Democrats Call On Yingluck To Explain Four Seasons Meeting

[theajarn]

Wow, so now the Dems are saying that she gave head to the property developers? How low can you go....

[Yunla]

the simple fact of the matter is this, she may have been doing wrong in relation to the meeting

Your post is long and written alongside the points I have already answered repeatedly.

You show your desperation with you chit-chat about the different types of rooms in hotels, and you use the phrase [to me] "you imply it is a bedroom" infact I never implied anything, I said it was a hotel-room, nor do I lower myself to squabble about the different rooms in a hotel.

I already said which room the PM should have been in on that day (and most days) : the halls of Parliament. She was not in parliament, she was in a hotel room conducting a secret meeting which her handlers then tried to cover up and deny. Those are the facts and if you want to sit here listing the names of all the different rooms in a hotel then go ahead.

She was in a hotel room, conducting secret business. That is against the laws of democracy where all ministers and especially the PM should act only on behalf of the electorate and do so transparently. Failing to obey those laws which are there to protect democracy, is a criminal offense. All your dancing around will not change the basic facts of the case which are impeachable and shameful in the extreme.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Yunla

[whybother]

Wow, so now the Dems are saying that she gave head to the property developers? How low can you go....

Where did they say that?

//Deleted//

[Moruya]

Wow, so now the Dems are saying that she gave head to the property developers? How low can you go....

Where did they say that?

Sent from my shoe phone

About 85cm apparently

[whybother]

Wow, so now the Dems are saying that she gave head to the property developers? How low can you go....

Where did they say that?

Sent from my shoe phone

About 85cm apparently

You'll have to explain that one to me ...

Sent from my shoe phone

[Moruya]

Wow, so now the Dems are saying that she gave head to the property developers? How low can you go....

Where did they say that?

Sent from my shoe phone

About 85cm apparently

You'll have to explain that one to me ...

Sent from my shoe phone

It related to theajarn's post

Edited June 20, 2012 by Moruya

[phiphidon]

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.

Or hearsay, rumour or even just plain old grasping at straws

[Nickymaster]

If you believe that Yingluck and other PT members didn't do anything wrong, you basically don't care about corruption and conflict of interest.

Then you are just defending and supporting PT regardless of what they are doing.

All you PT, TS and red lovers should admit that this meeting smells very bad.

[phiphidon]

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.

I may be wrong but I don't think the Four Seasons is of the "rent by the hour" persuasion.

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

Pray tell what goes on in hotel rooms that is so "cut and dried". Do they use some kind of pheremone that makes people want to have sex and nothing else when they go into a hotel room?

"parsed for interpretations partisanily" - Do you speak like that in real life, I mean, really?.

Perhaps we should look at this incessant hounding of Yingluck as, how would you put it, mmm,

"Looks like a kangaroo court show with a sleeping kangaroo, but a loud carny barker out front selling the punters on a non-existant show"

[ginjag]

Sorry if this is covering the same ground as other posts, but with regards to camera's. In a 5 star hotel you will automatically have recordings-video/camera photo's. the reason being first hotel security, customer security, If you have a VIP there these will cover any wrong they do--AND cover any wrong that could be done to the VIP. Has it been established that there are NO record ??? if wrong had been committed to Yingluck the camera's would have recorded it and the offender got. That wasn't the case -was it ??? because had it have been the record would be readily available for Yingluck and the police. YES this should be sorted, This was the countries leader (cough) and she shoud be open about her goings and comings.

[phiphidon]

Wow, so now the Dems are saying that she gave head to the property developers? How low can you go....

Where did they say that?

//Deleted//

On the blue sky programme, Feb 15th, thats why Yingluck has a lodged 3 complaints against 4 dem MP's for defaming her (in a particularly nasty way apparently, low by even dem standards).

[Nickymaster]

Sorry if this is covering the same ground as other posts, but with regards to camera's. In a 5 star hotel you will automatically have recordings-video/camera photo's. the reason being first hotel security, customer security, If you have a VIP there these will cover any wrong they do--AND cover any wrong that could be done to the VIP. Has it been established that there are NO record ??? if wrong had been committed to Yingluck the camera's would have recorded it and the offender got. That wasn't the case -was it ??? because had it have been the record would be readily available for Yingluck and the police. YES this should be sorted, This was the countries leader (cough) and she shoud be open about her goings and comings.

I will look it up but I read somewhere that Chalerm went to the hotel when the story came out and then suddenly there were no recordings.

[Moruya]

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.

I may be wrong but I don't think the Four Seasons is of the "rent by the hour" persuasion.

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

Pray tell what goes on in hotel rooms that is so "cut and dried". Do they use some kind of pheremone that makes people want to have sex and nothing else when they go into a hotel room?

"parsed for interpretations partisanily" - Do you speak like that in real life, I mean, really?.

Perhaps we should look at this incessant hounding of Yingluck as, how would you put it, mmm,

"Looks like a kangaroo court show with a sleeping kangaroo, but a loud carny barker out front selling the punters on a non-existant show"

It's easy on here to criticise people for their use of English when we all hail from different countries.

What we should be doing is looking at the message and if we disagree, expressing it in clear English rather than an assassination of either the writing style or the author.

I think Animatic's postings have a certain je ne sais quoi and add to the overall ambience of the forum and given that it exists in the ether, that's a positive.

You and I have the odd difference of opinion and fire the odd harpoon - but I'd have a beer with you.

A few questions:

Why do you think YS hasn't come clean on the meeting?

Why do you think the testimony to the Ombudsman has been inconsistent?

Why do you think the hotel's CCTV tapes disappeared?

In my opinion if nobody comes clean on the story then the rumour mill takes over - and that is what we are seeing.

Does the Opposition have a chance to throw in a few verbal hand grenades? For sure!

It all adds to the colourful pot pourrie that is Thai politics

A tout a l'heure!

[Yunla]

After all the angry emotional accusations about how I and others are trying to smear Yingluck for insignificant and uninteresting sex-crimes has died down, I will point out what I consider the actual crime again and why it is a crime regardless of how you see it.

There is three as I can see basic facts which are all extremely serious and unavoidable. The first is the most serious.

One. Did she abuse her position as Prime Minister of Thailand in secret business deals of *any* type during those meetings. That is a simple Q&A process.

Question : would these real-estate oligarchs want to hold a business-meeting about land (or politics or banking or anything) with Yingluck if she was not Prime Minister? She is a housewife with basic normal education same as millions of other Thai ladies, she has no professional career to speak of and is not a prominent real-estate broker for example. Would they arrange a meeting with her for this business-transaction if she was not Prime Minister. If the answer is "no they would not have met with her unless she was PM" then that is immediately a crime of abusing the prime-ministerial office. Which is very serious crime. She was only attending this secret meeting because she holds the office of PM, and yet she is not attending it officially as PM and has not registered it as an official meeting and has not even told anybody about it, and yet she is there because of her powerful government position. That is abuse of authority at the highest level in politics. Prison-cell time.

Two. Why did she not declare this PM business-meeting beforehand if it was innocent personal business. Why did she go during parliamentary hours, when all her 'co-workers' in parliament were busy at work doing their jobs for the electorate of Thailand. Why does she not conduct personal business during personal time. How many of her hundreds of other 'away from parliament' days were spent in similar hotel-rooms holding secret meetings with other conflicting business-interests. Are we to believe this was a one-off? If so, why is she so consistenly absent from parliament.

Three. Why did they change their official story after the event, actions which can only be seen as deeply incriminating.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Yunla

[rixalex]

After all the angry emotional accusations about how I and others are trying to smear Yingluck for insignificant and uninteresting sex-crimes has died down, I will point out what I consider the actual crime again and why it is a crime regardless of how you see it.

Don't hold your breath Yunla. I don't think the mock angry emotional accusations will ever die down, because that would mean having to address the much more important issues you went on to raise.

[ginjag]

You are asking questions---Thai do not normally answer direct questions, They do not like it-it goes down like a confrontation. Similar to an order, and they do not like orders. Example Yingluck skirts most questions, refuses to answer mostly and hates debates in parliamentary sessions. Most decisions are hasty and not thought through, Airport another prime example, I agree her timetable of meetings should be planned in advance and open to scrutiny. Cover ups are the norm-Did Chalerm go to the hotel and confiscate private property camera evidence, he should have had police and a court order to do that. Conduct -many times nor normally associated to NORMAL P.M.s

[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

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!

Of course I did not need to read the link, I am fully aware what treason is, the question is do you?

It would appear not as has already been pointed out by another poster,

maybe you can enlighten us and highlight exactly why you think it is treason, refer each point to the relevant legislation, rather than just posting a link to wiki that really proves nothing except what treason actually is, now link it to this case.

argument won I would say as i really doubt you can do this.

[carra]

If you believe that Yingluck and other PT members didn't do anything wrong, you basically don't care about corruption and conflict of interest.

Then you are just defending and supporting PT regardless of what they are doing.

All you PT, TS and red lovers should admit that this meeting smells very bad.

i dont think any is disputing this, i am just disputing the allegations of sexual misconduct which has no basis in the truth whatsoever, and by repeating it the dems are clouding the real issue

[carra]

After all the angry emotional accusations about how I and others are trying to smear Yingluck for insignificant and uninteresting sex-crimes has died down, I will point out what I consider the actual crime again and why it is a crime regardless of how you see it.

There is three as I can see basic facts which are all extremely serious and unavoidable. The first is the most serious.

One. Did she abuse her position as Prime Minister of Thailand in secret business deals of *any* type during those meetings. That is a simple Q&A process.

Question : would these real-estate oligarchs want to hold a business-meeting about land (or politics or banking or anything) with Yingluck if she was not Prime Minister? She is a housewife with basic normal education same as millions of other Thai ladies, she has no professional career to speak of and is not a prominent real-estate broker for example. Would they arrange a meeting with her for this business-transaction if she was not Prime Minister. If the answer is "no they would not have met with her unless she was PM" then that is immediately a crime of abusing the prime-ministerial office. Which is very serious crime. She was only attending this secret meeting because she holds the office of PM, and yet she is not attending it officially as PM and has not registered it as an official meeting and has not even told anybody about it, and yet she is there because of her powerful government position. That is abuse of authority at the highest level in politics. Prison-cell time.

Two. Why did she not declare this PM business-meeting beforehand if it was innocent personal business. Why did she go during parliamentary hours, when all her 'co-workers' in parliament were busy at work doing their jobs for the electorate of Thailand. Why does she not conduct personal business during personal time. How many of her hundreds of other 'away from parliament' days were spent in similar hotel-rooms holding secret meetings with other conflicting business-interests. Are we to believe this was a one-off? If so, why is she so consistenly absent from parliament.

Three. Why did they change their official story after the event, actions which can only be seen as deeply incriminating.

you seem to know all the answers to this, so please let us have the answers to your questions, complete with proof, or is this just a lot of hearsay and speculation on your part?

seems like lies and desperation to me

In fact let me direct, let me see if you can answer a simple yes or no question:

Do you think the Prime Minister was at that hotel for a sexual meeting? just answer yes or no, lets get to the crux of the matter here or I am afraid i won't be able to take you seriously any more.

Edited June 20, 2012 by carra

[Yunla]

If you believe that Yingluck and other PT members didn't do anything wrong, you basically don't care about corruption and conflict of interest.

Then you are just defending and supporting PT regardless of what they are doing.

All you PT, TS and red lovers should admit that this meeting smells very bad.

i dont think any is disputing this, i am just disputing the allegations of sexual misconduct which has no basis in the truth whatsoever, and by repeating it the dems are clouding the real issue

Except it is only you mainly going on about the sex-acts, myself and others have been trying to drag the topic back to the actual serious crime of a PM abusing their position and corruption and unethical actions relating to land-deals etc. which are major value. This is the actual crime here, but you keep bringing it back to sex-claims and how that is the "dems" clouding the issue. In this thread at least it is you who is clouding the issue by talking about the sex claims, and the honour of Yingluck. In the OP the sex-claims actually occupied one line of the whole article.

Those are not important at all really, the important part of this story is that for once she got caught doing what she most likely does all the time which is go AWOL from parliament and conduct massive secret deals with fatcats in hotels.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Yunla

[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!

Of course I did not need to read the link, I am fully aware what treason is, the question is do you?

It would appear not as has already been pointed out by another poster,

maybe you can enlighten us and highlight exactly why you think it is treason, refer each point to the relevant legislation, rather than just posting a link to wiki that really proves nothing except what treason actually is, now link it to this case.

argument won I would say as i really doubt you can do this.

Poor, deluded soul.

[rixalex]

i dont think any is disputing this, i am just disputing the allegations of sexual misconduct which has no basis in the truth whatsoever, and by repeating it the dems are clouding the real issue

Regarding clouding the issue, you are attempting exactly the same thing on this thread. Just keep bleating on about the same non-issue repeatedly, and then at the end of the bleating, throwing in short lip-service type footnotes about the important issues.

You urge the Dems to focus on the important stuff, but are seemingly incapable of doing so yourself. There is a lot of strength in the allegations being made, and one irrelevant inappropriate weakness. All of your focus is on the irrelevant inappropriate weakness. Funny that.

[MunterHunter]

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

Can you prove she wasn't engaging in sexual encounters, before, during or after the alleged meeting?

I didn't think so... so until the courts/ombudsman etc figure it all out - no-one can prove anything and speculation is/will be rife

[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

Can you prove she wasn't engaging in sexual encounters, before, during or after the alleged meeting?

I didn't think so... so until the courts/ombudsman etc figure it all out - no-one can prove anything and speculation is/will be rife

No I can't, however the fact that the meeting was with a number of people in a public room i think we can safely guess it wasn't for a sexual liaison.

There is one massive thing in this thread that everyone seems to be missing, I could ask you all to guess but I doubt anyone will guess so I will tell you. This was a news report about a democratic party politician asking for answers regarding alleged political wrongdoings but because the idiot also raised the issue of sexual misconduct the real issue has hardly been discussed, I imagine that's the same on every forum in Thailand and in every restaurant.

Now if the evidence was so clear cut that she was indeed involved in political wrongdoings then why would there be the need to raise the issue of sexual misconduct again? My guess is that it is not as clear cut as some people on here would like to think, hence the need for mudslinging on an issue that wouldn't have even been raised if the PM was a man.

The dems have acted disgracefully by accusing her of this, let me remind you how they have behaved with this one tweet from a certain dem politician “before I debate with them on Yingluck in Parliament, they should go an wash away all the smell of sperm fluid.”. This followed he allegation from Ekkayuth that calls all women from Northern Thailand as lazy whores and calling Yingluk “An adulterous Whore.”

Quite where some of you get the idea that PTP brought up this issue to discredit the dems is beyond me, one fool saw her, and then accused her after being assaulted (alleged) on a completely different matter.

Now can you all see how damaging this is, accusing her of sexual improprieties without any proof whatsoever takes away from the real crux of the issue which is what the meeting was actually about.

[Yunla]

Now can you all see how damaging this is, accusing her of sexual improprieties without any proof whatsoever takes away from the real crux of the issue which is what the meeting was actually about.

They list all the accusations against this person. So they listed ethical and corruption charges and they listed the sexual indiscretion accusation too.

That is very normal when reporting any serious incident, to outline the full list of transgressions committed. If she had also for example committed vandalism in the hotel room, that would also be listed along with the ethics violations and betrayal of official position crime and adultery. Its just saying the full list of accusations of what went on, everybody knows that the breach of public/private interests is the only crime in this story. Its a big crime too, which is why some people are so keen to bury it under loads of misdirective hot air.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Yunla

[craigt3365]

OK guys. Calm down. Just to clarity the room thing:

Siracha said yesterday the ombudsmen had been at the hotel and found that the seventh floor, where Yingluck was supposed to have met some people, was an open area reserved for the hotel's VIP guests.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/557228-pm-yinglucks-hotel-meeting-appropriate/

Not a private room, but not a public room either. Reserved for VIPs and if the PM was present, was probably closed off just for her group. Same would be done for the head of state in any other country.

[carra]

Now can you all see how damaging this is, accusing her of sexual improprieties without any proof whatsoever takes away from the real crux of the issue which is what the meeting was actually about.

They list all the accusations against this person. So they listed ethical and corruption charges and they listed the sexual indiscretion accusation too.

That is very normal when reporting any serious incident, to outline the full list of transgressions committed. If she had also for example committed vandalism in the hotel room, that would also be listed along with the ethics violations and betrayal of official position crime and adultery. Its just saying the full list of accusations of what went on, everybody knows that the breach of public/private interests is the only crime in this story. Its a big crime too, which is why some people are so keen to bury it under loads of misdirective hot air.

No it is not, there is no evidence whatsoever of sexual impropriety so there is no need to even mention it other than it was imagined by some very small minds, and now it has been shown the meeting was with more than one person in a public place there should not even be any need to repeat it.

You have clearly made your mind up about this (even though you can't answer a direct question on the issue), you clearly state 'full list of transgressions committed', I guess you have been judge and jury on this, however your comment should read 'alleged' and not 'committed', and then when it becomes clear that people accusations are not correct then that should be dropped from any agenda.

And again you miss the massive point here, raising this issue again detracts from the real issue, pure and simple, or are you suggesting all the business people that said they were at the meeting with her that day are lying to cover up a sexual liaison? (careful now)

Thanks to the post above the room issue is clarified so at least now you can stop with this nonsense about it being a bedroom. yes it is a room in a hotel but it is not a hotel room.

Edited June 20, 2012 by carra

[saltandpepper]

Now can you all see how damaging this is, accusing her of sexual improprieties without any proof whatsoever takes away from the real crux of the issue which is what the meeting was actually about.

They list all the accusations against this person. So they listed ethical and corruption charges and they listed the sexual indiscretion accusation too.

That is very normal when reporting any serious incident, to outline the full list of transgressions committed. If she had also for example committed vandalism in the hotel room, that would also be listed along with the ethics violations and betrayal of official position crime and adultery. Its just saying the full list of accusations of what went on, everybody knows that the breach of public/private interests is the only crime in this story. Its a big crime too, which is why some people are so keen to bury it under loads of misdirective hot air.

No it is not, there is no evidence whatsoever of sexual impropriety so there is no need to even mention it other than it was imagined by some very small minds, and now it has been shown the meeting was with more than one person in a public place there should not even be any need to repeat it.

You have clearly made your mind up about this (even though you can't answer a direct question on the issue), you clearly state 'full list of transgressions committed', I guess you have been judge and jury on this, however your comment should read 'alleged' and not 'committed', and then when it becomes clear that people accusations are not correct then that should be dropped from any agenda.

And again you miss the massive point here, raising this issue again detracts from the real issue, pure and simple, or are you suggesting all the business people that said they were at the meeting with her that day are lying to cover up a sexual liaison? (careful now)

Thanks to the post above the room issue is clarified so at least now you can stop with this nonsense about it being a bedroom. yes it is a room in a hotel but it is not a hotel room.

Where the hell can I get some popcorn now?

[carra]

Now can you all see how damaging this is, accusing her of sexual improprieties without any proof whatsoever takes away from the real crux of the issue which is what the meeting was actually about.

They list all the accusations against this person. So they listed ethical and corruption charges and they listed the sexual indiscretion accusation too.

That is very normal when reporting any serious incident, to outline the full list of transgressions committed. If she had also for example committed vandalism in the hotel room, that would also be listed along with the ethics violations and betrayal of official position crime and adultery. Its just saying the full list of accusations of what went on, everybody knows that the breach of public/private interests is the only crime in this story. Its a big crime too, which is why some people are so keen to bury it under loads of misdirective hot air.

No it is not, there is no evidence whatsoever of sexual impropriety so there is no need to even mention it other than it was imagined by some very small minds, and now it has been shown the meeting was with more than one person in a public place there should not even be any need to repeat it.

You have clearly made your mind up about this (even though you can't answer a direct question on the issue), you clearly state 'full list of transgressions committed', I guess you have been judge and jury on this, however your comment should read 'alleged' and not 'committed', and then when it becomes clear that people accusations are not correct then that should be dropped from any agenda.

And again you miss the massive point here, raising this issue again detracts from the real issue, pure and simple, or are you suggesting all the business people that said they were at the meeting with her that day are lying to cover up a sexual liaison? (careful now)

Thanks to the post above the room issue is clarified so at least now you can stop with this nonsense about it being a bedroom. yes it is a room in a hotel but it is not a hotel room.

Where the hell can I get some popcorn now?

7/11

[Yunla]

No it is not, there is no evidence whatsoever of sexual impropriety so there is no need to even mention it other than it was imagined by some very small minds, and now it has been shown the meeting was with more than one person in a public place there should not even be any need to repeat it.

You have clearly made your mind up about this (even though you can't answer a direct question on the issue), you clearly state 'full list of transgressions committed', I guess you have been judge and jury on this, however your comment should read 'alleged' and not 'committed', and then when it becomes clear that people accusations are not correct then that should be dropped from any agenda.

And again you miss the massive point here, raising this issue again detracts from the real issue, pure and simple, or are you suggesting all the business people that said they were at the meeting with her that day are lying to cover up a sexual liaison? (careful now)

Thanks to the post above the room issue is clarified so at least now you can stop with this nonsense about it being a bedroom. yes it is a room in a hotel but it is not a hotel room.

I never once said it was a bedroom. I called it a hotel room. I don't see why it is important to you anyway. The funny thing is after all the thousands of words you've written in this thread you haven't actually talked about the story itself - why was Yingluck holding business meeting in a 'private suite' at a hotel with several private business interests, during government time and undoubtably (I repeat undoubtably) she was there because of her position as prime minister and not in her capacity of unemployed housewife.

If she was there as PM, why was it not on official records as a PM meeting or visit. She is not a Dictator, she is democratically elected, and in democracy this means she has to inform parliament and debate with parliament on the details and outcomes of all her official meetings as PM. When I asked you to respond in earlier post, I was referring to this, in bulletin board style to say "respond" meaning please address the point I just made. I realise you have great affection for Yingluck and you don't like people to criticise her but I do wish you would address the main point - how can she arrange a private suite in the hotel and meet businessmen there during parliament hours, as PM, and not tell anybody about it. Theres a word for that type of zero-accountability power-abuse, and it is not democracy, it is called totalitarianism. I wont ask you to respond to my main point again, so just keep talking about Yinglucks honour and the sex-story instead if you want.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Yunla