People who actually know would always be a threat. The safest thing for them to do would be to speak out.

To speak out is to risk being badly hurt or killed. That doesn't sound safe to me. Thais have killed Thais for a lot less than that, including killing family members of those who speak out to say things that VIP don't want spoken. In the first 5 years of this century, at least 18 environmental activists were murdered by Thai business heavies, because the environmentalists (young men and women) had the audacity to speak up. It gives an idea of how easy it is, in Thailand, for an important person to have someone killed. And not surprisingly, none of those murders were solved, even though everyone concerned knew who ordered them.

I really do have to ask Why is he taking the test if he wasn't on the island... Of course the test will have to come back not matching if he wasn't there. There can be no other result.... Is he now saying ,, well maybe I was on the island so let's have me do a DNA test. This is ridiculous. Its like a rigged back up if the first plan gets uncovered as a lie. For sure they know they have this test covered but not because he wasn't on the island. The logic behind now testing is very very confusing.

Not sure if I understand your post, but you may be complicating a relatively easy issue. The headman's son 'Nomsod' should be DNA tested as he should be #1 suspect (if Thai investigators were doing a professional job). His 'alibi' for not being on the island is so flimsy (even his own dad said he was there, but soon after, he retracted that claim when he was told it might incriminate his son).

Ironically, each day that passes, the DNA trail appears to be less reliable. So that is good news for the headman's family and cop friends, because even if the focus reverts to them (as it should), they can just grin and say, "hey suckers, the DNA trail has no credence. You can't bust us for the crime. ha ha ha."

A post in which the reply was made within the quoted post with messed up quotes has been removed.

jdinasia wrote:

JD stated that defamation online violates the CCA. Prosecution under the CCA would open you up to civil and criminal defamation cases. I expressed hope for you that you had not exposed yourself.

It's known how unscrupulous rich people in Thailand, such as Thaksin and Chaleum, have wholeheartedly latched on the farang invention of 'defamation of character' lawsuits. If the headman (who is also rich and politically powerful) chooses to do the same, he'd create a lot of work for his high priced lawyers. Indeed, it might become the first defamation lawsuit in history which seeks to sue a large group of people. In case you haven't noticed, JD, hundreds of posters have been opining that it was men connected to the headman who perpetrated this ghastly crime.

We also know that threats of 'defamation of character' lawsuits are commonly used by important people to try and stifle any meaningful debate of important topics. Thaksin slapped such lawsuits left and right, but got his toe badly stubbed when he tried suing a young woman newspaper reporter for writing a small non-flattering article about him.

Edited October 29, 201411 yr by boomerangutang

People who actually know would always be a threat. The safest thing for them to do would be to speak out.

To speak out is to risk being badly hurt or killed. That doesn't sound safe to me. Thais have killed Thais for a lot less than that, including killing family members of those who speak out to say things that VIP don't want spoken. In the first 5 years of this century, at least 18 environmental activists were murdered by Thai business heavies, because the environmentalists (young men and women) had the audacity to speak up. It gives an idea of how easy it is, in Thailand, for an important person to have someone killed. And not surprisingly, none of those murders were solved, even though everyone concerned knew who ordered them.

I really do have to ask Why is he taking the test if he wasn't on the island... Of course the test will have to come back not matching if he wasn't there. There can be no other result.... Is he now saying ,, well maybe I was on the island so let's have me do a DNA test. This is ridiculous. Its like a rigged back up if the first plan gets uncovered as a lie. For sure they know they have this test covered but not because he wasn't on the island. The logic behind now testing is very very confusing.

Not sure if I understand your post, but you may be complicating a relatively easy issue. The headman's son 'Nomsod' should be DNA tested as he should be #1 suspect (if Thai investigators were doing a professional job). His 'alibi' for not being on the island is so flimsy (even his own dad said he was there, but soon after, he retracted that claim when he was told it might incriminate his son).

Ironically, each day that passes, the DNA trail appears to be less reliable. So that is good news for the headman's family and cop friends, because even if the focus reverts to them (as it should), they can just grin and say, "hey suckers, the DNA trail has no credence. You can't bust us for the crime. ha ha ha."

To not speak out means that you are always a threat.

Of course, the most likely reason that the conspiracy of everybody knows... And why they don't speak out is..

Nobody knows. They weren't standing around watching. Gossip and rumor simply is not knowing.

Boomer I concur wholeheartedly with what you have posted. DNA testing this late holds less credibility. I would say DNA as this point now is nigh on a shambles.. He should have been DNA tested immediately. He wasn't and the excuse not to according to his lawyer was he was in BANGKOK. Flimsy CCTV still to prove this.. I and many others don't believe that still photo. OK is he voluntarily agreeing to be tested now..Why???? Are they now saying he was on the island. If they stick to their first alibi he wasn't on the island why test. That's my point, if he was in BKK the test will have to not match.. I think many believe the test would match if DNA was taken professionally at the crime scene.. Now weeks and weeks later with reports tests were sent here there and everywhere the DNA reliability is questionable at best. I think he should be tested if only to say that now would indicate his alibi of being on the island is hogwash...

Edited October 29, 201411 yr by Johnsen

Interesting that spacebook appears to be monitoring the famous CSI spacebook page for shares.

Started today apparently, have to enter a code to share or post.

Is someone getting nervous?

This spacebook page has done a really good job so far but recently there have been a few posts

and comments that slipped it into the conspiracy theorist camp with no credible evidence.

The latest being a phone record that was dated 2000 not 2014, supposedly from AIS but no letterhead marking.

Presented as fact but, really suspect IMHO.

So far as the DNA test is concerned, too little too late I am afraid.

However, we then have to say IF the victims had an autopsy in the UK ( pretty likely) and the pathologist DID get some DNA then maybe, just maybe there can be credibility.

The only evidence that will be accepted by the conspiracy theorists and armchair detectives would be the full release of all relevant cctv,

uni, condo, KT, etc. and that will not happen, I suspect.

So, hopefully, as the case has already been presented to the prosecutors 3 times, if the B2 are innocent they will be released soon.

That would mean, sadly, that this case would be on the back burner as far as Thailand is concerned and they hope will be forgotten like many others.

The difference is that this case has, quite rightly, captured the attention of

hundreds of thousands of people all over the World and I doubt that it will be either forgotten or will go away until

the perps are brought to justice and justice is seen to be done.

The poo-yai complaining his family reputation has been damaged is entirely his own fault, making arrogant monetary gestures as he

did endeared him to no-one. Actions have consequences, even for the rich.

The biggest hope we have of the truth being uncovered is the British police contingent but, even that is political, only the information the British Government WANTS releasing ( supposing they have any of relevance) will be releassed and even then there is a danger it will be in diplobabble so as not to upset trade.

On saying that, I have confidence ion the British police and will accept their findings, if they get published.

This case will have a deep impact for many people regardless of its outcome

If Mr Nomsod was not on the Island of Koh Tao, why is he offering DNA?

If Mr Nomsod was on the Island, who was responsable for the CCTV images showing him at his residence in Bangkok?

Why is Mr Nomsod having the DNA sample taken in public and I believe on live TV?

I hope the DNA test is genuine and accreditable, for if it is and the test is negative Mr Nomsod is not in any way involved in this murder and is a free and honest man.

DNA records don't prove murder, maybe only rape and or consensual sex....

Phone records prove location at a given time.. They might prove somebody was not telling the truth about where they were. That still doesn't prove anything except to raise questions as to why somebody would go to such lengths to hide their real location. An innocent person we can safely assume would not do this...

The BIB surely can't retract that she was raped, not now. That's the whole reason for the Burmese being held is it not...

What are the public supposed to make of somebody hiding or changing there whereabouts on the night of the murder.... Those phone records are crucial to completely freeing Nomsod. I think he should produce them and shut us all up. I hope the postman doesn't lose his monthly statement..

If Mr Nomsod was not on the Island of Koh Tao, why is he offering DNA?

If Mr Nomsod was on the Island, who was responsable for the CCTV images showing him at his residence in Bangkok?

Why is Mr Nomsod having the DNA sample taken in public and I believe on live TV?

I hope the DNA test is genuine and accreditable, for if it is and the test is negative Mr Nomsod is not in any way involved in this murder and is a free and honest man.

Depends WHICH DNA has been compromised, maybe the DNA from the victim has gotten 'mixed up'. DNA clearance after all this time when anything could have happened to the samples is not going to satisfy many of his innocence.

As said, the best hope we have is a sample (if any) that was collected by the Brits from the victims for comparison.

All parties on this case have been very quiet of late and a headline today infers that the head man is looking to sue the spacebook page.

He would win too, given the laws in Thailand.

I hope the DNA test is genuine and accreditable, for if it is and the test is negative Mr Nomsod is not in any way involved in this murder and is a free and honest man.

I would venture if the match is negative (comparing samples taken by non-Thai professionals), then it's unlikely he was a murderer, but not impossible. A person can kill someone without having had sex with her/him. Let's see where other evidence points, and hopefully it's credible evidence, and not tampered-with evidence as it appears Thai police are adept at contriving.

Edited October 29, 201411 yr by boomerangutang

Note -

For people stating DNA doesn't prove murder. The correct statement is DNA by itself (alone) doesn't.

Means

Motive

Opportunity

Those alone are enough to get a conviction. Exculpatory evidence is often required to prevent conviction on a case built solely circumstantial evidence.

Note -

For people stating DNA doesn't prove murder. The correct statement is DNA by itself (alone) doesn't.

Means

Motive

Opportunity

Those alone are enough to get a conviction. Exculpatory evidence is often required to prevent conviction on a case built solely circumstantial evidence.

This is not accurate, and if somebody following the case believes this then they will be mislead.

In fact, "means, motive and opportunity" are not in and of themselves sufficient to establish guilt and should not be enough to get a conviction in a fair trial.

The prosecutor must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused acted on the opportunity with the required level of intent.

More detail for anybody interested:

So what does the prosecutor need to prove?

The prosecutor has the burden of proof to show that each element of a particular crime are present beyond a reasonable doubt.

Every crime has it's own specific elements (for example, rape requires non-consensual sexual penetration), but all crimes have these general elements in common that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The commission of the acts that constitute the crime (actus reus)

2. The required criminal intent, i.e. state of mind (mens rea)

3. The required intent and the act happened at the same time

4. The act caused the harm that is prohibited by society (extreme example---if you shoot somebody after they are dead it isn't murder)

If any of these elements is missing, then there is no crime.

Means, motive and opportunity are ways to help prove or disprove these elements, they are not the elements themselves.

If the prosecution can prove means, motive and opportunity, then that will greatly help establish his case, but not prove it.

If the defense can disprove means or opportunity, then that will probably be fatal to the prosecution's case (motive is never an essential element of a crime---but if it's present it helps the prosecution, if it's not present it helps the defense).

But means, motive and opportunity without proof that the defendant acted on the opportunity will not meet the burden of proof in a fair trial.

BTW with respect to DNA in this case ... if it was found in semen inside the body, then that would prove that the act of sexual penetration occurred, but not prove that it was non-consensual. However, the prosecution would argue that the fact that Hannah was also murdered leads to a reasonable inference that it was non-consensual sex ... the defense would then argue there is no proof the sex and the murder happened at the same time... etc. etc. etc. with the judge having to decide whether the prosecution has sufficiently proven his case of non-consensual sex beyond a reasonable doubt.

PS I'm not sure what is meant by "Exculpatory evidence is often required to prevent conviction on a case built solely circumstantial evidence." If you're saying that a defendant has to prove that he did not have the means, motive, or opportunity, that would only be true if the prosecutor had already proven all of the elements before any defense was offered, and even then there would be many other ways to cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case.

Edited October 29, 201411 yr by Bleacher Bum East

I hope the DNA test is genuine and accreditable, for if it is and the test is negative Mr Nomsod is not in any way involved in this murder and is a free and honest man.

I would venture if the match is negative (comparing samples taken by non-Thai professionals), then it's unlikely he was a murderer, but not impossible. A person can kill someone without having had sex with her/him. Let's see where other evidence points, and hopefully it's credible evidence, and not tampered-with evidence as it appears Thai police are adept at contriving.

People are really off on this whole wild goose chase,

No one is saying he HAS to be the "Kho Tao Rapist"

No one is saying he is the "Kho Tao Muderer"

But the Thai Police said he was one of the "prime suspects in the Kho Tao killings"

and the Thai police ASKED for the PUBLIC's assistance in identifying the asian man on the CCTV footage,

after the Thai police themselves accused the man who fled to Bangkok,

how on earth can anyone then accuse any poster on the internet of defamation?

It's funny I stopped getting notifications in my email from Thaivisa and haven't sen any new post on the is topic. Has Thaivisa gotten the smack down from the BIB or something?

Note -

For people stating DNA doesn't prove murder. The correct statement is DNA by itself (alone) doesn't.

Means

Motive

Opportunity

Those alone are enough to get a conviction. Exculpatory evidence is often required to prevent conviction on a case built solely circumstantial evidence.

This is not accurate, and if somebody following the case believes this then they will be mislead.

In fact, "means, motive and opportunity" are not in and of themselves sufficient to establish guilt and should not be enough to get a conviction in a fair trial.

The prosecutor must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused acted on the opportunity with the required level of intent.

More detail for anybody interested:

So what does the prosecutor need to prove?

The prosecutor has the burden of proof to show that each element of a particular crime are present beyond a reasonable doubt.

Every crime has it's own specific elements (for example, rape requires non-consensual sexual penetration), but all crimes have these general elements in common that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The commission of the acts that constitute the crime (actus reus)

2. The required criminal intent, i.e. state of mind (mens rea)

3. The required intent and the act happened at the same time

4. The act caused the harm that is prohibited by society (extreme example---if you shoot somebody after they are dead it isn't murder)

If any of these elements is missing, then there is no crime.

Means, motive and opportunity are ways to help prove or disprove these elements, they are not the elements themselves.

If the prosecution can prove means, motive and opportunity, then that will greatly help establish his case, but not prove it.

If the defense can disprove means or opportunity, then that will probably be fatal to the prosecution's case (motive is never an essential element of a crime---but if it's present it helps the prosecution, if it's not present it helps the defense).

But means, motive and opportunity without proof that the defendant acted on the opportunity will not meet the burden of proof in a fair trial.

BTW with respect to DNA in this case ... if it was found in semen inside the body, then that would prove that the act of sexual penetration occurred, but not prove that it was non-consensual. However, the prosecution would argue that the fact that Hannah was also murdered leads to a reasonable inference that it was non-consensual sex ... the defense would then argue there is no proof the sex and the murder happened at the same time... etc. etc. etc. with the judge having to decide whether the prosecution has sufficiently proven his case of non-consensual sex beyond a reasonable doubt.

PS I'm not sure what is meant by "Exculpatory evidence is often required to prevent conviction on a case built solely circumstantial evidence." If you're saying that a defendant has to prove that he did not have the means, motive, or opportunity, that would only be true if the prosecutor had already proven all of the elements before any defense was offered, and even then there would be many other ways to cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case.

An interesting read except for the fact that this is the Thai Justice system where the thinking is, erm, shall we say somewhat different to the systems they borrowed and then adapted their laws from to suit the particular Thai mindset. The translated words may be similar but the interpretation and understanding of legal principles as we from the West know them are quite different. Not only that but the interpretation of the laws, which are written in language which is often wide open to interpretation, is simply down to the judge on the day. Precedent barely exists at all, discovery is non existent, lawyers - when you can find an honest one - are never sure of the interpretation of the law either and it changes like the wind, racism and status is often an element in conviction and sentencing. Basically a long way different from the Justice systems from countries with a longer history of law and the same rules just don't apply.

I just really really want to know what happened to the brit police.

One minute they were on the island and then nothing.

Did I miss something??

did they go back to England?

are they still on the island?

Are they in bkk?

did the police put them in the prison with no evidence?

I can't speak for the British experts on the island, but can assume they're quiet for one or more of the following reasons:

>>> they're waiting until they have their eggs in a row - sufficient evidence to make some sort of useful statement.

>>> they're stymied by their 'observer status'

>>> They're leaning to an announcement which doesn't sinc with Thai authorities, and they'd rather be in the UK to announce it, so as not to suffer the anger of Thai officialdom.

>>> They're conversing with high-ups in UK gov't to gauge to what extent they can express the truth. Diplomacy rarely involves plain-speaking and truth. Instead, it's almost always using flowery language, so as not to offend. Thais are very thin-skinned and easily offended. For a Thai, image counts for more than substance. Saving face is more important than truth.

I wouldn't expect any statement from the British police on this matter. However if they also say nothing or very little at the inquest I think this will speak volumes in itself.

Diplomatic BS will rule this issue and those diplomats will trade the souls of their citizens for some little 'gain' which we will probably never find out about.

I wouldn't expect any statement from the British police on this matter. However if they also say nothing or very little at the inquest I think this will speak volumes in itself.

Diplomatic BS will rule this issue and those diplomats will trade the souls of their citizens for some little 'gain' which we will probably never find out about.

Usually, I would agree with your post 10000000% ( yea, that much), however, I think this case may be

too much of a hot potato for the usual diplocrap.

Not sure, but I hope so, Cameron has a lot riding on this if it is kept in the public eye.

I wouldn't expect any statement from the British police on this matter. However if they also say nothing or very little at the inquest I think this will speak volumes in itself.

Diplomatic BS will rule this issue and those diplomats will trade the souls of their citizens for some little 'gain' which we will probably never find out about.

Usually, I would agree with your post 10000000% ( yea, that much), however, I think this case may be

too much of a hot potato for the usual diplocrap.

Not sure, but I hope so, Cameron has a lot riding on this if it is kept in the public eye.

Personally I don't think this will have any impact on how people vote for Boy David,I have never seen the murder of a British national impact an election.When the time comes for the great British Public to vote Hannah and David will never be given a second thought.Reality prevails,

Not conspiracy theory, just a few questions that really need answering.

1. My son left for Bangkok this morning, early, I don’t know what time.

2. I haven’t seen my son for 2 weeks / a month ( time depending on what national media you read.

Which one is true?

3. Initial DNA comparison gave the uncle a 70% match, why was he/the family eliminated so quickly and decisively.

4. Less than 24 hours after declaring all on the island would have to give DNA samples, the police chief was replaced. Why?

5. Why were there so many suspects, of different nationalities, (except Thai), immediately after the new policeman in charge declared a Thai could not have done this crime?

6. Why has the police not seconded all relevant CCTV footage to eliminate the boy of interest, and if they have, why such reluctance to share after they have released so much and made so many inconsistent statements. It is in the interests of this family and the Thai people to show beyond reasonable doubt that they were not involved. The police owe at least that much to innocent people who stand accused of such a brutal crime.

7. Is there evidence of the furniture at the condo being moved or is this a red herring?

Don’t want to write a book so I want to ask a few things about the boys DNA test.

Before I do that I would like to say that having studied the boys demeanour, walk, body language et al, I do not believe he is a murderer. I believe he is a very insecure individual who hangs around with thugs (beholden to his father, one way or another) and pretends to be jack the lad. Many reasons for this conclusion but, I wont bore you with them.

I do think it is possible though that he was a willing accomplice to a rape that went wrong and may well be an accessory or at the very least a material witness. There again, maybe he was not on the island, no proof one way or the other.

The private DNA test.

This is a strange one. Here we have a private individual who, to clear his sons name, arranges a media show to witness DNA and blood samples being taken.

Nothing wrong with that. But then it gets strange, firstly the DNA samples are sent to 4 different laboratories for comparison and not 1 of those labs are licenced or qualified to do a criminal DNA comparison. Makes no sense if tyou are looking to eliminate a suspect.

Then, even though this is a private individual who is paying for the comparisons himself, ( so obviously, he is the only one entitled to view the results), but the police declare before the results that they will not form part of the investigation.

Whats the point then? Springs to mind.

As it was a PRIVATE transaction between the headman and the labs, why did a policeman show up?

For what? It was not part of the investigation.

Final point, my apologies for the length of post.

If the private DNA samples/blood were compared, what did they compare them with?

Did the police release evidence to a private individual from an on-going murder investigation?

If so, is that legal?

Is it standard operating procedure or was a special case made for this individual, and if so , why was he considered so special?

I have more questions but.. for now.. enough! Thanks if you got this far, been on my mind.

The brit police could have at least said good bye.

Talk about rude. Everyone was so excited. The brits are coming yahoo.

We all had such high expectations.

They came and went like a silent fart.

Note -

For people stating DNA doesn't prove murder. The correct statement is DNA by itself (alone) doesn't.

Means

Motive

Opportunity

Those alone are enough to get a conviction. Exculpatory evidence is often required to prevent conviction on a case built solely circumstantial evidence.

This is not accurate, and if somebody following the case believes this then they will be mislead.

In fact, "means, motive and opportunity" are not in and of themselves sufficient to establish guilt and should not be enough to get a conviction in a fair trial.

The prosecutor must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused acted on the opportunity with the required level of intent.

More detail for anybody interested:

So what does the prosecutor need to prove?

The prosecutor has the burden of proof to show that each element of a particular crime are present beyond a reasonable doubt.

Every crime has it's own specific elements (for example, rape requires non-consensual sexual penetration), but all crimes have these general elements in common that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The commission of the acts that constitute the crime (actus reus)

2. The required criminal intent, i.e. state of mind (mens rea)

3. The required intent and the act happened at the same time

4. The act caused the harm that is prohibited by society (extreme example---if you shoot somebody after they are dead it isn't murder)

If any of these elements is missing, then there is no crime.

Means, motive and opportunity are ways to help prove or disprove these elements, they are not the elements themselves.

If the prosecution can prove means, motive and opportunity, then that will greatly help establish his case, but not prove it.

If the defense can disprove means or opportunity, then that will probably be fatal to the prosecution's case (motive is never an essential element of a crime---but if it's present it helps the prosecution, if it's not present it helps the defense).

But means, motive and opportunity without proof that the defendant acted on the opportunity will not meet the burden of proof in a fair trial.

BTW with respect to DNA in this case ... if it was found in semen inside the body, then that would prove that the act of sexual penetration occurred, but not prove that it was non-consensual. However, the prosecution would argue that the fact that Hannah was also murdered leads to a reasonable inference that it was non-consensual sex ... the defense would then argue there is no proof the sex and the murder happened at the same time... etc. etc. etc. with the judge having to decide whether the prosecution has sufficiently proven his case of non-consensual sex beyond a reasonable doubt.

PS I'm not sure what is meant by "Exculpatory evidence is often required to prevent conviction on a case built solely circumstantial evidence." If you're saying that a defendant has to prove that he did not have the means, motive, or opportunity, that would only be true if the prosecutor had already proven all of the elements before any defense was offered, and even then there would be many other ways to cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case.

An interesting read except for the fact that this is the Thai Justice system where the thinking is, erm, shall we say somewhat different to the systems they borrowed and then adapted their laws from to suit the particular Thai mindset. The translated words may be similar but the interpretation and understanding of legal principles as we from the West know them are quite different. Not only that but the interpretation of the laws, which are written in language which is often wide open to interpretation, is simply down to the judge on the day. Precedent barely exists at all, discovery is non existent, lawyers - when you can find an honest one - are never sure of the interpretation of the law either and it changes like the wind, racism and status is often an element in conviction and sentencing. Basically a long way different from the Justice systems from countries with a longer history of law and the same rules just don't apply.

@timewilltell

I can't disagree with anything you say . . . mainly because I don't have much experience observing the Thai justice system in action, which it seems like you do.

But I believe that if this goes to court there will be two "trials" happening simultaneously.

The first will be the trial of the accused, in which the Thai justice system will be applied by the judge(s) to determine whether to convict or acquit.

The second will be the "trial of the trial", in which the basic elements of a fair trial will be applied by experienced observers to determine if the trial was fair and the result was just.

In order for non-experienced observers to follow this second "trial" and determine for themselves if the trial was fair, it is helpful to accurately understand what the basic components of a fair trial consist of.

One of those components is the elements of a crime and the burden of proof that a prosecutor must carry . . .

That's what I was trying to communicate with my post, not what I think will actually happen at the trial---which I can't speak to for lack of experience.

Edited November 5, 201411 yr by Bleacher Bum East

Just read on another thread that the British have summoned a Thai diplomat to a meeting in London.

Just read on another thread that the British have summoned a Thai diplomat to a meeting in London.

source please?

The brit police could have at least said good bye.

Talk about rude. Everyone was so excited. The brits are coming yahoo.

We all had such high expectations.

They came and went like a silent fart.

What did you expect? That they were going to issue a slew of off-the-cuff press statements and take part in photo ops? They'll do what they're paid to do - which is to report back their findings to the British Goverment. And the British government is not going to say anything until the current case against the Burmese resolves one way or the other.

And then we'll see. Silent farts invariably take a little time before their full effect becomes apparent.

Just read on another thread that the British have summoned a Thai diplomat to a meeting in London.

source please?

It's in today's Guardian.

Just read on another thread that the British have summoned a Thai diplomat to a meeting in London.

source please?

It's in today's Guardian.

You can link that no problem.

The social contract between national governments and their peoples has been torn up, and replaced by connivance between international capitalists and careerist politicians,

Just read on another thread that the British have summoned a Thai diplomat to a meeting in London.

source please?

It's in today's Guardian.

You can link that no problem.

It's in the same article that's linked on the other thread about Burma asking for the case to be reopened. But in fairness, it simply says, ' ...the foreign office has called in a Thai diplomat to discuss concerns...' so it might be referring to the summons a couple of weeks or so ago - or whenever it was.