Legal doubts over defence for Yingluck

[halloween]

3 minutes ago, brucec64 said:

 

And yet you support the penalty phase, even though you admit that her guilt has not yet been proven.

 

Unbelievable...

I don't believe her guilt of corruption in regard to the rice scam has yet been proven. Her guilt of negligence in office on that matter is clear.

BTW Yingluk authorised many actions that would elsewhere be considered corrupt and abuse of office. Issuing a passport to a criminal relative, allowing him access to cabinet meetings (insider trading),  the attempt to grant a criminal amnesty to her convicted brother, herself and her government, just for starters.

[halloween]

7 minutes ago, jamesbrock said:

 

Nor am I, but should we seize the assets or jail everybody we presume to be guilty of graft? Or is YL a special case?

Her assets are being seized for the damage she did to the country by her negligence and mismanagement. Hopefully, once corruption is proved, they will take much more.

[silent]

2 hours ago, halloween said:

And yet, you do. You allege seizing her assets is corruption, but who is profiting from the action? She is being made repay a tiny fraction of the public money she wasted, but her supporters claim that waste was her right, while nit-picking military purchases and trip expenses minuscule in comparison.

Listen Happy Halloween try reading what my lips say and appreciate the level of BS it took out of what I wrote to make a glorious point about something as insignificant as the joke of having to use public transport to fly to an important military meeting and deal with all the flak.Obviously the point I was making flew over your head at warp speed and you're good at comparing apples to oranges.

[scorecard]

2 hours ago, alocacoc said:

Well, the mass media covered it already but TV.

 

Perhaps you could get this all in context.

 

TV is not a stand alone newspaper or similar.

 

TV finds content from other news sites / agencies etc., and puts the links on the TV site. 

[Docno]

10 hours ago, halloween said:

Would you accept this in your own country? The list of corrupt acts that I have witnessed in this country, that would not be acceptable in mine, is immense, and most committed under Shinawatra regimes. For once, I see an allegedly unacceptable act actually punishing the corrupt instead of enriching them. Don't expect me to get all bothered by it.

Letting corrupt politicians know that their ill-gotten gains may be stripped from them is a great way to advance this country. You want to call it vengeance, fine. I ask again " should the PM who used it to buy her way to office be forced to pay some of the costs? "

I disagree. Rule of law and due process is always more important than the prosecution of any single legal case. Throw out of the former one or two times, and you're on a very slippery slope.

 

My old thesis supervisor would sometimes be called upon to be an expert witness in cases where the police had screwed up procedure. He would do so without any remuneration other than travel and accommodation costs. His testimony would sometimes result in likely-guilty suspects being released on a technicality (i.e., the police had violated some procedural principle). His position--and I came to accept it-- was that even if one perhaps guilty person escaped justice, many innocent people would be saved from wrongful prosecution and imprisonment. And that was a more important outcome.

 

As William Blackstone is said to have stated: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". And this is the where our modern 'presumption of innocence' originates. Perhaps you could reflect on that... presumption of innocence.  

[scorecard]

4 hours ago, halloween said:

I don't believe her guilt of corruption in regard to the rice scam has yet been proven. Her guilt of negligence in office on that matter is clear.

BTW Yingluk authorised many actions that would elsewhere be considered corrupt and abuse of office. Issuing a passport to a criminal relative, allowing him access to cabinet meetings (insider trading),  the attempt to grant a criminal amnesty to her convicted brother, herself and her government, just for starters.

 

"...corrupt and abuse of office..."   add   'derelict, immoral, and lacking in the values expected of a national leader'

Edited October 10, 2016 by scorecard

[Grubster]

I think the smartest thing the PM could do is pardon her. Stomping on her will not gain him any support amongst the Thai people.

[halloween]

7 hours ago, Grubster said:

I think the smartest thing the PM could do is pardon her. Stomping on her will not gain him any support amongst the Thai people.

Funny, that seems to be the view of every red apologist. Any reason why she, and the other PTP criminals, shouldn't pay for their crimes and the huge losses they caused the country?

[AGareth2]

why no legal doubts over the prosecution

or should I say persecution

[Grubster]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

Funny, that seems to be the view of every red apologist. Any reason why she, and the other PTP criminals, shouldn't pay for their crimes and the huge losses they caused the country?

No only the same reason they use in most other countries, There is a fine line between incompetence and criminality, I don't believe criminal intent has been proven in this case, if you feel that is not necessary than thats up to you I guess. I'm sure you are happy that the current rulers of this country have removed any possibility that they could be "justly" prosecuted for anything they chose to do in the future.  Do you like this new law?  I haven't been apologizing for anything the Thaksin's have done, but maybe you are turning a blind eye  towards a Dictatorship. Have you not seen any government waste by this new regime yet? Is it ok to say that people cannot voice there opinion freely? 

           I was only stating that the PM could avoid possible problems with the public if he were to pardon her. I don't really care what he does, and it is not legal for any Thai to say anything anyway. Power does strange things to people, lets see what this guy does after the eight years he has already decided that he will rule. I bet he won't ever give it up unless removed somehow.

[Grubster]

On October 10, 2016 at 3:58 PM, halloween said:

Her assets are being seized for the damage she did to the country by her negligence and mismanagement. Hopefully, once corruption is proved, they will take much more.

Well they better hurry up because after Nov 1st the new political amnesty that the new PM has given to all government officials will go into affect. This will include past government officials too. This is why they are trying desperately to get this done without a conviction.

[ldiablo72]

 
"...corrupt and abuse of office..."   add   'derelict, immoral, and lacking in the values expected of a national leader'

You can add every single President and Prime minister of every country to your statement.

[AGareth2]

5 minutes ago, Grubster said:

Well they better hurry up because after Nov 1st the new political amnesty that the new PM has given to all government officials will go into affect. This will include past government officials too. This is why they are trying desperately to get this done without a conviction.

is that why the finance ministry didn't turn up?

[Grubster]

7 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

is that why the finance ministry didn't turn up?

I wouldn't know why they didn't turn up.

[scorecard]

30 minutes ago, Grubster said:

No only the same reason they use in most other countries, There is a fine line between incompetence and criminality, I don't believe criminal intent has been proven in this case, if you feel that is not necessary than thats up to you I guess. I'm sure you are happy that the current rulers of this country have removed any possibility that they could be "justly" prosecuted for anything they chose to do in the future.  Do you like this new law?  I haven't been apologizing for anything the Thaksin's have done, but maybe you are turning a blind eye  towards a Dictatorship. Have you not seen any government waste by this new regime yet? Is it ok to say that people cannot voice there opinion freely? 

           I was only stating that the PM could avoid possible problems with the public if he were to pardon her. I don't really care what he does, and it is not legal for any Thai to say anything anyway. Power does strange things to people, lets see what this guy does after the eight years he has already decided that he will rule. I bet he won't ever give it up unless removed somehow.

 

Convenient words ".. I don't believe criminal intent ..."

 

Others would believe the words are "... planned gross dereliction of duty..."

 

Are the two phrases ultimately any different? 

 

"... I was only stating that the PM could avoid possible problems with the public if he were to pardon her.  ..."  What problems with the public?  Are you going to repeat that large sections of the public, especially in the NE love her and believe she is totally innocent? Well your entitled to your opinion.

 

IMHO that's not true but it's just my opinion.

 

Or perhaps you think cases should be decided on sentiment, but nicely ignoring that this country desperately needs to get away from this type of application of the law and especially when it's the hi-so or the rich and powerful.

 

Edited October 11, 2016 by scorecard

[Chris Lawrence]

On ‎10‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 5:56 PM, halloween said:

And yet, you do. You allege seizing her assets is corruption, but who is profiting from the action? She is being made repay a tiny fraction of the public money she wasted, but her supporters claim that waste was her right, while nit-picking military purchases and trip expenses minuscule in comparison.

So your a little bit pregnant? Corruption is corruption. Even taking that Biro or lap top computer from work is stealing. But what you also display Hallo, is a lack of real knowledge past 2012. Its sounds as you arrived on the scene in 2012 and everyone's opinion of fact that happened before this is hotly contested by yourself. Thailand is a hotbed of back slapping and greased palms controlled primarily by the elite and the armed forces. They are trying to get Yingluck off the front page but the more they go after her the more the opportunity of making her a martyr. She is well liked and respected up North.

[Chris Lawrence]

On ‎10‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 7:58 PM, halloween said:

Her assets are being seized for the damage she did to the country by her negligence and mismanagement. Hopefully, once corruption is proved, they will take much more.

So what was the total cost to the country? and who/how was it calculated?

[Grubster]

5 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

Convenient words ".. I don't believe criminal intent ..."

 

Others would believe the words are "... planned gross dereliction of duty..."

 

Are the two phrases ultimately any different? 

When I said "i don't believe" I was talking about me. So again I say I don't believe that criminal intent has been proven in this case. If you believe that it has then show some details.  If you don't think that matters than I sure wouldn't want you for a judge in any case.

        Do you think it is OK that the new PM has given himself Immunity for anything he does while in government?

[brucec64]

On ‎2016‎-‎10‎-‎10 at 1:48 PM, halloween said:

 

No, it doesn't make me part of the corruption because I don't accept that the act is corrupt. The nation is recouping some of the funds wasted by corrupt politicians, not some corrupt mongrel lining his/her own pockets.

OTOH you might consider you own morals in accepting a corrupt government because they were elected.  I support the millions of Thais willing to speak up and risk their lives to protest the blatant criminal actions of the Shinawatras. You don't have to be in the majority to be right.

 

You don't accept the act as corrupt, yet I do. If only there was an avenue to determine who was correct, where we could both present our arguments, and supporting evidence, and then the matter would be judged according to a pre-defined process and existing rules that applied equally to all.

 

Oh ya, that's called a court of law. Exactly where the Yingluck case is not being heard before penalties are applied...

[Kiwiken]

As they can't get Thaksin crucify his sister. Give her 30 years in jail and seize all family assets in Thailand. There you go Thaksin We win na na na na .

If We convicted every politician in the World for naive policies and terrible advice We would still be Serfs.

[Srikcir]

11 hours ago, Grubster said:

I don't believe that criminal intent has been proven in this case.

You may be a little late to this comedy.

Without digging up references I believe the charge was criminal Malfeasance Negligence by a Public Official based on claims by the opposition party the Democrats that the rice pledge program would become a massive cost to the government when it was announced and discussed in the Parliament.

You can google TV Search to find more on the topic.

[Grubster]

12 hours ago, Srikcir said:

You may be a little late to this comedy.

Without digging up references I believe the charge was criminal Malfeasance Negligence by a Public Official based on claims by the opposition party the Democrats that the rice pledge program would become a massive cost to the government when it was announced and discussed in the Parliament.

You can google TV Search to find more on the topic.

There is a rather large difference between a charge, and proof. Many people and organizations said George Bush was fabricating the arms of mass destruction thing. Has he gone to jail or paid any compensation.  So the opposition party was right and she was wrong, how does that prove criminal intent?

[bangrak]

I can't remember, ever, having read/heard that Ms Yingluck was the only person bearing responsibility for the huge losses provoked by the rice scheme through illegal, fraudulous, corrupt, criminal, and other, mostnot random but, very, planned and organised, acts making it a scam rather than a scheme.

May I consider it, very, irritating to see some people, and posters here, keeping going on with their attempts, I will not qualify, to exonerate the said Ms Yingluck of any responsibility, and the financial consequences of her actions (or, indeed, failing to act), N°1: as the chief of the Executive Power, having decided about, and the means and content of, the so-called rice pledging scheme; N°2: as the head of the rice pledging scheme commitee (whenever she did, or not, attend any meeting of is entirely up to her, but a rather incrimanting than innocenting factor), after being several, many, times confronted, by officials, watchdogs, opposition and media, with evidence and a lot of documented supicions of abuses.

She might be the first person holding a top, and other high, functio(s), to have her nose rubbed into the wrongs she was responsible of, simply by being the person (supposedly...?) being on duty, in charge, and being made accountable for (a reduced part of!) the financial consequences, yes she might be, but why should she not be, because nothing same can be shoved into Mr. Abhisit's slippers, for instance...?

There is a first time, this is the one, I hope many will follow, until (sigh, when, whenever, maybe) this country, with such a tremendous potential, within its basic population, not the <1% 'system' which is abusing and vampirising the masses of Thai citizens, I mean, will have, at last, fought off the right to an educated, equal, non-corrupt future!

There has to be a first, and that 'the axe' falls on a member of one of the, IMO, most (cleverly organised) corrupt 'clans' holding this country in its grip, I even consider as a quite providential 'return of the pendulum'.

Who's next, is my question, but let the Shins' mafia fall first now, they freely decided(!) to make it their karma, and, as such deserve the treat!

 

Edited October 12, 2016 by bangrak
addition of a superfluous preposition 'in' in the last sentence

[tbthailand]

On October 10, 2016 at 10:46 AM, halloween said:

they don't pretend to be democratic heroes of the people.

 

Yes, they do pretend to be exactly that... Recall the "democratic soldier" quote? They also pretend to be on a "road to democracy", and they also pretend to "respect human rights"... 

 

But of course they aren't democratic soldiers, we are not on a road to democracy, and human rights are violated every single day.

 

On October 10, 2016 at 10:46 AM, halloween said:

Hopefully, they will soon be history, and Thailand will have a better version of democracy to look forward to. It couldn't be much worse than the last effort.

 

Yes, it could be much worse. And much worse is defined by the current draft constitution currently under a 30 day review by none other than the self-appointed "prime minister".  What the system is setup to do is to make sure that the military is not history, but rather that the military remains in control regardless of the results of future elections. 

 

You've been so blatantly pro-junta for so long that I find it shameless that you now pretend that we could somehow have a "better version of democracy" coming from the fruits of the labour of these clowns. 

[greenchair]

On 10/10/2016 at 9:37 AM, halloween said:

Would you accept this in your own country? The list of corrupt acts that I have witnessed in this country, that would not be acceptable in mine, is immense, and most committed under Shinawatra regimes. For once, I see an allegedly unacceptable act actually punishing the corrupt instead of enriching them. Don't expect me to get all bothered by it.

Letting corrupt politicians know that their ill-gotten gains may be stripped from them is a great way to advance this country. You want to call it vengeance, fine. I ask again " should the PM who used it to buy her way to office be forced to pay some of the costs? "

Sure she should. As long as every past politician and every future politician will be forced to pay some of  the cost,for every government scheme that has corruption and lost or loses money . Such as the rubber scheme, the rajaphat project, the land encroachment fiasco, that every government official knew about for decades.the corruption in the education department, corruption in almost every major construction project ever initiated, I could go on but will run out of ink. 

Let's be fair shall we ☺☺☺

 

[tbthailand]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

Sure she should. As long as every past politician and every future politician will be forced to pay some of  the cost,for every government scheme that has corruption and lost or loses money . Such as the rubber scheme, the rajaphat project, the land encroachment fiasco, that every government official knew about for decades.the corruption in the education department, corruption in almost every major construction project ever initiated, I could go on but will run out of ink. 

Let's be fair shall we ☺☺☺

 

No, she should not pay. And no politician should have to pay for costs of a government program just because the government that follows them hates the idea. In the USA, in Europe and throughout Asia, there are agricultural subsidy programs like this rice program. Does any other country change governments and then go after the previous PM for the bill? Of course not, that would be stupid. 

 

And it is stupid in this case too, but then we have clowns behind the wheel of the car... 

 

PS: just so that the somewhat dim junta-huggers get it, let me be clear.  Yes, corruption should be rooted out and people involved charged appropriately and put on trial.  But that is not what is going on here.... 

[gemini81]

On ‎10‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 10:40 PM, brucec64 said:

 

Of course you are not bothered, but unfortunately, that also makes you part of the corruption, and puts your own morals into question.

Ludicrous rebuttal suggesting that his view on deliberate graft being punished and answerable for as an example makes him corrupt.

[scorecard]

11 hours ago, Grubster said:

There is a rather large difference between a charge, and proof. Many people and organizations said George Bush was fabricating the arms of mass destruction thing. Has he gone to jail or paid any compensation.  So the opposition party was right and she was wrong, how does that prove criminal intent?

 

IMHO there is a case that he should have been properly investigated on this point.

 

The fact that he wasn't cannot be used to say other leaders should not be investigated in regard to claims of massive criminal dereliction of their duty. 

[scorecard]

7 hours ago, tbthailand said:

In the USA, in Europe and throughout Asia, there are agricultural subsidy programs like this rice program

 

What nicely convenient words you use, and not the truth of the local situation. 

[greenchair]

7 hours ago, tbthailand said:

No, she should not pay. And no politician should have to pay for costs of a government program just because the government that follows them hates the idea. In the USA, in Europe and throughout Asia, there are agricultural subsidy programs like this rice program. Does any other country change governments and then go after the previous PM for the bill? Of course not, that would be stupid. 

 

And it is stupid in this case too, but then we have clowns behind the wheel of the car... 

 

PS: just so that the somewhat dim junta-huggers get it, let me be clear.  Yes, corruption should be rooted out and people involved charged appropriately and put on trial.  But that is not what is going on here.... 

I don't think you understood my meaning. 

Meaning, she should not pay because of the reasons you have listed. It was a government programme, corrupt within its ranks. Those people must pay. 

But try as they might, they could not find a single action of corruption by yingluck. So they have prosecuted her for the corruption of others and being a bit ditsy. 

Strangely  she has been given the penalty before being convicted and  prosecuted for corruption of others, that have also not even been sent to the courts yet.