Can't Sign in into my Google Account without the 8-digit backup code

[scorecard]

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

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

ridiculous... what next sue Bush and Blair? how about sue Thatcher's estate for the Poll Tax debacle? Let's sue Cameron for costs in Afghanistan?

it is incredulous that public service figures could be sued for decisions they make in good faith it would lead to know one ever deciding anything and no one standing for election!!!

hey WAIT is that the 'cunning plan'? no one ever stands for election here???

that might be a stroke of 'Junta Genius'

Rubbish, because what your saying is that there should never be accountability.

Your bias is so big that it trips you up.

accountability is by the electorate my junta loving friend

Accountability should be pushed, demanded by whoever / whatever, including the populace and the checks and balances in place on behalf of the populace.

Your bias is so big that it trips you up.

[longway]

So they are claiming that the whole 600bn is a corruption related loss.

Well, this should make for a short case.

This will get the short answer it deserves.

No they are not.

[mommysboy]

And the coup? Who will be standing trial and paying for that.

[Thai at Heart]

ridiculous... what next sue Bush and Blair? how about sue Thatcher's estate for the Poll Tax debacle? Let's sue Cameron for costs in Afghanistan?

it is incredulous that public service figures could be sued for decisions they make in good faith it would lead to know one ever deciding anything and no one standing for election!!!

hey WAIT is that the 'cunning plan'? no one ever stands for election here???

that might be a stroke of 'Junta Genius'

Actually its a great step forward.. I would love to sue those politicians who made the Greek loans. Accountability that is what its is all about.

It will create complete policy paralysis. No one will do anything for fear of subsequent retrospective prosecution.

The parliament enacts a policy.

Its thus legal. Its not illegal to spent govt money at a loss, or there wouldn't be a library anywhere in the world. It is deemed socially beneficial.

I wouldn't want to live in any world where every govt policy had to make money. Every politician good and bad in Thailand may as well quit if this precedent stands.

They will all end up being prosecuted.

No the problem was here that it was off budget and there was no money reserved for it in the budget. Even when people pointed out the project was not self financing and cost money they still not included it in the budget. The reason was they were already at the max deficit and including this program would have meant to either trim it or scrap other vote buying programs.

There is nothing wrong with stuff like this but there is when you don't budget for it.. when you bully everyone that says it cost money and ignore the problem. When the word bank, IMF and Moodies warned about it and she still ignored it.

You can spend what you want as long as you budget it and keep it clear and transparent. That was exactly what was not done there. Try keeping an amount like that off the books in a democratic country and see what it gets you. Especially if you were warned it cost money and you ignore all the proof. You keep telling people its does not cost a thing and is self financing even though its proven its running at a loss and costing money. That is fraud in a civilized country.

If the financing strategy was legal, it was legal. It can't be made up arbitrarily, which would have stopped it at the beginning. This is also why governments should largely get out of the banking business to prevent them undertaking this type of financing. It wasn't going to bankrupt the country, and those who scream that the farmers didn't get much of it, that isn't really the case since farmers without quote sold it to farmers with quota and got a better price. The vast majority of the money went to Thais in country who spent it. Ironically, a better policy would have been to just pay farmers to grow less not more. That was actually the failure of the idea. Shorten the market and pay more, not lengthen it.

Please note the expected costs to the government of the public/private initiatives in the UK. Private companies being able to make guaranteed private profits for decades to come.

[halloween]

If the financing strategy was legal, it was legal. It can't be made up arbitrarily, which would have stopped it at the beginning. This is also why governments should largely get out of the banking business to prevent them undertaking this type of financing. It wasn't going to bankrupt the country, and those who scream that the farmers didn't get much of it, that isn't really the case since farmers without quote sold it to farmers with quota and got a better price. The vast majority of the money went to Thais in country who spent it. Ironically, a better policy would have been to just pay farmers to grow less not more. That was actually the failure of the idea. Shorten the market and pay more, not lengthen it.

Please note the expected costs to the government of the public/private initiatives in the UK. Private companies being able to make guaranteed private profits for decades to come.

And the poorest farmers (the claimed intended beneficiaries) got rent increases, so much of their benefit went to landlords. PTP could have handed every man woman and child B10,000 for the same cost, and the poor would have been far better off.

BTW I think of one Thai offshore whose wealth increased markedly, and incidentally designed this scam. No link between the two of course.

[Thai at Heart]

If the financing strategy was legal, it was legal. It can't be made up arbitrarily, which would have stopped it at the beginning. This is also why governments should largely get out of the banking business to prevent them undertaking this type of financing. It wasn't going to bankrupt the country, and those who scream that the farmers didn't get much of it, that isn't really the case since farmers without quote sold it to farmers with quota and got a better price. The vast majority of the money went to Thais in country who spent it. Ironically, a better policy would have been to just pay farmers to grow less not more. That was actually the failure of the idea. Shorten the market and pay more, not lengthen it.

Please note the expected costs to the government of the public/private initiatives in the UK. Private companies being able to make guaranteed private profits for decades to come.

And the poorest farmers (the claimed intended beneficiaries) got rent increases, so much of their benefit went to landlords. PTP could have handed every man woman and child B10,000 for the same cost, and the poor would have been far better off.

BTW I think of one Thai offshore whose wealth increased markedly, and incidentally designed this scam. No link between the two of course.

But that isnt' the issue. It isn't about whether it was an effective or best set policy. They would have been better to pay people not to grow. COuld you imagine the outcry.....

[Thai at Heart]

So they are claiming that the whole 600bn is a corruption related loss.

Well, this should make for a short case.

If you take the time to realise that the policy was corrupt from inception, and then again from reenactment - nothing but a scam disguised as a false vote-buyer, and never intended to achieve its stated aims, then why wouldn't ALL the losses be accountable?

Then every social programming in govt is liable.

Read it again. It was a scam disguised as a vote-buyer, and there was never any intention to meet its stated aims. Who ended up with the money, the poorest rice farmers or landlords, storage operators and large scale farmers? Why were there no changes made to the previous incarnation which had exactly the same result?

They tried to make it self financing and failed, because the policy was flawed.

Everything that cuts a tax or pays money to some part of society should by this measure be called a scam. I don't see why cutting corporate taxes are any less a scam particularly when the govt is running a debt.

[robblok]

If you take the time to realise that the policy was corrupt from inception, and then again from reenactment - nothing but a scam disguised as a false vote-buyer, and never intended to achieve its stated aims, then why wouldn't ALL the losses be accountable?

Then every social programming in govt is liable.

Read it again. It was a scam disguised as a vote-buyer, and there was never any intention to meet its stated aims. Who ended up with the money, the poorest rice farmers or landlords, storage operators and large scale farmers? Why were there no changes made to the previous incarnation which had exactly the same result?

They tried to make it self financing and failed, because the policy was flawed.

Everything that cuts a tax or pays money to some part of society should by this measure be called a scam. I don't see why cutting corporate taxes are any less a scam particularly when the govt is running a debt.

your constantly forgetting that the fact that it was not budgeted means that they spend money while they were already a the max deficit they could go to by law. Plus that they never let anyone check it and bullied everyone that tried. This is deliberate withholding of evidence and deliberate keeping it out of budget because else they had to stop it by law (or cut other stuff).

This was a deliberate attempt because else they could not do all the vote buying stuff and they would have lost popularity. They bought the election this way and in a way that was not legal. Face it.. they knew they were loosing money but could not admit it because then it had to go in budget. That is quite bad and in the real world would have been heavily punished.

So its only fair they go after her, not to mention the fake G2G deals that were in fact corruption and benefited the PTP. All in all it was a big scam and they would not let normal democratic scruteny over the budget (Thailand was never a democracy.. just in name) The PTP were a dictatorship in the name of democracy. Just wining an election does not mean you can remove all the rules and make your own. We know where that led to in the 1930ies in Germany.

[metisdead]

A post commenting on moderation has been removed. Let's be clear about the allegation, if it cannot be linked to it's nothing more than rumor mongering and that is not allowed here.

[Thai at Heart]

So they are claiming that the whole 600bn is a corruption related loss.

Well, this should make for a short case.

This will get the short answer it deserves.

No they are not.

So why are they suing her for 600bn. If the accusation is that she has lost the entirety of the 600bn, then that is not the case, so case dismissed....

[tbthailand]

And the coup? Who will be standing trial and paying for that.

coup costs Thailand $20 billion to $30 billion...

more than the rice subsidy program...

[englishoak]

Personal liability of 600bn ..... methinks its gone a little bit into the realms of fantasy land here.

[tbthailand]

Funny how they always feel the need to make statements like:

NACC chairman Panthep Klanarongran stressed that the anti-graft agency was not going after anyone in particular.

that is hilarious...

But then they had this, too...

The anti-graft agency would have to keep on trying to explain the matter till people understood - but he believed many people do.

So that the NACC now has the same problem as the 'NCPO' in that people don't "understand"??

Sure, these guys are a bunch of cards, but surely they realize that everyone understands....

Very simple really.

Is is possible / desirable for a PM to lead the country whilst rarely attending parliament, refusing any debate, refusing to give answers to some questions, admitting to cavorting with a known criminal fugitive, have several cabinet shuffles in less than 3 years including bringing back her bother's mates after their bans for corruption expired, and openly telling lies?

Is it possible / desirable for the self appointed chair of the rice policy scheme to ensure the scheme is running as efficiently and effectively as possible without actually attending any meetings? Can all warnings from international organizations, opposition MP's, civil servants and farmers themselves all simply be brushed aside by someone who never attended the meetings she was supposed to chair?

Yingluck had the chance to explain and answer questions during the impeachment process. Instead she held the usual party line - "I'm innocent, I've done nothing wrong, this is all political" etc., etc. All while claiming she and only she was in charge.

I'm sure they do realize that more and more do understand the role Yingluck really played, as a willing stooge, for another of her brother's money making scams at the expense of the Thai people, particularly those very one she claims to represent. Somewhere around 6-7 billion baht vanishes, no accounting, and she claims all was well.

Obviously, people can and do make interesting points about the rice program.

But which item above - just pick out one, that's all I ask.... is illegal? Which is punishable by law?

This junta is essentially the same set of dinosaurs from the last junta and they are about to pull a Thaksin and execute a politically motivate conviction. That doesn't really help their cause in the long run, and it certainly doesn't do anything to address actual and real issues of corruption.

But, then again, this is about revenge and political suppression, so to the Junta and their allies, a politically motivated conviction against Team Thaksin might seem like just the perfect medicine.

[Thai at Heart]

your constantly forgetting that the fact that it was not budgeted means that they spend money while they were already a the max deficit they could go to by law. Plus that they never let anyone check it and bullied everyone that tried. This is deliberate withholding of evidence and deliberate keeping it out of budget because else they had to stop it by law (or cut other stuff).

This was a deliberate attempt because else they could not do all the vote buying stuff and they would have lost popularity. They bought the election this way and in a way that was not legal. Face it.. they knew they were loosing money but could not admit it because then it had to go in budget. That is quite bad and in the real world would have been heavily punished.

So its only fair they go after her, not to mention the fake G2G deals that were in fact corruption and benefited the PTP. All in all it was a big scam and they would not let normal democratic scruteny over the budget (Thailand was never a democracy.. just in name) The PTP were a dictatorship in the name of democracy. Just wining an election does not mean you can remove all the rules and make your own. We know where that led to in the 1930ies in Germany.

They were not at the max deficit by law. That is an accumulated debt of 50% of gdp. Thailiand is still not at this level.

They can go after her for lying to parliament. Nice, neat and tidy, easy to prove. Isn't lying to parliament treason? Well, thats a fairly serious issue. Suing her for monetary loss on a personal level is ludicrous

[Trouble]

If I was Yingluck, I would be investing money in lawyers and investigators to investigate the wealth of the good general and his cronies.

[halloween]

They tried to make it self financing and failed, because the policy was flawed.

Everything that cuts a tax or pays money to some part of society should by this measure be called a scam. I don't see why cutting corporate taxes are any less a scam particularly when the govt is running a debt.

Yes, it was so flawed that it was obvious that it would fail. It had already failed with unsold rice in warehouses, huge levels of corruption, and accurate figures of how much reached the CLAIMED intended recipients.

There was no attempt to modify the second incarnation (that would offend Thaksin) with acreage/tonnage limits or rent controls.

The claim that it would increase the incomes of the poorest Thais was completely spurious, utter BS. It was a vote-buying scam, and the major beneficiaries were the wealthy rather than the mugs who thought they would benefit.

[Skywalker69]

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

Members of the Thai government can be sued? Let me dream for a moment....lawsuits for the crappy roads, inadequate electrical service, non-enforceable traffic laws...all right, I'm shutting off before someone wakes me up.

IMHO your point is valid but is a crappy road in the same league as 600Billion Baht disappeared?

Ultimately one would hope that the time comes (and soon) where builders of crappy roads etc., are also quickly sued and severely punished and including any government / local officials who are found to be involved.

But there is a case to say get the big fish first to start to set some new and better principles, also hopefully getting people overall to be more moral and ethical, etc.

Agreed! Also why is the roads crappy? Corruption!!! The builders have to pay bribes to get the job and has to cut corners in the construction.

[Skywalker69]

accountability is by the electorate my junta loving friend

........and the law be damned.

Yes and once you won the election you´r free to do what you want.

[robblok]

your constantly forgetting that the fact that it was not budgeted means that they spend money while they were already a the max deficit they could go to by law. Plus that they never let anyone check it and bullied everyone that tried. This is deliberate withholding of evidence and deliberate keeping it out of budget because else they had to stop it by law (or cut other stuff).

This was a deliberate attempt because else they could not do all the vote buying stuff and they would have lost popularity. They bought the election this way and in a way that was not legal. Face it.. they knew they were loosing money but could not admit it because then it had to go in budget. That is quite bad and in the real world would have been heavily punished.

So its only fair they go after her, not to mention the fake G2G deals that were in fact corruption and benefited the PTP. All in all it was a big scam and they would not let normal democratic scruteny over the budget (Thailand was never a democracy.. just in name) The PTP were a dictatorship in the name of democracy. Just wining an election does not mean you can remove all the rules and make your own. We know where that led to in the 1930ies in Germany.

They were not at the max deficit by law. That is an accumulated debt of 50% of gdp. Thailiand is still not at this level.

They can go after her for lying to parliament. Nice, neat and tidy, easy to prove. Isn't lying to parliament treason? Well, thats a fairly serious issue. Suing her for monetary loss on a personal level is ludicrous

I believe there was a max deficit per year too in a percentage. However I could be wrong and if so please correct me. Why else would they not have budgeted for it

To be honest in this case I am not so sure about the suing.. it would be more clear if they did that in corruption cases. Not so sure this is pure corruption. But I would welcome it anyway as it gives a signal to others that money can be taken back if they cross the line. This is something they should start doing. But I doubt it as it puts all the fat cats on both sides in trouble.

Edited February 19, 2015 by robblok

[Mister Fixit]

ridiculous... what next sue Bush and Blair? how about sue Thatcher's estate for the Poll Tax debacle? Let's sue Cameron for costs in Afghanistan?

I wish they'd imprison that narcissistic psychopath Tony Bliar for his role in the contrived war in Iraq + quite a few other lies he told and things he did ...

Weapons of mass destruction? In 45 minutes they could land on England? Pfft!

And everyone fell for it too ...