Court Names 81 Red Shirts In Judges' Intimida

[Babcock]

It looks more like you who's been watching the Rambo.

Siriraj hospital burnt down.

I don't think so.

mosques torched?

I don't think so.

However back in 2006 there was a series of unexplained explosions around Bangkok and Chiang Mai.

One went off near the Saxaphone club causing serious injuries.

Another explosion inside a mosque in Chiang Mai.

The coup leaders at first blamed Thaskin supporters. The moslems.

Later the police blamed General Panlop ( you know mastermind for the car bomb intended for Thaksin earlier that year stored overnight at the ISOC headquarters.) He was the general responsible for the Tak Bai mosque massacre. Wrote a book about it justifying doing it and defying the ministry of defence who ordered him to negotiate. Word has it that the men inside the mosque were found with their hands tied and bullet wounds to the head.

There were 2 eyewitnesses.

1) in Bangkok an eyewitness saw a man hurl a grenade from an overhead walkway.

2) in Chiang Mai the caretaker of a mosque was blown up when he saw a man throw a grenade into the mosque injuring him.

At first the police blamed the caretaker claiming he was building a bomb inside the mosque. Mass protests followed as if a caretaker would build a device in a mosque.

To date no arrests.

You said that what was said at the rally was meant as a threat to the government.

So why the threats to Siriraj and the Mosques?

We all know who was in Siriraj.

And the Mosques? Pure fascism.

Your icons are tainted.

I just listed 2 known attacks on mosques.

Both attacks I believe perpetrated by the army.

In many quarters it is still being claimed that Thaksin ordered the attacks on the Tak Bai mosque when it is known that the Minister for defence ordered Panlop to stand down and he refused and carried out the atrocity.

I take note of your outrage about calls from the stage but they weren't translated into action and some would say these comments were made in the heat of the moment, made by very angry people who later may have regretted their actions.

Not so the general. Doesn't regret it a bit.

Denies complicity in the car bomb plot saying only that had he been in charge Thaksin would have died.

The car with its explosives was stored overnight in the carpaekof the ISOC headquarters. Know who they are?

Panlop after the Tak Bai mosque incident was sacked by Thasksin but reassigned as deputy director of ISOC.

ISOC Killers of communists etc and any undesirables where a wet job is required.

[Moruya]

It looks more like you who's been watching the Rambo.

Siriraj hospital burnt down.

I don't think so.

mosques torched?

I don't think so.

However back in 2006 there was a series of unexplained explosions around Bangkok and Chiang Mai.

One went off near the Saxaphone club causing serious injuries.

Another explosion inside a mosque in Chiang Mai.

The coup leaders at first blamed Thaskin supporters. The moslems.

Later the police blamed General Panlop ( you know mastermind for the car bomb intended for Thaksin earlier that year stored overnight at the ISOC headquarters.) He was the general responsible for the Tak Bai mosque massacre. Wrote a book about it justifying doing it and defying the ministry of defence who ordered him to negotiate. Word has it that the men inside the mosque were found with their hands tied and bullet wounds to the head.

There were 2 eyewitnesses.

1) in Bangkok an eyewitness saw a man hurl a grenade from an overhead walkway.

2) in Chiang Mai the caretaker of a mosque was blown up when he saw a man throw a grenade into the mosque injuring him.

At first the police blamed the caretaker claiming he was building a bomb inside the mosque. Mass protests followed as if a caretaker would build a device in a mosque.

To date no arrests.

You said that what was said at the rally was meant as a threat to the government.

So why the threats to Siriraj and the Mosques?

We all know who was in Siriraj.

And the Mosques? Pure fascism.

Your icons are tainted.

I just listed 2 known attacks on mosques.

Both attacks I believe perpetrated by the army.

In many quarters it is still being claimed that Thaksin ordered the attacks on the Tak Bai mosque when it is known that the Minister for defence ordered Panlop to stand down and he refused and carried out the atrocity.

I take note of your outrage about calls from the stage but they weren't translated into action and some would say these comments were made in the heat of the moment, made by very angry people who later may have regretted their actions.

Not so the general. Doesn't regret it a bit.

Denies complicity in the car bomb plot saying only that had he been in charge Thaksin would have died.

The car with its explosives was stored overnight in the carpaekof the ISOC headquarters. Know who they are?

Panlop after the Tak Bai mosque incident was sacked by Thasksin but reassigned as deputy director of ISOC.

ISOC Killers of communists etc and any undesirables where a wet job is required.

Have you taken this up with the DSI?

[philw]

Nothing New, We all know UDD / Reds are a bunch of gangsters and thugs but will they really do time in the country of corruption ?

you want to lock up half the population?

looks like it............

[rubl]

Selective memory gap syndrome seems to occur with certain TV infected posters. May be a bit off topic, but related to intimidation.

Two more attacks on mosques, obviously someone did it, but not obviously either army or insurgents,

2007-06-01

21 dead in south Thailand attacks

http://en.wikinews.o...hailand_attacks

2009-06-08

Thai Mosque Attack: Gunmen Open Fire During Evening Prayers, Killing 10

http://www.huffingto...n_n_212833.html

[rubl]

More on topic of intimidation this article from two days ago is really interesting:

"Teenager issued with harassment warning over tweets sent to Tom Daley

17-year-old boy bailed after Team GB diver retweeted message telling him he had let down his dead father

A 17-year-old boy arrested as part of an investigation into Twitter messages sent to the diver Tom Daley after he and team-mate Pete Waterfield missed out on a medal on Monday has been issued with a harassment warning.

Dorset police say the teenager was bailed pending an investigation into other communications on his Twitter account."

http://www.guardian....weets-tom-daley

[tlansford]

More on topic of intimidation this article from two days ago is really interesting:

"Teenager issued with harassment warning over tweets sent to Tom Daley

17-year-old boy bailed after Team GB diver retweeted message telling him he had let down his dead father

A 17-year-old boy arrested as part of an investigation into Twitter messages sent to the diver Tom Daley after he and team-mate Pete Waterfield missed out on a medal on Monday has been issued with a harassment warning.

Dorset police say the teenager was bailed pending an investigation into other communications on his Twitter account."

http://www.guardian....weets-tom-daley

It seems to me that there is a huge difference between harassment via twitter and intimidation charges. It's not obvious the connection to the Olympic story and this one... ?

Edited August 2, 2012 by tlansford

[nurofiend]

I do think that laws should be enforced.

I don't need to agree with every law.

Simple

disagreeing with a law precisely means that you don't think it should be enforced... that's what disagreeing with a law is.

you don't say i disagree with that law but i think it should be enforced...which is pretty much what you said.

not sure.

Not necessarily my position, but I think that you can believe that all laws should be enforced, but laws you do not agree with should be changed.

...

Agreed.

well personally i see it that if you think that a law should be changed and it's a law you disagree with, you therefore see it as a law that should not be enforced.

it's like if they made a law that nobody is allowed to use the internet and you say i disagree with this law and it should be changed, however i think all laws, which obviously includes this law, should be enforced... to me that is contradicting yourself.

i'm sure people who disagree with the death penalty, like myself, wouldn't say i strongly disagree with this law, however i think it should be enforced simply because it is law.. i just don't subscribe to the view of being opposed to a law and yet believing that all law should be enforced just because.

what about stoning women in iran? is this a good logic to have - i think that this law should be change however since it is law now, it should be enforced.. no, you'd say it shouldn't be enforced at all because you disagree with it.

to me it's just contradiction.

[phiphidon]

And shamelessly supporting a guy that is labeled by HRW as a human rights abuser of it's worst kind.

But who can stop a rich, corrupt narcissist what a propaganda machine working at full speed in a country where many have little education. Perfect playing field.

Off topic somewhat but which particular hrw are you talking about - there is a difference, but you must know that.............

Are you saying that I am lying when I say HRW called Thaksin a Human Rights abuser of it's worst kind?

Y/N pick one!

No I wasn't saying you were lying.

[phiphidon]

More on topic of intimidation this article from two days ago is really interesting:

"Teenager issued with harassment warning over tweets sent to Tom Daley

17-year-old boy bailed after Team GB diver retweeted message telling him he had let down his dead father

A 17-year-old boy arrested as part of an investigation into Twitter messages sent to the diver Tom Daley after he and team-mate Pete Waterfield missed out on a medal on Monday has been issued with a harassment warning.

Dorset police say the teenager was bailed pending an investigation into other communications on his Twitter account."

http://www.guardian....weets-tom-daley

It seems to me that there is a huge difference between harassment via twitter and intimidation charges. It's not obvious the connection to the Olympic story and this one... ?

Apparently a pair of speedos were burnt in protest which incited the crowd and as one they left to demand tickets to the womens beach volleyball tournament, or so I heard. Thats what happens if you don't have crackdowns on this sort of behaviour.............

[tlansford]

- deleted -

disagreeing with a law precisely means that you don't think it should be enforced... that's what disagreeing with a law is.

you don't say i disagree with that law but i think it should be enforced...which is pretty much what you said.

not sure.

Not necessarily my position, but I think that you can believe that all laws should be enforced, but laws you do not agree with should be changed.

...

Agreed.

well personally i see it that if you think that a law should be changed and it's a law you disagree with, you therefore see it as a law that should not be enforced.

it's like if they made a law that nobody is allowed to use the internet and you say i disagree with this law and it should be changed, however i think all laws, which obviously includes this law, should be enforced... to me that is contradicting yourself.

i'm sure people who disagree with the death penalty, like myself, wouldn't say i strongly disagree with this law, however i think it should be enforced simply because it is law.. i just don't subscribe to the view of being opposed to a law and yet believing that all law should be enforced just because.

what about stoning women in iran? is this a good logic to have - i think that this law should be change however since it is law now, it should be enforced.. no, you'd say it shouldn't be enforced at all because you disagree with it.

to me it's just contradiction.

I understand your point, and made the point that this position is not necessarily mine - so far, all of the non-trivial cases I can think of I agree with your position.

I also don't think Moruya's use of this position makes sense regarding what he otherwise said.

But I can imagine the possibility in relatively trivial cases for a person to say I don't believe this law is correct (ie: it should be changed) but as long as it is the law, it should be enforced.

[hellodolly]

I'll admit they're guilty when they have been proved that they are guilty. It's called justice, something you supposedly stand up for as long as it's your kind of justice that is. That is why I specifically added (not slipped in as implied by you as if I was doing something sneaky - it's the way your mind works) "until proven".

When you've got over your lynchmob mentality come back and lecture me on justice and democracy.

Before you get up on your soap box and spout your nonsense about Justice look the word up in a dictionary.

It is exactly like my criminology instructor said when you go to court you can be pretty sure legal is done. But not that justice will be done.

According to your logic even with the thousands of witness having it on tape they are innocent because a court hasn't said they were guilty.

Do you realize a court never said Hitler was Guilty of war crimes. Are you trying to say he was innocent.

No, I'm just waiting for a verdict when they go through judicial procedures. Innocent until proven guilty imho. You have already decreed them guilty. That is the difference (well one of them at least) between you and me.

I was aware that Hitler was never found guilty of war crimes - mind you, it would have been an interesting trial for sure, necessitating a seance at the very least. So apart from the ludicrous nature of your analogy it hardly stands up in court does it - and neither did hitler.....................

I give you two identical situations neither one has been to court. You choose to say it is a ludicrous nature. Yes it is ludicrous to say a person is not guilty just because a court did not say so. You have the right to any opinion you want to have. But it cannot change history.

I just said Hitler was not found guilty of war crimes and you say in your opinion a person is innocent until proven guilty. If you believe that you are in effect saying Hitler was innocent of any war crimes. Or is this going to be a read my mind and see which cases I really believe that or which you are just talking to take up time. In which case you are just a uncreable source of information as it must go through your logic which does not allow for other to be right.

[Moruya]

I understand your point, and made the point that this position is not necessarily mine - so far, all of the non-trivial cases I can think of I agree with your position.

I also don't think Moruya's use of this position makes sense regarding what he otherwise said.

But I can imagine the possibility in relatively trivial cases for a person to say I don't believe this law is correct (ie: it should be changed) but as long as it is the law, it should be enforced.

what position Tom?

[rubl]

More on topic of intimidation this article from two days ago is really interesting:

"Teenager issued with harassment warning over tweets sent to Tom Daley

17-year-old boy bailed after Team GB diver retweeted message telling him he had let down his dead father

A 17-year-old boy arrested as part of an investigation into Twitter messages sent to the diver Tom Daley after he and team-mate Pete Waterfield missed out on a medal on Monday has been issued with a harassment warning.

Dorset police say the teenager was bailed pending an investigation into other communications on his Twitter account."

http://www.guardian....weets-tom-daley

It seems to me that there is a huge difference between harassment via twitter and intimidation charges. It's not obvious the connection to the Olympic story and this one... ?

Apparently a pair of speedos were burnt in protest which incited the crowd and as one they left to demand tickets to the womens beach volleyball tournament, or so I heard. Thats what happens if you don't have crackdowns on this sort of behaviour.............

Of course there is a possibility I misunderstood what some think construces intimidation. Certainly I wouldn't dare to engage a British/French Alliance on 'rule of law'.

Still may I quote this from two and a half days ago?

"The only "despicable" acts I see here are the the giving out of judges addresses and inciting violence on those judges - if that is the case and when proven - I still believe in trials unlike some of the "voices of reason" on here ."

http://www.thaivisa....a/#entry5532815

[phiphidon]

It seems to me that there is a huge difference between harassment via twitter and intimidation charges. It's not obvious the connection to the Olympic story and this one... ?

Apparently a pair of speedos were burnt in protest which incited the crowd and as one they left to demand tickets to the womens beach volleyball tournament, or so I heard. Thats what happens if you don't have crackdowns on this sort of behaviour.............

Of course there is a possibility I misunderstood what some think construces intimidation. Certainly I wouldn't dare to engage a British/French Alliance on 'rule of law'.

Still may I quote this from two and a half days ago?

"The only "despicable" acts I see here are the the giving out of judges addresses and inciting violence on those judges - if that is the case and when proven - I still believe in trials unlike some of the "voices of reason" on here ."

http://www.thaivisa....a/#entry5532815

Quote what you like rubi but if you do, use all of my post like a good boy should:

The only "despicable" acts I see here are the the giving out of judges addresses and inciting violence on those judges - if that is the case and when proven - I still believe in trials unlike some of the "voices of reason" on here .

As far as the rest goes, the reaction to the symbolic "burning of coffins" is emotional hyperbole by people who really think that they are not "ordinary" people. As such the reports are ideal partners for the faux emotionality displayed on these forums - did you ever write to forums back home gushing "Punish these guys for their despicable Acts", actually you probably did.

Get over it, some red shirts burnt some paper coffins over their understandable frustration with the Judiciary getting involved where they shouldn't.

Not that I wish to prolong the twitter discussion but if you really want to make some sort of "comparison" with some person twittering about the diver letting down his dead dad, I'd put that on a par with burning paper coffins.

However I'm not the the type to wear my heart on my sleeve protesting faux horror at the nasty things people do..............

[yoshiwara]

It looks more like you who's been watching the Rambo.

Siriraj hospital burnt down.

I don't think so.

mosques torched?

I don't think so.

However back in 2006 there was a series of unexplained explosions around Bangkok and Chiang Mai.

One went off near the Saxaphone club causing serious injuries.

Another explosion inside a mosque in Chiang Mai.

The coup leaders at first blamed Thaskin supporters. The moslems.

Later the police blamed General Panlop ( you know mastermind for the car bomb intended for Thaksin earlier that year stored overnight at the ISOC headquarters.) He was the general responsible for the Tak Bai mosque massacre. Wrote a book about it justifying doing it and defying the ministry of defence who ordered him to negotiate. Word has it that the men inside the mosque were found with their hands tied and bullet wounds to the head.

There were 2 eyewitnesses.

1) in Bangkok an eyewitness saw a man hurl a grenade from an overhead walkway.

2) in Chiang Mai the caretaker of a mosque was blown up when he saw a man throw a grenade into the mosque injuring him.

At first the police blamed the caretaker claiming he was building a bomb inside the mosque. Mass protests followed as if a caretaker would build a device in a mosque.

To date no arrests.

You said that what was said at the rally was meant as a threat to the government.

So why the threats to Siriraj and the Mosques?

We all know who was in Siriraj.

And the Mosques? Pure fascism.

Your icons are tainted.

I just listed 2 known attacks on mosques.

Both attacks I believe perpetrated by the army.

In many quarters it is still being claimed that Thaksin ordered the attacks on the Tak Bai mosque when it is known that the Minister for defence ordered Panlop to stand down and he refused and carried out the atrocity.

I take note of your outrage about calls from the stage but they weren't translated into action and some would say these comments were made in the heat of the moment, made by very angry people who later may have regretted their actions.

Not so the general. Doesn't regret it a bit.

Denies complicity in the car bomb plot saying only that had he been in charge Thaksin would have died.

The car with its explosives was stored overnight in the carpaekof the ISOC headquarters. Know who they are?

Panlop after the Tak Bai mosque incident was sacked by Thasksin but reassigned as deputy director of ISOC.

ISOC Killers of communists etc and any undesirables where a wet job is required.

A fake defence of red thuggery on the day if ever I read one. It is amazing that a year after they hope people's memories have faded the Thaksin apologists ride in with their black is white and white is black out and out re-writing of history. All this junk may play well on red TV where they swallow anything and everything but we are not amused.

[Buchholz]

Nothing New, We all know UDD / Reds are a bunch of gangsters and thugs but will they really do time in the country of corruption ?

you want to lock up half the population?

81 Red Shirts are not half the population.

.

[Buchholz]

It looks more like you who's been watching the Rambo.

Siriraj hospital burnt down.

I don't think so.

mosques torched?

I don't think so.

However back in 2006 there was a series of unexplained explosions around Bangkok and Chiang Mai.

One went off near the Saxaphone club causing serious injuries.

Another explosion inside a mosque in Chiang Mai.

The coup leaders at first blamed Thaskin supporters. The moslems.

Later the police blamed General Panlop ( you know mastermind for the car bomb intended for Thaksin earlier that year stored overnight at the ISOC headquarters.) He was the general responsible for the Tak Bai mosque massacre. Wrote a book about it justifying doing it and defying the ministry of defence who ordered him to negotiate. Word has it that the men inside the mosque were found with their hands tied and bullet wounds to the head.

There were 2 eyewitnesses.

1) in Bangkok an eyewitness saw a man hurl a grenade from an overhead walkway.

2) in Chiang Mai the caretaker of a mosque was blown up when he saw a man throw a grenade into the mosque injuring him.

At first the police blamed the caretaker claiming he was building a bomb inside the mosque. Mass protests followed as if a caretaker would build a device in a mosque.

To date no arrests.

You said that what was said at the rally was meant as a threat to the government.

So why the threats to Siriraj and the Mosques?

We all know who was in Siriraj.

And the Mosques? Pure fascism.

Your icons are tainted.

Thaksin reconciled with his "assassin" Panlop

Panlop, Thaksin, Sae Daeng

Arisaman, Issan Rambo

[Moruya]

Nothing New, We all know UDD / Reds are a bunch of gangsters and thugs but will they really do time in the country of corruption ?

you want to lock up half the population?

81 Red Shirts are not half the population.

.

There are those who believe the reds to be omnipotent and omnipresent.

And mostly they would struggle to locate Udon Thani on a 1:20000 map

[rubl]

Quote what you like rubi but if you do, use all of my post like a good boy should:

The only "despicable" acts I see here are the the giving out of judges addresses and inciting violence on those judges - if that is the case and when proven - I still believe in trials unlike some of the "voices of reason" on here .

As far as the rest goes, the reaction to the symbolic "burning of coffins" is emotional hyperbole by people who really think that they are not "ordinary" people. As such the reports are ideal partners for the faux emotionality displayed on these forums - did you ever write to forums back home gushing "Punish these guys for their despicable Acts", actually you probably did.

Get over it, some red shirts burnt some paper coffins over their understandable frustration with the Judiciary getting involved where they shouldn't.

Not that I wish to prolong the twitter discussion but if you really want to make some sort of "comparison" with some person twittering about the diver letting down his dead dad, I'd put that on a par with burning paper coffins.

However I'm not the the type to wear my heart on my sleeve protesting faux horror at the nasty things people do..............

I quoted the first (unchanged) paragraph followed by the link to the full post. If that's incorrect, against forum rules, or something similar, please feel free to report.

As for the English fascination with burning effigies and coffins, I was really puzzled till I took time to look into the matter. I should have known, it's a 400 year old English Tradition. They do it yearly on november the 5th

Anyway if the 17 year old with his tweet is on par with burning effigies, does that imply you agree the lad was taken into custidy for a moment, booked and bailed? Understandable frustration about England not getting another medal, a swimmer letting the country down, or mayube even a sports referee meddling where he shouldn't?

Edited August 3, 2012 by rubl

[KKvampire]

Nothing New, We all know UDD / Reds are a bunch of gangsters and thugs but will they really do time in the country of corruption ?

you want to lock up half the population?

Not a half, but Thailand has the largest numbers of thugs and gangsters in EAST ASIA, per head of population, thats a fact , And many of them are apparently responsible for "passing legislation" and "law enforcement

Edited August 3, 2012 by KKvampire

[Robby nz]

I wonder if this is some sort of an indication of what the verdict will be in the withdrawel of Jatuporn's bail?

Could it be that the judges decided to delay their verdict till they (the court) had produced these intimidation charges?

We wait till the 11th to see.

[tlansford]

Quote what you like rubi but if you do, use all of my post like a good boy should:

The only "despicable" acts I see here are the the giving out of judges addresses and inciting violence on those judges - if that is the case and when proven - I still believe in trials unlike some of the "voices of reason" on here .

As far as the rest goes, the reaction to the symbolic "burning of coffins" is emotional hyperbole by people who really think that they are not "ordinary" people. As such the reports are ideal partners for the faux emotionality displayed on these forums - did you ever write to forums back home gushing "Punish these guys for their despicable Acts", actually you probably did.

Get over it, some red shirts burnt some paper coffins over their understandable frustration with the Judiciary getting involved where they shouldn't.

Not that I wish to prolong the twitter discussion but if you really want to make some sort of "comparison" with some person twittering about the diver letting down his dead dad, I'd put that on a par with burning paper coffins.

However I'm not the the type to wear my heart on my sleeve protesting faux horror at the nasty things people do..............

I quoted the first (unchanged) paragraph followed by the link to the full post. If that's incorrect, against forum rules, or something similar, please feel free to report.

As for the English fascination with burning effigies and coffins, I was really puzzled till I took time to look into the matter. I should have known, it's a 400 year old English Tradition. They do it yearly on november the 5th

Anyway if the 17 year old with his tweet is on par with burning effigies, does that imply you agree the lad was taken into custidy for a moment, booked and bailed? Understandable frustration about England not getting another medal, a swimmer letting the country down, or mayube even a sports referee meddling where he shouldn't?

as noted once already, how is alleged twitter harassment related to alleged intimidation?

I don't see the connection in your example.

[phiphidon]

I'll admit they're guilty when they have been proved that they are guilty. It's called justice, something you supposedly stand up for as long as it's your kind of justice that is. That is why I specifically added (not slipped in as implied by you as if I was doing something sneaky - it's the way your mind works) "until proven".

When you've got over your lynchmob mentality come back and lecture me on justice and democracy.

Before you get up on your soap box and spout your nonsense about Justice look the word up in a dictionary.

It is exactly like my criminology instructor said when you go to court you can be pretty sure legal is done. But not that justice will be done.

According to your logic even with the thousands of witness having it on tape they are innocent because a court hasn't said they were guilty.

Do you realize a court never said Hitler was Guilty of war crimes. Are you trying to say he was innocent.

No, I'm just waiting for a verdict when they go through judicial procedures. Innocent until proven guilty imho. You have already decreed them guilty. That is the difference (well one of them at least) between you and me.

I was aware that Hitler was never found guilty of war crimes - mind you, it would have been an interesting trial for sure, necessitating a seance at the very least. So apart from the ludicrous nature of your analogy it hardly stands up in court does it - and neither did hitler.....................

I give you two identical situations neither one has been to court. You choose to say it is a ludicrous nature. Yes it is ludicrous to say a person is not guilty just because a court did not say so. You have the right to any opinion you want to have. But it cannot change history.

I just said Hitler was not found guilty of war crimes and you say in your opinion a person is innocent until proven guilty. If you believe that you are in effect saying Hitler was innocent of any war crimes. Or is this going to be a read my mind and see which cases I really believe that or which you are just talking to take up time. In which case you are just a uncreable source of information as it must go through your logic which does not allow for other to be right.

Logic is not to be applied in all instances particularly involving the human condition.

[rubl]

Phiphidon, you're zigzagging along as usual. The "it seems that as I disagree ... it would be highly unlikely ..., don't you think" is a non-denial. You don't state, you ask what I think.

Your 'Dutch Nationalism is admirable' is unfounded and made somewhat hilareous as you end with a 'nationalistic' "we have more medals".

As far as what have the Dutch ever done for the English, apart from the 'Dutch this and that' expressions you mean? Well William of Orange didn't only fight while he was conquering the UK, he also took lots of advisors with him which helped strenghten the City of London as financial centre especially as main Dutch trading and banking houses moved much of their activity from Amsterdam to London after 1688. Furthermore after Gibraltar was conquered by a Anglo-Dutch force of Marines in 1704 we let you have it.

Never mind all this, let's get back to burning things

EDIT: ADD:

Greetings from your Dutch uncle rubl

Your first statement is, I can only think, a deliberate misunderstanding of what I said - it clearly states in a polite british way that it is pretty bl88dy obvious that not only was your comparison a pretty pi$$ poor one it was obvious what my reaction to it would be so therefore it can only have been posted not to educate or elucidate, but just to irritate. OK .

You need to know when something is meant tongue in cheek and when it isnt - the reference to monty python in the first sentence should have given you a clue, in future perhaps I should add the optical equivalent of that boing noise the Thais use to signal a joke. But if you understood half of it I can understand, we were just going dutch............

The misunderstanding:

"it seems that as I disagree that burning paper coffins is an offence punishable by law it would be highly unlikely I would agree with the detention of a 17 year old for a mildly offensive twitter, don't you think?"

A non-statement, or in other words 'since as a Dutch and therefore non-native English speaker, me saying you don't state, may suggest that obviously I might have misunderstood that in a very vague way you are actually saying "I do not agree with the detention of a 17 year old".

Of course there is a dintinct possibility that you are mildly confused when your tongue-in-cheek remarks get replied to with similar ones. Personally I liked my "William of Orange didn't only fight while he was conquering the UK". Must be my Dutch humour, terribly sorry and all that, nothing personal old thing

[tlansford]

I quoted the first (unchanged) paragraph followed by the link to the full post. If that's incorrect, against forum rules, or something similar, please feel free to report.

As for the English fascination with burning effigies and coffins, I was really puzzled till I took time to look into the matter. I should have known, it's a 400 year old English Tradition. They do it yearly on november the 5th

Anyway if the 17 year old with his tweet is on par with burning effigies, does that imply you agree the lad was taken into custidy for a moment, booked and bailed? Understandable frustration about England not getting another medal, a swimmer letting the country down, or mayube even a sports referee meddling where he shouldn't?

as noted once already, how is alleged twitter harassment related to alleged intimidation?

I don't see the connection in your example.

I'm a patient man and furthermore a real Dutch uncle, so let me try to explain this one more time.

If in a mature democracy as the UK there seems to be nothing wrong with detaining, booking and bailing a 17 year old boy for 'alleged harassment' why it is that people get upset with a similar situation, but now under the more severe 'alleged intimidation'

At least I assume posting "your dead father would be disappointed" is a lesser 'offence' than burning someone's effigy or coffin (of course with the exception of Guy Fawkes' effigy)

Harassment is illegal.

Intimidation is illegal.

They just aren't similar situations except for the fact that they are both illegal.

As for me, I don't get upset about either one.

[metisdead]

Posts not in English have been removed. Other off topic posts and replies have been removed. Stay on topic please.

[OzMick]

Harassment is illegal.

Intimidation is illegal.

They just aren't similar situations except for the fact that they are both illegal.

As for me, I don't get upset about either one.

In fact, you seem to support both.

[nurofiend]

I understand your point, and made the point that this position is not necessarily mine - so far, all of the non-trivial cases I can think of I agree with your position.

I also don't think Moruya's use of this position makes sense regarding what he otherwise said.

But I can imagine the possibility in relatively trivial cases for a person to say I don't believe this law is correct (ie: it should be changed) but as long as it is the law, it should be enforced.

what position Tom?

maybe the position where you were posting about the law as if it was something that you were in support of and then it looked like a backtrack when the recent case of the police officers was brought up.

obviously it's left open for your denial..

[philw]

Nothing New, We all know UDD / Reds are a bunch of gangsters and thugs but will they really do time in the country of corruption ?

you want to lock up half the population?

Not a half, but Thailand has the largest numbers of thugs and gangsters in EAST ASIA, per head of population, thats a fact , And many of them are apparently responsible for "passing legislation" and "law enforcement

Is this a reference to the Dems, yellow shirts & co ??

Talk of thugs, how about green uniforms ?

[rubl]

Nothing New, We all know UDD / Reds are a bunch of gangsters and thugs but will they really do time in the country of corruption ?

you want to lock up half the population?

Not a half, but Thailand has the largest numbers of thugs and gangsters in EAST ASIA, per head of population, thats a fact , And many of them are apparently responsible for "passing legislation" and "law enforcement

Is this a reference to the Dems, yellow shirts & co ??

Talk of thugs, how about green uniforms ?

Brown uniforms?