webfact Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Akeyuth urges Chalerm to put attacker behind bars The Nation BANGKOK: -- Government critic Akeyuth Anchanbutr yesterday called for the speedy arrest of his assailant and accused the Pheu Thai Party of creating a diversion to Thursday's incident involving the prime minister at a five-star hotel. Akeyuth claims an unidentified man assaulted him some 10 minutes after Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra left the hotel, where she had attended a private function. Pheu Thai deputy spokesman Jirayu Huangsap said Akeyuth tried to smear the prime minister by making remarks as if to link Yingluck to a love motel. Akeyuth countered he had never made disrespectful remarks about Yingluck. "Jirayu let his imagination run wild as I did not make any reference to a love motel," he said. He said that as Yingluck had already assigned Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung to look into the incident, Jirayu and other Pheu Thai "cronies" should stop stirring up trouble. Akeyuth reminded Chalerm of his duty to resolve the case in a speedy manner, claiming the deputy prime minister already knew the identify of the assailant. He also ruled out the filing of a police complaint, arguing his attack was already public knowledge. Legal adviser Noppadon Pattama said the Democrats should not try to portray Yingluck in a suspicious manner. He argued that Yingluck's presence at the hotel was proper and not linked to any conflict of interest or personal affairs. Noppadon said Yingluck was a businesswoman for more than 20 years before entering politics, therefore it was normal for her to meet and solicit opinions in the business community in order to fine-tune her government performance. Pheu Thai spokesman Prompong Nopparit said the prime minister had openly travelled to the hotel and did not have a clandestine meeting as alleged. Democrat spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalyasut urged the prime minister to spell out why she spent official hours attending a private meeting. No one suspected Yingluck of any questionable conduct but questions arose for two reasons - Akeyuth's attack coincided with her visit to the hotel, and there were rumours of land speculation in connection with the construction of a floodway, he said. He said he did not understand why the spokesmen for the government and ruling party were making an issue about Yingluck's love life when none of the Democrats had cast any doubt on her personal affairs. "Instead of shielding Yingluck, [deputy government spokesman] Anusorn [iamsa-ard] is actually degrading his female boss," he said in reference to the government deputy spokesman's remarks that Yingluck was not involved in a secret liaison. -- The Nation 2012-02-13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waza Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 (edited) lol, Government critic Akeyuth Anchanbutr is like a dog with a bone, he is milking this for all its worth. What ever Yingluck was doing in that hotel she sure doesn't want anyone to know. Edited February 12, 2012 by waza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOODLOVER Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 (edited) So the speculation is that she is preparing to purchase land at a reduced rate as she has inside knowledge of where the flood lands will be. Well Well Well, I speculate that the apple does not fall far from the tree! And why does he have a remote control from a 1973 Curtis Mathis TV on his table? Edited February 12, 2012 by FOODLOVER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellodolly Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Looks like he has a eye infection. He should maybe see a doctor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakseedaa Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Looks like he has a eye infection. He should maybe see a doctor. Seems he knows why Yinluck was there....wink wink..! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) In the current context, the word "solicit" could have been better chosen. Can you be an "unidentified man" when " the deputy prime minister already knew the identify of the assailant." ? I suppose with Chalerm's record of arranging memory losses, it is possible. Edited February 13, 2012 by OzMick 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 In the current context, the word "solicit" could have been better chosen. Can you be an "unidentified man" when " the deputy prime minister already knew the identify of the assailant." ? I suppose with Chalerm's record of arranging memory losses, it is possible. Since it seems nothing really happened and the gentleman didn't file a complaint, maybe Dept. PM Chalerm will file a defamation case against k. Akayuth. Now that would be fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1bbcd5 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Very very cool, and thanks for the lesson! I love your unique ink! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparebox2 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 What is he doing with the PM in a hotel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siripon Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 What is he doing with the PM in a hotel? Trying to sell her shares in a new pyramid scheme. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pastitche Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 In the current context, the word "solicit" could have been better chosen. Can you be an "unidentified man" when " the deputy prime minister already knew the identify of the assailant." ? I suppose with Chalerm's record of arranging memory losses, it is possible. No. Akeyuth said that Chalerm knew the identity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 In the current context, the word "solicit" could have been better chosen. Can you be an "unidentified man" when " the deputy prime minister already knew the identify of the assailant." ? I suppose with Chalerm's record of arranging memory losses, it is possible. No. Akeyuth said that Chalerm knew the identity Chalerm knew the identity of a particular person that shot a policeman. It didn't stop a lot of other people having a memory lapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pastitche Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 In the current context, the word "solicit" could have been better chosen. Can you be an "unidentified man" when " the deputy prime minister already knew the identify of the assailant." ? I suppose with Chalerm's record of arranging memory losses, it is possible. No. Akeyuth said that Chalerm knew the identity Chalerm knew the identity of a particular person that shot a policeman. It didn't stop a lot of other people having a memory lapse. A cheap if completely irrelevant remark; your fellow Austalian suggested that the deputy prime minister knew the identity of the assailant; I merely corrected that. OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 In the current context, the word "solicit" could have been better chosen. Can you be an "unidentified man" when " the deputy prime minister already knew the identify of the assailant." ? I suppose with Chalerm's record of arranging memory losses, it is possible. No. Akeyuth said that Chalerm knew the identity Chalerm knew the identity of a particular person that shot a policeman. It didn't stop a lot of other people having a memory lapse. A cheap if completely irrelevant remark; your fellow Austalian suggested that the deputy prime minister knew the identity of the assailant; I merely corrected that. OK? Irrelevant? It's exactly what Ozmick was referring to. Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pastitche Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I frequently am amused by your querulous contributions to the forum which completely belie your name but now you are being absurd. Ozmick said that Chalerm knew the identity of the assailant but had a record of arranging memory losses, this might well have been a cryptic reference. I pointed out that this was a statement from the aggrieved, not Chalerm. You then brought up a completely unmentioned matter of a policeman's murder and claimed on Ozmick's behalf that he was referring to that killing when I questioned your introduction of the subject. That is why your remark was irrelevant Ozmick may well have meant that but he did not directly say anything that could be interpreted to mean that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I frequently am amused by your querulous contributions to the forum which completely belie your name but now you are being absurd. Ozmick said that Chalerm knew the identity of the assailant but had a record of arranging memory losses, this might well have been a cryptic reference. I pointed out that this was a statement from the aggrieved, not Chalerm. You then brought up a completely unmentioned matter of a policeman's murder and claimed on Ozmick's behalf that he was referring to that killing when I questioned your introduction of the subject. That is why your remark was irrelevant Ozmick may well have meant that but he did not directly say anything that could be interpreted to mean that. My comment was regarding the quality of reporting, combined with exactly the "cheap shot" that WB and others (?) picked up. IMHO "cheap shots" are an important way of keeping alive the memory of those things that some would prefer to forget, I apologise if Australian satire is a little too subtle for you. I will attempt to be a little more blunt in the future. Mr Chalerm is a long time political criminal and Shinawatra sycophant who abuses his position and uses it to escape prosecution for his corrupt and criminal acts. He belongs in a prison, not a government, along with many others of the current administation, starting from the very top. Clear enough? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 "I apologise if Australian satire is a little too subtle for you" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOODLOVER Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 What is he doing with the PM in a hotel? What would you to with the PM in a hotel? Toe nails perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOODLOVER Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 What's grosser than Grease on Olivia Newton John? Cum on Eileen. Does this help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TackyToo Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) Maybe the guy is asking a little too much if a truckdriver gets out on bail after killing five and fled the scene? TIT! Edited February 14, 2012 by TackyToo 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