Porked & busted: Thai woman nabbed for telling ‘pork’ pies 208 times

[webfact]

STOPPAGE TIME
Embattled Yingluck: Will she stay or will she go?
Tulsathit Taptim
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Will it come down to the explosive issue of political asylum? Don't bet against it, although any foreign government will find that offering asylum to Yingluck Shinawatra is a far more complicated issue than making a statement or two denouncing the Thai coup. As a senior Pheu Thai member said, now is "too early" for her to be thinking of an escape plan - and that non-denial means all options are still on the table.

Technically, it's easier for Yingluck to seek asylum than it must have been for her brother Thaksin. His trial and sentencing took place at a time when Thailand was under democratic rule, with his political party wielding the executive power. After being found guilty of violating the law by helping his then wife purchase a state-auctioned plot of land, Thaksin could hardly cite "political persecution" to back up an asylum request.

Yingluck will be tried and judged while Thailand is under military rule. This makes her case significantly different from Thaksin's. Her opponents, however, can point to the fact that charges against her came from the National Anti-Corruption Commission and the trial and ruling are the responsibility of the Supreme Court's political division. In addition, the charges involve corruption, a criminal offence, which is easier to prove than vague allegations of, say, threatening national security.

Any Yingluck asylum debate will mirror the root cause of the Thai political strife, however. Would she have been tried at all for corruption during a time of democratic rule? Would it have been better, easier or even possible to deal with graft democratically? Is it "political persecution" to tackle allegedly corrupt political office-holders by "force"?

These questions are legal and political at the same time, and they would combine to pose a diplomatic dilemma for any country receiving an asylum request from Yingluck. Bilateral ties would be affected one way or another. The country in question's stance on democracy, human rights, sovereignty, corruption and so on would be placed under a fierce spotlight. Extradition, a nightmare term in diplomatic circles, would become an issue that haunts everyone.

In a couple of days, the prosecutors and the NACC will present Yingluck's case to the court. But, if and when the trial does begin, she won't need to make her first appearance in court for several weeks. Failure to show up then would lead to an arrest warrant being issued, and the "suspension" of her case, which would lead to an intriguing situation.

If her case is suspended by the Supreme Court, it would buy her considerable time. A lot could happen in that hiatus. Her party might win a democratic election and help swing the legal momentum back in her favour. The military government might lose power, again giving her side of the political divide stronger leverage. Bills or charter clauses might be initiated to neutralise or cushion the blow of the rice-pledging scheme case.

But that doesn't mean a "Thaksin situation" definitely won't happen. If Yingluck's case is suspended and then reopened under democratic rule, any cries of foul in case of a guilty verdict would be weakened.

The way would be open for her to follow in her brother's footsteps.

If she chooses not to flee, she could resort to the same claims he made - that although the verdict came under democratic rule, the legal process was initiated when the military was in power. And everything would go back to Square One.

Yingluck has been impeached in connection with the rice case, meaning her chances of a political comeback are next to zero. The court proceedings, however, threaten her with jail, thus generating rumours that she will seek political asylum as a last resort.

As the senior Pheu Thai member half-jokingly said, it's still too early to run or make a formal asylum request. The military junta's ban on her leaving Thailand, however, could be interpreted as an ominous sign. If the court decides she must be tried, the onus will be on the judges to rule on any request she makes to depart the country. What will the court say if she wants to take a foreign trip, with Thaksin's one-way trip to "watch the Olympics" in 2008 still fresh in people's memories?

Asylum can only be requested when the seeker is on foreign soil. That is apparently why there have been rumours about her taking refuge inside an embassy. It doesn't matter who initiated the rumours: their significance is that they offer a glimpse of the legal, political and diplomatic complexities of Yingluck's case. It's one thing to deplore or condemn the coup and call for an early election; it's another to give someone tried for criminal offences in a normal court system, albeit under military rule, the status of a political victim and then sanctuary.

Asylum requests by Thais are mostly made for ideological reasons. When money is involved, it becomes complicated. And more so if the country receiving the asylum request has financial worries or vested interests in the nation from which the asylum seeker comes. Hence what happens next in Yingluck's case will be another political sensation, though it will be a far cry from the final climax in this drama.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Embattled-Yingluck-Will-she-stay-or-will-she-go-30254287.html

-- The Nation 2015-02-18

[PatOngo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coPB3GLpx98

[rasmus5150]

She will go for sure. Actually she has been "mentally gone" for a prolonged period already.

[NeverSure]

To The Nation: You said "Yingluck will be tried and judged while Thailand is under military rule."

This is just one issue. The international community sees the military rule as not only illegal, but appalling. The international community does not see where the junta has standing to try anyone for anything. It's not about guilt or innocence.

Additionally it could be argued that the junta is attacking a political opponent.

As for a country being concerned about financial consequences, Western countries don't put money before human rights or democracy and any money will be as a pimple on a butt. If anyone got hurt by financial consequences it would be Thailand.

This statement has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Yingluck. The junta simply is seen as illegitimate and won't be supported in any way.

[Robby nz]

Any Yingluck asylum debate will mirror the root cause of the Thai political strife, however. Would she have been tried at all for corruption during a time of democratic rule? Would it have been better, easier or even possible to deal with graft democratically? Is it "political persecution" to tackle allegedly corrupt political office-holders by "force"?

She nor any of the others could certainly never have been brought to task over corruption while their own party was in power.

They did everything they could to stall or prevent an investigation into the rice pledging scheme by the NACC including cutting their budget and threatening and intimidating the members.

Can you really imagine anyone particularly a politician investigating themselves for corruption ? As in: I will undertake a thorough and honest investigation into my alleged corruption. Yea right.

It needs an outside party to step in to uncover and prosecute corruption.

And where is the "Force" ? What has happened is that the NACC has been allowed to carry on their investigation, which started over 2 years ago, without political interference and we are now seeing the results.

And will she go ?

She will do whatever Thaksin thinks is best for him, for she will have no say in the matter as she has had no say in anything all her life.

The caddy will tell her which club to use and how to play the shot.

[Thailand]

She will be a thorn in the junta's side if she goes and a bigger one if she stays.

Allowing the impeachment followed by a civil case was a very foolish move.

The junta have allowed her and her brother to dominate the news, again, no idea!

[Robby nz]

To The Nation: You said "Yingluck will be tried and judged while Thailand is under military rule."

This is just one issue. The international community sees the military rule as not only illegal, but appalling. The international community does not see where the junta has standing to try anyone for anything. It's not about guilt or innocence.

Additionally it could be argued that the junta is attacking a political opponent.

As for a country being concerned about financial consequences, Western countries don't put money before human rights or democracy and any money will be as a pimple on a butt. If anyone got hurt by financial consequences it would be Thailand.

This statement has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Yingluck. The junta simply is seen as illegitimate and won't be supported in any way.

All of the international community ?

How about "the part of the international community who see it in their own interest"

It is about guilt or innocence and it is not the junta trying her.

The investigations by the NACC started over 2 years ago long before they came on the scene and have culminated in the charges we now see.

Money is No1 to the international community everything revolves around it.

Tell us why the US supports a coup in Egypt yet condemns one in Thailand.

It is all about corruption within politics and sending a message to future politicians that it will not be tolerated and they will not get away with it.

[alfalfa19]

To The Nation: You said "Yingluck will be tried and judged while Thailand is under military rule."

This is just one issue. The international community sees the military rule as not only illegal, but appalling. The international community does not see where the junta has standing to try anyone for anything. It's not about guilt or innocence.

Additionally it could be argued that the junta is attacking a political opponent.

As for a country being concerned about financial consequences, Western countries don't put money before human rights or democracy and any money will be as a pimple on a butt. If anyone got hurt by financial consequences it would be Thailand.

This statement has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Yingluck. The junta simply is seen as illegitimate and won't be supported in any way.

"Western countries don't put money before human rights or democracy" Thanks, I needed a good laugh after a rough day at work!!

[thesetat2013]

To The Nation: You said "Yingluck will be tried and judged while Thailand is under military rule."

This is just one issue. The international community sees the military rule as not only illegal, but appalling. The international community does not see where the junta has standing to try anyone for anything. It's not about guilt or innocence.

Additionally it could be argued that the junta is attacking a political opponent.

As for a country being concerned about financial consequences, Western countries don't put money before human rights or democracy and any money will be as a pimple on a butt. If anyone got hurt by financial consequences it would be Thailand.

This statement has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Yingluck. The junta simply is seen as illegitimate and won't be supported in any way.

You are misleading people who read your reply.

The Junta is not trying her for her actions or alleged crimes. The Attorney General is doing it. The same attorney general who was there last year and the year before. It is NOT a military court. In fact the military has distanced themselves from this except in enforcing the courts will and enduring she doesn't flee like her brother did. If she is found guilty it will be by real judges and with real evidence.

You are also wrong about who other countries give money to and why and that they would actually stop for human rights or democratic issues. Any country that gives money does it as a self serving act that will benefit them in the future. They make not like if a country violates human rights or is not democratic but that does not impede their decision to give money.

You really should learn about GOOGLE and start using it before posting such nonsense.

[nottocus]

, Western countries don't put money before human rights or democracy

That has to be the most deluded comment ever posted….hahahahah…..truly naive.

[issanaus]

To The Nation: You said "Yingluck will be tried and judged while Thailand is under military rule."

This is just one issue. The international community sees the military rule as not only illegal, but appalling. The international community does not see where the junta has standing to try anyone for anything. It's not about guilt or innocence.

Additionally it could be argued that the junta is attacking a political opponent.

As for a country being concerned about financial consequences, Western countries don't put money before human rights or democracy and any money will be as a pimple on a butt. If anyone got hurt by financial consequences it would be Thailand.

This statement has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Yingluck. The junta simply is seen as illegitimate and won't be supported in any way.

"Western countries don't put money before human rights or democracy" Thanks, I needed a good laugh after a rough day at work!!

A nice illustration from a couple of days ago. Abbot the Australian PM said on national TV in relation to the Australians facing execution in Bali.

" I most sincerely hope the executions do not go ahead but we will not allow this issue to stand in the way of our relationship with Indonesia"

[Humberstone]

Surely they would rather her go than stay ? She would potentially be a far bigger problem to General Prayuth if she stays for obvious reasons.

[Manbing]

The situation with Thaksin was that he popped over to Beijing for noodles and to watch the 2008 Olympics, after being indicted for fraud whilst the Pheu Thai party were in power, and subsequently convicted in absentia.

That mess is still causing problems.

The legal prosecution of Yingluck is unlikely to recreate this scenario and see the whole mess replayed over the next 10 years.

I think the Junta will not be allowing anyone out for noodles. I think this point was made quite clear earlier this week.

[jayboy]

To The Nation: You said "Yingluck will be tried and judged while Thailand is under military rule."

This is just one issue. The international community sees the military rule as not only illegal, but appalling. The international community does not see where the junta has standing to try anyone for anything. It's not about guilt or innocence.

Additionally it could be argued that the junta is attacking a political opponent.

As for a country being concerned about financial consequences, Western countries don't put money before human rights or democracy and any money will be as a pimple on a butt. If anyone got hurt by financial consequences it would be Thailand.

This statement has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Yingluck. The junta simply is seen as illegitimate and won't be supported in any way.

You are misleading people who read your reply.

The Junta is not trying her for her actions or alleged crimes. The Attorney General is doing it. The same attorney general who was there last year and the year before. It is NOT a military court. In fact the military has distanced themselves from this except in enforcing the courts will and enduring she doesn't flee like her brother did. If she is found guilty it will be by real judges and with real evidence.

You are also wrong about who other countries give money to and why and that they would actually stop for human rights or democratic issues. Any country that gives money does it as a self serving act that will benefit them in the future. They make not like if a country violates human rights or is not democratic but that does not impede their decision to give money.

You really should learn about GOOGLE and start using it before posting such nonsense.

I am afraid it is you that is posting nonsense, perhaps because you seem to rely solely on search engines for your information.If you are suggesting that the treatment of Yingluck by the courts is not connected with the wishes of those who planned and undertook a military coup you are comically deluded on the independence of the Thai legal system.It is true that foreign countries will put their economic and trading interests before human rights.In any case they have no brief for the Shinawatra clan as they did for example with Aung San Suu Kyi.But there is no serious suggestion that the vendetta against Yingluck is not primarily motivated by the wish to exterminate the Shinawatra influence permanently rather than concerns about the flawed rice price support policy.Incidentally Thailand is not dependent on foreign aid as you seem to believe, receives very little and can easily do without it.

[Baerboxer]

To The Nation: You said "Yingluck will be tried and judged while Thailand is under military rule."

This is just one issue. The international community sees the military rule as not only illegal, but appalling. The international community does not see where the junta has standing to try anyone for anything. It's not about guilt or innocence.

Additionally it could be argued that the junta is attacking a political opponent.

As for a country being concerned about financial consequences, Western countries don't put money before human rights or democracy and any money will be as a pimple on a butt. If anyone got hurt by financial consequences it would be Thailand.

This statement has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Yingluck. The junta simply is seen as illegitimate and won't be supported in any way.

That must be why France, Germany and Japan are all falling over themselves knocking on Thailand's door with deals and investment interest.

An American claiming the West aren't concerned about financial consequences - laughable. Follow the history of who and which they support.

[Plutojames88]

Australia bans the Junta as it is , and would not care or bother with Thai complaints from a military Government.

This might not sit well with their propaganda machine of booming tourism and 96% pols .

But reality bites.

Non sensical statements that we need Thailand ( the west is at best shallow)

Try jailing her....go right ahead ..I hope they do.

Watch what happens .

[Baerboxer]

To The Nation: You said "Yingluck will be tried and judged while Thailand is under military rule."

This is just one issue. The international community sees the military rule as not only illegal, but appalling. The international community does not see where the junta has standing to try anyone for anything. It's not about guilt or innocence.

Additionally it could be argued that the junta is attacking a political opponent.

As for a country being concerned about financial consequences, Western countries don't put money before human rights or democracy and any money will be as a pimple on a butt. If anyone got hurt by financial consequences it would be Thailand.

This statement has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Yingluck. The junta simply is seen as illegitimate and won't be supported in any way.

You are misleading people who read your reply.

The Junta is not trying her for her actions or alleged crimes. The Attorney General is doing it. The same attorney general who was there last year and the year before. It is NOT a military court. In fact the military has distanced themselves from this except in enforcing the courts will and enduring she doesn't flee like her brother did. If she is found guilty it will be by real judges and with real evidence.

You are also wrong about who other countries give money to and why and that they would actually stop for human rights or democratic issues. Any country that gives money does it as a self serving act that will benefit them in the future. They make not like if a country violates human rights or is not democratic but that does not impede their decision to give money.

You really should learn about GOOGLE and start using it before posting such nonsense.

I am afraid it is you that is posting nonsense, perhaps because you seem to rely solely on search engines for your information.If you are suggesting that the treatment of Yingluck by the courts is not connected with the wishes of those who planned and undertook a military coup you are comically deluded on the independence of the Thai legal system.It is true that foreign countries will put their economic and trading interests before human rights.In any case they have no brief for the Shinawatra clan as they did for example with Aung San Suu Kyi.But there is no serious suggestion that the vendetta against Yingluck is not primarily motivated by the wish to exterminate the Shinawatra influence permanently rather than concerns about the flawed rice price support policy.Incidentally Thailand is not dependent on foreign aid as you seem to believe, receives very little and can easily do without it.

Fair points. The Justice system in Thailand seems highly "selective" at the best of times. There is certainly no demonstration of justice for all. The international community certainly holds no brief for the Shinawatra clan and others on here who seek to liken her to ASSK are sadly deluded.

Yingluck is being singled out as she was PM, she did appoint herself chair of the rice policy scheme, and she has refused to answer questions or admit any problems, wrong doings or that anything was amiss. She's either being badly advised, as repeating the same rhetoric won't achieve anything; or someone wants to try and use her to be seen as a martyr. Her big problem is she has no real defense to the charges that she cares to share.

Had she been working hard, chairing meetings, acting on advice and warnings and had poor farmers really benefited then fair enough. But she simply did nothing and left it all to others.

[Plutojames88]

To The Nation: You said "Yingluck will be tried and judged while Thailand is under military rule."

This is just one issue. The international community sees the military rule as not only illegal, but appalling. The international community does not see where the junta has standing to try anyone for anything. It's not about guilt or innocence.

Additionally it could be argued that the junta is attacking a political opponent.

As for a country being concerned about financial consequences, Western countries don't put money before human rights or democracy and any money will be as a pimple on a butt. If anyone got hurt by financial consequences it would be Thailand.

This statement has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Yingluck. The junta simply is seen as illegitimate and won't be supported in any way.

"Western countries don't put money before human rights or democracy" Thanks, I needed a good laugh after a rough day at work!!

A nice illustration from a couple of days ago. Abbot the Australian PM said on national TV in relation to the Australians facing execution in Bali.

" I most sincerely hope the executions do not go ahead but we will not allow this issue to stand in the way of our relationship with Indonesia"

Here's what he said two days ago

"We will be finding ways to make our displeasure felt," Abbott told Australia's Channel Ten on Sunday. "Millions of Australians are feeling sickened by what might be about to happen in Indonesia."

End quote

Today he mentioned we had previously given a billion in support after the tsunami and that our relationship would come into question were the executions go ahead.

Clearly , people here might be selective in thinking countries pander to third world countries when they don't exactly .

Why would the military leaders be banned by Australian government if we respected them?

Do the idiots here think for a second any western country would hand over YS ?

This site is getting so dumbed down its handly worth the effort.

[Tatsujin]

To The Nation: You said "Yingluck will be tried and judged while Thailand is under military rule."

This is just one issue. The international community sees the military rule as not only illegal, but appalling. The international community does not see where the junta has standing to try anyone for anything. It's not about guilt or innocence.

Additionally it could be argued that the junta is attacking a political opponent.

As for a country being concerned about financial consequences, Western countries don't put money before human rights or democracy and any money will be as a pimple on a butt. If anyone got hurt by financial consequences it would be Thailand.

This statement has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Yingluck. The junta simply is seen as illegitimate and won't be supported in any way.

I have to laugh when you state that Western countries don't put money before human rights or democracy ... the US has absolutely zero qualms about putting oil and other strategic interests far ahead of anything troublesome like the population's freedom of rights, expression or democracy.

The President's no show in France (and no representative sent either), and his recent trip to India which was cut short so that he and 15+ other top officials could drop everything and go pay their respects to Saudi oil tells you all you need to know about "western" priorities. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom or democracy.

Legitimate or illegitimate "governments", western countries will speak about democracy out of one corner of their mouth, whilst making backhanded deals out of the other side with whoever is in power at the time. If France had oil (like the Saudi's), the US would have been the first ones their with a big marching band and all the bells and whistles.

[binjalin]

they are making her into a martyr with this witchhunt they would have been far wiser to have been magnanimous and she may have drifted into obscurity but now so many Thais find the whole handling distasteful

[NeverSure]

To The Nation: You said "Yingluck will be tried and judged while Thailand is under military rule."

This is just one issue. The international community sees the military rule as not only illegal, but appalling. The international community does not see where the junta has standing to try anyone for anything. It's not about guilt or innocence.

Additionally it could be argued that the junta is attacking a political opponent.

As for a country being concerned about financial consequences, Western countries don't put money before human rights or democracy and any money will be as a pimple on a butt. If anyone got hurt by financial consequences it would be Thailand.

This statement has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Yingluck. The junta simply is seen as illegitimate and won't be supported in any way.

That must be why France, Germany and Japan are all falling over themselves knocking on Thailand's door with deals and investment interest.

An American claiming the West aren't concerned about financial consequences - laughable. Follow the history of who and which they support.

The US, Japan, Canada, The EU and the UN have all spoken against the junta. The US pulled military support in the form of money and scaled back the annual military exercise to one of a non military nature due to the junta.

The junta has no friends in the West. Some like Japan are more soft spoken about it, but it was made clear.

If YS asks the US for asylum she will get it and if anyone gets hurt it will be Thailand. Japan, The EU and the US are major buyers of Thai exports and Japanese and American companies have major manufacturing investments in Thailand. None of them approve of the junta.

This is not about the guilt or innocence of YS even though so many try to make it that. It is about the international community not recognizing an illegal junta.

Thailand doesn't have a legal government which can prosecute anyone legally.

[scorecard]

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

She will be a thorn in the junta's side if she goes and a bigger one if she stays.

Allowing the impeachment followed by a civil case was a very foolish move.

The junta have allowed her and her brother to dominate the news, again, no idea!

So your suggesting that this whole matter should have put into the too hard cupboard and the key thrown away?

No further comment needed.

[jayboy]

To The Nation: You said "Yingluck will be tried and judged while Thailand is under military rule."

This is just one issue. The international community sees the military rule as not only illegal, but appalling. The international community does not see where the junta has standing to try anyone for anything. It's not about guilt or innocence.

Additionally it could be argued that the junta is attacking a political opponent.

As for a country being concerned about financial consequences, Western countries don't put money before human rights or democracy and any money will be as a pimple on a butt. If anyone got hurt by financial consequences it would be Thailand.

This statement has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Yingluck. The junta simply is seen as illegitimate and won't be supported in any way.

You are misleading people who read your reply.

The Junta is not trying her for her actions or alleged crimes. The Attorney General is doing it. The same attorney general who was there last year and the year before. It is NOT a military court. In fact the military has distanced themselves from this except in enforcing the courts will and enduring she doesn't flee like her brother did. If she is found guilty it will be by real judges and with real evidence.

You are also wrong about who other countries give money to and why and that they would actually stop for human rights or democratic issues. Any country that gives money does it as a self serving act that will benefit them in the future. They make not like if a country violates human rights or is not democratic but that does not impede their decision to give money.

You really should learn about GOOGLE and start using it before posting such nonsense.

I am afraid it is you that is posting nonsense, perhaps because you seem to rely solely on search engines for your information.If you are suggesting that the treatment of Yingluck by the courts is not connected with the wishes of those who planned and undertook a military coup you are comically deluded on the independence of the Thai legal system.It is true that foreign countries will put their economic and trading interests before human rights.In any case they have no brief for the Shinawatra clan as they did for example with Aung San Suu Kyi.But there is no serious suggestion that the vendetta against Yingluck is not primarily motivated by the wish to exterminate the Shinawatra influence permanently rather than concerns about the flawed rice price support policy.Incidentally Thailand is not dependent on foreign aid as you seem to believe, receives very little and can easily do without it.

Fair points. The Justice system in Thailand seems highly "selective" at the best of times. There is certainly no demonstration of justice for all. The international community certainly holds no brief for the Shinawatra clan and others on here who seek to liken her to ASSK are sadly deluded.

Yingluck is being singled out as she was PM, she did appoint herself chair of the rice policy scheme, and she has refused to answer questions or admit any problems, wrong doings or that anything was amiss. She's either being badly advised, as repeating the same rhetoric won't achieve anything; or someone wants to try and use her to be seen as a martyr. Her big problem is she has no real defense to the charges that she cares to share.

Had she been working hard, chairing meetings, acting on advice and warnings and had poor farmers really benefited then fair enough. But she simply did nothing and left it all to others.

Generally there is confusion about the rice support policy both among Yingluck's supporters and critics.There was nothing illegal about the policy itself given it was introduced by a legitimate and democratically elected government.This needs to be said because some critics invoke its populist nature as though this was part of a crime, ignoring the fact that similar schemes to help farmers have been practised in many countries.The problem was in its implementation including maladministration and corruption.At the risk of simplification Yingluck was probably guilty of the former but not the latter.As to corruption I have no doubt it existed as it exists everywhere in Thailand including the military - but we have heard little to date other than hints and allegations.It needs also to be said that impeachment and criminal proceedings are obviously wildly over the top underlining the reality that without condoning the flawed policy the whole affair stinks of political vengeance.No serious person denies this.

Incidentally on the thread topic I have not seen one iota of evidence that Yingluck has the slightest intention of fleeing.We know that some of her enemies would very much like her to but that's not the same thing

[Strangebrew]

You sure she is still here? Thought I saw her shopping in Hong Kong last week.

[samsensam]

when posting a story about Yingluk please include pic

[FangFerang]

I read all the posts in news stories that I read. I want to know what other people think. It occurred to me today, what if they were holding Yingluk hostage to get her brother to come back to face standard Thai injustice?

Lots of conjecture about it being easier for everyone if she fled, however that wouldn't solve anything. Some back room deal seems unlikely, since people objected to her motorcade being searched (basically to make sure she was in it, I believe).

So much bull gets palmed off as news, that trying to reach a conclusion is like finding a needle in a needle stack....

[FangFerang]

The corruption in the rice pledging scheme seems to be at the warehouse level, but few (if any) warehouse owners are on trial. Only at the warehouse could documents be issued to overpay some farmers, for a kickback, and only there at the warehouses was missing and damaged rice found. Even more confusing, first they said the rice stocks were at such-and-such a level, and three weeks later they were suddenly selling imaginary rice at auction well above stated levels that showed theft. Where did this mystery rice come from? No one has ever answered that question adequately. No one.

Why aren't the warehouse owners having their finances scrutinized? Why aren't they under the gun? It's simple. The next batch of politicos wants their cut, same as before, but with only the "right" people lining their pockets.

The announcement fielded two weeks ago about providing small rice mills for villages went over like a loud fart at the "I do" portion of a western wedding. Nobody wants the extortion racket changed, done away with, or altered. They just want selected recipients.

[realenglish1]

For now it is in the best interest of the Junta to charge all parties and then aquas as a bargaining tool for reconciliation,

This way everyone will be willing to compromise with jail hanging over their head whether its Yingluck or one of the Red Shirt Leaders or Suthip.

Everyone will go along with it

[mathias67]

She will go for sure. Actually she has been "mentally gone" for a prolonged period already.

Seize ALL her assets, bank accounts, property and anything else they can find

[oneday]

I personally, hope she says "adios" and gets out.