Yingluck declines to commit when to return to Thailand

[Chicog]

Thai lady travels abroad by aeroplane.

There's a first.

[Soutpeel]

using political influence to buy a piece of land is not regarded as a criminal offence in the west,certainly not worthy of intervention by interpol

it bloody is by a standing member of a western goverment at best case its conflict of interest... stop talking rubbish

rubbish or not,it certainly wouldn't warrant Interpol getting involved.They should have tried him for complicity in murder due to the 3,000 odd so called drug dealers who were killed by the police with Thaksins encouragement,that would have stuck but they didn't,they used a Mikey mouse charge which wouldn't impress anybody.

Interpol will get involved if there is an extraditable offense involved, typically those crimes which mean 1 year or more in jail, without the option of a fine, The camel herder was sentenced to 2 years jail, so yes they would act if requested to do so by Thailand

so please go back to sleep..

[scorecard]

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

 

More to the point, how much baggage was she carrying on the plane??? No mention in the news?

The report stated 11 pieces.
Not much for a long stay but plenty of shopping in Paris and some major malls about half-way.

11 cases between four people I believe?

Not a lot?

Thai news said 11 cases for herself. Not a lot considering what her brother took and what was inside them.

11 suitcases / 15 suitcases,whatever. "Not a lot?" Sorry can't agree, just think how much you can pack into 11 suitcases.

Plus unlimited shopping on the doorstep.

[DrTuner]

Does France allow long-time out/in tourists ?

REVENGE TIME !!

[BillyBobThai]

How many baht can be put into an average suit case?? We need a poll.

[lvr181]

Really?? I am surprised!

[Ricardo]

Did she pay for her ticket?

Surely former-PM Yingluck accumulated sufficient airmiles, during her frequent travels, while her administration was in-power ?

[mikemac]

Thinking of the conditions of a Thai gaol, and those inmates that may disagree with my politics,,,

now considering the current political situation and the likelihood of a fair, non bias, and balanced trial by the fair non bias and balanced judges, (are you taking the p*ss)

would you come back? as or me, under these conditions, NOT A CINDERS CHANCE IN A SNOW STORM WOULD I COME BACK!!! and I suggest most people also would not,

For once we agree on something ! I would not want you to come back either.

[ramrod711]

Smart move by the lady, Why tell them so they will be waiting for her at the airport when she returns.

Smart move? Are you implying that the lady has a good reason to duck the press? I wonder why you would think that, after all her policies worked wonders for the Thai people. Oh, wait a minute, maybe they weren't that good.

[Bernard Flint]

Did she pay for her ticket?

Not sure, i will aske her, want me to ask Cameron too, see if he pays for his flights,mates with him also

[Just1Voice]

For those of you who are stuck in a rut about the land deal and Thaksin's conviction, here's a few legal points for you to consider. Not taking any sided in this, just pointing out the legalities.

1) Thaksin was found guilty of abuse of power by helping his wife buy the land. HOWEVER, the land was offered in an OPEN AUCTION, and his wife submitted the highest bid. Matter of public record. So, please tell me where the abuse of power comes in?

2) The courts later ruled the sale was "NULL & VOID". She had to return the land, she got her money back, with interest.

3) In civilized countries, which leaves Thailand open for debate, a ruling by the court of Null & Void means the event NEVER HAPPENED. What the Thai court ruled was that the event never happened. Therefore, under "null & void" rulings, ALL events leading up to the event NEVER HAPPENED. Which, legally, means that she never bought the land, and any "influence" or "abuse of power" he might have exerted, which never existed in the first place, NEVER HAPPENED. Therefore, his conviction for "abuse of power" should, legally, also be vacated, since he court ruled the event never happened.

Like I said, no way I'm taking sides, but merely pointing out the legalities of the whole deal.

Make of it what you will.

[AleG]

For those of you who are stuck in a rut about the land deal and Thaksin's conviction, here's a few legal points for you to consider. Not taking any sided in this, just pointing out the legalities.

1) Thaksin was found guilty of abuse of power by helping his wife buy the land. HOWEVER, the land was offered in an OPEN AUCTION, and his wife submitted the highest bid. Matter of public record. So, please tell me where the abuse of power comes in?

2) The courts later ruled the sale was "NULL & VOID". She had to return the land, she got her money back, with interest.

3) In civilized countries, which leaves Thailand open for debate, a ruling by the court of Null & Void means the event NEVER HAPPENED. What the Thai court ruled was that the event never happened. Therefore, under "null & void" rulings, ALL events leading up to the event NEVER HAPPENED. Which, legally, means that she never bought the land, and any "influence" or "abuse of power" he might have exerted, which never existed in the first place, NEVER HAPPENED. Therefore, his conviction for "abuse of power" should, legally, also be vacated, since he court ruled the event never happened.

Like I said, no way I'm taking sides, but merely pointing out the legalities of the whole deal.

Make of it what you will.

What I make of your post is that, if you are a lawyer, I feel pity for your clients.

[Eric Loh]

For those of you who are stuck in a rut about the land deal and Thaksin's conviction, here's a few legal points for you to consider. Not taking any sided in this, just pointing out the legalities.

1) Thaksin was found guilty of abuse of power by helping his wife buy the land. HOWEVER, the land was offered in an OPEN AUCTION, and his wife submitted the highest bid. Matter of public record. So, please tell me where the abuse of power comes in?

2) The courts later ruled the sale was "NULL & VOID". She had to return the land, she got her money back, with interest.

3) In civilized countries, which leaves Thailand open for debate, a ruling by the court of Null & Void means the event NEVER HAPPENED. What the Thai court ruled was that the event never happened. Therefore, under "null & void" rulings, ALL events leading up to the event NEVER HAPPENED. Which, legally, means that she never bought the land, and any "influence" or "abuse of power" he might have exerted, which never existed in the first place, NEVER HAPPENED. Therefore, his conviction for "abuse of power" should, legally, also be vacated, since he court ruled the event never happened.

Like I said, no way I'm taking sides, but merely pointing out the legalities of the whole deal.

Make of it what you will.

I have always wonder about this too. Of the several Taksin charges, this is the weakest that retro active laws were brought back and the jury was not unanimous. And the fact that he was allowed to go abroad. Perhaps this was all arranged.

[marcusd]

aussieuinthailand post # 25.

Thinking of the conditions of a Thai gaol, and those inmates that may disagree with my politics,,,

now considering the current political situation and the likelihood of a fair, non bias, and balanced trial by the fair non bias and balanced judges, (are you taking the p*ss)

would you come back? as or me, under these conditions, NOT A CINDERS CHANCE IN A SNOW STORM WOULD I COME BACK!!! and I suggest most people also would not,

Now considering the current political situation would you come back? as or me, under these conditions, NOT A CINDERS CHANCE IN A SNOW STORM WOULD I COME BACK!!! and I suggest most people also would not,

Does your reply come from you here in Thailand or outside of Thailand?

Your post implies that you seem to think that Thailand is such a dreadful place now .

Strange how some people come here for what they see, then want to change it to what they want.

Indeed your posting style is a credit to the late Chopper Read school of sophistication, culture and gentlemanly conduct for the aspiring Australian males who live abroad .

I think he is referring to political climate meaning FOR HER which is going to be very very hot if she comes back

[surangw]

shortly after her brother returns, right ?

[animatic]

For those of you who are stuck in a rut about the land deal and Thaksin's conviction, here's a few legal points for you to consider. Not taking any sided in this, just pointing out the legalities.

1) Thaksin was found guilty of abuse of power by helping his wife buy the land. HOWEVER, the land was offered in an OPEN AUCTION, and his wife submitted the highest bid. Matter of public record. So, please tell me where the abuse of power comes in?

2) The courts later ruled the sale was "NULL & VOID". She had to return the land, she got her money back, with interest.

3) In civilized countries, which leaves Thailand open for debate, a ruling by the court of Null & Void means the event NEVER HAPPENED. What the Thai court ruled was that the event never happened. Therefore, under "null & void" rulings, ALL events leading up to the event NEVER HAPPENED. Which, legally, means that she never bought the land, and any "influence" or "abuse of power" he might have exerted, which never existed in the first place, NEVER HAPPENED. Therefore, his conviction for "abuse of power" should, legally, also be vacated, since he court ruled the event never happened.

Like I said, no way I'm taking sides, but merely pointing out the legalities of the whole deal.

Make of it what you will.

1a) The type of sales mechanism; open auction, closed auction or direct sale, is totally irrelevant.

The status of the seller ( government agency) and the prospective buyer ( PM's immediate family) are.

1b) Under Thai law an sitting PM and his family can NOT profit from government contracts,

nor do business with Thai government agencies.

1c) Under Thai law a husband father, must co-sign permission for a wife or daughter to do a legal contract

for this type of deal. Thaksin signed the paper and sealed his fate, obviously imagining that he had

power enough to quash this small detail of co-signing permission for her to buy the rather LARGE parcel.

1d) The moment he signed he had broken the law.

2a) After the fact of HIS action, and BECAUSE of his action and her status,

as his wife, at the time of the sale it was deem null and void.

2b) But that does not invalidate HIS ACTION at the time he made it.

3) The closing of the sale never happened, but his action still did.

In civilised countries, doing an illegal action whether your successfully finished the end game profiting, or not,

is STILL ILLEGAL, the fact the deal was stopped BECAUSE his actions were illegal, and she had no right to

finish the deal, doesn't stop the previous illegality under a different law from remaining illegal.

She couldn't do her actions, because his action and status made her action illegal,

his signing to OK her action was HIS action, and can be seen as

'putting undue pressure on subordinates' to please him.

You are pointing out irrelevant legalities.

You point is in essence:

I tried to rob a bank and got caught before I succeeded,

so my defence is 'I'm not guilty because the bank wasn't robbed because I was stopped before I succeeded.'

Sorry Charlie that won't fly in any courtroom.

Edited July 24, 2014 by animatic

[Whyamiandwhatamidoinghere]

Just think how bored we would get if we didn't have this forum. Be bored as rooster at a cock fight. Well... At least some of us.

[rubl]

Something is definitely "fishy" tho . . . given that August 10th was the date she had agreed to return which allowed the Junta to give her permission to leave in the first place, then her being coy now is somewhat curious . . .

What happens if she comes back on Aug. 9? Right into jail? An additional 14 court martial charges? Forced to hard labour? What's the penalty for not coming back exactly on Aug 10?

.

Interesting questions indeed.

Mind you within the posts on this topic the period 'granted' seems to vary from July 20th till August 14th, without clear indication as to 'from date can leave' or 'this date have to be back in' Thailand.

Now assuming Ms. Yingluck has to be back on August 14th and is (as she said she would), she'll just go to her home. As far as I know there is no court case which she needs to acknowledge or has been requested to attend.

If Ms. Yingluck arrives too late, she might be apprehended on arrival, brought to court, deposit her statement why she was late, pay bail and go home.

If Ms. Yingluck arrives early, she just goes home.

BTW when does her son have to go back to school here again?

[rubl]

she took eleven suitcases!

To be accurate, she and four others (including her son) took eleven suitcases, it puts a slightly different slant on things.

A total of 11 suitcases were checked on the flight two hours earlier.

Accompanying her on the flight included her niece and her son’s two close friends.

Well, you know those young kids, especially boys. They get dirty the moment you turn your back for 30 seconds

[rubl]

Just think how bored we would get if we didn't have this forum. Be bored as rooster at a cock fight. Well... At least some of us.

That explains only half of your member name

[rubl]

For those of you who are stuck in a rut about the land deal and Thaksin's conviction, here's a few legal points for you to consider. Not taking any sided in this, just pointing out the legalities.

1) Thaksin was found guilty of abuse of power by helping his wife buy the land. HOWEVER, the land was offered in an OPEN AUCTION, and his wife submitted the highest bid. Matter of public record. So, please tell me where the abuse of power comes in?

2) The courts later ruled the sale was "NULL & VOID". She had to return the land, she got her money back, with interest.

3) In civilized countries, which leaves Thailand open for debate, a ruling by the court of Null & Void means the event NEVER HAPPENED. What the Thai court ruled was that the event never happened. Therefore, under "null & void" rulings, ALL events leading up to the event NEVER HAPPENED. Which, legally, means that she never bought the land, and any "influence" or "abuse of power" he might have exerted, which never existed in the first place, NEVER HAPPENED. Therefore, his conviction for "abuse of power" should, legally, also be vacated, since he court ruled the event never happened.

Like I said, no way I'm taking sides, but merely pointing out the legalities of the whole deal.

Make of it what you will.

I have always wonder about this too. Of the several Taksin charges, this is the weakest that retro active laws were brought back and the jury was not unanimous. And the fact that he was allowed to go abroad. Perhaps this was all arranged.

The 'null and void' explanation given here is just plain and utter BS as explained dozens if not more times. It doesn't mean something didn't happen. To base ones following arguments on a wrong interpretation of that 'null and void' simply means the following arguments are founded on incorrect data.

Ah well, it gives some people the chance to 'wonder' again, just as I do

[rametindallas]

"I want to take a vacation. Let's talk after I've come back," Yingluck replied in her very last interview, ever, with the Thai press.

[rametindallas]

For those of you who are stuck in a rut about the land deal and Thaksin's conviction, here's a few legal points for you to consider. Not taking any sided in this, just pointing out the legalities.

1) Thaksin was found guilty of abuse of power by helping his wife buy the land. HOWEVER, the land was offered in an OPEN AUCTION, and his wife submitted the highest bid. Matter of public record. So, please tell me where the abuse of power comes in?

2) The courts later ruled the sale was "NULL & VOID". She had to return the land, she got her money back, with interest.

3) In civilized countries, which leaves Thailand open for debate, a ruling by the court of Null & Void means the event NEVER HAPPENED. What the Thai court ruled was that the event never happened. Therefore, under "null & void" rulings, ALL events leading up to the event NEVER HAPPENED. Which, legally, means that she never bought the land, and any "influence" or "abuse of power" he might have exerted, which never existed in the first place, NEVER HAPPENED. Therefore, his conviction for "abuse of power" should, legally, also be vacated, since he court ruled the event never happened.

Like I said, no way I'm taking sides, but merely pointing out the legalities of the whole deal.

Make of it what you will.

I WAS going to reply to your post but animatic, post #136, explained it so well that there is nothing for me to add.

[Bluespunk]

For those of you who are stuck in a rut about the land deal and Thaksin's conviction, here's a few legal points for you to consider. Not taking any sided in this, just pointing out the legalities.

1) Thaksin was found guilty of abuse of power by helping his wife buy the land. HOWEVER, the land was offered in an OPEN AUCTION, and his wife submitted the highest bid. Matter of public record. So, please tell me where the abuse of power comes in?

2) The courts later ruled the sale was "NULL & VOID". She had to return the land, she got her money back, with interest.

3) In civilized countries, which leaves Thailand open for debate, a ruling by the court of Null & Void means the event NEVER HAPPENED. What the Thai court ruled was that the event never happened. Therefore, under "null & void" rulings, ALL events leading up to the event NEVER HAPPENED. Which, legally, means that she never bought the land, and any "influence" or "abuse of power" he might have exerted, which never existed in the first place, NEVER HAPPENED. Therefore, his conviction for "abuse of power" should, legally, also be vacated, since he court ruled the event never happened.

Like I said, no way I'm taking sides, but merely pointing out the legalities of the whole deal.

Make of it what you will.

I WAS going to reply to your post but animatic, post #136, explained it so well that there is nothing for me to add.

+1

[Publicus]

using political influence to buy a piece of land is not regarded as a criminal offence in the west,certainly not worthy of intervention by interpol

it bloody is by a standing member of a western goverment at best case its conflict of interest... stop talking rubbish

rubbish or not,it certainly wouldn't warrant Interpol getting involved.They should have tried him for complicity in murder due to the 3,000 odd so called drug dealers who were killed by the police with Thaksins encouragement,that would have stuck but they didn't,they used a Mikey mouse charge which wouldn't impress anybody.

Interpol will get involved if there is an extraditable offense involved, typically those crimes which mean 1 year or more in jail, without the option of a fine, The camel herder was sentenced to 2 years jail, so yes they would act if requested to do so by Thailand

so please go back to sleep..

It's been 6 years since Thaksin left Thailand to attend the Beijing Olympics and, with the unspoken agreement of the entire Thailand feudal establishment, to continue on from Beijing to a third country (the UK at the time) on an indefinite basis, on open-ended terms.

From that time in August 2008 to the present Interpol hasn't ever become involved in the Thaksin matter. There certainly isn't any evidence whatsoever or any indication in any way of the involvement of Interpol or of Interpol considering any possible involvement by it.

Interpol will never become involved in the Thaksin matter. Not for one Thaksin, not for a dozen Thaksins or Thaksin protégés. .

This six years of continuing blithering about Interpol conducting a global manhunt after Thaksin and to apprehend and seize Thaksin the criminal murdering gangster is interminable gibberish pursued by idle hands at idle keyboards.

Adieu Yingluck, and bienvenue!

[harveyBKK]

if you dont think the build up planning to the coup involved negotiations with thaksin and yingluck and red shirt protest leaders in addition to yellow shirt peeps you're nuts. this is probably part of what it took to get thaksin to backdown on the red shirt crap was her exchange. that and probably never coming back to thailand.

[katana]

Don't know if this was posted yet. Poo meets Maew at Charles de Gaulle airport:

[Baerboxer]

I seem to remember that interpol rejected all requests by Thailand to place a warrent on Thaksin so its doubtful they could bring him back if he doesn't want to come, I think the same would probably go for her if she decides to go awol

I seem to remember no requests were ever issued to interpol from Thailand for his arrest... so please stop posting misinformation

Your memory is certainly failing you, my friend. A red notice was indeed requested for Thaksin to Interpol and rejected. Reason stated was it did not meet Interpol's criteria, which could mean anything from paperwork not properly submitted to the request was obviously politically based.

Agree with that, BAERBOXER thinks that's crap though, better watch out or he'll give you an ear full, one of his cornflakes was bad this morning

You might want to check on forum rules - about typing in bold and capitals. Hate to see you removed through ignorance of the rules old boy.

Your comments were about extradition and countries attitudes to extradition which you don't demonstrate an understanding of. Thailand has not afaik requested his extradition from any other country. Interpol have not commented on a red notice request and anything Thaksin's cousin or police chief buddy says is likely to be a tad biased based on previous performance.

Like it says not meeting Interpol's criteria could be for a whole raft of reasons. Maybe someone at Police HQ failed to complete the paperwork correctly

Edited July 25, 2014 by Baerboxer

[Baerboxer]

Your memory is certainly failing you, my friend. A red notice was indeed requested for Thaksin to Interpol and rejected. Reason stated was it did not meet Interpol's criteria, which could mean anything from paperwork not properly submitted to the request was obviously politically based.

You may wish to check on this. No formal request was made. It was discussed though.

using political influence to buy a piece of land is not regarded as a criminal offence in the west,certainly not worthy of intervention by interpol

Didn't have any cornflakes this morning. But, you really should look up the actual role of Interpol. (It ain't like the role often invented in Hollywood).

Read Animatic's post #136 which explains nicely how Thaksin actually broke the law.

[soalbundy]

Your memory is certainly failing you, my friend. A red notice was indeed requested for Thaksin to Interpol and rejected. Reason stated was it did not meet Interpol's criteria, which could mean anything from paperwork not properly submitted to the request was obviously politically based.

You may wish to check on this. No formal request was made. It was discussed though.

using political influence to buy a piece of land is not regarded as a criminal offence in the west,certainly not worthy of intervention by interpol

Didn't have any cornflakes this morning. But, you really should look up the actual role of Interpol. (It ain't like the role often invented in Hollywood).

Read Animatic's post #136 which explains nicely how Thaksin actually broke the law.

read it already, seems pertinent for Thailand but is it of any consequence for, shall we say, the west? If he had committed lese majeste for instance that would be a crime worth pursuing for the Thai authorities but wouldn't impress any country in Europe