May 3, 201411 yr NACC have already stated that the witnesses they didn't allow had nothing further to add to the case. End of argument. Perhaps if PT/CAPO/UDD stop criticising, intimidating and threatening legal action against NACC etc if a decision doesn't go their way, and perhaps if (just for once in her life) Yingluck was available to meet them directly for once instead of campaigning for votes as always, they'd be a bit more lenient/sympathetic/helpful. The NACC have decided that they have enough evidence to indict Yinluck and have decided that the defense witnesses have nothing new to add without even hearing them speak. If any of these Johnny-come-lately new witnesses had anything different to say, wouldn't the caretaker-PM's lawyers have called them sooner ? Instead she didn't bother to attend when first called, her lawyers continuously tried to play-for-time, and now it's shown to be a failed-strategy. She'll have her day in court, unless she 'does a runner', as her brother famously did. So what's unfair here ? Nothing ! WRONG... Her brother (Thaksin) "did not "do a runner" as you incorrectly put it, he was out of the country before the coup, in other words stabed in the back and kicked while you are down by a gang of many, Isn't that what we read and see often in the LOS, pack mentality... Either you were not informed correctly or it is just BS, because he did a runner from Beijing after being given permission to attend the Olympics, he forgot his trial/verdict. you have been listening to your 10 pro government hardcore on TVF, I am near certain of this unless like you I am misinformed.
May 3, 201411 yr Popular Post These NACC people seem to be operating under the misapprehension that they themselves are not subject to scrutiny. That is troubling.
May 3, 201411 yr NACC have already stated that the witnesses they didn't allow had nothing further to add to the case. End of argument. Perhaps if PT/CAPO/UDD stop criticising, intimidating and threatening legal action against NACC etc if a decision doesn't go their way, and perhaps if (just for once in her life) Yingluck was available to meet them directly for once instead of campaigning for votes as always, they'd be a bit more lenient/sympathetic/helpful. The NACC have decided that they have enough evidence to indict Yinluck and have decided that the defense witnesses have nothing new to add without even hearing them speak. If any of these Johnny-come-lately new witnesses had anything different to say, wouldn't the caretaker-PM's lawyers have called them sooner ? Instead she didn't bother to attend when first called, her lawyers continuously tried to play-for-time, and now it's shown to be a failed-strategy. She'll have her day in court, unless she 'does a runner', as her brother famously did. So what's unfair here ? Nothing ! WRONG... Her brother (Thaksin) "did not "do a runner" as you incorrectly put it, he was out of the country before the coup, in other words stabed in the back and kicked while you are down by a gang of many, Isn't that what we read and see often in the LOS, pack mentality... Oh here we go, rewriting history and twisting facts to suit. He DID run away, he knew what was going to happen, got on his huge jet, packed it full of 100's of suitcases (full of whatever you want to imagine) and left before he could be arrested. Those are the facts. Go look it up. It's not hard to find the "facts" rather than your conjecture.
May 3, 201411 yr Popular Post These NACC people seem to be operating under the misapprehension that they themselves are not subject to scrutiny. That is troubling. I find it far more troubling that a Government such as PT can operate under the misapprehension that they are above ALL laws.
May 3, 201411 yr These NACC people seem to be operating under the misapprehension that they themselves are not subject to scrutiny. That is troubling. You defending a government when this body has all the fact it needs, If I was looking into this from an independent view I would be operating in the same manner. why are you trying to find crevices to poke ????
May 3, 201411 yr This government has pulled every stroke in the book to try to delay and slow this investigation and now they hit a wall they try to indict the investigative body itself. They only want the delay so they can lay their hands on a huge chunk of cash from the central budget to pay the farmers for votes. Well it won't work and if they can get YL's lawyers thrown out of practicing law by getting their licenses revoked, that will be a bonus.
May 3, 201411 yr Popular Post NACC have already stated that the witnesses they didn't allow had nothing further to add to the case. End of argument. Perhaps if PT/CAPO/UDD stop criticising, intimidating and threatening legal action against NACC etc if a decision doesn't go their way, and perhaps if (just for once in her life) Yingluck was available to meet them directly for once instead of campaigning for votes as always, they'd be a bit more lenient/sympathetic/helpful. The NACC have decided that they have enough evidence to indict Yinluck and have decided that the defense witnesses have nothing new to add without even hearing them speak. If any of these Johnny-come-lately new witnesses had anything different to say, wouldn't the caretaker-PM's lawyers have called them sooner ? Instead she didn't bother to attend when first called, her lawyers continuously tried to play-for-time, and now it's shown to be a failed-strategy. She'll have her day in court, unless she 'does a runner', as her brother famously did. So what's unfair here ? Nothing ! WRONG... Her brother (Thaksin) "did not "do a runner" as you incorrectly put it, he was out of the country before the coup, in other words stabed in the back and kicked while you are down by a gang of many, Isn't that what we read and see often in the LOS, pack mentality... As others have already pointed out, former-PM Thaksin went (with the court's approval) to watch the August-2008 opening-ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, then failed to return as-promised. I thought this was very widely known, but perhaps not, or maybe you weren't here ? And Thaksin's own PPP were in-power, when he was "stabed in the back and kicked while you are down", under PM-Samak & PM-Somchai (his brother-in-law). A simple apology/acknowledgement for your mistake will suffice. It's not personal, merely about getting the facts right.
May 3, 201411 yr Delay tactics in order to cling to power and then threathening an independent legal body. How odd. So much unlike the Sae Khu clan we know.
May 3, 201411 yr These NACC people seem to be operating under the misapprehension that they themselves are not subject to scrutiny. That is troubling. You defending a government when this body has all the fact it needs, If I was looking into this from an independent view I would be operating in the same manner. why are you trying to find crevices to poke ???? If they were smart, they would allow Yingluck to call the additional witnesses. They are not smart and open themselves up to the apprehension of bias. Dumb.
May 3, 201411 yr Popular Post The NACC has scheduled appearances for Yingluck. The first one she didn't show up. She and her lawyers were told in advance that in so doing they would forfeit documented evidence. She still didn't show up. Later, Yingluck's lawyers pretended to forget about the provision. ( Already we can see that Yingluck's lawyers had already severely compromised their client ). The NACC later decided to give them documents, and later still gave them more. By so doing it could be said that the NACC unfairly broke their own rules in order to show leniency. Do not expect Yingluck's lawyers to bring up that point, of course. More appearances for Yingluck were scheduled. More no shows, more extensions, one brief appearance where she handed in some documents. At the beginning of any investigation, the defense gives a list of witnesses they want to be called. The NACC looked at the list, deemed the ones that were relevant to the case and those were not. That's their job and their authority. Much of the list were character witnesses. The NACC scheduled the appearance of the witnesses. Then suddenly people became unavailable, and those were rescheduled. The witnesses that finally made the hearings were woefully ill-prepared. This indicates that Yingluck's lawyers again were negligent regarding their client's interests. Then something happened - Yingluck's lawyers suddenly came up with new witnesses. This is something you simply cannot do, as clearly one could infinitely hold up any proceeding with as many witnesses as could be found in the telephone directory. Another thing, one would have presumed that the witnesses that were initially heard were the best witnesses the lawyers could find. If they were not, they were negligent. And if they were, they were negligent for not preparing them adequately. As it happened, the witnesses were an absolute fizzle. Then the lawyers pulled another fast one. The investigation could not conclude - they said - until every last rice silo in the country had been individually examined by the committee - which would result in thousands of in person inspections. First of all, it had nothing to do with what Yingluck was charged with. And yet, this " lawyer " is still threatening the NACC because of it. This is outrageous behavior on the part of Yingluck's lawyers. And anyone who suggests otherwise has not the slightest conception as to how legal proceedings are conducted in their own country.
May 3, 201411 yr These NACC people seem to be operating under the misapprehension that they themselves are not subject to scrutiny. That is troubling. You defending a government when this body has all the fact it needs, If I was looking into this from an independent view I would be operating in the same manner. why are you trying to find crevices to poke ???? If they were smart, they would allow Yingluck to call the additional witnesses. They are not smart and open themselves up to the apprehension of bias. Dumb. You full well know what time and scope they were given, it was all delay tactics, BS. additional witnesses then more additional witnesses.??
May 3, 201411 yr These NACC people seem to be operating under the misapprehension that they themselves are not subject to scrutiny. That is troubling. You defending a government when this body has all the fact it needs, If I was looking into this from an independent view I would be operating in the same manner. why are you trying to find crevices to poke ???? If they were smart, they would allow Yingluck to call the additional witnesses. They are not smart and open themselves up to the apprehension of bias. Dumb. Actually, no. Most people understand the NACC is an investigative body rather than a court. The NACC's role is to determine if there is enough evidence to indict. One can think it similar to the Grand Jury process in the US; where, it should be noted, in most municipalities the accused is allowed no defense whatsoever.
May 3, 201411 yr Delay tactics in order to cling to power and then threathening an independent legal body. How odd. So much unlike the Sae Khu clan we know. You really need to dispense with the ""Sae Khu Clan" terminology and call them by their legal names, unless you still live in the 18th Century,
May 3, 201411 yr The NACC have the power to take down a government. Therefore the highest level of scrutiny and accountability should be put on this organization, by the public to ensure they are independent, just, consistent and fair with their actions. Fact is, the NACC are not independent, they are a judicial arm of certain interests, and a full public investigation needs to be opened ASAP, they are not above scrutiny. Hey Cadbury's, the government took itself down, they destroyed themselves, through utter greed and selfishness, no one else was involved in this -they had their chance to govern cleanly but through it out the window. 3 years to run a kingdom and failed. You still along with your sympathizers never answered my question---give me a list of achievements that the government have been proud of over the 3 years. PLEASE. haha. They can't answer my question when I ask what the principles of democracy are either. They do know 1. Elections. So they can't name one policy the govt are proud of or one principle of democracy (apart from elections) yet they defend democracy and the PTP by intimidating, belittling and being condescending to anyone that disagrees with them. Look no further than this OP to see where they get their intimidation inspiration from though.
May 3, 201411 yr NACC have already stated that the witnesses they didn't allow had nothing further to add to the case. End of argument. Perhaps if PT/CAPO/UDD stop criticising, intimidating and threatening legal action against NACC etc if a decision doesn't go their way, and perhaps if (just for once in her life) Yingluck was available to meet them directly for once instead of campaigning for votes as always, they'd be a bit more lenient/sympathetic/helpful. The NACC have decided that they have enough evidence to indict Yinluck and have decided that the defense witnesses have nothing new to add without even hearing them speak. Can you imagine, just imagine, that Yingluck's guilt is already proven beyond any doubt? The NACC has investigated for a long time already - so this might be easily possible Why then allow the defendant to play for more and more time and waste time of the NACC and taxpayer's money to listen to more witnesses who anyway cannot prove that she is not guilty
May 3, 201411 yr Popular Post NACC have already stated that the witnesses they didn't allow had nothing further to add to the case. End of argument. Perhaps if PT/CAPO/UDD stop criticising, intimidating and threatening legal action against NACC etc if a decision doesn't go their way, and perhaps if (just for once in her life) Yingluck was available to meet them directly for once instead of campaigning for votes as always, they'd be a bit more lenient/sympathetic/helpful. The NACC have decided that they have enough evidence to indict Yinluck and have decided that the defense witnesses have nothing new to add without even hearing them speak. If any of these Johnny-come-lately new witnesses had anything different to say, wouldn't the caretaker-PM's lawyers have called them sooner ? Instead she didn't bother to attend when first called, her lawyers continuously tried to play-for-time, and now it's shown to be a failed-strategy. She'll have her day in court, unless she 'does a runner', as her brother famously did. So what's unfair here ? Nothing ! WRONG... Her brother (Thaksin) "did not "do a runner" as you incorrectly put it, he was out of the country before the coup, in other words stabed in the back and kicked while you are down by a gang of many, Isn't that what we read and see often in the LOS, pack mentality... Quint little story, but you better tell Thaksin he didn't do a runner. He admits he did. The former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra skipped bail yesterday and fled to exile in Britain, claiming he could not expect a fair trial on corruption charges because of political interference. Thanks for straightening this whole misunderstanding.
May 4, 201411 yr Is the NACC plaintiff and judge? Isn't a requirement of a fair trial that the one accusing you is separated from the one judging you?
May 4, 201411 yr From wikipedia "The National Counter-Corruption Commission of Thailand (Thai: คณะกรรมการป้องกันและปราบปรามการทุจริตแห่งชาติ; RTGS:Khana Kammakan Kan Pong Kan Lae Prap Pram Kan Thutcharit Haeng Chat; Abrv:NCCC) is responsible for the ethical conduct, financially or otherwise of elected politicians and civil servants. The commission have both powers of investigation and prosecution." Nice being a prosecutor that can at will refuse to hear the defence witnesses!
May 6, 201411 yr The NACC have the power to take down a government. Therefore the highest level of scrutiny and accountability should be put on this organization, by the public to ensure they are independent, just, consistent and fair with their actions. Fact is, the NACC are not independent, they are a judicial arm of certain interests, and a full public investigation needs to be opened ASAP, they are not above scrutiny. Common street hookers have the power to take down governments NACC is not judicial in any way The evidence they uncover will be considered by a court of law and if the decision is againts Yingluck, she will have the right of appeal So - enough of your misguided hyperbolex
May 6, 201411 yr Is the NACC plaintiff and judge? Isn't a requirement of a fair trial that the one accusing you is separated from the one judging you? Wrong! They are not the judge.
May 6, 201411 yr The NACC have the power to take down a government. Therefore the highest level of scrutiny and accountability should be put on this organization, by the public to ensure they are independent, just, consistent and fair with their actions. Fact is, the NACC are not independent, they are a judicial arm of certain interests, and a full public investigation needs to be opened ASAP, they are not above scrutiny. Common street hookers have the power to take down governments NACC is not judicial in any way The evidence they uncover will be considered by a court of law and if the decision is againts Yingluck, she will have the right of appeal So - enough of your misguided hyperbolex Last thing I heard, your average "common street hooker" as you put it, doesn't have the power to recommend to the Senate that a PM be impeached. NACC is not judicial in any way? You might want to tell Vicha Mahakhun that before he gives out any more interviews to the press outlining corruption which his Committee hasn't proved. He also defined the NACC "system" was an inquisitorial system who's remit was to establish "facts" not an adversarial system where a lawyer is allowed to defend the accused. Unfortunately he seems to have got the two systems mixed up and ended up with an adversarial system where the facts aren't checked ("missing rice") and the accused has no access to a defence.
May 6, 201411 yr As they say, "Live by the sword, die by the sword". If you can't stand the heat - stay out of the kitchen, or boiler room or furnace room, or....
May 6, 201411 yr The actions by these lawyers/TS/Government is what I call landscaping, they are trying to set the scene if YS is found to be guilty, all through this process we have had threats from CAPO and various MP's - attacks and intimidation from the redshirts all trying to sway or pre-empt the ruling, now we have these so called lawyers making threats and claiming the process is unfair. They are setting the scene and trying to justify the aftermath to a guilty verdict by trashing the procedure at every juncture, first we will have the refusal of the government to accept the verdict - then we will have violence and riots and most likely deadly attacks on the NACC, Yingluc will still refuse to step down and we will have anarchy spread throughout Thailand I wonder how much rice comes into Thailand from Cambodia, last time I was there I noticed a lot of lorries
May 6, 201411 yr The NACC have the power to take down a government. Therefore the highest level of scrutiny and accountability should be put on this organization, by the public to ensure they are independent, just, consistent and fair with their actions. Fact is, the NACC are not independent, they are a judicial arm of certain interests, and a full public investigation needs to be opened ASAP, they are not above scrutiny. Common street hookers have the power to take down governments NACC is not judicial in any way The evidence they uncover will be considered by a court of law and if the decision is againts Yingluck, she will have the right of appeal So - enough of your misguided hyperbolex Last thing I heard, your average "common street hooker" as you put it, doesn't have the power to recommend to the Senate that a PM be impeached. NACC is not judicial in any way? You might want to tell Vicha Mahakhun that before he gives out any more interviews to the press outlining corruption which his Committee hasn't proved. He also defined the NACC "system" was an inquisitorial system who's remit was to establish "facts" not an adversarial system where a lawyer is allowed to defend the accused. Unfortunately he seems to have got the two systems mixed up and ended up with an adversarial system where the facts aren't checked ("missing rice") and the accused has no access to a defence. I didn't say that the ladies of the night have the power to recommend to impeach - but as Berlusconi discovered, they can bring an end to a corrupt politician's career. Outlining the basis of a case to the press is certainly within the remit of any investigative organization - from the DSI to the DA. It's called transparency. I'm sure that when the outcome is read out it will be made abundantly clear whether missing rice forms part of the evidence. If it doesn't then will YS or her legal representatives apologise?
Create an account or sign in to comment