Court procedure an option if Yingluck refuses to pay compensation: Wissanu

[halloween]

There is plenty of evidence that the military coup has inflicted billions of dollars damage on the country.Is it possible that those responsible and those backing them can be called to account, possibly through confiscation of assets and financial compensation?

As to the Yingluck issue, the rice price support policy (misconceived and poorly administered) has legitimacy given the government was democratically elected.Similar schemes operate elsewhere notably in the US and Japan.I don't see why Yingluck should be responsible personally.If she was involved in corruption (no evidence at all) or even colluded in others' corruption (evidence needed), that is a different matter and she should be made accountable.

The judicial waters are however muddied as other members have pointed out, and nobody seriously contends the whole process is not politically motivated.

Why does an expensive failure of a vote-buying scam give a government legitimacy? Before you compare the rice scam to subsidies in the US and japan, you might like to consider their size (and efficacy) compared to those countries GDPs, the number of voters nominally affected (nominally because most of those who thought they might receive benefit did not), and whether those subsidies have a large effect on electoral results.

Thaksin's scam, repeated by Yingluk, was a vote buy with taxpayers' money, not only predicted to fail but proven in its previous run. Do you believe that election promise policies should be able to squander the public purse simply so that the party can get elected?

In all democracies elections tend to be won by governments that promote policies designed to improve the prosperity and happiness of the electorate.

And the rice scam did either?

[ianf]

There is plenty of evidence that the military coup has inflicted billions of dollars damage on the country.Is it possible that those responsible and those backing them can be called to account, possibly through confiscation of assets and financial compensation?

As to the Yingluck issue, the rice price support policy (misconceived and poorly administered) has legitimacy given the government was democratically elected.Similar schemes operate elsewhere notably in the US and Japan.I don't see why Yingluck should be responsible personally.If she was involved in corruption (no evidence at all) or even colluded in others' corruption (evidence needed), that is a different matter and she should be made accountable.

The judicial waters are however muddied as other members have pointed out, and nobody seriously contends the whole process is not politically motivated.

Please show the evidence "that the military coup has inflicted billions of dollars damage on the country".

[ianf]

Jayboy seems to think that gratuitous insults proves his ideological points. Like other posters here who call people Boneheads and so on for advancing theories, arguments and possibilities, Jayboy only wishes to show his support for a regime that was undemocratic and dictatorial. Those of us who look behind the curtains know why Yingluck was put up as the 'fall-guy' - because of her family relationship she was dispensable and still is. Agreed, I don't like coups or undemocratic processes but consider this: is voting in itself the end all and be all of democracy? When did Thaksin start using the word 'democracy'? Stating that 'Thaksin thinks and PT does' whilst on the run from the courts does not sound very democratic to me! Were the extra-judicial killings under Thaksin's watch Democratic? In my humble opinion, Thaksin is a damaged and brutal person and the coup was no more than an attempt to restore some sort of order to this country in the same way as the pre-world war generals in the German army tried to oust Hitler (but were executed for their pains). If they had of succeeded maybe 6 million+ people would not have been slaughtered. Perhaps the current coup can be seen as saviors - somewhat naive off course, but saviors nevertheless. Prayuth makes me feel uncomfortable but I understand where he's coming from. I am also taken with the fact that people who blindly support dictators, Thaksin, Amin, Saddam and others of that ilk may well have emotional issues of their own where they need to have such a leader to look up to. This is well-documented in works such as The Mass Psychology of Fascism and Listen Little Man. Blindly supporting people who are either psychopathic or sociopathic with their greed and lust for personal power sounds to me like there's something wrong, somewhere. So don't point to the losses that may have been incurred under Prayuth's watch as a counter balance to Thaksin's scams. They are both separate issues: it is right that Yingluck should be held accountable. I would hope that this happens in a fair way in the courts of law and not by prime ministerial decree.

[phoenixdoglover]

"We can enforce the order through court procedures. The PM's administrative order has the same status as a court ruling. The order can be enforced after a grace period before asset confiscation can be carried out,'' he said

In other words, "We don't need no stinking legal system."

Which at the moment, is the unfortunate truth.

[phoenixdoglover]

.... Agreed, I don't like coups or undemocratic processes but consider this: is voting in itself the end all and be all of democracy? When did Thaksin start using the word 'democracy'? ....

I've just extracted one thought from your post. (May I suggest using paragraphs in the future? If you're looking for people to read your stuff, that would be an inducement).

This notion that an election was the only vestige of democracy under the previous administration is perplexing to me, as I followed the events closely in 2013 and 2014, and there were many aspects of democracy (or at least, what we associate with democratic governments) in evidence. For example:

- a successful challenge and defeat of the amnesty bill (although I am told it was not 100% dead; we shall never know whether it had any life left in it)

- a challenge and defeat of an attempt to amend the Constitution, declared null and void by the Court

- a politically tumultuous but peaceful transition to a caretaker government (but subsequent gross interference with elections)

The democratic institutions were largely working. What was not working was the response to ongoing civil disobedience and violence in the streets, although the level of this activity had declined dramatically over the 6 months leading up to the Coup (largely because the demonstrations had run out of steam... dwindling from 7 locations at critical points to an encampment at Lumphini Park).

The proper resolution, of course, would have been the assistance of the Army in suppressing violence and ensuring the government replacement process could take place. Instead, the Army staged a coup, the ultimate in non-democratic action.

[jayboy]

Jayboy seems to think that gratuitous insults proves his ideological points. Like other posters here who call people Boneheads and so on for advancing theories, arguments and possibilities, Jayboy only wishes to show his support for a regime that was undemocratic and dictatorial. Those of us who look behind the curtains know why Yingluck was put up as the 'fall-guy' - because of her family relationship she was dispensable and still is. Agreed, I don't like coups or undemocratic processes but consider this: is voting in itself the end all and be all of democracy? When did Thaksin start using the word 'democracy'? Stating that 'Thaksin thinks and PT does' whilst on the run from the courts does not sound very democratic to me! Were the extra-judicial killings under Thaksin's watch Democratic? In my humble opinion, Thaksin is a damaged and brutal person and the coup was no more than an attempt to restore some sort of order to this country in the same way as the pre-world war generals in the German army tried to oust Hitler (but were executed for their pains). If they had of succeeded maybe 6 million+ people would not have been slaughtered. Perhaps the current coup can be seen as saviors - somewhat naive off course, but saviors nevertheless. Prayuth makes me feel uncomfortable but I understand where he's coming from. I am also taken with the fact that people who blindly support dictators, Thaksin, Amin, Saddam and others of that ilk may well have emotional issues of their own where they need to have such a leader to look up to. This is well-documented in works such as The Mass Psychology of Fascism and Listen Little Man. Blindly supporting people who are either psychopathic or sociopathic with their greed and lust for personal power sounds to me like there's something wrong, somewhere. So don't point to the losses that may have been incurred under Prayuth's watch as a counter balance to Thaksin's scams. They are both separate issues: it is right that Yingluck should be held accountable. I would hope that this happens in a fair way in the courts of law and not by prime ministerial decree.

1.I have never indicated support for the Thaksin regime.Understanding Thailand's difficulties cannot be achieved through a simple minded black and white approach.Thaksin is not an admirable man nor do his values have much relevance for Thailand.His significance is that of a catalyst.

2.Fair elections are not the be and end all of democracy.But without them there can be no democracy.

3.There was no mystery to Yingluck's nomination.Thaksin put forward his sister as a leader the Thai people would support.He was correct.

4.No serious person would suggest Thaksin was a champion of democratic values.But he understood that the key to legitimacy is popular democracy.The current Junta is opposed to that.

5.Your summary of the German military resistance to Hitler is historically illiterate.

6.Linking Thaksin to Saddam and Amin is historically illiterate.

7.There is a difference between an authoritarian and a dictator.

8.As far as Thailand is concerned you are looking in the wrong direction for evidence of the cult of personality and quasi fascism.

Edited October 10, 2015 by jayboy

[halloween]

.... Agreed, I don't like coups or undemocratic processes but consider this: is voting in itself the end all and be all of democracy? When did Thaksin start using the word 'democracy'? ....

I've just extracted one thought from your post. (May I suggest using paragraphs in the future? If you're looking for people to read your stuff, that would be an inducement).

This notion that an election was the only vestige of democracy under the previous administration is perplexing to me, as I followed the events closely in 2013 and 2014, and there were many aspects of democracy (or at least, what we associate with democratic governments) in evidence. For example:

- a successful challenge and defeat of the amnesty bill (although I am told it was not 100% dead; we shall never know whether it had any life left in it)

- a challenge and defeat of an attempt to amend the Constitution, declared null and void by the Court

- a politically tumultuous but peaceful transition to a caretaker government (but subsequent gross interference with elections)

The democratic institutions were largely working. What was not working was the response to ongoing civil disobedience and violence in the streets, although the level of this activity had declined dramatically over the 6 months leading up to the Coup (largely because the demonstrations had run out of steam... dwindling from 7 locations at critical points to an encampment at Lumphini Park).

The proper resolution, of course, would have been the assistance of the Army in suppressing violence and ensuring the government replacement process could take place. Instead, the Army staged a coup, the ultimate in non-democratic action.

There was also any number of actions highly unusual, if not totally absent, in a real democracy. Just a few examples:

- a massive vote buy with populist policies without any form of cost/benefit analysis (other than how many votes they might attract)

- a party list nominating a rota of unsavoury characters, including those actually charged with major crimes

- government MPs accepting payments to be members of their party, a party which advertises itself as the vehicle of a wealthy criminal

- that criminal being allowed access to cabinet meetings. Even if he wasn't dictating policy, the possibility of insider trading is undeniable

- huge conflict of interest issues, culminating in the amnesty bill.

- denial and cover up of huge losses and illegal activity by government ministers

- refusal to resign after a bill is defeated in the Senate by unanimous vote

[longway]

They are going to issue an administrative order to force payment before the case is heard?? What type of legal system is that?

So a PM can just issue a penalty notice at his whim? What an absolute farce, and an incredibly dangerous precedent to set that is. He'd better get his wonga offshore because if he does that, undoubtedly there will be massive retribution when time comes....

Its got nothing to do with the case, it was supposed to be a cost neutral subsidy, and she was in charge of administering it, The scam lost vast amounts of money, up to 1 trillion baht, she is getting off lightly with only 500 billion or so imo.

Surely a court should decide guilt not a govt order?

Its an administrative order, so its within the law, if Yingluck doesn't agree with that interpretation she can take it to a judge to get a ruling, but basically afaik, she must abide by the order, if she doesn't then then will use a court to enforce the order.

Its not linked with her court case.

[Thai at Heart]

There is plenty of evidence that the military coup has inflicted billions of dollars damage on the country.Is it possible that those responsible and those backing them can be called to account, possibly through confiscation of assets and financial compensation?

As to the Yingluck issue, the rice price support policy (misconceived and poorly administered) has legitimacy given the government was democratically elected.Similar schemes operate elsewhere notably in the US and Japan.I don't see why Yingluck should be responsible personally.If she was involved in corruption (no evidence at all) or even colluded in others' corruption (evidence needed), that is a different matter and she should be made accountable.

The judicial waters are however muddied as other members have pointed out, and nobody seriously contends the whole process is not politically motivated.

Please show the evidence "that the military coup has inflicted billions of dollars damage on the country".

http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2014/10/thailands-economy

Compared with trend economic growth the cost will be perhaps $20 billion to $30 billion from 2014 to 2016,

[candide]

There is plenty of evidence that the military coup has inflicted billions of dollars damage on the country.Is it possible that those responsible and those backing them can be called to account, possibly through confiscation of assets and financial compensation?

As to the Yingluck issue, the rice price support policy (misconceived and poorly administered) has legitimacy given the government was democratically elected.Similar schemes operate elsewhere notably in the US and Japan.I don't see why Yingluck should be responsible personally.If she was involved in corruption (no evidence at all) or even colluded in others' corruption (evidence needed), that is a different matter and she should be made accountable.

The judicial waters are however muddied as other members have pointed out, and nobody seriously contends the whole process is not politically motivated.

Please show the evidence "that the military coup has inflicted billions of dollars damage on the country".

http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2014/10/thailands-economy

Compared with trend economic growth the cost will be perhaps $20 billion to $30 billion from 2014 to 2016,

See also my estimate in the first page of this thread.

[smutcakes]

They are going to issue an administrative order to force payment before the case is heard?? What type of legal system is that?

So a PM can just issue a penalty notice at his whim? What an absolute farce, and an incredibly dangerous precedent to set that is. He'd better get his wonga offshore because if he does that, undoubtedly there will be massive retribution when time comes....

Its got nothing to do with the case, it was supposed to be a cost neutral subsidy, and she was in charge of administering it, The scam lost vast amounts of money, up to 1 trillion baht, she is getting off lightly with only 500 billion or so imo.

So the only reason she has to pay it back was because it was supposed to be cost neutral?

When does an amount of money become so much that it needs to be paid back? Would this Govt handing out 40 billion become to much? Who would make that decision? I believe the Democrat Govt prior to PTP also had their version of a rice scheme, do they have to pay it back?

[billphillips]

This situation could well set a president for future ex-prime ministers. The current p m should take note. In the not too distant future, he could well find the roles reversed.

[ianf]

Jayboy seems to think that gratuitous insults proves his ideological points. Like other posters here who call people Boneheads and so on for advancing theories, arguments and possibilities, Jayboy only wishes to show his support for a regime that was undemocratic and dictatorial. Those of us who look behind the curtains know why Yingluck was put up as the 'fall-guy' - because of her family relationship she was dispensable and still is. Agreed, I don't like coups or undemocratic processes but consider this: is voting in itself the end all and be all of democracy? When did Thaksin start using the word 'democracy'? Stating that 'Thaksin thinks and PT does' whilst on the run from the courts does not sound very democratic to me! Were the extra-judicial killings under Thaksin's watch Democratic? In my humble opinion, Thaksin is a damaged and brutal person and the coup was no more than an attempt to restore some sort of order to this country in the same way as the pre-world war generals in the German army tried to oust Hitler (but were executed for their pains). If they had of succeeded maybe 6 million+ people would not have been slaughtered. Perhaps the current coup can be seen as saviors - somewhat naive off course, but saviors nevertheless. Prayuth makes me feel uncomfortable but I understand where he's coming from. I am also taken with the fact that people who blindly support dictators, Thaksin, Amin, Saddam and others of that ilk may well have emotional issues of their own where they need to have such a leader to look up to. This is well-documented in works such as The Mass Psychology of Fascism and Listen Little Man. Blindly supporting people who are either psychopathic or sociopathic with their greed and lust for personal power sounds to me like there's something wrong, somewhere. So don't point to the losses that may have been incurred under Prayuth's watch as a counter balance to Thaksin's scams. They are both separate issues: it is right that Yingluck should be held accountable. I would hope that this happens in a fair way in the courts of law and not by prime ministerial decree.

1.I have never indicated support for the Thaksin regime.Understanding Thailand's difficulties cannot be achieved through a simple minded black and white approach.Thaksin is not an admirable man nor do his values have much relevance for Thailand.His significance is that of a catalyst.

2.Fair elections are not the be and end all of democracy.But without them there can be no democracy.

3.There was no mystery to Yingluck's nomination.Thaksin put forward his sister as a leader the Thai people would support.He was correct.

4.No serious person would suggest Thaksin was a champion of democratic values.But he understood that the key to legitimacy is popular democracy.The current Junta is opposed to that.

5.Your summary of the German military resistance to Hitler is historically illiterate.

6.Linking Thaksin to Saddam and Amin is historically illiterate.

7.There is a difference between an authoritarian and a dictator.

8.As far as Thailand is concerned you are looking in the wrong direction for evidence of the cult of personality and quasi fascism.

Issuing insults as if you are the fount of all knowledge is not a way of discussing important issues. 'Historically illiterate'? What on earth is all that about?

(Paragraph) I could not disagree with you more than I do. For example, point 5: I refer to Operation Valkyrie of 1944. This cannot be disputed and to me there are parallels with the current situation. (I won't pick you to pieces on the other points you raise because there really is no point)

(Paragraph) When one posts quickly in the morning before escaping the house, one naturally writes in shorthand. One relies on the intelligence of the reader not to misinterpret ..... or insult.

[jayboy]

Jayboy seems to think that gratuitous insults proves his ideological points. Like other posters here who call people Boneheads and so on for advancing theories, arguments and possibilities, Jayboy only wishes to show his support for a regime that was undemocratic and dictatorial. Those of us who look behind the curtains know why Yingluck was put up as the 'fall-guy' - because of her family relationship she was dispensable and still is. Agreed, I don't like coups or undemocratic processes but consider this: is voting in itself the end all and be all of democracy? When did Thaksin start using the word 'democracy'? Stating that 'Thaksin thinks and PT does' whilst on the run from the courts does not sound very democratic to me! Were the extra-judicial killings under Thaksin's watch Democratic? In my humble opinion, Thaksin is a damaged and brutal person and the coup was no more than an attempt to restore some sort of order to this country in the same way as the pre-world war generals in the German army tried to oust Hitler (but were executed for their pains). If they had of succeeded maybe 6 million+ people would not have been slaughtered. Perhaps the current coup can be seen as saviors - somewhat naive off course, but saviors nevertheless. Prayuth makes me feel uncomfortable but I understand where he's coming from. I am also taken with the fact that people who blindly support dictators, Thaksin, Amin, Saddam and others of that ilk may well have emotional issues of their own where they need to have such a leader to look up to. This is well-documented in works such as The Mass Psychology of Fascism and Listen Little Man. Blindly supporting people who are either psychopathic or sociopathic with their greed and lust for personal power sounds to me like there's something wrong, somewhere. So don't point to the losses that may have been incurred under Prayuth's watch as a counter balance to Thaksin's scams. They are both separate issues: it is right that Yingluck should be held accountable. I would hope that this happens in a fair way in the courts of law and not by prime ministerial decree.

1.I have never indicated support for the Thaksin regime.Understanding Thailand's difficulties cannot be achieved through a simple minded black and white approach.Thaksin is not an admirable man nor do his values have much relevance for Thailand.His significance is that of a catalyst.

2.Fair elections are not the be and end all of democracy.But without them there can be no democracy.

3.There was no mystery to Yingluck's nomination.Thaksin put forward his sister as a leader the Thai people would support.He was correct.

4.No serious person would suggest Thaksin was a champion of democratic values.But he understood that the key to legitimacy is popular democracy.The current Junta is opposed to that.

5.Your summary of the German military resistance to Hitler is historically illiterate.

6.Linking Thaksin to Saddam and Amin is historically illiterate.

7.There is a difference between an authoritarian and a dictator.

8.As far as Thailand is concerned you are looking in the wrong direction for evidence of the cult of personality and quasi fascism.

Issuing insults as if you are the fount of all knowledge is not a way of discussing important issues. 'Historically illiterate'? What on earth is all that about?

(Paragraph) I could not disagree with you more than I do. For example, point 5: I refer to Operation Valkyrie of 1944. This cannot be disputed and to me there are parallels with the current situation. (I won't pick you to pieces on the other points you raise because there really is no point)

(Paragraph) When one posts quickly in the morning before escaping the house, one naturally writes in shorthand. One relies on the intelligence of the reader not to misinterpret ..... or insult.

You do not address any of my points so a short response will suffice.

"Historically illiterate" means attempting to make comparisons between present and past without any understanding of context, relevance or meaning.

To suggest the recent coup was comparable to the bomb plot against Hitler is ignorance of the first order.The conspirators in 1944 were conservatives of the Junker class who mostly shared the Fuhrer's objectives, the point at issue being military reverses and his increasingly poor judgement.Using your silly comparison this implies that the Thai generals executed the coup so that Thaksinite goals could be pursued more efficiently!

[halloween]

Its got nothing to do with the case, it was supposed to be a cost neutral subsidy, and she was in charge of administering it, The scam lost vast amounts of money, up to 1 trillion baht, she is getting off lightly with only 500 billion or so imo.

So the only reason she has to pay it back was because it was supposed to be cost neutral?

When does an amount of money become so much that it needs to be paid back? Would this Govt handing out 40 billion become to much? Who would make that decision? I believe the Democrat Govt prior to PTP also had their version of a rice scheme, do they have to pay it back?

Obviously you missed the point. It was supposed to be cost neutral, and she was in charge of administering it.

When it became apparent that it wasn't going to be cost neutral, the only administrative action she took to minimise losses was to lie about it.

The Democrat rice scheme was budgeted, paid directly to farmers, and miniscule in cost.

[smutcakes]

Its got nothing to do with the case, it was supposed to be a cost neutral subsidy, and she was in charge of administering it, The scam lost vast amounts of money, up to 1 trillion baht, she is getting off lightly with only 500 billion or so imo.

So the only reason she has to pay it back was because it was supposed to be cost neutral?

When does an amount of money become so much that it needs to be paid back? Would this Govt handing out 40 billion become to much? Who would make that decision? I believe the Democrat Govt prior to PTP also had their version of a rice scheme, do they have to pay it back?

Obviously you missed the point. It was supposed to be cost neutral, and she was in charge of administering it.

When it became apparent that it wasn't going to be cost neutral, the only administrative action she took to minimise losses was to lie about it.

The Democrat rice scheme was budgeted, paid directly to farmers, and miniscule in cost.

So on what legal point does she have to pay it back and others who lost money don't?

[MZurf]

There is plenty of evidence that the military coup has inflicted billions of dollars damage on the country.Is it possible that those responsible and those backing them can be called to account, possibly through confiscation of assets and financial compensation?

As to the Yingluck issue, the rice price support policy (misconceived and poorly administered) has legitimacy given the government was democratically elected.Similar schemes operate elsewhere notably in the US and Japan.I don't see why Yingluck should be responsible personally.If she was involved in corruption (no evidence at all) or even colluded in others' corruption (evidence needed), that is a different matter and she should be made accountable.

The judicial waters are however muddied as other members have pointed out, and nobody seriously contends the whole process is not politically motivated.

Well, lowering myself to your nonsense logic, Yingluck is also responsible for the coup because of the UDD terrorists her government sent to murder protesters and also instructing the police to allow them free and easy access to do it.

So add your 'billions' to her bill.

"the rice price support policy (misconceived and poorly administered)"

Of 600 billion spent, only 100 billion made it to the farmers. Poorly administered indeed ! .

Do you not know this fact, or do you know it and choose to ignore it ?. Never mind : keep your fingers in your ears and your head in the sand.

Don't really follow your thought processes here.I would have thought you might have agreed with my comments on the shortcomings of the rice price support policy.

Frankly and without wishing to be unkind or impolite, it would probably be more productive for you to engage with someone closer to your level.There are plenty of people happy to have a bit of knock with half thoiught out platitudes (on both sides of the fence) but I'm not one of them.

[MZurf]

There is plenty of evidence that the military coup has inflicted billions of dollars damage on the country.Is it possible that those responsible and those backing them can be called to account, possibly through confiscation of assets and financial compensation?

As to the Yingluck issue, the rice price support policy (misconceived and poorly administered) has legitimacy given the government was democratically elected.Similar schemes operate elsewhere notably in the US and Japan.I don't see why Yingluck should be responsible personally.If she was involved in corruption (no evidence at all) or even colluded in others' corruption (evidence needed), that is a different matter and she should be made accountable.

The judicial waters are however muddied as other members have pointed out, and nobody seriously contends the whole process is not politically motivated.

Why does an expensive failure of a vote-buying scam give a government legitimacy? Before you compare the rice scam to subsidies in the US and japan, you might like to consider their size (and efficacy) compared to those countries GDPs, the number of voters nominally affected (nominally because most of those who thought they might receive benefit did not), and whether those subsidies have a large effect on electoral results.

Thaksin's scam, repeated by Yingluk, was a vote buy with taxpayers' money, not only predicted to fail but proven in its previous run. Do you believe that election promise policies should be able to squander the public purse simply so that the party can get elected?

And exactly what would you do to the governments in other democratic countries that make costly promises on a regular basis - overthrow them??

[mikemac]

There is plenty of evidence that the military coup has inflicted billions of dollars damage on the country.Is it possible that those responsible and those backing them can be called to account, possibly through confiscation of assets and financial compensation?

As to the Yingluck issue, the rice price support policy (misconceived and poorly administered) has legitimacy given the government was democratically elected.Similar schemes operate elsewhere notably in the US and Japan.I don't see why Yingluck should be responsible personally.If she was involved in corruption (no evidence at all) or even colluded in others' corruption (evidence needed), that is a different matter and she should be made accountable.

The judicial waters are however muddied as other members have pointed out, and nobody seriously contends the whole process is not politically motivated.

Why does an expensive failure of a vote-buying scam give a government legitimacy? Before you compare the rice scam to subsidies in the US and japan, you might like to consider their size (and efficacy) compared to those countries GDPs, the number of voters nominally affected (nominally because most of those who thought they might receive benefit did not), and whether those subsidies have a large effect on electoral results.

Thaksin's scam, repeated by Yingluk, was a vote buy with taxpayers' money, not only predicted to fail but proven in its previous run. Do you believe that election promise policies should be able to squander the public purse simply so that the party can get elected?

And exactly what would you do to the governments in other democratic countries that make costly promises on a regular basis - overthrow them??

Governments in other democratic countries are not run by on-the-run convicted criminals, governments in other democratic countries are not led by a puppet PM who had zero experience in politics before becoming PM. Governments in other democratic countries do not have their own personal terrorist organization killing anyone who dares to oppose them.

And governments in other democratic countries are not infested with families like the Shinawatras, so they don't warrant being overthrown.

[MZurf]

There is plenty of evidence that the military coup has inflicted billions of dollars damage on the country.Is it possible that those responsible and those backing them can be called to account, possibly through confiscation of assets and financial compensation?

As to the Yingluck issue, the rice price support policy (misconceived and poorly administered) has legitimacy given the government was democratically elected.Similar schemes operate elsewhere notably in the US and Japan.I don't see why Yingluck should be responsible personally.If she was involved in corruption (no evidence at all) or even colluded in others' corruption (evidence needed), that is a different matter and she should be made accountable.

The judicial waters are however muddied as other members have pointed out, and nobody seriously contends the whole process is not politically motivated.

Why does an expensive failure of a vote-buying scam give a government legitimacy? Before you compare the rice scam to subsidies in the US and japan, you might like to consider their size (and efficacy) compared to those countries GDPs, the number of voters nominally affected (nominally because most of those who thought they might receive benefit did not), and whether those subsidies have a large effect on electoral results.

Thaksin's scam, repeated by Yingluk, was a vote buy with taxpayers' money, not only predicted to fail but proven in its previous run. Do you believe that election promise policies should be able to squander the public purse simply so that the party can get elected?

And exactly what would you do to the governments in other democratic countries that make costly promises on a regular basis - overthrow them??

Governments in other democratic countries are not run by on-the-run convicted criminals, governments in other democratic countries are not led by a puppet PM who had zero experience in politics before becoming PM. Governments in other democratic countries do not have their own personal terrorist organization killing anyone who dares to oppose them.

And governments in other democratic countries are not infested with families like the Shinawatras, so they don't warrant being overthrown.

And who decides if a government "warrants" being overthrown? The always benign armed forces??

[ianf]

Jayboy seems to think that gratuitous insults proves his ideological points. Like other posters here who call people Boneheads and so on for advancing theories, arguments and possibilities, Jayboy only wishes to show his support for a regime that was undemocratic and dictatorial. Those of us who look behind the curtains know why Yingluck was put up as the 'fall-guy' - because of her family relationship she was dispensable and still is. Agreed, I don't like coups or undemocratic processes but consider this: is voting in itself the end all and be all of democracy? When did Thaksin start using the word 'democracy'? Stating that 'Thaksin thinks and PT does' whilst on the run from the courts does not sound very democratic to me! Were the extra-judicial killings under Thaksin's watch Democratic? In my humble opinion, Thaksin is a damaged and brutal person and the coup was no more than an attempt to restore some sort of order to this country in the same way as the pre-world war generals in the German army tried to oust Hitler (but were executed for their pains). If they had of succeeded maybe 6 million+ people would not have been slaughtered. Perhaps the current coup can be seen as saviors - somewhat naive off course, but saviors nevertheless. Prayuth makes me feel uncomfortable but I understand where he's coming from. I am also taken with the fact that people who blindly support dictators, Thaksin, Amin, Saddam and others of that ilk may well have emotional issues of their own where they need to have such a leader to look up to. This is well-documented in works such as The Mass Psychology of Fascism and Listen Little Man. Blindly supporting people who are either psychopathic or sociopathic with their greed and lust for personal power sounds to me like there's something wrong, somewhere. So don't point to the losses that may have been incurred under Prayuth's watch as a counter balance to Thaksin's scams. They are both separate issues: it is right that Yingluck should be held accountable. I would hope that this happens in a fair way in the courts of law and not by prime ministerial decree.

1.I have never indicated support for the Thaksin regime.Understanding Thailand's difficulties cannot be achieved through a simple minded black and white approach.Thaksin is not an admirable man nor do his values have much relevance for Thailand.His significance is that of a catalyst.

2.Fair elections are not the be and end all of democracy.But without them there can be no democracy.

3.There was no mystery to Yingluck's nomination.Thaksin put forward his sister as a leader the Thai people would support.He was correct.

4.No serious person would suggest Thaksin was a champion of democratic values.But he understood that the key to legitimacy is popular democracy.The current Junta is opposed to that.

5.Your summary of the German military resistance to Hitler is historically illiterate.

6.Linking Thaksin to Saddam and Amin is historically illiterate.

7.There is a difference between an authoritarian and a dictator.

8.As far as Thailand is concerned you are looking in the wrong direction for evidence of the cult of personality and quasi fascism.

Issuing insults as if you are the fount of all knowledge is not a way of discussing important issues. 'Historically illiterate'? What on earth is all that about?

(Paragraph) I could not disagree with you more than I do. For example, point 5: I refer to Operation Valkyrie of 1944. This cannot be disputed and to me there are parallels with the current situation. (I won't pick you to pieces on the other points you raise because there really is no point)

(Paragraph) When one posts quickly in the morning before escaping the house, one naturally writes in shorthand. One relies on the intelligence of the reader not to misinterpret ..... or insult.

You do not address any of my points so a short response will suffice.

"Historically illiterate" means attempting to make comparisons between present and past without any understanding of context, relevance or meaning.

To suggest the recent coup was comparable to the bomb plot against Hitler is ignorance of the first order.The conspirators in 1944 were conservatives of the Junker class who mostly shared the Fuhrer's objectives, the point at issue being military reverses and his increasingly poor judgement.Using your silly comparison this implies that the Thai generals executed the coup so that Thaksinite goals could be pursued more efficiently!

I suggest you study the history of those times. It is important that we learn the lessons of history and far from being a 'silly comparison' it is directly comparable. The Royal Thai Army moved to overturn Thaksin's regime (which was heavily backed by the USA) in much the same way as the German military tried to reverse the growing political power of the Nazi party. They had eroded the checks and balances in the German political system in a similar way as the various Thaksin regimes have done. (A case in point is bribing the Senate to support his illegal actions.) That the rank and file, and the officers involved, failed in Germany led to the greatest tragedy imaginable. I have no doubt that the RTA have avoided (or perhaps delayed) a tragedy of civil war and so on in this country through their coup. Learn the lessons of history.

As for comparing Thaksin to Amin, Saddam, Marcos and so on I stand my ground. Firmly. These people are all about personal power. family dynasties and so on. There are many comparisons that can be made. But I realise, Jayboy, that you can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink.

Off course it goes without saying that people would support Thaksin's proxy 'sister'. Here you have to understand mass psychology - the manipulation of the masses and, given his standing in certain communities - it was an easy trick to pull. And it worked. But is was far from democratic as he ran the cabinet and therefore the country in absentia. Sadly this manipulation worked. The question is, was it of his own doing or were there international powers that helped him on his way? You have to look at his close association with the Carlyle Group and people like Robert Amsterdam, Kenneth Adelman and others to get some inkling about Thaksin's ultimate goal. It certainly wasn't democratic!!! And his bedfellows are certainly not interested in the welfare of the common man.

Now how about the difference between authoritarianism and dictatorship? Why did you bring this into the equation? An authoritarian government is marked usually by the promulgation of a single party state - a situation that Thaksin in the past had indicated as a goal. Note: the Red Shirts brook no opposition because to recognise opposition is to acknowledge the democratic process. Consider their behaviour during the elections against Abhisit when the reds systematically destroyed 90% of the posters erected by the Democrats. There was no evidence of mass retaliatory actions. All of Thaksin's statements - especially those during the red occupation of Bangkok - highlighted his dictatorial intentions. His proclamations were authoritarian which led to the alienation of some colleagues and the bribing of others.

I can carry on in similar vein. However, I am mostly interested in the psychology of individuals who support people like Thaksin and subscribe to their manipulations; I am interested in the psychology of the masses who, history shows us, tend to support people as leaders who prey on their lives but show no visible support for those who are trying to build a decent and caring world. This has nothing to do with the 'cult of personality and quasi fascism' as you postulate. It goes further than your simple slogans.

Edited October 10, 2015 by ianf

[MZurf]

d.

Why does an expensive failure of a vote-buying scam give a government legitimacy? Before you compare the rice scam to subsidies in the US and japan, you might like to consider their size (and efficacy) compared to those countries GDPs, the number of voters nominally affected (nominally because most of those who thought they might receive benefit did not), and whether those subsidies have a large effect on electoral results.

Thaksin's scam, repeated by Yingluk, was a vote buy with taxpayers' money, not only predicted to fail but proven in its previous run. Do you believe that election promise policies should be able to squander the public purse simply so that the party can get elected?

And exactly what would you do to the governments in other democratic countries that make costly promises on a regular basis - overthrow them??

Governments in other democratic countries are not run by on-the-run convicted criminals, governments in other democratic countries are not led by a puppet PM who had zero experience in politics before becoming PM. Governments in other democratic countries do not have their own personal terrorist organization killing anyone who dares to oppose them.

And governments in other democratic countries are not infested with families like the Shinawatras, so they don't warrant being overthrown.

And who decides if a government "warrants" being overthrown? The always benign armed forces??

No, mikemac...nothing?

Didn't think so.

[jayboy]

Jayboy seems to think that gratuitous insults proves his ideological points. Like other posters here who call people Boneheads and so on for advancing theories, arguments and possibilities, Jayboy only wishes to show his support for a regime that was undemocratic and dictatorial. Those of us who look behind the curtains know why Yingluck was put up as the 'fall-guy' - because of her family relationship she was dispensable and still is. Agreed, I don't like coups or undemocratic processes but consider this: is voting in itself the end all and be all of democracy? When did Thaksin start using the word 'democracy'? Stating that 'Thaksin thinks and PT does' whilst on the run from the courts does not sound very democratic to me! Were the extra-judicial killings under Thaksin's watch Democratic? In my humble opinion, Thaksin is a damaged and brutal person and the coup was no more than an attempt to restore some sort of order to this country in the same way as the pre-world war generals in the German army tried to oust Hitler (but were executed for their pains). If they had of succeeded maybe 6 million+ people would not have been slaughtered. Perhaps the current coup can be seen as saviors - somewhat naive off course, but saviors nevertheless. Prayuth makes me feel uncomfortable but I understand where he's coming from. I am also taken with the fact that people who blindly support dictators, Thaksin, Amin, Saddam and others of that ilk may well have emotional issues of their own where they need to have such a leader to look up to. This is well-documented in works such as The Mass Psychology of Fascism and Listen Little Man. Blindly supporting people who are either psychopathic or sociopathic with their greed and lust for personal power sounds to me like there's something wrong, somewhere. So don't point to the losses that may have been incurred under Prayuth's watch as a counter balance to Thaksin's scams. They are both separate issues: it is right that Yingluck should be held accountable. I would hope that this happens in a fair way in the courts of law and not by prime ministerial decree.

1.I have never indicated support for the Thaksin regime.Understanding Thailand's difficulties cannot be achieved through a simple minded black and white approach.Thaksin is not an admirable man nor do his values have much relevance for Thailand.His significance is that of a catalyst.

2.Fair elections are not the be and end all of democracy.But without them there can be no democracy.

3.There was no mystery to Yingluck's nomination.Thaksin put forward his sister as a leader the Thai people would support.He was correct.

4.No serious person would suggest Thaksin was a champion of democratic values.But he understood that the key to legitimacy is popular democracy.The current Junta is opposed to that.

5.Your summary of the German military resistance to Hitler is historically illiterate.

6.Linking Thaksin to Saddam and Amin is historically illiterate.

7.There is a difference between an authoritarian and a dictator.

8.As far as Thailand is concerned you are looking in the wrong direction for evidence of the cult of personality and quasi fascism.

Issuing insults as if you are the fount of all knowledge is not a way of discussing important issues. 'Historically illiterate'? What on earth is all that about?
(Paragraph) I could not disagree with you more than I do. For example, point 5: I refer to Operation Valkyrie of 1944. This cannot be disputed and to me there are parallels with the current situation. (I won't pick you to pieces on the other points you raise because there really is no point)

(Paragraph) When one posts quickly in the morning before escaping the house, one naturally writes in shorthand. One relies on the intelligence of the reader not to misinterpret ..... or insult.

You do not address any of my points so a short response will suffice.

"Historically illiterate" means attempting to make comparisons between present and past without any understanding of context, relevance or meaning.

To suggest the recent coup was comparable to the bomb plot against Hitler is ignorance of the first order.The conspirators in 1944 were conservatives of the Junker class who mostly shared the Fuhrer's objectives, the point at issue being military reverses and his increasingly poor judgement.Using your silly comparison this implies that the Thai generals executed the coup so that Thaksinite goals could be pursued more efficiently!

I suggest you study the history of those times. It is important that we learn the lessons of history and far from being a 'silly comparison' it is directly comparable. The Royal Thai Army moved to overturn Thaksin's regime (which was heavily backed by the USA) in much the same way as the German military tried to reverse the growing political power of the Nazi party. They had eroded the checks and balances in the German political system in a similar way as the various Thaksin regimes have done. (A case in point is bribing the Senate to support his illegal actions.) That the rank and file, and the officers involved, failed in Germany led to the greatest tragedy imaginable. I have no doubt that the RTA have avoided (or perhaps delayed) a tragedy of civil war and so on in this country through their coup. Learn the lessons of history.

As for comparing Thaksin to Amin, Saddam, Marcos and so on I stand my ground. Firmly. These people are all about personal power. family dynasties and so on. There are many comparisons that can be made. But I realise, Jayboy, that you can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink.

Off course it goes without saying that people would support Thaksin's proxy 'sister'. Here you have to understand mass psychology - the manipulation of the masses and, given his standing in certain communities - it was an easy trick to pull. And it worked. But is was far from democratic as he ran the cabinet and therefore the country in absentia. Sadly this manipulation worked. The question is, was it of his own doing or were there international powers that helped him on his way? You have to look at his close association with the Carlyle Group and people like Robert Amsterdam, Kenneth Adelman and others to get some inkling about Thaksin's ultimate goal. It certainly wasn't democratic!!! And his bedfellows are certainly not interested in the welfare of the common man.

Now how about the difference between authoritarianism and dictatorship? Why did you bring this into the equation? An authoritarian government is marked usually by the promulgation of a single party state - a situation that Thaksin in the past had indicated as a goal. Note: the Red Shirts brook no opposition because to recognise opposition is to acknowledge the democratic process. Consider their behaviour during the elections against Abhisit when the reds systematically destroyed 90% of the posters erected by the Democrats. There was no evidence of mass retaliatory actions. All of Thaksin's statements - especially those during the red occupation of Bangkok - highlighted his dictatorial intentions. His proclamations were authoritarian which led to the alienation of some colleagues and the bribing of others.

I can carry on in similar vein. However, I am mostly interested in the psychology of individuals who support people like Thaksin and subscribe to their manipulations; I am interested in the psychology of the masses who, history shows us, tend to support people as leaders who prey on their lives but show no visible support for those who are trying to build a decent and caring world. This has nothing to do with the 'cult of personality and quasi fascism' as you postulate. It goes further than your simple slogans.

An interesting example of the pointlessness in trying to engage rationally with those who inhabit Lalaland.Whenever somebody invokes the sinister influence of the Carlyle Group one knows it's time to move on.

Still I love the fact he's so gloriously bewildered about the 1944 plot specifically his delightfully daft belief that the plotters were disturbed that Hitler had bypassed the checks and balances in the German system.Just like the Thai army!!!

Tony Cartalucci has a lot to answer for.

[Thai at Heart]

There is plenty of evidence that the military coup has inflicted billions of dollars damage on the country.Is it possible that those responsible and those backing them can be called to account, possibly through confiscation of assets and financial compensation?

As to the Yingluck issue, the rice price support policy (misconceived and poorly administered) has legitimacy given the government was democratically elected.Similar schemes operate elsewhere notably in the US and Japan.I don't see why Yingluck should be responsible personally.If she was involved in corruption (no evidence at all) or even colluded in others' corruption (evidence needed), that is a different matter and she should be made accountable.

The judicial waters are however muddied as other members have pointed out, and nobody seriously contends the whole process is not politically motivated.

Why does an expensive failure of a vote-buying scam give a government legitimacy? Before you compare the rice scam to subsidies in the US and japan, you might like to consider their size (and efficacy) compared to those countries GDPs, the number of voters nominally affected (nominally because most of those who thought they might receive benefit did not), and whether those subsidies have a large effect on electoral results.

Thaksin's scam, repeated by Yingluk, was a vote buy with taxpayers' money, not only predicted to fail but proven in its previous run. Do you believe that election promise policies should be able to squander the public purse simply so that the party can get elected?

And exactly what would you do to the governments in other democratic countries that make costly promises on a regular basis - overthrow them??

Governments in other democratic countries are not run by on-the-run convicted criminals, governments in other democratic countries are not led by a puppet PM who had zero experience in politics before becoming PM. Governments in other democratic countries do not have their own personal terrorist organization killing anyone who dares to oppose them.

And governments in other democratic countries are not infested with families like the Shinawatras, so they don't warrant being overthrown.

That's true. Point is, no one has accused anyone of consorting with a criminal during these meetings. An offence which is very simple in the West to enforce.

Why is it not illegal in Thailand? Because you would have to lock up just about every pooyai on many sides of the political divide who have tipped off or helped their relatives to leg it from the law.

It wasn't illegal to have a Skype meeting with thaksin in the cabinet. Simple.

[ianf]

Aaah! Your second reference to Tony Cartilucci. Thank you for the information. I have just visited his website and amazed to see his research and ideas coincide with mine. Far from being in LaLaland (or wherever) I find it interesting psychology that they are those out there who swallow the establishment line without question. Reich had a lot to say about the psychological needs that people who do this have. I certainly have never swallowed the media line. Firstly because I was originally trained as a journalist (many years ago); I was involved in politics in the UK being on the committee for a short time of a major political party, I worked for three years in a major international NGO and latterly I worked closely with psychologists. The sum total of these experiences led me to never believe the party line and to question everything. Certainly having spent part of the rainy afternoon looking at The Cartalucci website I felt that I had met a fellow traveller - a rare event indeed. And I would like to thank Jayboy for the opportunity.

It seems that some people in this life feel threatened by anything that confronts their own personal viewpoint or expectations and their responses tend to follow a pattern of insult, ridicule and so on without ever answering the major point and here - in the discussion between Jayboy and I we see this in practice.

However, it gets away from the original discussion and that is Yingluck's culpability in the rice scandal. What people tend to forget (or ignore) is what was behind this scheme. It was a typical Thaksin 'get rich' scheme which involved withdrawing rice from the world markets, thus forcing a rapid inflation in the trading price. Once the price had gone up beyond the inflated price offered (but not paid) to the growers, the rice could be released onto the world markets at the new grossly inflated price. This I find offensive because rice is a staple for vast numbers of the world's poor and to play with the cost of their basic foodstuff in this way is nothing short of criminal. But it is a good example of the way Thaksin operates. He dreamed of a win-win opportunity which would put him and his family in good standing but was defeated by other countries refusing to play this game and taking their opportunity to sell their rice at a reasonable price to the world. On this basis alone, Yingluck - the scheme's operator - deserves to be prosecuted and given a fair chance to explain her role.

And once again, Jayboy, thank you so much for your contribution to this debate.

[ianf]

Replied already

[jayboy]

Aaah! Your second reference to Tony Cartilucci. Thank you for the information. I have just visited his website and amazed to see his research and ideas coincide with mine. Far from being in LaLaland (or wherever) I find it interesting psychology that they are those out there who swallow the establishment line without question. Reich had a lot to say about the psychological needs that people who do this have. I certainly have never swallowed the media line. Firstly because I was originally trained as a journalist (many years ago); I was involved in politics in the UK being on the committee for a short time of a major political party, I worked for three years in a major international NGO and latterly I worked closely with psychologists. The sum total of these experiences led me to never believe the party line and to question everything. Certainly having spent part of the rainy afternoon looking at The Cartalucci website I felt that I had met a fellow traveller - a rare event indeed. And I would like to thank Jayboy for the opportunity.

It seems that some people in this life feel threatened by anything that confronts their own personal viewpoint or expectations and their responses tend to follow a pattern of insult, ridicule and so on without ever answering the major point and here - in the discussion between Jayboy and I we see this in practice.

However, it gets away from the original discussion and that is Yingluck's culpability in the rice scandal. What people tend to forget (or ignore) is what was behind this scheme. It was a typical Thaksin 'get rich' scheme which involved withdrawing rice from the world markets, thus forcing a rapid inflation in the trading price. Once the price had gone up beyond the inflated price offered (but not paid) to the growers, the rice could be released onto the world markets at the new grossly inflated price. This I find offensive because rice is a staple for vast numbers of the world's poor and to play with the cost of their basic foodstuff in this way is nothing short of criminal. But it is a good example of the way Thaksin operates. He dreamed of a win-win opportunity which would put him and his family in good standing but was defeated by other countries refusing to play this game and taking their opportunity to sell their rice at a reasonable price to the world. On this basis alone, Yingluck - the scheme's operator - deserves to be prosecuted and given a fair chance to explain her role.

And once again, Jayboy, thank you so much for your contribution to this debate.

If you recall, you ducked all the points put to you but I am delighted to have been the catalyst in hooking you up with Tony Cartalucci.You deserve each other and I am sure you will have many happy hours digesting his views.He I am sure will be very open to "confronting his own personal viewpoint and expectations".He's a give and take kind of guy.

I am intrigued to note you were on the committee of a major political party.Care to share with us which one?

[Thai at Heart]

I still await them pinning an extraordinary loss and proving guilt worthy of compensation on a politicians personal wealth.

Might set the most incredible precedent, that no other country will ever follow it. Undoubtedly a uniquely Thai solution to a unique problem, in that this level of scrutiny will never be used again in Thailand..

It will be reserved exclusively for the Shinawatras only.

[MiKT]

There is plenty of evidence that the military coup has inflicted billions of dollars damage on the country.Is it possible that those responsible and those backing them can be called to account, possibly through confiscation of assets and financial compensation?

As to the Yingluck issue, the rice price support policy (misconceived and poorly administered) has legitimacy given the government was democratically elected.Similar schemes operate elsewhere notably in the US and Japan.I don't see why Yingluck should be responsible personally.If she was involved in corruption (no evidence at all) or even colluded in others' corruption (evidence needed), that is a different matter and she should be made accountable.

The judicial waters are however muddied as other members have pointed out, and nobody seriously contends the whole process is not politically motivated.

You of course have indisputable evidence to back-up your first sentence????

Read the papers, even the government mouthpieces can't cover up the hugh losses to Thailand by the coupe conspiritors.

[ianf]

Aaah! Your second reference to Tony Cartilucci. Thank you for the information. I have just visited his website and amazed to see his research and ideas coincide with mine. Far from being in LaLaland (or wherever) I find it interesting psychology that they are those out there who swallow the establishment line without question. Reich had a lot to say about the psychological needs that people who do this have. I certainly have never swallowed the media line. Firstly because I was originally trained as a journalist (many years ago); I was involved in politics in the UK being on the committee for a short time of a major political party, I worked for three years in a major international NGO and latterly I worked closely with psychologists. The sum total of these experiences led me to never believe the party line and to question everything. Certainly having spent part of the rainy afternoon looking at The Cartalucci website I felt that I had met a fellow traveller - a rare event indeed. And I would like to thank Jayboy for the opportunity.

It seems that some people in this life feel threatened by anything that confronts their own personal viewpoint or expectations and their responses tend to follow a pattern of insult, ridicule and so on without ever answering the major point and here - in the discussion between Jayboy and I we see this in practice.

However, it gets away from the original discussion and that is Yingluck's culpability in the rice scandal. What people tend to forget (or ignore) is what was behind this scheme. It was a typical Thaksin 'get rich' scheme which involved withdrawing rice from the world markets, thus forcing a rapid inflation in the trading price. Once the price had gone up beyond the inflated price offered (but not paid) to the growers, the rice could be released onto the world markets at the new grossly inflated price. This I find offensive because rice is a staple for vast numbers of the world's poor and to play with the cost of their basic foodstuff in this way is nothing short of criminal. But it is a good example of the way Thaksin operates. He dreamed of a win-win opportunity which would put him and his family in good standing but was defeated by other countries refusing to play this game and taking their opportunity to sell their rice at a reasonable price to the world. On this basis alone, Yingluck - the scheme's operator - deserves to be prosecuted and given a fair chance to explain her role.

And once again, Jayboy, thank you so much for your contribution to this debate.

If you recall, you ducked all the points put to you but I am delighted to have been the catalyst in hooking you up with Tony Cartalucci.You deserve each other and I am sure you will have many happy hours digesting his views.He I am sure will be very open to "confronting his own personal viewpoint and expectations".He's a give and take kind of guy.

I am intrigued to note you were on the committee of a major political party.Care to share with us which one?

Privileged information not for public consumption old boy. But if you were ever here I might just show you the evidence. And indeed, I must say it is YOU that has ducked all the points. Have a nice day.