wow, yet another departure from basic norms and human rights... 

 

if you want to put someone on trial, then have the wherewithal to go get them and bring them back like any other normal, civilized country.

 

If you don't have what it takes to do that, then you're just a coward with a court.

 

Morons.

 

On 29/01/2017 at 4:31 PM, SaintLouisBlues said:

I thought he'd already been convicted in absentia

Almost right. He was convicted before his absentia. Allegedly boarded the wrong flight on his way back from the Olympics, could happen to anyone.

15 hours ago, tbthailand said:

wow, yet another departure from basic norms and human rights... 

 

if you want to put someone on trial, then have the wherewithal to go get them and bring them back like any other normal, civilized country.

 

If you don't have what it takes to do that, then you're just a coward with a court.

 

Morons.

 

so what are the absconders, cowards without a court?

5 minutes ago, halloween said:

Almost right. He was convicted before his absentia. Allegedly boarded the wrong flight on his way back from the Olympics, could happen to anyone.

No he was already gone when the conviction came in. The Summer Olympics where in August, his conviction in October.

4 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

No he was already gone when the conviction came in.

I must be confused. So where does the bribery attempt fit in that time-line?

5 minutes ago, halloween said:

I must be confused. So where does the bribery attempt fit in that time-line?

He was convicted in october for the Ratchada land deal. Olympics were in August.

9 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

He was convicted in october for the Ratchada land deal. Olympics were in August.

And the cake box was delivered in June. Could that have affected his decision to travel?

2 minutes ago, halloween said:

And the cake box was delivered in June. Could that have affected his decision to travel?

without a doubt. Doesn't change the fact that Saintlouisblues was 100% correct. He WAS convicted in absentia.

1 minute ago, sjaak327 said:

without a doubt. Doesn't change the fact that Saintlouisblues was 100% correct. He WAS convicted in absentia.

AFTER he was allowed to attend his court case with full representation, up to and including a bribery attempt. Absenting yourself when the evidence is going against you and your bribe is rejected, hardly constitutes what convicted in absentia suggests.

1 minute ago, halloween said:

AFTER he was allowed to attend his court case with full representation, up to and including a bribery attempt. Absenting yourself when the evidence is going against you and your bribe is rejected, hardly constitutes what convicted in absentia suggests.

No it does not, when his conviction was handed down, he already was out of the the country. I agree the term trial in absentia does not apply. But he was convicted in absentia. As noted by many press reports.

1 hour ago, sjaak327 said:

No it does not, when his conviction was handed down, he already was out of the the country. I agree the term trial in absentia does not apply. But he was convicted in absentia. As noted by many press reports.

"Lawyers for the couple had argued proceedings should be suspended because they were no longer living in Thailand.

But the court said the case - related to a Bangkok land sale - should proceed with the couple in absentia." August 2008

http:news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7563720.stm

Thaksin was free on 8 million baht bail pending trial and allowed to temporaily leave the country.

He chose not to return, subsequently tried and convicted in absentia.