Democrats Call On Yingluck To Explain Four Seasons Meeting

[webfact]

MYSTERIOUS MEETING

Democrats call on Yingluck to explain Four Seasons meeting

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Democrat Party yesterday demanded that Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra come clean on her private meeting with businessmen at the Four Seasons hotel after the Ombudsman said it likely involved a conflict of interest.

"I don't want anyone to make gossip, but the PM has to tell the truth, as the meeting was referred to as a conflict of interest, corrupt and unethical, which will lead to impeachment," Democrat spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalyasut said.

Not only was the controversy about a conflict of interest, but also about sexual impropriety, which would disgrace her honour, he said.

On Monday, Ombudsman Sriracha Charoenpanich spoke about the progress of the ethical-conduct inquiry.

The statement of Ekayuth Unchanbud, a real-estate businessman and the owner of the Thai Insider website, conflicted with the other businessmen's statements, so the office needs to investigate further, he said.

"We might have to go to the field, to the Four Seasons meeting room again," he said.

Srettha Thaveesin, president of Sansiri, who joined the private meeting, has given a written statement, Sriracha said, but declined to reveal the substance of the letter as it might affect the inquiry.

Yingluck could assign someone to represent her in her official duties while she is attending to other matters, but the office would have to weigh the importance, he said.

According to the investigation so far, it seems that Yingluck was involved in a conflict of interest, he said, adding that he needed more information to make a judgement.

The Four Seasons meeting has become a hot issue for the opposition, which is seeking the truth as to how the meeting was so important that Yingluck had to skip the parliamentary session on February 8.

The meeting was later confirmed by Deputy Prime Minister Kittiratt Na-Ranong, who is also the finance minister. He acknowledged that he was also at the meeting on the seventh floor of Four Seasons with a group of real-estate businessmen, including Srettha.

It was a gathering to discuss the economic and political situations, Kittiratt said.

-- The Nation 2012-06-20

[theblether]

but also about sexual impropriety, which would disgrace her honour, he said.

Give me strength.......what a bunch of desperate people these politicians of both sides are

[Yunla]

seeking the truth as to how the meeting was so important that Yingluck had to skip the parliamentary session on February 8.

She attends these shady meetings in secret, misses almost every parliamentary session, refuses to tell the Thai public openly and unscripted about her policies, refuses to debate and interview unscripted about her policies, and the reason is that she is not actually a politician, she is not a prime minister as a part of the democratic process. She is part of the corporate mafia that has a corruption chokehold on free enterprise in Thailand. Those men in suits in that hotel room and other men in other hotel rooms she undoubtably visits regularly, are the men she reports to and is accountable to, not the democratic electorate. She works for the corporatocracy, the enemies of freedom and democracy, and nobody in that hotel room wants justice or equality for the poorest people in society.

Not only was the controversy about a conflict of interest, but also about sexual impropriety, which would disgrace her honour, he said.

If she has any honour she has hidden it well from the world so far, in my humble opinion. She likes to keep her hands clean in her part-time job as PM, but she doesn't mind getting her knees dirty when the corporate oligarchs command her to.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Yunla

[nurofiend]

but also about sexual impropriety, which would disgrace her honour, he said.

Give me strength.......what a bunch of desperate people these politicians of both sides are

unfortunately only some of us here can see that both sides are guilty of these stupid games.

[carra]

but also about sexual impropriety, which would disgrace her honour, he said.

Give me strength.......what a bunch of desperate people these politicians of both sides are

the only sexual impropriety is in the minds of the dems, small minds. I wonder if they think abhisit is on his knees when he has meetings

[Moruya]

but also about sexual impropriety, which would disgrace her honour, he said.

Give me strength.......what a bunch of desperate people these politicians of both sides are

the only sexual impropriety is in the minds of the dems, small minds. I wonder if they think abhisit is on his knees when he has meetings

Wouldn't be the first time or the second that allegations of sexual impropriety has raised its head with this family

[carra]

but also about sexual impropriety, which would disgrace her honour, he said.

Give me strength.......what a bunch of desperate people these politicians of both sides are

the only sexual impropriety is in the minds of the dems, small minds. I wonder if they think abhisit is on his knees when he has meetings

Wouldn't be the first time or the second that allegations of sexual impropriety has raised its head with this family

So she must be guilty, right?

I think the dems would be taken a lot more seriously if hey had kept this political rather than trying petty besmirching with no evidence whatsoever of sexual misconduct, she was in public <deleted>. Stick to her missing parliament, stick to asking why she was meeting with these people, however as soon as they tried to imply sexual misconduct they just made themselves look like bigger pricks than they actually are. This matter has has already been dealt with by the ombudsman so why is it brought up again, it is pointless, it is going nowhere, and shows the desperation of the dems.

isn't it about time they started talking about alternative policies to try and woo the electorate, all I ever seem to see from them is pettiness and sniping at the PTP, and allegations of sexual misconduct does them no favours whatsoever and really does show desperation. Stick to facts, get some policies, and they might start winning over voters.

[Yunla]

the only sexual impropriety is in the minds of the dems, small minds. I wonder if they think abhisit is on his knees when he has meetings

Unfortunately for you this thread topic is about Yingluck and her corrupt and unethical conduct in the news today. If this news story was about Abhisit, and during the time when he was PM, then you would have every right to make your comment.

The sex in this story it is a small insignificant subject, a sort of side-salad when compared to the bloody red steak served as the main-course, meaning the allegations of her meeting businessmen in secret while in the paid employ of the Thai people as their elected PM.

When you are elected into office you are solemnly bound to act only in the interests of the electorate. That means if businessmen want to talk to you they must do so within the parliamentary framework and transparently. This is to prevent gangster crime-syndicates (like PTP) from taking over the mechanism of democracy and using it against the unrepresented working-class.

It is even more wrong for a PM who got into office on the sole populist mandate of "speaking for the poor farmers against the elites", for her then to go sneaking off and meeting those very same elitist oligarchs in hotel rooms.

She is breaking the law, breaking the sacred values of democracy, and breaking the trust of the poorest people in society, the same people that her deceptive political campaigning used to get her into office.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Yunla

[whybother]

Why the need to bring up the suggestion of sexual impropriety? Yingluck's conflict of interest is more damning.

[Notstupid30]

What she does with her time is up to her and i can't believe they are still pushing about this it's old news now this but i would not be surprised if it wasn't anything to do with her brother ..

Edited June 20, 2012 by Notstupid30

[whybother]

What she does with her time is up to her and i can't believe they are still pushing about this it's old news now this but i would not be surprised if it wasn't anything to do with her brother ..

How is having a secret meeting with property developers while parliament is sitting "her time"? And it happened to be just before decisions were made on compensation for taking up land for flooding.

[carra]

the only sexual impropriety is in the minds of the dems, small minds. I wonder if they think abhisit is on his knees when he has meetings

Unfortunately for you this thread topic is about Yingluck and her corrupt and unethical conduct in the news today. If this news story was about Abhisit, and during the time when he was PM, then you would have every right to make your comment.

The sex in this story it is a small insignificant subject, a sort of side-salad when compared to the bloody red steak served as the main-course, meaning the allegations of her meeting businessmen in secret while in the paid employ of the Thai people as their elected PM.

When you are elected into office you are solemnly bound to act only in the interests of the electorate. That means if businessmen want to talk to you they must do so within the parliamentary framework and transparently. This is to prevent gangster crime-syndicates (like PTP) from taking over the mechanism of democracy and using it against the unrepresented working-class.

It is even more wrong for a PM who got into office on the sole populist mandate of "speaking for the poor farmers against the elites", for her then to go sneaking off and meeting those very same elitist oligarchs in hotel rooms.

She is breaking the law, breaking the sacred values of democracy, and breaking the trust of the poorest people in society, the same people that her deceptive political campaigning used to get her into office.

Exactly my point, so why even raise the issue of sexual misconduct without any evidence? is it because she is a woman?

the fact the dems raised the sexual conduct make it relevant to this story, its not a side issue to the main issue as they have raised it again, there is no reason whatsoever to raise this apart from trying to besmirch the woman. Stick the issue, they might get somewhere with it.

[carra]

Why the need to bring up the suggestion of sexual impropriety? Yingluck's conflict of interest is more damning.

Exactly

[ThaiOats]

the only sexual impropriety is in the minds of the dems, small minds. I wonder if they think abhisit is on his knees when he has meetings

Unfortunately for you this thread topic is about Yingluck and her corrupt and unethical conduct in the news today. If this news story was about Abhisit, and during the time when he was PM, then you would have every right to make your comment.

The sex in this story it is a small insignificant subject, a sort of side-salad when compared to the bloody red steak served as the main-course, meaning the allegations of her meeting businessmen in secret while in the paid employ of the Thai people as their elected PM.

When you are elected into office you are solemnly bound to act only in the interests of the electorate. That means if businessmen want to talk to you they must do so within the parliamentary framework and transparently. This is to prevent gangster crime-syndicates (like PTP) from taking over the mechanism of democracy and using it against the unrepresented working-class.

It is even more wrong for a PM who got into office on the sole populist mandate of "speaking for the poor farmers against the elites", for her then to go sneaking off and meeting those very same elitist oligarchs in hotel rooms.

She is breaking the law, breaking the sacred values of democracy, and breaking the trust of the poorest people in society, the same people that her deceptive political campaigning used to get her into office.

Exactly my point, so why even raise the issue of sexual misconduct without any evidence? is it because she is a woman?

the fact the dems raised the sexual conduct make it relevant to this story, its not a side issue to the main issue as they have raised it again, there is no reason whatsoever to raise this apart from trying to besmirch the woman. Stick the issue, they might get somewhere with it.

I'll have to agree with Carra on this one. Chavanond didn't have to take cheap shots about sexual impropriety when the more pressing issue is about Conflict of Interest UNLESS she's doing favors for someone to get something in return but that seems unlikely as she's not really hurting for money.

[animatic]

What she does with her time is up to her and i can't believe they are still pushing about this it's old news now this but i would not be surprised if it wasn't anything to do with her brother ..

How is having a secret meeting with property developers while parliament is sitting "her time"? And it happened to be just before decisions were made on compensation for taking up land for flooding.

Exactly. There was thousands of rai of land about to be bought up by the government,

at whatever prices the government decides to pay to be used for flood controls.

Anyone buying the land cheap and selling it to the government in a sweetheart deal stands to make a bundle.

Having the PM making private hotel meetings with multiple high end real-estate investors,

at the same time these plots are finally being decided on opens the door to massive corruption allegations.

The sex part is just frosting on a rancid cake. The only people who appear to be getting sex in this,

is the Thai public, and that is from the rear with no lube.

[mca]

Why the need to bring up the suggestion of sexual impropriety? Yingluck's conflict of interest is more damning.

Exactly

Plus in the entirely implausible scenario of the Dems members being squeaky clean in the "bit on the side" stakes reeks of rank hypocrisy that any PTP MP would be proud of.

[Yunla]

Exactly my point, so why even raise the issue of sexual misconduct without any evidence? is it because she is a woman?

the fact the dems raised the sexual conduct make it relevant to this story, its not a side issue to the main issue as they have raised it again, there is no reason whatsoever to raise this apart from trying to besmirch the woman. Stick the issue, they might get somewhere with it.

I'm a woman and confirm that I can not see how gender has anything to do with this story. You are the one making a big deal about the sex-aspect of this story. I imagine this same type of sex/gender/poor-little-Yingluck misdirection will be what the PTP lawyers are also going to cling desperately to.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Yunla

[carra]

Exactly my point, so why even raise the issue of sexual misconduct without any evidence? is it because she is a woman?

the fact the dems raised the sexual conduct make it relevant to this story, its not a side issue to the main issue as they have raised it again, there is no reason whatsoever to raise this apart from trying to besmirch the woman. Stick the issue, they might get somewhere with it.

I'm a woman and confirm that I can not see how gender has anything to do with this story. You are the one making a big deal about the sex-aspect of this story. I imagine this same type of sex/gender/poor-little-Yingluck misdirection will be what the PTP lawyers are also going to cling desperately to.

How am i making a big deal out of this? Have you actually read my posts? I think you will find the dem politician is making a big deal out of this and to the detriment of his argument.

There was no reason to raise sexual misconduct in any way, shape or form in this matter, all he has done is detract from the real issue. regarding gender, it is an issue, do we thing we would be having this conversation if abhisit had met a few women in the public area of a hotel for a meeting?

I would have thought as a woman you would be riled that there is even this allegation, is it not possible for a woman to have a meeting at a hotel without accusations of sexual impropriety? But then I can see your political leanings so for this once you will forget that she is a woman and look more towards hoping slinging enough mud will allow some to stick.

As for misdirection, that is exactly what this dem is giving them the chance to do, misdirect by focusing on the allegation of sexual impropriety whilst ignoring the real issue, of course they need to deal with the defamation so I am sure now her lawyers will focus on this matter. All it has done is cloud the issue and has given the PTP the chance at misdirection.

[DP25]

Why the need to bring up the suggestion of sexual impropriety? Yingluck's conflict of interest is more damning.

He shouldn't have, because the only reason this theory got in the media is due to the Shinawatra spin team bringing it up since day one in an effort to derail criticism against her. The potential conflict of interest and corruption are the REAL subject that needs to be investigated, so they have been desperately spreading the sex angle to distract the public from the real issue. The spokesman for the Dems shouldn't have mentioned it, despite the story getting media attention, because it is playing right in to the hands of those that are trying to cover up what really happened. They are trying to portray it as a sex smear rather than a genuine corruption concern.

[DP25]

Exactly my point, so why even raise the issue of sexual misconduct without any evidence? is it because she is a woman?

the fact the dems raised the sexual conduct make it relevant to this story, its not a side issue to the main issue as they have raised it again, there is no reason whatsoever to raise this apart from trying to besmirch the woman. Stick the issue, they might get somewhere with it.

I'm a woman and confirm that I can not see how gender has anything to do with this story. You are the one making a big deal about the sex-aspect of this story. I imagine this same type of sex/gender/poor-little-Yingluck misdirection will be what the PTP lawyers are also going to cling desperately to.

Yes, PTP propoganda arm have been trying to misdirect this story since the very beginning by spreading the story that this is a sex scandal smear rather than a corruption investigation. The spokesman made a mistake by even responding to the misdirection attempt by PTP, they need to learn to stay on message and ignore PTP attempts at clouding the issue.

[carra]

Exactly my point, so why even raise the issue of sexual misconduct without any evidence? is it because she is a woman?

the fact the dems raised the sexual conduct make it relevant to this story, its not a side issue to the main issue as they have raised it again, there is no reason whatsoever to raise this apart from trying to besmirch the woman. Stick the issue, they might get somewhere with it.

I'm a woman and confirm that I can not see how gender has anything to do with this story. You are the one making a big deal about the sex-aspect of this story. I imagine this same type of sex/gender/poor-little-Yingluck misdirection will be what the PTP lawyers are also going to cling desperately to.

Yes, PTP propoganda arm have been trying to misdirect this story since the very beginning by spreading the story that this is a sex scandal smear rather than a corruption investigation. The spokesman made a mistake by even responding to the misdirection attempt by PTP, they need to learn to stay on message and ignore PTP attempts at clouding the issue.

Do you have any proof of this? Can you provide any links that show PTP raised this issue first? iirc it was raised by the dems as an issue.

Either way, the dems are bringing it up now despite the obudsman finding no impropriety

[whybother]

Why the need to bring up the suggestion of sexual impropriety? Yingluck's conflict of interest is more damning.

Exactly

Plus in the entirely implausible scenario of the Dems members being squeaky clean in the "bit on the side" stakes reeks of rank hypocrisy that any PTP MP would be proud of.

So the possibility of one of the Dems having a "bit on the side" makes it "reek of rank hypocrisy"??

Wow ... Anyone saying anything about anything will "reek of rank hypocrisy" then, because of the possibility that they are not squeaky clean on the issue.

[Yunla]

Exactly my point, so why even raise the issue of sexual misconduct without any evidence? is it because she is a woman?

the fact the dems raised the sexual conduct make it relevant to this story, its not a side issue to the main issue as they have raised it again, there is no reason whatsoever to raise this apart from trying to besmirch the woman. Stick the issue, they might get somewhere with it.

I'm a woman and confirm that I can not see how gender has anything to do with this story. You are the one making a big deal about the sex-aspect of this story. I imagine this same type of sex/gender/poor-little-Yingluck misdirection will be what the PTP lawyers are also going to cling desperately to.

How am i making a big deal out of this? Have you actually read my posts? I think you will find the dem politician is making a big deal out of this and to the detriment of his argument.

There was no reason to raise sexual misconduct in any way, shape or form in this matter, all he has done is detract from the real issue. regarding gender, it is an issue, do we thing we would be having this conversation if abhisit had met a few women in the public area of a hotel for a meeting?

I would have thought as a woman you would be riled that there is even this allegation, is it not possible for a woman to have a meeting at a hotel without accusations of sexual impropriety? But then I can see your political leanings so for this once you will forget that she is a woman and look more towards hoping slinging enough mud will allow some to stick.

As for misdirection, that is exactly what this dem is giving them the chance to do, misdirect by focusing on the allegation of sexual impropriety whilst ignoring the real issue, of course they need to deal with the defamation so I am sure now her lawyers will focus on this matter. All it has done is cloud the issue and has given the PTP the chance at misdirection.

Well, I have read your posts in this thread, and every single one of them is talking about the very minor sex aspect of the story. Coupled with the fact that in every other post I've read by you, you come across as a die-hard PTP redmob cheerleader.

In your opening post here, you managed to avoid the 'corruption/unethical conduct' main story entirely, and focus on the irrelevant minor sex angle entirely and also you even tried to slander Abhisit at the same time.

You talk about a woman meeting businessmen in secret in a hotel and how can that be bad. It is bad if that person is the PM. Simple as that. You can only have one boss when you are PM - the electorate, and that means you tell the electorate your business dealings, and you have meetings registered and cataloged. Secret meetings by the PM with non-government businesspersons is a crime in politics.

Judging by how hard you are working to try to make this a gender/sex issue in every single post you've made, even appealing to my female nature, your clear desperation to avoid the corruption issue makes me believe you understand the truth, which is that this corruption case could well be the proverbial iceberg that sinks the PTP/redmob's pirate-frigate without a trace.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Yunla

[DP25]

Do you have any proof of this? Can you provide any links that show PTP raised this issue first? iirc it was raised by the dems as an issue.

The issue of conflict of interest was raised first by the dems. Every time they ask a PTP spokeman about what happen in that hotel and about conflict of interest, PTP spin doctors respond by saying "there was no sexual impropriety, we resent these implications and this horrible smear attempt at our PM." Even though no one was asking about that to begin with!

Either way, the dems are bringing it up now despite the obudsman finding no impropriety

Not at all, he clearly states what the concern is here.

"I don't want anyone to make gossip, but the PM has to tell the truth, as the meeting was referred to as a conflict of interest, corrupt and unethical, which will lead to impeachment," Democrat spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalyasut said.

This is what the Dems have been asking about all along, and every time they ask questions they get deflection and attempts to spin the story as being about sex.

He then goes on to say the controversy has developed to include allegations of a sexual nature, because the controversy HAS developed to include that, because every time you ask a PTP member what happened they respond by strenuously denying that anything sexual occurred! Even though no one was asking that to begin with! Because it gets the media talking about that instead of the real story.

[whybother]

Do you have any proof of this? Can you provide any links that show PTP raised this issue first? iirc it was raised by the dems as an issue.

Either way, the dems are bringing it up now despite the obudsman finding no impropriety

Actually, it was a yellow shirt that brought it up first, and he didn't actually say anything about sexual impropriety. He just mentioned that she was with a man.

The PTP initially denied Yingluck was at the hotel, then they said it was a private meeting, .... and then they said it was a government related meeting.

Then it came out that a number of real estate developers were there. But they haven't ever declared what was discussed.

The "sexual impropriety" issue is great for PTP because they can easily deny it while ignoring the conflict of interest issue.

[khaowong1]

the only sexual impropriety is in the minds of the dems, small minds. I wonder if they think abhisit is on his knees when he has meetings

Unfortunately for you this thread topic is about Yingluck and her corrupt and unethical conduct in the news today. If this news story was about Abhisit, and during the time when he was PM, then you would have every right to make your comment.

The sex in this story it is a small insignificant subject, a sort of side-salad when compared to the bloody red steak served as the main-course, meaning the allegations of her meeting businessmen in secret while in the paid employ of the Thai people as their elected PM.

When you are elected into office you are solemnly bound to act only in the interests of the electorate. That means if businessmen want to talk to you they must do so within the parliamentary framework and transparently. This is to prevent gangster crime-syndicates (like PTP) from taking over the mechanism of democracy and using it against the unrepresented working-class.

It is even more wrong for a PM who got into office on the sole populist mandate of "speaking for the poor farmers against the elites", for her then to go sneaking off and meeting those very same elitist oligarchs in hotel rooms.

She is breaking the law, breaking the sacred values of democracy, and breaking the trust of the poorest people in society, the same people that her deceptive political campaigning used to get her into office.

Exactly my point, so why even raise the issue of sexual misconduct without any evidence? is it because she is a woman?

the fact the dems raised the sexual conduct make it relevant to this story, its not a side issue to the main issue as they have raised it again, there is no reason whatsoever to raise this apart from trying to besmirch the woman. Stick the issue, they might get somewhere with it.

I'll have to agree with Carra on this one. Chavanond didn't have to take cheap shots about sexual impropriety when the more pressing issue is about Conflict of Interest UNLESS she's doing favors for someone to get something in return but that seems unlikely as she's not really hurting for money.

It would appear that her, her brother and the rest of the family can never have ENOUGH money. They equate money with power.

[saltandpepper]

It does not matter what she was doing there at that time, IF it was not government related.

She is PM, and as such, she is committed to attend her duties in the clear, She, or any PM for that matter, can not be caught in a situation giving way to any possible interpretation, especially if no clear explanation is given.

As PM and her entourage have failed to clarify the point beyond any doubt, all interpretations are possible.

Again, a PM has government duties and must attend them in priority over any "personal" business.

[Moruya]

So she must be guilty, right?

I think the dems would be taken a lot more seriously if hey had kept this political rather than trying petty besmirching with no evidence whatsoever of sexual misconduct, she was in public <deleted>. Stick to her missing parliament, stick to asking why she was meeting with these people, however as soon as they tried to imply sexual misconduct they just made themselves look like bigger pricks than they actually are. This matter has has already been dealt with by the ombudsman so why is it brought up again, it is pointless, it is going nowhere, and shows the desperation of the dems.

isn't it about time they started talking about alternative policies to try and woo the electorate, all I ever seem to see from them is pettiness and sniping at the PTP, and allegations of sexual misconduct does them no favours whatsoever and really does show desperation. Stick to facts, get some policies, and they might start winning over voters.

YS should have come clean months ago - but didn't.

Statements that have been made are contradictory.

People smell a rat.

You would rather the Opposition weren't actually permitted to oppose?

[carra]

So she must be guilty, right?

I think the dems would be taken a lot more seriously if hey had kept this political rather than trying petty besmirching with no evidence whatsoever of sexual misconduct, she was in public <deleted>. Stick to her missing parliament, stick to asking why she was meeting with these people, however as soon as they tried to imply sexual misconduct they just made themselves look like bigger pricks than they actually are. This matter has has already been dealt with by the ombudsman so why is it brought up again, it is pointless, it is going nowhere, and shows the desperation of the dems.

isn't it about time they started talking about alternative policies to try and woo the electorate, all I ever seem to see from them is pettiness and sniping at the PTP, and allegations of sexual misconduct does them no favours whatsoever and really does show desperation. Stick to facts, get some policies, and they might start winning over voters.

YS should have come clean months ago - but didn't.

Statements that have been made are contradictory.

People smell a rat.

You would rather the Opposition weren't actually permitted to oppose?

read the thread carefully, at no point do i say she was not in the wrong, I simply state how wrong it is to bring up sexual impropriety with no evidence as it detracts from the real issue, in my opinion the dems are scoring an own goal raising the sexual impropriety allegation again.

[Moruya]

So she must be guilty, right?

I think the dems would be taken a lot more seriously if hey had kept this political rather than trying petty besmirching with no evidence whatsoever of sexual misconduct, she was in public <deleted>. Stick to her missing parliament, stick to asking why she was meeting with these people, however as soon as they tried to imply sexual misconduct they just made themselves look like bigger pricks than they actually are. This matter has has already been dealt with by the ombudsman so why is it brought up again, it is pointless, it is going nowhere, and shows the desperation of the dems.

isn't it about time they started talking about alternative policies to try and woo the electorate, all I ever seem to see from them is pettiness and sniping at the PTP, and allegations of sexual misconduct does them no favours whatsoever and really does show desperation. Stick to facts, get some policies, and they might start winning over voters.

YS should have come clean months ago - but didn't.

Statements that have been made are contradictory.

People smell a rat.

You would rather the Opposition weren't actually permitted to oppose?

read the thread carefully, at no point do i say she was not in the wrong, I simply state how wrong it is to bring up sexual impropriety with no evidence as it detracts from the real issue, in my opinion the dems are scoring an own goal raising the sexual impropriety allegation again.

Only if it was ever refuted by YS. The only statement I everr heard from her when a sexual encounter was raised was something along the lines of "I'm a woman, please respect my gender"