pastitche 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. An interesting observation from you of all people, being such a defender of choice in personal sexual behaviour. Do you really believe that her words were as quoted/translated and contextually exactly as claimed? I wonder what card would you play in similar circumstances? There is nothing in this that suggests Yingluck met anyone or spent hours in a hotel bedroom with a man other than the statement of a man who is apparently implacably opposed to her brother and whose bodyguards could not protect him from an assault whilst he was having a two-hour coffee break in a hotel where by the merest chance the PM happened to arrive .... after he was ensconced there. Come on it's a heap of shit. If he'd been assaulted, he would have lodged a complaint 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo 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. Even worse than taking part in a TV cookery show? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo 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. She implies....... as a woman she can do no wrong........doesn't sound very antifeminist to me.....rather the opposite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl 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. Even worse than taking part in a TV cookery show? The part concerning 'lying about it' is the serious part, even for a politician Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) ... "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. She implies....... as a woman she can do no wrong........doesn't sound very antifeminist to me.....rather the opposite I see it differently. Like, cut me a break, I'm a woman. Don't bash a woman. We might break.Look, she is already on record as NOT being a feminist leader. At the Davos conference she gave a speech about how the strength of women in society was being good at detail work and raising children. Edited February 11, 2012 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Making dogy deals in a hotel room is for a DEMOCRATIC leader worse than just having sex. Even worse than taking part in a TV cookery show? The part concerning 'lying about it' is the serious part, even for a politician A person tried to lie that they were on national TV?.......or did you mean neglected to declare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo 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. She implies....... as a woman she can do no wrong........doesn't sound very antifeminist to me.....rather the opposite I see it differently. Like, cut me a break, I'm a woman. Don't bash a woman. We might break. I can see why you would arrive at that conclusion if you needed to get a cheap shot in...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 I can see why you would arrive at that conclusion if you needed to get a cheap shot in...... Show me how she is a feminist. A woman who openly isn't her own PM but takes orders from her fugitive brother. It's OK not to be a feminist. But don't act like she is when she isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) ... "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. She implies....... as a woman she can do no wrong........doesn't sound very antifeminist to me.....rather the opposite I like philosofical questions, always intriging. "I'm a woman - and I did nothing wrong". Two disjunct statements? If so the first is obvious and doesn't need to be stated; The second part is a statement which would need proof as the value of it is not obvious. The AND suggest that both parts are related. Can it be 'being a woman I don't do anything wrong' ? Or maybe a suggestion 'being a woman I have to state I didn't do anything wrong'. Does 'being a woman' make it necessary to state 'I did nothing wrong' ? (edit: add: anyway the finer details are probably lost in translation ) Edited February 11, 2012 by rubl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lungmi Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Can we close the zippergate and his thai version? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) Making dogy deals in a hotel room is for a DEMOCRATIC leader worse than just having sex. Even worse than taking part in a TV cookery show? The part concerning 'lying about it' is the serious part, even for a politician A person tried to lie that they were on national TV?.......or did you mean neglected to declare? You are right to ask, I should have been more clear. I meant 'lying about being paid' and giving the suggestion of being '(legally) in the employ of', especially since it wasn't a one-off. Thank you for putting my attention to this lapse in detail Edited February 11, 2012 by rubl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 I can see why you would arrive at that conclusion if you needed to get a cheap shot in...... Show me how she is a feminist. A woman who openly isn't her own PM but takes orders from her fugitive brother. It's OK not to be a feminist. But don't act like she is when she isn't. You are joking right, a person with no previous experience is elevated to PM in a matter of a few short months.......... She takes advice from her brother who is one of the few PMs that has completed a full term....... Did you and all the other critics seriously expect her to do anything other?.......or are you all that good in your own lives that you could take on a premiership without any outside assistance or guidance One thing for sure Jing the lady has a great deal of courage........probably a dam_n site more than most who seek to criticise.........so I think she stands tall inspiring confidence in Thai women Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) Protecting her nepotistic family empire financial and power interests is bravery? Well, perhaps so, but not in the PUBLIC service. Again, she is no feminist and has said as much. See the speech at Davos. Edited February 11, 2012 by Jingthing 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo 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. She implies....... as a woman she can do no wrong........doesn't sound very antifeminist to me.....rather the opposite I like philosofical questions, always intriging. "I'm a woman - and I did nothing wrong". Two disjunct statements? If so the first is obvious and doesn't need to be stated; The second part is a statement which would need proof as the value of it is not obvious. The AND suggest that both parts are related. Can it be 'being a woman I don't do anything wrong' ? Or maybe a suggestion 'being a woman I have to state I didn't do anything wrong'. Does 'being a woman' make it necessary to state 'I did nothing wrong' ? (edit: add: anyway the finer details are probably lost in translation ) But the strength in the reply is in the word " insist" in my opinion not the weak response implied by Jing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pastitche Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Protecting her nepotistic family empire financial and power interests is bravery? Well, perhaps so, but not in the PUBLIC service. Again, she is no feminist and has said as much. See the speech at Davos. This thread is not about nepotism, finance or power; it is about an individual who claimed that the PM's security guard assaulted him.Whether Yingluck fits your definition of a feminist or not is completely irrelevant and no more than an attempt to take the discussion in a direction that you and your copains de la guerre would prefer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 She implies....... as a woman she can do no wrong........doesn't sound very antifeminist to me.....rather the opposite I like philosofical questions, always intriging. "I'm a woman - and I did nothing wrong". Two disjunct statements? If so the first is obvious and doesn't need to be stated; The second part is a statement which would need proof as the value of it is not obvious. The AND suggest that both parts are related. Can it be 'being a woman I don't do anything wrong' ? Or maybe a suggestion 'being a woman I have to state I didn't do anything wrong'. Does 'being a woman' make it necessary to state 'I did nothing wrong' ? (edit: add: anyway the finer details are probably lost in translation ) But the strength in the reply is in the word " insist" in my opinion not the weak response implied by Jing That's where the 'lost in translation' really comes into play. If I can be pardoned as a Dutchman to explain English (or what I think I know about it ), I don't think anyone would use 'insist' here. Somehow it suggests 'I demand you believe me when I say ...". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) Protecting her nepotistic family empire financial and power interests is bravery? Well, perhaps so, but not in the PUBLIC service. Again, she is no feminist and has said as much. See the speech at Davos. This thread is not about nepotism, finance or power; it is about an individual who claimed that the PM's security guard assaulted him.Whether Yingluck fits your definition of a feminist or not is completely irrelevant and no more than an attempt to take the discussion in a direction that you and your copains de la guerre would prefer The interesting part of the topic is not whether or not it is true, happened as described, happened at all. No, not at all. The interesting part is the reactions of various people including from government, opposition, and other fools and idiots. It looks like the first and almost automatic reaction on an accusation is "no, not true', followed by 'eh, eh, please tell me again, what was the question?' Edited February 11, 2012 by rubl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaiChai Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Hum, so she didnt have a meeting at the hotel and she is a woman. So what would a woman do for two hours in a hotel room? Assuming she is a rich woman and can call shots and is used to doing what she wants? Thailands boom boom gate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHR1010 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. Yes, of course.....because Thailand is preeminent supporter of women's rights! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 does anyone here think that she asked any of her bodyguards to attack the man? no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellodolly Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 This topic has become a internet version of Laural and Hardy Abbot and Costello. Here we are with 81 posts and I would venture to say no more than ten are concerned with the allegations. More concerned about what went on in a hotel room in Thailand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick 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. An interesting observation from you of all people, being such a defender of choice in personal sexual behaviour. Do you really believe that her words were as quoted/translated and contextually exactly as claimed? I wonder what card would you play in similar circumstances? There is nothing in this that suggests Yingluck met anyone or spent hours in a hotel bedroom with a man other than the statement of a man who is apparently implacably opposed to her brother and whose bodyguards could not protect him from an assault whilst he was having a two-hour coffee break in a hotel where by the merest chance the PM happened to arrive .... after he was ensconced there. Come on it's a heap of shit. If he'd been assaulted, he would have lodged a complaint You writhe and twist to explain this away - "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..." Just how hard would it be for a person recognised as a police officer to walk up and punch the victim, and what evidence would convince you that it was done by a "professional"? And the rest of the security detail should abandon their charge and give him a right work-over, that would be more convincing and professional.. Now it's the victim's fault because he happened to be in the coffee lounge - is that an inappropriate place to have a meeting? Get a room, pal? And it must be a false allegation because he hasn't lodged a police complaint that a police officer assaulted him. How many members of this forum have reported to the nearest station that a police officer has coerced a bribe? Perhaps they also understand the word "futility." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waza Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said yesterday that she had not done anything morally questionable while she was at a Bangkok hotel earlier this week. "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." When asked if she would take legal action against outspoken businessman Akeyuth Anchanbutr for suggesting that she may have been party to misconduct, Yingluck said: "I will be patient. I believe people will carefully consider what he says." Well she stated it wasnt a meeting, and she didnt do anything wrong but a charge of libel isnt on the cards. Which is even stranger after Akeyuth Anchanbutr, wrote on his Facebook wall on November 2, 2011 as reported in http://asiancorrespondent.com “I really don’t want to say this because it will seem like I look down on women… but the truth is… Northern girls who are uneducated or lazy and intellectually retarded will look for an easy job that normal women won’t do… Mainly it’s prostitution … Therefore, the Northern woman who is devoid of intelligence and extremely stupid yet thick-faced enough to take up the position, you should know what profession suits you.” Of course, which particular “Northern woman” Mr. Akeyuth alluded to was not lost to anyone with a functioning brain. Thailand’s first female prime minister is a woman from the North and a kid sister of Mr. Thaksin. Then followed a stream of interesting replies........ the famous Bangkok feminist Kamphaka tweeted, "Selling pussy is more honorable than killing people, Akeyuth.”* (original tweet) Mrs. Siriwan Prasachaksatru, deputy leader, Democrat Party: "Khun Yingluck has caused the fight for female leadership to be scrutinized and her repeated failures and repeated, incredible lies have become the talk of the town. People question: Is that all Northern Thai women have to give? Are they all like this? Why do they always cry if they can’t do a job and use feminine guiles inappropriately? This has caused the Democrat Party to think seriously, especially among us women, because we don’t want the image of women to be destroyed any further. We are probably going to put this matter on the agenda of the Party’s committee on women, so that we can advise the prime minister.” a long-awaited opinion finally came on November 10 from the feminist journalist, Sanitsuda Ekachai Despite having a big team of babysitters handpicked by her fugitive brother, her inability even to read a scripted speech correctly had made her a laughing stock. Her management of the current flood disaster is simply disastrous. Criticise her poor performance if you will. That is what democracy is about. But what came from Mr. Akeyuth is not criticism. It is misogyny. It is ethnic prejudice. It is arrogance from the city centre against other regions. It is ugly chauvinism that must not be tolerated..........." Edited February 11, 2012 by waza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JurgenG Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 This topic has become a internet version of Laural and Hardy Abbot and Costello. Here we are with 81 posts and I would venture to say no more than ten are concerned with the allegations. More concerned about what went on in a hotel room in Thailand. We are in a sexpat forum, aren't we ? I wouldn't be surprised to learn than Murdoch is now in charge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reasonableman Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 "All I want is da facts, ma'am". [Joe Friday] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orac Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 She implies....... as a woman she can do no wrong........doesn't sound very antifeminist to me.....rather the opposite I like philosofical questions, always intriging. "I'm a woman - and I did nothing wrong". Two disjunct statements? If so the first is obvious and doesn't need to be stated; The second part is a statement which would need proof as the value of it is not obvious. The AND suggest that both parts are related. Can it be 'being a woman I don't do anything wrong' ? Or maybe a suggestion 'being a woman I have to state I didn't do anything wrong'. Does 'being a woman' make it necessary to state 'I did nothing wrong' ? (edit: add: anyway the finer details are probably lost in translation ) But the strength in the reply is in the word " insist" in my opinion not the weak response implied by Jing That's where the 'lost in translation' really comes into play. If I can be pardoned as a Dutchman to explain English (or what I think I know about it ), I don't think anyone would use 'insist' here. Somehow it suggests 'I demand you believe me when I say ...". I would doubt that the PM actually used english when making this statement and it would not be the first time that The Nation has chosen to use more inflamatory words that protray a different meaning. Maybe someone with better knowledge of Thai can source the direct quote in its original language and tell use what else she could have meant but a quick check with my very limited Thai does come up with ยืนยัน which can be translated as insist OR confirm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Posts with inappropriate connotations have been removed, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samsiam Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Making dogy deals in a hotel room. cool....my kinda girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reasonableman Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 No, but is that why you are here? This topic has become a internet version of Laural and Hardy Abbot and Costello. Here we are with 81 posts and I would venture to say no more than ten are concerned with the allegations. More concerned about what went on in a hotel room in Thailand. We are in a sexpat forum, aren't we ? I wouldn't be surprised to learn than Murdoch is now in charge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimay11 Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 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. My dear ungossip addict there is nothing in my post suggesting there was anything untoward in her visit to the hotel. I just made a statement of fact that if she reveals her reason for the visit it will immediately put an end to the "why was she there" episode. Simple solution. Being Prime Minister she like all Prime Minsters and presidents are under constant scrutiny by the news media and their constituents and rightly so. A special trust has been placed in them to be honest and adhere to moral and ethical principles. Her statement that she is a woman she can go and do as she pleases is true. But being the Prime Minister she has a duty to make sure where she goes and what she does reflects the values fo the position people have entrustred her with. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts