What everybody overlooks is the fact that the police had impounded the motorbike as evidence. This does not mean that a policeman (or the police force for that matter) OWNED that bike. That sergeant-major who let his son use the bike every day (perhaps to go to school?) did not have the right to do that. It will be interesting to see what will happen. Probably nothing.

It is also just possible that a court case will be thrown out because the evidence is missing...

The headline does read Police officers motorbike , but the person that took it proberly did not know who it belonged to.

It seems strange that people would steal bikes from outside a police station.

DLP: Please also see:

"Sen Sgt Maj Narong Wilairat reported at 6:30am that HIS motorbike was stolen from in front of his police accommodation just meters from the main building at Chalong Police Station."

Police accommodation means police residential quarters. Meaning the bike (the EVIDENCE) was parked in front of the Sgt Maj's residential quarters every day. That is strange! So, the bike was not stolen from outside a police station but from outside the police residential quarters (which would probably be very close to the actual police station).

It wasn't HIS motorbike! Sgt Maj Narong was the one who stole the bike (first).

It could be said he's had his CHIPS.

Ah. Now maybe a Phuket authority figure finally learns what it's like to be a victim. A little more of this and perhaps Phuket will start to see some change at long last! (Or more likely Phuket LE and the criminal element will just renew their contract.)

"Clueless".........Really?

I thought that was a qualification to get in the Police here. With the usual finger pointing it's obvious where the motorbike is isn't it?

That was good for a laugh.

I wonder if the son had a licence and wore a helmet.

The nerve eh, stealing a policeman's motorbike, despite the silly little sticker I bet.

He needs to report it at the station and hand over some tea money to get them to show the slightest interest.

Next time they steal his underwear and he will not have a clue.

.....he will lose his balls?

What everybody overlooks is the fact that the police had impounded the motorbike as evidence. This does not mean that a policeman (or the police force for that matter) OWNED that bike. That sergeant-major who let his son use the bike every day (perhaps to go to school?) did not have the right to do that. It will be interesting to see what will happen. Probably nothing.

It is also just possible that a court case will be thrown out because the evidence is missing...

The headline does read Police officers motorbike , but the person that took it proberly did not know who it belonged to.

It seems strange that people would steal bikes from outside a police station.

DLP: Please also see:

"Sen Sgt Maj Narong Wilairat reported at 6:30am that HIS motorbike was stolen from in front of his police accommodation just meters from the main building at Chalong Police Station."

Police accommodation means police residential quarters. Meaning the bike (the EVIDENCE) was parked in front of the Sgt Maj's residential quarters every day. That is strange! So, the bike was not stolen from outside a police station but from outside the police residential quarters (which would probably be very close to the actual police station).

It wasn't HIS motorbike! Sgt Maj Narong was the one who stole the bike (first).

What evidence, where did you read that?

Ah, got it, you just made that up, or presumed it to be the case.

Presumption is the mother of all <deleted>

he doen"t have a criminal to book so he points in the air

I wonder if his son is of legal (motorbike driving) age, has a license and wears a helmet? Call me cynical, but...

How would that affect the case?

What everybody overlooks is the fact that the police had impounded the motorbike as evidence. This does not mean that a policeman (or the police force for that matter) OWNED that bike. That sergeant-major who let his son use the bike every day (perhaps to go to school?) did not have the right to do that. It will be interesting to see what will happen. Probably nothing.

It is also just possible that a court case will be thrown out because the evidence is missing...

What you are overlooking is the fact that you cannot interpret a very straightforward, easy to understand report. It wasn't an impounded bike.

What everybody overlooks is the fact that the police had impounded the motorbike as evidence. This does not mean that a policeman (or the police force for that matter) OWNED that bike. That sergeant-major who let his son use the bike every day (perhaps to go to school?) did not have the right to do that. It will be interesting to see what will happen. Probably nothing.

It is also just possible that a court case will be thrown out because the evidence is missing...

The headline does read Police officers motorbike , but the person that took it proberly did not know who it belonged to.

It seems strange that people would steal bikes from outside a police station.

DLP: Please also see:

"Sen Sgt Maj Narong Wilairat reported at 6:30am that HIS motorbike was stolen from in front of his police accommodation just meters from the main building at Chalong Police Station."

Police accommodation means police residential quarters. Meaning the bike (the EVIDENCE) was parked in front of the Sgt Maj's residential quarters every day. That is strange! So, the bike was not stolen from outside a police station but from outside the police residential quarters (which would probably be very close to the actual police station).

It wasn't HIS motorbike! Sgt Maj Narong was the one who stole the bike (first).

Doesn't matter where he parked it, it was his bike.

I wonder if his son is of legal (motorbike driving) age, has a license and wears a helmet? Call me cynical, but...

How would that affect the case?

It wouldn't, just sayin.....