Riot police ready for Yingluck supporters

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

I didn't say she would see the inside of a jail, I was merely highlighting your comment: "Don't do the crime they can't touch you" within the context of Thailand, and just how absurd it is. And with regards to what I have learned all these years, dear Thailand guru, I do apologise. I must educate myself more on Thainess.

Yes you should learn more, people with money don't go to jail innocent not here. People with money don't even go to jail if guilty (unfortunately). So if YL goes to jail its only if the judges are 1000% sure she is guilty. I don't see that happening. I see that she is guilty, you don't even want to comment on the facts so you know so too. By saying its not about rice you avoid having to debate the case on its merits.

[robblok]

12 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

Especially when those prosecuting are a "government"... not political at all though

 

Your always being prosecuted by (part of) goverment.. that is how the law works.. have you ever studied law ? So your comment holds no merit at all. Its the NACC its duty to find corruption and so on.. to pass it on to the public prosecutor to make a case. 

 

What is your field of expertise ? Because this is really basic law. 

 

You are always prosecuted by the goverment.. would be bad if you were not (during criminal case). 

 

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by robblok

[JAG]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

You want it to be bigger.. because she is guilty here..

 

Its just convenient that it also means they can get at a Shin.

 

Its you guys standard defense when one of your guys does something wrong and get caught.. its political.. its this..its that.. deflection deflection...  

Gracious me, political? Of course it's political. just as political as your blind support for the junta (yes I know, you"don't support the junta" - not much)!

 

It's political because every time, every time that the Thai people elect (choose) a government the "old guard", "deep state", "elite" or whatever label you wish to put on it, engineer it's removal and install their favoured scions. Inevitably the army, and  defeated politicians who are stunningly corrupt in their own right are in cahoots to do this. Having done this for what, the third time in 12 years, they are now staging a trial of the  elected prime minister (the one that the Thai people chose), and having already imposed a  punitive fiscal sanction even before the verdict are now gearing up to quite possibly imprison her. Why? In an attempt to break the back of the party which repeatedly defeats them in the one thing they cannot control with their guns and wealth - a free election.

 

Yes it's political. The democratic decision of the Thai people is repeatedly usurped by those who cannot, as repeatedly win an election. The government they chose was not particularly competent, in many ways rather unsavoury, but it was repeatedly the choice of the Thai people That's politics isn't it?

 

Now I don't really care if you and others don't think that the Thai people should be allowed to make that choice - there was a post the other day along those lines, something about children not being allowed to vote for chocolate ice cream for breakfast- it was silly but at least it was honest.  I do get annoyed, as all can probably see, when it is suggested that this is any form of justice, in any way  an impartial non political judicial process. It's not, it's politics, pure and simple.

Edited August 1, 2017 by JAG

[stephen tracy]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

Yes you should learn more, people with money don't go to jail innocent not here. People with money don't even go to jail if guilty (unfortunately). So if YL goes to jail its only if the judges are 1000% sure she is guilty. I don't see that happening. I see that she is guilty, you don't even want to comment on the facts so you know so too. By saying its not about rice you avoid having to debate the case on its merits.

Rob, indeed that is good advice. I shall definitely endeavour to learn more about Thailand (and life in general) so that I one day might be - like yourself - an expert on the country... with totally impartial views.

[stephen tracy]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

 

Your always being prosecuted by (part of) goverment.. that is how the law works.. have you ever studied law ? So your comment holds no merit at all. Its the NACC its duty to find corruption and so on.. to pass it on to the public prosecutor to make a case. 

 

What is your field of expertise ? Because this is really basic law. 

 

You are always prosecuted by the goverment.. would be bad if you were not (during criminal case). 

 

 

The problem is... it's not a government. It's a handful of obscenely rich generals protecting their wealth and status and that of their masters.  Remember Rob, big picture, try it some time.

[robblok]

Just now, JAG said:

Gracious me, political? Of course it's political. just as political as your blind support for the junta (yes I know, you"don't support the junta" - not much)!

 

It's political because every time, every time that the Thai people elect (choose) a government the "old guard", "deep state", "elite" or whatever label you wish to put on it, engineer it's removal and install their favoured scions. Inevitably the army, and  defeated politicians who are stunningly corrupt in their own right are in cahoots to do this. Having done this for what, the third time in 12 years, they are now staging a trial of the  elected prime minister (the one that the Thai people chose), and having already imposed a  punitive fiscal sanction even before the verdict are now gearing up to quite possibly imprison her. Why? In an attempt to break the back of the party which repeatedly defeats them in the one thing they cannot control with their guns and wealth - a free election.

 

Yes it's political. The democratic decision of the Thai people is repeatedly usurped by those who cannot, as repeatedly win an election. The government they chose was not particularly competent, in many ways rather unsavoury, but it was repeatedly the choice of the Thai people That's politics isn't it?

 

Now I don't really care if you and others don't think that the Thai people should be allowed to make that choice - there was a post the other day along those lies, something about children not being allowed to vote for chocolate ice cream for breakfast- it was silly but at least it was honest.  I do get annoyed, as all can probably see, when it is suggested that this is any form of justice, in any way  an impartial non political judicial process. It's not, it's politics, pure and simple.

JAG I really don't care how you see me.. I see you wearing a red shirt too with 2  dogs  and your wife and daughter on a motorbike so don't worry we all have images of posters that might not be how they are for real. 

 

You can get as annoyed as you want, but in the end the judges will be the ones deciding. IMHO she is negligent and the fact that she ignored the warnings of the world bank and Thai organisations shows it, as does the fact that her ministers were involved in fake G2G deals, and that she never chaired 1 meeting, plus that she never pot the cost in the general budget as it was supposed to be cost free even when shown it was not.

 

In the end it was YL herself that made those decisions to ignore warnings and go on.. she put herself there and now it sup to the court to see if she was right or wrong and if she broke the rules.  I know your lot does not like the courts as they don't seem to favor you, now if they were so bias.. Jattupron would have been in jail for terrorism ages ago. So I don't think the courts are that bias.. just real slow. 

 

Different views JAG different views. 

 

 

 

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

Rob, indeed that is good advice. I shall definitely endeavour to learn more about Thailand (and life in general) so that I one day might be - like yourself - an expert on the country... with totally impartial views.

Nobody has impartial views, and you hardly need to be an expert to know that people with money don't see the insides of jails often. That is something you can learn in a real short time by reading the newspapers. 

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

The problem is... it's not a government. It's a handful of obscenely rich generals protecting their wealth and status and that of their masters.  Remember Rob, big picture, try it some time.

No mate.. you only go big picture when you can't win a case on its merrits.. then its political.. then its big picture.. why because otherwise you lost the argument.. and nobody wants to lose an argument.. you don't want that and I don't want that otherwise we would not have wasted so much time here.

[stephen tracy]

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

No mate.. you only go big picture when you can't win a case on its merrits.. then its political.. then its big picture.. why because otherwise you lost the argument.. and nobody wants to lose an argument.. you don't want that and I don't want that otherwise we would not have wasted so much time here.

Rob, I really couldn't care less whether I win and "argument" or not. TVF is not exactly an academic forum full of well-informed people on the geo-political situation in SE Asia, is it?  I just find your comments reflect a certain degree of unhealthy obsessiveness. Especially given that this whole thing really IS about the bigger picture, it's not about rice, I can assure you.

[stephen tracy]

14 minutes ago, robblok said:

Nobody has impartial views, and you hardly need to be an expert to know that people with money don't see the insides of jails often. That is something you can learn in a real short time by reading the newspapers. 

"people with money don't see the insides of jails often." That's exactly what I WAS saying. What didn't you get? Also, I'll remember to read those newspapers mate. Given that I get paid to read news, it shouldn't be too difficult.

[stephen tracy]

20 minutes ago, robblok said:

Nobody has impartial views, and you hardly need to be an expert to know that people with money don't see the insides of jails often. That is something you can learn in a real short time by reading the newspapers. 

"Nobody has impartial views"... yes Rob, they do. I know that must come as a surprise to you.

[robblok]

6 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

Rob, I really couldn't care less whether I win and "argument" or not. TVF is not exactly an academic forum full of well-informed people on the geo-political situation in SE Asia, is it?  I just find your comments reflect a certain degree of unhealthy obsessiveness. Especially given that this whole thing really IS about the bigger picture, it's not about rice, I can assure you.

You call me obsessive.. mate you should take hold of a mirror. You are as active as me in this tread. I disagree that this is political, i agree that its good for the junta that they have a case against her. But she put herself in that position. Political is for made up stuff.. not when there are actual grounds for a case.

[stephen tracy]

5 minutes ago, robblok said:

You call me obsessive.. mate you should take hold of a mirror. You are as active as me in this tread. I disagree that this is political, i agree that its good for the junta that they have a case against her. But she put herself in that position. Political is for made up stuff.. not when there are actual grounds for a case.

This is not made up, it's happening.  And the court case is just a charade to distract attention away from what is happening.  And you are fooled by it all.  Enough already. It's tiresome.

[robblok]

1 minute ago, stephen tracy said:

This is not made up, it's happening.  And the court case is just a charade to distract attention away from what is happening.  And you are fooled by it all.  Enough already. It's tiresome.

You don't get it made up = fabricated charges.. fake charges no actual grounds.. like what happend to Anwar (political). This is something different here there are actually grounds for the case against YL. 

Edited August 1, 2017 by robblok

[JAG]

JAG I really don't care how you see me.. I see you wearing a red shirt too with 2  dogs  and your wife and daughter on a motorbike so don't worry we all have images of posters that might not be how they are for real. 
 ...snip...

 
 

There is absolutely no need, or reason, to bring my wife, daughter or indeed my dogs into this argument .

[stephen tracy]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

You don't get it made up = fabricated charges.. fake charges no actual grounds.. like what happend to Anwar (political). This is something different here there are actually grounds for the case against YL. 

Take your meds and have a wee nap, Rob

[robblok]

1 minute ago, JAG said:

There is absolutely no need, or reason, to bring my wife, daughter or indeed my dogs into this argument .

Sorry JAG was meant to be a parody on your motorbike topic. Was meant to be funny guess you did not think so. 

[stephen tracy]

2 minutes ago, JAG said:

There is absolutely no need, or reason, to bring my wife, daughter or indeed my dogs into this argument .

Why dogs?  And why 2?  Is that a new red-shirt thing? 

[robblok]

Just now, stephen tracy said:

Take your meds and have a wee nap, Rob

Nice ad hominem when you can't bring up good arguments you attack the poster.

[stephen tracy]

"good arguments"? Is that what we've been writing all this time?  I never guessed.  

[robblok]

Just now, stephen tracy said:

Why dogs?  And why 2?  Is that a new red-shirt thing? 

No was just trying to be funny, he made a post before about a motorbike cover for him his wife and daughter and two dogs. I just added the red shirts as a joke. He pictures me in a certain way that might not be how I am and I jokingly said I picture him in that way (knowing that he would not be like that) to make a point. Guess my humor was off. 

[baboon]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Good god.. the crime is real... get it in your mind. Don't do the crime they can't touch you. The court can't judge you if you don't break the law. Don't call it political because it helps the junta. They did it to themselves. Good god.. i can't believe the excuses of you guys. 

 

In my book political is thumped up charges.. not real ones. 

Yes they can. Remember the seizing of her assets under a tailor made Article 44 'law' invented just for her? That isn't political? That isn't trumped up?

Edited August 1, 2017 by baboon

[robblok]

Just now, stephen tracy said:

"good arguments"? Is that what we've been writing all this time?  I never guessed.  

We been debating something.. you are saying its political.. I am saying there is an actual case. I don't deny that it works in the junta's favor to put her in court. But the charges are real and can be substantiated. So yea I think we were having a good argument. Only you became personal 

[robblok]

Just now, baboon said:

Yes they can. Remember the seizing of her assets under a tailor made Article 44 'law' invented just for her?

Remember how i disagreed with that.. but I agree with these charges. I see the grounds here. She put herself there she made her choices now she is judged for them. 

[stephen tracy]

Just now, robblok said:

We been debating something.. you are saying its political.. I am saying there is an actual case. I don't deny that it works in the junta's favor to put her in court. But the charges are real and can be substantiated. So yea I think we were having a good argument. Only you became personal 

Ahhh common dude, it was you that mentioned the dogs!  Kidding.

[robblok]

Just now, stephen tracy said:

Ahhh common dude, it was you that mentioned the dogs!  Kidding.

Oh if it was in reply to that.. no problems.. thought i was in reply to something else.. no that is no problem. Its easy to misunderstand stuff.

[baboon]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

Remember how i disagreed with that.. but I agree with these charges. I see the grounds here. She put herself there she made her choices now she is judged for them. 

Yes I do. Indeed you were fair minded enough to agree with me that it is downright disgusting. However you can't then come out with statements such as 'Don't do the crime and they can't touch you' or 'This isn't political'...

Edited August 1, 2017 by baboon

[robblok]

Just now, baboon said:

Yes I do. However you can't then come out with statements such as 'Don't do the crime and they can't touch you' or 'This isn't political'...

I am not saying its not favorable for the junta to have her in court, I am saying the charges are solid. (IMHO you might see it otherwise). Political stuff is made up charges law. Your right the taking of her money a made up new law was downright sleazy. If convicted by a court to pay Id agree with it but not an article 44.

 

But it seems I have a different idea about political chargers Anwar.. and charges against YL and others. I feel that fake charges are political charges. But some her even call the terrorist charges against Jattupron political. I disagree.. everything where are judicial grounds for a charge can't be political (they might be a good tool to go after enemies.. but the charges are real and the defendant has committed them and brought him or herself in trouble). Calling stuff political is just not right int that case. IMHO.

[baboon]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

I am not saying its not favorable for the junta to have her in court, I am saying the charges are solid. (IMHO you might see it otherwise). Political stuff is made up charges law. Your right the taking of her money a made up new law was downright sleazy. If convicted by a court to pay Id agree with it but not an article 44.

 

But it seems I have a different idea about political chargers Anwar.. and charges against YL and others. I feel that fake charges are political charges. But some her even call the terrorist charges against Jattupron political. I disagree.. everything where are judicial grounds for a charge can't be political (they might be a good tool to go after enemies.. but the charges are real and the defendant has committed them and brought him or herself in trouble). Calling stuff political is just not right int that case. IMHO.

Sigh.. Rob, the assets seizure charge IS made up. Isn't that why you are condemning it?

[robblok]

1 minute ago, baboon said:

Sigh.. Rob, the assets seizure charge IS made up. Isn't that why you are condemning it?

I am condemning it because its not the proper way to do things, it should go through the court.

 

But the other court case is not based on something that is made up. So what is political about that ?