Between the perjury of claiming her brother's Shin stock was hers (it wasn't), the unequivocal mismanagement of flood situations, false promises of pre-election pandering, lying to the public in this situation ("there was no meeting").... most of what is definitely sticking to her is the ineptitude of her own words and actions.

Your rather desperate list of Yingluck's "failings" (including the incorrect,the plain silly and some with a grain of truth) rather prove the point of the member you are attempting to refute - that against the odds her government is doing rather well.My helpful advice to you would be at least go through the motions of objectivity so that you can avoid the foil hat syndrome.

Objectivity... Hmmm...

Pots, kettles... black... ?

Between the perjury of claiming her brother's Shin stock was hers (it wasn't), the unequivocal mismanagement of flood situations, false promises of pre-election pandering, lying to the public in this situation ("there was no meeting").... most of what is definitely sticking to her is the ineptitude of her own words and actions.

Your rather desperate list of Yingluck's "failings" (including the incorrect,the plain silly and some with a grain of truth) rather prove the point of the member you are attempting to refute - that against the odds her government is doing rather well.My helpful advice to you would be at least go through the motions of objectivity so that you can avoid the foil hat syndrome.

Between the perjury of claiming her brother's Shin stock was hers (it wasn't), the unequivocal mismanagement of flood situations, false promises of pre-election pandering, lying to the public in this situation ("there was no meeting").... most of what is definitely sticking to her is the ineptitude of her own words and actions.

Your rather desperate list of Yingluck's "failings" (including the incorrect,the plain silly and some with a grain of truth) rather prove the point of the member you are attempting to refute - that against the odds her government is doing rather well.My helpful advice to you would be at least go through the motions of objectivity so that you can avoid the foil hat syndrome.

Could you give us an indication of which classification each of Buchholz's alleged failings fall into rather than a generalised swipe?

Her government is doing rather well "against the odds." As they have a majority of seats, I assume you're referring to the quality of the MPs?

Now you're unfair, my dear chap. She's drafting a statement which I assume will reach the Ombudsman in the same timeframe as the demanded presence to elaborate on certain issues. In some ways the written statement which will probably be in the public domain can be much more enlightening than a verbal Q&A with the dear lady.

Just curious, is perjury only related to written statements and those made under oath ?

"which will probably be in the public domain" ... Facebook ... again?

As IF, she will be doing the writing. Nothing will be sent to the bud man without Thaksin's spproval.

Nothing was said about her answering the ombudsmans questions,

she just is sending him a letter says what SHE wants to say,

and not having to be voi dired at all.

Interesting and significant that the other paper (hardly a supporter of the present government) has an editorial today demolishing the stupidity and irresponsibility of the opposition's attacks on the PM for the hotel meeting in question, correctly pointing out that many previous PMs had private meeting with business leaders and that it is not compulsory for the PM to attend every parliamentary session.

Just a reminder to normal forum members not to be overly influenced by the hate filled nonsense of the usual suspects.

Yes, a few unsolicited glowing testimonials recently. Seems like the pressure must be getting to them.

Interesting and significant that the other paper (hardly a supporter of the present government) has an editorial today demolishing the stupidity and irresponsibility of the opposition's attacks on the PM for the hotel meeting in question, correctly pointing out that many previous PMs had private meeting with business leaders and that it is not compulsory for the PM to attend every parliamentary session.

Just a reminder to normal forum members not to be overly influenced by the hate filled nonsense of the usual suspects.

Thanks for the reminder. Its great that, given your views, you can remain objective and magnanimously suggest people who disagree with you are wrong. Should it be called the J-curve or the J-spin?

Interesting and significant that the other paper (hardly a supporter of the present government) has an editorial today demolishing the stupidity and irresponsibility of the opposition's attacks on the PM for the hotel meeting in question, correctly pointing out that many previous PMs had private meeting with business leaders and that it is not compulsory for the PM to attend every parliamentary session.

Just a reminder to normal forum members not to be overly influenced by the hate filled nonsense of the usual suspects.

Thanks for the reminder. Its great that, given your views, you can remain objective and magnanimously suggest people who disagree with you are wrong. Should it be called the J-curve or the J-spin?

I am often wrong and many of those with whom I differ politically will concede that I am open to reasonable argument.

In this instance the thread was initially overloaded with sexist abuse and lies along with sheer ignorance.The other paper nailed the dishonesty today though I think the true picture had already emerged on this thread.One can either personalise the matter (as you have done) or address the issue.To each his choice.

Interesting and significant that the other paper (hardly a supporter of the present government) has an editorial today demolishing the stupidity and irresponsibility of the opposition's attacks on the PM for the hotel meeting in question, correctly pointing out that many previous PMs had private meeting with business leaders and that it is not compulsory for the PM to attend every parliamentary session.

Just a reminder to normal forum members not to be overly influenced by the hate filled nonsense of the usual suspects.

while I agree that it is not compulsory to attend EVERY sitting, it would at minimum be respectful to attend MOST. It would also impress the voters if "attendance" wasn't limited to appearing, reading from a prepared document, big smile and fade out (not unlike Alice's Cheshire Cat).

Can you enlighten me as to instances where Yingluk has entered into prolonged and spirited debate, or deigned to answer question without notice. Perhaps you might even view this as cowardice as well as failing to carry out normal duties of the position.

Interesting and significant that the other paper (hardly a supporter of the present government) has an editorial today demolishing the stupidity and irresponsibility of the opposition's attacks on the PM for the hotel meeting in question, correctly pointing out that many previous PMs had private meeting with business leaders and that it is not compulsory for the PM to attend every parliamentary session.

Just a reminder to normal forum members not to be overly influenced by the hate filled nonsense of the usual suspects.

while I agree that it is not compulsory to attend EVERY sitting, it would at minimum be respectful to attend MOST. It would also impress the voters if "attendance" wasn't limited to appearing, reading from a prepared document, big smile and fade out (not unlike Alice's Cheshire Cat).

Can you enlighten me as to instances where Yingluk has entered into prolonged and spirited debate, or deigned to answer question without notice. Perhaps you might even view this as cowardice as well as failing to carry out normal duties of the position.

I don't disagree with what you say but it's not relevant to this thread.My point simply was that on this forum there a small number -we all know who they are - who abuse the PM without any kind of filter and quite unreasonably - as in the case of the hotel meeting, dishonestly and with unpleasant innuendo sometimes sexist in nature.As to legitimate criticisms such as those you list, that's fair enough and a leading politician just has to suck it up, and ideally respond to it.

Numerous off topic posts and replies have been related. Discussion of "Thai PM Yingluck Vows To Cooperate Over Hotel Meeting" would be on topic to this thread.

The PM did bring it on herself with the "I am a woman" statement, especially after denying there even was a meeting. It caused people to suspect that, if she were willing to run with that story, the reality was far worse. One lie, when found out, does tend to damage one's credibility. On another matter, it would be nice if you did not generalise people who disagree with you as "the usual suspects" (derogatory implications of criminal intent), "we all know who they are", "unreasonably", which are your personal opinions, and should not be generalised to represent those of others.

Interesting and significant that the other paper (hardly a supporter of the present government) has an editorial today demolishing the stupidity and irresponsibility of the opposition's attacks on the PM for the hotel meeting in question, correctly pointing out that many previous PMs had private meeting with business leaders and that it is not compulsory for the PM to attend every parliamentary session.

Just a reminder to normal forum members not to be overly influenced by the hate filled nonsense of the usual suspects.

Just a reminder to normal forum members not to be overly influenced by the lovefest filled nonsense from the usual suspects.

The PM did bring it on herself with the "I am a woman" statement, especially after denying there even was a meeting. It caused people to suspect that, if she were willing to run with that story, the reality was far worse. One lie, when found out, does tend to damage one's credibility. On another matter, it would be nice if you did not generalise people who disagree with you as "the usual suspects" (derogatory implications of criminal intent), "we all know who they are", "unreasonably", which are your personal opinions, and should not be generalised to represent those of others.

The PM did not "bring it on herself" and frankly that attitude is typical of the "usual suspects" with the innuendo that "the reality was much worse", the kind of dishonest and hate filled opinion that the other paper's editorial dealt with today.

Please respond to the whole post. There is no hate whatsoever in that post, nor is it intended or felt. Attributing it is a red herring.

The PM did bring it on herself with the "I am a woman" statement, especially after denying there even was a meeting. It caused people to suspect that, if she were willing to run with that story, the reality was far worse. One lie, when found out, does tend to damage one's credibility. On another matter, it would be nice if you did not generalise people who disagree with you as "the usual suspects" (derogatory implications of criminal intent), "we all know who they are", "unreasonably", which are your personal opinions, and should not be generalised to represent those of others.

The PM did not "bring it on herself" and frankly that attitude is typical of the "usual suspects" with the innuendo that "the reality was much worse", the kind of dishonest and hate filled opinion that the other paper's editorial dealt with today.

Interesting and significant that the other paper (hardly a supporter of the present government) has an editorial today demolishing the stupidity and irresponsibility of the opposition's attacks on the PM for the hotel meeting in question, correctly pointing out that many previous PMs had private meeting with business leaders and that it is not compulsory for the PM to attend every parliamentary session.

Just a reminder to normal forum members not to be overly influenced by the hate filled nonsense of the usual suspects.

It may be normal for PMs to meet business people, but why was she so secretive about it? Why were the media told to "keep away, this is personal time"?

It may be normal for PMs to meet business people, but why was she so secretive about it? Why were the media told to "keep away, this is personal time"?

It's like a third rate horror movie.He's decapitated but keeps coming back for more.

Take up your issues with someone else.

History has proven, a smart politician gets the bad news out quickly, honestly and completely. Had Yingluck come clean on the 'meeting' when asked, it would have been a non issue. Her obfuscating of the issue did herself in. When a politician refuses to answer the question, the news media and the public are free to make up anything they want. She certainly did not handle it right, by not saying why she was there. Transparency is what the people want. Corruption is a tax on the economy.

“There is enough in the world for everybody’s need, but not enough for anybody’s greed” - Mahatma Gandhi.

Edited February 26, 201214 yr by blows

Nice imagery! ;-)

It may be normal for PMs to meet business people, but why was she so secretive about it? Why were the media told to "keep away, this is personal time"?

It's like a third rate horror movie.He's decapitated but keeps coming back for more.

Take up your issues with someone else.

Nice imagery! ;-)

It may be normal for PMs to meet business people, but why was she so secretive about it? Why were the media told to "keep away, this is personal time"?

It's like a third rate horror movie.He's decapitated but keeps coming back for more.

Take up your issues with someone else.

Was it a description of Yingluck? And her handling of this hotel train wreck?

The PM did not "bring it on herself" and frankly that attitude is typical of the "usual suspects" with the innuendo that "the reality was much worse", the kind of dishonest and hate filled opinion that the other paper's editorial dealt with today.

She most certainly did bring it on herself, or to put it another way, she dug her own hole... first by refusing to comment, and second by lying.

If you think she played no part in the mess this has become, and is purely an innocent victim who has been meanly and unfairly harassed, then i can't help but question my prior belief of you being for the most part a non-partisan observer open to all the facts.

Then again, Yingluck seems to have always been an area in which you have struggled to remain balanced on, right back to her early days. I'm not sure why as in the main you manage to do so with her brother.

All these overly protective outbursts, that one might understand coming from an older brother or a common-law husband, about people being sexist about her, about sexist abuse, people being unpleasant, people being rude. Playing the same "i'm a woman" card that she does, that shows how little she is actually doing for women's causes by demanding special treatment. It's all a nonsense - yes she gets flack, but no more, no less than all the other PMs have in the past, and no more, no less disrespectful - it is all designed to distract and deflect people from the terrible job she is doing, and make her out to be the victim.

She took on the PMs job, and she took it on knowing that if not for her surname, she wouldn't of had a snowflake in hell's chance of getting it, much as she wouldn't have had a snowflake in hell's chance of becoming upper management material, let alone president of a massive corporation. She has accepted all that nepotism has thrown her way, and now she wants everyone to go easy on her because "she is just a woman and women are fragile little petals that cry a lot". Pathetic but not unexpected. That you are on board with all this crap... well that has surprised me, but there you go...

The PM did not "bring it on herself" and frankly that attitude is typical of the "usual suspects" with the innuendo that "the reality was much worse", the kind of dishonest and hate filled opinion that the other paper's editorial dealt with today.

She most certainly did bring it on herself, or to put it another way, she dug her own hole... first by refusing to comment, and second by lying.

If you think she played no part in the mess this has become, and is purely an innocent victim who has been meanly and unfairly harassed, then i can't help but question my prior belief of you being for the most part a non-partisan observer open to all the facts.

Then again, Yingluck seems to have always been an area in which you have struggled to remain balanced on, right back to her early days. I'm not sure why as in the main you manage to do so with her brother.

You are probably right I concede.I am rather protective of her though I'm fully aware she only holds her position by virtue of her family position (and the small matter of having won an election).

I certainly don't agree in the rather trivial matter of the hotel meeting that she brought it on herself.The other paper's editorial today makes a compelling case on how absurd the criticsm has been.

But you do have a point.I admit to rather liking her (and not liking her elder brother at all while recognising his catalytic significance).It's not just my weakness in front of a pair of sparkling eyes but an appreciation of her generous spiritedness and non-confrontational approach.I'm not the only unlikely admirer:I understand General Prem has been thorough charmed.OK not very important in the overall scheme of things and I'm sure sooner or later she will be swept away to be a footnote in Thai history.The forces at work in politics will transcend her, and ultimately she is irrelevant.And yet, and yet...I do think even though her premiership may be brief the sut pralaat element among Thai politicians -all sides - could learn from her good manners and sunny temperament.

And it should give you pause for thought that your post was "liked" by one of the most notorious practitioners of abusive sexism on this forum.Sometimes it's necessary to be careful about the company one keeps

You are probably right I concede.I am rather protective of her though I'm fully aware she only holds her position by virtue of her family position (and the small matter of having won an election).

I certainly don't agree in the rather trivial matter of the hotel meeting that she brought it on herself.The other paper's editorial today makes a compelling case on how absurd the criticsm has been.

But you do have a point.I admit to rather liking her (and not liking her elder brother at all while recognising his catalytic significance).It's not just my weakness in front of a pair of sparkling eyes but an appreciation of her generous spiritedness and non-confrontational approach.I'm not the only unlikely admirer:I understand General Prem has been thorough charmed.OK not very important in the overall scheme of things and I'm sure sooner or later she will be swept away to be a footnote in Thai history.The forces at work in politics will transcend her, and ultimately she is irrelevant.And yet, and yet...I do think even though her premiership may be brief the sut pralaat element among Thai politicians -all sides - could learn from her good manners and sunny temperament.

And it should give you pause for thought that your post was "liked" by one of the most notorious practitioners of abusive sexism on this forum.Sometimes it's necessary to be careful about the company one keeps

OK. Fair enough. So you have a soft spot for her. Understood and some kudos for being honest enough to admit it.

I happen to think though that this overly protective stuff is all a bit patronising to her, and perhaps you should consider, before being so quick to accuse others, that it is, to my mind anyway, as equally sexist to be defending her when she deserves some criticism, as it is to attack her when she doesn't.

Edited February 26, 201214 yr by rixalex

You are probably right I concede.I am rather protective of her though I'm fully aware she only holds her position by virtue of her family position (and the small matter of having won an election).

I certainly don't agree in the rather trivial matter of the hotel meeting that she brought it on herself.The other paper's editorial today makes a compelling case on how absurd the criticsm has been.

But you do have a point.I admit to rather liking her (and not liking her elder brother at all while recognising his catalytic significance).It's not just my weakness in front of a pair of sparkling eyes but an appreciation of her generous spiritedness and non-confrontational approach.I'm not the only unlikely admirer:I understand General Prem has been thorough charmed.OK not very important in the overall scheme of things and I'm sure sooner or later she will be swept away to be a footnote in Thai history.The forces at work in politics will transcend her, and ultimately she is irrelevant.And yet, and yet...I do think even though her premiership may be brief the sut pralaat element among Thai politicians -all sides - could learn from her good manners and sunny temperament.

And it should give you pause for thought that your post was "liked" by one of the most notorious practitioners of abusive sexism on this forum.Sometimes it's necessary to be careful about the company one keeps

OK. Fair enough. So you have a soft spot for her. Understood and some kudos for being honest enough to admit it.

I happen to think though that this overly protective stuff is all a bit patronising to her, and perhaps you should consider, before being so quick to accuse others, that it is, to my mind anyway, as equally sexist to be defending her when she deserves some criticism, as it is to attack her when she doesn't.

Assuming he doesn't feel rejected, Jayboy can relax and sleep soundly. Ms. Yingluck has appointed a new protector already, k. Suranand as reported in another topic started yesterday.

"K. Suranand said his new duties did not overlap those of the government spokesman because he is meant to focus on issues that involve Yingluck alone. He said he would put his chat show and other media activities on hold for the time being because he needs to devote full attention to the prime minister."

You are probably right I concede.I am rather protective of her though I'm fully aware she only holds her position by virtue of her family position (and the small matter of having won an election).

I certainly don't agree in the rather trivial matter of the hotel meeting that she brought it on herself.The other paper's editorial today makes a compelling case on how absurd the criticsm has been.

But you do have a point.I admit to rather liking her (and not liking her elder brother at all while recognising his catalytic significance).It's not just my weakness in front of a pair of sparkling eyes but an appreciation of her generous spiritedness and non-confrontational approach.I'm not the only unlikely admirer:I understand General Prem has been thorough charmed.OK not very important in the overall scheme of things and I'm sure sooner or later she will be swept away to be a footnote in Thai history.The forces at work in politics will transcend her, and ultimately she is irrelevant.And yet, and yet...I do think even though her premiership may be brief the sut pralaat element among Thai politicians -all sides - could learn from her good manners and sunny temperament.

And it should give you pause for thought that your post was "liked" by one of the most notorious practitioners of abusive sexism on this forum.Sometimes it's necessary to be careful about the company one keeps

OK. Fair enough. So you have a soft spot for her. Understood and some kudos for being honest enough to admit it.

I happen to think though that this overly protective stuff is all a bit patronising to her, and perhaps you should consider, before being so quick to accuse others, that it is, to my mind anyway, as equally sexist to be defending her when she deserves some criticism, as it is to attack her when she doesn't.

Assuming he doesn't feel rejected, Jayboy can relax and sleep soundly. Ms. Yingluck has appointed a new protector already, k. Suranand as reported in another topic started yesterday.

"K. Suranand said his new duties did not overlap those of the government spokesman because he is meant to focus on issues that involve Yingluck alone. He said he would put his chat show and other media activities on hold for the time being because he needs to devote full attention to the prime minister."

It seems that he thinks deflecting criticism of the PM will be a full time job over and above doing the same for her government. and he's doing it for love free.