Thai PM defends herself against negligence charges

[mrtoad]

I would like to challenge you, can you produce one iota of evidence that YL is corrupt??? cause if you can, better you go n tell them boy's you have all the answers, good luck with that, cheers

I can,The fact she is related by blood to one Thaksin of Arabia, a wanted criminal, is evidence enough...

I thought he was The Count of Montenegro?

[Thai at Heart]

I may be a bear of very little brain, but has anyone actually been convicted yet of corruption with regard to the rice scheme?

If they have not yet been convicted, how can she be charged with negligence, if you have yet to prove corruption?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Boo hiss. Stop being logical. All her lawyer has to say is "what corruption?"

And the rest is hearsay. They either convict loads of them for conspiring to corrupt. Or none. But they can't get one. But hey. TIT. Who cares about laws. Let's just get Yingluck and the rest we will let off

[Baerboxer]

What's the big deal about the amount of time she spent there? It was a hearing, in any normal court you turn up, listen to the charge, have your lawyer speak on your behalf, make a plea whether guilty or not, they accept the plea and the hearing is normally closed in less that 10 minutes, it's only to hear the charges, make a plea, and then the rest is up to the courts to decide as and when to proceed with any trial based on evidence presented.

Some of you are like vultures, it's quite funny really, that your lives seem to revolve around whether she gets the boot or not, must be exciting in your households

I wonder what you would all do if it was decided there wasn't enough evidence to pursue her, and she remained firmly where she is?? ( you never know, it should be a possibility to consider ) as this is Thailand, full of little surprises, and I also hope that the investigations into other high profile people get the same focus of attention, after all, graft is graft, no matter how big or small, and no amount of corruption should be acceptable..

She actually turned up to hear the charges laid against her, which is more than some people have bothered doing though eh

Yes, her brother didn't bother to turn up and hear several serious charges against him. Courts issued warrants but there seems some delay on the extradition requests.

It seems if your wealthy and/or connected it's optional to attend court here when summoned. Sort of more like the private health service consultations, you chose an appointment that's convenient to you. How quaint.

Yingluck should absolutely be treated fairly and based solely on the evidence. As should Abhisit, Suthep, and for that matter Thaksin. Anyone like the latter, caught handing out "pastry boxes" should further be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice.

If she is indicted then she must face the consequences. If she is cleared then that should be the end of the matter. Either way it won't be. Indicted and the paramilitaries step up the violence. Cleared and the rogue elements in the protest movement will step up their actions.

Don't forget she faces other charges and other unanswered questions too.

[Baerboxer]

I may be a bear of very little brain, but has anyone actually been convicted yet of corruption with regard to the rice scheme?

If they have not yet been convicted, how can she be charged with negligence, if you have yet to prove corruption?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Haven't the former Commerce Minister and his deputy been charged? No idea when the trial will be held, if even this century.

[Baerboxer]

I would like to challenge you, can you produce one iota of evidence that YL is corrupt??? cause if you can, better you go n tell them boy's you have all the answers, good luck with that, cheers

I can,The fact she is related by blood to one Thaksin of Arabia, a wanted criminal, is evidence enough...

I thought he was The Count of Montenegro?

Said fugitive is also the holder of a new Thai passport. This was issued illegally by his cousin who happens to be the caretaker foreign minister in his sister's cabinet. The FO was opened specially to produce this passport during the worst floods in living memory. Good to see the got their priorities right!

The Ombudsman challenged this and requested an explanation. He still waits for an answer after nearly 3 years and the fugitive criminal still has the passport. That seems a good example of corruption, doesn't it?

[marcusd]

I think 473geo has a very good point and many seem,to,be missing his underlying inuendo. Thailand could explode as many percieve yingluck "theirs" regardless of what she has done. If the courts remove yinny the ignorant masses may not be happy. All hell could break loose due to the evil empire behind the red hoards manipulating them.

Then the army would have to

step in. And then the trouble would really begin ... Remember.. The army has been manipulated in the years since 2006 and 2010. It now has many red swaying officers.

Marcusd. Via tapatalk

[moe666]

Too dense to know what she's gotten herself into; let alone address the press with coherent speech that would resemble a leader. Better to keep the trap shut; at least she's learning that.

Did you read the bit in the OP were it say's, these guy's have still not finished a graft case against Mark after 4 years, and as for your hero Suthep well they can't even be bothered to make him front court let alone the plethora of corruption accusations against him,

But then your selective reading will not let you take in that little tit bit of info now will it, yellow tinted glasses...

I would like to challenge you, can you produce one iota of evidence that YL is corrupt??? cause if you can, better you go n tell them boy's you have all the answers, good luck with that, cheers

You need to do a bit of research the NACC is not to concerned about Suthep at present it is another court. At least get your story straight ok if you are trying to shoot down someone else get it together. Red shirt supporters are there own worse enemies

[Old Man River]

I may be a bear of very little brain, but has anyone actually been convicted yet of corruption with regard to the rice scheme?

If they have not yet been convicted, how can she be charged with negligence, if you have yet to prove corruption?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Boo hiss. Stop being logical. All her lawyer has to say is "what corruption?"

And the rest is hearsay. They either convict loads of them for conspiring to corrupt. Or none. But they can't get one. But hey. TIT. Who cares about laws. Let's just get Yingluck and the rest we will let off

The corruption cases against the 15 are ongoing. Apparently, they feel, based on the evidence in their possession of corruption in these separate cases, they have enough to indict YL for negligence. None of us are privy to this information, so don't jump to conclusions.

Again, this is really all moot points if 60% of the senate doesn't agree with a guilty verdict.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[ginjag]

I would like to challenge you, can you produce one iota of evidence that YL is corrupt??? cause if you can, better you go n tell them boy's you have all the answers, good luck with that, cheers

I can,The fact she is related by blood to one Thaksin of Arabia, a wanted criminal, is evidence enough...

I thought he was The Count of Montenegro?

Oh the Count !! and not of Monte Christo??

[ginjag]

I would like to challenge you, can you produce one iota of evidence that YL is corrupt??? cause if you can, better you go n tell them boy's you have all the answers, good luck with that, cheers

I can,The fact she is related by blood to one Thaksin of Arabia, a wanted criminal, is evidence enough...

I thought he was The Count of Montenegro?

Said fugitive is also the holder of a new Thai passport. This was issued illegally by his cousin who happens to be the caretaker foreign minister in his sister's cabinet. The FO was opened specially to produce this passport during the worst floods in living memory. Good to see the got their priorities right!

The Ombudsman challenged this and requested an explanation. He still waits for an answer after nearly 3 years and the fugitive criminal still has the passport. That seems a good example of corruption, doesn't it?

After 3 years why hasn't she been made to explain, like she has been made-and rightfully so-to answer to this saga.

[Thai at Heart]

I may be a bear of very little brain, but has anyone actually been convicted yet of corruption with regard to the rice scheme?

If they have not yet been convicted, how can she be charged with negligence, if you have yet to prove corruption?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Boo hiss. Stop being logical. All her lawyer has to say is "what corruption?"

And the rest is hearsay. They either convict loads of them for conspiring to corrupt. Or none. But they can't get one. But hey. TIT. Who cares about laws. Let's just get Yingluck and the rest we will let off

The corruption cases against the 15 are ongoing. Apparently, they feel, based on the evidence in their possession of corruption in these separate cases, they have enough to indict YL for negligence. None of us are privy to this information, so don't jump to conclusions.

Again, this is really all moot points if 60% of the senate doesn't agree with a guilty verdict.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

What if they are found not guilty?

Its crazy to go after her before they convict anyone.

[Basil B]

In and out in ten minutes.

Wonder what she said?

Not guilty...

or

Did not do anything...

or

Go to hell...

[Bkkbound]

Not sure why this saga drags on and the shin lovers protest at every stage... get over it, the game is up, she's off to join the sibling in due course, TRT/PTP will get disbanded and we start a new 5 yr cycle... if they can find a leader who is independent of the corrosive politics of the Shins they could be a credible force for good. ..

[hgma]

The PR machine is running overtime.

The PM 'took up her own defence' meaning a 10 minutes appearence in where she presented a statement, both written and spoken then handed a request to give her more time to say anymore.

What a way to defend yourself in 10 minutes with the country in limbo, more then 10 farmers commiting suicide and the finance department almost bankrupt.

As always Thai instinctive respons this sort of environment...play the victim, then appeal on the 'honour of a female' then cry and if nothing really works.....crash!

[smedly]

I have 10 of my own witnesses that will say I didn't do it and that I had nothing to do with government functions and procedures - I've spent the last 3 years shopping and getting my hair done so it couldn't have been me

[englishoak]

I may be a bear of very little brain, but has anyone actually been convicted yet of corruption with regard to the rice scheme?

If they have not yet been convicted, how can she be charged with negligence, if you have yet to prove corruption?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Boo hiss. Stop being logical. All her lawyer has to say is "what corruption?"

And the rest is hearsay. They either convict loads of them for conspiring to corrupt. Or none. But they can't get one. But hey. TIT. Who cares about laws. Let's just get Yingluck and the rest we will let off

The corruption cases against the 15 are ongoing. Apparently, they feel, based on the evidence in their possession of corruption in these separate cases, they have enough to indict YL for negligence. None of us are privy to this information, so don't jump to conclusions.

Again, this is really all moot points if 60% of the senate doesn't agree with a guilty verdict.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

What if they are found not guilty?

Its crazy to go after her before they convict anyone.

It is crazy to go for the PM when there is nothing proven about anyone else for anything as yet, but then again TIT and things are often done backwards.

I think everyone already knows this is a just a poorly veiled excuse and rushed through attempt to simply remove her and appease some certain peoples demands and expectations more than anything else.

Many wont be surprised if it falls flat on proving anything conclusive but as long as it ticks the boxes to allow removal that is all that is required. There had better be solid evidence to back up such a finding or there will almost certainly be a backlash,

[Thai at Heart]

I may be a bear of very little brain, but has anyone actually been convicted yet of corruption with regard to the rice scheme?

If they have not yet been convicted, how can she be charged with negligence, if you have yet to prove corruption?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Boo hiss. Stop being logical. All her lawyer has to say is "what corruption?"

And the rest is hearsay. They either convict loads of them for conspiring to corrupt. Or none. But they can't get one. But hey. TIT. Who cares about laws. Let's just get Yingluck and the rest we will let off

The corruption cases against the 15 are ongoing. Apparently, they feel, based on the evidence in their possession of corruption in these separate cases, they have enough to indict YL for negligence. None of us are privy to this information, so don't jump to conclusions.

Again, this is really all moot points if 60% of the senate doesn't agree with a guilty verdict.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

What if they are found not guilty?

Its crazy to go after her before they convict anyone.

It is crazy to go for the PM when there is nothing proven about anyone else for anything as yet, but then again TIT and things are often done backwards.

I think everyone already knows this is a just a poorly veiled excuse and rushed through attempt to simply remove her and appease some certain peoples demands and expectations more than anything else.

Many wont be surprised if it falls flat on proving anything conclusive but as long as it ticks the boxes to allow removal that is all that is required. There had better be solid evidence to back up such a finding or there will almost certainly be a backlash,

Well, it might work, but I can't see how they can convict her of turning a blind eye to corruption, when they haven't had proven any corruption.

This pseudo legal system in Thailand is getting cookier by the day. I mean accuse her of anything you like if this is the way its going to be.

[Trembly]

Too dense to know what she's gotten herself into; let alone address the press with coherent speech that would resemble a leader. Better to keep the trap shut; at least she's learning that.

Did you read the bit in the OP were it say's, these guy's have still not finished a graft case against Mark after 4 years, and as for your hero Suthep well they can't even be bothered to make him front court let alone the plethora of corruption accusations against him,

But then your selective reading will not let you take in that little tit bit of info now will it, yellow tinted glasses...

I would like to challenge you, can you produce one iota of evidence that YL is corrupt??? cause if you can, better you go n tell them boy's you have all the answers, good luck with that, cheers

I bet the PTP are regretting that they slashed the NACC's budget by 60% now. Edited March 31, 2014 by Trembly

[Trembly]

Testifying about her conduct as a public official concerning a publically funded project, isn't held in public court?

Only in Thailand.....

If they convict her of negligence because there was corruption, it basically means you can convict just about any public official who heads up any public organisatoin with a budget.

What's wrong with that?

And no, not only in Thailand. Ever heard of parliamentary, senate, or congressional hearings?

Not to mention committee / commission hearings that require testimony and have powers of indictment or impeachment.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Trembly

[Thai at Heart]

Testifying about her conduct as a public official concerning a publically funded project, isn't held in public court?

Only in Thailand.....

If they convict her of negligence because there was corruption, it basically means you can convict just about any public official who heads up any public organisatoin with a budget.

What's wrong with that?

And no, not only in Thailand. Ever heard of parliamentary, senate, or congressional hearings?

Not to mention committee / commission hearings that require testimony and have powers of indictment or impeachment.

Of what? Provably knowing about corruption?

Good luck proving that one. There can be a ton of corruption, but as yet none of its proven. Unless she has personal private first hand knowledge and they can prove it, there is barely a sliver of a case.

If you heard a story that your neighbour didn't want pay his taxes would you report him, just because you heard an story. My lord, that would bring hundreds of spurious cases every day.

Her underlings are responsible before her.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[Trembly]

Testifying about her conduct as a public official concerning a publically funded project, isn't held in public court?

Only in Thailand.....

If they convict her of negligence because there was corruption, it basically means you can convict just about any public official who heads up any public organisatoin with a budget.

What's wrong with that?

And no, not only in Thailand. Ever heard of parliamentary, senate, or congressional hearings?

Not to mention committee / commission hearings that require testimony and have powers of indictment or impeachment.

Of what? Provably knowing about corruption?

Good luck proving that one. There can be a ton of corruption, but as yet none of its proven. Unless she has personal private first hand knowledge and they can prove it, there is barely a sliver of a case.

If you heard a story that your neighbour didn't want pay his taxes would you report him, just because you heard an story. My lord, that would bring hundreds of spurious cases every day.

Her underlings are responsible before her.

They're all culpable.

If the commission finds that she knew about corruption then the law will say she's corrupt.

If she didn't know about the corruption then the law will say she is negligent.

Or are you suggesting that there was in fact no corruption?

Edited March 31, 2014 by Trembly

[Thai at Heart]

Testifying about her conduct as a public official concerning a publically funded project, isn't held in public court?

Only in Thailand.....

If they convict her of negligence because there was corruption, it basically means you can convict just about any public official who heads up any public organisatoin with a budget.

What's wrong with that?

And no, not only in Thailand. Ever heard of parliamentary, senate, or congressional hearings?

Not to mention committee / commission hearings that require testimony and have powers of indictment or impeachment.

Of what? Provably knowing about corruption?

Good luck proving that one. There can be a ton of corruption, but as yet none of its proven. Unless she has personal private first hand knowledge and they can prove it, there is barely a sliver of a case.

If you heard a story that your neighbour didn't want pay his taxes would you report him, just because you heard an story. My lord, that would bring hundreds of spurious cases every day.

Her underlings are responsible before her.

They're all culpable.

If the commission finds that she knew about corruption then the law will say she's corrupt.

If she didn't know about the corruption then the law will say she is negligent.

Or are you suggesting that there was in fact no corruption?

Other than what I read in the papers,no I don't know that there was corruption. Is it likely yes. Would I swear in court. No. I don't know, I believe.

If she had a report that there was corruption and she did nothing, she's in trouble. If she told them to investigate and they reported they found nothing, she's free.

They have to prove she knew and did nothing. Not easy.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[Trembly]

What's wrong with that?

And no, not only in Thailand. Ever heard of parliamentary, senate, or congressional hearings?

Not to mention committee / commission hearings that require testimony and have powers of indictment or impeachment.

Of what? Provably knowing about corruption?

Good luck proving that one. There can be a ton of corruption, but as yet none of its proven. Unless she has personal private first hand knowledge and they can prove it, there is barely a sliver of a case.

If you heard a story that your neighbour didn't want pay his taxes would you report him, just because you heard an story. My lord, that would bring hundreds of spurious cases every day.

Her underlings are responsible before her.

They're all culpable.

If the commission finds that she knew about corruption then the law will say she's corrupt.

If she didn't know about the corruption then the law will say she is negligent.

Or are you suggesting that there was in fact no corruption?

Other than what I read in the papers,no I don't know that there was corruption. Is it likely yes. Would I swear in court. No. I don't know, I believe.

If she had a report that there was corruption and she did nothing, she's in trouble. If she told them to investigate and they reported they found nothing, she's free.

Don't be silly. That's so far fetched it's simply hypothetical.

Why do you suppose that the corruption investigation be conducted by the very committee that was overseeing the scheme alleged to be corrupt in the first place? Is this how they do it where you're from?

Don't you think that would be a job best kept for independent investigators?

But OK, let's follow it through ...

If she, as committee chairwoman, told her other committee members to make an internal - very very very internal - investigation into alleged corruption in the rice scheme because a little bird told her so . . . then she she as chairwoman would be directly responsible for vouching for the very findings of the investigation by her own committee herself. The buck stops at her, so no, she still wouldn't be free.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Trembly

[Thai at Heart]

quote name="Trembly" post="7634314" timestamp="1396298164"]

What's wrong with that?

And no, not only in Thailand. Ever heard of parliamentary, senate, or congressional hearings?

Not to mention committee / commission hearings that require testimony and have powers of indictment or impeachment.

Of what? Provably knowing about corruption?

Good luck proving that one. There can be a ton of corruption, but as yet none of its proven. Unless she has personal private first hand knowledge and they can prove it, there is barely a sliver of a case.

If you heard a story that your neighbour didn't want pay his taxes would you report him, just because you heard an story. My lord, that would bring hundreds of spurious cases every day.

Her underlings are responsible before her.

They're all culpable.

If the commission finds that she knew about corruption then the law will say she's corrupt.

If she didn't know about the corruption then the law will say she is negligent.

Or are you suggesting that there was in fact no corruption?

Other than what I read in the papers,no I don't know that there was corruption. Is it likely yes. Would I swear in court. No. I don't know, I believe.

If she had a report that there was corruption and she did nothing, she's in trouble. If she told them to investigate and they reported they found nothing, she's free.

Don't be silly. That's so far fetched it's simply hypothetical.

Why do you suppose that the corruption investigation be conducted by the very committee that was overseeing the scheme alleged to be corrupt in the first place? Is this how they do it where you're from?

Don't you think that would be a job best kept for independent investigators?

But OK, let's follow it through ...

If she, as committee chairwoman, told her other committee members to make an investigation into alleged corruption in the rice scheme because a little bird told her so . . . then she she as chairwoman would be directly responsible for vouching for the very findings of the investigation by her own committee herself. The buck stops at her, so no, she still wouldn't be free.

You think that's how it works in this context? No boss in Thailand instigates a corruption investigation voluntarily.

So they wait until there is a documented report, she does nothing. No boss in this context goes to look for it, they try to avoid looking for it at all, because they want to avoid finding it.

So unless there is a document with a report that she didn't act on, they have little. If she tells them to investigate and they come back with no evidence, what would you like her to do?

[Trembly]

quote name="Trembly" post="7634314" timestamp="1396298164"]

They're all culpable.

If the commission finds that she knew about corruption then the law will say she's corrupt.

If she didn't know about the corruption then the law will say she is negligent.

Or are you suggesting that there was in fact no corruption?

Other than what I read in the papers,no I don't know that there was corruption. Is it likely yes. Would I swear in court. No. I don't know, I believe.

If she had a report that there was corruption and she did nothing, she's in trouble. If she told them to investigate and they reported they found nothing, she's free.

Don't be silly. That's so far fetched it's simply hypothetical.

Why do you suppose that the corruption investigation be conducted by the very committee that was overseeing the scheme alleged to be corrupt in the first place? Is this how they do it where you're from?

Don't you think that would be a job best kept for independent investigators?

But OK, let's follow it through ...

If she, as committee chairwoman, told her other committee members to make an investigation into alleged corruption in the rice scheme because a little bird told her so . . . then she she as chairwoman would be directly responsible for vouching for the very findings of the investigation by her own committee herself. The buck stops at her, so no, she still wouldn't be free.

You think that's how it works in this context? No boss in Thailand instigates a corruption investigation voluntarily.

So they wait until there is a documented report, she does nothing. No boss in this context goes to look for it, they try to avoid looking for it at all, because they want to avoid finding it.

So unless there is a document with a report that she didn't act on, they have little. If she tells them to investigate and they come back with no evidence, what would you like her to do?

"You think that's how it works in this context? No boss in Thailand instigates a corruption investigation voluntarily"

Of course not... so why did you even bring it up?

Continuing with your hypothetical rice committee internal investigation : whatever it is that they find, she has to sign off the report because she's the chairperson. It's the same as when you sign on the dotted line acknowledging that you understand and agree to the terms and conditions, even if you never read them. That's how government committees and government regulated committees (foundations, for example) function in Thailand.

That is the very crux of the negligence charge.

If there is no documented report amid massive corruption then her and her entire committee were negligent.

If there is a documented report amid massive corruption but she didn't act on it then her and her entire committee were negligent.

If there is a documented report amid massive corruption and she did act on it and found that there was no corruption then she is either corrupt or negligent .... and so the trial continues.

However, I'm still puzzled as to why you think that a internal report on rice scheme corruption would have ever been made or have made it's way to her attention, given that you know so well how it works, unless you are implying that a backdated report / investigation might have been fabricated for the purpose of her defence at the NACC hearings.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Trembly

[Thai at Heart]

quote name="Trembly" post="7634314" timestamp="1396298164"]

They're all culpable.

If the commission finds that she knew about corruption then the law will say she's corrupt.

If she didn't know about the corruption then the law will say she is negligent.

Or are you suggesting that there was in fact no corruption?

Other than what I read in the papers,no I don't know that there was corruption. Is it likely yes. Would I swear in court. No. I don't know, I believe.

If she had a report that there was corruption and she did nothing, she's in trouble. If she told them to investigate and they reported they found nothing, she's free.

Don't be silly. That's so far fetched it's simply hypothetical.

Why do you suppose that the corruption investigation be conducted by the very committee that was overseeing the scheme alleged to be corrupt in the first place? Is this how they do it where you're from?

Don't you think that would be a job best kept for independent investigators?

But OK, let's follow it through ...

If she, as committee chairwoman, told her other committee members to make an investigation into alleged corruption in the rice scheme because a little bird told her so . . . then she she as chairwoman would be directly responsible for vouching for the very findings of the investigation by her own committee herself. The buck stops at her, so no, she still wouldn't be free.

You think that's how it works in this context? No boss in Thailand instigates a corruption investigation voluntarily.

So they wait until there is a documented report, she does nothing. No boss in this context goes to look for it, they try to avoid looking for it at all, because they want to avoid finding it.

So unless there is a document with a report that she didn't act on, they have little. If she tells them to investigate and they come back with no evidence, what would you like her to do?

"You think that's how it works in this context? No boss in Thailand instigates a corruption investigation voluntarily"

Of course not... so why did you even bring it up?

Continuing with your hypothetical rice committee internal investigation : whatever it is that they find, she has to sign off the report because she's the chairperson. It's the same as when you sign on the dotted line acknowledging that you understand and agree to the terms and conditions, even if you never read them. That's how government committees and government regulated committees (foundations, for example) function in Thailand.

That is the very crux of the negligence charge.

If there is no documented report amid massive corruption then her and her entire committee were negligent.

If there is a documented report amid massive corruption but she didn't act on it then her and her entire committee were negligent.

If there is a documented report amid massive corruption and she did act on it and found that there was no corruption then she is either corrupt or negligent .... and so the trial continues.

However, I'm still puzzled as to why you think that a internal report on rice scheme corruption would have ever been made or have made it's way to her attention, given that you know so well how it works, unless you are implying that a backdated report / investigation might have been fabricated for the purpose of her defence at the NACC hearings.

I doubt very much she has seen any report whatsoever that claims there is any corruption.

Her defence will be "I know nothing". Hence why they should convict someone quite high up the chain and get him to squeal.

Then they might get her. This way now, they won't get her.

[Malone]

To the MODS... it is exactly about this situation and how the REDS are going on April 43 to cause CHAOS if Yingluck is in trouble. They have been sprouting off thier mouths so much that the figures for Tourism appear down 30% across the board for the same comparative period last year. (this was on this forum yesterday) So regardless of TAT this is no tit for TAT and now the effects on Thailand will be hard. So Yinny and co, what do you have to say to the people who ENTRUSTED you to care for them,?

This was in the Australian newspaper THE AGE. Now that was today and each day there has been something about this little fiasco going on here. Australia is a LARGE PART opf the tourism market to thailadn considering our small population so this certainly will not help the little shops on the soi's.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/thailands-red-shirts-gear-up-for-a-fight-20140331-zqouc.html

Tourism down 30% and you are referring to what the red faction might do?

Do you think it is possible that Bangkok being shutdown by a lunatic and his mob for the last few months might just have something to do with it?

You can't have it both ways, for a few weeks now you red stooges have been prattling on about how Suthep's attempt at shutting down Bangkok has been a total failure! Now you blame redused tourism on that shutdown, isn't that typical PTP double standards?

Funny when the red shirt advocates are caught out in their hypocrisy.

[whybother]

We have a person summoned and appearing in court accused of 'negligence'

We have a guy roaming the streets accused of the murder of Thai citizens

Both in prominent position when their specific event occurred

To the casual observer the balance of the scales of justice appear somewhat skewed

Make no mistake it is this perceived imbalance that carries the potential to escalate internal conflict

A well known phrase from 'Animal farm' springs to mind when contemplating the history and future of Thailand

And?

Should she refuse to attend court until Suthep attends?

Should all cases be stopped until Suthep attends?

Is it the fault of the courts that Suthep hasn't attended?

Sent from my phone...

[Malone]

We have a person summoned and appearing in court accused of 'negligence'

We have a guy roaming the streets accused of the murder of Thai citizens

Both in prominent position when their specific event occurred

To the casual observer the balance of the scales of justice appear somewhat skewed

Make no mistake it is this perceived imbalance that carries the potential to escalate internal conflict

A well known phrase from 'Animal farm' springs to mind when contemplating the history and future of Thailand

And?

Should she refuse to attend court until Suthep attends?

Should all cases be stopped until Suthep attends?

Is it the fault of the courts that Suthep hasn't attended?

...

But, but, but...Suthep

[Chupup]

What's the big deal about the amount of time she spent there? It was a hearing, in any normal court you turn up, listen to the charge, have your lawyer speak on your behalf, make a plea whether guilty or not, they accept the plea and the hearing is normally closed in less that 10 minutes, it's only to hear the charges, make a plea, and then the rest is up to the courts to decide as and when to proceed with any trial based on evidence presented.

Some of you are like vultures, it's quite funny really, that your lives seem to revolve around whether she gets the boot or not, must be exciting in your households

I wonder what you would all do if it was decided there wasn't enough evidence to pursue her, and she remained firmly where she is?? ( you never know, it should be a possibility to consider ) as this is Thailand, full of little surprises, and I also hope that the investigations into other high profile people get the same focus of attention, after all, graft is graft, no matter how big or small, and no amount of corruption should be acceptable..

She actually turned up to hear the charges laid against her, which is more than some people have bothered doing though eh

"Some of you are like vultures" well spoken Haggis, that of course including yourself