iTV Court Ruling

[slimdog]

Bringing the subject back on Topic..

iTV could face delisting by SET

iTV Plc may have to be delisted, since the revocation of its concession requires the transfer of all of its assets to the PM's Office, and that would cause a sharp drop in the station's finances, the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) said yesterday.

Following the revocation, iTV- whose channel has been renamed TITV - must suspend all commercial and employment contracts.

The SET posted NC (non-compliance) and SP (suspension of trading) signs on iTV securities, effective immediately. The suspension will run until the broadcaster can give clear information to the SET about its procedures and a timeline for eliminating the reasons for a delisting

source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/03/10...ss_30028949.php

TITV SAGA RENTAL CONTRACTS CANCELLED

Broadcasts may be interrupted

The Prime Minister's Office might not be able to follow the Central Administrative Court's temporary order that TITV content be broadcast uninterrupted after iTV Plc executives cancelled all rental contracts for broadcasting equipment and stations nationwide, PM's Office Minister Dhipavadee Meksawan said yesterday. Among those revoked are contracts to rent offices and studio space of the former iTV station in Shinawatra III Building, as well as contracts to use satellite services, the broadcasting station at Baiyoke Tower and more than 40 broadcasting stations nationwide.

The revocation of those contracts has made it very difficult for the Public Relations Department, which has taken over the station from iTV Plc, to continue broadcasting the now-renamed TITV contents uninterrupted, Khunying Dhipavadee, who leads the cabinet-appointed committee to administer TITV, said. However, by revoking those contracts, executives of iTV Plc breached the administrative court's order for continuation of the broadcast and the PM's Office will file a lawsuit to seek compensation from iTV Plc later on, she said.

Full story: http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/10Mar2007_news15.php

[jumnien]

The previously elected Thaksin administration's hold on power was so vicious, pervasive and entrenched that it took a grand total of 14 most-likely unarmed tanks to topple it. I really think the present un-elected regime is far more capable of violence to protect its power grab.

[Tony Clifton]

[ColPyat]

As we are now going way off topic ....................

You are entitled to your version of Thaksins non total influence ect.

Obviously i do not agree with of your views on his non total influence .. You are joking of course

That is not going to alter until i see evidence to convince me otherwise.

You don't need to believe me. But you should at least make then the effort to read some of the countless books and papers by the people whose names and titles i have listed i don't know how many times. That may then alter your vision.

The ITV staff are predictable in their hypocrisy and their double standards as today they are complaining about the interference of the present temp. administration.

They really are phoney when you relate to their roles of the last 5 years ???

Now after just one day they decide to complain about present interference, it is obvious where their loyalties are, when will they ever learn, when will they ever learn.

This after being rescued and kept in their jobs of employment, they make me sick.

They have been less a TRT organ than any other TV station on free TV. I don't see you ranting against the other channels who have been far more tame and biased during Thaksin's era, and still are so, only now tame and biased towards the present government.

marshbags

[jumnien]

Who is calling who a broken record on this thread? It's not like we're hearing any new albums, now is it?

[blaze]

Who is calling who a broken record on this thread? It's not like we're hearing any new albums, now is it?

I'm not sure you were being accused of sounding like a broken record. It may be that, bored with repeating the mantra- Taksin all bad, coup all good- Tony simply decided to just play the record- which, even by appearances, is getting a bit worn.

Just kidding Tony. Don't take offense. Thanks to you, Marshbags, Plus, Hammered and a few others, I have had to dig deeper into and think harder about my own poltical values than I have in a long time. And so I do appreciate the debate. Even if we all get a bit repetitive.

Edited March 10, 2007 by blaze

[sriracha john]

From todays Nation.

Rather ironic the article by the Nation which has lost all journalistic distance by becoming becoming a propagandistic mouth piece for the PAD and supported and applauded an illegal military coup.

Rather ironic that someone who has utilized the Nation on occasion to further his own point of view would now distance himself from it.

[Plus]

There have been 17 coups in Thailand since 1932- in 75 years, that averages out to- well, you do the math- but if you are going to quote me, please take the time to read what I said- because I said: an AVERAGE of once every five years.

There were no coups for the past fifeen years and for twenty years before that. Your average is way off mark (there were coup attempts in Prem's time, though).

"a whole new generation of people has grown up since, and a whole new generation of politicians."

"What? The entire government is composed of people who were middle aged at the time of the last coup. You don't get new generations of political leaders in this country every fifteen years.

Choonhavan, who was overthrown by the previous coup, died long time ago and his party was dissolved and forgotten. In between we've seen Chuan and Chavalit's rise and fall. Fifteen years is a long time in politics.

"Opposition to Thaksin was a whole lot more that a group of former Thaksin cronies."

Never said it wasn't- I said, the chaos was caused by former cronies- specifically Sondhi L and Chamlong. Till the PAD rallies, there was opposition - but nothing close to chaos.

Until Sondhi got four other PAD founding members on board he had little power precisely because he was percieved as Thaksin's crony. And I wouldn't describe PAD rallies as chaos. If there was chaos last year, it was after the botched April's elections.

"And I haven't seen anyone publicly saying that accusations of corruption against Thaksin were unjustified or made up. Legally he is presumed innocent until proven guilty, if that's what you mean, but that's not enough for the people. They want justice seen to be served. Like with Yobamroong killings - they walked free, the man is gone. Has justice been served? Did people believed the court for one second?"

The fact that nobody publicly questions the accusations of corruption hardly constitutes the fact of corruption. Is every government against whom allegations of corruption made, in the future, going to be prone to being militarily overthrown?

You know what people say - where there's smoke... Legal proceedings take time. In case of Enron it took two years to bring Ken Lay's case to the court, and he was publicly crucified long before that. It took another two years for the court to establish his guilt. Four years in total. AEC has hardly had four months.

But without a paper trail- an even warm gun, let alone smoking- is there cause for the army to overthrow the government in any country- remember Whitewater? Even (most of) Clinton's most ardent opponents would not have creamed their jeans at the prospect of the army seizing the White House.

1) Clinton lied about his sexual relationships, if there ever was a case for the coup in the US it would be getting Bush and Cheney out of the office for the Iraq war and yes, Halliburton, not Clinton for denying a blowjob.

2) About a cause for the army to interfere - consider common criminals. They are put under arrest as soon as police issues a warrant. That would be an equivalent of the coup in politics. The final court verdict, after all appeals, might come ten-twenty years later. The judge might set a bail or he might not.

"He also did lots of things legally - like getting the House to vote on foreign ownership in telecoms just a day before Shin sale, or reducing AIS concession payments by 80 billion baht that eventually drove the stock up by 260 billion (as explained by Korn of the Democrats). Thai laws are not designed to deal with "policy corruption" - where through total control of all law making process Thaksin was able to engage in corruption legally."

Again, is 'engaging in corruption legally' the tipping point? If so, look at Haliburton's relationship with the American Government. And I'm sure almost every democracy in the world has or has had similar issues.

Yes, but not every democracy has been able to deal with these issues on its own. Thais couldn't do anything about them (and still cannot, sadly). In the US, the first thing Michael Moore said after the elections of 2004 was "the good news - he can't run again".

"I also have never heard that Thaksin was not in control of TRT and the government. Ok, I heard that from Colpyat earlier, but no one else. It's an extremely odd view."

Then you have never heard the old political adage: "I am their leader. And therefore I must follow"

Are you talking about Thaksin?!? The same man who his own party members accused of "running a jail"? The same man who has never consulted anyone over a dozen of cabinet reshuffles? I'm sorry, but that is an extremely odd view and is not supported by any facts.

"People who disagreed with Thaksin were all politically dead. Purachai chose self-exile and Snoh left with just a dozen men, for example."

Not sure what you mean here. Many who disagreed with Taksin are more alive than they have been in a long time.

I mean that during Thaksin's rule all his opponents within his party were politically dead. What is not clear about it? They might be alive now, when Thaksin is gone, but there were all dead when he was in charge.

[Plus]

Oh, the revision of history....

Opposition to Thaksin was a whole lot more that a group of former Thaksin cronies.

Yes, but they did not pull the crowds, neither did they draw the numbers. Without Sondhi and Chamlong the PAD would have had about the same size as the present demonstrations. Only when Sondhi started his TV show turned demonstration the protest against Thaksin became noticable,

Hold on. You mirepresented the facts. Sondhi's show was taken off the air in August 2005 and he went "underground". His privately held shows, first at Thammasat and later at Lumpini, were the basis for all subsequent demonstrations.

PAD was formed in December, when Sondhi's own pulling power started to wane. Demonstrations truly picked up only after Shin sale.

and only after Chamlong joined it became a real danger for Thaksin. Evidence of that is that only a week or so after Chamlong joined Thaksin dissolved parliament.

Chamlong, by the way, was involved in several coups and coup attempts, Surayudh was personally involved in atrocities during Black May, etc. Basically, i don't see any "new generation" of people, but the same old faces playing the same old games.

I also have never heard that Thaksin was not in control of TRT and the government. Ok, I heard that from Colpyat earlier, but no one else. It's an extremely odd view.

Maybe that sounds odd to you because you reject every paper that is written by noted academics, every book that has been published about Thaksin, by people such as Giles Ungkaporn, Chris Baker, Pasuk Phongpaichit, Duncan McCargo, Thongchai Winichakul, and many more.

Hold on again, weren't YOU the one who rejected Chris Baker's paper on sufficiency economy only a month ago while I was quoting his and Pasuk's papers on corruption all along? Oh, the revision of history...

And because you ignore other books explaining history because they are banned, or simply recommended by me, such as 'Rituals of National Loyalty' - the maybe best book on Thai politics ever written.

People who disagreed with Thaksin were all politically dead. Purachai chose self-exile and Snoh left with just a dozen men, for example.

Purachai is very much alive, he even was one of the candidates for the speaker position in the NLA. Sanoh acted in the backgrond. People just receided for a while and waited for their day, that's a paraphrase of what I said - there WERE politically dead, as long as Thaksin was alive knowing that nothing stays the same in Thai politics, and that nothing here is monolithic.

And people like Prem never were even closed to dead, and have orchestrated a military coup when Thaksin dared to interfere with their extra-constitutional power base.

Face it - this had nothing to do with democracy, or Thaksin's corruption or his disregard for human rights - it was nothing but an old style power struggle between different vested interests of the elite.

I don't see the evidence that generals are not interested in pursuing corruption cases against Thaksin or that they are trying to cling to power beyond their self imposed one year deadline. It's a convenient anti-coup talk from Democracy 101, but in reality there's nothing to back it up so far.

There was an interesting letter in today's Nation from Chula book store manager reagarding Giles Ungpakorn latest book, also recommended by you. She says that Giles came to her with "distributed by CU bookstore" printed on his book already and that was the first time they talked about it. The book was refused because it quoted officially banned sources.

Giles than started selling the book himself, just outside the shop, and publicly blaming the store for his woes over a loudspeaker.

Coupled with whatever "academic" opinions of his that I actually read, I stand by my assessment - he is a nutcase, a loose cannon.

[ColPyat]

Oh, the revision of history....

Opposition to Thaksin was a whole lot more that a group of former Thaksin cronies.

Yes, but they did not pull the crowds, neither did they draw the numbers. Without Sondhi and Chamlong the PAD would have had about the same size as the present demonstrations. Only when Sondhi started his TV show turned demonstration the protest against Thaksin became noticable,

Hold on. You mirepresented the facts. Sondhi's show was taken off the air in August 2005 and he went "underground". His privately held shows, first at Thammasat and later at Lumpini, were the basis for all subsequent demonstrations.

PAD was formed in December, when Sondhi's own pulling power started to wane. Demonstrations truly picked up only after Shin sale.

Sondhi's "pulling power" did not wane, it grew in size. The Thammasat and Lumphini shows were not exactly "underground" - they were very public. And when he moved to Royal Plaza they were getting bigger, then PAD was formed, etc.

Sondhi and Chamlong pulled the crowds, not the other members of the PAD. They just gave a flavor of legitimacy, and an illusion that more than ultra nationalists made up the demonstrations.

and only after Chamlong joined it became a real danger for Thaksin. Evidence of that is that only a week or so after Chamlong joined Thaksin dissolved parliament.

Chamlong, by the way, was involved in several coups and coup attempts, Surayudh was personally involved in atrocities during Black May, etc. Basically, i don't see any "new generation" of people, but the same old faces playing the same old games.

I also have never heard that Thaksin was not in control of TRT and the government. Ok, I heard that from Colpyat earlier, but no one else. It's an extremely odd view.

Maybe that sounds odd to you because you reject every paper that is written by noted academics, every book that has been published about Thaksin, by people such as Giles Ungkaporn, Chris Baker, Pasuk Phongpaichit, Duncan McCargo, Thongchai Winichakul, and many more.

Hold on again, weren't YOU the one who rejected Chris Baker's paper on sufficiency economy only a month ago while I was quoting his and Pasuk's papers on corruption all along? Oh, the revision of history...

Yes, i still reject Baker's views on sufficiency economy, but i don't reject most of his other works, including his mostly positive, and in some points even more radical review of the banned book that Ungpakorn has quoted (read McCargo's recent review on that book as well). Anyhow, in his and Pasuk Phongpaichit's book on Thaksin they have not proposed the monolithic view that Thaksin was in "total control" either. None of the many papers and books on the issue propose the simplistic view that Thaksin was in "total control".

Read them, please, and don't just quote from your imagination.

And because you ignore other books explaining history because they are banned, or simply recommended by me, such as 'Rituals of National Loyalty' - the maybe best book on Thai politics ever written.

People who disagreed with Thaksin were all politically dead. Purachai chose self-exile and Snoh left with just a dozen men, for example.

Purachai is very much alive, he even was one of the candidates for the speaker position in the NLA. Sanoh acted in the backgrond. People just receided for a while and waited for their day, that's a paraphrase of what I said - there WERE politically dead, as long as Thaksin was alive knowing that nothing stays the same in Thai politics, and that nothing here is monolithic.

And people like Prem never were even closed to dead, and have orchestrated a military coup when Thaksin dared to interfere with their extra-constitutional power base.

Face it - this had nothing to do with democracy, or Thaksin's corruption or his disregard for human rights - it was nothing but an old style power struggle between different vested interests of the elite.

I don't see the evidence that generals are not interested in pursuing corruption cases against Thaksin or that they are trying to cling to power beyond their self imposed one year deadline. It's a convenient anti-coup talk from Democracy 101, but in reality there's nothing to back it up so far.

Yes, then i would suggest you read up on the newly set up revamp of the ISOC that is and will be after election beyond scrutiny of the parliament and only answerable to the military. Or the rule that every provincial governor has a deputy governor from the army, or the soldiers on board of state owned corporations, etc.

There was an interesting letter in today's Nation from Chula book store manager reagarding Giles Ungpakorn latest book, also recommended by you. She says that Giles came to her with "distributed by CU bookstore" printed on his book already and that was the first time they talked about it. The book was refused because it quoted officially banned sources.

Giles than started selling the book himself, just outside the shop, and publicly blaming the store for his woes over a loudspeaker.

Coupled with whatever "academic" opinions of his that I actually read, I stand by my assessment - he is a nutcase, a loose cannon.

Well, i have asked you already once not to insult and slander friends of mine. If you don't agree with his views i would ask you to factually refute them. You though have to sink so low and resort to infantile insults, which does not make your argumentation any more convincing, and only exposes your ignorance.

[ColPyat]

From todays Nation.

Rather ironic the article by the Nation which has lost all journalistic distance by becoming becoming a propagandistic mouth piece for the PAD and supported and applauded an illegal military coup.

Rather ironic that someone who has utilized the Nation on occasion to further his own point of view would now distance himself from it.

Are you fishing for another infantile piss contest again?

I do quote at times from the Nation as it is the only English language paper that we are allowed to fully quote here, and because the links do keep active for more than a day. Far more of my references do come from the more serious university studies or books, those things i never see you referring to, and neither do i see any indication that you have ever bothered reading them.

I don't really see that i "now" distance myself from the nation. I believe that i have always here in the board been rather critical of the tone of most of the Nation's articles. Nevertheless, occasionally some articles by the Nation are rather good, and then i do say so.

[marshbags]

Just to show i,m not bias to the Nation, C.P. an article from the B.Post.

General news >> Sunday March 11, 2007

Quote:-

Employees of new TV station told not to worry about losing their jobs

Assurances given to TITV staff

By Piyaporn Wongruang

Public Relations Department (PRD) director-general Pramoj Rathavinij has assured TITV employees that they do not need to worry about losing their jobs, despite lack of a director to run the station. Mr Pramoj said he had never entertained the thought of abandoning the employees, previously on the payroll of iTV Plc which had its concession revoked by the government for failing to pay its fees.

The station, under its new name of TITV, will now be run under the supervision of the PRD until a permanent decision of who should run the station is found.

But doubts about the security of the jobs of iTV staff have been raised since the concession was revoked.

Unquote.

Please go to the following url for the full article:-

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/11Mar2007_news10.php

The following is further down the article and refers to the lady i was on about briefly yesterday.................

Quote:-

Mallika: Fails to impress audience

Mallika Boonmeetrakool, a co-host of iTV's Ruam Mue Ruam Jai programme, told a news conference yesterday that she had quit TITV because it could not assure her editorial independence.

Ms Mallika claimed she could not be sure of the station's policy after those in charge of the new station rejected some academics' suggestion on how to make it a truly independent news channel.

Unquote.

It was on Channel 3 this morning and she got the kind of reception she deserved .

The audience didn,t hold back in their condemnation of the why,s and wherefores of her objectives, while slagging her off for her past involvement under the You Know Who, employer and dictator.

Quite heated it got, no mistake about that and from respectable Thai,s " NOT TROUBLE MAKERS "

I thought one or two were going to physically attack her........ some got really aggravated and upset.

Karmaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa repaid in part.

Roll on the repayment to the big guys, management and not forgetting the top of the shit pile,

The infamous Shittywatar band of thieves.

marshbags

Edited March 11, 2007 by marshbags

[younghusband]

Just to show i,m not bias to the Nation, C.P. an article from the B.Post.

General news >> Sunday March 11, 2007

Quote:-

Employees of new TV station told not to worry about losing their jobs

Assurances given to TITV staff

By Piyaporn Wongruang

Public Relations Department (PRD) director-general Pramoj Rathavinij has assured TITV employees that they do not need to worry about losing their jobs, despite lack of a director to run the station. Mr Pramoj said he had never entertained the thought of abandoning the employees, previously on the payroll of iTV Plc which had its concession revoked by the government for failing to pay its fees.

The station, under its new name of TITV, will now be run under the supervision of the PRD until a permanent decision of who should run the station is found.

But doubts about the security of the jobs of iTV staff have been raised since the concession was revoked.

Unquote.

Please go to the following url for the full article:-

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/11Mar2007_news10.php

The following is further down the article and refers to the lady i was on about briefly yesterday.................

Quote:-

Mallika: Fails to impress audience

Mallika Boonmeetrakool, a co-host of iTV's Ruam Mue Ruam Jai programme, told a news conference yesterday that she had quit TITV because it could not assure her editorial independence.

Ms Mallika claimed she could not be sure of the station's policy after those in charge of the new station rejected some academics' suggestion on how to make it a truly independent news channel.

Unquote.

It was on Channel 3 this morning and she got the kind of reception she deserved .

The audience didn,t hold back in their condemnation of the why,s and wherefores of her objectives, while slagging her off for her past involvement under the You Know Who, employer and dictator.

Quite heated it got, no mistake about that and from respectable Thai,s " NOT TROUBLE MAKERS "

I thought one or two were going to physically attack her........ some got really aggravated and upset.

Karmaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa repaid in part.

Roll on the repayment to the big guys, management and not forgetting the top of the shit pile,

The infamous Shittywatar band of thieves.

marshbags

You might wish to consider whether the manner in which you make your points on this forum helps or hinders your case.I'm not being patronising but most educated people would shrug and dismiss an illiterate and apparently crazed post such as the one above, regardless of whether they support your general position or not.

[marshbags]

Just to show i,m not bias to the Nation, C.P. an article from the B.Post.

General news >> Sunday March 11, 2007

Quote:-

Employees of new TV station told not to worry about losing their jobs

Assurances given to TITV staff

By Piyaporn Wongruang

Public Relations Department (PRD) director-general Pramoj Rathavinij has assured TITV employees that they do not need to worry about losing their jobs, despite lack of a director to run the station. Mr Pramoj said he had never entertained the thought of abandoning the employees, previously on the payroll of iTV Plc which had its concession revoked by the government for failing to pay its fees.

The station, under its new name of TITV, will now be run under the supervision of the PRD until a permanent decision of who should run the station is found.

But doubts about the security of the jobs of iTV staff have been raised since the concession was revoked.

Unquote.

Please go to the following url for the full article:-

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/11Mar2007_news10.php

The following is further down the article and refers to the lady i was on about briefly yesterday.................

Quote:-

Mallika: Fails to impress audience

Mallika Boonmeetrakool, a co-host of iTV's Ruam Mue Ruam Jai programme, told a news conference yesterday that she had quit TITV because it could not assure her editorial independence.

Ms Mallika claimed she could not be sure of the station's policy after those in charge of the new station rejected some academics' suggestion on how to make it a truly independent news channel.

Unquote.

It was on Channel 3 this morning and she got the kind of reception she deserved .

The audience didn,t hold back in their condemnation of the why,s and wherefores of her objectives, while slagging her off for her past involvement under the You Know Who, employer and dictator.

Quite heated it got, no mistake about that and from respectable Thai,s " NOT TROUBLE MAKERS "

I thought one or two were going to physically attack her........ some got really aggravated and upset.

Karmaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa repaid in part.

Roll on the repayment to the big guys, management and not forgetting the top of the shit pile,

The infamous Shittywatar band of thieves.

marshbags

You might wish to consider whether the manner in which you make your points on this forum helps or hinders your case.I'm not being patronising but most educated people would shrug and dismiss an illiterate and apparently crazed post such as the one above, regardless of whether they support your general position or not.

Pardon

[Plus]

You might wish to consider whether the manner in which you make your points on this forum helps or hinders your case.I'm not being patronising but most educated people would shrug and dismiss an illiterate and apparently crazed post such as the one above, regardless of whether they support your general position or not.

Ditto for the poster who types in size 5 font. No room for reply left.

[ColPyat]

You might wish to consider whether the manner in which you make your points on this forum helps or hinders your case.I'm not being patronising but most educated people would shrug and dismiss an illiterate and apparently crazed post such as the one above, regardless of whether they support your general position or not.

Ditto for the poster who types in size 5 font. No room for reply left.

There is plenty of room to reply left. Just use your fantasy. That is anyhow one of your strong points, besides your abilities to slander people.

[slimdog]

Activists complain to AEC over the govt's roles over iTV saga

A group of activists lodged a complaint on Monday with the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) against Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont, PM's Office Minister Khunying Dhipavadee Meksawan and two top government officials for their role in TITV station.

They accused Surayud, Dhipavadee, PM's Office secretary general Jullayuth Hirunyawasit and Public Relations Department (PRD) director general Pramoj Rathvinij of abuse of authority by offering preferential treatments to iTV Plc and their staffs.

"The culprits should face criminal actions," Constitution Drafting Assembly's member and former senator Karun Sai ngarm said.

Karun, Civil Rights and Freedom Protection Group's chairman Veera Somkwamkid and another activist Suphaphon Methavee led some 30 people to lodge the complaint.

AEC chairman Nam Yimyaem said AEC would review information in this case before deciding whether there were grounds to taking up the case.

According to the complainants, PRD advanced Bt60million budget to hire former iTV staffs for the TITV operations in defiance of laws governing quotations to government agencies.

TITV is the new name for iTV.

"This means each iTV staffer gets Bt60,000 on average. This is the rate higher than what PRD staffs get. The fact that PRD exclusively hires former iTV staff for TITV operations also means other people are blocked out of job opportunities," Karun said.

Because the parent company would not pay more than Bt100 billion in concession fees and fines to the concessiongranter PM's Office, iTV's licence was cancelled.

Assigned by the PM's Office, PRD is now managing the station so the renamed TITV could stay on air.

The move is in lines with the Administrative Court's order the PM's Office must ensure uninterrupted broadcast of the station until its legal case gets a final court ruling or until the court rules otherwise.

The court issued the ruling after iTV staff asked it to help following a suggestion by the PM's Office that the station might be closed temporarily while relevant problems were being sorted out.

TITV now belongs to the PM's Office, not the private company.

However, Karun said PM's Office did not have the right to allocate broadcast frequencies.

source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/03/12...es_30029097.php

[slimdog]

SET: iTV must submit business plan by Apr 8

The Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) said Monday that television broadcaster iTV Plc could be delisted if it fails to submit a business plan to the Stock Exchange by April 8.

"The Stock Exchange is ready to delist shares of iTV if the company does not submit its business plan to the bourse 30 days after its broadcasting license was cancelled on March 9," said Stock Exchange of Thailand President Patareeya Benjapolchai.

Following the submission of a new plan, iTV would have two years to restructure its business, Patareeya added.

source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...newsid=30029099

[Plus]

...your abilities to slander people.

Who here consistently calls Sondhi and Chamlong right wing ultra-nationalist fascists? Is it not slander?

Or do you think that there's a special set of rules for self-procalimed serious academic researches like yourself?

I honestly don't understand - are you insane?

>>>>>>>>

Younghusband is preaching netiquet now - what's the world coming to? At least I understand his point.

[ColPyat]

...your abilities to slander people.

Who here consistently calls Sondhi and Chamlong right wing ultra-nationalist fascists? Is it not slander?

Or do you think that there's a special set of rules for self-procalimed serious academic researches like yourself?

I honestly don't understand - are you insane?

>>>>>>>>

Younghusband is preaching netiquet now - what's the world coming to? At least I understand his point.

Stop fishing for another fight. This gets very tiring.

If you rephrase your post into a somewhat polite form i might be inclined to answer.

[sriracha john]

From todays Nation.

Rather ironic the article by the Nation which has lost all journalistic distance by becoming becoming a propagandistic mouth piece for the PAD and supported and applauded an illegal military coup.

Rather ironic that someone who has utilized the Nation on occasion to further his own point of view would now distance himself from it.

Are you fishing for another infantile piss contest again?

I do quote at times from the Nation as it is the only English language paper that we are allowed to fully quote here, and because the links do keep active for more than a day. Far more of my references do come from the more serious university studies or books, those things i never see you referring to, and neither do i see any indication that you have ever bothered reading them.

I don't really see that i "now" distance myself from the nation. I believe that i have always here in the board been rather critical of the tone of most of the Nation's articles. Nevertheless, occasionally some articles by the Nation are rather good, and then i do say so.

Never one to let facts get in your way.... some things never change I see.

Actually, there is only ONE news source that we are not allowed to quote in full. I've quoted dozens of different news sources in all my years on thaivisa. One thing I don't quote are banned books or books that quote banned books, which you choose to cite as references for your assertions.

The time I asked for 2 simple words from one of your references (rather than buying the entire book), you were unwilling to impart that knowledge.

Sorry if I saw your slagging the Nation as somehow distancing yourself from the news source you've cited several times. I was under the belief that if they were as bad as what you were dissing them, then obviously they would be the last thing I would cite as something to back up something I've said.

But then again, I tend to favor something called consistency... which never has been your strong suit.

[ColPyat]

Never one to let facts get in your way.... some things never change I see.

Actually, there is only ONE news source that we are not allowed to quote in full. I've quoted dozens of different news sources in all my years on thaivisa. One thing I don't quote are banned books or books that quote banned books, which you choose to cite as references for your assertions.

The time I asked for 2 simple words from one of your references (rather than buying the entire book), you were unwilling to impart that knowledge.

Sorry if I saw your slagging the Nation as somehow distancing yourself from the news source you've cited several times. I was under the belief that if they were as bad as what you were dissing them, then obviously they would be the last thing I would cite as something to back up something I've said.

But then again, I tend to favor something called consistency... which never has been your strong suit.

Bangkok post links do not stay active for more than a day. And i was under the impression that we are not allowed to fully quote the Bangkok Post links for copyright reasons.

And actually, you do not quote from something, what you usually do is making sarcy remarks and posting pics. That is not quoting.

And as to your request of quoting from one particular book, go and buy it, and make the effort to read it yourself, if that is within your capabilities.

And other than that, i see this thread going down badly back into personal attacks. Stop it, please. It serves nobody. And nobody really cares what you or what i did.

[endure]

The News Clippings forum is a place for serious discussions, not playground brawls and catfights. If you folks can't be civil, be quiet.

[Plus]

... i might be inclined to answer.

As a source of information you have been compromised long time ago, I don't ask you questions and your answers have no value to me. Go find some neophite if you want to play a pundit.

In the mean time, your last actual post, the one with oversized green font, is unquotable, if not unreadable.

The first thing I remember from your reply is that you don't seem to realise the gap between being on a national TV channel and renting university auditorium, the difference between mainstream and underground. If that is lost on you, I can't help it and see no point in arguing any further.

You might think of Sondhi as fascist or Thaksin's crony, or opportunist, but you can't deny that the man risked everything he had achieved in his live when he singlehandedly took on Thaksin. You can't deny that he was driven by something higher than business interests, you can't deny that he believes in his mission and his vision, and it resonates with millions of Thais. Actually, on the second thought, you can (and will) deny it.

ITV journalists, on the contrary, raised a hel_l of a noise in defense of their freedom which they have been grossly abusing for the past five years. Did any of them publicly apoligised for not supporting their colleagues fired by Thaksin? Did any of them apologised for letting the management to reduce news content? Did any of them realise how extremely selfish they look next to Sondhi (and that is saying a lot, as his background is far from being crystal clear).

If only thing they worry in their lives is mortgages and school fee payments - fair enough, but did they admit it when crying in front of the cameras on that day? Didn't they all played heroes when, in fact, they were just ordinary folks looking after their own?

Now it looks like many of them will get a few months of severance payments from ITV AND start drawing salaries from the new station. I bet you won't see a special progam of them lauging their asses off on TV when they receive two checks, just a few extra jabs for the government - for bailing them out.

"Then said Jesus, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do ..."

Luke 23:34

[ColPyat]

... i might be inclined to answer.

As a source of information you have been compromised long time ago, I don't ask you questions and your answers have no value to me. Go find some neophite if you want to play a pundit.

In the mean time, your last actual post, the one with oversized green font, is unquotable, if not unreadable.

It is easy to read, and easy to quote. A tip - the answers i gave you are in green, size 5. Just take them out and answer on them.

Compromised as a "source of information"...

Well, i usually quote from published books and noted academics. Instead of factually refuting them, you just insult them. Never seen you quoting from a paper or book though.

The first thing I remember from your reply is that you don't seem to realise the gap between being on a national TV channel and renting university auditorium, the difference between mainstream and underground. If that is lost on you, I can't help it and see no point in arguing any further.

You might think of Sondhi as fascist or Thaksin's crony, or opportunist, but you can't deny that the man risked everything he had achieved in his live when he singlehandedly took on Thaksin. You can't deny that he was driven by something higher than business interests, you can't deny that he believes in his mission and his vision, and it resonates with millions of Thais. Actually, on the second thought, you can (and will) deny it.

Sondhi adheres to Pramuan Rujanaseri's "Royal Power", which is well known as a extreme right wing book with serious fascist tendencies. That does make Sondhi a fascist.

Read Thongchai Winitchakul's criticism of this book. See, i quote another academic to support my argumentation.

Sondhi may believe in his mission, but it stands to question if he was as "single handedly" as it appears, given his close association with several powerful generals. But we will never know for sure. It may resonate with millions of Thais, but it resonates very badly with far more. Sondhi is one of the most despised people in Thailand. And that is undeniable as well.

As far as his motivation goes, i very much doubt that he was not driven by business interests. His allying with Thaksin was, as Thaksin bailed him out from the debts occured due to his megalomaniac scemes, and also his break with Thaksin was most definately over business conflicts.

It is alleged that he made huge profits from the subscriptions to ASTV during the demonstrations, and his behind the scene dealings in Channel 9 and 11 are well known as well.

ITV journalists, on the contrary, raised a hel_l of a noise in defense of their freedom which they have been grossly abusing for the past five years. Did any of them publicly apoligised for not supporting their colleagues fired by Thaksin? Did any of them apologised for letting the management to reduce news content? Did any of them realise how extremely selfish they look next to Sondhi (and that is saying a lot, as his background is far from being crystal clear).

If only thing they worry in their lives is mortgages and school fee payments - fair enough, but did they admit it when crying in front of the cameras on that day? Didn't they all played heroes when, in fact, they were just ordinary folks looking after their own?

Now it looks like many of them will get a few months of severance payments from ITV AND start drawing salaries from the new station. I bet you won't see a special progam of them lauging their asses off on TV when they receive two checks, just a few extra jabs for the government - for bailing them out.

ITV has not been "abusing" their freedom any more than any other media outlet during the Thaksin period. Actually, even less than all other TV stations on free TV. ITV for example screened the only political satire here - 'Sapha Joke' - and that one did take the piss out of the TRT government.

Other media outlets, such as the Bangkok Post, was also pressured into firing staff by Thaksin. I don't see you raving for their closure.

And after the coup ITV was the most vocal and courageous of all TV stations in exposing the military government under thread of martial law. May i remind you the screening of the interview of the taxi driver who committed suicide, the reprimand by the government, and the continued reporting of this incident as the only TV station on free Thai TV.

Face it - all TV stations on free TV were restricted in their reporting by Thaksin, not just ITV. And now under the present government they are even more censored than under Thaksin. But you find excuses for this simply because you support the illegal military takeover.

The fines for ITV were absurd, and the government has apologized in public to ITV. But you do seem to overlook this fact.

You though just seem to look for blood, and ITV and their journalists who had nothing to do with the decision of Thaksin to buy the sender are just sacrificial lambs for you to be slandered and pulled through the dirt. This is disgusting.

"Then said Jesus, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do ..."

Luke 23:34

Yes, some people see bible study as an academic subject...

[marshbags]

Taken from todays Nation:-

Tue, March 13, 2007 : Last updated 0:10 am (Thai local time)

Quote:-

HARD TALK

iTV's journalists don't deserve any sympathy

Last week, I stepped back into the newsroom of what still was iTV for the first time in almost seven years.

It was an unplanned reunion with old colleagues - most of whom had been there from day one of the country's first independent TV station. My purpose was to do a live TV interview with some of the news executives and newsreaders for Channel 5. There was clearly a sense of desperation among the staff as they waited for the midnight deadline, which was only hours away. They lamented the fate awaiting them but took comfort from the growing moral support from viewers, which they hoped could somehow change the course of events.

In the interview and subsequent private discussions, the executives offered a spirited defence of the need for iTV to continue broadcasting. Words like "media freedom" and "serving public interests" popped up as they argued against the decision of the PM's Office to pull the plug on the station after it failed to pay the hefty overdue fees and fines. Not once did any of them point an accusing finger at their management, which was primarily responsible for the whole mess.

One outspoken veteran anchorwoman was more direct. She chose to see the pending demise of iTV as an attempt by the powers-that-be to dismantle what was considered to be a legacy of deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. To her, iTV and its staff were a victim of a power play between the new and old orders.

While the iTV journalists might deserve some sympathy for their predicament, their overzealous attempts at self-preservation have inevitably raised questions about their principles. And while they celebrated the 11th-hour reprieve that allowed iTV to continue to broadcast under a new name - TITV - as a triumph, they should also ask themselves whether they too played a part in bringing the whole thing on themselves.

Long before they were caught in the ugly struggle, there were times when the iTV journalists should have stood up to defend their editorial independence, probably altering the course of the station's brief history. If freedom to report was truly their concern, they should have been up in arms when Shin Corp took over the station back in 2000.

I was the news director of iTV back then and tried to sound the alarm. But only a handful of my colleagues took notice. Those who are championing the cause of independence now were the same journalists who eagerly embraced their new boss. It didn't matter to them that Shin Corp was the business arm of tycoon-turned-politician Thaksin, who was on the verge of becoming Thailand's next leader.

The prospects of conflict of interest and potential editorial interference were apparently outweighed by their hope that Thaksin would provide the debt-ridden station with a financial lifeline. My warning that Thaksin's buy-out was only his first assault on the media was dismissed as being premature. Though there were voices of concern among the rank and file, they were quickly drowned out by senior staff members who wasted no time in closing ranks with their new employer.

But it wasn't until several months after I was forced out of iTV that it became clear to many of the journalists there that Thaksin's takeover was no ordinary business deal. By then it was more than obvious that Thaksin had every intention of turning the once independent station into a political machine for his Thai Rak Thai Party.

Twenty-three reporters and news producers had the courage to stand up to what they unmistakably saw as interference in editorial decisions by the new management. Again, practically all the senior journalists and news executives who have been making headlines the past few weeks with their pleas to the government to ensure their editorial independence stood by six years ago as their rebellious colleagues got the axe. Worse still, some later even testified against the so-called "iTV rebels" in the Labour Court.

The much-publicised ouster of the 23 dissidents in early 2001 effectively put an end to any resistance to political interference in the newsroom. From that point on, dancing to Thaksin's tune seemed to be the order of the day for iTV journalists. Its executives and its more famous announcers voiced no protests about internalising Thaksin's political demands and reflecting them in their nightly news reports.

iTV rallied behind Thaksin to the last minute. Aggressive and in-depth news reporting that was once iTV's hallmark was totally absent when it came to holding the Thaksin government accountable. Even when the former prime minister sold his stakes in Shin Corp to Temasek of Singapore, the iTV journalists kept silent.

So, it was ironic that, on the eve of iTV being brought under the umbrella of the PM's Office, the same group of journalists made a public demand that they wanted the government to guarantee their "independence". And even more inexplicably, that they demanded justice from the government - not from their employer, who blatantly violated the concession terms and triggered the crisis.

iTV as an independent station was history the day it was taken over by Thaksin. For the general public, it makes almost no difference whether it continues to broadcast or not. Call it iTV or TITV, it is just a ghost of what it used to be.

Thepchai Yong

Unqoute.

This article is written by someone who really knows what he is talking about and echo,s the sentiments everyone ought to apply when coming out and supporting the crocodile tears and phoney self rewarding DISHONEST intentions these unscrupulous, so called journalists have aspired to over the last 5 years.

The karma that the one called " Malika " got from her past efforts when instead of receiving the support and false adolation she expected, she got the just reward that befits her true character.

It must have been a great reality check for her and hopefully she and her like from the Ex ITV station will now think again when trying to mislead the " rank and file citizens " of Thailand. ( Not Derogatory )

It was also a non violent show of distaste while at the same time a bit of a heated exchange that took place.

This was to be expected and understood considering the propaganda all the staff of her ilk have been churning out instead of the true situation and the minipulation of the content.

As previously stated she is the first of many getting a bit of Karma back for the bidding to the TRT cause and Thaksin and not giving a " Shit " about the well being of the country and it,s people.

Adolation... NO ........................Resentment and dislike... Yes = Karma and just reward.

Incidently " Shit " is a terminology for contempt and contemptable people and rubbish when considering how you want to intepretate it,s meaning. ??????.

It is also a reference to rubbish and worthlessness.

You can also use it to voice a reaction in varying degrees of how one reacts to something / someone from the serious to the humerous !!!!!!!!

This terminology, IMHO, describes the Last CEO, his family and his Coherts very well, without adding more apt and appropriate discriptions i could think of, this out of respect for T.Visa and and the forum rules.

Enjoy reading this interesting article all you who think the likes of the above mentioned lady deserves our sympathy and support.

Illiterate.....NO....Speaking as i find ( TRUTH )....Yes and without cotton wooling my actual thoughts.

marshbags

Edited March 13, 2007 by marshbags

[slimdog]

Just to add a little perspective to the itv saga.

iTV: SCB will sell iTV stake to Shin Corp

-----------------------------------------

Siam Commercial Bank plans to divest all of its holdings in television station iTV within five years to telecom giant Shin Corporations.

Under iTV's debt-restructuring plan, capital will be written down from one billion baht to 200 million baht. Siam Commercial Bank, a major shareholder and creditor of iTV, will convert its 3.7 billion baht in loans to equity,which will then be sold to Shin. The restructuring plan has been approved by the SCB board, said Aswin Kongsiri, a bank

director.

The total cash amount paid to iTV by Shin will be about 2.5 billion baht for a 40% stake. Another 40% in the station will be controlled by SCB and the Crown Property Bureau,with the remainder held by other shareholders. The station's total debt burden after the equity swap will fall to around 600 million baht. Within five years, the bank

plans to completely sell its holdings in iTV, potentially giving Shin as much as an 80% stake in the station.

"After the debt restructuring is completed, iTV shareholders will still have to approve it. The bank will propose the plan to the company directors, but we don't anticipate any problems, since it's the best solution available," Mr Aswin said. "iTV's problem rests with its cashflow and high debt. Operating performance is good, and the firm should show a profit once restructuring is completed."

Another bank executive said Nation Multimedia Group, another iTV shareholder, had proposed raising its own stake

to 12% after the restructuring was completed. Nation now holds a 10% stake in iTV, which will be reduced after the capital write-down and debt-for-equity swap. Suthichai Yoon, Nation Group editor-in-chief, has formally asked SCB for the right to purchase shares. Other iTV founding shareholders, such as JSL Co and the Matichon Group, have not yet signalled whether they want to maintain their 10% holdings by buying new shares.

Nation Multimedia, which supplies several news programmes for iTV, had been in a sharp dispute with the bank for the past few months over the restructuring plan and overall station programming policy. Under the station's licence, news content must represent 70% of airtime. To bolster ad revenues, the station had favoured rearranging some of its programming to place more popular entertainment programmes in prime-time spots, a move strongly attacked by the Nation group.

Nation Multimedia, meanwhile, has invested heavily in its own project to launch a cable news channel on UBC pay-

television starting next month. Executives of the company say they want to maintain their stake in iTV to keep its

options open, and further develop the group's strategy as a general content provider, selling to both cable and free

TV.

"If Nation leaves iTV, it doesn't seem like a smart move. And even with Shin coming in to takeover the station, Mr

Suthichai will continue to hold a lot of influence in news policy," said one executive.

Mr Suthichai could take a formal management position at iTV once the recapitalisation is completed, which would be followed with a general management shake-up at iTV, sources said. (17-May-2000)

source: http://bankrupt.com/TCRAP_Public/000518.MBX

[Plus]

Well, i usually quote from published books and noted academics....

...as to your request of quoting ......., go and buy it, and make the effort to read it yourself

All on the same page.

People usually avoid using capitals as they look like shouting and make reading difficult. Size 5 font is simply unusable, the only way to answer that post is to manually strip it of all font size mark up.

This is a request to all members who might be tempted to use oversized text.

Suttichai's own take on ITV plight only confirms that they do not deserve the sympathy (and nowhere I called for their blood, btw).

Did someone post a story about Karun Sai-ngam, a former senator, who yesterday submitted a petition calling for Surayud's head over government helping out ITV, a private station? Perhaps ITV staff should have appealed to their owners - Singaporean government. Perhaps the government should have left the story to run it's own course and wait for ITV to file for bankrupcy.

Forget the 100 bil fine, they couldn't even pay backdated concession fees. The fact that they have deserved the punishment completely escapes ITV sympatizers.

[ColPyat]

The fact that they have deserved the punishment completely escapes ITV sympatizers.

And it also appears to have escaped the government spokes person which has publicly read an apology of PM Surayud over the excessive fines for ITV.

And as to the font size - i would suggest then to make a petition to the admin to delete the larger fontsizes from the software.

[marshbags]

The fact that they have deserved the punishment completely escapes ITV sympatizers.

And it also appears to have escaped the government spokes person which has publicly read an apology of PM Surayud over the excessive fines for ITV.

And as to the font size - i would suggest then to make a petition to the admin to delete the larger fontsizes from the software.

Apologies for going off topic to make the following observation on petty comments drifting into this important debate.

I,m not nit picking here but if members use common sense and don,t over exagerate then no further action is needed, surely, relating to font sizes.

Re examine your post with the enlarged font changes C.P. and judge for yourself on this one.

As for etiquette issues while it may be annoying to some surely it isn,t so bad that it blinds the honest intentions of a post and the possible innocence of not knowing the implications they could give to the minority who find all such instances offensive, no matter what.

Personally i find using the bold facility is good way to highlight something and hopefully get my point across without going to the extreme.

I offer no offence by it, full stop.

As a silver haired ( what hair ) surfer, i cannot relate to all the fuss so long as it is within reason.

Etiquette can be a form of snobbery and a way of dictating how we all should behave irrespective of knowing or otherwise if common sense is not used and applied.

Dictating / appearing to, can also be as offensive as as the " petty " over reaction to those who are supposedly insulting you, if not more so.

Please remember we are not all professors of English or as eloquent as the so called experts.

IMHO that is, as always.

Content! Content! Content! consideration and honest intentions make for better understanding and are the objective of most members.

Stay coollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll ya all

marshbags

Edited March 14, 2007 by marshbags