Yingluck asks PM to halt civil compensation claim from her

[phoenixdoglover]

it is highly unusual for an publicly elected prime minister to be personally liable for acts while in office.

more unusual still to demand compensation before the guilt is established in court.

its everyday life in thailand i guess since all tv members seem to see the fault also with the former publicly elected rather than the junta

She's being charged for negligence. She was in charge of the rice scam and ignored many requests from many organizations to either clarify what was going on or to just stop completely. No innocence here. This was a scheme by her brother to corner the rice market and make big money. The gamble didn't pay off and now Thailand will be dealing with this financially for many years to come. She was responsible. I think it's great politicians are held responsible for the misdeeds. Wish they'd do that in my home country!!! LOL

And yes, highly unusual. But seems to be tried in other countries as well:

http://www.ifp.org.za/newsroom/government-officials-must-be-held-personally-accountable-for-their-blunders/

The Inkatha Freedom Party in KwaZulu-Natal welcomes the ruling of the Pietermaritzburg High Court that ordered two Kokstad Municipality officials to pay back the money after they were found to be negligent in doing their work.

“This ruling is a bold step in the right direction as it sends a clear message to all state employees that they can be held personally accountable for their actions. Officials who are employed and entrusted to do to a particular job must understand the responsibilities that come with their work. They apply for the post and declare via their CVs that they are competent and qualified for the post. They were not forced into those posts, so they must do their work with diligence and honesty. Far too often officials at all levels of government are found to have been negligent in their work and their negligence or incompetence results in huge financial losses for the state while they get away with a slap on the wrist or resign”, said IFP Spokesperson on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Inkosi Mzamo Buthelezi, MPL.

That is an interesting comparison. But it involves government employees, not an elected official. Elected officials are not hired based on competency, they are elected based on popular vote. I think we can agree there is no "warranty of merchantability or fitness" for elected officials, unfortunately.

[Baerboxer]

Normally, court cases have precedence over administrative proceedings. The legal standard is higher. Yingluck is looking for this. She wants the court case to be pre-emptive, relieving her of the burden of defending against similar charges in two different venues.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides some support.

"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convictedor acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country."

So, say using the US or UK as examples. It never happens that people, or organizations, are acquitted on criminal charges, then subsequently convicted on civil charges, for the same offence.

Really? Where have you been?

But you are right. YL's legal team can't delay any longer, won't be allowed to keep adding irrelevant witnesses and so now try to look for any loop holes, double meanings or "twistable" laws they can try and use. Interesting that they appear to try all these things rather than employ a robust defense - perhaps that tells us something?

In the meantime we can expect more letters that then get posted on her FB, more sorrowful photos, and more stories about her life as a ordinary wife, mother and mushroom grower. All aimed at sympathy from the masses.

Go on Yingluck, prove us wrong. Produce audited detailed accounts, meeting minutes and show us how diligent you were.

[Baerboxer]

it is highly unusual for an publicly elected prime minister to be personally liable for acts while in office.

more unusual still to demand compensation before the guilt is established in court.

its everyday life in thailand i guess since all tv members seem to see the fault also with the former publicly elected rather than the junta

She's being charged for negligence. She was in charge of the rice scam and ignored many requests from many organizations to either clarify what was going on or to just stop completely. No innocence here. This was a scheme by her brother to corner the rice market and make big money. The gamble didn't pay off and now Thailand will be dealing with this financially for many years to come. She was responsible. I think it's great politicians are held responsible for the misdeeds. Wish they'd do that in my home country!!! LOL

And yes, highly unusual. But seems to be tried in other countries as well:

http://www.ifp.org.za/newsroom/government-officials-must-be-held-personally-accountable-for-their-blunders/

The Inkatha Freedom Party in KwaZulu-Natal welcomes the ruling of the Pietermaritzburg High Court that ordered two Kokstad Municipality officials to pay back the money after they were found to be negligent in doing their work.

“This ruling is a bold step in the right direction as it sends a clear message to all state employees that they can be held personally accountable for their actions. Officials who are employed and entrusted to do to a particular job must understand the responsibilities that come with their work. They apply for the post and declare via their CVs that they are competent and qualified for the post. They were not forced into those posts, so they must do their work with diligence and honesty. Far too often officials at all levels of government are found to have been negligent in their work and their negligence or incompetence results in huge financial losses for the state while they get away with a slap on the wrist or resign”, said IFP Spokesperson on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Inkosi Mzamo Buthelezi, MPL.

That is an interesting comparison. But it involves government employees, not an elected official. Elected officials are not hired based on competency, they are elected based on popular vote. I think we can agree there is no "warranty of merchantability or fitness" for elected officials, unfortunately.

But they do have a "duty of care" and have to abide by the laws, procedures and in accordance with their oaths of office.

[Baerboxer]

So if compensation is being demanded of her for the damage her governments rice subsidy caused the country and some kind of legal process allows this , it follows that the same legal process can and should be used against all politicians who in the past have damaged the country.

Wow ........what a can of worms.

And against any politician who is doing it at the moment.

Here we go again.

The rice scheme was not set up as a subsidy, and therefore part of the government's budget, but as a self financing off budget scheme. Indeed Mr White Lies the former finance minister, regularly talked about this self financing, revolving loan. Even Yingluck claimed on more than one occasion that the scheme hadn't lost money.

Because it was off budget, it was out of parliamentary scrutiny and no accounts have ever been revealed.

If it worked, Thailand would have been able to influence world market prices, manipulate them, and a very large amount of money would have been made. Seeing as there have never been accounts revealed, where do you think that money would've gone? Clue - not the treasury or Thai people.

It didn't work and despite numerous warnings from international bodies and internal people and organizations PTP plowed on with it. Moreover, the scheme Chair, self appointed, saw fit to never bother to attend any meetings. and glossed over any warnings or threatened those making comments.

A tad different to simply pursuing a government policy wouldn't you say?

[tbthailand]

it is highly unusual for an publicly elected prime minister to be personally liable for acts while in office.

more unusual still to demand compensation before the guilt is established in court.

its everyday life in thailand i guess since all tv members seem to see the fault also with the former publicly elected rather than the junta

She's being charged for negligence. She was in charge of the rice scam and ignored many requests from many organizations to either clarify what was going on or to just stop completely. No innocence here. This was a scheme by her brother to corner the rice market and make big money. The gamble didn't pay off and now Thailand will be dealing with this financially for many years to come. She was responsible. I think it's great politicians are held responsible for the misdeeds. Wish they'd do that in my home country!!! LOL

And yes, highly unusual. But seems to be tried in other countries as well:

http://www.ifp.org.za/newsroom/government-officials-must-be-held-personally-accountable-for-their-blunders/

The Inkatha Freedom Party in KwaZulu-Natal welcomes the ruling of the Pietermaritzburg High Court that ordered two Kokstad Municipality officials to pay back the money after they were found to be negligent in doing their work.

“This ruling is a bold step in the right direction as it sends a clear message to all state employees that they can be held personally accountable for their actions. Officials who are employed and entrusted to do to a particular job must understand the responsibilities that come with their work. They apply for the post and declare via their CVs that they are competent and qualified for the post. They were not forced into those posts, so they must do their work with diligence and honesty. Far too often officials at all levels of government are found to have been negligent in their work and their negligence or incompetence results in huge financial losses for the state while they get away with a slap on the wrist or resign”, said IFP Spokesperson on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Inkosi Mzamo Buthelezi, MPL.

That is an interesting comparison. But it involves government employees, not an elected official. Elected officials are not hired based on competency, they are elected based on popular vote. I think we can agree there is no "warranty of merchantability or fitness" for elected officials, unfortunately.

The case is political.

The "crime" is fabricated to fit the circumstances.

They will convict her.

It's stupid.

No elected official has ever committed a crime by enacting a government policy. No matter how stupid the policy.

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

Oh no, not a begging letter from a Sinawatra!!!

Take her money and give it to the farmers, lock her up and throw away the key.

[thedivezone]

it is highly unusual for an publicly elected prime minister to be personally liable for acts while in office.

more unusual still to demand compensation before the guilt is established in court.

its everyday life in thailand i guess since all tv members seem to see the fault also with the former publicly elected rather than the junta

She's being charged for negligence. She was in charge of the rice scam and ignored many requests from many organizations to either clarify what was going on or to just stop completely. No innocence here. This was a scheme by her brother to corner the rice market and make big money. The gamble didn't pay off and now Thailand will be dealing with this financially for many years to come. She was responsible. I think it's great politicians are held responsible for the misdeeds. Wish they'd do that in my home country!!! LOL

And yes, highly unusual. But seems to be tried in other countries as well:

http://www.ifp.org.za/newsroom/government-officials-must-be-held-personally-accountable-for-their-blunders/

The Inkatha Freedom Party in KwaZulu-Natal welcomes the ruling of the Pietermaritzburg High Court that ordered two Kokstad Municipality officials to pay back the money after they were found to be negligent in doing their work.

This ruling is a bold step in the right direction as it sends a clear message to all state employees that they can be held personally accountable for their actions. Officials who are employed and entrusted to do to a particular job must understand the responsibilities that come with their work. They apply for the post and declare via their CVs that they are competent and qualified for the post. They were not forced into those posts, so they must do their work with diligence and honesty. Far too often officials at all levels of government are found to have been negligent in their work and their negligence or incompetence results in huge financial losses for the state while they get away with a slap on the wrist or resign, said IFP Spokesperson on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Inkosi Mzamo Buthelezi, MPL.

That is an interesting comparison. But it involves government employees, not an elected official. Elected officials are not hired based on competency, they are elected based on popular vote. I think we can agree there is no "warranty of merchantability or fitness" for elected officials, unfortunately.

The case is political.

The "crime" is fabricated to fit the circumstances.

They will convict her.

It's stupid.

No elected official has ever committed a crime by enacting a government policy. No matter how stupid the policy.

Thank you very much for the first sensible post in this topic !

[lucky11]

So if compensation is being demanded of her for the damage her governments rice subsidy caused the country and some kind of legal process allows this , it follows that the same legal process can and should be used against all politicians who in the past have damaged the country.

Wow ........what a can of worms.

If she had stopped taking advice from her brother and listened to people who could see exactly what was going to happen, then the losses wouldn't have been so catastrophic. She was warned by so many people and disregarded their advice so it is her fault alone (in her dual role as PM and chairperson of the rice committee) for being so negligent.

[Gunna]

So if compensation is being demanded of her for the damage her governments rice subsidy caused the country and some kind of legal process allows this , it follows that the same legal process can and should be used against all politicians who in the past have damaged the country.

Wow ........what a can of worms.

The rice scam was never a subsidy ( off budget so never a subsidy - because if it was a subsidy it would have been illegal due to world trade rules )- it was always a vote buying exercise organised by Thaksin to get Yingluck and PTP into power and then pass the amnesty bill so Thaksin could return and get back his billions of baht that the courts took from him. Then he would have proceeded to rape the Treasury again.

[phoenixdoglover]

Normally, court cases have precedence over administrative proceedings. The legal standard is higher. Yingluck is looking for this. She wants the court case to be pre-emptive, relieving her of the burden of defending against similar charges in two different venues.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides some support.

"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convictedor acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country."

So, say using the US or UK as examples. It never happens that people, or organizations, are acquitted on criminal charges, then subsequently convicted on civil charges, for the same offence.

Really? Where have you been?

But you are right. YL's legal team can't delay any longer, won't be allowed to keep adding irrelevant witnesses and so now try to look for any loop holes, double meanings or "twistable" laws they can try and use. Interesting that they appear to try all these things rather than employ a robust defense - perhaps that tells us something?

In the meantime we can expect more letters that then get posted on her FB, more sorrowful photos, and more stories about her life as a ordinary wife, mother and mushroom grower. All aimed at sympathy from the masses.

Go on Yingluck, prove us wrong. Produce audited detailed accounts, meeting minutes and show us how diligent you were.

I think by your reference to the US and UK, you are supporting my main point. Yes, the criminal court proceeding precedes any civil case. And the charge sheet for the civil case cannot refer to the same offenses under the law. As a practical approach, the decision about filing civil charges often is highly dependent on the outcome of a preceding criminal case. What Yingluck is asking for is consistent with this approach.

Of course we are all somewhat foolish when we reach for these comparisons of East vs West. Many Times, the legal traditions are strikingly different.

In this Yingluck case, I think the current government is "making it up as they go", ploughing new ground in legal precedent.

[billd766]

"Oh Sir, if I have to pay this claim it will take almost half the money that I stole with my scams while in office."

TBH I don't think that she actually stole anything.

By putting her in the PM office her brother possibly facilitated other people to do so but not Yingluck. I think he took as much care as he could to keep her out of the firing line as possible but at the end of the day, family or not, he let her take the blame and the resultant court case.

Thaksin will sacrifice anything and anybody to keep himself clear of any blame to appear whiter than white and to keep his face and fortune.

I truly feel sorry for her as she believed her brother.

[scorecard]

So if compensation is being demanded of her for the damage her governments rice subsidy caused the country and some kind of legal process allows this , it follows that the same legal process can and should be used against all politicians who in the past have damaged the country.

Wow ........what a can of worms.

And against any politician who is doing it at the moment.

Here we go again.

The rice scheme was not set up as a subsidy, and therefore part of the government's budget, but as a self financing off budget scheme. Indeed Mr White Lies the former finance minister, regularly talked about this self financing, revolving loan. Even Yingluck claimed on more than one occasion that the scheme hadn't lost money.

Because it was off budget, it was out of parliamentary scrutiny and no accounts have ever been revealed.

If it worked, Thailand would have been able to influence world market prices, manipulate them, and a very large amount of money would have been made. Seeing as there have never been accounts revealed, where do you think that money would've gone? Clue - not the treasury or Thai people.

It didn't work and despite numerous warnings from international bodies and internal people and organizations PTP plowed on with it. Moreover, the scheme Chair, self appointed, saw fit to never bother to attend any meetings. and glossed over any warnings or threatened those making comments.

A tad different to simply pursuing a government policy wouldn't you say?

"...mr. white lies..." Just wondering if he's next in line for some further investigation etc.

[rubl]

She's being charged for negligence. She was in charge of the rice scam and ignored many requests from many organizations to either clarify what was going on or to just stop completely. No innocence here. This was a scheme by her brother to corner the rice market and make big money. The gamble didn't pay off and now Thailand will be dealing with this financially for many years to come. She was responsible. I think it's great politicians are held responsible for the misdeeds. Wish they'd do that in my home country!!! LOL

And yes, highly unusual. But seems to be tried in other countries as well:

http://www.ifp.org.za/newsroom/government-officials-must-be-held-personally-accountable-for-their-blunders/

That is an interesting comparison. But it involves government employees, not an elected official. Elected officials are not hired based on competency, they are elected based on popular vote. I think we can agree there is no "warranty of merchantability or fitness" for elected officials, unfortunately.

The case is political.

The "crime" is fabricated to fit the circumstances.

They will convict her.

It's stupid.

No elected official has ever committed a crime by enacting a government policy. No matter how stupid the policy.

Thank you very much for the first sensible post in this topic !

Since when is losing 500++ billion Baht on a 'self-financing' scam political? Since when is using the very words of the then PM Ms. Yingluck and her (by her) hand-picked cabinet of knowledgeble, capable, full of potential and suitable ministers a fabrication?

What does seem stupid is the pathetic attempts to defend the RPPS scam.

Mind you, when Ms. Yingluck finally presents her case and reasoning for the wonderful RPPS she may still surprise us. Given all obfuscations and 'white' lies here I'm not too optimistic though.

[HHTel]

So who has caused more damage to the country? Her government or the current one!

[rubl]

Normally, court cases have precedence over administrative proceedings. The legal standard is higher. Yingluck is looking for this. She wants the court case to be pre-emptive, relieving her of the burden of defending against similar charges in two different venues.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides some support.

"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convictedor acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country."

So, say using the US or UK as examples. It never happens that people, or organizations, are acquitted on criminal charges, then subsequently convicted on civil charges, for the same offence.

Really? Where have you been?

But you are right. YL's legal team can't delay any longer, won't be allowed to keep adding irrelevant witnesses and so now try to look for any loop holes, double meanings or "twistable" laws they can try and use. Interesting that they appear to try all these things rather than employ a robust defense - perhaps that tells us something?

In the meantime we can expect more letters that then get posted on her FB, more sorrowful photos, and more stories about her life as a ordinary wife, mother and mushroom grower. All aimed at sympathy from the masses.

Go on Yingluck, prove us wrong. Produce audited detailed accounts, meeting minutes and show us how diligent you were.

I think by your reference to the US and UK, you are supporting my main point. Yes, the criminal court proceeding precedes any civil case. And the charge sheet for the civil case cannot refer to the same offenses under the law. As a practical approach, the decision about filing civil charges often is highly dependent on the outcome of a preceding criminal case. What Yingluck is asking for is consistent with this approach.

Of course we are all somewhat foolish when we reach for these comparisons of East vs West. Many Times, the legal traditions are strikingly different.

In this Yingluck case, I think the current government is "making it up as they go", ploughing new ground in legal precedent.

Interesting new approach.

Ms. Yingluck is charged at the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders, not the Criminal Court. As you may remember in the case of "premeditated murder by two private persons" against Abhisit/Suthep the Criminal Court threw out the case and said the proper way was to the Supreme Court. Well, that's not new ground then.

Anyway, even Ms. Yingluck's supporters seem to have lost confidence. Any reasoning to try to get her off the hook is being tried.

[CMBob]

This whole case is totally nuts...at least from a western point of view. The legislature passed the stupid rice deal and it provided that the government would buy rice at 50% above market value, essentially a give-away program to the rice farmers that was guaranteed from the beginning to lose money. Now, because it lost money (doh!) and because some of the others involved in the program likely engaged in some corruption and lost some more money, they go after the Prime Minister for reimbursement. Totally weird. I'm surprised they didn't go after Yingluck for the 30-baht health scheme which "lost" a whole lot more money.

Now, the general approved a program a few months ago to pay the rubber farmers 1500 baht per rai....another give-away program guaranteed to lose money. And last week the general approved another program to buy rubber at 45 baht per kilo although it was limited initially to 100,000 tons of rubber....and, wouldn't you know, the 45 baht per kilo is almost precisely 50% above the current market price. I wonder when the general will pay back all those losses.

[GAZZPA]

When will she do a runner? Surely can't be long now.

[phoenixdoglover]

Normally, court cases have precedence over administrative proceedings. The legal standard is higher. Yingluck is looking for this. She wants the court case to be pre-emptive, relieving her of the burden of defending against similar charges in two different venues.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides some support.

"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convictedor acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country."

So, say using the US or UK as examples. It never happens that people, or organizations, are acquitted on criminal charges, then subsequently convicted on civil charges, for the same offence.

Really? Where have you been?

But you are right. YL's legal team can't delay any longer, won't be allowed to keep adding irrelevant witnesses and so now try to look for any loop holes, double meanings or "twistable" laws they can try and use. Interesting that they appear to try all these things rather than employ a robust defense - perhaps that tells us something?

In the meantime we can expect more letters that then get posted on her FB, more sorrowful photos, and more stories about her life as a ordinary wife, mother and mushroom grower. All aimed at sympathy from the masses.

Go on Yingluck, prove us wrong. Produce audited detailed accounts, meeting minutes and show us how diligent you were.

I think by your reference to the US and UK, you are supporting my main point. Yes, the criminal court proceeding precedes any civil case. And the charge sheet for the civil case cannot refer to the same offenses under the law. As a practical approach, the decision about filing civil charges often is highly dependent on the outcome of a preceding criminal case. What Yingluck is asking for is consistent with this approach.

Of course we are all somewhat foolish when we reach for these comparisons of East vs West. Many Times, the legal traditions are strikingly different.

In this Yingluck case, I think the current government is "making it up as they go", ploughing new ground in legal precedent.

Interesting new approach.

Ms. Yingluck is charged at the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders, not the Criminal Court. As you may remember in the case of "premeditated murder by two private persons" against Abhisit/Suthep the Criminal Court threw out the case and said the proper way was to the Supreme Court. Well, that's not new ground then.

Anyway, even Ms. Yingluck's supporters seem to have lost confidence. Any reasoning to try to get her off the hook is being tried.

No, you are missing the point. The question is not which court should try the criminal complaint; the question is whether an administrative process with a finding of guilt or innocence should precede or follow the criminal trial.

[halloween]

Normally, court cases have precedence over administrative proceedings. The legal standard is higher. Yingluck is looking for this. She wants the court case to be pre-emptive, relieving her of the burden of defending against similar charges in two different venues.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides some support.

"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convictedor acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country."

Tell that to "The Juice"

[halloween]

No, you are missing the point. The question is not which court should try the criminal complaint; the question is whether an administrative process with a finding of guilt or innocence should precede or follow the criminal trial.

Your original claim was "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convictedor acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country."

It seem you have abandoned the double jeopardy as unsustainable and now wish to argue precedence. Based on what law?

[halloween]

So who has caused more damage to the country? Her government or the current one!

So you freely admit she caused damage to the country, but wish to try the "Little Johnny did it too!" defence. Good luck with that.

[craigt3365]

The case is political.

The "crime" is fabricated to fit the circumstances.

They will convict her.

It's stupid.

No elected official has ever committed a crime by enacting a government policy. No matter how stupid the policy.

Political or not, crimes were committed by elected government officials. Under the direct control of the PM, according to her own admission. Dummy companies setup to transact dodgy deals. Rice disappearing from warehouses, or switched. And a huge amount of money lost. Most of the money never actually helped the people it was suppose to. Those "up stream" from the farmers benefited the most.

Nothing was fabricated. They've got the proof. And yes, elected officials have been arrested before. And hopefully, more in the future if they commit crimes.

This is a must read for those interested in how this scam fell apart:

http://world.time.com/2013/07/12/how-thailands-botched-rice-scheme-blew-a-big-hole-in-its-economy/

http://www.thairiceexporters.or.th/Int%20news/News_2012/int_news_080812-1.html

Ammar Siamwalla, honorary economist at the Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI), said the rice pledging scheme was "pro-rich and anti-poor", with high pledging prices raising the cost of living for the entire public.

"The policy is biased in favour of farmers who can produce more rice compared with those who produce less," he said yesterday. "The policy has also added to the hardship faced by the poor who must purchase rice for their own consumption."

According to the TDRI, 63% of the funds spent on the pledging programme went to merchants and millers, with the rest going to farmers. Only 5% of funds spent went to poor farmers.

This scam was purely political. Just to get votes from poor, uneducated farmers. And it worked. Sadly, the entire country is suffering due to this, including the people it was suppose to help.

[Nickymaster]

Poor girl. When she was PM she didn't listen to anybody's advise. I really believe she had no clue what was going on since she was only a puppet. No figures where released about stock and losses during her three years. Never answered any questions in parliament and from reporters. And now she is asking for fairness. What a joker.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Nickymaster

[aussieinthailand]

Talk about a serious lack of intestinal fortitude by so many here, you make me laugh.

Any time there is an opportunity to have a go at the Shiz's /PT, Red's the boogie man in the Dubai, your right on it like a fat kid on a cup cake.

And that's cool, get in while ya can.

Now why is it you lot are all so VERY ABCENT in comment with story's like man arrested for sharing a satirical song regarding the current PM??? nowhere to be found huh..

Or the story of government asking Google to bend the rules for it. Quiet yet again.

Or the statement There are NO planes for an internet fire wall it's just a study, then a few weeks latter Whola!!!!! you blokes are missing in action again, no surprises there.

Or now how about the story that the mid 2017 elections could be moved YET AGIAN to the end of the year, defining silence from you guy's once again...

Is it cowardice or simply an understanding that you would be trying to defend the in-defensible? HA HA HA!!!

As for compensation from a PM, has this ever happened to another Thai PM? Why only the PM and not all who were involved to pay compensation? is this totally legal? It can't be constitutional because uncle Too ripped up that lil chestnut and gave himself ultimate power. Have all the protocols been observed?

Then if yes and this is existing law that compensation is sort then let the chip's fall as they may.

Edited January 30, 2016 by aussieinthailand

[Nickymaster]

Talk about a serious lack of intestinal fortitude by so many here, you make me laugh.

Any time there is an opportunity to have a go at the Shiz's /PT, Red's the boogie man in the Dubai, your right on it like a fat kid on a cup cake.

And that's cool, get in while ya can.

Now why is it you lot are all so VERY ABCENT in comment with story's like man arrested for sharing a satirical song regarding the current PM??? nowhere to be found huh..

Or the story of government asking Google to bend the rules for it. Quiet yet again.

Or the statement There are NO planes for an internet fire wall it's just a study, then a few weeks latter Whola!!!!! you blokes are missing in action again, no surprises there.

Or now how about the story that the mid 2017 elections could be moved YET AGIAN to the end of the year, defining silence from you guy's once again...

Is it cowardice or simply an understanding that you would be trying to defend the in-defensible? HA HA HA!!!

As for compensation from a PM, has this ever happened to another Thai PM? Why only the PM and not all who were involved to pay compensation? is this totally legal? It can't be constitutional because uncle Too ripped up that lil chestnut and gave himself ultimate power. Have all the protocols been observed?

Then if yes and this is existing law that compensation is sort then let the chip's fall as they may.

uuhhh.. You criticize posters for dragging the Shin clan into the story and then you start criticizing Prayuth.. Funny

[aussieinthailand]

Talk about a serious lack of intestinal fortitude by so many here, you make me laugh.

Any time there is an opportunity to have a go at the Shiz's /PT, Red's the boogie man in the Dubai, your right on it like a fat kid on a cup cake.

And that's cool, get in while ya can.

Now why is it you lot are all so VERY ABCENT in comment with story's like man arrested for sharing a satirical song regarding the current PM??? nowhere to be found huh..

Or the story of government asking Google to bend the rules for it. Quiet yet again.

Or the statement There are NO planes for an internet fire wall it's just a study, then a few weeks latter Whola!!!!! you blokes are missing in action again, no surprises there.

Or now how about the story that the mid 2017 elections could be moved YET AGIAN to the end of the year, defining silence from you guy's once again...

Is it cowardice or simply an understanding that you would be trying to defend the in-defensible? HA HA HA!!!

As for compensation from a PM, has this ever happened to another Thai PM? Why only the PM and not all who were involved to pay compensation? is this totally legal? It can't be constitutional because uncle Too ripped up that lil chestnut and gave himself ultimate power. Have all the protocols been observed?

Then if yes and this is existing law that compensation is sort then let the chip's fall as they may.

uuhhh.. You criticize posters for dragging the Shin clan into the story and then you start criticizing Prayuth.. Funny

Uuhhh... Noo I'm not "criticizing Prayuth", I'm criticizing the total lack of courage by some here and their being so obtuse, yet eagerly jump to make comment on posts here regarding Shiz's PT, Red's , and Thaksin, but when it a story that is so off the charts as per a few examples in my post you guy's are astoundingly ABCENT.

Maybe you could have another crack at reading my post and ya might get it this time, cheers

[Si Thea01]

You have to give it to her, she knows no bounds in her attempts to stall and delay the proceedings. She has written 6 similar letters, all with negative responses, what doesn't she understand about the word "No?" Must have run out of witnesses so now it's desperation stakes..

[shunter]

Shinwatra family motto comes to mind.

What is mine is mine and what is yours is also mine.

Edited January 30, 2016 by shunter

[scorecard]

Talk about a serious lack of intestinal fortitude by so many here, you make me laugh.

Any time there is an opportunity to have a go at the Shiz's /PT, Red's the boogie man in the Dubai, your right on it like a fat kid on a cup cake.

And that's cool, get in while ya can.

Now why is it you lot are all so VERY ABCENT in comment with story's like man arrested for sharing a satirical song regarding the current PM??? nowhere to be found huh..

Or the story of government asking Google to bend the rules for it. Quiet yet again.

Or the statement There are NO planes for an internet fire wall it's just a study, then a few weeks latter Whola!!!!! you blokes are missing in action again, no surprises there.

Or now how about the story that the mid 2017 elections could be moved YET AGIAN to the end of the year, defining silence from you guy's once again...

Is it cowardice or simply an understanding that you would be trying to defend the in-defensible? HA HA HA!!!

As for compensation from a PM, has this ever happened to another Thai PM? Why only the PM and not all who were involved to pay compensation? is this totally legal? It can't be constitutional because uncle Too ripped up that lil chestnut and gave himself ultimate power. Have all the protocols been observed?

Then if yes and this is existing law that compensation is sort then let the chip's fall as they may.

uuhhh.. You criticize posters for dragging the Shin clan into the story and then you start criticizing Prayuth.. Funny

Uuhhh... Noo I'm not "criticizing Prayuth", I'm criticizing the total lack of courage by some here and their being so obtuse, yet eagerly jump to make comment on posts here regarding Shiz's PT, Red's , and Thaksin, but when it a story that is so off the charts as per a few examples in my post you guy's are astoundingly ABCENT.

Maybe you could have another crack at reading my post and ya might get it this time, cheers

Obtuse.... The word seems to fit you to a T. (Pun intended.)

[Nickymaster]

Talk about a serious lack of intestinal fortitude by so many here, you make me laugh.

Any time there is an opportunity to have a go at the Shiz's /PT, Red's the boogie man in the Dubai, your right on it like a fat kid on a cup cake.

And that's cool, get in while ya can.

Now why is it you lot are all so VERY ABCENT in comment with story's like man arrested for sharing a satirical song regarding the current PM??? nowhere to be found huh..

Or the story of government asking Google to bend the rules for it. Quiet yet again.

Or the statement There are NO planes for an internet fire wall it's just a study, then a few weeks latter Whola!!!!! you blokes are missing in action again, no surprises there.

Or now how about the story that the mid 2017 elections could be moved YET AGIAN to the end of the year, defining silence from you guy's once again...

Is it cowardice or simply an understanding that you would be trying to defend the in-defensible? HA HA HA!!!

As for compensation from a PM, has this ever happened to another Thai PM? Why only the PM and not all who were involved to pay compensation? is this totally legal? It can't be constitutional because uncle Too ripped up that lil chestnut and gave himself ultimate power. Have all the protocols been observed?

Then if yes and this is existing law that compensation is sort then let the chip's fall as they may.

uuhhh.. You criticize posters for dragging the Shin clan into the story and then you start criticizing Prayuth.. Funny

Uuhhh... Noo I'm not "criticizing Prayuth", I'm criticizing the total lack of courage by some here and their being so obtuse, yet eagerly jump to make comment on posts here regarding Shiz's PT, Red's , and Thaksin, but when it a story that is so off the charts as per a few examples in my post you guy's are astoundingly ABCENT.

Maybe you could have another crack at reading my post and ya might get it this time, cheers

You mean that some posters' criticism between the Shin clan and the junta is not balanced?