Now they are taking the piss out of her.

He added that if Ms Yingluck is unable to answer any of the questions she could ask for permission from the NLA president to allow any of her teammates to defend on her behalf.

They know she is unable to give any answers herself so they are making it more obvious to the people what a dumb she is.

Good for them.

Just remember, it is not against the law to be stupid or incompetent. It is against the law to

steal money from the pledging program, which no doubt many, many did. The question I

want answered is did she. For me I think she was to0 dumb and is a pawn of her brother.

So I am not sure she is guilty of anything other than being stupid.

I agree with you, but remember that being a Prime Minister of a country and being stupid, is a crime.

There are no excuses for her and she should be punished.

On the other hand 310 or so MP's elected one MP amongst them as 'primus inter pares', the first amongst equals AKA PM. Should we charge those MPs with negligence for electing an alleged stupid person, or should all be charge with 'stupidity' ?

What 310 MP's elected her?

It was the orders from her criminal brother in self exile and everyone followed his commands as they always used to do.....and still do.

Everybody is going on about democracy and elections......is that the kind of Democracy you all want to see again?

Now they are taking the piss out of her.

He added that if Ms Yingluck is unable to answer any of the questions she could ask for permission from the NLA president to allow any of her teammates to defend on her behalf.

They know she is unable to give any answers herself so they are making it more obvious to the people what a dumb she is.

Good for them.

Just remember, it is not against the law to be stupid or incompetent. It is against the law to

steal money from the pledging program, which no doubt many, many did. The question I

want answered is did she. For me I think she was to0 dumb and is a pawn of her brother.

So I am not sure she is guilty of anything other than being stupid.

She allowed it to happen and oversaw it, therefore is responsible. She knew full well it was a plan bent on graft from its inception, thus the strong opposition by the democratic party, and their proposed plan that was more graft-preventative. Her failure to show-up, report on it, look into it is also a sham, being that she is the 'leader.' Who cares what she says, it is in her actions not words, and the actions of PTP. She'll never admit to anything. Additionally, she is selfish and shameless, so she won't admit wrong doing... just give the 'woman.. thailand... good for people..good for country....' type of cop out.

Just don't stand a chance for good world opinion to have a trial under a junta regime with appointed NLA and the NACC stuffed with anti Thaksin officers. Most will call this a kangaroo court.

Just don't stand a chance for good world opinion to have a trial under a junta regime with appointed NLA and the NACC stuffed with anti Thaksin officers. Most will call this a kangaroo court.

Others would call it KARMA.

so she's going to be banned from holding political office for 5 years - it's hardly a big deal or anything to get excited about, pretty sure the woman herself would welcome the idea

Now if at some point in the future there is an attempt to bring criminal charges then that's a whole different ball game - I'd expect to see two Shins living in the desert

Now they are taking the piss out of her.

He added that if Ms Yingluck is unable to answer any of the questions she could ask for permission from the NLA president to allow any of her teammates to defend on her behalf.

They know she is unable to give any answers herself so they are making it more obvious to the people what a dumb she is.

Good for them.

Just remember, it is not against the law to be stupid or incompetent. It is against the law to

steal money from the pledging program, which no doubt many, many did. The question I

want answered is did she. For me I think she was to0 dumb and is a pawn of her brother.

So I am not sure she is guilty of anything other than being stupid.

I agree with you, but remember that being a Prime Minister of a country and being stupid, is a crime.

There are no excuses for her and she should be punished.

On the other hand 310 or so MP's elected one MP amongst them as 'primus inter pares', the first amongst equals AKA PM. Should we charge those MPs with negligence for electing an alleged stupid person, or should all be charge with 'stupidity' ?

They should simply be charged with following their orders.

Do you think that ANY of them would disobey Thaksin, the party owner?

Just remember, it is not against the law to be stupid or incompetent. It is against the law to

steal money from the pledging program, which no doubt many, many did. The question I

want answered is did she. For me I think she was to0 dumb and is a pawn of her brother.

So I am not sure she is guilty of anything other than being stupid.

I agree with you, but remember that being a Prime Minister of a country and being stupid, is a crime.

There are no excuses for her and she should be punished.

On the other hand 310 or so MP's elected one MP amongst them as 'primus inter pares', the first amongst equals AKA PM. Should we charge those MPs with negligence for electing an alleged stupid person, or should all be charge with 'stupidity' ?

What 310 MP's elected her?

It was the orders from her criminal brother in self exile and everyone followed his commands as they always used to do.....and still do.

Everybody is going on about democracy and elections......is that the kind of Democracy you all want to see again?

Now don't get carried away. I'm just trying to understand, not that it really matters for this topic.

If being PM and stupid is a crime, the first line of responsibility is in the 310 MPs who voted for one in their midst. With that one being elected as 'first amongst equals', those 310 MPs voted for a fellow MP who was not suitable (MP and stupid being against the law). That suggests the 310 MPs are involved in setting up a fellow MP as guilty of breaking the law. That makes them part of the offence. Following you might wonder about the electorate which voted in those 310 MPs who elected as their 'first amongst equals' a stupid person.

Personally I don't think there is a law which says a PM cannot be stupid. The constitution lists requirements and prohibitions, but stupidity is not amongst the rules. Of course for the electorate to vote in stupid persons doesn't make sense, but the last PM was #1 on the party list and therefore almost automatically 'elected' as MP. Makes you wonder about both the specific party executive committee which put a stupid person as #1 on their party list AND about the electorate voting for a party doing such stupid things.

PS in all this please read "allegedly stupid" whenever you just see 'stupid'

Just don't stand a chance for good world opinion to have a trial under a junta regime with appointed NLA and the NACC stuffed with anti Thaksin officers. Most will call this a kangaroo court.

Others would call it KARMA.

Some might even call it democracy in action with a parliament/senate questioning a former PM on the enormous loss caused by her pet 'self-financing' scheme.

Too mentally incapable to answer questions. I noticed that in the previous press interview attempts with her (like all of them as seen on youtube!) Simply the most incompetent person ever in politics. Bet PTP regret this nomination... even chalerm was a bit brighter, now that's sad!

Sorry gemini81, hate to disagree with you, but the brightest part of Chalerm is his nose !

Too mentally incapable to answer questions. I noticed that in the previous press interview attempts with her (like all of them as seen on youtube!) Simply the most incompetent person ever in politics. Bet PTP regret this nomination... even chalerm was a bit brighter, now that's sad!

Sorry gemini81, hate to disagree with you, but the brightest part of Chalerm is his nose !

You can certainly disagree! Hard to compare two of the dullest tools in the toolbox to one another- they're both worthless! (at least chalerm is unintentionally entertaining as heck!)

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

The last sentence says a fair bit doesn't it, even though they are going to accept the answers from her 'helpers' she still has to get up on her hind legs and defend herself.

Which implies that she will be asked some questions.

But hang on a bit here, as her 'team' were given the questions and have leapt in quick to give answers, the NACC which has also to give a closing statement now has the answers and a week to produce evidence to refute those answers in their closing statement.

Should they be able to produce documented proof that the answers given are false or misleading then it will completely trump the defense.

Could this be a full magazine shot in both feet by the brilliant defense team ?

sssshhhhh! Don't give the game away ... they need her to actually speak the words "under oath" for the upcoming criminal trial. Why do you think she always avoids answering ANY question directly. The other 4 on the other hand have posted their answers publicly, clever.

It was a good thing that General Prayut wasn't under an oath when he stated that the military wasn't going to overthrow the government. Maybe the NLA will let Yingluck off with the same excuse that Prayut used when he did overthrow the government a week later, "I didn't plan to, it just happened." (paraphrase)

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

The last sentence says a fair bit doesn't it, even though they are going to accept the answers from her 'helpers' she still has to get up on her hind legs and defend herself.

Which implies that she will be asked some questions.

But hang on a bit here, as her 'team' were given the questions and have leapt in quick to give answers, the NACC which has also to give a closing statement now has the answers and a week to produce evidence to refute those answers in their closing statement.

Should they be able to produce documented proof that the answers given are false or misleading then it will completely trump the defense.

Could this be a full magazine shot in both feet by the brilliant defense team ?

sssshhhhh! Don't give the game away ... they need her to actually speak the words "under oath" for the upcoming criminal trial. Why do you think she always avoids answering ANY question directly. The other 4 on the other hand have posted their answers publicly, clever.

It was a good thing that General Prayut wasn't under an oath when he stated that the military wasn't going to overthrow the government. Maybe the NLA will let Yingluck off with the same excuse that Prayut used when he did overthrow the government a week later, "I didn't plan to, it just happened." (paraphrase)

Well, Thailand is the:

hub of double-standards,

the hub of don't do as I do, do as I say

the hub of taking no responsibility for anything

etc etc

In his defense, the coup was royally endorsed and made all legal, so that makes it all ok.

Just don't stand a chance for good world opinion to have a trial under a junta regime with appointed NLA and the NACC stuffed with anti Thaksin officers. Most will call this a kangaroo court.

Others would call it KARMA.

Some might even call it democracy in action with a parliament/senate questioning a former PM on the enormous loss caused by her pet 'self-financing' scheme.

You are right Uncle Rubl. But read the report in The Economist. Looks like the multi billionaire criminal master mind has been spreading some lolly around the PR fraternity again.

They claim in the report that Yingluck was removed as PM by the army in May and that Thaksin was removed by the army in 2006 and now lives in self exile. A tad economical with the truth (pun intended).

They wax lyrical about the Shins and those who oppose them but fail to really give much detail on the rice scheme other than calling it hare brained.

Nearly as good as AFP or one of head's masterpieces. But sadly, that's what those outside Thailand see.

Just don't stand a chance for good world opinion to have a trial under a junta regime with appointed NLA and the NACC stuffed with anti Thaksin officers. Most will call this a kangaroo court.

Others would call it KARMA.

Some might even call it democracy in action with a parliament/senate questioning a former PM on the enormous loss caused by her pet 'self-financing' scheme.

You are right Uncle Rubl. But read the report in The Economist. Looks like the multi billionaire criminal master mind has been spreading some lolly around the PR fraternity again.

They claim in the report that Yingluck was removed as PM by the army in May and that Thaksin was removed by the army in 2006 and now lives in self exile. A tad economical with the truth (pun intended).

They wax lyrical about the Shins and those who oppose them but fail to really give much detail on the rice scheme other than calling it hare brained.

Nearly as good as AFP or one of head's masterpieces. But sadly, that's what those outside Thailand see.

Considering that the sources of information in Thailand are all incredibly partisan and beyond that censored, I wouldn't put too much weight behind the information inside Thailand either. Just because the views don't match with your own doesn't mean they aren't without merit. Both sides of this battle are incredibly corrupt and invested to try to secure their future financially. Neither side is blameless in their vote seeking and their willingness to dip their fingers in the till.

Just remember, it is not against the law to be stupid or incompetent. It is against the law to

steal money from the pledging program, which no doubt many, many did. The question I

want answered is did she. For me I think she was to0 dumb and is a pawn of her brother.

So I am not sure she is guilty of anything other than being stupid.

Do you know how how many stupid people are convicted every year for crimes devised by others? Me either, but when someone says "You hold the smoking gun while I run away" you have to figure another idiot is being set up for a fall. "You be PM while I run the country from Dubai" is the same thing on a larger scale.