Supreme Court jails former police officer 2 years for bribing constitutional court judge

[than]

32 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

The courts rulings are all based on heresay from ML Krairirk.

No jury would convict.

No impartial judge would convict.

 

To me this whole affair seems to be farcical.

No interest in justice, plenty of interest in politics.

 

Would you like to be convicted based solely upon the word of another?

 

The testimony of a judge with the title of Mom Luang and additional professor of law at TAMMASSAT University has more weight than a corrupt policeman

[scorecard]

21 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

The institutionalised character of the anti-democratic alliance is best demonstrated by the recent use of courts to hamper the rise of electoral politics in a process called judicialisation of politics - Deep State explain.

?

[Smarter Than You]

5 minutes ago, than said:

The testimony of a judge with the title of Mom Luang and additional professor of law at TAMMASSAT University has more weight than a corrupt policeman

You'd be singing a different tune if it were you off to jail for two years because a judge has taken anothers word over yours because their occupation "outranks" yours.

[than]

8 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

You'd be singing a different tune if it were you off to jail for two years because a judge has taken anothers word over yours because their occupation "outranks" yours.

But sorry for you I'm not given into corruption like red lovers.

 

Quote

The Criminal Court said M.R. Krairirk was a well-respected law lecturer and had engaged no dispute with the bribe giver before.

The court said what M.R. Krairirk had testified in the court about the attempted bribery was factual evidence while the attempts of the police officer was considered an act of selfishness, and affected the image of the court which is the last institution where the people can depend on.

Criminal Court Dec,24 2014

 

[Smarter Than You]

12 minutes ago, than said:

But sorry for you I'm not given into corruption like red lovers.

 

So you'd be an innocent man in jail regretting your support of the dodgy system that convicts on heresay.

 

If there were two visits where a bribe was discussed - why didn't Krairirk record the second conversation?

My guess, he's lying about the whole affair.

 

Former Thai Rak Thai party member gets 3 years in prison for attempt ...

Edited July 16, 2017 by Smarter Than You

[than]

3 hours ago, Smarter Than You said:

So you'd be an innocent man in jail regretting your support of the dodgy system that convicts on heresay.

 

If there were two visits where a bribe was discussed - why didn't Krairirk record the second conversation?

My guess, he's lying about the whole affair.

 

Former Thai Rak Thai party member gets 3 years in prison for attempt ...

 

You make a serious charge against a judge sitting in the Supreme Court.....

 

 

Do you have any evidence? Why did not you send them to his lawyers? Or did you just make defamation ?

[inThailand]

I guess a "get out of jail card" costs more than the bribe?

[Smarter Than You]

6 hours ago, than said:

 

You make a serious charge against a judge sitting in the Supreme Court.....

 

 

Do you have any evidence? Why did not you send them to his lawyers? Or did you just make defamation ?

Do I have any evidence for my guess?

No - that's why I called it a guess.

 

Funny how you're so touchy over defamation in this instance and then spend all day, every day defaming Thaksin, PTP and the Red Shirt rank and file.

Double standard?

[billd766]

11 hours ago, than said:

 

You make a serious charge against a judge sitting in the Supreme Court.....

 

 

Do you have any evidence? Why did not you send them to his lawyers? Or did you just make defamation ?

 

Of course he doesn't.

 

He is simply trolling as usual.

[scorecard]

15 hours ago, Smarter Than You said:

So you'd be an innocent man in jail regretting your support of the dodgy system that convicts on heresay.

 

If there were two visits where a bribe was discussed - why didn't Krairirk record the second conversation?

My guess, he's lying about the whole affair.

 

Former Thai Rak Thai party member gets 3 years in prison for attempt ...

 

Seems to me your just trolling to keep this thread open as long as possible, aimed at 'if you say it enough times, some folks will believe you'.

 

My guess (my guess) is that you need a new hobby.

[Smarter Than You]

32 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Of course he doesn't.

 

He is simply trolling as usual.

Do you think this case has set a good legal precedent?

Would you be happy to be convicted on such flimsy "evidence"?

Why do you think the accuser never bothered to record the conversations - especially the second encounter at his own house when he had time to prepare?

Edited July 17, 2017 by Smarter Than You

[Smarter Than You]

12 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

Seems to me your just trolling to keep this thread open as long as possible, aimed at 'if you say it enough times, some folks will believe you'.

 

My guess (my guess) is that you need a new hobby.

I have been simply responding to Than's posts.

If you have a problem, hit the report button.

 

How about you  - would you be happy to be convicted on the heresy of one man who happens to be on the opposite side of the political divide to you?

[scorecard]

7 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

Do you think this case has set a good legal precedent?

Would you be happy to be convicted on such flimsy "evidence"?

Why do you think the accuser never bothered to record the conversations - especially the second encounter at his own house when he had time to prepare?

 

"Why do you think the accuser never bothered to record the conversations".

 

Did you ever consider that thee 'accuser' was not expecting the conversation to happen and there was no facility available to quickly record? 

[than]

6 hours ago, Smarter Than You said:

Do I have any evidence for my guess?

No - that's why I called it a guess.

 

Funny how you're so touchy over defamation in this instance and then spend all day, every day defaming Thaksin, PTP and the Red Shirt rank and file.

Double standard?

There is a GREAT difference between make affirmation to drive to defamation like you, and REPORT element from from Thai and International news and organisations like HRW. 

 

 

[Smarter Than You]

55 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

"Why do you think the accuser never bothered to record the conversations".

 

Did you ever consider that thee 'accuser' was not expecting the conversation to happen and there was no facility available to quickly record? 

Do keep up.

The accusers claims that there were two encounters.

The first at his place of work where the alleged bribe was 15 million.

The second at the accusers house where the alleged bribe was upped to 30 million.

 

The accuser, having been offered a bribe at his place of work then hosts the alleged briber at a future date at his own house - there is ample opportunity to record the conversation.

I would go as far to say that if the accuser were truly interested in justice and the events really did occur as he says they did - then surely he is obligated to record the conversation that he knows is coming.

 

I would also question how it is the the judges adjudicating on this case didn't raise the same doubts ... why is there no recording? why is there no other evidence at all besides the accusers own unverified claims?

 

How could one be convicted on so flimsy a case?

 

 

 

[Smarter Than You]

2 minutes ago, than said:

There is a GREAT difference between make affirmation to drive to defamation like you, and REPORT element from from Thai and International news and organisations like HRW. 

 

 

Don't understand what you've written here.

???

[than]

1 minute ago, Smarter Than You said:

Don't understand what you've written here.

???

You so boring with your trolling

[halloween]

17 hours ago, Smarter Than You said:

You'd be singing a different tune if it were you off to jail for two years because a judge has taken anothers word over yours because their occupation "outranks" yours.

So you only look at occupation when deciding credibility, and completely ignore the situation factor. The BIB approached the judge, and admits he made the statement as a 'joke'.

Do you think it normal for senior police to approach senior judges they hardly know to make jokes in very poor taste based on the judge's supposed lack of integrity?

[billd766]

10 minutes ago, halloween said:

So you only look at occupation when deciding credibility, and completely ignore the situation factor. The BIB approached the judge, and admits he made the statement as a 'joke'.

Do you think it normal for senior police to approach senior judges they hardly know to make jokes in very poor taste based on the judge's supposed lack of integrity?

 

The best thing is to igore him and don't waste any time on replies.

 

He will get fed up when he gets no response from anyone.

 

He has been on my ignore list for a while now and the only time I see a post of his is when someone replies to it.

[than]

3 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

The best thing is to igore him and don't waste any time on replies.

 

He will get fed up when he gets no response from anyone.

 

He has been on my ignore list for a while now and the only time I see a post of his is when someone replies to it.

I had hoped (or naivety) to want to educate him.

[Smarter Than You]

11 minutes ago, halloween said:

So you only look at occupation when deciding credibility, and completely ignore the situation factor. The BIB approached the judge, and admits he made the statement as a 'joke'.

Do you think it normal for senior police to approach senior judges they hardly know to make jokes in very poor taste based on the judge's supposed lack of integrity?

No, I don't look at occupation when deciding credibility. The Thai courts did and Than did.

I completely disagree with the use of occupation as a measure of credibility, if you read what I have written my position abundantly clear.

 

He was a former class mate of the judge who was visiting to pass on an invitation to a class reunion - probably explains why the judge agreed to see him.

Given the political situation at the time of the meeting - the joke seems entirely reasonable.

 

Would you be happy to be convicted solely on other man's word without a shred of supporting evidence?

I would not.

 

 

 

[halloween]

1 hour ago, Smarter Than You said:

No, I don't look at occupation when deciding credibility. The Thai courts did and Than did.

I completely disagree with the use of occupation as a measure of credibility, if you read what I have written my position abundantly clear.

 

He was a former class mate of the judge who was visiting to pass on an invitation to a class reunion - probably explains why the judge agreed to see him.

Given the political situation at the time of the meeting - the joke seems entirely reasonable.

 

Would you be happy to be convicted solely on other man's word without a shred of supporting evidence?

I would not.

 

 

 

IMHO someone who goes to a senior judges chambers and offers him a bribe, then claims it is a joke, has slightly more credibility than you, and that's <deleted>.

[Smarter Than You]

19 minutes ago, halloween said:

IMHO someone who goes to a senior judges chambers and offers him a bribe, then claims it is a joke, has slightly more credibility than you, and that's <deleted>.

Lame.

Interesting why the judge agreed to a follow up meeting with the alleged briber, don't you think?

Especially as there is no recording - if the second meeting wasn't to gather evidence of a crime what was it for?

 

Also interesting, no comment from you on whether you would mind being convicted solely on the word of another with no other evidence.

[halloween]

1 hour ago, Smarter Than You said:

Lame.

Interesting why the judge agreed to a follow up meeting with the alleged briber, don't you think?

Especially as there is no recording - if the second meeting wasn't to gather evidence of a crime what was it for?

 

Also interesting, no comment from you on whether you would mind being convicted solely on the word of another with no other evidence.

Go into an alley, have a piss and get caught by a policeman, anywhere in the world. When you go to court deny it, your word against his. Good luck.

[Smarter Than You]

10 minutes ago, halloween said:

Go into an alley, have a piss and get caught by a policeman, anywhere in the world. When you go to court deny it, your word against his. Good luck.

Your analogy is wrong.

Try this...

You go into an alley and don't take a piss but I see you in the alley and say that you did take a piss.

Judge believes me, you go to jail - end of story.

 

Are you so keen to see punishment meted out to anyone related the the Red side of Thai politics that you are seriously supporting such dubious judicial undertakings?

 

[Chris Lawrence]

10 minutes ago, halloween said:

Go into an alley, have a piss and get caught by a policeman, anywhere in the world. When you go to court deny it, your word against his. Good luck.

I thought Hals appendage had stopped working; has to sit down now. Makes it hard to draw on the walls.

 

What is the argument, Thailand has an effective legal system not driven by the Military or "good men". When your system gets like this you get brown paper bags floating around to ensure justice. Sometimes you can't see it coming and you don't know who it goes too or where it came from. That is the reason for the paper bag.

[robblok]

52 minutes ago, Chris Lawrence said:

I thought Hals appendage had stopped working; has to sit down now. Makes it hard to draw on the walls.

 

What is the argument, Thailand has an effective legal system not driven by the Military or "good men". When your system gets like this you get brown paper bags floating around to ensure justice. Sometimes you can't see it coming and you don't know who it goes too or where it came from. That is the reason for the paper bag.

Chris... this happened when the military was not in charge.. its typical.. 2 times Thaksins party is involved in bribes.. and they want a PM who has an insider trade conviction. It just shows the morals. Its amazing you defend them. I thought you were just anti military not pro Thaksin but it looks quite different from your posts. 

[Chris Lawrence]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

Chris... this happened when the military was not in charge.. its typical.. 2 times Thaksins party is involved in bribes.. and they want a PM who has an insider trade conviction. It just shows the morals. Its amazing you defend them. I thought you were just anti military not pro Thaksin but it looks quite different from your posts. 

Yeah totally agree. All I am saying is that these actions do not have boundaries. A lot heating their heads on this post, but brown paper bags have been around for many years; whilst the powers that be, whoever is in power adopts a similar approach. 

 

Rob I said before I am orange, neutral. 

 

Com'on Rob Mr T's sisters are better lookin than the Generals wife? The Generals wife reminds me of Margaret Whitlam, The wife of Gough Whitlam a previous Prime Minister of Australia. Her notoriety or claim was she could kick start a Jumbo Jet.

 

The one thing we shouldn't do here is label, your this or your that. We get to sit on the sideline and commentate. We really don't have a say in the laws or who is or isn't fit to govern.

 

Its a bit like our State of Origin football matches. I am a NSW supporter and out of the last 12 years NSW has only beaten Queensland once. Great team this year, won the first of three games, then lost the intensity. So we lost the next two games and the series. If you have never watched a game of Rugby League, these three games in the middle of each year is what I would suggest to cut your teeth on.

 

How is this different to politics. Well I am waiting for the right people and structure to get in bond the team and play for the pride of NSW. Unfortunately politics can be a bit like a team support. Waiting for the right person to fill the right shoes at the right time. 

 

Thailand I think is working its way to this. 

 

I was offered my first paper bag about 1983. I was the project manager. It wasn't an insult but I would not ruin my reputation for that bag. The company didn't get the job. The guy I picked was a consulting Architect having done major refurbishment work on Kerry Packers building'. He did a good job. I increased rental return by abt 400%.

 

A lot is said but not a lot is said with the meat in the sandwich. 

 

Rob, don't give me the yellow or red jersey. I have the 2013 Grand Finalists jersey, Sydney Roosters being an Australian professional rugby league football club based in the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney hanging on my wall. That's enough.

 

The past has become tiresome. Only because it is seen in such a short perspective here on TV. 

 

[halloween]

3 hours ago, Smarter Than You said:

Your analogy is wrong.

Try this...

You go into an alley and don't take a piss but I see you in the alley and say that you did take a piss.

Judge believes me, you go to jail - end of story.

 

Are you so keen to see punishment meted out to anyone related the the Red side of Thai politics that you are seriously supporting such dubious judicial undertakings?

 

The analogy is correct because the court decision comes down to credibility, and a law enforcement or judicial officer with no reason to lie has more than someone who has. No other evidence is needed.

[bangrak]

On 15-7-2017 at 10:26 PM, bangrak said:

Off course, it would be an effective tactic to get a damning topic off the 'frontpage' not to post any reaction on it, after about one hour it'd be gone, to page 2, ignored by many a TV reader only watching the most recent news.

Though, as well organised as the followers of a certain political clan might be, I doubt this would be the case, but, still I wonder where Eric Low, Prbkk, Yellowstone, and the other members of their cohort might well be today. All having a day-off or what? 'No comment', really? That bad?

Gee, I shouldn't have written that, sorry guys, how could I expect they would delegate it to 'Smarter Than You', who doesn't seem to be, I'm afraid, rather a ...red ...bully wouldn't you say, not all that bad, still, we've know some quite interesting and funny specimens of the species here before, but this one, what a bore, boar, boor he is! Sigh...