PM, they aren't allowed to be involved in buying state property. What "retrospective" (retroactive?) law was used? He was found guilty using a 1997 law. They found that he was the "de facto" supervisor of the fund that his wife bought the land from. As PM, he should have kept clear of any transactions related to the government. The purchase was LATER (after the sentence passed) deemed void, and money returned. Hence no purchase = no breaking of law. This is what mark is afraid about, if appreal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorecard Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Finally, the Thai government admits that corruption is accepted as a state policy! Everybody knew this already of course, but now it's official... In a way not surprising. This week I had dinner with some old Thai colleagues I worked with 10 years ago. They are all logical rational people and they all speak advanced English. They quickly started discussing the floods and current politics. They all know that I have been following Thai politics for 30 plus years, one asked me to give my definition of Thai politics. My answer was that many parties are not much more than get rich pyramid schemes, and most members are incapable immoral scaly history folks. "Hey wanna join a scheme to get rich quick? Pay your deposit, go through the election nuisance, but don't worry there's a backer (the head of the pyramid scheme) who will finance whatever is needed to ensure the gang wins. Then you start to get your chance to get rich. No real work involved." My colleagues all said 'great definition - exactly right'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 umm let me see! my party have won the last 5 elections but the Establishment will never accept our representatives! For me that is reason to mobilise! possibly violently. one thing that you keep conveniently forgetting is that they had the peoples mandate! Whose mandate do the Amarts and military have? They had no such "mandate". They had cobbled together coalitions in all but one of the elections prior to the last one (In 2005 they bought the coalition before the election). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 The purchase was LATER (after the sentence passed) deemed void, and money returned. Hence no purchase = no breaking of law. This is what mark is afraid about, if appreal. Troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 how about this, i'll go talk to them about it when you decide to butt out and let others speak for themselves when they're in discussion.... deal? i thought not. rubl blatantly put 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists' in quotations to suggest that people who had a problem with the crackdown are of the opinion that they were all peaceful protesters...so show me one regular on here who claims such a thing! some of ye are all so black and white about things it's verging on the rrrrrrridiculous i'm interested in what rubl has to say, since that's who i was asking... thanks I doubt you're really interested in what I have to say. Let's just suggest that some red-shirts put this large banner "peaceful protesters, not terrorists' prominently behind the main stage because obviously that looked 'cool', just like seeing (and hearing) k. Jatuporn talk about "We fight till the last drop of our blood" wearing a T-shirt with the image of Gandhi. Very 'cool'. Nothing personal and all that, but may I dust off one of my better curses for you? May you go to the lowest level of Hell, be bound to a stake next to Tantalus and forced to listen to PTV broadcasts 24 x 7 at full blast sound level with the volume knob just out of reach. umm let me see! my party have won the last 5 elections but the Establishment will never accept our representatives! For me that is reason to mobilise! possibly violently. one thing that you keep conveniently forgetting is that they had the peoples mandate! Whose mandate do the Amarts and military have? My party, our representatives? Well, well, welcome to this forum k. Thaksin. Terribly sorry to disturb you with all this nonsense about a pardon. I'm aware you already went on record with Reuters saying you know nothing about it, just like little sister. Don't let all this disturb you, just relax in Dubai with the money you 'earned' in Thailand. There's enough cannon fodder here to do your dirty work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 The purchase was LATER (after the sentence passed) deemed void, and money returned. Hence no purchase = no breaking of law. This is what mark is afraid about, if appreal. When a burglar breaks into your house and steals some goods, is caught, charged, jumps bail, convicted, following returns all he stole, will he be pardoned, since there was 'no breaking of the law' ? If you answer yes, I will call on you if ever I find the need for a character witness in my defence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulBax Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 You seem to know very little of this! if your wife is Thai and buys land you have to sign or she cant buy it! All bids were sealed and the winning bid overvalued the land at the time. Who says so? The other bidders! The only screaming was buy people using any excuse they could to get at Thaksin. The bidding process was found to be legal and above board. There were two supreme court rulings from before Thaksin's tenure that ruled the relevant agency independent from government! If the bidding process was legal where is the corruption? The so called corruption is a man signing a paper giving his wife permission to buy a piece of land, as required by Thai law, where the bidding process was ruled legal! This is not an attempt to whitewash Thaksin but an example of how the law was circumvented and used retrospectively to get him and applies only to this case. Whether he is guilty or not of other things is a subjective issue. Most people scream for his head knowing very little about him or his time in government! To me it seems that the vast majority parked your brains at the airport when you came here! You cannot apply western values to Thailand and this is your biggest mistake. You think the news papers etc tell the truth when the do not by a long way! Read the news from outside of Thailand and you may actually get educated! Not as easy as it sounds because anything truthful about this country is usually banned! The law says that he had to sign for his wife's purchase. The law also found that as PM, they aren't allowed to be involved in buying state property. What "retrospective" (retroactive?) law was used? He was found guilty using a 1997 law. They found that he was the "de facto" supervisor of the fund that his wife bought the land from. As PM, he should have kept clear of any transactions related to the government. let me say it in a way as to make it clear to you! he was not involved in any way other than to ok his then wife's purchase! Let me also state that a lower court overturned two decisions by the highest court in the land! namely that the agency was independent from government! if the same court ruled that the deal was above board then there seems to be a problem! if that too difficult to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 how about this, i'll go talk to them about it when you decide to butt out and let others speak for themselves when they're in discussion.... deal? i thought not. rubl blatantly put 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists' in quotations to suggest that people who had a problem with the crackdown are of the opinion that they were all peaceful protesters...so show me one regular on here who claims such a thing! some of ye are all so black and white about things it's verging on the rrrrrrridiculous i'm interested in what rubl has to say, since that's who i was asking... thanks Rubl regularly (blatantly) uses the reference to the "Peaceful protesters. Not terrorists" sign when red shirts suggest just that. It's not the "regular"s on here who are claiming such things. It's the red shirts themselves. If you can point me to one place where one of the red shirt leaders has accepted that they (or even some of them) were violent and/or armed, that sign will lose some of it's relevance. Until then, the "Peaceful protesters. Not terrorists" sign will continue to be referred to by many people, including rubl. oh get out of it... are you saying the person/people holding this sign were terrorists and not peaceful protesters?? again we have the tar a massive amount of people with the one brush attitude that we are so used to seeing on this forum by most of ye. The sign was tied up on the stage for the whole time that they were at Ratchaprasong. Didn't you see it? again, that has nothing to do with the original point i was making...... and the point i'm now making - re second sentence it seems you think they were mainly terrorist's and violent protesters?! - rhetorical... i really have no interest in discussing this with you whybother trying to have any debate with some people here, is the conclusion i've come to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lannarebirth Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 You seem to know very little of this! if your wife is Thai and buys land you have to sign or she cant buy it! All bids were sealed and the winning bid overvalued the land at the time. Who says so? The other bidders! The only screaming was buy people using any excuse they could to get at Thaksin. The bidding process was found to be legal and above board. There were two supreme court rulings from before Thaksin's tenure that ruled the relevant agency independent from government! If the bidding process was legal where is the corruption? The so called corruption is a man signing a paper giving his wife permission to buy a piece of land, as required by Thai law, where the bidding process was ruled legal! This is not an attempt to whitewash Thaksin but an example of how the law was circumvented and used retrospectively to get him and applies only to this case. Whether he is guilty or not of other things is a subjective issue. Most people scream for his head knowing very little about him or his time in government! To me it seems that the vast majority parked your brains at the airport when you came here! You cannot apply western values to Thailand and this is your biggest mistake. You think the news papers etc tell the truth when the do not by a long way! Read the news from outside of Thailand and you may actually get educated! Not as easy as it sounds because anything truthful about this country is usually banned! The law says that he had to sign for his wife's purchase. The law also found that as PM, they aren't allowed to be involved in buying state property. What "retrospective" (retroactive?) law was used? He was found guilty using a 1997 law. They found that he was the "de facto" supervisor of the fund that his wife bought the land from. As PM, he should have kept clear of any transactions related to the government. let me say it in a way as to make it clear to you! he was not involved in any way other than to ok his then wife's purchase! Let me also state that a lower court overturned two decisions by the highest court in the land! namely that the agency was independent from government! if the same court ruled that the deal was above board then there seems to be a problem! if that too difficult to understand? I've no point of view on this thread but I do have a question related to your last reply. How does a lower court overturn the decisions of a higher court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 oh get out of it... are you saying the person/people holding this sign were terrorists and not peaceful protesters?? again we have the tar a massive amount of people with the one brush attitude that we are so used to seeing on this forum by most of ye. The sign was tied up on the stage for the whole time that they were at Ratchaprasong. Didn't you see it? again, that has nothing to do with the original point i was making...... and the point i'm now making - re second sentence it seems you think they were mainly terrorist's and violent protesters?! - rhetorical... i really have no interest in discussing this with you whybother trying to have any debate with some people here, is the conclusion i've come to. When a sign is used at a main stage where all the leaders spoke and most of the followers cheered, and that there has never been anything from any of the leaders, or many of the supporters, that the red shirts were anything but peaceful, it is something that will continue to be brought up. It obviously doesn't apply to all of them, but that doesn't mean it can be ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 let me say it in a way as to make it clear to you! he was not involved in any way other than to ok his then wife's purchase! Let me also state that a lower court overturned two decisions by the highest court in the land! namely that the agency was independent from government! if the same court ruled that the deal was above board then there seems to be a problem! if that too difficult to understand? Let me say it in a way as to make it clear to you! He shouldn't have been involved at all. And in relation to Lannarebirth's question. A lower court can not overturn a higher court's decision. The higher the court, the more relevant the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulBax Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 You seem to know very little of this! if your wife is Thai and buys land you have to sign or she cant buy it! All bids were sealed and the winning bid overvalued the land at the time. Who says so? The other bidders! The only screaming was buy people using any excuse they could to get at Thaksin. The bidding process was found to be legal and above board. There were two supreme court rulings from before Thaksin's tenure that ruled the relevant agency independent from government! If the bidding process was legal where is the corruption? The so called corruption is a man signing a paper giving his wife permission to buy a piece of land, as required by Thai law, where the bidding process was ruled legal! This is not an attempt to whitewash Thaksin but an example of how the law was circumvented and used retrospectively to get him and applies only to this case. Whether he is guilty or not of other things is a subjective issue. Most people scream for his head knowing very little about him or his time in government! To me it seems that the vast majority parked your brains at the airport when you came here! You cannot apply western values to Thailand and this is your biggest mistake. You think the news papers etc tell the truth when the do not by a long way! Read the news from outside of Thailand and you may actually get educated! Not as easy as it sounds because anything truthful about this country is usually banned! The law says that he had to sign for his wife's purchase. The law also found that as PM, they aren't allowed to be involved in buying state property. What "retrospective" (retroactive?) law was used? He was found guilty using a 1997 law. They found that he was the "de facto" supervisor of the fund that his wife bought the land from. As PM, he should have kept clear of any transactions related to the government. let me say it in a way as to make it clear to you! he was not involved in any way other than to ok his then wife's purchase! Let me also state that a lower court overturned two decisions by the highest court in the land! namely that the agency was independent from government! if the same court ruled that the deal was above board then there seems to be a problem! if that too difficult to understand? I've no point of view on this thread but I do have a question related to your last reply. How does a lower court overturn the decisions of a higher court? that is a problem that has never been addressed! perhaps we should ask the military installed judges how they can do that and expect people to believe that this case was above board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 "Peaceful Protesters. Not Terrorists". It was a red shirt sign. Go and talk to them about it. how about this, i'll go talk to them about it when you decide to butt out and let others speak for themselves when they're in discussion.... deal? i thought not. rubl blatantly put 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists' in quotations to suggest that people who had a problem with the crackdown are of the opinion that they were all peaceful protesters...so show me one regular on here who claims such a thing! some of ye are all so black and white about things it's verging on the rrrrrrridiculous i'm interested in what rubl has to say, since that's who i was asking... thanks I doubt you're really interested in what I have to say. Let's just suggest that some red-shirts put this large banner "peaceful protesters, not terrorists' prominently behind the main stage because obviously that looked 'cool', just like seeing (and hearing) k. Jatuporn talk about "We fight till the last drop of our blood" wearing a T-shirt with the image of Gandhi. Very 'cool'. Nothing personal and all that, but may I dust off one of my better curses for you? May you go to the lowest level of Hell, be bound to a stake next to Tantalus and forced to listen to PTV broadcasts 24 x 7 at full blast sound level with the volume knob just out of reach. Let's just suggest that some red-shirts put this large banner "peaceful protesters, not terrorists' prominently behind the main stage because obviously that looked 'cool', ohhhh, so childish one of your better better curses? man i'd hate to see you dust off your mediocre ones.....jesus oh and nothing personal and all that, but May you go to the lowest level of Hell, be bound to a stake next to... (actually no, i have pity)... and be forced to have an inch of an open mind nothing personal and all that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 (edited) I've no point of view on this thread but I do have a question related to your last reply. How does a lower court overturn the decisions of a higher court? that is a problem that has never been addressed! perhaps we should ask the military installed judges how they can do that and expect people to believe that this case was above board Did this happen? I would have assumed that if so lots of MPs, senators, colourful shirts (and RobertA of course) would have asked a multiple of commissions, groups, courts to questions such decisions and/or judge about the legality. Remember, even last year k. Thaksin still won a defamation case against k. Sondhi Edited November 19, 2011 by rubl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 oh get out of it... are you saying the person/people holding this sign were terrorists and not peaceful protesters?? again we have the tar a massive amount of people with the one brush attitude that we are so used to seeing on this forum by most of ye. The sign was tied up on the stage for the whole time that they were at Ratchaprasong. Didn't you see it? again, that has nothing to do with the original point i was making...... and the point i'm now making - re second sentence it seems you think they were mainly terrorist's and violent protesters?! - rhetorical... i really have no interest in discussing this with you whybother trying to have any debate with some people here, is the conclusion i've come to. When a sign is used at a main stage where all the leaders spoke and most of the followers cheered, and that there has never been anything from any of the leaders, or many of the supporters, that the red shirts were anything but peaceful, it is something that will continue to be brought up. It obviously doesn't apply to all of them, but that doesn't mean it can be ignored. well, if you read back.... i clearly said it doesn't apply to all of them i wasn't ignoring it... or excusing it.....or denying it so what's your issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 When a sign is used at a main stage where all the leaders spoke and most of the followers cheered, and that there has never been anything from any of the leaders, or many of the supporters, that the red shirts were anything but peaceful, it is something that will continue to be brought up. It obviously doesn't apply to all of them, but that doesn't mean it can be ignored. well, if you read back.... i clearly said it doesn't apply to all of them i wasn't ignoring it... or excusing it.....or denying it so what's your issue? You complained about it being brought up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulBax Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 let me say it in a way as to make it clear to you! he was not involved in any way other than to ok his then wife's purchase! Let me also state that a lower court overturned two decisions by the highest court in the land! namely that the agency was independent from government! if the same court ruled that the deal was above board then there seems to be a problem! if that too difficult to understand? Let me say it in a way as to make it clear to you! He shouldn't have been involved at all. And in relation to Lannarebirth's question. A lower court can not overturn a higher court's decision. The higher the court, the more relevant the decision. But it did. There are two supreme court rulings to show this! for someone to be involved in corruption he would have had to exerted influence on the process which even the court accepted that he did not as they ruled the deal itself was legal! All he did was to agree to his wife buying a piece of land with her own money! In Thailand it seems a spouse must agree to their partner buying land with their own money. A very dubious law in itself! do you honestly think if you yourself agree to your wife buying a piece of land with her own money that you should go to prison no matter who she bought the land from? it does not apply to anything else only land As a man you should not attempt to stop your wife using her own money as she wishes and if she says sign this paper so i can buy some land with my money are you going to quiz her about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparebox2 Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 The purchase was LATER (after the sentence passed) deemed void, and money returned. Hence no purchase = no breaking of law. This is what mark is afraid about, if appreal. When a burglar breaks into your house and steals some goods, is caught, charged, jumps bail, convicted, following returns all he stole, will he be pardoned, since there was 'no breaking of the law' ? If you answer yes, I will call on you if ever I find the need for a character witness in my defence If they (husband ) broke the law, why would govt return her (the wife) the money (almost a billion baht). The country could just have seize it. But no. The country return her the money (WITH INTEREST). Please remember the last two words . . . WITH INTEREST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Let me say it in a way as to make it clear to you! He shouldn't have been involved at all. And in relation to Lannarebirth's question. A lower court can not overturn a higher court's decision. The higher the court, the more relevant the decision. But it did. There are two supreme court rulings to show this! for someone to be involved in corruption he would have had to exerted influence on the process which even the court accepted that he did not as they ruled the deal itself was legal! All he did was to agree to his wife buying a piece of land with her own money! In Thailand it seems a spouse must agree to their partner buying land with their own money. A very dubious law in itself! do you honestly think if you yourself agree to your wife buying a piece of land with her own money that you should go to prison no matter who she bought the land from? it does not apply to anything else only land As a man you should not attempt to stop your wife using her own money as she wishes and if she says sign this paper so i can buy some land with my money are you going to quiz her about it? Which court's rulings did the supreme court overturn? And if the ruling was overturned, shouldn't Thaksin be acquitted? I agree. It's a stupid law. But he should have said "I can't agree to this." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparebox2 Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 let me say it in a way as to make it clear to you! he was not involved in any way other than to ok his then wife's purchase! Let me also state that a lower court overturned two decisions by the highest court in the land! namely that the agency was independent from government! if the same court ruled that the deal was above board then there seems to be a problem! if that too difficult to understand? Let me say it in a way as to make it clear to you! He shouldn't have been involved at all. And in relation to Lannarebirth's question. A lower court can not overturn a higher court's decision. The higher the court, the more relevant the decision. But it did. There are two supreme court rulings to show this! for someone to be involved in corruption he would have had to exerted influence on the process which even the court accepted that he did not as they ruled the deal itself was legal! All he did was to agree to his wife buying a piece of land with her own money! In Thailand it seems a spouse must agree to their partner buying land with their own money. A very dubious law in itself! do you honestly think if you yourself agree to your wife buying a piece of land with her own money that you should go to prison no matter who she bought the land from? it does not apply to anything else only land As a man you should not attempt to stop your wife using her own money as she wishes and if she says sign this paper so i can buy some land with my money are you going to quiz her about it? Yes. I would quiz her who she get the money from, or how much more was hidden away from me. My "Lao Kao" stock is running low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lannarebirth Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 ] The law says that he had to sign for his wife's purchase. The law also found that as PM, they aren't allowed to be involved in buying state property. What "retrospective" (retroactive?) law was used? He was found guilty using a 1997 law. They found that he was the "de facto" supervisor of the fund that his wife bought the land from. As PM, he should have kept clear of any transactions related to the government. let me say it in a way as to make it clear to you! he was not involved in any way other than to ok his then wife's purchase! Let me also state that a lower court overturned two decisions by the highest court in the land! namely that the agency was independent from government! if the same court ruled that the deal was above board then there seems to be a problem! if that too difficult to understand? I've no point of view on this thread but I do have a question related to your last reply. How does a lower court overturn the decisions of a higher court? that is a problem that has never been addressed! perhaps we should ask the military installed judges how they can do that and expect people to believe that this case was above board Could you post some chronologically based links to the relevant rulings? TIA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 When a sign is used at a main stage where all the leaders spoke and most of the followers cheered, and that there has never been anything from any of the leaders, or many of the supporters, that the red shirts were anything but peaceful, it is something that will continue to be brought up. It obviously doesn't apply to all of them, but that doesn't mean it can be ignored. well, if you read back.... i clearly said it doesn't apply to all of them i wasn't ignoring it... or excusing it.....or denying it so what's your issue? You complained about it being brought up. no,no...not it being brought up. i took exception to the fact of what the post seemed to be implying... it's clear as day what the post was implying imo, if i got it wrong and he wasn't implying that anyone who isn't an anti-red shirt/thaksin/ptp/the devil - pro yellow/dem supporter believes that they were all peaceful protesters and not terrorists, fine but i should hope to most people's eyes the way it was worded was aimed to hint at that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now