Yingluck verdict tipped to have lasting impact

[stephen tracy]

18 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

This is why Thaksin felt the need to change legislation to make it easier for his corruption to go unchecked.

And why the current "government" has given itself blanket amnesty and threatens anyone that questions the unbelievable wealth of its members.

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

 

Ultimately the electorate makes the choice to elect or remove a government, especially if the courts cannot or refuse to function. 

 

The courts and judicial system are there to prosecute criminals. There are procedures to remove politicians if they commit criminal acts while in power. 

 

Negligence or a failed policy is not a criminal act, by definition. 

 

Recall the difficulty the previous junta had in finding concrete evidence of corruption to indict Thaksin after the 2006 coup.

 

Who isn't accountable to anything? That's right, the military. They do what they want with no accountability to the electorate, the law or regulations. Indeed, they arbitrarily make things up as they go along and give themselves immunity. 

 

Are you starting to see where the problem lies yet or are you still struggling?

 

We will see if negligence is not a criminal act or not. The law will decide on that one. Don't forget there is criminal negligence too and that is a crime. There are other things then just negligence that governments can't do there are sets of rules and regulations that they have to follow. Its not just voting.. you know that too but you just like to play with words. 

[BangkokReady]

2 minutes ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

Not the Thai Telecommunication Act surely which allowed foreign ownership in telecommunications companies to increase from 46 to 49%?

Can't quote you anything off the top of my head, but I don't think it was that one.

 

It was specific anti-corruption legislation enacted by a previous government. Thaksin found it hampered his corruption (as you would think) so got rid of it.

[stephen tracy]

1 minute ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

Are military coups criminally negligent?

 

Especially when they cause untold damage to a country's economy and reputation?

 

How many billions were lost because of the Yellows protracted and protected interference, militant actions, support of military coups and conflict with Cambodia? Is that possible to define? 

 

What was the economic cost of the coup in 2006 and then in 2014? 

 

That is where the real criminality is, stop seeing the forest for the trees. 

He can't.  He associates anyone that criticizes the junta (easy to do) with red-shirts.  He hasn't made the mental leap yet that this is not he case.  It's difficult for some. 

[stephen tracy]

10 minutes ago, robblok said:

We will see if negligence is not a criminal act or not. The law will decide on that one. Don't forget there is criminal negligence too and that is a crime. There are other things then just negligence that governments can't do there are sets of rules and regulations that they have to follow. Its not just voting.. you know that too but you just like to play with words. 

"The law will decide"... good one mate, whose law would that be? The same law that will sentence to innocent Burmese lads to either death or life in a stinking, rotten Thai jail?  The same law that allows anyone with a big enough bank account to do what they like?  Run the country even?

Edited August 21, 2017 by stephen tracy

[Srikcir]

11 minutes ago, robblok said:

The law will decide on that one.

No, judges decide.

11 minutes ago, robblok said:

there is criminal negligence too and that is a crime.

Yes, for causing physical injury, death, or damage to property. What do you point to that political negligence is criminal?

[robblok]

6 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

"The law will decide"... good one mate, whose law would that be? The same law that will sentence to innocent Burmese lads to either death or life in a stinking, rotten Thai jail?  The same law that allows anyone with a big enough bank account to do what they like?  Run the country even?

Yes the law, you might not like it but the law will decide. I will accept what they say unlike many here i have faith in the ability of these judges. 

 

If your going to use failed cases to attack the law then do know that people got killed in the USA who were innocent. The law makes mistakes, in my country they had people locked up for quite some time before they found out they were innocent. The law is not perfect but its what we have to live with. 

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

No, judges decide.

Yes, for causing physical injury, death, or damage to property. What do you point to that political negligence is criminal?

The judges will decide based on the law. 

 

One could argue that YL her failure to secure the funds(before stepping down)  that led to the deaths of farmers is criminal.. people did die.. I guess you forgot that part. 

[stephen tracy]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

Yes the law, you might not like it but the law will decide. I will accept what they say unlike many here i have faith in the ability of these judges. 

 

If your going to use failed cases to attack the law then do know that people got killed in the USA who were innocent. The law makes mistakes, in my country they had people locked up for quite some time before they found out they were innocent. The law is not perfect but its what we have to live with. 

There's no law in Thailand to like or dislike Rob.  The law is applied only to those that it can be, the elite do not go to jail... ever. Do you really think that most Thai people have faith in the law?  Do you actually live in Thailand?

[stephen tracy]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

The judges will decide based on the law. 

 

One could argue that YL her failure to secure the funds(before stepping down)  that led to the deaths of farmers is criminal.. people did die.. I guess you forgot that part. 

Rob, do you have proof that the farmers deaths/suicides were caused by that? I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily  - it could have been the case - but do you have any actual evidence if this?

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

Rob, do you have proof that the farmers deaths/suicides were caused by that? I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily  - it could have been the case - but do you have any actual evidence if this?

There were news articles stating this at the time. 

 

http://wordpress.clarku.edu/id125/2016/04/16/rice-farmer-suicide-in-thailand/  (watch the vid)

[robblok]

11 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

There's no law in Thailand to like or dislike Rob.  The law is applied only to those that it can be, the elite do not go to jail... ever. Do you really think that most Thai people have faith in the law?  Do you actually live in Thailand?

I live in Thailand, don't you worry about that. I would not know if most Thai people have faith in the law, I do know that YL is elite and wont go to jail as you said. I got a friend that studies law and has been in law cases. What she told me is about the same as what happens in my country... long drawn out cases.. nobody likes those. 

 

However this is YL we are talking about.. Elite.. with the best lawyers and rich... not a nobody the judges will have to find good bases in the law to convict her. They can't just make it up as they go. 

[stephen tracy]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

There were news articles stating this at the time. 

 

wordpress.clarku.edu/id125/2016/04/16/rice-farmer-suicide-in-thailand/  (watch the vid)

Yes Rob, everyone has seen these. So, again, do you have any proof? 

[stephen tracy]

Just now, robblok said:

I live in Thailand, don't you worry about that. I would not know if most Thai people have faith in the law, I do know that YL is elite and wont go to jail as you said. I got a friend that studies law and has been in law cases. What she told me is about the same as what happens in my country... long drawn out cases.. nobody likes those. 

 

However this is YL we are talking about.. Elite.. with the best lawyers and rich... not a nobody the judges will have to find good bases in the law to convict her. They can't just make it up as they go. 

"They can't just make it up as they go." Why not? That's what the Junta does.

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

Yes Rob, everyone has seen these. So, again, do you have any proof? 

Seems proof enough to me that his own family members are saying so. I guess your one of those guys who blocks out everything non positive for YL. 

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

"They can't just make it up as they go." Why not? That's what the Junta does.

 

Judges are bound by the law.. they can't change the law... everyone is watching it better be a well thought out argument based on the law that sticks or they look like fools and judgement could be overturned. 

 

Anyway you made your mind up already.. if found guilty she is innocent.. if innocent she is innocent. Me I let the judges decide based on Thai law and accept it even if she is said to be not guilty. 

[stephen tracy]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

Seems proof enough to me that his own family members are saying so. I guess your one of those guys who blocks out everything non positive for YL. 

Iron clad mate.  Well done.  And once again, I'm not a red-shirt/Thaksin supporter. You just can't get to grips with that, can you? 

[robblok]

Just now, stephen tracy said:

Iron clad mate.  Well done.  And once again, I'm not a red-shirt/Thaksin supporter. You just can't get to grips with that, can you? 

Seems pretty clear to me if you don't even accept family members saying he killed himself because of the rice scheme payouts being late. You ask for proof.. but not accept the proof that family members of someone who killed himself over the rice program give. Seems a pretty closed mind to me. 

[stephen tracy]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

 

Judges are bound by the law.. they can't change the law... everyone is watching it better be a well thought out argument based on the law that sticks or they look like fools and judgement could be overturned. 

 

Anyway you made your mind up already.. if found guilty she is innocent.. if innocent she is innocent. Me I let the judges decide based on Thai law and accept it even if she is said to be not guilty. 

How have I made up my mind?  And Rob, judges are not bound my law in Thailand, they do what they're told. And on the subject of trusting the Thai legal system, go visit the 2 Burmese lads on death row and lecture them on the merits if Thai "law".  And while you're at it, go visit Pai Dao Din and all the other folks rotting in Thai prisons who have been judged by Thai "law".

[stephen tracy]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

Seems pretty clear to me if you don't even accept family members saying he killed himself because of the rice scheme payouts being late. You ask for proof.. but not accept the proof that family members of someone who killed himself over the rice program give. Seems a pretty closed mind to me. 

Proof is kind of important, Rob. As the Koh Tao 2 would tell you.

[robblok]

1 minute ago, stephen tracy said:

How have I made up my mind?  And Rob, judges are not bound my law in Thailand, they do what they're told. And on the subject of trusting the Thai legal system, go visit the 2 Burmese lads on death row and lecture them on the merits if Thai "law".  And while you're at it, go visit Pai Dao Din and all the other folks rotting in Thai prisons who have been judged by Thai "law".

So the US never made mistakes.. even the Netherlands has cases that the law made mistakes.  So does that mean those laws are not good either.. That is your argument. 

[stephen tracy]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

So the US never made mistakes.. even the Netherlands has cases that the law made mistakes.  So does that mean those laws are not good either.. That is your argument. 

But, but, but.... I'm talking about Thailand.

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

Proof is kind of important, Rob. As the Koh Tao 2 would tell you.

The proof is in the vid.. you just ignore it... 

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

But, but, but.... I'm talking about Thailand.

But but but .. the argument is the same. your using a few cases to condemn a system. I am done with you.. your mind is so closed you can't even see what your saying. 

 

Im done. 

[BangkokReady]

47 minutes ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

How would changing the foreign ownership stake of companies in a specific sector be anything to do with corruption?

 

There was no tax payable on the sale of the Shinawatra percentage of AIS to Temasek regardless, as per Thai law, no offences were committed throughout the whole process. 

 

The Yellow Shirts used the sale to beat the nationalist drum about selling a telecoms company to a foreign entity (in this case Singapore's Temasek), completely forgetting (or possibly not realising at all) that Telenor owned 40% of DTAC and France owned 49% of Orange at the time.

 

But when it is the Shins, there must have been corruption involved, right?

I think you might be confused.

 

I said it wasn't the law you mentioned and that it was an anti-corruption law. You've gone on a rant as though I said the exact oposite.

 

Perhaps you are getting a little too emotional.

[jesimps]

7 hours ago, leeneeds said:

All I can say is accountability 

Unless you grant yourself immunity.

 

[stephen tracy]

7 minutes ago, robblok said:

The proof is in the vid.. you just ignore it... 

There's no proof whatsoever in the vid.

[BangkokReady]

44 minutes ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

You posted that they changed anti-corruption law so time to put your money where your mouth is.

I know what I posted and I told you I don't have the information to hand. Do you think I walk around with a folder of Thaksin information?

 

44 minutes ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

Again, I ask you which specific law it was that was changed?

Again? Who do you think you are?

 

You can wait.

[Eric Loh]

4 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

I think you might be confused.

 

I said it wasn't the law you mentioned and that it was an anti-corruption law. You've gone on a rant as though I said the exact oposite.

 

Perhaps you are getting a little too emotional.

Back against the wall and still keep swinging. Who's getting emotional now.

[stephen tracy]

6 minutes ago, robblok said:

But but but .. the argument is the same. your using a few cases to condemn a system. I am done with you.. your mind is so closed you can't even see what your saying. 

 

Im done. 

I condemn a "system" that makes speech a crime and protects the wealth looted from the nation by the elites.  Wake up Rob... this is actually happening.