Thai-born British citizen accused of lese majeste by her own parents

[DrDweeb]

She's a British citizen residing in London.

She can say what she wishes.

Not according to Thai law. In fact under Thai law, insulting any Royal globally can be punished.

Since when is there Thai law in London? How irrelevant.

If I defame any member or "global" royalty, anyone can file a complaint against me in Thailand. If I come to Thailand, I would expect then have to answer the complaint in Thailand.

It's crazy, but its true. Of course there is no Thai law in UK,but if and when she comes back to Thailand, she will be in trouble. This is the bizarre parallel universe of the Thai legal system.

As I have pointed out, it is neither bizarre or parallel. It is the same for every country and its citizens!

[beautifulthailand99]

She has freedom of speech and is a protected British Citizen - end of. Thaiand only shows how petty and small minded it is using the power of the state to confront who is clearly a damaged person. Her facebook page is infantile in the extreme, offensive yes, dangerous to no-one but herself. She probably lives under threat of a UK Thai having a pop at her now if she is well known in the community. Her husband if he had any sense who advise her to shut up and keep her head down.

BTW I watched the Queen's Birthday Trooping of the Colour on the BBC today - Queen Elizabeth 2nd is in fine health and did a great job as our head of state - Long Live Her Majesty.

Edited June 14, 2014 by beautifulthailand99

[EBlair48]

If found guilty for disrespect, I hope she go to jail to the limit of the punishment. 5 years for every disrespect. That will be good for her. Thailand do not have such disrespectful people. We all love the king more than our parents. Don't believe me, just ask anything Thai you know.

There's so much in this post that makes me nauseous, I don't know quite where to begin puking on it.

Suffice it to say, I seriously doubt England is going to extradite a UK citizen over one of the most ridiculed laws in one of the most disrespected countries in the world.

Edited June 14, 2014 by EBlair48

[EBlair48]

He and Ms. Somchintra decided to press charges against their daughter after she started publishing critical remarks of the monarchy on the internet, which has brought waves of condemnation and intimidation towards their family in recent months.

Ah, face, face... so powerful it can turn parents against their own children.

It's not about face. This woman has recklessly implicated her family in criminal matters. She has also implicated her Facebook Friends still living in Thailand. They are going to be in big trouble, merely for the fact that they are part of her FB feed and response. Technically, they are helping spread words and images that violate Thai law. This woman is incredibly selfish.

It's always about face. But you're right about the rest, no denying that.

according to suriya4 she wont have any friends here.

She's got plenty of friends here, alright. MICT can't block the whole world- though no doubt Dearest Uncle will try.

pssst M I R R O R I N G

[DrDweeb]

If found guilty for disrespect, I hope she go to jail to the limit of the punishment. 5 years for every disrespect. That will be good for her. Thailand do not have such disrespectful people. We all love the king more than our parents. Don't believe me, just ask anything Thai you know.

How will that be good for her?

Accept the fact that times are changing - ask my kids, who are Thai citizens.

Yep, same here. My daughter has no interest in the past. Family comes first.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Children, by definition, ignore the non-experienced past and discount the future very heavily.

This is why they have parents, and developing a child's awareness of the past and how their present might affect the future is one of parenting's primary objectives.

I visitited this woman's page. She is distatsteful, and that would be so no matter form where she hailed!

[EyesWideOpen]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

This censorship is absolute rubbish... I know how much most people love the monarchy and the King. Isn't that enough? Those few who for some reason have something against the family should be able to speak freely. But I guess I'm just dreaming again...

In Sweden we have monarchy. Thailand wouldn't believe their ears if they knew what our newspapers likes to write about our Nai Luang.

That being said, all respect to his majesty for being one of the best role models this nation has ever faced.

I take the view that if the institution is loved, it can survive any discussion or criticism. The British royals roll with the good and the bad and are overall well respected and loved. These cases hurt the institution more than help it.

You cant force someone to love or respect something. Eventually the worm turns.

Censorship prevents discussions about the richest monarch in the world. Wouldnt want that information becoming common knowledge in the LOS. The Thai people might be as surprised to hear this as I was. I would have thought it was the Queen of England of the Sheik of Brunei.

You would equally be likely to surprised at the attribution of the wealthiest monarch was provably incorrect, and was comprehensively debunked shortly after its publication.

You are wrong..... You think Forbes throws out numbers it just dreams up ??

But back to topic, this woman is a bit off the wall. I have seen some of her rants,

and the word vehement would be putting it kindly. Hard to imagine why that

level of hatred exists, as I am pretty sure she was not personally wronged.

Perhaps she is mentally ill. If so, little point in dragging her back here to jail

forever would serve little point.

Edited June 14, 2014 by EyesWideOpen

[EBlair48]

Most Thailand expats seem to be disenfranchised with their usually more civilised home nations. Many don't have a good word to say about home. Cheap young pussy really does appear to impair memory function and the faculty of fair critical comparison.

Well I'm certainly not here for any of that. So by your argument that means my critical thinking is unaffected.

And it isn't really about being disenfranchised, it is about weighing up and assessing the pros and cons of all nations. In England my various flats or houses were burgled over a dozen times, I was repeatedly mugged in the street (and I'm a disabled lady), I saw a lot of behaviour that was not the "civilisation" you speak of. In Bangkok I have been neither burgled nor mugged in many years visiting here.

On-topic though, I have great respect for the UK, and the Queen of England. I am not a critic of her, she has served her country every day, and if you read about her life you will understand that especially in her youth, the role she was born into was a very demanding and exhausting one.

I have, if anything, greater admiration and respect for the most illustrious and magnificent HMTK in my adopted nation. I always judge a person by their actions, and I have the utmost respect for this person because of those actions. I can not compare those many benevolent and unifying actions, to the actions of a hairdresser who seeks to be an internet sensation by insulting people in a remote and verminous manner.

^^ Cheap young pussy seems to make up for a lot lacking here. Cheap maids and massages, too.

^The whole point is how do we know anything is true if no countering is allowed? If criticism is outlawed then all we have is essentially a crafted mythology.

Edited June 14, 2014 by EBlair48

[Emptyset]

The whole concept of "Lese majeste" is medieval and should be outlawed itself.

We could have a debate about that, except that you seem quite unfit for that.

Lese majeste laws exist worldwide, and there is a reason for them. The reason is that unlike me and thee, a head of state (including a monarch) and his/her family do not have access to the normal libel/slander/defamation laws, and that an extraordinary law should protect them. NO country with lese majeste laws among the many countries accepts that the law is medieval or has any important movement to abolish it.

Many laws are abused all over the world, and there can be no doubt that some people abuse lese majeste laws in Thailand. So is the criminal defamation law abused. Two journalists in Phuket attest to that right this week.

But the argument against legal abuse is not to delete the law; it is to amend it where necessary and enforce it properly, fairly and equally. BY LAW the Thai monarch does not have recourse to the standard protection against defamation, so there is a law - as in dozens of other countries - to account for that. In the United States, the world's leader in free speech, there are special laws protecting both the status and work of the head of state. Suggesting they just be thrown out is ridiculous.

It will be a great day when both the Thai head of state and his subjects have similar protection under well-written and properly, equally enforced laws. You don't sound rational when you write that the law should be totally abandoned.

.

Take care!

Intelligent, informed, rational discourse will not win you many fans here on Thai visa

People talking about "rationality" yet they seem to want to stop others exercising their reason. Wanda Sloan is normally a good poster, but she's mistaken in using other states to justify the Thai LM law. Apart from a few countries we'd probably agree aren't particularly free (Morocco etc), can anyone cite an example of such a law being enforced? I'd imagine if they did start being regularly enforced in Norway, for instance, a movement to abolish the law would quickly spring up. It's only because it isn't enforced that there is no such movement.

Anyway, you can't expect rational citizens if you're not going to allow them the freedom to think, criticize and to know. Indeed, as that arch-rationalist Immanuel Kant said: "Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment." But the way the Thai system is structured now, this law operates in tandem with the educational system to produce subjects who operate very much within pre-enlightenment modes of thought. Superstition, faith, irreason. Ajarn Kasien Tejapira wrote on his FB page earlier about how sometimes such "faith" conflicts with reality, and how Thai education doesn't equip people to deal with this in an intelligent way, rather they are simply slaves to their emotional responses.

And that's why you end up with people like Rose. A law that allowed reasonable criticism but outlawed the most egregious insults would no doubt be an improvement, if that's what Wanda means by reform. Yet this is a problem already, as any form of criticism, however qualified or moderate, can always be interpreted as an insult by some. Ajarn Sulak is an avowed royalist, but if you look at his Facebook page, he just posted about a week ago about why he thinks the law should be abolished. Interesting read (incidentally he also reminded people in the same post that Thaksin isn't the be all and end up of Thailand's problems, "what about CP?" etc - and of course a few days later comes the slavery scandal).

Edited June 14, 2014 by Emptyset

[DrDweeb]

It appears that a lot of Posters here (Farang) haven't got the slightest clue about this subject.

Let me assure you that what this silly girl is doing, from a 'safe distance' from Thailand, is wreaking havoc on her family's lives. Not only that, but the lives of her family members are in real danger.

Now; one can agree or disagree with the laws of Thailand; that's anyone's prerogative; however, a little respect for the Thai culture and it's inherent reverence for the Royal Family IS a very solid part of that culture.

People should not castigate the family-members, who are living in Thailand, - because THEY did not cause this drama: their silly daughter, living in the UK did.

Do not be too surprised to open the paper one morning soon, to learn that this silly daughter has met with a terrible and fatal incident . . . . . Thai's in the UK are also fierce supporters & admirers of our King - and may just take the law into their own hands, to the detriment of this girl's health.

'Thais in the UK' will no doubt appreciate they live in a FREE country where FREE speech is encouraged and they will appreciate that the British Royal Family are not protected but such a law and are still LOVED and SECURE

'if' they do as you suggest they will experience the full force of the British Law which will not be bought

Good Luck to this young lady for using her RIGHTS as a human being - that of free speech - we may not agree with her but we should defend her RIGHT to say what she thinks but that's a democracy that many Thais have not had the privilege of experiencing

If the monachy in any country is so good,it will stand up for itself.If not good over a period of time the people will bring it down.These people know the privilidges they have and wont be letting that go in a hurry.As far as the British royals are concerned i think latest polls show majority want them out,but not in a hurry,waiting for Lizzy to drop.Meanwhile the grandson and family tour Aust.at the taxpayers expense,what a life.Do these people ever dip into their own pocket?

RUBBISH, where were these latest opinion polls carried out, and when were they carried out, pleaser provide proof.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Scotland?

[star kicker]

i saw her interviewed on tv here, a forthright young lady who makes some valid points.

she said that her parents had to denounce her for their own safety and security - so dont read too much into the reports in the thai 'press'.

[DrDweeb]

This lady is in the UK where she will not be charged or arrested for her views, however if she returns to Thailand she will of course be charged and imprisoned. I really didn't understand the references to Joe Gordon and Harry Nicholadis as they were only arrested once they set foot in Thailand.

Reading comprehension and context. They are not just a theory, but a good idea.

A poster wrote, quote:

if a person said something about the monarchy while outside of Thailand in a country that allows free speech, I don't believe they can be charged with anything.

unquote

The poster is wrong. He is not wrong in theory, he is not wrong in his "belief". He is completely wrong. A person who says something about the monarchy outside of Thailand can be charged. No... sorry, not "can be" ... has been charged. Numerous times. Their physical place, their nationality... none of this has anything to do with charges. I picked two such people, reasonably well known, who were charged long before they entered this country. There are MANY other cases and Ms Rose will be another for certain.

Then, when said person(s) set foot in Thailand, they were arrested, and away they go.

In Nicolaides' case, for example (repeat "for example"), the charges were held in abeyance for many years, nine as I remember, just in case he returned to Thailand. Which he did. He even knew about the (old) charges but thought (if I may use the term loosely) they had been forgotten, forgiven or somesuch. He was charged for, in the words of the mistaken poster, "saying something about the monarchy while outside of Thailand in a country" where this is not an offence, YEARS before his detention, arrest and incarceration. Actually, really, charged, while outside Thailand.

The idea that Rose will not be charged is a fantasy. She will be. I'd be surprised if she hasn't already been charged but I don't care enough to find out since it is absolutely certain she will be.

.

Oh dear, more intelligent, coherent and informed posts. Be careful, the TV brotherhood do not take kindly to being presented with factual coherent posts!

[DrDweeb]

Ridiculous Law?This is Thailand and we live here as guests and obey their laws as guests. Every country in the world has laws.So if members think this is a stupid law then get on a street corner and tell people to change it . We will see what happens . This is the law of this country as I for one would never talk about the His Royal Majesty as he has done so much for this country something some people forget about.

What about these laws

1. In seven U.S. states, according to their constitutions, atheists are barred from holding public office.

2. Sodomy is illegal, in general, in Idaho, Utah, Michigan, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. In these states, sodomy is only illegal for homosexuals: Montana, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. Oral sex is often considered sodomy by many states, according to the Hebrew Bible. Except strangely, you dont see people as equally outraged about this as they are about gay sex.

3. Interracial marriage was still illegal in Alabama in 2000.

4. Not until 2008 did the UN Security Council pass UN Security Council Resolution No. 1820 which declared rape and other forms of sexual violence a war crime, a crime against humanity, and a constitutive act with respect to genocide, arising from the conflict in the Balkans, in which violating women became an conspicuous weapon in the war.

5. Since 1986, US authorities have had the legal right to access any 180-day old email, without a warrant.

6. In Mobile, Alabama, it is against the law to throw confetti or spray silly string.

7. In Saudi Arabia, it is illegal for any woman to drive a car. Right now, its illegal for them to vote too. Apparently it will become legal in 2015 (how sweet).

8. In Dubai, extramarital sex is against the law and could result in jail sentences for over a year. Which means that in rape cases, both the victim and the perpetrator could end up being charged with the same crime.

9. In Saudi Arabia, there is no minimum age for marriage. In 2008, a Saudi court refused an 8-year-old girl, who asked for a divorce from her 58-year-old husband.

10. In 29 states in the US it is legal to fire someone for being gay.

11. In Greece, police are allowed to arrest anyone suspected of having HIV. Police are also allowed to force HIV testing, to publicize the names of HIV-positive people and to have them evicted from their homes.

12. In the Philippines you can be charged with the crime of unjust vexation for doing just that, vexing someone. And yes, it is as vague and arbitrary as it sounds.

13. The only two states where divorce is illegal are the Philippines and The Vatican.

14. In Thailand it is illegal to step on money.

15. In Singapore, selling non-medical chewing gum or chewing normal gum is a fine of $1000. A second offense costs $2000 and being forced to clean a public area of the city for a day. If a person litters three times, they must clean the streets wearing a bib that reads Im a litterer. Even pharmacists who sell the medical gum and forget to ID get two years in jail. Spitting is also illegal and can result in arrest.

16. In July 2013 a law was passed in China that states it is illegal for adult children to not visit their parents often in China. They are also required to attend to their parents spiritual needs.

17. There is a law in South Carolina called the no mock proposal law, which states that anybody above the age of 16-years-old is not allowed to perform a proposal if they do not mean it.

18. In Montana, proxy weddings are allowed for those serving in the military, which means a friend can pretend to be the groom or the bride and the union will still be considered valid. In some cases both the bride and the groom are absent.

19. In Arkansas there still exists a law that was instated in the 1800s that states a husband is allowed to beat his wife, but only once a month.

20. In Rhode Island, a union can be considered invalid under the grounds that the party is deemed to be, collectively, an idiot or a lunatic.

21. In Arizona, having more than two vibrators in your home is illegal. If you own more than two in your house, you can be subject to criminal possession.

22. In Iowa, it is illegal for a man with a mustache to kiss a woman in public.

23. In Massachusetts it is deemed illegal for a woman to be on top during sex.

24. It is also apparently illegal in Massachusetts for a man and a woman who rent a room for the night to sleep in the nude.

25. In Virginia, it is illegal for a man to kick a woman out of bed.

26. In Britain it is illegal to handle a salmon in suspicious circumstances.

27. In Vermont, a wife needs the husbands permission to wear false teeth.

28. In North Carolina couples must have sex in the missionary position and with the curtains pulled.

29. In Britain, it is illegal to import potatoes into England or Wales if you have reasonable cause to believe that they are Polish.

30. In Oregon, talking dirty while having sex is illegal. Even though they dont really specify what qualifies as dirty talk.

31. In Utah you can marry your cousin, but only if you are both over the age of 65. Because, you know, when you turn 65 youre known to have impeccable judgment.

32. In Britain you are not allowed to let your pet mate with any pet form the royal house.

33. In Utah, a husband is responsible for his wifes actions as long as he is with her at the time of her actions.

34. In Kentucky, a woman cannot remarry the same man more than three times.

35. In parts of India, a man who is in debt can offer up his wife until the debt is paid.

36. In Greece, if anyone wants to get married, the law requires those to publish their wedding notice in a newspaper (written in Greek) or on the City Hall notice board.

37. In France, it is stated as illegal to marry a dead person.

38. In Britain, it is illegal to carry a plank along the pavement.

39. In Hong Kong, theres a law that allows a wife to kill her husband if she finds him cheating. However, she must kill him with her bare hands.

40. In Britain it is illegal to operate a cow while intoxicated.

41. In Pennsylvania, it is illegal to tie a dollar bill to a string on the ground and pull it away when someone tries to pick it up.

42. In New York City it is illegal to honk your horn. If you do, youre at risk of paying $350 fine.

43. In Florida, its illegal to fart in a public place after 6pm on a Thursday.

44. In England it is illegal to die in the House Of Parliament, but something tells me that if someone did do this, they wouldnt face many repercussions?

45. By law, any whale or great Sturgeon caught in the UK is the property of the Queen.

46. In Samoa it is illegal to forget your wifes birthday.

47. In Britain, oddly enough it is illegal to be drunk in the pub.

48. In Missouri it is illegal to drive with an uncaged bear

49. In Turin, Italy, dog owners must take their dogs on a walk at least three times a day.

50. In Honolulu, Hawaii it is illegal to sing loudly after sunset.

51. In Sweden it is illegal to be found buying the services of a prostitute, even though prostitution is legal. Which means the prostitutes themselves would not be breaking the law. In the past few years Iceland and Norway have also adopted this law.

52. In Victoria, Australia, it is illegal to change a light bulb unless youre a licensed electrician.

53. In the UK, a law still exists from the Middle Ages that requires all males over the age of 14 to be trained in shooting a long bow.

54. Bangladeshi children of 15 and older can be sent to jail for cheating on their final exams.

55. In Australia, men are free to cross-dress, just as long as their dresses are not strapless.

56. In Florida it is illegal for a divorced or a widowed woman to skydive on a Sunday afternoon.

57. In Switzerland, it is illegal to flush a toilet after 10pm. This one confounds me.

58. In Canada, any comic book that portrays illegal activity is banned.

59. In Argentina, there is a law that states that Argentine nightclubs must play the same amount of tango music as all other forms of music combined.

60. In China, it is a law that a person must be intelligent to go to college.

61. Married New Yorkers cannot get divorced on grounds of irreconcilable differences unless both marriage partners agree on those grounds.

62. In Tennessee it is legal to carry a loaded firearm into a bar. Seems safe.

63. In Norway, there is a law that protects all female dogs and cats from being spayed. Only male dogs and cats can be neutered. Also, an ancient Norwegian law still still exists that obliges all Norwegians to go out on expeditions to rape and plunder at least once every five years.

64. In France, it is illegal to name a pig Napoleon. Apparently this is a slight to the great French general and emperor.

65. In Britain it is an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the monarchs head upside down on an envelope.

66. In Russia, Vladimir Putin just recently made it illegal to tell kids that gay people exist.

67. In Colorado it is illegal to collect rainwater. Apparently farmers and landowners are being punished for this

The king himself asked for the law to be changed......In fact, wouldn't not changing it be Less Mandate....

IIRC, HM invited the law changed to allow criticism of his actions.

HM did not, I contend, wish to allow hate speech, libel, slander and so on. HM has no recourse in law against these offences, and LM protects him as such from this form of abuse by providng "blanket coverage". His wish to acknowledge his own imperfection stands in stark contrast to many other figures in Thailand.

[Emptyset]

This lady is in the UK where she will not be charged or arrested for her views, however if she returns to Thailand she will of course be charged and imprisoned. I really didn't understand the references to Joe Gordon and Harry Nicholadis as they were only arrested once they set foot in Thailand.

Reading comprehension and context. They are not just a theory, but a good idea.

A poster wrote, quote:

if a person said something about the monarchy while outside of Thailand in a country that allows free speech, I don't believe they can be charged with anything.

unquote

The poster is wrong. He is not wrong in theory, he is not wrong in his "belief". He is completely wrong. A person who says something about the monarchy outside of Thailand can be charged. No... sorry, not "can be" ... has been charged. Numerous times. Their physical place, their nationality... none of this has anything to do with charges. I picked two such people, reasonably well known, who were charged long before they entered this country. There are MANY other cases and Ms Rose will be another for certain.

Then, when said person(s) set foot in Thailand, they were arrested, and away they go.

In Nicolaides' case, for example (repeat "for example"), the charges were held in abeyance for many years, nine as I remember, just in case he returned to Thailand. Which he did. He even knew about the (old) charges but thought (if I may use the term loosely) they had been forgotten, forgiven or somesuch. He was charged for, in the words of the mistaken poster, "saying something about the monarchy while outside of Thailand in a country" where this is not an offence, YEARS before his detention, arrest and incarceration. Actually, really, charged, while outside Thailand.

The idea that Rose will not be charged is a fantasy. She will be. I'd be surprised if she hasn't already been charged but I don't care enough to find out since it is absolutely certain she will be.

.

Oh dear, more intelligent, coherent and informed posts. Be careful, the TV brotherhood do not take kindly to being presented with factual coherent posts!

Agree with Wanda Sloane, LM laws are extraterritorial: http://asiancorrespondent.com/18659/extraterritorial-application/ There was some debate previously about whether this applied to foreign citizens or not (around the time of the Joe Gordon case), there was a suggestion the extraterritorial application of the law excluded foreigners... but even if it does, in practice I doubt that will count for much. Still, contrary to Wanda Sloane suggests, it has yet to be put to the test. Gordon was still a Thai citizen, whilst Nicolaides above is wrong. He was convicted for a passage from a book he had published in Thailand (only seven people purchased it IIRC). It was apparently the usual expat book, tales about bar girls and the like, except for this one offending passage. I don't know who happened across it and filed the charge, but he wrote the book in 2005 and the arrest warrant was issued in early 2008. He was arrested in late 2008 whilst at the airport on his way out of the country, apparently he'd been able to fly in and out several times before that, completely unaware of the warrant.

Anyway, this is all moot, I think, as Wanda says: Rose would definitely be charged. Even if she is no longer actually a Thai citizen.

[Emptyset]

This lady is in the UK where she will not be charged or arrested for her views, however if she returns to Thailand she will of course be charged and imprisoned. I really didn't understand the references to Joe Gordon and Harry Nicholadis as they were only arrested once they set foot in Thailand.

Reading comprehension and context. They are not just a theory, but a good idea.

A poster wrote, quote:

if a person said something about the monarchy while outside of Thailand in a country that allows free speech, I don't believe they can be charged with anything.

unquote

The poster is wrong. He is not wrong in theory, he is not wrong in his "belief". He is completely wrong. A person who says something about the monarchy outside of Thailand can be charged. No... sorry, not "can be" ... has been charged. Numerous times. Their physical place, their nationality... none of this has anything to do with charges. I picked two such people, reasonably well known, who were charged long before they entered this country. There are MANY other cases and Ms Rose will be another for certain.

Then, when said person(s) set foot in Thailand, they were arrested, and away they go.

In Nicolaides' case, for example (repeat "for example"), the charges were held in abeyance for many years, nine as I remember, just in case he returned to Thailand. Which he did. He even knew about the (old) charges but thought (if I may use the term loosely) they had been forgotten, forgiven or somesuch. He was charged for, in the words of the mistaken poster, "saying something about the monarchy while outside of Thailand in a country" where this is not an offence, YEARS before his detention, arrest and incarceration. Actually, really, charged, while outside Thailand.

The idea that Rose will not be charged is a fantasy. She will be. I'd be surprised if she hasn't already been charged but I don't care enough to find out since it is absolutely certain she will be.

.

Oh dear, more intelligent, coherent and informed posts. Be careful, the TV brotherhood do not take kindly to being presented with factual coherent posts!

Agree with Wanda Sloane, LM laws are extraterritorial: http://asiancorrespondent.com/18659/extraterritorial-application/ There was some debate previously about whether this applied to foreign citizens or not (around the time of the Joe Gordon case), there was a suggestion the extraterritorial application of the law excluded foreigners... but even if it does, in practice I doubt that will count for much. Still, contrary to what Wanda Sloane suggests, it has yet to be put to the test. Gordon was still a Thai citizen and the info given about Nicolaides above is wrong. He was convicted for a passage from a book he had published in Thailand (only seven people purchased it IIRC). It was apparently the usual expat book, tales about bar girls and the like, except for this one offending passage. I don't know who happened across it and filed the charge, but he wrote the book in 2005 and the arrest warrant was issued in early 2008. He was arrested in late 2008 whilst at the airport on his way out of the country, apparently he'd been able to fly in and out several times before that, completely unaware of the warrant.

Anyway, this is all moot, I think, as Wanda says: Rose would definitely be charged. Even if she is no longer actually a Thai citizen.

Edited June 14, 2014 by Emptyset

[EBlair48]

^ So what ? No way would she be extradited for such frivolity. It isn't a crime on British soil and she didn't commit the "crime" on Thai soil.

She's in the real world- access to uncensored information -not Ta Ta land's fairy tales.

[Emptyset]

^ So what ? No way would she be extradited for such frivolity. It isn't a crime on British soil and she didn't commit the "crime" on Thai soil.

She's in the real world- access to uncensored information -not Ta Ta land's fairy tales.

I just meant if she returned to Thailand she'd definitely be prosecuted as that was what Wanda and co were discussing. But of course there's surely absolutely no way she'd do that and the stuff they're saying about extradition isn't serious anyway - as you say, there is zero chance of it happening and they must be aware of that - so I think that's just something they're putting out there to appease her antagonists.

[EBlair48]

i saw her interviewed on tv here, a forthright young lady who makes some valid points.

she said that her parents had to denounce her for their own safety and security - so dont read too much into the reports in the thai 'press'.

Shhhh you can go to jail for " liking " her you know. ( Well, if you ever go there. )

From a country famous for enslaved fishing labor, knock- offs and cheap whores..

[EBlair48]

^ So what ? No way would she be extradited for such frivolity. It isn't a crime on British soil and she didn't commit the "crime" on Thai soil.

She's in the real world- access to uncensored information -not Ta Ta land's fairy tales.

I just meant if she returned to Thailand she'd definitely be prosecuted as that was what Wanda and co were discussing. But of course there's surely absolutely no way she'd do that and the stuff they're saying about extradition isn't serious anyway - as you say, there is zero chance of it happening and they must be aware of that - so I think that's just something they're putting out there to appease her antagonists.

I disagree this is just appeasement, there's top notch ego maniac running the ward and lese majeste cases are piling up. It is going to get so ugly wonder how many are being tortured right now.

As a commentator made earlier on another thread, Living in pre war Nazi Germany was safe enough, if you weren't a Jew.

Get out now get out now get out now - same voice that had me ditching US real estate in 2006....all the signs are there to be read

[Thai at Heart]

Thailand can prosecute who they like under their own laws in thailand. Doesn't mean the rest of the world is going to send anyone to them in order to have them present for the trial or punishment.

I cannot believe that any developed country is going to deport anyone to face lese majeste charges. They couldn't even get countries to agree to send Thaksin back.

If that aint a measure of what the rest of the world thinks of the Thai justice system....

[englishoak]

The UK will not deport her, shes a british citizen and there are thousands who are in the same boat who if returned to their own country would be imprisoned and wanted for laws broken in their own country that the UK does not recognise or have. We never ever send them back and it is against the European laws on human rights that the UK co founded to do so.

As long as this girl never sets foot in Thailand or a country that recognises the les majeste law she will be fine. She is safe and sound in the UK, period.

[Thai at Heart]

The UK will not deport her, shes a british citizen and there are thousands who are in the same boat who if returned to their own country would be imprisoned and wanted for laws broken in their own country that the UK does not recognise or have. We never ever send them back and it is against the European laws on human rights that the UK co founded to do so.

As long as this girl never sets foot in Thailand or a country that recognises the les majeste law she will be fine. She is safe and sound in the UK, period.

I would actually believe she might be able to claim asylum on the grounds of a biased trial if she didn't have British citizenship.

[englishoak]

The UK will not deport her, shes a british citizen and there are thousands who are in the same boat who if returned to their own country would be imprisoned and wanted for laws broken in their own country that the UK does not recognise or have. We never ever send them back and it is against the European laws on human rights that the UK co founded to do so.

As long as this girl never sets foot in Thailand or a country that recognises the les majeste law she will be fine. She is safe and sound in the UK, period.

I would actually believe she might be able to claim asylum on the grounds of a biased trial if she didn't have British citizenship.

Probably yes, its very good ground for asylum, once in the UK there is a host of groups Like anmesty international and human rights groups as well to help, although its a moot point because she is a British citizen anyway

[DrDweeb]

^ So what ? No way would she be extradited for such frivolity. It isn't a crime on British soil and she didn't commit the "crime" on Thai soil.

She's in the real world- access to uncensored information -not Ta Ta land's fairy tales.

The question of whether the offence is illegal in the UK s only relevant for the question of extradition from the UK to Thailand.

It doesn't matter where she commits the crime, from a Thai law point of view. She could be in Antarctica and it would be the same legal breach.

Edited June 14, 2014 by DrDweeb

[cpofc]

"I love God and my country, I honour the flag, I will serve the Queen, and cheerfully obey my parents, teachers and the law".

I used to place my hand over my heart and recite this (above) every monday morning at School Assembly. At a time when my country was much better than it is today.

My opinion differs somewhat from many here. Whilst I don't like the idea of giving people up, the daughter should have greater respect for her parents. She would know full well the repocussions of her actions and the grief it would cause them. Very poor behaviour indeed. You don't do that to your Mum and Dad.

During the (recent) Gillard Government the Attourney General, Nicola Roxon, tried hard to ram through legislislation in parliement that would make it an offence to insult or offend anyone. Yes, anyone. Not just a Royal, or a PM or a President - But, ANYONE. Additionally, the onus would have been on the accused to prove his or her own innocence, not the other way around as per the normal accepted way things work, innocent to proven gulity. Only a Mass Public outcry saved Australia from this. it was a close call. Typically extreme Left Wing behaviour, who really don't believe in Freedom of Speech,. It is on the web, you can look it up.

Why too, does Singapore fly under the Radar? Did you know that if you commit an offence against any Singaporean Law whilst in any country in the world you can and will be arrested on your return to the Island State. A few years ago a group of Singaporean Students who had finished their degrees at Uni in Western Australia had a send off party the night before retuning home. The 'Stooges' planted by the Singapore Government on the Campuses in Australia reported a number of Singapore Nationals, Students, for smoking weed at the party, The reception committee were awaiting them at Changi Airport on arrival. Where they were immediately tested and arrested. Gatherings of five or more are still illegal. All the media is controlled by the one government.

Is the LOS really so bad?

The King of Siam - IS Brand Thailand. There is not another country in the world where its head of state is as much revered as the King of Thailand. If there is, please let me know, feel free to corrrect me.

The Law of LM is harsh and draconian to us Westerners. But have a look at the state of alot of our own countries. None are too flash. Are you aware of what is going on in my country, Australia, at the moment? Three royal commissions, ICAC Hearings, corrupt politicians, corrupt unions. The Australian Broadcasting Commissions consistant vile attacks and ridicule of PM Tony Abbot. Doping in Sport. And Australia is considered by many to be one of the most stable.

People have lost respect today. Respect for anything and everything. Our leaders are failing us, our institutions are failing us. In some ways I envy the Thais and their overwhelming love and support for their King.

It is not the King who made these laws. In fact back in 2006 he publicly stated he was not immune, nor above criticism and he generally pardons those who get locked up anyway.

I said it before here, one of the rules of life my father taught me.

Always get the rules straight, before you start playing the game.

If you don't like 'em - Don't play.

It is not rocket science.

[Thai at Heart]

You would equally be likely to surprised at the attribution of the wealthiest monarch was provably incorrect, and was comprehensively debunked shortly after its publication.

Bullsh*t.

The inclusion of the wealth of the "Crown Property Bureau" in the private fortune of the Thai monarch by Forbes is particularly contentious as not all royals were subject to this counting method IIRC. It is unclear exactly what Forbes' reasons were for including the "Crown Property Bureau" in his personal wealth, as doing so basically means that the King "owns" the country and catapaulted him to the top to the surprise of many.

Who "owns" Crown Land in the UK, how much is it worth, and was that value attributed to the Queen in Forbes' list?

Then ask the questions other monarchs in the list who are not "absolute monarchs".

You might be surprised that the Thai Kings elevation to the top of the list alone rests on this specific decision by the compilers of the list at Forbes.

Btw, Forbes themselves do not claim that their calculation is in any way definitive or even accurate.

I would go and read a bit more before you really start confusing yourself about the definition of crown land and the crown property bureau.

[balo]

She is a brave girl , unlike some people living inside the kingdom .

[LloydD]

"I love God and my country, I honour the flag, I will serve the Queen, and cheerfully obey my parents, teachers and the law".

So not only do you condone the forced preaching of a mythical being in an educational establishment, you advocate it as beneficial? It's brainwashing and should come with age restrictions to protect impressionable children from influential bible bashers in their lives.

[Cosmoguy]

Have you heard her speak ? I don't understand much of it but by the tone and from what I'm told it us extreme. Thad tell me she is in danger from other Thais even in the UK.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[DrDweeb]

You would equally be likely to surprised at the attribution of the wealthiest monarch was provably incorrect, and was comprehensively debunked shortly after its publication.

Bullsh*t.

The inclusion of the wealth of the "Crown Property Bureau" in the private fortune of the Thai monarch by Forbes is particularly contentious as not all royals were subject to this counting method IIRC. It is unclear exactly what Forbes' reasons were for including the "Crown Property Bureau" in his personal wealth, as doing so basically means that the King "owns" the country and catapaulted him to the top to the surprise of many.

Who "owns" Crown Land in the UK, how much is it worth, and was that value attributed to the Queen in Forbes' list?

Then ask the questions other monarchs in the list who are not "absolute monarchs".

You might be surprised that the Thai Kings elevation to the top of the list alone rests on this specific decision by the compilers of the list at Forbes.

Btw, Forbes themselves do not claim that their calculation is in any way definitive or even accurate.

I would go and read a bit more before you really start confusing yourself about the definition of crown land and the crown property bureau.

I know precisely what they mean, and I am not in any way confused.

What is your point?

[shadmo63]

"I love God and my country, I honour the flag, I will serve the Queen, and cheerfully obey my parents, teachers and the law".

I used to place my hand over my heart and recite this (above) every monday morning at School Assembly. At a time when my country was much better than it is today.

My opinion differs somewhat from many here. Whilst I don't like the idea of giving people up, the daughter should have greater respect for her parents. She would know full well the repocussions of her actions and the grief it would cause them. Very poor behaviour indeed. You don't do that to your Mum and Dad.

During the (recent) Gillard Government the Attourney General, Nicola Roxon, tried hard to ram through legislislation in parliement that would make it an offence to insult or offend anyone. Yes, anyone. Not just a Royal, or a PM or a President - But, ANYONE. Additionally, the onus would have been on the accused to prove his or her own innocence, not the other way around as per the normal accepted way things work, innocent to proven gulity. Only a Mass Public outcry saved Australia from this. it was a close call. Typically extreme Left Wing behaviour, who really don't believe in Freedom of Speech,. It is on the web, you can look it up.

Why too, does Singapore fly under the Radar? Did you know that if you commit an offence against any Singaporean Law whilst in any country in the world you can and will be arrested on your return to the Island State. A few years ago a group of Singaporean Students who had finished their degrees at Uni in Western Australia had a send off party the night before retuning home. The 'Stooges' planted by the Singapore Government on the Campuses in Australia reported a number of Singapore Nationals, Students, for smoking weed at the party, The reception committee were awaiting them at Changi Airport on arrival. Where they were immediately tested and arrested. Gatherings of five or more are still illegal. All the media is controlled by the one government.

Is the LOS really so bad?

The King of Siam - IS Brand Thailand. There is not another country in the world where its head of state is as much revered as the King of Thailand. If there is, please let me know, feel free to corrrect me.

The Law of LM is harsh and draconian to us Westerners. But have a look at the state of alot of our own countries. None are too flash. Are you aware of what is going on in my country, Australia, at the moment? Three royal commissions, ICAC Hearings, corrupt politicians, corrupt unions. The Australian Broadcasting Commissions consistant vile attacks and ridicule of PM Tony Abbot. Doping in Sport. And Australia is considered by many to be one of the most stable.

People have lost respect today. Respect for anything and everything. Our leaders are failing us, our institutions are failing us. In some ways I envy the Thais and their overwhelming love and support for their King.

It is not the King who made these laws. In fact back in 2006 he publicly stated he was not immune, nor above criticism and he generally pardons those who get locked up anyway.

I said it before here, one of the rules of life my father taught me.

Always get the rules straight, before you start playing the game.

If you don't like 'em - Don't play.

It is not rocket science.

You reek of right wing conservatism. Your beloved Tony Abbot government will be a one term government.