Graft buster rules Yingluck guilty

[Chris Lawrence]

NCPO is looking for the lamb? as the decision ensures the legitimacy of the NCPO.

At least the lads at the NACC can keep their jobs. Can you imagine if they had got the decision wrong?

It was a stupid program, but one that has origins in past elected governments. Remember the Texan brothers that tried with silver? they lost a lot of money.

'The former prime minister should have suspended the project when she knew about the corruption and the damages from the project implementation but instead she carried on with the project until the damages piled up. The loss from the rice pledging scheme was the most serious ever for this country, said the NACC.' http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/mr-vicha-just-coincidence-two-rulings-came-day/

Or, conducted a audit process? to protect the states assets.

[Just1Voice]

Well, the NACC just declared that they have no authority to stop her from traveling.

[monkeycountry]

Why or why must the Shin faithful insist that any comment or action against them must be politically motivated?

Really, you think she's innocent, that not bothering to turn up for one single meeting she was supposed to chair, that all the comments about there being no missing rice or corruption, all the false promises to pay farmers was all acceptable?

But of course, you've reviewed all the evidence, witness statements in coming to your learned opinion.

The NACC believe there is enough evidence to indict her. She should come back and robustly defend herself. She has the money to hire the best lawyers, although explaining how not bothering to turn up and doing anything is not negligence is a tad difficult - and certainly not political motivated.

I have faith in no one and I have no reason to believe she is innocent.

There have never been any credible reports that rice has not gone missing.

Her government was blocked from paying the farmers by the EC.

I am waiting to review the evidence that will be presented at trial just as you are.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that these charges and the trial are and will not be politically motivated. It would be a crime to say otherwise.

I think you will agree with me that nothing in the past 15+ years in Thailand has been more political than the rice scheme itself.

I agree that Yingluck does have access to enough funds to hire the best lawyers in the world to defend herself. Will that be enough money, considering who she is up against?

For someone so sure of himself it must be quite embarrassing to get even the most basic facts wrong :-)

The payments to rice farmers, according to both the then PTP government,the banks and the rice farmer associations stopped in September 2013.

The EC did not get involved until Yingluck stepped down in November 2013, 2 months after the payments stopped.

See what happened there? :-D

"See what happened there? :-D"

I don't know what happened. I do know that we were paid for our paddy in late April 2014 after waiting for a very long time in the in the queue.

There have never been any payments made by banks and or rice farmers associations. Payments were made solely through the BAAC and they did not stop in September 2013 although they were far from orderly payments, and farmers were put in a queue.

This can easily be verified by contacting them yourself.

http://www.baac.or.th/baac_en/content-contact.php

I am aware you don't know what happened, you made that clear in previous posts :-)

It has all been confirmed numerous times in the news by the heads of the agencies involved (on both sides). Google is your friend.

further you say there has never been any payments by banks, and in your next sentence you say that all payments came from the BAAC (Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives)

See what happened there then? :-)

Edited July 18, 2014 by monkeycountry

[monkeycountry]

The rice payments DID stop at the end of September because the first missed promise was end of October all would be paid, then End of November all would be paid, then mid December all would be paid, then end of 2013 all would be paid, then end of January all would be paid. All were broken promises.

Then they borrowed 20Bn at the end of March and a few were paid but most of the money went back to pay the borrowed money back... over 10 Bn never made it to the farmers because they were too inept to sell rice to cover it.

They were boasting future sales of 10 Bn a month, and it took 3 months to sell less and ended up having to use the principal to pay the loan.

"The rice payments DID stop at the end of September."

I actually agree with most of what you stated.

However, the rice payments to farmers by the BAAC did not stop in September 2013. My family was paid in April 2014.

A more accurate statement would be that the scheme was in serious financial trouble already by Sept. '13.

Propaganda: Lies repeated so often public opinion eventually comes to believe them.

I find it interesting to see the role many former CPT sympathizers have had in the red movement from the start. There was a lot of bad blood between the establishment rice millers in Thailand and the old CPTers as far back as the 70's. It's a good read to look up how the army dealt with the same issue then and what issues the CPT had with the very well connected millers.

This is Thai political intrigue at it's best.

So when the thai rice farmer associations (who are all red shirts) claimed the payments stopped in September 2013, it was actually propaganda against the PTP? I know there is alot of propaganda in red shirt land, especially as they are so gullible, but I admit I did not see that one coming :-)

[monkeycountry]

For someone so sure of himself it must be quite embarrassing to get even the most basic facts wrong :-)

The payments to rice farmers, according to both the then PTP government,the banks and the rice farmer associations stopped in September 2013.

The EC did not get involved until Yingluck stepped down in November 2013, 2 months after the payments stopped.

See what happened there? :-D

Not really relevant to the topic, but the EC didn't get involved with Ms. Yingluck stepping down in November 2013, but with PM Yingluck dissolving the House on the 9th of December, 2013.

I am sure you are right, don't recall the exact dates. My point is that the rice payments stopped long before the protests which lead to Yingluck stepping down and the EC blocking payments, so blaming the EC or anyone else makes no sense.

[NeilSA1]

Arresting the former prime minister is a giant red flag which would be noticed and likely responded to by the international community.

This development appears to me to be a giant face saving solution for everyone involved.

Agreed. Its also important not to make her a 'martyr'. Martyrs become very powerful.

“The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins.”

― Søren Kierkegaard, The Journals of Kierkegaard

[mikemac]

Ruled guilty of malfeasance and given a free pass out of the country, with son, no less.

Yup, 100% guaranteed she is not coming back.

Gotta say, the junta just went down (a lot) in my opinion of them, if they do not revoke her free pass immediately.

Let's hope they at least seize all of the Shinawatra assets still in Thailand.

Actually WhizBang the Junta are doing things the way a lot of people would do.

If you find you have vermin in your house the best thing to do is "persuade them to leave", and not come back. Better than exterminating them or locking them up in little vermin prisons and making them suffer.

The country will be much better off when all the Shin regime are removed and they are forbidden from being involved in anything political, including running parties from overseas via Skype.

Same goes with the ThaiRouge criminals, let them escape in the night, just don't allow them back, ever. They can do it with visa runners, surely they can do it with government sponsored terrorists.

[trogers]

It dosnt really matter if shes really guilty or not, making this public statement has already signed sealed and delivered the verdict at any trial.

Sure its a deal but, giving a way out and pass to travel as was done with her brother just shows that if guilty crime does indeed pay here still and clean up is not the same as a clean out..

No illusions there will be any fair trail by making this statement. None at all, talk about using propaganda

Only the guilty run or the persecuted, take your pick.

They will no doubt make a big noise later about fugitive and guilt but do remember who gave her the pass in the first place just as happened to big Brother.

If they were going to really change things there would be no exit door offered. Its a consolidation and change of power that is all it is.

Its a classic take it or leave it deal without any intention of bringing the guilty to justice. Real classic Thai power change deal.

The smart thing would be to run most would say run given the opportunity, but if truly innocent with enough principles and love for her country then return and fight no matter the outcome, if that happens ( and I hope it does ) then maybe the Country will be able to lay ghosts to rest and move on.

If she does run the ghost will always be there and the issue remains. Which is of course what the intention is, they need the boogy man/woman out there free not in prison.

PS I just won another beer for this step, another if she takes the way out.

As far as I know the NACC had to say this in order to have a trial, only after that can it be said if she is really guilty.

Seems to me the same as in other countries where a prosecutor decides if the case has to be taken to court or if there are no grounds. Maybe they should have ruled that they have a case in staid of calling her guilty.

But I do agree that she can now run but I really hope she does not and gets convicted. Remember she said no rice missing, rice was in good quality. Also she did not budget for the program as it was going to lead to a profit. By doing this a lot of budget was freed up to do other popular policies to get her in office. Question is was it on purpose (I think it was).

Then denying there was a problem and intimidating the lady of accounting that was the first to show us there were losses. I think its safe to say there are huge losses and the rice is not in all good state ... there is rice missing and grades of rice have been switched.

It was her job.. she was the chairman.. if they cant hold her responsible and charge her who else.

The gardener or maid?

[mikemac]

This determination of guilt without trial is definitely not politically motivated.

The trial comes after the decision by the NACC to indict her.

That is the next stage.

If she is innocent of negligence, she should return after her shopping trip to clear her name.

She has the money to hire the best lawyers.

And of course she would get a fair trial.

I would hope Yingluck gets a fair trial , at least fairer than she has been with the Thai people since taking office. Ask the rice farmers how fair she has been. Bet she has never been hungry in her life, let mind even thinking about ending it because of financial hardships.

[metisdead]

Posts using derogatory nicknames or intentional misspelling of people’s names have been removed. If you don’t want your post to be removed, spell people’s names correctly.

Another post containing a link to a personal blog spot has been removed.

[notmyself]

Ruled guilty of malfeasance and given a free pass out of the country, with son, no less.

Yup, 100% guaranteed she is not coming back.

Gotta say, the junta just went down (a lot) in my opinion of them, if they do not revoke her free pass immediately.

Let's hope they at least seize all of the Shinawatra assets still in Thailand.

No question she is a flight risk.

[SouthernMan3]

If she leaves the country, very much doubt she will return.

Yeap tripping the light fantastic in gay Paris or wearing a burka and living next door to her camel herder brother... me thinks

Maybe her next husband will be a camel......

[Artisi]

all the thaksins will be hounded out of the country on trumped up charges

Any port in a storm . It's the outcome that counts, in this case don't be over concerned with the method.

[Artisi]

Ruled guilty of malfeasance and given a free pass out of the country, with son, no less.

Yup, 100% guaranteed she is not coming back.

Gotta say, the junta just went down (a lot) in my opinion of them, if they do not revoke her free pass immediately.

Let's hope they at least seize all of the Shinawatra assets still in Thailand.

Actually WhizBang the Junta are doing things the way a lot of people would do.

If you find you have vermin in your house the best thing to do is "persuade them to leave", and not come back. Better than exterminating them or locking them up in little vermin prisons and making them suffer.

The country will be much better off when all the Shin regime are removed and they are forbidden from being involved in anything political, including running parties from overseas via Skype.

Same goes with the ThaiRouge criminals, let them escape in the night, just don't allow them back, ever. They can do it with visa runners, surely they can do it with government sponsored terrorists.

Persuade is ok, eradicate is a long term positive solution.

[englishoak]

It dosnt really matter if shes really guilty or not, making this public statement has already signed sealed and delivered the verdict at any trial.

Sure its a deal but, giving a way out and pass to travel as was done with her brother just shows that if guilty crime does indeed pay here still and clean up is not the same as a clean out..

No illusions there will be any fair trail by making this statement. None at all, talk about using propaganda

Only the guilty run or the persecuted, take your pick.

They will no doubt make a big noise later about fugitive and guilt but do remember who gave her the pass in the first place just as happened to big Brother.

If they were going to really change things there would be no exit door offered. Its a consolidation and change of power that is all it is.

Its a classic take it or leave it deal without any intention of bringing the guilty to justice. Real classic Thai power change deal.

The smart thing would be to run most would say run given the opportunity, but if truly innocent with enough principles and love for her country then return and fight no matter the outcome, if that happens ( and I hope it does ) then maybe the Country will be able to lay ghosts to rest and move on.

If she does run the ghost will always be there and the issue remains. Which is of course what the intention is, they need the boogy man/woman out there free not in prison.

PS I just won another beer for this step, another if she takes the way out.

As far as I know the NACC had to say this in order to have a trial, only after that can it be said if she is really guilty.

Seems to me the same as in other countries where a prosecutor decides if the case has to be taken to court or if there are no grounds. Maybe they should have ruled that they have a case in staid of calling her guilty.

But I do agree that she can now run but I really hope she does not and gets convicted. Remember she said no rice missing, rice was in good quality. Also she did not budget for the program as it was going to lead to a profit. By doing this a lot of budget was freed up to do other popular policies to get her in office. Question is was it on purpose (I think it was).

Then denying there was a problem and intimidating the lady of accounting that was the first to show us there were losses. I think its safe to say there are huge losses and the rice is not in all good state ... there is rice missing and grades of rice have been switched.

It was her job.. she was the chairman.. if they cant hold her responsible and charge her who else.

Absolutely all that needed to be done was decide if there was sufficient evidence for a case, there should have been 0 mention of guilt by the NACC, by doing so it tarnishes any right to a fair trial.

Do that anywhere most in the world and the case defence would move for a dismissal for being already considered tainted and possibly evidence too that was my point. I dont believe the NACC were at all ignorant of that statement.

Im not going to try to defend her because i dont really care one way or another, thats upto the defence, I will say however as happens with many governments a leader is guided by ministers and if... IF she was informed there was no problems by the minister in charge of the rice scheme then personally id say that minister is directly responsible more than the PM. especially if it was wilfully lying to his PM. There would be no point having ministers if they wernt left to run their ministry.

Agree the leader takes the ultimate responsibility and if in office it would certainly call for a resignation. Im not in a position to say if she was complicit and plausible deniability we all know is often used to protect those at the very top. Generally this is what a chain of command is for and what you have under bosses for (ministers ) but ministers as bosses in their own right, is there a minister on trial ? I dont know as im not really following the details.

If she profited directly or was knowingly complicit then thats directly guilty, if she wasnt then it brings into question why she is being held accountable for a ministers managing role below her and who would be far closer to the scheme and responsible for it. I would expect there to be a good number in the dock on this case not just the PM it surely wasnt her doing the day to day stuff but of course TIT...

If I was running a company as CEO and one of my branch managers was involved in a crime then it should and would be the manager in the dock for the crime itself. As the boss I may be there too but it would have to be proven I was aware of the crime being perpetrated at least. I would not expect to be held accountable for a senior staff members actions, that would be almost impossible for any CEO to be aware of if it was kept from them. Sure id expect to have to resign but theres a big difference between negligence or ignorance and the actions of a senior manager within my company if i was being fed the lines everything is fine ... thats their job to report rather than mine to micro manage them and if it were that easy no one would have any ministers at all which of course is an impossible workload.

its a bit like a mafia cartel. Someone has to directly point out the orders were coming from the boss or its the soldiers who go down its not enough for them to be a known associate it has to be proven the boss knew what was going on and or directing it.

My own opinion is she probably had little to do with it directly or making anything off it, makes no sense shes no need for the wealth. The question is was she complicit in being aware and that is what a court would have to prove. Do I think she was aware ? well in Thai fashion I suspect she refused to notice it being right under her nose and didnt ask any difficult questions or make much attempt to find out... as is want here in Thailand.

Anyways I hope she returns to face the music for closure of a sort, time will tell if thats going to happen, and if she runs ? well im not going to blame her I will be blaming those who opened the door for that to happen. Why ?

Because that will mean they are still protecting the status quo and elite.

Edited July 18, 2014 by englishoak

[Shaunduhpostman]

I really hope they do not deny her travel to Paris. I so hope she leaves and never comes back.

[notmyself]

I really hope they do not deny her travel to Paris. I so hope she leaves and never comes back.

She quite simply cannot be allowed to get away Scott free. Such is the obviousness of flight risk that she has instructed her lawyer to say that she will return. If she does not return then it cannot be said that those who allowed her to leave in the first place did not have reason to believe she would not return.

[rubl]

NCPO is looking for the lamb? as the decision ensures the legitimacy of the NCPO.

At least the lads at the NACC can keep their jobs. Can you imagine if they had got the decision wrong?

It was a stupid program, but one that has origins in past elected governments. Remember the Texan brothers that tried with silver? they lost a lot of money.

'The former prime minister should have suspended the project when she knew about the corruption and the damages from the project implementation but instead she carried on with the project until the damages piled up. The loss from the rice pledging scheme was the most serious ever for this country, said the NACC.' http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/mr-vicha-just-coincidence-two-rulings-came-day/

Or, conducted a audit process? to protect the states assets.

?, ? and one more ?

The coup suddenly becoming legitimate? Because the NACC made the correct decision?

Next you'll tell us that violence could erupt on the wrong decision. Where's former CAPO head Pol. Captain Chalerm when you need him

[rubl]

...

Anyways I hope she returns to face the music for closure of a sort, time will tell if thats going to happen, and if she runs ? well im not going to blame her I will be blaming those who opened the door for that to happen. Why ?

Because that will mean they are still protecting the status quo and elite.

Even for an English Oak a bit of a crummy sentence or two.

You hope she returns, but only time will tell if she does. ==> OK

If she run, you're not going to blame her, but you'll blame those who let her go. ==> OK

Letting her go will mean 'they' are still protecting the status quo. ==> Now you've lost me

It would seem you would really prefer for the NCPO to make a martyr out of Ms. Yingluck. Why would that be? Do you seek any opportunity to put the NCPO in a bad light ? Even if that means sacrificing Ms. Yingluck?

Shame on you, sir

[englishoak]

...

Anyways I hope she returns to face the music for closure of a sort, time will tell if thats going to happen, and if she runs ? well im not going to blame her I will be blaming those who opened the door for that to happen. Why ?

Because that will mean they are still protecting the status quo and elite.

Even for an English Oak a bit of a crummy sentence or two.

You hope she returns, but only time will tell if she does. ==> OK

If she run, you're not going to blame her, but you'll blame those who let her go. ==> OK

Letting her go will mean 'they' are still protecting the status quo. ==> Now you've lost me

It would seem you would really prefer for the NCPO to make a martyr out of Ms. Yingluck. Why would that be? Do you seek any opportunity to put the NCPO in a bad light ? Even if that means sacrificing Ms. Yingluck?

Shame on you, sir

I fail to see how you cannot work out what im saying unless you cant understand English without a dictionary, you apparently prefer to try and spin my post to mean what you think. ~Which btw it dosnt

Sorry rubi but I dont really care what happens to Yingluck and never have.

Im sure most understand what I meant but It does not surprise me your lost,

Can you actually speak English as well as you write it ? I dont mean that as an insult, im asking because the only time I encounter similar confusion is in e mails with people that can write English and read a dictionary perfectly but cant hold an English conversation or understand the subtle nuances of the English language.

[klauskunkel]

Im not going to try to defend her because i dont really care one way or another, thats upto the defence, I will say however as happens with many governments a leader is guided by ministers and if... IF she was informed there was no problems by the minister in charge of the rice scheme then personally id say that minister is directly responsible more than the PM. especially if it was wilfully lying to his PM. There would be no point having ministers if they wernt left to run their ministry.

Just like to inform you that there was no "Rice Minister". Yingluck was the chairwoman of the Rice Scheme Committee, there was no buffer, she is directly responsible for the scheme.

[rubl]

...

Anyways I hope she returns to face the music for closure of a sort, time will tell if thats going to happen, and if she runs ? well im not going to blame her I will be blaming those who opened the door for that to happen. Why ?

Because that will mean they are still protecting the status quo and elite.

Even for an English Oak a bit of a crummy sentence or two.

You hope she returns, but only time will tell if she does. ==> OK

If she run, you're not going to blame her, but you'll blame those who let her go. ==> OK

Letting her go will mean 'they' are still protecting the status quo. ==> Now you've lost me

It would seem you would really prefer for the NCPO to make a martyr out of Ms. Yingluck. Why would that be? Do you seek any opportunity to put the NCPO in a bad light ? Even if that means sacrificing Ms. Yingluck?

Shame on you, sir

I fail to see how you cannot work out what im saying unless you cant understand English without a dictionary, you apparently prefer to try and spin my post to mean what you think. ~Which btw it dosnt

Sorry rubi but I dont really care what happens to Yingluck and never have.

Im sure most understand what I meant but It does not surprise me your lost,

Can you actually speak English as well as you write it ? I dont mean that as an insult, im asking because the only time I encounter similar confusion is in e mails with people that can write English and read a dictionary perfectly but cant hold an English conversation or understand the subtle nuances of the English language.

You only confirm you don't care about what position you put Ms. Yingluck in, but don't say anything to elaborate on what you mean with 'status quo', how you conclude it's defended by letting Ms. Yingluck go on holiday and how that relates to 'elite'. Especially the link Ms. Yingluck <--> elite seems to contradict the statement of the NCPO defending them/her.

All this seems to mean you are deliberately vague and depend on people to tell you they 'understand' what you mean, without means to check that's actually the case since you don't tell what you mean.

BTW although English is only second language to me, or maybe even third, I'm sure I can do most without a dictionary or spell checker. Now I must admit to be totally confused by your suggestion that me maybe not being good at spoken English would suggest I might have a problem with what you write down. Somehow that 'sounds' very strange to me. Do you really want to imply that the nice subtle nuances you can write down much better than voice them in a conversation, might give me problems in detecting and understanding them, taking my time to read and read again and wonder and so on and so forth?

My dear chap, I don't want to sound (too) condescending, but I think you score better sticking to the topic on hand even if that already gives you problems. IMHO and so of course

PS read the scripts of 'Monty Python", 'Yes, Minister' or 'Blackadder' and tell yourself what you'd missed while 'only' watching the show.

[englishoak]

Im not going to try to defend her because i dont really care one way or another, thats upto the defence, I will say however as happens with many governments a leader is guided by ministers and if... IF she was informed there was no problems by the minister in charge of the rice scheme then personally id say that minister is directly responsible more than the PM. especially if it was wilfully lying to his PM. There would be no point having ministers if they wernt left to run their ministry.

Just like to inform you that there was no "Rice Minister". Yingluck was the chairwoman of the Rice Scheme Committee, there was no buffer, she is directly responsible for the scheme.

All well and good, then we would expect to see the entire Committee there with her no ?

There must have been people on it responsible for provincial areas or storage and quality control or accounting reporting no ? who would inform the chairperson of progress etc if not other committee members in specific roles with responsibilities ? Is anyone else being investigated for instance because ive no idea.

I really dont care what happens to her one way or the other, im interested in the set up and who directly benefited though. Someone has in their bank accounts no doubt and its owed back to the country, I doubt if its just as simple as Yingluck being a criminal mastermind.

[Alwyn]

And that could be the quickest the Junta have approved and then denied yinglucks request to travel overseas.

If it is still granted then maybe the Junta are sending a subtle message that they want her permanently out of the country.

Not so subtle!!! Definitely a "go away and don't come back" message. It would make things a lot easier for the junta (and everybody else involved too) if she just went

[englishoak]

...

Anyways I hope she returns to face the music for closure of a sort, time will tell if thats going to happen, and if she runs ? well im not going to blame her I will be blaming those who opened the door for that to happen. Why ?

Because that will mean they are still protecting the status quo and elite.

Even for an English Oak a bit of a crummy sentence or two.

You hope she returns, but only time will tell if she does. ==> OK

If she run, you're not going to blame her, but you'll blame those who let her go. ==> OK

Letting her go will mean 'they' are still protecting the status quo. ==> Now you've lost me

It would seem you would really prefer for the NCPO to make a martyr out of Ms. Yingluck. Why would that be? Do you seek any opportunity to put the NCPO in a bad light ? Even if that means sacrificing Ms. Yingluck?

Shame on you, sir

I fail to see how you cannot work out what im saying unless you cant understand English without a dictionary, you apparently prefer to try and spin my post to mean what you think. ~Which btw it dosnt

Sorry rubi but I dont really care what happens to Yingluck and never have.

Im sure most understand what I meant but It does not surprise me your lost,

Can you actually speak English as well as you write it ? I dont mean that as an insult, im asking because the only time I encounter similar confusion is in e mails with people that can write English and read a dictionary perfectly but cant hold an English conversation or understand the subtle nuances of the English language.

You only confirm you don't care about what position you put Ms. Yingluck in, but don't say anything to elaborate on what you mean with 'status quo', how you conclude it's defended by letting Ms. Yingluck go on holiday and how that relates to 'elite'. Especially the link Ms. Yingluck <--> elite seems to contradict the statement of the NCPO defending them/her.

All this seems to mean you are deliberately vague and depend on people to tell you they 'understand' what you mean, without means to check that's actually the case since you don't tell what you mean.

BTW although English is only second language to me, or maybe even third, I'm sure I can do most without a dictionary or spell checker. Now I must admit to be totally confused by your suggestion that me maybe not being good at spoken English would suggest I might have a problem with what you write down. Somehow that 'sounds' very strange to me. Do you really want to imply that the nice subtle nuances you can write down much better than voice them in a conversation, might give me problems in detecting and understanding them, taking my time to read and read again and wonder and so on and so forth?

My dear chap, I don't want to sound (too) condescending, but I think you score better sticking to the topic on hand even if that already gives you problems. IMHO and so of course

PS read the scripts of 'Monty Python", 'Yes, Minister' or 'Blackadder' and tell yourself what you'd missed while 'only' watching the show.

Rubi I know your fav chap fab4 isnt about and your probably bored but i really have no interest in explaining details or meanings of my posts with you, going back and forth for the sake of it or boring the heck out of other readers.

This is an English based forum and with all due respect its not for me to write things in a manner so you can understand.

I can be deliberately Vague or incredibly detailed and labouring if I choose but the way I post, what I post and how i post is entirely upto me and I do not have to cater to or make things so rubi can grasp it, that is your problem to solve not mine, and I dont mean that nastily either.

Please go find another to pick a pointless argument with im just not interested enough in either colour camp to care.

Thanks

PS Theres no point trying to insult an Englishman with Python or Yes minister or Black Adder scripts let alone some of the nuances I can assure you, we will just laugh in your face, the delivery and actors are far often more important than the scripts. Try faulty towers and imagine anyone but Cleese in the role of basil or Sachs as Manuel and youll hopefully know what I mean.

[rubl]

Even for an English Oak a bit of a crummy sentence or two.

You hope she returns, but only time will tell if she does. ==> OK

If she run, you're not going to blame her, but you'll blame those who let her go. ==> OK

Letting her go will mean 'they' are still protecting the status quo. ==> Now you've lost me

It would seem you would really prefer for the NCPO to make a martyr out of Ms. Yingluck. Why would that be? Do you seek any opportunity to put the NCPO in a bad light ? Even if that means sacrificing Ms. Yingluck?

Shame on you, sir

I fail to see how you cannot work out what im saying unless you cant understand English without a dictionary, you apparently prefer to try and spin my post to mean what you think. ~Which btw it dosnt

Sorry rubi but I dont really care what happens to Yingluck and never have.

Im sure most understand what I meant but It does not surprise me your lost,

Can you actually speak English as well as you write it ? I dont mean that as an insult, im asking because the only time I encounter similar confusion is in e mails with people that can write English and read a dictionary perfectly but cant hold an English conversation or understand the subtle nuances of the English language.

You only confirm you don't care about what position you put Ms. Yingluck in, but don't say anything to elaborate on what you mean with 'status quo', how you conclude it's defended by letting Ms. Yingluck go on holiday and how that relates to 'elite'. Especially the link Ms. Yingluck <--> elite seems to contradict the statement of the NCPO defending them/her.

All this seems to mean you are deliberately vague and depend on people to tell you they 'understand' what you mean, without means to check that's actually the case since you don't tell what you mean.

BTW although English is only second language to me, or maybe even third, I'm sure I can do most without a dictionary or spell checker. Now I must admit to be totally confused by your suggestion that me maybe not being good at spoken English would suggest I might have a problem with what you write down. Somehow that 'sounds' very strange to me. Do you really want to imply that the nice subtle nuances you can write down much better than voice them in a conversation, might give me problems in detecting and understanding them, taking my time to read and read again and wonder and so on and so forth?

My dear chap, I don't want to sound (too) condescending, but I think you score better sticking to the topic on hand even if that already gives you problems. IMHO and so of course

PS read the scripts of 'Monty Python", 'Yes, Minister' or 'Blackadder' and tell yourself what you'd missed while 'only' watching the show.

Rubi I know your fav chap fab4 isnt about and your probably bored but i really have no interest in explaining details or meanings of my posts with you, going back and forth for the sake of it or boring the heck out of other readers.

This is an English based forum and with all due respect its not for me to write things in a manner so you can understand.

I can be deliberately Vague or incredibly detailed and labouring if I choose but the way I post, what I post and how i post is entirely upto me and I do not have to cater to or make things so rubi can grasp it, that is your problem to solve not mine, and I dont mean that nastily either.

Please go find another to pick a pointless argument with im just not interested enough in either colour camp to care.

Thanks

PS Theres no point trying to insult an Englishman with Python or Yes minister or Black Adder scripts let alone some of the nuances I can assure you, we will just laugh in your face, the delivery and actors are far often more important than the scripts. Try faulty towers and imagine anyone but Cleese in the role of basil or Sachs as Manuel and youll hopefully know what I mean.

For your information my dear friend fabs is around

Anyway, you still confirm that you think your posts are so clear that anyone good in understanding the English language would have no problem at all to understand what you mean. At the same time you only tell me I'm wrong in asking what you mean and what I think you might mean.

BTW I wasn't trying to insult you. That's against forum rules, you know? I'm only wondering how a possible lack in fluency regarding spoken English can be used to stress a possible misunderstanding in what is written down here. Maybe your statements are somehow lacking common logic, that would indeed confuse me somewhat.

PS 'Yes, Minister" episode one "Open Government'

"By the end of today I've heard on the grapevine that Bill's got Europe. Poor old Europe. Bill can't speak French or German. He hardly even speaks English, as a matter of fact. Martin's got the Foreign Office, as expected, Jack's got Health and Fred's got Energy. As I told Annie of these appointments, and she asked me if anyone had got Brains. I suppose she means Education."

Edited July 18, 2014 by rubl