Jump to content

British police arrive in Thailand to observe Koh Tao murder probe


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Which embassy spokesman? BTW I think review could be synonymous with observe as opposed to investigate.

I'll leave it to you to trawl back to the media reports following DC's meeting in Milan. It's the UK version of the agreement reached.

Edited by stephen terry
  • Replies 779
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Meeting ???

No Berty. We are talking about news reports. I certainly welcome any source you care to cite from reliable sources showing I am wrong.

Oh dear very disappointed yet again.

You always post as if you are in the know. Yet all you do is report what the RTP report.

No Berty, I post what is in reliable news sources.

No you don't, you quote thai news sources & thailand is ranked 137 out of 179 countries with regards to freedom of the press. http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html

Which puts it, thais & people like you, under government control.

  • Like 2
Posted

Which embassy spokesman? BTW I think review could be synonymous with observe as opposed to investigate.

I'll leave it to you to trawl back to the media reports following DC's meeting in Vienna. It's the UK version of the agreement reached.

Ah the one with the unnamed diplomatic source....

Posted

Which embassy spokesman? BTW I think review could be synonymous with observe as opposed to investigate.

I'll leave it to you to trawl back to the media reports following DC's meeting in Vienna. It's the UK version of the agreement reached.

Ah the one with the unnamed diplomatic source....

Actually, it's factual, and a senior spokesman. This is serious, not playing games, JD. Could have been the FCO. I'm sure someone on here will provide the link.

Posted

I believe the Thais will hunny trap them, unless females have been sent, and then black mail them the shut the up about anything dodgy

Or 'boys' the UK Police are 'very diverse' I am sure Stalwarts of British justice would not fall for such a thing as a Honey trap at all, wooooh I just remembered that British MP just did so maybe we're in trouble after all.

You are really coming across as pretty pathetic, both of you.

japsportscarmad probably has too many speeding fines in his baby Nissan?

Yes your right my good friend thanks for pointing that out. No baby Nissan I am afraid far too slow. No speeding tickets either. Not like Japan here where the police cars have the mandatory speed limited to 100, you would if you wanted to speed in Thailand need something faster than the tuned Camries the traffic police have :-) so I understand.

Posted

FYI in sensitive situations like the one we have now, diplomatic sources are usually unnamed to avoid 'fallout'.

Obviously for diplomatic reasons, does not make it less credible, if it was untrue and a diplomatic source was quoted

the UK government would have issued a press release stating that.

That is SOP, that I KNOW.

Posted

So I guess if you took a look at the mobile phone and bank/ATM records of all those persons mentioned in post #74 and there was no unusual or suspicious activity to be found, that would mean that all those bank and mobile phone records had been tampered or erased?

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary bickering and name calling going on. Try rational discussion. Some of us are interested in the facts of this case. Not wading through your crap

Edited by stephen terry
  • Like 2
Posted

FYI in sensitive situations like the one we have now, diplomatic sources are usually unnamed to avoid 'fallout'.

Obviously for diplomatic reasons, does not make it less credible, if it was untrue and a diplomatic source was quoted

the UK government would have issued a press release stating that.

That is SOP, that I KNOW.

Really are they. I thought when they used sources and 'un named' persons it probably wasn't true that's why they don't release a source as if them it's the press office issuing something to look favourable that may not be accurate but helps politically.

Why can't they name the source if it's true I don't understand.

Posted

How much input will they be allowed?

If just observing then they might as well stayed at home.

As for setting up a police station well that horse as truly bolted but I suppose anything is better than the current set up.

Still the RTP reckon they have the guys and the DNA so innocent until proven guilty but if they are then throw the full weight of the courts at them

Here is a sentence from a National News Bureau of Thailand article dated October 23rd. “Regional Public Prosecution 8 deputy director-general Thawatchai Siangjaew said that “Thai police will be able to answer every doubt raised but no outside authorities can send their people to work on this case as Thai laws do not permit such a scenario”.

What a scam, it's theater, a show for the public, the Brits will not be allowed to work on the case.

it is not a scam

Chris Ware stood up for his friend, and gave a full briefing of what happened that night.

The full details of what Scotland Yard detectives know, is everything we hoped for, and more.

So much so, that the word is, the Police general in charge, has recently gone on sick leave and his whereabouts are unknown

This case has blown wide open, and the people involved know it

Expect this to get bigger than any of the bad actors could have ever expected, and with it, international coverage of their arrests

Where did you find the story about Chris Ware givung evidence to the plods? I couldn't find it on any of the usual UK news websites.

Posted

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary bickering and name calling going on. Try rational discussion. Some of us are interested in the facts of this case. Not wading through your crap

I am also interested in facts. That's why I made the post you're probably referring to.

Indeed you were correct, the trouble is none of us will never know the facts and often never do such is life.

Posted

 

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary bickering and name calling going on. Try rational discussion. Some of us are interested in the facts of this case. Not wading through your crap

I am also interested in facts. That's why I made the post you're probably referring to.

 

Then why not try refraining from engaging in irrational discussions with people who have a different opinion or way of looking at things.

  • Like 2
Posted

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary bickering and name calling going on. Try rational discussion. Some of us are interested in the facts of this case. Not wading through your crap

I am also interested in facts. That's why I made the post you're probably referring to.

Indeed you were correct, the trouble is none of us will never know the facts and often never do such is life.

If the double negative was intentional then I think you're right.

Posted

Which embassy spokesman? BTW I think review could be synonymous with observe as opposed to investigate.

I'll leave it to you to trawl back to the media reports following DC's meeting in Vienna. It's the UK version of the agreement reached.

Ah the one with the unnamed diplomatic source....

Actually, it's factual, and a senior spokesman. This is serious, not playing games, JD. Could have been the FCO. I'm sure someone on here will provide the link.

The only one I saw that stated investigation was an unnamed diplomatic source. No statement of senior etc

Posted

 

 

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary bickering and name calling going on. Try rational discussion. Some of us are interested in the facts of this case. Not wading through your crap

I am also interested in facts. That's why I made the post you're probably referring to.

 

Then why not try refraining from engaging in irrational discussions with people who have a different opinion or way of looking at things.

 

Oh I wasn't referring to your post.

Posted

FYI in sensitive situations like the one we have now, diplomatic sources are usually unnamed to avoid 'fallout'.

Obviously for diplomatic reasons, does not make it less credible, if it was untrue and a diplomatic source was quoted

the UK government would have issued a press release stating that.

That is SOP, that I KNOW.

Really are they. I thought when they used sources and 'un named' persons it probably wasn't true that's why they don't release a source as if them it's the press office issuing something to look favourable that may not be accurate but helps politically.

Why can't they name the source if it's true I don't understand.

Here's a press release from the F.O as an example, it does not give the source of the press release, ie the author but its clear that its an official statement https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fco-minister-summons-thai-charge-daffaires-to-foreign-office this is the statement the UK issued and that the Thai PM denied

Posted

FYI in sensitive situations like the one we have now, diplomatic sources are usually unnamed to avoid 'fallout'.

Obviously for diplomatic reasons, does not make it less credible, if it was untrue and a diplomatic source was quoted

the UK government would have issued a press release stating that.

That is SOP, that I KNOW.

Really are they. I thought when they used sources and 'un named' persons it probably wasn't true that's why they don't release a source as if them it's the press office issuing something to look favourable that may not be accurate but helps politically.

Why can't they name the source if it's true I don't understand.

Here's a press release from the F.O as an example, it does not give the source of the press release, ie the author but its clear that its an official statement https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fco-minister-summons-thai-charge-daffaires-to-foreign-office this is the statement the UK issued and that the Thai PM denied

Do you believe everything from the press office? Yes it's an official press release but the press office is there to put a good gloss on what the UK is doing particularly for the UK press who will prob be the only ones reading it. Obviously something's got lost in translation across the two countries.

Posted

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary bickering and name calling going on. Try rational discussion. Some of us are interested in the facts of this case. Not wading through your crap

I am also interested in facts. That's why I made the post you're probably referring to.

Then why not try refraining from engaging in irrational discussions with people who have a different opinion or way of looking at things.

Firstly, it's not irrational. Secondly, you are unnecessarily bickering with me for having an opinion. Thirdly, I am firmly in the camp that the B2 have been made scapegoats. Is that rational enough?

Calm down chaps justice will be done have faith in the Thai system of fairness and equality.

Posted

FYI in sensitive situations like the one we have now, diplomatic sources are usually unnamed to avoid 'fallout'.

Obviously for diplomatic reasons, does not make it less credible, if it was untrue and a diplomatic source was quoted

the UK government would have issued a press release stating that.

That is SOP, that I KNOW.

Really are they. I thought when they used sources and 'un named' persons it probably wasn't true that's why they don't release a source as if them it's the press office issuing something to look favourable that may not be accurate but helps politically.

Why can't they name the source if it's true I don't understand.

Here's a press release from the F.O as an example, it does not give the source of the press release, ie the author but its clear that its an official statement https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fco-minister-summons-thai-charge-daffaires-to-foreign-office this is the statement the UK issued and that the Thai PM denied

Do you believe everything from the press office? Yes it's an official press release but the press office is there to put a good gloss on what the UK is doing particularly for the UK press who will prob be the only ones reading it. Obviously something's got lost in translation across the two countries.

Ah well, seeing as this is from the UK, to avoid anything being lost in translation they also issue an official Thai version hope that helps you https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fco-minister-summons-thai-charge-daffaires-to-foreign-office.th nothing lost in translation there i trust

  • Like 2
Posted

 

 

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary bickering and name calling going on. Try rational discussion. Some of us are interested in the facts of this case. Not wading through your crap

I am also interested in facts. That's why I made the post you're probably referring to.

 

Then why not try refraining from engaging in irrational discussions with people who have a different opinion or way of looking at things.

Firstly, it's not irrational. Secondly, you are unnecessarily bickering with me for having an opinion. Thirdly, I am firmly in the camp that the B2 have been made scapegoats. Is that rational enough?
 

See post 260

Posted
jomcondo, on 24 Oct 2014 - 05:54, said:

The British police have made their first arrest and it's johnthailand, he is facing 2 years imprisonment under new troll laws.

Apparently the suspect was arrested at his computer wearing only a pair of women's underwear.

That comment just made my day! giggle.gif

  • Like 1
Posted

FYI in sensitive situations like the one we have now, diplomatic sources are usually unnamed to avoid 'fallout'.

Obviously for diplomatic reasons, does not make it less credible, if it was untrue and a diplomatic source was quoted

the UK government would have issued a press release stating that.

That is SOP, that I KNOW.

Please share with us all even one situation where a news story stated an unnamed source cited in a story lied or was wrong.

The typical response seems to be ignore the story unless it seriously damages diplomatic relations

Posted

 

 

 

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary bickering and name calling going on. Try rational discussion. Some of us are interested in the facts of this case. Not wading through your crap

I am also interested in facts. That's why I made the post you're probably referring to.

 

Then why not try refraining from engaging in irrational discussions with people who have a different opinion or way of looking at things.

Firstly, it's not irrational. Secondly, you are unnecessarily bickering with me for having an opinion. Thirdly, I am firmly in the camp that the B2 have been made scapegoats. Is that rational enough?
 

See post 260

 

OK there are many in that camp and some in the other camp. I would think more would be achieved by decent discussions and arguments both ways, some overlooked details may come out or possibly some new information. It is good to keep the discussion going as there doesn't seem to be much coming out from the police these days. Name calling and childish behavior will only turn people off and end the discussions. And it will be forgotten. I think we all want the same thing in the end.

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...