BBC journalist faces five years jail for Thailand reporting

[tukkytuktuk]

4 hours ago, jimster said:

Time for you to go home. Who are you, some random farang to tell Thai officials and Thailand what to do? How dare you even suggest that non-Thais (foreigners) should be immune from the laws of the country they choose to reside in? How would you feel if Thais told you that their officials, their citizens should be immune from any laws they disagree with in your home country?

 

Also, are you really naïve enough to think that there are no defamation laws or other weapons that silence criticism of public officials, certain government policies etc. in the west? There is still far more freedom in Thailand than in any western country. There is even one crazy law, in effect in at least 16 countries (mostly in Europe), that bans any questioning of a particular event that is said to have occurred last century. Question it and you can go to jail for up to 20 years in some countries. That law is as much a weapon to stifle free speech in the west as anything you claim Thailand is guilty of. And yet here you are on your high horse trying to hold the rest of the world hostage to your self-imposed standards of western morality. Your attitude is nothing short of neo-colonial.

I have only one thing to say to you.

"Can I have my Schindler's List dvd back I lent you?"

[wakeupplease]

5 hours ago, jimster said:

Which is why Head, like most western journalists, are little more than foreign lobbyists masquerading as journalists trying to subvert public opinion in Thailand in line with the interests of western countries/oligarchs. His biased reporting is clear evidence of that.

 

I would fully support foreign journalists needing to be registered and vetted by the Thai government. Given how many western journalists including John Pilger from the BBC and others have come out and told the truth about the methods the media uses to try and mold public opinion in a certain direction, it's clear evidence that if this vetting didn't occur, it would be the journalists who would need to be held accountable for causing a riot or other disturbance based on lies and fake reporting. I doubt the British government would allow Thai journalists to report whatever they like in any fashion they like, why should the BBC or any other western news agency be any different?

Was the Chip Allen trying to say that foreigners who are non resident here and say something about this place in their own country and it could be just a comment of a bad hotel experience here, return again and get arrested under CCA, should be exempt as it was said out of this country's jurisdiction? (it is happening).

 

Back to the case, here we have a lawyer who is a criminal by his own actions, he agreed this on camera. He notarized a signature on a document that he knew was false and he did it when that person Ian was not present. (Notarization is the official fraud-deterrent process that assures the parties of a transaction that a document is authentic, and can be trusted.) Therefore that was fraud.

 

This so called lawyer then went to the police and made the complaintr. The BIB took over as they do in all CCa cases. But they should be made to pay for the case and not get it free, that alone will stop corruption.

 

So now we have a case in courts here that says to the world never trust a lawyer here, never bring a business here, never invest money here as you simply cannot trust a lawyer here or the government as quite frankly they should see this as a message to the world Do Not Invest In This Country.

 

A person lost £2million (I Think it was) A woman is in jail for 4 years for it, so should the rest of the scammers including the lawyer.

 

It also says a lot about the T>>> Lawyer council does it not.

 

Jonathan Heads reporting is fair and as the lawyer said on the film correct, so how is he biased?

 

Now if it was you who lost the 2 million, I fear you would be round to the lawyers with haste would you not?

 

Lawyers in your neck of the woods are making big money from farangs hence cases like feeding fish and jet ski accident. Locals are running short of it fast (money that is) so lawyers have to make anyway they can.

 

Very soon a story will go hype and then good night your neck of the woods, the sooner the better as corruption is evil and you know it, just think yourself lucky its not affected you yet YET.

[mommysboy]

Oh Dear!  You see this is Thailand.  It has its own sovereign laws. Hope he can prove his case.

[jayboy]

 
Put all of that another way, would you (or anybody) allow your government to allow foreigners / visitors to be allowed to do things outside of the laws of your country?

Quite so.Nevertheless where laws are immoral or hateful and where there is no fair minded justice system one could perhaps be forgiven for not sharing your enthusiasm and simple minded moral equivalence.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[JAG]

Which is why Head, like most western journalists, are little more than foreign lobbyists masquerading as journalists trying to subvert public opinion in Thailand in line with the interests of western countries/oligarchs. His biased reporting is clear evidence of that.

 

I would fully support foreign journalists needing to be registered and vetted by the Thai government. Given how many western journalists including John Pilger from the BBC and others have come out and told the truth about the methods the media uses to try and mold public opinion in a certain direction, it's clear evidence that if this vetting didn't occur, it would be the journalists who would need to be held accountable for causing a riot or other disturbance based on lies and fake reporting. I doubt the British government would allow Thai journalists to report whatever they like in any fashion they like, why should the BBC or any other western news agency be any different?

Ah but you're absolutely wrong, a journalist, Thai or British, working in the UK, could report whatever they like in any fashion they like...

That's because of the little thing called press freedom you see.

Nor are journalists vetted or licenced by the state.

Now if an individual believes that they have been defamed then they can bring a civil case to claim compensation, which is an altogether different thing to initiating a criminal case with its concomitant severe jail sentences.

It's interesting that you cite John Pilger, (I have heard "Pilgerising" described as the art of emphasising aspects of a story and ignoring other aspects to fit a predetermined agenda), he is undoubtedly a provocative and controversial journalist, but is still published freely. Interestingly some of his pieces on South East Asia have been particularly noteworthy and influential over the years. He has been able to publish because of a free press.