Gen Prawit hopes Ms Yingluck gave factual information to European Parliament

[Winniedapu]

She gave up that position and then tried to hold onto it illegally after she could not get elections to happen the way she wanted them to. Maybe she won a landslide but that doesn't mean she did it legally either or morally ethical. It could only mean she or Thak paid her way through that and as for that landslide, it was mostly accomplished through voters in the north where they had already been bought and paid for by thaksin.

Utter nonsense and repeatedly refuted "bought" votes claims. Peer reviewed external studies that have been linked to several times in these forums give the lie to that sad old meme.

And please don't start on the woeful "populist policies" twaddle.

Really, you just stating the same old cliches again, won't miraculously turn them into fact.

(as an aside, before you launch into another cliche, I'm neither a "red" nor a Thaksin fan, I just dislike the distortion of past events to make a case)

Tell that to the people there and the foreigners with Thai families that witnessed those events. Not to me. As I have seen it happen back then as well.

Facts are not a big part of your world, is it... . What part of mainly fair and open elections deemed so by political opponents and the international community alike don't you understand?

We do get that you wish the voters of the North and North East did not get a vote but if you're going to even pretend to have a democracy that stuff just will not do.

"Tell that to the people there and the foreigners with Thai families that witnessed those events."

Does that mean that a majority of the Thai electorate see thing as you do? Why not hold an election then?? I am a foreigner with a Thai family who have been living here since the early nineties and I saw those events just the way JAG described them so please don't even try to suggest you talk on our behalf....you don't!

Yup, me too. Foreigner. Thai family. Witnessed events. Can't reconcile the facts with the junta-hugger fantasies.

Winnie

[jamesbrock]

Strangely the EP commission on Foreign Affairs has no relation to the UN.

As for the UN and Human Rights it's interesting is that where the HRW site is aggressive Reuters gave a more balanced view

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-un-rights-idUSKCN0Y2095

BTW in 2011 with the first review the Thai government acknowledged 136 out of 172 'recommendations'. It would seem no one is able to tell us what happened since. We only know that this time the UN commission had near 70 issues.

There is no easy way to know whether the balanced view was that provided by HRW or by Reuters. I would not assume Reuters was more balanced unless I had access to primary sources, or personal knowledge.

(As an aside, this question of "balance" is a serious issue in the conduct of corporate style media. There is a tendency for these organizations to create a false balance, as if this is necessary for ethical journalism. It is not. Rather, "true and accurate" are the requirements.)

The previous review cycle is officially documented online. Study of those documents would reveal "what happened".

My guess, given the overwhelming circumstantial evidence regarding human rights practices in Thailand, is that there have been several very significant issues that have not changed much over time from cycle 1 to cycle 2: Trafficking, slave labor, infringement of citizen rights, overlaid with recent actions of the Junta.

Also, to correct a misperception, it is not the UN raising the issues, it is the member nations raising them directly through a facilitated process.

It's interesting how one person can see the HRW site as "aggressive" and the Reuters article balanced, and someone else, namely me, can see the HRW site as spot on and the Reuters article as though it's straight out of the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs ‘cheat sheet’ they released the other week.

The difference is the HRW site is written by non-Thais, and the Reuters article was written by Thais...

Here is another non-Thai article as an example of what the rest of the world thinks: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachael-willis-/the-world-weighs-in-on-th_b_10001664.html

[rubl]

The irony of it, democracy died when Ms. Yingluck was asked to show accountability and a commission from the EP comes to ask her to explain democracy to them.

Anyway almost as sad as the early 70sh when coups were in vogue. Still remember 9/11, in 1973 that is.

Thailand has had 19 coup and coup attempts since 1932, which gives an average of 4.3 years between each occurrence so please stop claiming that coups are not longer in vogue in Thailand because that's plainly wrong.

And why do you mention the coup in Chile in 1973? What significance does that have??

And since I've posted a list of all coups and attempts in Thailand in modern times I would like to take the opportunity to yet again ask one of the junta supporters the following question:

After all the coups you see listed below which changed nothing but the snouts in the trough (correct me if I'm wrong) what makes you think this time will be different?

Well, I can only hope Ms. Yingluck was clear and honest and didn't sidetrack on the issues. Still wonder if she mentioned that democracy died here the day she was impeached and asked to show accountability with all her talks on "being in charge' and 'being responsible'.

Mind you, in parliament she didn't answer questions asked but went into statements on how good her RPPS was and how much it had helped all (rice) farmers. Staying on topic seems difficult to some.

PS isn't is democratic that the Thai government allowed the EP commission on Foreign Affairs entry in the Kingdom and access to Ms. Yingluck?

"PS isn't is democratic that the Thai government allowed the EP commission on Foreign Affairs entry in the Kingdom and access to Ms. Yingluck?"

Uh, no. It's being realistic enough to understand that barring the EP commission from meeting YL would be detrimental to the relationship Thailand has with the EU. I would have thought that was obvious.

Ah, the very might of the EP makes all governments who are different from those in the EC shudder in their shoes or boots. That's democratic. Lots of countries like it when others try to interface in their internal affairs.

Will the commission next visit America to question the two Presidential hopefuls remaining on their views on Democracy, responsibility and accountability, and the best way of building a wall to stop refugees entering?

Will the commission also hope over to some Middle East countries as good (near) Dutch uncles?

Anyway, if the 'junta' was as bad as some here keep saying the commission would not have been able to enter the country. I would have thought that to be obvious.

Of course, knowing Ms. Yingluck, exposure to her in non-scripted interviews, Q & A sessions may be an experience very eye-opening to the commission.

[rubl]

However, he said he hoped the information given to the visiting European Parliament representatives by the ex-premier would be factual and was not distorted.

​This is the same women that still think not attending one rice meeting as the chairman of the rice committee is not negligence. Of course she will twist it. She know doubt will read word for word from her Mongolia speech.

Strangely the UN seems to be more enclined to speak to an elected pm than your dear Leader.

And we may add :

John Fisher, Geneva director of Human Rights Watch said The Thai governments responses to the UN review fail to show any real commitment to reversing its abusive rights practices or protecting fundamental freedoms

Strangely the EP commission on Foreign Affairs has no relation to the UN.

As for the UN and Human Rights it's interesting is that where the HRW site is aggressive Reuters gave a more balanced view

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-un-rights-idUSKCN0Y2095

BTW in 2011 with the first review the Thai government acknowledged 136 out of 172 'recommendations'. It would seem no one is able to tell us what happened since. We only know that this time the UN commission had near 70 issues.

There is no easy way to know whether the balanced view was that provided by HRW or by Reuters. I would not assume Reuters was more balanced unless I had access to primary sources, or personal knowledge.

(As an aside, this question of "balance" is a serious issue in the conduct of corporate style media. There is a tendency for these organizations to create a false balance, as if this is necessary for ethical journalism. It is not. Rather, "true and accurate" are the requirements.)

The previous review cycle is officially documented online. Study of those documents would reveal "what happened".

My guess, given the overwhelming circumstantial evidence regarding human rights practices in Thailand, is that there have been several very significant issues that have not changed much over time from cycle 1 to cycle 2: Trafficking, slave labor, infringement of citizen rights, overlaid with recent actions of the Junta.

Also, to correct a misperception, it is not the UN raising the issues, it is the member nations raising them directly through a facilitated process.

Well, it would seem no one, not even the UN commission has referred to the 2011 documents as reports don't mention them. The reference of 'Thai government acknowledged 136 out of 172 recommendations' I just stumbled on in the BP. No details though. More interesting is no one here seems to be interested either.

Anyway, as I indicated here we deal with the EP commission on Foreign Affairs, not with a commission on Human Rights. In March that commission already talked with representatives of the Thai government.

[phoenixdoglover]

Strangely the EP commission on Foreign Affairs has no relation to the UN.

As for the UN and Human Rights it's interesting is that where the HRW site is aggressive Reuters gave a more balanced view

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-un-rights-idUSKCN0Y2095

BTW in 2011 with the first review the Thai government acknowledged 136 out of 172 'recommendations'. It would seem no one is able to tell us what happened since. We only know that this time the UN commission had near 70 issues.

There is no easy way to know whether the balanced view was that provided by HRW or by Reuters. I would not assume Reuters was more balanced unless I had access to primary sources, or personal knowledge.

(As an aside, this question of "balance" is a serious issue in the conduct of corporate style media. There is a tendency for these organizations to create a false balance, as if this is necessary for ethical journalism. It is not. Rather, "true and accurate" are the requirements.)

The previous review cycle is officially documented online. Study of those documents would reveal "what happened".

My guess, given the overwhelming circumstantial evidence regarding human rights practices in Thailand, is that there have been several very significant issues that have not changed much over time from cycle 1 to cycle 2: Trafficking, slave labor, infringement of citizen rights, overlaid with recent actions of the Junta.

Also, to correct a misperception, it is not the UN raising the issues, it is the member nations raising them directly through a facilitated process.

It's interesting how one person can see the HRW site as "aggressive" and the Reuters article balanced, and someone else, namely me, can see the HRW site as spot on and the Reuters article as though it's straight out of the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs ‘cheat sheet’ they released the other week.

The difference is the HRW site is written by non-Thais, and the Reuters article was written by Thais...

Here is another non-Thai article as an example of what the rest of the world thinks: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachael-willis-/the-world-weighs-in-on-th_b_10001664.html

I would commend to everyone a look at the youtube videos available for recent FCCT (Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand) events.

There is a distinct difference between the expressions (choice of words) used by foreign correspondents and Thai journalists. At times, the halting, strangled words and body language of the Thai journalists, shows the internal conflict they are experiencing.

In their defense, I am impressed by the editorials in BP. They are critical of the current government. It is a shame we do not get these items posted to TVF.

Also, as a related matter the latest FCCT video reveals that 20 foreign journalists have been denied visas to work in Thailand since the Junta introduced new restrictions. It is clear the agenda is to reduce the number of outsiders and to keep the Thai press relatively compliant.

[rubl]

Strangely the EP commission on Foreign Affairs has no relation to the UN.

As for the UN and Human Rights it's interesting is that where the HRW site is aggressive Reuters gave a more balanced view

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-un-rights-idUSKCN0Y2095

BTW in 2011 with the first review the Thai government acknowledged 136 out of 172 'recommendations'. It would seem no one is able to tell us what happened since. We only know that this time the UN commission had near 70 issues.

There is no easy way to know whether the balanced view was that provided by HRW or by Reuters. I would not assume Reuters was more balanced unless I had access to primary sources, or personal knowledge.

(As an aside, this question of "balance" is a serious issue in the conduct of corporate style media. There is a tendency for these organizations to create a false balance, as if this is necessary for ethical journalism. It is not. Rather, "true and accurate" are the requirements.)

The previous review cycle is officially documented online. Study of those documents would reveal "what happened".

My guess, given the overwhelming circumstantial evidence regarding human rights practices in Thailand, is that there have been several very significant issues that have not changed much over time from cycle 1 to cycle 2: Trafficking, slave labor, infringement of citizen rights, overlaid with recent actions of the Junta.

Also, to correct a misperception, it is not the UN raising the issues, it is the member nations raising them directly through a facilitated process.

It's interesting how one person can see the HRW site as "aggressive" and the Reuters article balanced, and someone else, namely me, can see the HRW site as spot on and the Reuters article as though it's straight out of the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs ‘cheat sheet’ they released the other week.

The difference is the HRW site is written by non-Thais, and the Reuters article was written by Thais...

Here is another non-Thai article as an example of what the rest of the world thinks: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachael-willis-/the-world-weighs-in-on-th_b_10001664.html

When the HRW writes

"(Geneva) – The Thai government’s pledges to the United Nations Human Rights Council to respect human rights and restore democratic rule have been mostly meaningless, Human Rights Watch said today. Thailand appeared before the council for its second Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in Geneva on May 11, 2016. The UPR is a UN examination of the human rights situation in each country."

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/05/11/thailand-un-review-highlights-juntas-hypocrisy

they are aggressive and give the impression of being right and Thailand should immediately change itself.

Now as I wrote before none of this has anything to do with an EP commission on Foreign Affairs which comes to Ms. Yingluck as Ms. Yingluck couldn't come to them. The invitation from October 2015 and even a second letter indicating the importance and urgency was left unanswered (as in Ms. Yingluck didn't get permission to travel since she required to be regularly present in court). So the commission bought some cheap tickets and came to Thailand. Maybe they've asked Ms. Yingluck about her facebook page with "democracy died today', posted when she was democratically impeached and asked to show accountability.

The commissions website doesn't seem to have much news, mostly on Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Maybe they'll report in the meeting planned for the 24th.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/afet/home.html;jsessionid=8A1C46A0630B67940ECD624A77684B6D.node2

Edited May 21, 2016 by rubl

[rubl]

Strangely the EP commission on Foreign Affairs has no relation to the UN.

As for the UN and Human Rights it's interesting is that where the HRW site is aggressive Reuters gave a more balanced view

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-un-rights-idUSKCN0Y2095

BTW in 2011 with the first review the Thai government acknowledged 136 out of 172 'recommendations'. It would seem no one is able to tell us what happened since. We only know that this time the UN commission had near 70 issues.

There is no easy way to know whether the balanced view was that provided by HRW or by Reuters. I would not assume Reuters was more balanced unless I had access to primary sources, or personal knowledge.

(As an aside, this question of "balance" is a serious issue in the conduct of corporate style media. There is a tendency for these organizations to create a false balance, as if this is necessary for ethical journalism. It is not. Rather, "true and accurate" are the requirements.)

The previous review cycle is officially documented online. Study of those documents would reveal "what happened".

My guess, given the overwhelming circumstantial evidence regarding human rights practices in Thailand, is that there have been several very significant issues that have not changed much over time from cycle 1 to cycle 2: Trafficking, slave labor, infringement of citizen rights, overlaid with recent actions of the Junta.

Also, to correct a misperception, it is not the UN raising the issues, it is the member nations raising them directly through a facilitated process.

It's interesting how one person can see the HRW site as "aggressive" and the Reuters article balanced, and someone else, namely me, can see the HRW site as spot on and the Reuters article as though it's straight out of the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs ‘cheat sheet’ they released the other week.

The difference is the HRW site is written by non-Thais, and the Reuters article was written by Thais...

Here is another non-Thai article as an example of what the rest of the world thinks: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachael-willis-/the-world-weighs-in-on-th_b_10001664.html

I would commend to everyone a look at the youtube videos available for recent FCCT (Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand) events.

There is a distinct difference between the expressions (choice of words) used by foreign correspondents and Thai journalists. At times, the halting, strangled words and body language of the Thai journalists, shows the internal conflict they are experiencing.

In their defense, I am impressed by the editorials in BP. They are critical of the current government. It is a shame we do not get these items posted to TVF.

Also, as a related matter the latest FCCT video reveals that 20 foreign journalists have been denied visas to work in Thailand since the Junta introduced new restrictions. It is clear the agenda is to reduce the number of outsiders and to keep the Thai press relatively compliant.

Of course no government is required to accept foreign journalists especially when from countries which give the impression to be as negative as their representatives here on this forum.

BTW it would seem every country has different rules. The Belgium Government site has

"Are you eligible to apply for a temporary press card from FPS Foreign Affairs?

YES

• You are not of Belgian nationality and you work for a foreign media organisation.
• Journalism is your main professional activity and is how you earn a living in Belgium."
• http://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/Newsroom/journalists_corner/accreditation

Of course with such requirements only journalists ALREADY working in the country could get a press card.

America also has certain rules and regulations.

https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/employment/media.html

So, for the time being we rely on facebook pages like the one with "democracy died this day"

Edited May 21, 2016 by rubl

[Winniedapu]

Right. Since when are facts and politicians together? The most BS comes from politicians! World over.

And just why would anyone believe her account of what democracy is or that she would not be impartial to what she tells them. Her track record of bold faced lies and of hiding true accounts as well as using the word democracy only when it suits her needs should have been enough to keep the UE for from talking to her

Very true,

And one must consider why these EU politicians choose to talk to one side only. Seems they are only interested in one side of the story.

It's not true at all. What the juntahuggers fail to understand, though it's straightforward enough, is that the very minimum requirement of democracy is free and fair elections to decide who has a mandate to govern from the people.

The current gang can't even claim that much. That's what make it and every supporting comment arrant nonsense.

You can't have any pudding unless you eat your meat. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

Winnie

[phoenixdoglover]

Strangely the EP commission on Foreign Affairs has no relation to the UN.

As for the UN and Human Rights it's interesting is that where the HRW site is aggressive Reuters gave a more balanced view

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-un-rights-idUSKCN0Y2095

BTW in 2011 with the first review the Thai government acknowledged 136 out of 172 'recommendations'. It would seem no one is able to tell us what happened since. We only know that this time the UN commission had near 70 issues.

There is no easy way to know whether the balanced view was that provided by HRW or by Reuters. I would not assume Reuters was more balanced unless I had access to primary sources, or personal knowledge.

(As an aside, this question of "balance" is a serious issue in the conduct of corporate style media. There is a tendency for these organizations to create a false balance, as if this is necessary for ethical journalism. It is not. Rather, "true and accurate" are the requirements.)

The previous review cycle is officially documented online. Study of those documents would reveal "what happened".

My guess, given the overwhelming circumstantial evidence regarding human rights practices in Thailand, is that there have been several very significant issues that have not changed much over time from cycle 1 to cycle 2: Trafficking, slave labor, infringement of citizen rights, overlaid with recent actions of the Junta.

Also, to correct a misperception, it is not the UN raising the issues, it is the member nations raising them directly through a facilitated process.

It's interesting how one person can see the HRW site as "aggressive" and the Reuters article balanced, and someone else, namely me, can see the HRW site as spot on and the Reuters article as though it's straight out of the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs ‘cheat sheet’ they released the other week.

The difference is the HRW site is written by non-Thais, and the Reuters article was written by Thais...

Here is another non-Thai article as an example of what the rest of the world thinks: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachael-willis-/the-world-weighs-in-on-th_b_10001664.html

When the HRW writes

"(Geneva) – The Thai government’s pledges to the United Nations Human Rights Council to respect human rights and restore democratic rule have been mostly meaningless, Human Rights Watch said today. ....

they are aggressive and give the impression of being right and Thailand should immediately change itself.

.......

What is wrong with HRW being "aggressive"? Do you believe that people (governments) that violate human rights should be criticized in a passive way?

How is HRW wrong in their assertions? Are they being non-factual? (I would note their report cites numerous examples of human rights violations in present-day Thailand)

Why should Thailand delay in correcting human rights violations? Why can't the Junta establish an improved human rights situation immediately?

[MZurf]

Thailand has had 19 coup and coup attempts since 1932, which gives an average of 4.3 years between each occurrence so please stop claiming that coups are not longer in vogue in Thailand because that's plainly wrong.

And why do you mention the coup in Chile in 1973? What significance does that have??

And since I've posted a list of all coups and attempts in Thailand in modern times I would like to take the opportunity to yet again ask one of the junta supporters the following question:

After all the coups you see listed below which changed nothing but the snouts in the trough (correct me if I'm wrong) what makes you think this time will be different?

Well, I can only hope Ms. Yingluck was clear and honest and didn't sidetrack on the issues. Still wonder if she mentioned that democracy died here the day she was impeached and asked to show accountability with all her talks on "being in charge' and 'being responsible'.

Mind you, in parliament she didn't answer questions asked but went into statements on how good her RPPS was and how much it had helped all (rice) farmers. Staying on topic seems difficult to some.

PS isn't is democratic that the Thai government allowed the EP commission on Foreign Affairs entry in the Kingdom and access to Ms. Yingluck?

"PS isn't is democratic that the Thai government allowed the EP commission on Foreign Affairs entry in the Kingdom and access to Ms. Yingluck?"

Uh, no. It's being realistic enough to understand that barring the EP commission from meeting YL would be detrimental to the relationship Thailand has with the EU. I would have thought that was obvious.

Ah, the very might of the EP makes all governments who are different from those in the EC shudder in their shoes or boots. That's democratic. Lots of countries like it when others try to interface in their internal affairs.

Will the commission next visit America to question the two Presidential hopefuls remaining on their views on Democracy, responsibility and accountability, and the best way of building a wall to stop refugees entering?

Will the commission also hope over to some Middle East countries as good (near) Dutch uncles?

Anyway, if the 'junta' was as bad as some here keep saying the commission would not have been able to enter the country. I would have thought that to be obvious.

Of course, knowing Ms. Yingluck, exposure to her in non-scripted interviews, Q & A sessions may be an experience very eye-opening to the commission.

What a silly post, but I do understand that deflections is the last resort of one that has lost an argument.

"Ah, the very might of the EP makes all governments who are different from those in the EC shudder in their shoes or boots. "

Governments who are different?? LOL!! Yes, one might call a military junta "different". One might also call it many other things that are less flattering. And the reason the junta "shudders in their shoes and boots" are because the EU is an economic superpower, and any sanctions would be disastrous for Thailand.

"Anyway, if the 'junta' was as bad as some here keep saying the commission would not have been able to enter the country. I would have thought that to be obvious."

And again I have to remind you of the serious consequences if Thailand start barring EC representatives from entering. And why do you write junta using apostrophes? Surely even you must agree they are a fully fledged junta, right? In case you have forgotten the definition this link might help:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junta

[rubl]

There is no easy way to know whether the balanced view was that provided by HRW or by Reuters. I would not assume Reuters was more balanced unless I had access to primary sources, or personal knowledge.

(As an aside, this question of "balance" is a serious issue in the conduct of corporate style media. There is a tendency for these organizations to create a false balance, as if this is necessary for ethical journalism. It is not. Rather, "true and accurate" are the requirements.)

The previous review cycle is officially documented online. Study of those documents would reveal "what happened".

My guess, given the overwhelming circumstantial evidence regarding human rights practices in Thailand, is that there have been several very significant issues that have not changed much over time from cycle 1 to cycle 2: Trafficking, slave labor, infringement of citizen rights, overlaid with recent actions of the Junta.

Also, to correct a misperception, it is not the UN raising the issues, it is the member nations raising them directly through a facilitated process.

It's interesting how one person can see the HRW site as "aggressive" and the Reuters article balanced, and someone else, namely me, can see the HRW site as spot on and the Reuters article as though it's straight out of the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs ‘cheat sheet’ they released the other week.

The difference is the HRW site is written by non-Thais, and the Reuters article was written by Thais...

Here is another non-Thai article as an example of what the rest of the world thinks: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachael-willis-/the-world-weighs-in-on-th_b_10001664.html

When the HRW writes

"(Geneva) – The Thai government’s pledges to the United Nations Human Rights Council to respect human rights and restore democratic rule have been mostly meaningless, Human Rights Watch said today. ....

they are aggressive and give the impression of being right and Thailand should immediately change itself.

.......

What is wrong with HRW being "aggressive"? Do you believe that people (governments) that violate human rights should be criticized in a passive way?

How is HRW wrong in their assertions? Are they being non-factual? (I would note their report cites numerous examples of human rights violations in present-day Thailand)

Why should Thailand delay in correcting human rights violations? Why can't the Junta establish an improved human rights situation immediately?

Tjeez, now James will be disappointed as he didn't think the HRW aggressive.

BTW I did say I think them aggressive. Such attitude is just as wrong as some tell me about the junta here. Also there is a difference in a qualification like 'aggressive' and a qualification like 'truthful, spot on'. I would have thought native English speakers knew that.

Now back to democracy as the EP commission on Foreign Affairs did come to Thailand to hear Ms. Yinglucks view on democracy. There's another EP commission for Human Rights and commissions tend to jealously guard their territory.

[rubl]

Well, I can only hope Ms. Yingluck was clear and honest and didn't sidetrack on the issues. Still wonder if she mentioned that democracy died here the day she was impeached and asked to show accountability with all her talks on "being in charge' and 'being responsible'.

Mind you, in parliament she didn't answer questions asked but went into statements on how good her RPPS was and how much it had helped all (rice) farmers. Staying on topic seems difficult to some.

PS isn't is democratic that the Thai government allowed the EP commission on Foreign Affairs entry in the Kingdom and access to Ms. Yingluck?

"PS isn't is democratic that the Thai government allowed the EP commission on Foreign Affairs entry in the Kingdom and access to Ms. Yingluck?"

Uh, no. It's being realistic enough to understand that barring the EP commission from meeting YL would be detrimental to the relationship Thailand has with the EU. I would have thought that was obvious.

Ah, the very might of the EP makes all governments who are different from those in the EC shudder in their shoes or boots. That's democratic. Lots of countries like it when others try to interface in their internal affairs.

Will the commission next visit America to question the two Presidential hopefuls remaining on their views on Democracy, responsibility and accountability, and the best way of building a wall to stop refugees entering?

Will the commission also hope over to some Middle East countries as good (near) Dutch uncles?

Anyway, if the 'junta' was as bad as some here keep saying the commission would not have been able to enter the country. I would have thought that to be obvious.

Of course, knowing Ms. Yingluck, exposure to her in non-scripted interviews, Q & A sessions may be an experience very eye-opening to the commission.

What a silly post, but I do understand that deflections is the last resort of one that has lost an argument.

"Ah, the very might of the EP makes all governments who are different from those in the EC shudder in their shoes or boots. "

Governments who are different?? LOL!! Yes, one might call a military junta "different". One might also call it many other things that are less flattering. And the reason the junta "shudders in their shoes and boots" are because the EU is an economic superpower, and any sanctions would be disastrous for Thailand.

"Anyway, if the 'junta' was as bad as some here keep saying the commission would not have been able to enter the country. I would have thought that to be obvious."

And again I have to remind you of the serious consequences if Thailand start barring EC representatives from entering. And why do you write junta using apostrophes? Surely even you must agree they are a fully fledged junta, right? In case you have forgotten the definition this link might help:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junta

Deflections? You mean all this nonsense which has nothing to do with the topic of

"Gen Prawit hopes Ms Yingluck gave factual information to European Parliament"

All the deflection from the EP commission on Foreign Affairs which comes to Thailand to hear Ms. Yinglucks view on democracy. Pity Ms. Yingluck's facebook page on "democracy died today" is in Thai, can't post that here, but remember the date 2015-01-23.

Edited May 21, 2016 by rubl

[sjaak327]

I guess the visit came to be in place of the outstanding invitation to Ms. Yingluck, the one from October last year. At least The Nation mentions Werner Langen.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Only-inclusive-reform-will-pave-the-way-to-democra-30286278.html

No, as this particular meeting was mentioned as well back then.

[jamesbrock]

It's interesting how one person can see the HRW site as "aggressive" and the Reuters article balanced, and someone else, namely me, can see the HRW site as spot on and the Reuters article as though it's straight out of the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs ‘cheat sheet’ they released the other week.

The difference is the HRW site is written by non-Thais, and the Reuters article was written by Thais...

Here is another non-Thai article as an example of what the rest of the world thinks: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachael-willis-/the-world-weighs-in-on-th_b_10001664.html

When the HRW writes

"(Geneva) – The Thai government’s pledges to the United Nations Human Rights Council to respect human rights and restore democratic rule have been mostly meaningless, Human Rights Watch said today. ....

they are aggressive and give the impression of being right and Thailand should immediately change itself.

What is wrong with HRW being "aggressive"? Do you believe that people (governments) that violate human rights should be criticized in a passive way?

How is HRW wrong in their assertions? Are they being non-factual? (I would note their report cites numerous examples of human rights violations in present-day Thailand)

Why should Thailand delay in correcting human rights violations? Why can't the Junta establish an improved human rights situation immediately?

Tjeez, now James will be disappointed as he didn't think the HRW aggressive.

BTW I did say I think them aggressive. Such attitude is just as wrong as some tell me about the junta here. Also there is a difference in a qualification like 'aggressive' and a qualification like 'truthful, spot on'. I would have thought native English speakers knew that.

Now back to democracy as the EP commission on Foreign Affairs did come to Thailand to hear Ms. Yinglucks view on democracy. There's another EP commission for Human Rights and commissions tend to jealously guard their territory.

Not putting words into phoenixdoglover's mouth, but I took his question as being rhetorical, not as an affirmation of your claim.

Claiming that the Thai government’s pledges have been "mostly meaningless" when every single piece of evidence affirms that claim, isn't aggressive in any way at all. It obviously hurt your delicate feelings, but the truth is the truth.

Good to see it's not just an ever-diminishing portion of the Thai population that believes the junta's hype.

[MZurf]

"PS isn't is democratic that the Thai government allowed the EP commission on Foreign Affairs entry in the Kingdom and access to Ms. Yingluck?"

Uh, no. It's being realistic enough to understand that barring the EP commission from meeting YL would be detrimental to the relationship Thailand has with the EU. I would have thought that was obvious.

Ah, the very might of the EP makes all governments who are different from those in the EC shudder in their shoes or boots. That's democratic. Lots of countries like it when others try to interface in their internal affairs.

Will the commission next visit America to question the two Presidential hopefuls remaining on their views on Democracy, responsibility and accountability, and the best way of building a wall to stop refugees entering?

Will the commission also hope over to some Middle East countries as good (near) Dutch uncles?

Anyway, if the 'junta' was as bad as some here keep saying the commission would not have been able to enter the country. I would have thought that to be obvious.

Of course, knowing Ms. Yingluck, exposure to her in non-scripted interviews, Q & A sessions may be an experience very eye-opening to the commission.

What a silly post, but I do understand that deflections is the last resort of one that has lost an argument.

"Ah, the very might of the EP makes all governments who are different from those in the EC shudder in their shoes or boots. "

Governments who are different?? LOL!! Yes, one might call a military junta "different". One might also call it many other things that are less flattering. And the reason the junta "shudders in their shoes and boots" are because the EU is an economic superpower, and any sanctions would be disastrous for Thailand.

"Anyway, if the 'junta' was as bad as some here keep saying the commission would not have been able to enter the country. I would have thought that to be obvious."

And again I have to remind you of the serious consequences if Thailand start barring EC representatives from entering. And why do you write junta using apostrophes? Surely even you must agree they are a fully fledged junta, right? In case you have forgotten the definition this link might help:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junta

Deflections? You mean all this nonsense which has nothing to do with the topic of

"Gen Prawit hopes Ms Yingluck gave factual information to European Parliament"

All the deflection from the EP commission on Foreign Affairs which comes to Thailand to hear Ms. Yinglucks view on democracy. Pity Ms. Yingluck's facebook page on "democracy died today" is in Thai, can't post that here, but remember the date 2015-01-23.

My apologies, I didn't realize what a profound and terrifying impression her statement must have made on you.....

[phoenixdoglover]

It's interesting how one person can see the HRW site as "aggressive" and the Reuters article balanced, and someone else, namely me, can see the HRW site as spot on and the Reuters article as though it's straight out of the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs ‘cheat sheet’ they released the other week.

The difference is the HRW site is written by non-Thais, and the Reuters article was written by Thais...

Here is another non-Thai article as an example of what the rest of the world thinks: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachael-willis-/the-world-weighs-in-on-th_b_10001664.html

I would commend to everyone a look at the youtube videos available for recent FCCT (Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand) events.

There is a distinct difference between the expressions (choice of words) used by foreign correspondents and Thai journalists. At times, the halting, strangled words and body language of the Thai journalists, shows the internal conflict they are experiencing.

In their defense, I am impressed by the editorials in BP. They are critical of the current government. It is a shame we do not get these items posted to TVF.

Also, as a related matter the latest FCCT video reveals that 20 foreign journalists have been denied visas to work in Thailand since the Junta introduced new restrictions. It is clear the agenda is to reduce the number of outsiders and to keep the Thai press relatively compliant.

Of course no government is required to accept foreign journalists especially when from countries which give the impression to be as negative as their representatives here on this forum.

BTW it would seem every country has different rules. The Belgium Government site has

"Are you eligible to apply for a temporary press card from FPS Foreign Affairs?

YES

• You are not of Belgian nationality and you work for a foreign media organisation.
• Journalism is your main professional activity and is how you earn a living in Belgium."
• http://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/Newsroom/journalists_corner/accreditation

Of course with such requirements only journalists ALREADY working in the country could get a press card.

America also has certain rules and regulations.

https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/employment/media.html

So, for the time being we rely on facebook pages like the one with "democracy died this day"

No, rubl, you do not understand what you are reading. The regulation requires that you be a professional journalist: which applies to your main activity, and your source of income while in Belgium.

By the way, you are the only one on this thread who seems to think what Yingluck said back when she was impeached by the Junta-appointed Parliament as relevant to the discussions she had recently with the EU Parliament reps.

For all those wondering, she posted this on Facebook in January 2015: “Democracy has died in Thailand today, along with the rule of law. That move to destroy me is still ongoing and I face it now."

I personally take that statement as poetic, but essentially factual.

And for those who want the more complete understanding of the EP delegates' areas of focus on their visit to Thailand, here is one account from The Nation

"The European Parliament delegation yesterday called on Thailand to come up with inclusive reform for democracy to ensure smooth relations with the European Union (EU).

The process includes allowing open debates among all stakeholders to make way for the public referendum and the government's road map to democracy, said Werner Langen, chair of the Delegation for Relations with the Countries of Southeast Asia and Asean.

Langen stressed that a return to democratic structures and free and fair elections were "important conditions" for the future development of Thai-EU relations"

more at

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Only-inclusive-reform-will-pave-the-way-to-democra-30286278.html

Edited May 21, 2016 by phoenixdoglover

[Plutojames88]

Here is the problem - the terminology.

They say..." they Hope "..Ok . it is "....(who" ) .....that "'hopes"?

The Nation?

The People?

Or the Army Representative?

He is addressing an important person.

She won fair and square an election and is being courted in this delegation context for those reasons.

He hasn't achieved any democratic success ...he is to the delegation of no interest .

He should save his wisdom for wayward volleyball teams

If he though is speaking as the man authorised by article 44 then this is an entirely different matter.

If the army hope - good for them.

End of story.

But if its really the terminology and they mean something more ....say so.

If they threaten thats just precisely what we have been mentioning .

Terminology.

Lets be more clear .

There use deliberately language that is not fixed.

"Within the law" = we are not going to allow free speech.

Lets take the charter

Because people worry about it.

Arrests for being "" rude or inciting ...may mean maybe just saying a truth like" it as a document appears to restricts representation."

The LM and Computer crimes act arrests and sentences in several recent cases , highlight the audacity to the UN when saying ( its all within human rights measures )

It is really gross denial and a slap in the face to organisations and other Nations concerned.

Its making a Mockery of the UN and Human rights groups.

This is why language is changing .

Lets look at other terminology they use.?

""Better understanding "(' is another one.)

This gets wheeled out along with more offensive language

Like "'Less refined understanding of civilised discernment of Thai society "

This was said about LM laws and why its not a human rights breach but a necessary mechanism even in cases where people are sentenced for a "like"

The time has come where the language is changing.

A marked shift ahead.

Being called ""rude"" for instance might not seem much.

But it can install nationalist thoughts to take a westerner to Task

Lets hope Thailand in its current manifestation of Governance can abide by international requests to moderate its abuses in that field of Human rights.

But the article inference is YS is maybe muddying the waters of Thailand's good standing?

It's time he and the elitists realise outside of Thailand their is no perception of good standing.

Dress it up anyway you wish the "" False information "" you fear being given about the Nation might well just be her daily injustices she experiences each morning watching fellow citizens struggle in this oppressed country.

This kind of language below makes matters more clear.

After all we were getting sick of hearing them say "" Better understanding""

Quote

"(Geneva) The Thai governments pledges to the United Nations Human Rights Council to respect human rights and restore democratic rule have been mostly meaningless, Human Rights Watch said today. ....

UnQuote

Getting harder to spin that stuff isn't it.?

Edited May 22, 2016 by Plutojames88

[rubl]

It's interesting how one person can see the HRW site as "aggressive" and the Reuters article balanced, and someone else, namely me, can see the HRW site as spot on and the Reuters article as though it's straight out of the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs ‘cheat sheet’ they released the other week.

The difference is the HRW site is written by non-Thais, and the Reuters article was written by Thais...

Here is another non-Thai article as an example of what the rest of the world thinks: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachael-willis-/the-world-weighs-in-on-th_b_10001664.html

I would commend to everyone a look at the youtube videos available for recent FCCT (Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand) events.

There is a distinct difference between the expressions (choice of words) used by foreign correspondents and Thai journalists. At times, the halting, strangled words and body language of the Thai journalists, shows the internal conflict they are experiencing.

In their defense, I am impressed by the editorials in BP. They are critical of the current government. It is a shame we do not get these items posted to TVF.

Also, as a related matter the latest FCCT video reveals that 20 foreign journalists have been denied visas to work in Thailand since the Junta introduced new restrictions. It is clear the agenda is to reduce the number of outsiders and to keep the Thai press relatively compliant.

Of course no government is required to accept foreign journalists especially when from countries which give the impression to be as negative as their representatives here on this forum.

BTW it would seem every country has different rules. The Belgium Government site has

"Are you eligible to apply for a temporary press card from FPS Foreign Affairs?

YES

• You are not of Belgian nationality and you work for a foreign media organisation.
• Journalism is your main professional activity and is how you earn a living in Belgium."
• http://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/Newsroom/journalists_corner/accreditation

Of course with such requirements only journalists ALREADY working in the country could get a press card.

America also has certain rules and regulations.

https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/employment/media.html

So, for the time being we rely on facebook pages like the one with "democracy died this day"

No, rubl, you do not understand what you are reading. The regulation requires that you be a professional journalist: which applies to your main activity, and your source of income while in Belgium.

By the way, you are the only one on this thread who seems to think what Yingluck said back when she was impeached by the Junta-appointed Parliament as relevant to the discussions she had recently with the EU Parliament reps.

For all those wondering, she posted this on Facebook in January 2015: “Democracy has died in Thailand today, along with the rule of law. That move to destroy me is still ongoing and I face it now."

I personally take that statement as poetic, but essentially factual.

And for those who want the more complete understanding of the EP delegates' areas of focus on their visit to Thailand, here is one account from The Nation

"The European Parliament delegation yesterday called on Thailand to come up with inclusive reform for democracy to ensure smooth relations with the European Union (EU).

The process includes allowing open debates among all stakeholders to make way for the public referendum and the government's road map to democracy, said Werner Langen, chair of the Delegation for Relations with the Countries of Southeast Asia and Asean.

Langen stressed that a return to democratic structures and free and fair elections were "important conditions" for the future development of Thai-EU relations"

more at

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Only-inclusive-reform-will-pave-the-way-to-democra-30286278.html

"Journalism is your main professional activity and is how you earn a living in Belgium"

'how you earn' is not the same as 'how you will earn'. Of course Belgians are NNES.

BTW although I seem the only one going on about 'democracy died', in your latest reply you seem to agree with me that that statement was really relevant. Of course Ms. Yingluck was a bit expansive in including rule of law and 'out to destroy me' in the same message, but that's what you have with Amply Rich elite people, they take being asked to show accountibility so personal.

[rubl]

I guess the visit came to be in place of the outstanding invitation to Ms. Yingluck, the one from October last year. At least The Nation mentions Werner Langen.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Only-inclusive-reform-will-pave-the-way-to-democra-30286278.html

No, as this particular meeting was mentioned as well back then.

Cannot find a reference to that. Please help me.

[rubl]

What is wrong with HRW being "aggressive"? Do you believe that people (governments) that violate human rights should be criticized in a passive way?

How is HRW wrong in their assertions? Are they being non-factual? (I would note their report cites numerous examples of human rights violations in present-day Thailand)

Why should Thailand delay in correcting human rights violations? Why can't the Junta establish an improved human rights situation immediately?

Tjeez, now James will be disappointed as he didn't think the HRW aggressive.

BTW I did say I think them aggressive. Such attitude is just as wrong as some tell me about the junta here. Also there is a difference in a qualification like 'aggressive' and a qualification like 'truthful, spot on'. I would have thought native English speakers knew that.

Now back to democracy as the EP commission on Foreign Affairs did come to Thailand to hear Ms. Yinglucks view on democracy. There's another EP commission for Human Rights and commissions tend to jealously guard their territory.

Not putting words into phoenixdoglover's mouth, but I took his question as being rhetorical, not as an affirmation of your claim.

Claiming that the Thai government’s pledges have been "mostly meaningless" when every single piece of evidence affirms that claim, isn't aggressive in any way at all. It obviously hurt your delicate feelings, but the truth is the truth.

Good to see it's not just an ever-diminishing portion of the Thai population that believes the junta's hype.

Nice save, James.

When you want co-operation you shouldn't start with "you're wrong and hypocritic and you must change". That's aggressive. Government worldwide don't like such attitude.

Edited May 22, 2016 by rubl

[rubl]

What a silly post, but I do understand that deflections is the last resort of one that has lost an argument.

"Ah, the very might of the EP makes all governments who are different from those in the EC shudder in their shoes or boots. "

Governments who are different?? LOL!! Yes, one might call a military junta "different". One might also call it many other things that are less flattering. And the reason the junta "shudders in their shoes and boots" are because the EU is an economic superpower, and any sanctions would be disastrous for Thailand.

"Anyway, if the 'junta' was as bad as some here keep saying the commission would not have been able to enter the country. I would have thought that to be obvious."

And again I have to remind you of the serious consequences if Thailand start barring EC representatives from entering. And why do you write junta using apostrophes? Surely even you must agree they are a fully fledged junta, right? In case you have forgotten the definition this link might help:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junta

Deflections? You mean all this nonsense which has nothing to do with the topic of

"Gen Prawit hopes Ms Yingluck gave factual information to European Parliament"

All the deflection from the EP commission on Foreign Affairs which comes to Thailand to hear Ms. Yinglucks view on democracy. Pity Ms. Yingluck's facebook page on "democracy died today" is in Thai, can't post that here, but remember the date 2015-01-23.

My apologies, I didn't realize what a profound and terrifying impression her statement must have made on you.....

Not terrifying, only profound. It's always interesting to see such Amply Rich figures forget that they are not 'we', that they want a return to rule-of-law when they are asked to show the accountability which goes with their "being in charge", their "being responsible".

Anything else about the EP commission on Foreign Affairs asking Ms. Yingluck about democracy as she sees it?

[phoenixdoglover]

What is wrong with HRW being "aggressive"? Do you believe that people (governments) that violate human rights should be criticized in a passive way?

How is HRW wrong in their assertions? Are they being non-factual? (I would note their report cites numerous examples of human rights violations in present-day Thailand)

Why should Thailand delay in correcting human rights violations? Why can't the Junta establish an improved human rights situation immediately?

Tjeez, now James will be disappointed as he didn't think the HRW aggressive.

BTW I did say I think them aggressive. Such attitude is just as wrong as some tell me about the junta here. Also there is a difference in a qualification like 'aggressive' and a qualification like 'truthful, spot on'. I would have thought native English speakers knew that.

Now back to democracy as the EP commission on Foreign Affairs did come to Thailand to hear Ms. Yinglucks view on democracy. There's another EP commission for Human Rights and commissions tend to jealously guard their territory.

Not putting words into phoenixdoglover's mouth, but I took his question as being rhetorical, not as an affirmation of your claim.

Claiming that the Thai government’s pledges have been "mostly meaningless" when every single piece of evidence affirms that claim, isn't aggressive in any way at all. It obviously hurt your delicate feelings, but the truth is the truth.

Good to see it's not just an ever-diminishing portion of the Thai population that believes the junta's hype.

Nice save, James.

When you want co-operation you shouldn't start with "you're wrong and hypocritic and you must change". That's aggressive. Government worldwide don't like such attitude.

On the contrary, rubl. While repressive governments may not "like" it, history is filled with examples of human rights improvements secured through aggressive communication, sanctions, even violent means.

[rubl]

Tjeez, now James will be disappointed as he didn't think the HRW aggressive.

BTW I did say I think them aggressive. Such attitude is just as wrong as some tell me about the junta here. Also there is a difference in a qualification like 'aggressive' and a qualification like 'truthful, spot on'. I would have thought native English speakers knew that.

Now back to democracy as the EP commission on Foreign Affairs did come to Thailand to hear Ms. Yinglucks view on democracy. There's another EP commission for Human Rights and commissions tend to jealously guard their territory.

Not putting words into phoenixdoglover's mouth, but I took his question as being rhetorical, not as an affirmation of your claim.

Claiming that the Thai government’s pledges have been "mostly meaningless" when every single piece of evidence affirms that claim, isn't aggressive in any way at all. It obviously hurt your delicate feelings, but the truth is the truth.

Good to see it's not just an ever-diminishing portion of the Thai population that believes the junta's hype.

Nice save, James.

When you want co-operation you shouldn't start with "you're wrong and hypocritic and you must change". That's aggressive. Government worldwide don't like such attitude.

On the contrary, rubl. While repressive governments may not "like" it, history is filled with examples of human rights improvements secured through aggressive communication, sanctions, even violent means.

Ah, violent democracy!

Mind you, personally I don't think Ms. Yingluck has mentioned violence or separating her part of the country from Thailand.

[MZurf]

What a silly post, but I do understand that deflections is the last resort of one that has lost an argument.

"Ah, the very might of the EP makes all governments who are different from those in the EC shudder in their shoes or boots. "

Governments who are different?? LOL!! Yes, one might call a military junta "different". One might also call it many other things that are less flattering. And the reason the junta "shudders in their shoes and boots" are because the EU is an economic superpower, and any sanctions would be disastrous for Thailand.

"Anyway, if the 'junta' was as bad as some here keep saying the commission would not have been able to enter the country. I would have thought that to be obvious."

And again I have to remind you of the serious consequences if Thailand start barring EC representatives from entering. And why do you write junta using apostrophes? Surely even you must agree they are a fully fledged junta, right? In case you have forgotten the definition this link might help:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junta

Deflections? You mean all this nonsense which has nothing to do with the topic of

"Gen Prawit hopes Ms Yingluck gave factual information to European Parliament"

All the deflection from the EP commission on Foreign Affairs which comes to Thailand to hear Ms. Yinglucks view on democracy. Pity Ms. Yingluck's facebook page on "democracy died today" is in Thai, can't post that here, but remember the date 2015-01-23.

My apologies, I didn't realize what a profound and terrifying impression her statement must have made on you.....

Not terrifying, only profound. It's always interesting to see such Amply Rich figures forget that they are not 'we', that they want a return to rule-of-law when they are asked to show the accountability which goes with their "being in charge", their "being responsible".

Anything else about the EP commission on Foreign Affairs asking Ms. Yingluck about democracy as she sees it?

"Not terrifying, only profound."

What??? The empty air head mouthpiece for Lord Voldemort Na Dubai (aka the criminal fugitive and origin of sin) has said something profound?

Are you developing a soft spot for her? Out with it!

[djjamie]

She will jump all over this to milk the agenda to state how her convicted criminal fugitive accused terrorist and accused mass murderer brother is innocent as the driven snow.

She should just relay the message over Facebook. That is how she her brother ran the country after all.

[phoenixdoglover]

She will jump all over this to milk the agenda to state how her convicted criminal fugitive accused terrorist and accused mass murderer brother is innocent as the driven snow.

She should just relay the message over Facebook. That is how she her brother ran the country after all.

You're a bit behind the curve. The EP delegation came and went. Nothing like what you suggest has occurred.

Please try to make comments that are relevant to present-day Thailand.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 Eye using Tapatalk

[Winniedapu]

She will jump all over this to milk the agenda to state how her convicted criminal fugitive accused terrorist and accused mass murderer brother is innocent as the driven snow.

She should just relay the message over Facebook. That is how she her brother ran the country after all.

But but but... Thaksin.

You need a new mantra old son, that one is old and it didn't work when it was young.

Winnie

Edited May 22, 2016 by Winniedapu

[JAG]

Deflections? You mean all this nonsense which has nothing to do with the topic of

"Gen Prawit hopes Ms Yingluck gave factual information to European Parliament"

All the deflection from the EP commission on Foreign Affairs which comes to Thailand to hear Ms. Yinglucks view on democracy. Pity Ms. Yingluck's facebook page on "democracy died today" is in Thai, can't post that here, but remember the date 2015-01-23.

My apologies, I didn't realize what a profound and terrifying impression her statement must have made on you.....

Not terrifying, only profound. It's always interesting to see such Amply Rich figures forget that they are not 'we', that they want a return to rule-of-law when they are asked to show the accountability which goes with their "being in charge", their "being responsible".

Anything else about the EP commission on Foreign Affairs asking Ms. Yingluck about democracy as she sees it?

"Not terrifying, only profound."

What??? The empty air head mouthpiece for Lord Voldemort Na Dubai (aka the criminal fugitive and origin of sin) has said something profound?

Are you developing a soft spot for her? Out with it!

"Criminal fugitive" - you missed out "convicted". You must put in "convicted". He is a "convicted criminal fugitive", you see, it gives you a nice warm feeling, knowing he is "convicted" which dulls the occasional pangs of conscience which some may get for so enthusiastically supporting a regime which has taken away the peoples political, electoral and legal rights, and is busily suppressing their rights of freedom of speech and association; a style of government more at home in cold war South America than a developing country in the C21 which had an established, albeit far from perfect but none the less functioning democracy. So never forget - "convicted"!

Edited May 22, 2016 by JAG

[Winniedapu]

My apologies, I didn't realize what a profound and terrifying impression her statement must have made on you.....

Not terrifying, only profound. It's always interesting to see such Amply Rich figures forget that they are not 'we', that they want a return to rule-of-law when they are asked to show the accountability which goes with their "being in charge", their "being responsible".

Anything else about the EP commission on Foreign Affairs asking Ms. Yingluck about democracy as she sees it?

"Not terrifying, only profound."

What??? The empty air head mouthpiece for Lord Voldemort Na Dubai (aka the criminal fugitive and origin of sin) has said something profound?

Are you developing a soft spot for her? Out with it!

"Criminal fugitive" - you missed out "convicted". You must put in "convicted". He is a "convicted criminal fugitive", you see, it gives you a nice warm feeling, knowing he is "convicted" which dulls the occasional pangs of conscience which some may get for so enthusiastically supporting a regime which has taken away the peoples political, electoral and legal rights, and is busily suppressing their rights of freedom of speech and association, a style of government more at home in cold war South America than a developing country in the C21 which had an established, albeit far from perfect but none the less functioning democracy. So never forget - "convicted"!

He forgot to use 'corrupt' as well, 'Corrupt' is one of those emotive words that impress easily-fooled people. Essential to use it at every opportunity if you are an easily-fooled people.

Winnie

[rubl]

My apologies, I didn't realize what a profound and terrifying impression her statement must have made on you.....

Not terrifying, only profound. It's always interesting to see such Amply Rich figures forget that they are not 'we', that they want a return to rule-of-law when they are asked to show the accountability which goes with their "being in charge", their "being responsible".

Anything else about the EP commission on Foreign Affairs asking Ms. Yingluck about democracy as she sees it?

"Not terrifying, only profound."

What??? The empty air head mouthpiece for Lord Voldemort Na Dubai (aka the criminal fugitive and origin of sin) has said something profound?

Are you developing a soft spot for her? Out with it!

"Criminal fugitive" - you missed out "convicted". You must put in "convicted". He is a "convicted criminal fugitive", you see, it gives you a nice warm feeling, knowing he is "convicted" which dulls the occasional pangs of conscience which some may get for so enthusiastically supporting a regime which has taken away the peoples political, electoral and legal rights, and is busily suppressing their rights of freedom of speech and association; a style of government more at home in cold war South America than a developing country in the C21 which had an established, albeit far from perfect but none the less functioning democracy. So never forget - "convicted"!

Although some seem to have made up their mind already Ms. Yingluck is only accused and is given the opportunity to defend herself in court.

Mind you, no info yet on what Ms. Yingluck told the EP commission. The coming meeting of the commission on Foreign Affairs on the 24th may give us more on the talk in Bangkok.