Democrats Call On Yingluck To Explain Four Seasons Meeting

[saltandpepper]

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 as her position as 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 democraticallly 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 talkingabotu yinglucks honour and the sex-story instead if you want.

the plot thickens!!!

[carra]

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.

and if you bothered to read my posts you would have had no need to post this.

It has nothing to with liking her or not, it is to do with balance and to do with the truth, and by the dems keeping on rehashing this nonsense then there is a less chance of her being found guilty of any real wrongdoings as the sexual allegation is clouding the real issues.

Deary me, the fact that the dems mentioned the sexual impropriety allowed me to take the thread in this direction, and by allowing to do that it detracts from the real issues, can't you see that, if the dems had not mentioned it (as lets be honest here, we all know it didn't happen) then we would now be on the 4th page of talking about the real issue. I can steer it this way, imagine what her lawyers and spin doctors could do if every time the dems raise this issue they also accuse her of sexual impropriety without any proof or basis whatsoever.

can you see this now?

Whether I like her not is irrelevant, I have never met her, never want to meet her, and I have been very straight in this thread that i think something is wrong, however not sexual impropriety, but the fact they keep raising the sexual impropriety means the real issue can be shoved further back in peoples minds as they are busy arguing over a non issue,

lesson over for today, you are dismissed

[Nickymaster]

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.

You can have acts in many kind of locations and in some cases they last very short.

[Moruya]

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.

You can have acts in many kind of locations and in some cases they last very short.

Dogging?

[rixalex]

Deary me, the fact that the dems mentioned the sexual impropriety allowed me to take the thread in this direction, and by allowing to do that it detracts from the real issues, can't you see that, if the dems had not mentioned it (as lets be honest here, we all know it didn't happen) then we would now be on the 4th page of talking about the real issue. I can steer it this way, imagine what her lawyers and spin doctors could do if every time the dems raise this issue they also accuse her of sexual impropriety without any proof or basis whatsoever.

can you see this now?

I understand why lawyers and spin doctors would spend all their time spinning it in exactly the same fashion you have. It's what they are paid to do. You aren't paid to do it (i assume), and you portray yourself as having no particular horse in all this (although to be honest your posts suggest otherwise to me), so what is your reason for constantly steering the topic away from what is important, and onto what is not?

To teach other people a lesson in debate? Bit sanctimonious and petty don't you think...

[Nickymaster]

Carra, you are calling people idiots and fools in your post. That is ok i guess but people are not allowed to suggest that YS has a sexual relationship. I don't know what is worse. You act as if YS is your GF.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Nickymaster

[saltandpepper]

Carra, you are calling people idiots and fools in your post. That is ok i guess but people are not allowed to suggest that YS has a sexual relationship. I don't know what is worse. You act as if YS is your GF.

Well well well....

Another direction now.... Geeee, not a dull moment here

[carra]

Deary me, the fact that the dems mentioned the sexual impropriety allowed me to take the thread in this direction, and by allowing to do that it detracts from the real issues, can't you see that, if the dems had not mentioned it (as lets be honest here, we all know it didn't happen) then we would now be on the 4th page of talking about the real issue. I can steer it this way, imagine what her lawyers and spin doctors could do if every time the dems raise this issue they also accuse her of sexual impropriety without any proof or basis whatsoever.

can you see this now?

I understand why lawyers and spin doctors would spend all their time spinning it in exactly the same fashion you have. It's what they are paid to do. You aren't paid to do it (i assume), and you portray yourself as having no particular horse in all this (although to be honest your posts suggest otherwise to me), so what is your reason for constantly steering the topic away from what is important, and onto what is not?

To teach other people a lesson in debate? Bit sanctimonious and petty don't you think...

As opposed to people constantly telling others with a different opinion that they have been brainwashed?

I think I have made it clear also that I think there are questions to be answered, however not sexual impropriety, so it would be wrong to suggest I favour only one side in this particular matter, the difference between me and other posters is I can see the fault on both sides and continually highlight this, it may appear I lean more to one side but that simply because of the amount of people on one side spouting their bile and nonsense so it appears I am constantly favouring the other side. Both sides are as bad as each other but if I had to plump for one it would be the democratically elected government, whichever party that may be,

i would have thought that saying I feel the dems are clouding the real issue would let people know that i think there is a real issue that needs to be addressed so I am hardly sitting one one particular side of the fence there am I. I just feel it would be better to focus on real issues rather than non issues, it's just shame that others don't feel the same way and started to be a little bit more balanced.

[carra]

Carra, you are calling people idiots and fools in your post. That is ok i guess but people are not allowed to suggest that YS has a sexual relationship. I don't know what is worse. You act as if YS is your GF.

oh dear, I guess you are trolling, I am not sure if you are asking a question or making a statement, I would also like to know where I called people idiots or fools.

This is a political issue, not a squabble in a school playground, so defending a public figure from a scurrilous accusation means I am acting as though said public figure is my girlfriend. I constantly defended Luis Suarez this year, am I bumming him? Sorry but you brought it to this level so I guessed I have to respond in kind so its not lost on you

[Nickymaster]

Carra, you are calling people idiots and fools in your post. That is ok i guess but people are not allowed to suggest that YS has a sexual relationship. I don't know what is worse. You act as if YS is your GF.

oh dear, I guess you are trolling, I am not sure if you are asking a question or making a statement, I would also like to know where I called people idiots or fools.

This is a political issue, not a squabble in a school playground, so defending a public figure from a scurrilous accusation means I am acting as though said public figure is my girlfriend. I constantly defended Luis Suarez this year, am I bumming him? Sorry but you brought it to this level so I guessed I have to respond in kind so its not lost on you

I would also like to know where I called people idiots or fools.

post 84

Ahh ok. You also defended that sneaky Suarez guy. That explains a lot about your judgement.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Nickymaster

[theblether]

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

Exactly

+1

Here lies the problem, if people would just stick forensically to the facts, it would be harder for the other side to squirm off.

This sexual impropriety line is just embarrassing. Stick to facts and stay away from slander, the slander is hiding the truth.

[carra]

Carra, you are calling people idiots and fools in your post. That is ok i guess but people are not allowed to suggest that YS has a sexual relationship. I don't know what is worse. You act as if YS is your GF.

oh dear, I guess you are trolling, I am not sure if you are asking a question or making a statement, I would also like to know where I called people idiots or fools.

This is a political issue, not a squabble in a school playground, so defending a public figure from a scurrilous accusation means I am acting as though said public figure is my girlfriend. I constantly defended Luis Suarez this year, am I bumming him? Sorry but you brought it to this level so I guessed I have to respond in kind so its not lost on you

I would also like to know where I called people idiots or fools.

post 84

Ahh ok. You also defended that sneaky Suarez guy. That explains a lot about your judgement.

What would you call a man that refers to all northern Thai women as lazy whores?

Pal? mate?

I have made my point in this thread I think, now squabble amongst yourselves. i shall bow out and let you all froth at the mouth about the brazen hussy

[craigt3365]

+1

Here lies the problem, if people would just stick forensically to the facts, it would be harder for the other side to squirm off.

This sexual impropriety line is just embarrassing. Stick to facts and stay away from slander, the slander is hiding the truth.

Agreed. Please stay away from slanderous posts and this constant bickering. Please.

[ianf]

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

I don't think this is about Abhisit but I would sincerely wonder why it is that a woman PM has to face these questions when a male PM would not given similar circumstances. I may dislike Ying and all she stands for but I dislike this kind of sexism even more.

[ginjag]

Four Seasons, cough up the video tapes, if you have (misplaced) them, find them, if someone ordered you to destroy them tell the news men. It was said this was business, o.k. but why didn't a minister attend as Yingluck usually leaves her work to a.n. other.

[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.

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"

Get a life dude!

[Skywalker69]

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.

Sensible post Yunala. Thanks

[Skywalker69]

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"

Get a life dude!

[rixalex]

As opposed to people constantly telling others with a different opinion that they have been brainwashed?

I think I have made it clear also that I think there are questions to be answered, however not sexual impropriety, so it would be wrong to suggest I favour only one side in this particular matter, the difference between me and other posters is I can see the fault on both sides and continually highlight this, it may appear I lean more to one side but that simply because of the amount of people on one side spouting their bile and nonsense so it appears I am constantly favouring the other side. Both sides are as bad as each other but if I had to plump for one it would be the democratically elected government, whichever party that may be,

i would have thought that saying I feel the dems are clouding the real issue would let people know that i think there is a real issue that needs to be addressed so I am hardly sitting one one particular side of the fence there am I. I just feel it would be better to focus on real issues rather than non issues, it's just shame that others don't feel the same way and started to be a little bit more balanced.

Both sides might be as bad as each other in some instances, sure, but concerning this particular story, we have the Prime Minister of the country skipping her duties in parliament to discreetly meet business people in a hotel that would not have become public knowledge were it not for someone seeing her there. Then we have the Prime Minister and various spokespeople giving a continually changing version of events on first, whether she was actually there, and then later when that couldn't be denied, on what she was doing there and with whom (giving a continually changing version of events would by most be described as lying).

We also have hotel security footage immediately going missing. That's all on PTP side.

On the other side, the Dems, we have people wanting answers and in the absence of them, making a lot of quite plausible suggestions and insinuations, the main one being conflict of interests, the lesser one , which as you say you and her legal team have been spending all your time spinning to death, being a possible sexual liaison. Now to me, it seems one side, the side that created all of this scandal by not being upfront and transparent in the first place, has acted much the worse of the two. Perhaps if you stopped for one moment trying so earnestly and devotedly to evening up all the "unfair one-sided rhetoric against Yingluck", and simply gave your own opinion on the facts as they are before us, you might agree? Or perhaps not...

[bigbamboo]

I still don't understand what is so remarkable about any minister of the government having shady secret meetings with wealthy businessmen.

It happens all the time.... how else do government ministers get to be so rich?

[carra]

As opposed to people constantly telling others with a different opinion that they have been brainwashed?

I think I have made it clear also that I think there are questions to be answered, however not sexual impropriety, so it would be wrong to suggest I favour only one side in this particular matter, the difference between me and other posters is I can see the fault on both sides and continually highlight this, it may appear I lean more to one side but that simply because of the amount of people on one side spouting their bile and nonsense so it appears I am constantly favouring the other side. Both sides are as bad as each other but if I had to plump for one it would be the democratically elected government, whichever party that may be,

i would have thought that saying I feel the dems are clouding the real issue would let people know that i think there is a real issue that needs to be addressed so I am hardly sitting one one particular side of the fence there am I. I just feel it would be better to focus on real issues rather than non issues, it's just shame that others don't feel the same way and started to be a little bit more balanced.

Both sides might be as bad as each other in some instances, sure, but concerning this particular story, we have the Prime Minister of the country skipping her duties in parliament to discreetly meet business people in a hotel that would not have become public knowledge were it not for someone seeing her there. Then we have the Prime Minister and various spokespeople giving a continually changing version of events on first, whether she was actually there, and then later when that couldn't be denied, on what she was doing there and with whom (giving a continually changing version of events would by most be described as lying).

We also have hotel security footage immediately going missing. That's all on PTP side.

On the other side, the Dems, we have people wanting answers and in the absence of them, making a lot of quite plausible suggestions and insinuations, the main one being conflict of interests, the lesser one , which as you say you and her legal team have been spending all your time spinning to death, being a possible sexual liaison. Now to me, it seems one side, the side that created all of this scandal by not being upfront and transparent in the first place, has acted much the worse of the two. Perhaps if you stopped for one moment trying so earnestly and devotedly to evening up all the "unfair one-sided rhetoric against Yingluck", and simply gave your own opinion on the facts as they are before us, you might agree? Or perhaps not...

and of course the dems when they were in power were upfront about everything they did, no secret meetings etc.

the fact is both sides are as bad as each other, for what you have just written, if I could be arsed, I could counter everything and respond with similar or same circumstances for the dems, but like I say, i can't be arsed, we will be here all day backwards and forwards as some people just can not accept both sides are as bad as each other,

[MunterHunter]

(as lets be honest here, we all know it didn't happen)

Prove it, until you can prove without any shadow of doubt that she did not engage in any sexual encounter, you are merely speculating the same as everyone else in this thread.

Do you get it now?

[rixalex]

As opposed to people constantly telling others with a different opinion that they have been brainwashed?

I think I have made it clear also that I think there are questions to be answered, however not sexual impropriety, so it would be wrong to suggest I favour only one side in this particular matter, the difference between me and other posters is I can see the fault on both sides and continually highlight this, it may appear I lean more to one side but that simply because of the amount of people on one side spouting their bile and nonsense so it appears I am constantly favouring the other side. Both sides are as bad as each other but if I had to plump for one it would be the democratically elected government, whichever party that may be,

i would have thought that saying I feel the dems are clouding the real issue would let people know that i think there is a real issue that needs to be addressed so I am hardly sitting one one particular side of the fence there am I. I just feel it would be better to focus on real issues rather than non issues, it's just shame that others don't feel the same way and started to be a little bit more balanced.

Both sides might be as bad as each other in some instances, sure, but concerning this particular story, we have the Prime Minister of the country skipping her duties in parliament to discreetly meet business people in a hotel that would not have become public knowledge were it not for someone seeing her there. Then we have the Prime Minister and various spokespeople giving a continually changing version of events on first, whether she was actually there, and then later when that couldn't be denied, on what she was doing there and with whom (giving a continually changing version of events would by most be described as lying).

We also have hotel security footage immediately going missing. That's all on PTP side.

On the other side, the Dems, we have people wanting answers and in the absence of them, making a lot of quite plausible suggestions and insinuations, the main one being conflict of interests, the lesser one , which as you say you and her legal team have been spending all your time spinning to death, being a possible sexual liaison. Now to me, it seems one side, the side that created all of this scandal by not being upfront and transparent in the first place, has acted much the worse of the two. Perhaps if you stopped for one moment trying so earnestly and devotedly to evening up all the "unfair one-sided rhetoric against Yingluck", and simply gave your own opinion on the facts as they are before us, you might agree? Or perhaps not...

and of course the dems when they were in power were upfront about everything they did, no secret meetings etc.

the fact is both sides are as bad as each other, for what you have just written, if I could be arsed, I could counter everything and respond with similar or same circumstances for the dems, but like I say, i can't be arsed, we will be here all day backwards and forwards as some people just can not accept both sides are as bad as each other,

For every deplorable red/PTP action, a Dem/Yellow/PAD action is put forward in a pathetic gesture along the lines of "let's call it even stevens - they all do - all as bad as each other".

Simple unconditional condemnation is clearly not possible for some. A constant effort to spread the blame around as thinly as possible. And all done under the pretences of trying to balance the scales. Sad.

[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".

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?

Jupiter, because I am Stupider.

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed.

[nurofiend]

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.

you attempt to spin everything so much

"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."

it wasn't a hotel room of the type you're alluding to ie a bedroom, and don't even deny that that's what you were talking about with your charming prostitute analogy.

[DrTuner]

I still don't understand what is so remarkable about any minister of the government having shady secret meetings with wealthy businessmen.

It happens all the time.... how else do government ministers get to be so rich?

She's a female PM in Thailand. There have been at least a gazillion posts on this very forum testifying how Thai women are the pinnacle of purity, the alleged behavior is a far greater sin here as, say, neglecting to steer a nation while occupying the post of Prime Minister.

Which makes it the most excellent ploy to get normal Thais spread a juicy rumor and ensure a loss in the next elections.

[nurofiend]

i'd say there will be no conflict of interest ever proven in regards to this incident, and the sexual thing was just a petty, childish, ridiculous attempt to sling mud at her reputation.

it seems the claims are just being laughed at by the ptp.

also if this was such a shady meeting, i'd suggest they would have picked a less conspicuous place.

though with the lack of evidence so far to prove that it wasn't a conflict of interest i still certainly don't rule it out.

but let us not forget the way this first came to attention... the allegations and hints from an anti-thaksin, pyramid schemer businessman that yingluck ordered her security to beat him up!

sad, sad, sad.

[jackspratt]

(as lets be honest here, we all know it didn't happen)

Prove it, until you can prove without any shadow of doubt that she did not engage in any sexual encounter, you are merely speculating the same as everyone else in this thread.

Do you get it now?

I heard in a bar last night, from a guy who is in a relationship with a Thai lady, who had a friend of a friend who was a cleaner at the Four Seasons, that Yingluck was involved in baby sacrifice on that day.

Until you can prove without any shadow of doubt that she did not engage in any sexual encounter baby sacrifice, you are merely speculating the same as everyone else in this thread.

ps silly, isn't it.

[Siripon]

(as lets be honest here, we all know it didn't happen)

Prove it, until you can prove without any shadow of doubt that she did not engage in any sexual encounter, you are merely speculating the same as everyone else in this thread.

Do you get it now?

I heard in a bar last night, from a guy who is in a relationship with a Thai lady, who had a friend of a friend who was a cleaner at the Four Seasons, that Yingluck was involved in baby sacrifice on that day.

Until you can prove without any shadow of doubt that she did not engage in any sexual encounter baby sacrifice, you are merely speculating the same as everyone else in this thread.

ps silly, isn't it.

Play the CCTV tapes and all the speculation will disappear in seconds. The hotel's policy is to keep the tapes for a month.- but wait! the tapes were mysteriously erased or disappeared within days of the event!

Never mind, the honorable Mr Chalerm said he has seen the tapes and 'there is nothing to worry about!!!!''''