Bagwan Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 She is an adult female and shouldn't have to explain her comings and goings as this is Thailand and not the US. Huh? Explain yourself sir. What has location got to do with anything? I accept that an adult female has the right to walk down any path in life that she chooses but if whatever she does arouses interest in others, particularly if that interest is prurient, then she must expect to be on the receiving end of public comment. BTW, this baggage is the Prime Minister of Thailand. As such, and as with every other PM and political leader in the World, everything that she does, when she does it, and with, or against, whom is a matter of Press and public interest. If she cannot stand the heat then she should get out of the kitchen. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimay11 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Where's the video? His bodyguards let an armed assailant flee? Not filing a police report? The Four Seasons has an excellent security detail as well, so what gives? But when the PM comes out with this ridiculous statement, "I did not have a meeting there. But as prime minister, I can meet anybody at a public place. It is not damaging," she said. "I am a woman, and I insist I did not do anything wrong." Besides sounding naive and foolish, what was she doing upstairs in the guest rooms? Married, right? Hopefully one of the hotel staff will put the video from the hotel CCTV on the Internet. It worked well with the ear boxing hi-so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geriatrickid Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 This is just so silly. Would a public figure pick a very public place in order to have a 2 hour fling? Why not someone's private home or love nest? In any case, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest she was having a sex tryst ina hotel room. If there was, it would be all over town. People talk and so far, only an agent provocateur has made the suggestion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOODLOVER Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Where's the video? His bodyguards let an armed assailant flee? Not filing a police report? The Four Seasons has an excellent security detail as well, so what gives? But when the PM comes out with this ridiculous statement, "I did not have a meeting there. But as prime minister, I can meet anybody at a public place. It is not damaging," she said. "I am a woman, and I insist I did not do anything wrong." Besides sounding naive and foolish, what was she doing upstairs in the guest rooms? Married, right? Not married, as far as I'm aware. Are you an adult, FOODLOVER? IF so, what's your moral view on sex between legally single adults? I'm so sorry but i'm married but yes, physically a legal adult and i am glad that you are wise enough to look for moral guidance through my posts on Thai Visa. Slap and Tickle a-ok in my book! But with the PMs assumption that she can meet anyone in public because she woman is just stupid. The Thai PM can not meet Mugabe at the Four Seasons even though it is quite lovely for obvious reasons. Nor could she meet Osama at Hotel St. Nisa( Customer service sucks) but her logic in her statement appears to say something like lets pull a sentence out of my rectum and see if it works here. I used to have these books that my mom would give me to travel. They were call MAD Libs. Well, seems like someones taken this idea and started governing a country with it. They were quite hilarious when you inserted random words in the sentences. Sort of like in example, The parrot says_________. One would think" Polly want a cracker", but noooo, she inserted " Rule of Law". Quite humorous, really. So.....once we get past that ,er, interesting jumble of words that you posted, what was Yingluck's misconduct at the hotel? Seems this would be a question better answered by her "Meeting partner", but there is certainly nothing wrong with a little "Afternoon delight". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volk666 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Why did she mention that she has the right to be in that hotel "as a woman"? Why would it make a difference? Why would it entered her mind? Did she really go upstairs and into a room? And did she go there as a "free woman"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orac Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Why did she mention that she has the right to be in that hotel "as a woman"? Why would it make a difference? Why would it entered her mind? Did she really go upstairs and into a room? And did she go there as a "free woman"? I guess it is to do with the prostitute slurs and insinuation, also seen from posters in this thread, that a woman going to a hotel without her husband must be up to something seedy. Personally I have been to many hotels rooms in my life for business meetings both travelling or if I wanted to meet someone who it wasn't best to be seen openly with at that time such as interviews. I am sure as a PM this applies as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commentor Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) Can this STUPID BUSINESS MAN actually come up with more convincing lies next time? If i were the PM, i would not have ask my own man(which is recognize and known by the victim) to beat up a STUPID MAN. Would i? I can't believe such person with a stupid brain can become a business man. Oh wait !!! It all about corruption of tea money and lies. I see. Edited February 11, 2012 by Commentor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Thaddeus Posted February 11, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted February 11, 2012 This is just so silly. Would a public figure pick a very public place in order to have a 2 hour fling? Could be proof that she has the same smarts as George Michael. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 This is just so silly. Would a public figure pick a very public place in order to have a 2 hour fling? Why not someone's private home or love nest? In any case, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest she was having a sex tryst ina hotel room. If there was, it would be all over town. People talk and so far, only an agent provocateur has made the suggestion. The story does sound silly to me too, but Yingluck's first response to being questioned about it was to smile and walk away, and now her second response having had a night to sleep on it, is the "it's a woman's right" nonsense. Seems to me she could have easily put this story to bed by simply stating where she was and what she was doing at the alleged time of it all. That she hasn't suggests to me that there is a story here, whether or not it be the frankly hard to imagine (assuming one wanted to imagine such a thing) 2 hour sex tryst. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Isn't the story less about her visit to the hotel room, which may or may not be a cause for embarassment, and more that a member of her security team has allegedly assaulted one of her critics, with the presumption that the assault was ordered. And that both she and the victim expect that she could do so without consequences. The man has obviously been assaulted by someone (who he claims to have recognised) but realises the futility of lodging a police report. This is to be expected when a corrupt government is allowed to practice rampant nepotism and cronyism. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Can this STUPID BUSINESS MAN actually come up with more convincing lies next time? If i were the PM, i would not have ask my own man(which is recognize and known by the victim) to beat up a STUPID MAN. Would i? I can't believe such person with a stupid brain can become a business man. Oh wait !!! It all about corruption of tea money and lies. I see. Has it occurred to you that you may be both smarter and less arrogant than Yingluck? (Not setting a high hurdle there!) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellodolly Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Nothing is stronger than the truth. All Yingluck has to do is state the reason she went to the hotel and who she met with. If it was innocent there is no reason for her not to do so. This would put an end to the entire "why was she there" episode. I wonder why she has not already done this? On the other side of the coin if it was not so innocent then I can understand her silence on the matter. Who cares. What she does behind closed doors in the afternoon with a man that has nothing to do with the story. This person who has to have body guards spent two hours in the hotel why? Then doing nothing wrong or right as far as Yingluck is concerned this body guard of her's walks over and beats him up before his body guards can stop the beating and let him escape. He also knows the man was a police man and was armed. Rubbish A new low for the Nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
americaninbangkok Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 She is an adult female and shouldn't have to explain her comings and goings as this is Thailand and not the US. Nope... she doesn't. And a free-thinking society is free to speculate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
americaninbangkok Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Where's the video? His bodyguards let an armed assailant flee? Not filing a police report? The Four Seasons has an excellent security detail as well, so what gives? But when the PM comes out with this ridiculous statement, "I did not have a meeting there. But as prime minister, I can meet anybody at a public place. It is not damaging," she said. "I am a woman, and I insist I did not do anything wrong." Besides sounding naive and foolish, what was she doing upstairs in the guest rooms? Married, right? Not married, as far as I'm aware. Are you an adult, FOODLOVER? IF so, what's your moral view on sex between legally single adults? I'm so sorry but i'm married but yes, physically a legal adult and i am glad that you are wise enough to look for moral guidance through my posts on Thai Visa. Slap and Tickle a-ok in my book! But with the PMs assumption that she can meet anyone in public because she woman is just stupid. The Thai PM can not meet Mugabe at the Four Seasons even though it is quite lovely for obvious reasons. Nor could she meet Osama at Hotel St. Nisa( Customer service sucks) but her logic in her statement appears to say something like lets pull a sentence out of my rectum and see if it works here. I used to have these books that my mom would give me to travel. They were call MAD Libs. Well, seems like someones taken this idea and started governing a country with it. They were quite hilarious when you inserted random words in the sentences. Sort of like in example, The parrot says_________. One would think" Polly want a cracker", but noooo, she inserted " Rule of Law". Quite humorous, really. So.....once we get past that ,er, interesting jumble of words that you posted, what was Yingluck's misconduct at the hotel? Actually, FOODLOVER was pretty damned funny and coherent. As for the misconduct... that's what people want to know. But her lips are sealed... or ARE they? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaikahuna Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 The PM needs to learn to keep her mouth shut. It seems that every time she opens it to speak something gets wedged in it..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisinth Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Besides the fact that the commentary and story is just an innuendo, if the PM were a man, would this be a story? If seen entering the hotel with another man (as reported in the "other" paper) and staying for 2 hours, then it might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Besides the fact that the commentary and story is just an innuendo, if the PM were a man, would this be a story? If seen entering the hotel with another man (as reported in the "other" paper) and staying for 2 hours, then it might No might about it and even if you take away the homosexual angle and make the hypothetical a family man PM (someone like say Abhisit was) meeting with a woman (not his wife/partner) for a couple of hours in a hotel room; yes, it would still be a story, and a big one at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisinth Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Isn't the story less about her visit to the hotel room, which may or may not be a cause for embarassment, and more that a member of her security team has allegedly assaulted one of her critics, with the presumption that the assault was ordered. And that both she and the victim expect that she could do so without consequences. The man has obviously been assaulted by someone (who he claims to have recognised) but realises the futility of lodging a police report. This is to be expected when a corrupt government is allowed to practice rampant nepotism and cronyism. If I was the victim of the alleged assault, I would be reviewing the choice of my security detail right now. Where were the bodyguards at the moment of the assault or did the assailant just go for it? Smells of BS to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 If I was the victim of the alleged assault, I would be reviewing the choice of my security detail right now. Where were the bodyguards at the moment of the assault or did the assailant just go for it? Smells of BS to me. Both his story and Yingluck's responses to his story have had that familiar whiff of bovine excrement. Investigative journalism in the West would have the truth out in less than 24 hours, with CCTV footage and eyewitness accounts piecing things together pretty easily. Here though we may never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 You (satirically??) claim sympathy for the assaulted man. Have you never heard of "While I may not agree to what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it"? No, I am not humble, and the current government is noted for its cronyism and nepotism, including a number facing serious criminal charges that would never find their name on a ballot in any "real" democracy. If you think that the family member CoP would act on his assault claim, then you are a bigger fool than I already take you for. BTW the use of expletives is against forum rules, even in small print. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
housepainter Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 The truth in Thailand: think haystacks and a needle. It isn't going to be easy then sifting through the tittle tattle of contracdictions and lies found here. But the arrogance of the Thais in power betrays them as they are dismissive to a counter claim. An example is when they simply refute an allegation b y denying it were so. There is no factual explanation as to why it could not be so. What there is remains a counter claim basically because I say so - behind it. PATHETIC! If that is all that can be expected then the weight of belief has to be lain at the victim's door. Quite clearly he is a marked man being a verbal opponent of the Thaksin clan. Being attacked by security guards upon being recognised is a normal knee jerk reaction from these out of control, hip shooting, single cell amoeba. I believe he was attacked. I do not necessarily think it was upon instruction but rather that the security detail perceived an opponent and an opportunity. The rest is domino effect except that a powerful businessman had hsi own hired thugs at hand to repel the attack. It's Thailand and turds float right to the top as we see in Thaksin Two: the afterbirth. This incident will, of course, go nowhere. It's been aired and those in power, as always in Thailand where power is abused rather than purposefully used, will do exactly what they want unchecked. The people continue their apathetic voting and so they deserve what they get. As we do. In a fair democracy we enjoy personal liberty, freedom of thought and expression and safety. In Thailand, you take your chances despite being in a long queue awaiting when it will happen to you. Next. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) "I did not have a meeting there. But as prime minister, I can meet anybody at a public place. It is not damaging," she said. "I am a woman, and I insist I did not do anything wrong." As a Prime minister the lady is a public figure with all interested in her moves. As PM she has to be careful who she meets because of various aspects, like national security, politics, international relations, etc., etc. As a private person Ms. Yingluck may meet almost anyone anywhere. As for the' believe me'. Of course. I imagine that none of the posters here has ever heard a lovely, smiling Thai lady utter a single untruthful word. From your local 'big and handsome' Dutch uncle Edited February 11, 2012 by rubl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Why did she mention that she has the right to be in that hotel "as a woman"? Why would it make a difference? Why would it entered her mind? Did she really go upstairs and into a room? And did she go there as a "free woman"? I guess it is to do with the prostitute slurs and insinuation, also seen from posters in this thread, that a woman going to a hotel without her husband must be up to something seedy. Personally I have been to many hotels rooms in my life for business meetings both travelling or if I wanted to meet someone who it wasn't best to be seen openly with at that time such as interviews. I am sure as a PM this applies as well. Making dogy deals in a hotel room is for a DEMOCRATIC leader worse than just having sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pastitche Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Nothing is stronger than the truth. All Yingluck has to do is state the reason she went to the hotel and who she met with. If it was innocent there is no reason for her not to do so. This would put an end to the entire "why was she there" episode. I wonder why she has not already done this? On the other side of the coin if it was not so innocent then I can understand her silence on the matter. This is nothing more than the usual sleaze-bucket media in the West use to suggest that various celebs have misbehaved. Why should she have to explain her reason for being in that hotel; of course, if she doesn't, you and other likeminded gossip addicts and fans of the filthy discredited News International stable can suggest that there was a surreptitious and immoral occurrence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 She volunteered for the role playing as Thai P.M. Did she think she wouldn't be under the public microscope if so raised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pastitche Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) The truth in Thailand: think haystacks and a needle. It isn't going to be easy then sifting through the tittle tattle of contracdictions and lies found here. But the arrogance of the Thais in power betrays them as they are dismissive to a counter claim. An example is when they simply refute an allegation b y denying it were so. There is no factual explanation as to why it could not be so. What there is remains a counter claim basically because I say so - behind it. PATHETIC! If that is all that can be expected then the weight of belief has to be lain at the victim's door. Quite clearly he is a marked man being a verbal opponent of the Thaksin clan. Being attacked by security guards upon being recognised is a normal knee jerk reaction from these out of control, hip shooting, single cell amoeba. I believe he was attacked. I do not necessarily think it was upon instruction but rather that the security detail perceived an opponent and an opportunity. The rest is domino effect except that a powerful businessman had hsi own hired thugs at hand to repel the attack. It's Thailand and turds float right to the top as we see in Thaksin Two: the afterbirth. This incident will, of course, go nowhere. It's been aired and those in power, as always in Thailand where power is abused rather than purposefully used, will do exactly what they want unchecked. The people continue their apathetic voting and so they deserve what they get. As we do. In a fair democracy we enjoy personal liberty, freedom of thought and expression and safety. In Thailand, you take your chances despite being in a long queue awaiting when it will happen to you. Next. Maybe you should have a lie-down. This seems little more than a storm in a tea cup if even that serious. The protagonist in this story has said that he by chance witnessed the PM meeting a so far unidentified man and that she spent two hours with that man whilst the protagonist drank coffee. He alleges that he was assaulted by one security guard (not plural and not a security detail). There was no evidence in the pictures I saw that he had been assaulted by a professional - it looked like he had suffered a speck of dust, and in the end he refuses to make a police complaint..... Given his history, it would seem that he is trying to stir an empty pot as are you. I frequently admire your contributions but this time I think that have allowed artistry to surpass sense Edited February 11, 2012 by pastitche 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellodolly Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Can some one explain what the Prime Minister in a hotel room with some unknown on unknown business has to do with a citizen getting beaten up by the Prime Ministers bodyguard? Seems to me that there is some thing fishy going on here. First the guy is around the hotel for two hours on unknown business and he has bodyguards that can not protect him from one person or even catch the person. What was he doing there and do people really believe he was sitting there peacefully doing nothing but meditating when this attack just happened out of the blue. If you do I happen to have some prime land in Florida I will sell you cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samsiam Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Wonder if she cried.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z12 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) "I did not have a meeting there. But as prime minister, I can meet anybody at a public place. It is not damaging," she said. Interesting, PM clone admits she was there and also admits she had NO meeting. "I am a woman, and I insist I did not do anything wrong." I bet you do all kinds of wrong. hehehe Edited February 11, 2012 by z12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 ... "I am a woman, and I insist I did not do anything wrong." ... More proof she's an anti-feminist. Playing the lady card. Pathetic really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts