Yingluck’s assets frozen

[AGareth2]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

What is the logic of taking it out and not giving it to treasury instead of freezing.. I can't think of it. 

in this country it's best not to think too much about money movements

[Gunna]

1 hour ago, baboon said:

She. Is. Being. 'Charged'. With. Negligence. And. Her. Assets. Frozen. Under. Article. 44.

HOUSES, CONDOMINIUMS and 37 land plots belonging to former premier Yingluck Shinawatra have been frozen by the Department of Legal Execution . NOT article 44

[tomta]

47 minutes ago, robblok said:

I read the headlines and the first part, not the part about them taking the money. IMHO a stupid thing to do a freeze should suffice (unless there is some reason that is not sufficient that I don't know about). I was reading the first parts all about freezing then later somewhere below they said they emptied some accounts but NOT given it to the treasury.. why would they do that ? Are they afraid the banks will unfreeze the money ?

 

What is the logic of taking it out and not giving it to treasury instead of freezing.. I can't think of it.  

 

My apologies.. i did miss that. 

You assume there is logic behind it. Might I suggest that the logic is a logic of spite, vengeance and the assumption that we are the good people  and ipso facto whatever we do is right. By no means the logic of law and order.

 

[baboon]

7 minutes ago, Gunna said:

HOUSES, CONDOMINIUMS and 37 land plots belonging to former premier Yingluck Shinawatra have been frozen by the Department of Legal Execution . NOT article 44

"Prayut said there are two separate cases against the former premier. The freezing of Yingluck’s assets, including bank accounts, follows the Finance Ministry’s administative actions taken under the Article 44 on seizure of assets to cover the Bt35-billion compensation to the state."

[tomta]

1 hour ago, idman said:

Who in their right mind would ever think that Yingluck and her misadventures would be so much on the minds of Farangs living here?. Just what does she have to do with the daily way we live our lives here in Thailand?? Our just perhaps it's commenting for the sake of commening?

Sent from my SM-T805 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

I live here, I have a wife and a child here, many friends and relatives here, many interests here. The idea that Yingluck (or anyone else) can be persecuted and subjected to arbitrary "law" by an arbitrary government is (a) fundamentally abhorrent and (b) something that could, if not checked, happen to me and mine. Indeed, it already does. I was writing a response to a video on Youtube about therapies for autism - I have an autistic son - and then I did not post because I realized the possible ramifications. I won't go into details but let me say this - no man is an island and nothing human is alien to me.

 

[robblok]

8 minutes ago, baboon said:

"Prayut said there are two separate cases against the former premier. The freezing of Yingluck’s assets, including bank accounts, follows the Finance Ministry’s administative actions taken under the Article 44 on seizure of assets to cover the Bt35-billion compensation to the state."

I read into this and its unfair to force her to compensate 35 billion without a court-case. I thought the compensation and all the other stuff was decided in court. If i now understand it correctly and the 35 billion is decided on my Prayut and not dependent on a court case.. and no way to appeal it would be totally unfair and I would be in YL her corner (just for this case)

[baboon]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

I read into this and its unfair to force her to compensate 35 billion without a court-case. I thought the compensation and all the other stuff was decided in court. If i now understand it correctly and the 35 billion is decided on my Prayut and not dependent on a court case.. and no way to appeal it would be totally unfair and I would be in YL her corner (just for this case)

My Prayut? Freudian slip there? ?

 

I broadly agree with what you say but let me quibble a little:

It is not "unfair" to force her to compensate 35 billion without a court-case. It is downright disgusting. 

Furthermore, any court case should and must be based on the law as was applicable at the time. After German reunification, moves were made to try Markus Wolf, head of East German foreign intelligence, with treason. This was thrown out as he had not broken any laws in the country he was a citizen of at that time. The same principle applies here.

[TKDfella]

I am not defending the former PM but I am hoping that she got a fair trial but is that hope is vain? I live close to an army barracks (Udon) and because of roadworks elsewhere I use the road that runs right by the entrance and grounds. In the past week there has been a lot activity just outside where soldiers are in preparation for something. Some of them appear be holding shields or something similar though I was unable to see clearly because traffic was being diverted down a narrow lane. However, I have to say that they weren't wearing riot gear either. I just wonder if they are expecting problems in the coming weeks.

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, baboon said:

My Prayut? Freudian slip there? ?

 

I broadly agree with what you say but let me quibble a little:

It is not "unfair" to force her to compensate 35 billion without a court-case. It is downright disgusting. 

Furthermore, any court case should and must be based on the law as was applicable at the time. After German reunification, moves were made to try Markus Wolf, head of East German foreign intelligence, with treason. This was thrown out as he had not broken any laws in the country he was a citizen of at that time. The same principle applies here.

Call it disgusting, no argument there. I still see that if a court case can force her to pay then its fair.. otherwise not.. and using article 44 for it is just discusting / unfair. I see enough grounds for the court case and compensation, let the judges have their say NOT Prayut. 

[chickenslegs]

5 minutes ago, robblok said:

... I still see that if a court case can force her to pay then its fair.. otherwise not.. and using article 44 for it is just discusting / unfair. I see enough grounds for the court case and compensation, let the judges have their say NOT Prayut. 

I could agree with this - if I could see any evidence that the Courts here are unbiased and capable of ruling against the wishes of the PM.

[AGareth2]

1 hour ago, tomta said:

I was writing a response to a video on Youtube about therapies for autism - I have an autistic son

I hope his condition improves

[bberrythailand]

I would call this persecution.

 

I wonder why the complete shinawatra family does not definitively leave with pest infested country.

 

 

[bberrythailand]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Call it disgusting, no argument there. I still see that if a court case can force her to pay then its fair.. otherwise not.. and using article 44 for it is just discusting / unfair. I see enough grounds for the court case and compensation, let the judges have their say NOT Prayut. 

 

As if judges had an opinion !

 

Their only opinion is the one that prayass tell them to have.

 

 

 

 

[Baerboxer]

6 hours ago, baboon said:

However freezing assets because of a 'law' tailor made to target you personally doesn't go on all over the world.

 

Neither does PM's appointing themselves to chair prestigious flagship projects and then never bothering to attend; treating all who dare point out the issues and dangers with scorn and derision, whilst still never turning up and all whilst claiming it's self financing and never ever showing any accounts. 

 

Now, if you said laws are seemingly applied selectively, you'd have a point.

[AGareth2]

3 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

treating all who dare point out the issues and dangers with scorn and derision

now you are making a claim

may I refer you to the post you made not so many moments ago

[Baerboxer]

Just now, AGareth2 said:

now you are making a claim

may I refer you to the post you made not so many moments ago

 

Do you deny that a certain lady who worked in government finance and spoke out against this policy was threatened and moved? 

 

Or that the warnings from the World bank, IMF and Bloomberg were ignored?

 

 

[AGareth2]

12 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Do you deny that a certain lady who worked in government finance and spoke out against this policy was threatened and moved? 

 

Or that the warnings from the World bank, IMF and Bloomberg were ignored?

 

 

it is for you to prove your claim

isn't that what you inferred?

[Baerboxer]

Just now, AGareth2 said:

it is for you to prove your claim

isn't that what you inferred?

 

Ah, the old Shin supporters club, Challenge everything and anything in the hope they won't bother.

 

So are you denying those claims? Are you calling me a liar? 

[smutcakes]

6 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Ah, the old Shin supporters club, Challenge everything and anything in the hope they won't bother.

 

So are you denying those claims? Are you calling me a liar? 

Or what you prefer do something wrong and just shut everyone up and ignore it.... perfect. Reform at its best. We have had this discussion before and its quite clear you support breaking the law as long as its the people you support doing it. You are classic one rule for them and another for us. Last time we had this discussion you got in a strop and flounced off.

[AGareth2]

16 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

Are you calling me a liar? 

now now old boy I was only being pedantic

don't get upset it's past 5 and beer time

[baboon]

38 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Neither does PM's appointing themselves to chair prestigious flagship projects and then never bothering to attend; treating all who dare point out the issues and dangers with scorn and derision, whilst still never turning up and all whilst claiming it's self financing and never ever showing any accounts. 

 

Now, if you said laws are seemingly applied selectively, you'd have a point.

I do have a point. She is being persecuted under a special decree under Article 44 designed just for her. The law has nowt to do with it in this case - this is just a state sponsored vendetta as being sh!t at your job is not illegal.

[Baerboxer]

11 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

Or what you prefer do something wrong and just shut everyone up and ignore it.... perfect. Reform at its best. We have had this discussion before and its quite clear you support breaking the law as long as its the people you support doing it. You are classic one rule for them and another for us. Last time we had this discussion you got in a strop and flounced off.

 

Don't remember that. Do remember you deny some very memorable things, and then disappearing for some time off the forum when people refer you reports. But that was a few years ago. And quite frankly,  not something worth remembering.

 

What's clear to you is your opinion and perception nothing more. You don't know me, have never discussed with me, but have the arrogance to post your opinions as fact. Your opinions are only a fact in your mind.

 

How convenient we should all simply accept what you say, just because it's your opinion. 

 

 

[Baerboxer]

4 minutes ago, baboon said:

I do have a point. She is being persecuted under a special decree under Article 44 designed just for her. The law has nowt to do with it in this case - this is just a state sponsored vendetta as being sh!t at your job is not illegal.

 

Isn't Article 44 supposed to speed things up when used? Hardly in this case.

 

Being crap at your job isn't illegal. However, deliberately being negligent might be.

 

Had she attended meetings as chair, been pushing people to get to the bottom of problems, acting on good advice, producing meaningful accounts etc etc etc then fair play. No one works miracles.

 

I have no idea why she chose to appoint herself the Chair and then never turn up. Was it so she could claim plausible deniability? Or perhaps so she could turn a blind eye? Or bored, better things to do, told not to go? But she didn't. And that makes a charge of negligence very difficult if not impossible to defend. And to date, I haven't read where they've even attempted to defend it.

 

It may be that she's one of many. Just like the one car speeding that gets pulled up. Unlucky but if you weren't doing it in the first place.

[AGareth2]

14 minutes ago, baboon said:

being sh!t at your job is not illegal.

in the UK there is an opposition

media and the streets

were they shit at their jobs as well?

[baboon]

9 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Isn't Article 44 supposed to speed things up when used? Hardly in this case.

 

Being crap at your job isn't illegal. However, deliberately being negligent might be.

 

Had she attended meetings as chair, been pushing people to get to the bottom of problems, acting on good advice, producing meaningful accounts etc etc etc then fair play. No one works miracles.

 

I have no idea why she chose to appoint herself the Chair and then never turn up. Was it so she could claim plausible deniability? Or perhaps so she could turn a blind eye? Or bored, better things to do, told not to go? But she didn't. And that makes a charge of negligence very difficult if not impossible to defend. And to date, I haven't read where they've even attempted to defend it.

 

It may be that she's one of many. Just like the one car speeding that gets pulled up. Unlucky but if you weren't doing it in the first place.

Fine, prosecute her under the laws which existed at the time and give her a fair and transparent trial. I would have no problem with that whatsoever. 

[baboon]

7 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

in the UK there is an opposition

media and the streets

were they shit at their jobs as well?

I have no idea what you are talking about. 

[dominique355]

Rule of Law would require a Court order for such decision. But this government doesn't care about the Rule of Law.

[AGareth2]

1 minute ago, dominique355 said:

Rule of Law would require a Court order for such decision. But this government doesn't care about the Rule of Law.

ah but we have the law of the ruler

 

[cornishcarlos]

I wanna go to visit the U.K at Xmas but fear my wife's assets will be frozen over there ??

[AGareth2]

1 minute ago, cornishcarlos said:

I wanna go to visit the U.K at Xmas but fear my wife's assets will be frozen over there ??

if it gets that cold I would worry about your own assets