Thaksin Back In UK, Eyeing US

[oggie911]

I don't think this has anything to do with another country recognizing any corruption here, it's economics. If he's planning on buying another football league, anyone would let him in! Money talks, b.s. walks!

tell him to but leeds utd he ant go far wrong they wear blue to

[geriatrickid]

Noppadon said Thaksin was also considering travelling to the United States to meet his Thai supporters there.

Perhaps all three of them could meet him for lunch at the airport food court.

Such an adventure at EWR or JFK could be construed as an attempt at self harm.

[jayboy]

So much for the rule of law.

The rule of money trumps it.

Tricky dilemma for the usual suspects.Until recently they were maintaining the governments of the world (and Interpol) were co-operating to hunt the fugitive Thaksin down, and that he was restricted to shady business trips to various African hell holes.No civilised country would receive him.It was always of course complete nonsense, and in practice Thaksin travelled where he liked.The barmy component of the Thaksin haters (Kasit being the best example) was never able to demonstrate the charges against Thaksin weren't politically motivated, and the Wikileaks disclosures have confirmed that - not suggestiong of course there are not genuine abuses to be dealt with.It doesn't however surprise me the loony tunes element is now suggesting the British Government has been compromised by Thaksin's money.

"never able to demonstrate the charges against Thaksin weren't politically motivated"

So what?, nobody can break the law unless he is accused by someone without political bias?

The "political motivated charges" mantra doesn't stop being a red herring no matter how many times is regurgitated; trying to conflate accusation with conviction.

It's very far from being a red herring because if political motivation can be demonstrated that in itself is enough for a foreign government to deny extradition requests for example.I have made it clear that Thaksin needs to face charges in Thailand so need to tilt at non existent windmills.In hindsight the enemies of Thaksin would have been better advised to simply let the law take its course without seeking to manipulate the process.This is Thailand of course so perhaps that's asking too much.It's all very well for us dopey expatriates to blather on but facing devestatating courtroom forensics at the hands of a top class British QC, the Thai Governments's case was hopeless - and apart from the ridiculous little Kasit I suspect they knew it.

[rixalex]

The looney tunes element would be the one suggesting that were Thaksin a "normal" Thai of modest means, British authorities would still be ignoring very plain and clear visa application rules on the matter of criminal convictions, that apply to all except the wealthy elite.

I don't think a normal Thai of modest means would be pursued for reasons of political vindictiveness, so your comment doesn't make much sense.

The question isn't whether you think it would be likely for a Thai of modest means to be pursued for reasons of political vindictiveness - though i understand your interest in pursuing that line of arguing - the question is what would happen if such a case did exist and was presented to British Authorities?

[jayboy]

The looney tunes element would be the one suggesting that were Thaksin a "normal" Thai of modest means, British authorities would still be ignoring very plain and clear visa application rules on the matter of criminal convictions, that apply to all except the wealthy elite.

I don't think a normal Thai of modest means would be pursued for reasons of political vindictiveness, so your comment doesn't make much sense.

The question isn't whether you think it would be likely for a Thai of modest means to be pursued for reasons of political vindictiveness - though i understand your interest in pursuing that line of arguing - the question is what would happen if such a case did exist and was presented to British Authorities?

Not sure I really follow you.If you are asking whether an ordinary Thai without any political angle would be denied a visa if facing criminal convictions, the answer presumably would be yes.So what?

[phiphidon]

So much for the rule of law.

The rule of money trumps it.

As has been amply demonstrated in Thailand over the decades.

[BirdsandBooze]

London is already full of wealthy dodgy Russians and wealthy dodgy Arabs so a wealthy dodgy Thai, provided the political elite are given a sniff of his ill gotten filthy lucre, will be more than welcome. Corruption is everywhere, it`s a matter of how efficient the corrupters are in concealing it.

[rixalex]

The looney tunes element would be the one suggesting that were Thaksin a "normal" Thai of modest means, British authorities would still be ignoring very plain and clear visa application rules on the matter of criminal convictions, that apply to all except the wealthy elite.

I don't think a normal Thai of modest means would be pursued for reasons of political vindictiveness, so your comment doesn't make much sense.

The question isn't whether you think it would be likely for a Thai of modest means to be pursued for reasons of political vindictiveness - though i understand your interest in pursuing that line of arguing - the question is what would happen if such a case did exist and was presented to British Authorities?

Not sure I really follow you.If you are asking whether an ordinary Thai without any political angle would be denied a visa if facing criminal convictions, the answer presumably would be yes.So what?

The hypothetical requires for you to, for one moment, put aside the difficulty you have in understanding why an ordinary Thai would be pursued for reasons of political vindictiveness, and imagine that an ordinary Thai was in just that circumstance, and then speculate on whether British Authorities would be ignoring basic visa rules for that ordinary Thai.

[Buchholz]

Is there a list somewhere that details the politicians assets? Would be interesting to see how many of the piggies own houses overseas. I would think it is a very large percentage of them with Hottie Yingluck and Abhisit leading the pack.

EDIT --- ahhh "By law, only members of the cabinet needed to declare their assets".

By law, the following people must submit assets/liabilities statements for themselves and their families:

Section 259 of the Constitution

Persons holding the following political positions shall submit an account showing particulars of assets and liabilities of themselves, their spouses and children who have not yet become sui juris to the National Counter Corruption Commission on each occasion of taking or vacating office:

(1) Prime Minister;

(2) Ministers;

(3) members of the House of Representatives;

(4) Senators;

(5) other political officials;

(6) local administrators and members of a local assembly as provided by law.

.

[Buchholz]

No civilised country would receive him.It was always of course complete nonsense, and in practice Thaksin travelled where he liked.

And of course, over the course of the past 5 years, it's only because he's just never "liked" to visit the UK, where he has property and business interests, that he's not returned in that span of time.

[Pseudolus]

You can own a house or any building in Thailand. You can not own the land it sits on.

You can have a 51% Thai company own the land and then you lease it.

In London most of the land is only available for 100 year leasing not for purchase.

.....because it is owned by rich people like the Duke of Westminster.

However, how about the rest of the Country? Thaksin and his crownies can pop into Rural Wiltshire, buy a complete town, rent it out sending all the loot back the Thailand (well, the Seychelles at a guess) and nothing to stop them..

Hello who just moved the goalposts. Then proceeded to get lost.

jb1

I don't see how I moved the goal posts. I was not making any judgement on rich people owning lots of land; but the inability of other people to own land. The Duke of Westminster may own lots of land, but at the same time he is not ensuring no one else can. I don't care if Hottie Yingluck owns 57 housed in Chiang Rai, but I do object to the cutie not letting me own, in my own name, a nice pad with a couplf of rai, when she herself owns more than that in my country of birth. It is easy to find and buy free hold property in the UK including London if you have the money. I agree with a former poster requesting that things are fair, but also that the people in Thailand who are speculating on property abroad should have a mirror held up to their hypocrisy when they postulate against foreigners owning property here. I own 49% of a real business, with genuine customers, with a fair amount of employees, and can legitimately have that company buy as much land as it wants to near enough. The other investor in the business legitimately put in their shares of the capitalisation of it so no problems there. So this does not really effect me per se. However, this does not stop be being slightly annoyed that I can not see a nice house, maybe with a good sized bit of land, perhaps a fruit orchard, just something nice and decide to buy it and live in it. The solution is to use the money that you would spend on this and buy condo's instead, and use the generated revenue to pay the rent. But its not quite the same is it.

Edited April 29, 2012 by Pseudolus

[Buchholz]

Noppadon said Thaksin was also considering travelling to the United States to meet his Thai supporters there.

I thought Noppadon had earlier indicated that Thaksin was going to the United States in January 2011...

Did he not make it?

Thaksin Continues To Gather Information On Human Rights Violations

http://www.thaivisa....hts-violations/

BANGKOK, Dec 12 [2010] Thailand's ousted and fugitive ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra has postponed his visit to the United States to testify to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), earlier scheduled in Washington this Thursday, on alleged human rights violations in Thailand after the agency postponed its session until next month, Noppadon Pattama, Thaksin's legal advisor, said Sunday.

Edited April 29, 2012 by Buchholz

[h90]

On the whole I couldn't care less what he does but there is one part of this story that makes me mad;

"He has a house in London"

Prick. He and his ilk do so much to try and stop farangs owning a house in Thailand. I would assume all the politicians own houses outside of Thailand. A-holes.

yes there are frequently reports, most have houses outside Thailand in case they get kicked out. Also most of the leading military and police.

As well many have a other countries passport. Not only Abhisit......

[jayboy]

The hypothetical requires for you to, for one moment, put aside the difficulty you have in understanding why an ordinary Thai would be pursued for reasons of political vindictiveness, and imagine that an ordinary Thai was in just that circumstance, and then speculate on whether British Authorities would be ignoring basic visa rules for that ordinary Thai.

Sorry I'm trying to engage but am having difficulty following you.You are now saying in this hypothetical that the ordinary Thai does have a political case against him.The answer is that he would have to prove it but in the instance of the UK he would certainly be granted a visa.Most foreigners, granted visas who are being pursued by their own governments for political reasons are neither wealthy or influential.

Edited April 29, 2012 by Scott
formatting

[h90]

Noppadon said Thaksin was also considering travelling to the United States to meet his Thai supporters there.

I thought Noppadon had earlier indicated that Thaksin was going to the United States in January 2011...

Did he not make it?

Thaksin Continues To Gather Information On Human Rights Violations

http://www.thaivisa....hts-violations/

BANGKOK, Dec 12 [2010] Thailand's ousted and fugitive ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra has postponed his visit to the United States to testify to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), earlier scheduled in Washington this Thursday, on alleged human rights violations in Thailand after the agency postponed its session until next month, Noppadon Pattama, Thaksin's legal advisor, said Sunday.

I think now he has basically diplomatic immunity and a lot hot deals to offer.

USA is interested in more cooperation with Thailand as China gets stronger and PTP (Thaksin) is very helpful.

Abhisit was also, but at the more yellow groups there are a lot Anti-USA people. So I doubt the USA want any problem with Thaksin at the moment.

[jayboy]

And of course, over the course of the past 5 years, it's only because he's just never "liked" to visit the UK, where he has property and business interests, that he's not returned in that span of time.

No idea.He was certainly denied a re-entry visa by the UK at one point for reasons that were never made clear.

However since you were the foremost proponent of the case on this forum that he was only welcome in dumps like the Congo, Guinea-Bissau and Liberia a period of quiet reflection might be in order before exposing yourself to further humiliation.

[Yunla]

Its easy to see why he loves England - it is a land of massive economic inequality that somehow manages to carry on regardless. When Thaksins plane touched down there were two stories headlining in the UK, one is the ongoing row about cutting another £10 billion from welfare for sick/homeless/pensioners and the other story is that the UK's rich are getting richer in leaps and bounds.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17883101

IMO England's highly-structured economic-inequality between the classes is an inspiration to Thaksin, how England has managed for centuries to keep the super-rich at the top and the workers down below, and to give it the illusion of "democracy" because you can tick a box every five years as vote for some fat lying face on the TV. In England the queen owns approximately 20% of the actual floorspace in the UK, parks and lakes and woodland and farming land totally 20%~ of the entire country, owned by the queen and her offspring. Then there is the landed gentry & corporations etc. who own a further huge percentage amount of land. UK has been called a Prison Island before, as normal people live in bedsits and council flats and terraces with officially the smallest person/space ratio of any industrialised country on Earth. And yet it works, somehow the whole corrupt, unfair, unequal circus manages to lurch from one day to the next without going up in flames. I think that fascinates megalomaniac control-freak criminals like Thaksin. Why are the English sipping tea and watching Pop Idol despite being robbed of all their land and money. Its a model to be copied. The fact that he is a billionaire and officially only a white-collar criminal, means he is welcome in the UK. Why not let him live there, the whole country is based on inequality and oppression already.

Edited April 29, 2012 by Yunla

[Scott]

Please keep the discussion civil.

[kerrysum]

Hope he's brought a brolly? The weather is lovely at the moment; drought to floods within a couple of weeks.

Maybe he can pay some of the tax he owes the British Government while he is here?

London is full of foreigners buying up all the property and making it unaffordable for the locals so I agree with the last poster.

MaiChai,

I am really interested in your quote... So foreigners can buy in London, without being a Citizen? I am just curious, live in a Country that lets the same thing happen.... Thanks for the Post!

[Pseudolus]

Its easy to see why he loves England - it is a land of massive economic inequality that somehow manages to carry on regardless. When Thaksins plane touched down there were two stories headlining in the UK, one is the ongoing row about cutting another £10 billion from welfare for sick/homeless/pensioners and the other story is that the UK's rich are getting richer in leaps and bounds.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17883101

IMO England's highly-structured economic-inequality between the classes is an inspiration to Thaksin, how England has managed for centuries to keep the super-rich at the top and the workers down below, and to give it the illusion of "democracy" because you can tick a box every five years as vote for some fat lying face on the TV. In England the queen owns approximately 20% of the actual floorspace in the UK, parks and lakes and woodland and farming land totally 20%~ of the entire country, owned by the queen and her offspring. Then there is the landed gentry & corporations etc. who own a further huge percentage amount of land. UK has been called a Prison Island before, as normal people live in bedsits and council flats and terraces with officially the smallest person/space ratio of any industrialised country on Earth. And yet it works, somehow the whole corrupt, unfair, unequal circus manages to lurch from one day to the next without going up in flames. I think that fascinates megalomaniac control-freak criminals like Thaksin. Why are the English sipping tea and watching Pop Idol despite being robbed of all their land and money. Its a model to be copied. The fact that he is a billionaire and officially only a white-collar criminal, means he is welcome in the UK. Why not let him live there, the whole country is based on inequality and oppression already.

Failing to see how the UK is different from any other country in the world. All the same; Rich has lots, wants more, to do so the poor have to get poorer. There are some differences though in that you will actually read an article in the state owned press commenting on this, and also criticising this.

[rixalex]

The hypothetical requires for you to, for one moment, put aside the difficulty you have in understanding why an ordinary Thai would be pursued for reasons of political vindictiveness, and imagine that an ordinary Thai was in just that circumstance, and then speculate on whether British Authorities would be ignoring basic visa rules for that ordinary Thai.

Sorry I'm trying to engage but am having difficulty following you.You are now saying in this hypothetical that the ordinary Thai does have a political case against him.The answer is that he would have to prove it but in the instance of the UK he would certainly be granted a visa.Most foreigners, granted visas who are being pursued by their own governments for political reasons are neither wealthy or influential.

I'm not now saying in this hypothetical that the ordinary Thai does have a political case against him, i was saying that from the beginning with what i thought was a fairly basic and easy to understand hypothetical of a "Thaksin set of circumstances, or similar" in a UK visa application case, minus the money and wealth.

Anyway, by your admission above that the said "ordinary" applicant would have to prove themselves, i think we have successfully established that "ordinary" people and "rich wealthy elite" people likely get treated differently by British Authorities when it comes to dishing out visas.

[rixalex]

And of course, over the course of the past 5 years, it's only because he's just never "liked" to visit the UK, where he has property and business interests, that he's not returned in that span of time.

No idea.

No idea? Really?! How strange. You don't seem short on ideas on most other things. Give it a shot why don't you?

Thaksin has always been able to travel wherever he liked - any suggestion he hasn't is a nonsense - but he didn't in the last five years because .......

[MILT]

Unhindered travel shows the POOF of politically motivated charges.

There you have it folks Thasskin is innocent.

[rayw]

Well the FACTS are Thaksin was a bail jumper and also prosecuted for fraud. He still has I believe an international warrant out for his arrest. He cannot claim that if he came back to Thailand and faced the courts that he would be politically discriminated against unfairly as after all it IS his political cronies in power here right now and with his sister as PM incredible though that is. So if he feels he is innocent then why does he not come back now and hand himself in to finally and fairly face an open minded and unbiased appeal court and stand by its results and serve any punishment imposed on him like a real man. He is at least 100% most definitely guilty of bail jumping and that IS a criminal offence on its own for sure.

SO WHAT IS THE UK DOING NOT ARRESTING HIM AND DEPORTING HIM BACK TO THAILAND?? Makes me ashamed to be British when they do this sort of disgusting thing as after all Britain is a complete member of Interpol and MUST respect international law irrespective of how much money the convict has, come on Britain get real will you!!!!!!!!!! Britain always makes a lot of noise when our escaped convicts are given refuge in other countries yet hipocritically they then allow a well known wanted fugitive refuge in the UK, IT IS JUST NOT ON, AND TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE no matter what your thoughts are on Thaksin as that is irrelevant as the facts say he IS a wanted fugitive and Britain as well as all Interpol signed up states must comply with the law..

Edited April 29, 2012 by rayw

[JurgenG]

I think a lot of people still miss the point that Thakisn was barred from entering UK, not because the UK thought he was guilty of any criminal wrongdoing, but because he was conducting on English soil a fight against a government that was considered by UK a friendly government.

Even if that government was issued from a military coup and not democratically elected. But that point is for english citizens to question their government.

Edited April 29, 2012 by JurgenG

[jayboy]

I'm not now saying in this hypothetical that the ordinary Thai does have a political case against him, i was saying that from the beginning with what i thought was a fairly basic and easy to understand hypothetical of a "Thaksin set of circumstances, or similar" in a UK visa application case, minus the money and wealth.

Anyway, by your admission above that the said "ordinary" applicant would have to prove themselves, i think we have successfully established that "ordinary" people and "rich wealthy elite" people likely get treated differently by British Authorities when it comes to dishing out visas.

Shall we call it a day as this is becoming a bit tedious (I don't exclude myself from blame)?

I think I have answered all your points.Incidentally anybody regardless of wealth and position seeking political refuge has to prove their case.I don't know why you think "we have successfully established" the British authorities treat different wealth categories differently.Perhaps they do but the matter hasn't even been discussed on this thread.Off the top of my head if you are correct surely Thaksin wouldn't have been denied a UK visa a few years ago.Can't have it both ways.

[rixalex]

Incidentally anybody regardless of wealth and position seeking political refuge has to prove their case.

People seeking political refuge have nothing to do with what we are discussing, so not sure why you bring it up.

I don't know why you think "we have successfully established" the British authorities treat different wealth categories differently.

You seemed to be saying that an "ordinary" person with a modest income in a similar situation as Thaksin, would have to prove themselves with regards their "unjust" conviction. I'm not aware that Thaksin has had to prove anything, therefore it would appear like he is being treated differently.

Off the top of my head if you are correct surely Thaksin wouldn't have been denied a UK visa a few years ago.Can't have it both ways.

Whilst blind eyes might be ready to be turned for a lot of things, there is such a thing as "taking the piss". Perhaps that is how his long distance phone-ins to rallies were perceived.

Saying that money can buy you "favours", doesn't mean that money can buy you everything. Well in Thailand perhaps, but elsewhere there may be limits.

[Yunla]

Failing to see how the UK is different from any other country in the world. All the same; Rich has lots, wants more, to do so the poor have to get poorer. There are some differences though in that you will actually read an article in the state owned press commenting on this, and also criticising this.

I agree with you that most countries globally have inequality, but very few if any have the long-term mass-inequality you can see in the UK, or the mentality of the way it is tolerated and accepted. I worked as a teacher in the 1980s--1990s outside Wakefield in the north of england, on a former coal-mining estate where the pits had closed down. I had to teach the kids that they could become industry CEO if they just did their homework, totally disregarding the lives they had every day on the estate. Thaksin could tell you the truth - you get top jobs by being born into the right family.

This type of 'ignore & accept' mentality is applied to Thaksin flying into UK as a convicted criminal, because he is in a suit and has billions in the bank it is ok.

I actually have a lot of love for England & lived there for 35 years, I like the queen she is a nice lady & prince charles has a good heart etc. but I was talking about economic inequality in the UK, especially among the new corporate elites.

The main thing that struck me was that Thaksin was flying into the UK when these two stories were headlines; the poor having their benefits taken away and the rich getting new private jets. Seemed appropriate to his arrival.

Edited April 29, 2012 by Yunla

[Jingthing]

Will the U.S. really allow him in? If he does go the U.S. that would indeed be a strong sign he's coming to Thailand ... soon.

[Pseudolus]

Failing to see how the UK is different from any other country in the world. All the same; Rich has lots, wants more, to do so the poor have to get poorer. There are some differences though in that you will actually read an article in the state owned press commenting on this, and also criticising this.

I agree with you that most countries globally have inequality, but very few if any have the long-term mass-inequality you can see in the UK, or the mentality of the way it is tolerated and accepted. I worked as a teacher in the 1980s--1990s outside Wakefield in the north of england, on a former coal-mining estate where the pits had closed down. I had to teach the kids that they could become industry CEO if they just did their homework, totally disregarding the lives they had every day on the estate. Thaksin could tell you the truth - you get top jobs by being born into the right family.

This type of 'ignore & accept' mentality is aplied to Thaksin flying into UK as a convicted criminal, because he is in a suit and has billions in the bank it is ok.

I actually have a lot of love for England & lived there for 35 years, I like the queen she is a nice lady & prince charles has a good heart etc. but I was talking about economic inequality in the UK, especially among the new corporate elites.

The main thing that struck me was that Thaksin was flying into the UK when these two stories were headlines; the poor having their benefits taken away and the rich getting new private jets. Seemed appropriate to his arrival.

I think you are wrong. In the UK, if you work hard, you can do anything you like. Just check out the Times Rich List issued today; take away the landed gentry and the rich imports of various nationalities, you are left with a lot of people who started with nothing, and are now loaded. Anything is possible if you work hard enough. There are also a lot of once rich people who have pissed it all away. Not wanting to start a Thatcher argument where I guess you would be on the "she is the antichrist" side of the fence, the area you worked in shows the danger of having all eggs in one basket; how you act when you face adversity.

Also, I would say that every country since records began have long-term mass-inequality; I struggle to think of a country that does not, as well as one where the common or garden chap on the street does not accept it, and therefore tolerate it. Even countries set up with a philosophy to stop this really are the prime examples of this.... China...soviet union as was....

Edited April 29, 2012 by Pseudolus