Democrats Call On Yingluck To Explain Four Seasons Meeting

[Yunla]

in my opinion the dems are scoring an own goal raising the sexual impropriety allegation again.

It is listed as one complaint in a list of complaints i.e. they accuse her of corrupt and unethical acts (to which they can add deception during the follow-up denial attempts) and also sexual misconduct.

It is actually normal police and prosecution practice to list the full list of charges against a defendant. I would see her charged for any and all her numerous crimes. For that to happen all the accusations have to be made in entirety including the irrelevant minor sexual misconduct accusation.

Her main crime, of using government time and funds to engage in secret business-dealings with people in hotel-rooms while in office as acting PM, is infact treasonous if she is using public funds. Since she did not declare the meetings at all, we must assume that she did also not declare her funding. In England and other democracies, Yingluck would be out of PM office already, for holding secret undeclared business meetings while serving as PM. She would also be out of office in all those democracies for her party overseeing the distribution of the home-addresses of dissidents.

[carra]

in my opinion the dems are scoring an own goal raising the sexual impropriety allegation again.

It is listed as one complaint in a list of complaints i.e. they accuse her of corrupt and unethical acts (to which they can add deception during the follow-up denial attempts) and also sexual misconduct.

It is actually normal police and prosecution practice to list the full list of charges against a defendant. I would see her charged for any and all her numerous crimes. For that to happen all the accusations have to be made in entirety including the irrelevant minor sexual misconduct accusation.

Her main crime, of using government time and funds to engage in secret business-dealings with people in hotel-rooms while in office as acting PM, is infact treasonous if she is using public funds. Since she did not declare the meetings at all, we must assume that she did also not declare her funding. In England and other democracies, Yingluck would be out of PM office already, for holding secret undeclared business meetings while serving as PM. She would also be out of office in all those democracies for her party overseeing the distribution of the home-addresses of dissidents.

Crimes??? what crimes are these??? How is she a 'defendant'? And now you are trying to say she committed treason

There are no crimes here, even if she did have sex with a man at the hotel it is not a crime.

However as has been shown the meeting was in a public place with a number of people so why should she even deny it.

With regards to police, they investigate all angles, and if any evidence to substantiate then they charge, as for the prosecution when there is no evidence to suggest such a 'crime' as having occurred they will not touch it with a barge pole. this is just pure nonsense from the dems and a simple disgusting attempt to discredit the PM as she is a woman, we both know if this was a man then no such allegation would even be made here. Whatever your politics here the dems have scored an own goal by raising this matter again.

Clearly you don't like the woman or her family, but do yourself a favour and deal in facts, not hearsay, not pointless accusations without even the slightest evidence, you can make yourself look a tad silly.

I must also remind you that an Ombudsman has found no evidence of improper behaviour.

As for the meeting being secret, it was held in a public place, hence her being seen in a public place for a meeting, its only the small minded individual that saw her said she went to a room alone with a man, and we all know what this individual thinks about women, it is well documented,

leave the sex slurs out of this and the dems could have a case, raise it again without ANY evidence and they detract from the real issue. having seen them in power and seen them perform in the last election however it does not surprise me that they can make a mess of this.

Edited June 20, 2012 by carra

[cougar52]

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.

+ just before the Dep. P.M. and her Brother got indited on the Golf Course Land deal.

[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.

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.

Who mentioned possibility? It's a frigging certainty.

[SuneeTH]

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

Mark on his knees doing what job?

Meeting with who?

Suthep, the real man behind Mark?

[inquisitive]

Crimes??? what crimes are these??? ... we both know if this was a man then no such allegation would even be made here. ...

I believe you should only speak for yourself on this. I can tell you as an absolute fact that not everyone agrees with you. Appearance of conflict of interest is just that, whatever the gender.

[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?

I thought I was being very clear on this, I think the dems are weakening their own case by raising the issue of sexual impropriety again, I never said they didnt have a case with the other issues, I think they do have a case, but why cloud it with something that clearly did not happen based on evidence from hotel staff etc about the venue for the meeting

[SuneeTH]

in my opinion the dems are scoring an own goal raising the sexual impropriety allegation again.

It is listed as one complaint in a list of complaints i.e. they accuse her of corrupt and unethical acts (to which they can add deception during the follow-up denial attempts) and also sexual misconduct.

It is actually normal police and prosecution practice to list the full list of charges against a defendant. I would see her charged for any and all her numerous crimes. For that to happen all the accusations have to be made in entirety including the irrelevant minor sexual misconduct accusation.

Her main crime, of using government time and funds to engage in secret business-dealings with people in hotel-rooms while in office as acting PM, is infact treasonous if she is using public funds. Since she did not declare the meetings at all, we must assume that she did also not declare her funding. In England and other democracies, Yingluck would be out of PM office already, for holding secret undeclared business meetings while serving as PM. She would also be out of office in all those democracies for her party overseeing the distribution of the home-addresses of dissidents.

Crimes??? what crimes are these??? How is she a 'defendant'? And now you are trying to say she committed treason

There are no crimes here, even if she did have sex with a man at the hotel it is not a crime.

However as has been shown the meeting was in a public place with a number of people so why should she even deny it.

With regards to police, they investigate all angles, and if any evidence to substantiate then they charge, as for the prosecution when there is no evidence to suggest such a 'crime' as having occurred they will not touch it with a barge pole. this is just pure nonsense from the dems and a simple disgusting attempt to discredit the PM as she is a woman, we both know if this was a man then no such allegation would even be made here. Whatever your politics here the dems have scored an own goal by raising this matter again.

Clearly you don't like the woman or her family, but do yourself a favour and deal in facts, not hearsay, not pointless accusations without even the slightest evidence, you can make yourself look a tad silly.

I must also remind you that an Ombudsman has found no evidence of improper behaviour.

As for the meeting being secret, it was held in a public place, hence her being seen in a public place for a meeting, its only the small minded individual that saw her said she went to a room alone with a man, and we all know what this individual thinks about women, it is well documented,

leave the sex slurs out of this and the dems could have a case, raise it again without ANY evidence and they detract from the real issue. having seen them in power and seen them perform in the last election however it does not surprise me that they can make a mess of this.

Having sex in office hour is treason.

Treason is punish by death.

Good luck Bill Clinton. Oopps I forgot, blow job is not considered sex.

[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

Mark on his knees doing what job?

Meeting with who?

Suthep, the real man behind Mark?

[carra]

in my opinion the dems are scoring an own goal raising the sexual impropriety allegation again.

It is listed as one complaint in a list of complaints i.e. they accuse her of corrupt and unethical acts (to which they can add deception during the follow-up denial attempts) and also sexual misconduct.

It is actually normal police and prosecution practice to list the full list of charges against a defendant. I would see her charged for any and all her numerous crimes. For that to happen all the accusations have to be made in entirety including the irrelevant minor sexual misconduct accusation.

Her main crime, of using government time and funds to engage in secret business-dealings with people in hotel-rooms while in office as acting PM, is infact treasonous if she is using public funds. Since she did not declare the meetings at all, we must assume that she did also not declare her funding. In England and other democracies, Yingluck would be out of PM office already, for holding secret undeclared business meetings while serving as PM. She would also be out of office in all those democracies for her party overseeing the distribution of the home-addresses of dissidents.

Crimes??? what crimes are these??? How is she a 'defendant'? And now you are trying to say she committed treason

There are no crimes here, even if she did have sex with a man at the hotel it is not a crime.

However as has been shown the meeting was in a public place with a number of people so why should she even deny it.

With regards to police, they investigate all angles, and if any evidence to substantiate then they charge, as for the prosecution when there is no evidence to suggest such a 'crime' as having occurred they will not touch it with a barge pole. this is just pure nonsense from the dems and a simple disgusting attempt to discredit the PM as she is a woman, we both know if this was a man then no such allegation would even be made here. Whatever your politics here the dems have scored an own goal by raising this matter again.

Clearly you don't like the woman or her family, but do yourself a favour and deal in facts, not hearsay, not pointless accusations without even the slightest evidence, you can make yourself look a tad silly.

I must also remind you that an Ombudsman has found no evidence of improper behaviour.

As for the meeting being secret, it was held in a public place, hence her being seen in a public place for a meeting, its only the small minded individual that saw her said she went to a room alone with a man, and we all know what this individual thinks about women, it is well documented,

leave the sex slurs out of this and the dems could have a case, raise it again without ANY evidence and they detract from the real issue. having seen them in power and seen them perform in the last election however it does not surprise me that they can make a mess of this.

Having sex in office hour is treason.

Treason is punish by death.

Good luck Bill Clinton. Oopps I forgot, blow job is not considered sex.

having sex in office hours is treason is it?

give me strength

[Yunla]

I must also remind you that an Ombudsman has found no evidence of improper behaviour.

As for the meeting being secret, it was held in a public place, hence her being seen in a public place for a meeting,

Re; them meeting in secret in a hotel-room is "a public place", actually that is a bare-faced and desperate lie by your good self. A public place for business meetings of businessmen is called a "conference hall" or "boardroom". A public place for government ministers meetings is called "parliament".

A hotel room is not a public place, and the only business conducted there is by a prostitute to sell her body, or in Yinglucks case to sell her nation.

Re; no evidence of improper behaviour, the very acts she has reluctantly admitted to are an impeachable offense for a prime-minister.

Re; treason, I explained that using public funds for personal enterprises is literally the robbing of the public, ergo robbing the nation. Crimes against the nation are called treason, which I said she can be charged with.

Either way she can be charged already with any basic laws on gross political misconduct, abuse of senior office, ethics violations, conflict of interest, parliamentary absenteeism, human rights violations / endangering the lives of citizens by handing out home-addresses of dissenters to an angry mob. Any and all of these are enough to see her kicked out of politics and into a nice comfy jail cell under any modern system of law-abiding Democracy.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Yunla

[Moruya]

in my opinion the dems are scoring an own goal raising the sexual impropriety allegation again.

It is listed as one complaint in a list of complaints i.e. they accuse her of corrupt and unethical acts (to which they can add deception during the follow-up denial attempts) and also sexual misconduct.

It is actually normal police and prosecution practice to list the full list of charges against a defendant. I would see her charged for any and all her numerous crimes. For that to happen all the accusations have to be made in entirety including the irrelevant minor sexual misconduct accusation.

Her main crime, of using government time and funds to engage in secret business-dealings with people in hotel-rooms while in office as acting PM, is infact treasonous if she is using public funds. Since she did not declare the meetings at all, we must assume that she did also not declare her funding. In England and other democracies, Yingluck would be out of PM office already, for holding secret undeclared business meetings while serving as PM. She would also be out of office in all those democracies for her party overseeing the distribution of the home-addresses of dissidents.

Crimes??? what crimes are these??? How is she a 'defendant'? And now you are trying to say she committed treason

There are no crimes here, even if she did have sex with a man at the hotel it is not a crime.

However as has been shown the meeting was in a public place with a number of people so why should she even deny it.

With regards to police, they investigate all angles, and if any evidence to substantiate then they charge, as for the prosecution when there is no evidence to suggest such a 'crime' as having occurred they will not touch it with a barge pole. this is just pure nonsense from the dems and a simple disgusting attempt to discredit the PM as she is a woman, we both know if this was a man then no such allegation would even be made here. Whatever your politics here the dems have scored an own goal by raising this matter again.

Clearly you don't like the woman or her family, but do yourself a favour and deal in facts, not hearsay, not pointless accusations without even the slightest evidence, you can make yourself look a tad silly.

I must also remind you that an Ombudsman has found no evidence of improper behaviour.

As for the meeting being secret, it was held in a public place, hence her being seen in a public place for a meeting, its only the small minded individual that saw her said she went to a room alone with a man, and we all know what this individual thinks about women, it is well documented,

leave the sex slurs out of this and the dems could have a case, raise it again without ANY evidence and they detract from the real issue. having seen them in power and seen them perform in the last election however it does not surprise me that they can make a mess of this.

The ombudsman has not completed his work.

YS was too busy to see him these past few months....

[jackspratt]

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.

Does TV have an award for the most hyperbole-filled post of the year?

If so, I would like to make an early nomination for the above.

[Siripon]

The reference to an open area is a red herring, the area is bordered by private rooms.

The rumours regarding an affair are not helped by:

a, Settha is a handsome man.

b. Yingluk's husband is conspicuous by his absence.

Regarding conflict of interest, vested interests, Yingluk has refused to testify in person before the Ombudsman. Settha has consistently refused to testify, claiming he's too busy.

The tapes of the CCTV cameras are supposed to be kept for one month, yet they've been 'destroyed'- even though the story broke immediately after the event and if nothing untoward had happened, the tapes would have cleared the issue within minutes.

The story is set to run and run......

[animatic]

The relevance of the sex part is that:

Why should the PM of Thailand be in a hotel room having fun with someone,

when she is supposed to be either :

on State Business,

or

In Parliament as Prime Minister of Parliament, which was in session.

She allegedly was having a private business meeting

with people who stood to benefit from government expenditures.

Certainly raising the spector of conflict of interest

and insider trading in land sales to the state, is totally relevant.

The PTP certainly does repeatedly harp on the sex part more than is warranted.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Or at least her minions/minders do.

But even if it was only a sex tryst...

why should she get to do that during state business hours on taxpayer money?

Edited June 20, 2012 by animatic

[animatic]

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.

Would it be less wrong for a Male PM to be boffing someone during business hours

or when he should be in Parliament doing his job?

No, it is just as much an abuse of the publics trust

to forget HIS job and have a liaison during state business hours.

Edited June 20, 2012 by animatic

[Moruya]

having sex in office hours is treason is it?

give me strength

I have no idea about the Thai version of the law, however:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

[SuneeTH]

What a disgraced to all the Thai people who once live happily under the shadow, care and protection of her father (Thaksin).

A non-virgin (I am quite sure, as she had a son not sure by whom) unmarried women PM (yes, Prime Minister of the nation) alleged to have sex with a married man in the middle of private business lounge in the buzzing and busy downtown Bangkok 5 star hotel.

What have become of the nation and the substantial economic of Thailand?

Is such conduct acceptable?

Maybe she should appear as the next contestant of "Thailand (or Thaksin) Got Talent".

[carra]

I must also remind you that an Ombudsman has found no evidence of improper behaviour.

As for the meeting being secret, it was held in a public place, hence her being seen in a public place for a meeting,

Re; them meeting in secret in a hotel-room is "a public place", actually that is a bare-faced and desperate lie by your good self. A public place for business meetings of businessmen is called a "conference hall" or "boardroom". A public place for government ministers meetings is called "parliament".

A hotel room is not a public place, and the only business conducted there is by a prostitute to sell her body, or in Yinglucks case to sell her nation.

Re; no evidence of improper behaviour, the very acts she has reluctantly admitted to are an impeachable offense for a prime-minister.

Re; treason, I explained that using public funds for personal enterprises is literally the robbing of the public, ergo robbing the nation. Crimes against the nation are called treason, which I said she can be charged with.

Either way she can be charged already with any basic laws on gross political misconduct, abuse of senior office, ethics violations, conflict of interest, parliamentary absenteeism, human rights violations / endangering the lives of citizens by handing out home-addresses of dissenters to an angry mob. Any and all of these are enough to see her kicked out of politics and into a nice comfy jail cell under any modern system of law-abiding Democracy.

I think calling someone a liar on the forum breaches forum rules so I have reported this just to be on the safe side,

there are so many things wrong with your post, I don't think you have even attempted to look at where the meeting was held, the meeting was in a public room, not a bedroom or a suite, a public room. I am a business man and I meet business people in the bar or restaurant, or rooms we have booked for private meetings, again not bedrooms,

I think it is time for you to bow out of this thread in all reality, to accuse the PM of being nothing more that a prostitute is downright disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[animatic]

having sex in office hours is treason is it?

give me strength

I have no idea about the Thai version of the law, however:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

If they delivered state secrets that harm the country during sex,

or sold land that protects the public to someone foreign,

who used that control to harm the Thai public, then yes treason.

Otherwise it is just impropriety, or misuse of public funds etc.

Edited June 20, 2012 by animatic

[carra]

having sex in office hours is treason is it?

give me strength

I have no idea about the Thai version of the law, however:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

If they delivered state secrets that harm the country during sex, then yes treason.

Otherwise it is just impropriety, or misuse of public funds etc.

Thank you, it si amazing that people bother to even post links when they have clearly either not read them, or understood them

[SuneeTH]

The reference to an open area is a red herring, the area is bordered by private rooms.

The rumours regarding an affair are not helped by:

a, Settha is a handsome man.

b. Yingluk's husband is conspicuous by his absence.

Regarding conflict of interest, vested interests, Yingluk has refused to testify in person before the Ombudsman. Settha has consistently refused to testify, claiming he's too busy.

The tapes of the CCTV cameras are supposed to be kept for one month, yet they've been 'destroyed'- even though the story broke immediately after the event and if nothing untoward had happened, the tapes would have cleared the issue within minutes.

The story is set to run and run......

Settha is a handsome man?

555 You may be gay 555.

[Yunla]

I think calling someone a liar on the forum breaches forum rules so I have reported this just to be on the safe side,

there are so many things wrong with your post, I don't think you have even attempted to look at where the meeting was held, the meeting was in a public room, not a bedroom or a suite, a public room. I am a business man and I meet business people in the bar or restaurant, or rooms we have booked for private meetings, again not bedrooms,

I think it is time for you to bow out of this thread in all reality, to accuse the PM of being nothing more that a prostitute is downright disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself.

No I didn't call you a liar or call you any other names. I said that calling a hotel-room a "public place" is infact a lie, especially in the ontopic context of a Prime Minister conducting secret business deals in a hotel room, which you describe as "public place" is absurd.

I didn't say Yingluck was a prostitute - you said that. I said she was selling her nation in a hotel-room and I will stand by that statement until proved otherwise.

You think I "should bow out of this thread" which is just what the PTP are telling DP to not debate matters and to their redmob members to "eradicate the democracts", when somebody speaks up against PTP the call is for that person to be quiet or even eradicated.

Sadly I'm not breaking any rules and just commenting honestly on what in this news story is clearly a gross breach of the democratic power granted to Yingluck.

You are a businessman and you meet people for business in hotel-rooms and bars, as you say. That is your business. However you are not Prime Minister. The PM does not have the legal right take the day off from important parliamentary debate which affects millions of the electorate, to have SECRET meetings in hotel rooms. That is against the law. Being PM is not the same as being a guy on the internet who does business in bars and hotel-rooms.

To give you an example, if you buy a condo, you do not go to a hotel room to sign the property deeds do you? If you buy a condo in Thailand you go to the Land Office and sign the deeds 50 times infront of witnesses. That is because it is STATE BUSINESS and not private business which as you said you conduct your business in hotel rooms and bars, most people do not and the state certainly does not. Yingluck is the representative of the highest levels of state. It is incredibly sleazy and dishonourable for Yingluck to sneak out of crucial parliamentary work to have secret meeings in hotel rooms, it is a great insult to the office of prime minister, and the whole Thai state. Respond.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Yunla

[Moruya]

What a disgraced to all the Thai people who once live happily under the shadow, care and protection of her father (Thaksin).

A non-virgin (I am quite sure, as she had a son not sure by whom) unmarried women PM (yes, Prime Minister of the nation) alleged to have sex with a married man in the middle of private business lounge in the buzzing and busy downtown Bangkok 5 star hotel.

What have become of the nation and the substantial economic of Thailand?

Is such conduct acceptable?

Maybe she should appear as the next contestant of "Thailand (or Thaksin) Got Talent".

I'm not sure what planet you are from but please continue to amuse me.

Oedipus comes to Chiang Mai

Green horned beast - a hangover from Hangover 2?

[Moruya]

having sex in office hours is treason is it?

give me strength

I have no idea about the Thai version of the law, however:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

If they delivered state secrets that harm the country during sex,

or sold land that protects the public to someone foreign,

who used that control to harm the Thai public, then yes treason.

Otherwise it is just impropriety, or misuse of public funds etc.

Hun Sen?

[Moruya]

having sex in office hours is treason is it?

give me strength

I have no idea about the Thai version of the law, however:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

If they delivered state secrets that harm the country during sex, then yes treason.

Otherwise it is just impropriety, or misuse of public funds etc.

Thank you, it si amazing that people bother to even post links when they have clearly either not read them, or understood them

I don't know why you bother at all except to be antagonistic and God, I hate split infinitives.

[carra]

I think calling someone a liar on the forum breaches forum rules so I have reported this just to be on the safe side,

there are so many things wrong with your post, I don't think you have even attempted to look at where the meeting was held, the meeting was in a public room, not a bedroom or a suite, a public room. I am a business man and I meet business people in the bar or restaurant, or rooms we have booked for private meetings, again not bedrooms,

I think it is time for you to bow out of this thread in all reality, to accuse the PM of being nothing more that a prostitute is downright disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself.

No I didn't call you a liar or call you any other names. I said that calling a hotel-room a "public place" is infact a lie.

I didn't say Yingluck was a prostitute - you said that. I said she was selling her nation in a hotel-room and I will stand by that statement until proved otherwise.

You are a businessman and you meet peope for business in hotel-rooms and bars, as you say. That is your business. However you are not Prime Minister. The PM does not have the legal right take the day off from important parliamentary debate which affects millions of the electorate, to have SECRET meetings in hotel rooms. That is against the law. Being PM is not the same as being a guy on the internet who does business in bars and hotel-rooms.

To give you an example, if you buy a condo, you do not go to a hotel room to sign the property deeds do you? If you buy a condo in Thailand you go to the Land Office and sign the deeds 50 times infront of witnesses. That is because it is STATE BUSINESS and not private business which as you said you conduct your business in hotel rooms and bars, most people do not and the state certainly does not. Yingluck is head of state. Respond.

Now you order me to respond?

A bar is a room in a hotel, a restaurant is a room in a hotel, a public meeting room is a room in a hotel. The room where this meeting took place is not a bedroom as you seem to be implying, this is a public room that had hotel staff present as well as a number of other people, do you get this now? A room in a hotel is not necessarily what you would term a hotel room, ie a room where one would sleep, have sex etc.

You say the only business conducted in a hotel room must be prostitution, you say the PM was conducting business in a hotel room, you do the maths.

Selling her nation was she? Do you have any proof of this or does proof not exist in your world? All you have is hearsay and speculation. I suggest you visit the hotel and see the room in question and then give your opinion as to whether this room can be used for sex.

the simple fact of the matter is this, she may have been doing wrong in relation to the meeting, I am not suggesting otherwise, but to suggest this was a sexual liason is wrong on so many issues and by raising this again it weakens the argument against any actual breaches that occured,

is this clear to you know, can you get someone to explain it to you as I think you still don't get the grasp of what I am saying, in your haste to be angry and demean the PM you are ignoring what is actually being written by other posters, you are just going off an a rant without actually addressing the issues I raise in your haste to demean the female PM as an adulterer.

Shame on you

[carra]

I don't know why you bother at all except to be antagonistic and God, I hate split infinitives.

Grammar nazi, the last resort of someone that has lost the argument, ignore the point of the argument and resort to grammatical errors, well done you. I do not car if you hate split infinitives, it is neither here nor there in relation to the discussion,

I bother because I would like to raise a point, is that ok with you? next time I promise I will pm you first to see if my point meets with yours then we can move on happily in agreement

[animatic]

The definitions of rooms in a hotel seem to be open to some non-agreeing interpretations.

But what goes on in them is likely much more cut and dried,

and then will still be parsed for interpretations partisanily.

[Moruya]

I don't know why you bother at all except to be antagonistic and God, I hate split infinitives.

Grammar nazi, the last resort of someone that has lost the argument, ignore the point of the argument and resort to grammatical errors, well done you. I do not car if you hate split infinitives, it is neither here nor there in relation to the discussion,

I bother because I would like to raise a point, is that ok with you? next time I promise I will pm you first to see if my point meets with yours then we can move on happily in agreement

You didn't raise a point worth raising - you criticised me for linking soemthing you didn't like. Too bad

It didn't really add anything to the discussion

I'm not convinced you could win an argument if you were sitting in a room by yourself!