Acquittal likely, says ex-judge

[JAG]

Ultracrepidarian

I had to look that one up, and I normally pride myself as being rather good with long words!

Probably the best one word response I've ever seen here!
Bravo.

[NanLaew]

Just now, JAG said:

I had to look that one up, and I normally pride myself as being rather good with long words!

Probably the best one word response I've ever seen here!
Bravo.

Oh God no. Now every troll-caller, baiter-accuser and others similarly challenged in reasonable and sensible debate will be bandying it about.

[JAG]

4 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Oh God no. Now every troll-caller, baiter-accuser and others similarly challenged in reasonable and sensible debate will be bandying it about.

1

Perhaps, but it was pertinent, succinct and accurate. If " every troll-caller, baiter-accuser and others similarly challenged in reasonable and sensible debate" takes it up it will just make them look sad.

 

 

[AGareth2]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

But whatever the judges decide unlike most red members I will respect it.

are you a Thai national?

no one cares what you "respect"

[NanLaew]

Just now, JAG said:

Perhaps, but it was pertinent, succinct and accurate. If " every troll-caller, baiter-accuser and others similarly challenged in reasonable and sensible debate" takes it up it will just make them look sad.

 

 

Agreed. But by their very nature, they will try, just watch.

[NanLaew]

Just now, AGareth2 said:

are you a Thai national?

no one cares what you "respect"

Neither do the "red members"... whatever they are.

[robblok]

29 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

Yes, but you are clearly biased in your comments, so it is difficult to buy your arguments.

 

The fact that we are having to wrangle over this and that indicates that it will be very unsafe to produce a verdict that is safe beyond all reasonable doubt- which is  a concept many forget is imperative in criminal cases.

 

 

 

 

No the fact is that I am an accountant and understand budgeting rules and how you have to put stuff in the central budgets when costs are known and most people here havent the faintest clue about accounting makes its that I am bored to go on arguing here.

 

You can't have a debate if the people your debating with don't have the basic knowledge needed to have the debate. I would not debate with anyone about engines in cars or other technical stuff. Sometimes you just have to admit you don't know what your talking about. Too bad that many here won't dare to admit that they don't have the faintest clue about accounting and its rules and regulations and how you cause damages if you don't put something in a budget while you know the costs are there.

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

are you a Thai national?

no one cares what you "respect"

No I am not a Thai national, but neither are most people posting on this forum. When a good judgement for the reds is handed down.. its accepted.. when it goes wrong they are all up in arms. Just shows a childlike mentality. 

[robblok]

31 minutes ago, Yinglove said:

Ultracrepidarian

Thanks I learned a new word.. but it applies to you. 

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, Yinglove said:

Maybe you're just wrong and not intelligent enough to realise it?

I doubt it as you have no accounting skill as you admitted before and I have quite a few years in this field. I could post IQ numbers too but that does not prove a thing as anyone can post anything on a forum. 

 

Anyone with basic accounting skills knows why she was negligent not putting it in the central budget and why they call that damages. 

 

But i stop debating this with you because its pointless as you don't have the skills (in this field) to understand it. 

[Golden Triangle]

Sorry to say robblok but not too many people backing you up on this accountancy thing, maybe you are (out of the thousands of members) the only one qualified to give judgement on all matters of accountancy 

 

However, I digress, Yingluck will be found not guilty, whether she gets all her stuff back is debatable, but give it a couple of years and once her period of being unable to run for political office expires she will be back on the campaign trail and back in the PM's office, That is what the junta and Bangkok Hi So's are so shit scared of. 

[Yinglove]

41 minutes ago, robblok said:

I doubt it as you have no accounting skill as you admitted before and I have quite a few years in this field. I could post IQ numbers too but that does not prove a thing as anyone can post anything on a forum. 

 

Anyone with basic accounting skills knows why she was negligent not putting it in the central budget and why they call that damages. 

 

But i stop debating this with you because its pointless as you don't have the skills (in this field) to understand it. 

Agreed, we both have no accounting skills.

She is not charged with negligence for accounting misdemeanours, she is charged with negligence for allegedly allowing corruption to occur on her watch.

Again, nobody cares about any accounting technicalities bar you.

 

IQ numbers....no, I think it would be IQ number.

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, Yinglove said:

Agreed, we both have no accounting skills.

She is not charged with negligence for accounting misdemeanours, she is charged with negligence for allegedly allowing corruption to occur on her watch.

Again, nobody cares about any accounting technicalities bar you.

 

IQ numbers....no, I think it would be IQ number.

You have no accounting skills that is clear and its ok that you try to insult me, those childish things are to be expected.

 

People care, because the projects was promoted as cost neutral but ended up costing the Thai taxpayer 500 billion. So yea.. accounting is important. She is not only charged for allowing corruption but causing damages too by mismanagement .. and those damages are caused because of faulty accounting. Had she been smart and just put the cost of the program in the central budget they could only for the allowing corruption.. Now they have more options. 

 

Lets see how the judges see this and what happens the 25th. My prediction, guilty but no jailtime, just some fine. HISO's never go to jail. 

[zzaa09]

On 8/12/2017 at 5:32 PM, Get Real said:

Yep! Total price for the circus: 100-200 million Bath. No result to show. Good way of taking care of the people.

Yet, none of such activities and proceedings, past or present/pro or con, has anything whatsoever to do with the people. 

 

Part and parcel of the image.

They do put on decent theatre, though.

[mommysboy]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

Thanks I learned a new word.. but it applies to you. 

Ultracrepidarian : expressing opinions on matters outside the scope of one's knowledge or expertise.

 

More or less applies to all of us.

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Ultracrepidarian : expressing opinions on matters outside the scope of one's knowledge or expertise.

 

More or less applies to all of us.

My expertise is accounting .. so when I comment on accounting I am well within my field. As I told you.. if its about technical stuff / engines and such I yield quickly to superior knowledge. I know what I am good at and what not. 

[zzaa09]

16 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Ultracrepidarian : expressing opinions on matters outside the scope of one's knowledge or expertise.

 

More or less applies to all of us.

Certainly applies to most here regarding Thai affairs.

 

[gummy]

6 minutes ago, robblok said:

My expertise is accounting .. so when I comment on accounting I am well within my field. As I told you.. if its about technical stuff / engines and such I yield quickly to superior knowledge. I know what I am good at and what not. 

I seem to recall that Enron and Tyco had some pretty good accounting professionals.  Maybe those self same people  are now providing consultancy services to the Junta  and its cronies ?

[gummy]

1 minute ago, zzaa09 said:

Certainly applies to most here regarding Thai affairs.

 

That statement also most certainly applies to the Junta and its leader. ( expressing opinions on matters outside the scope of one's knowledge or expertise ). 

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, gummy said:

That statement also most certainly applies to the Junta and its leader. ( expressing opinions on matters outside the scope of one's knowledge or expertise ). 

That much is true.. the guy is certainly good at shooting himself in the foot and bad at PR. 

[chainarong]

On ‎8‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 8:06 AM, ezzra said:

No special intention or not. she is ultimately the person responsible for her and

her government actions, otherwise, what's the point of having a PM and the head of the

government? the issue of culpability come to play here, culpable probably she's

not, responsible she is.....

Name one other country where the leader has been treated with disrespect and has been charged for carrying on the PTP  election platform promises, , if this was so, George Bush , Tony Blair and Au's John Howard ,with  WMD, they should at least be behind bars under your reasoning, which I don't totally disagree with, I might add.

Edited August 14, 2017 by chainarong

[Jai Dee]

Several flame posts as well as troll comments from a previously banned member have been removed from this thread.

 

The previously banned member has also been removed... again.

[Get Real]

2 hours ago, zzaa09 said:

Yet, none of such activities and proceedings, past or present/pro or con, has anything whatsoever to do with the people. 

 

Part and parcel of the image.

They do put on decent theatre, though.

Nothing to do with the people??? It´s really how you think about things. My point was that the money spent on the cirus could have been used to help the people that need it instead.
Everything in a country has to do with the people, and also comes down to the people living in it. Ain´t that a fact?

[Chris Lawrence]

What other Government has imposed such a sentence and conviction on a ex-PM in this modern world.

 

What about Kevin Rudd?

 

The other side is that the handing out of monies stopped Thailand moving into recession?

[Chris Lawrence]

5 hours ago, Yinglove said:

Ultracrepidarian

Brilliant. I have just come from the great Bikini Heist dissection post. That was really going off.

[halloween]

4 minutes ago, Chris Lawrence said:

What other Government has imposed such a sentence and conviction on a ex-PM in this modern world.

 

What about Kevin Rudd?

 

The other side is that the handing out of monies stopped Thailand moving into recession?

Any other straws that you would like to clutch at?

 

BTW WHAT about Kevin Rudd?

[Chris Lawrence]

10 minutes ago, halloween said:

Any other straws that you would like to clutch at?

 

BTW WHAT about Kevin Rudd?

 

Hal you never answer any questions. That is considered a Troll. Definition: Being a prcik on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can.

 

Start off with the easy one first; the first sentence, and I think I can help you expand your capacity to broaden your thinking power.

 

More than willing to help you Hal.

[rooinekrsa]

Hi So dont do time, they waste time

[rooinekrsa]

excuse the pun. she's the boss

[Monomial]

On 8/13/2017 at 9:51 PM, halloween said:

No “special intention” to commit negligence, it 'just happened'. Does that sound like a defence?

 

Indeed.

 

There is even a principle of law called "The Golden Rule" which says that when a literal interpretation of a statute leads to a manifest absurdity or repugnant result, the literal interpretation should be disregarded.

 

In this case, it is almost impossible to have "special intention" to commit negligence, because negligence is due to absence of action, and therefore the absence of intent, special or otherwise. It is something you did not do, rather than something you did do. By the literal interpretation, no amount of negligence could ever be considered wrong.

 

The ex-judge does point out however that the case will ultimately come down to whether or not the judges believe she had a responsibility to act on the information that was made available to her. If she did have a responsibility and did not do it,  then she should be found guilty, because "special intent" would be impossible to prove in this situation.