Yingluck ‘may seek UK asylum

[473geo]

2 minutes ago, ovi1kanobi said:

 You do remember, they paid five hundred baht, for every vote. Or did that slip your mind? And yes I saw the money change hands. Buying votes, does not make a legal election.

I'm surprised if your memory can reach that far back accurately!! as the thread topic appears to have made sieve like exit  

[Scott]

An inflammatory post has been removed along with replies.  

 

Continued flaming, baiting and trolling will earn suspensions.  

 

 

[sjaak327]

42 minutes ago, Next stop NK said:

So far all is based on rumors and wishful thinking from the junta that she fled the country, can anyone at all confirm she is even alive?

Yeah, after four days still no sign of her anywhere. Rest assured I bet that her brother knows exactly where she is, if he didn't he would probably be screaming bloody murder by now.

[JemJem]

On 27.08.2017 at 3:36 AM, z42 said:

Asylum. What a joke, she is guilty of at the very least criminal negligence, or looking the other way to frankly unchecked corruption by those in her party. As a UK citizen I would be disgusted if she was to be granted asylum, especially when there are many hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT people fleeing actual harm in their home nations.

Can only keep repeating that this idiotic woman is NOT THE VICTIM OF ANYTHING THAT WASN'T OF HER OWN MAKING. She is fleeing rightful criminal prosecution, and that should provide no grounds for asylum whatsoever.

 

I agree but we both know that money talks

[473geo]

28 minutes ago, JemJem said:

I agree but we both know that money talks

If Yingluck was granted asylum how would this affect any person in the UK excepting those that choose to take the moral high ground?

Won't affect me either way where Yingluck is or isn't allowed to live, that is now in the past

 

The Thai government needs to address the needs of the country to prevent it falling behind in the Asean.......I am interested in this because it does, and will, affect my family!!

 

[candide]

58 minutes ago, 473geo said:

If Yingluck was granted asylum how would this affect any person in the UK excepting those that choose to take the moral high ground?

Won't affect me either way where Yingluck is or isn't allowed to live, that is now in the past

 

The Thai government needs to address the needs of the country to prevent it falling behind in the Asean.......I am interested in this because it does, and will, affect my family!!

 

Unfortunately with the 20 years plan, the national strategic committee, the appointed senate, etc... Thailand will be stuck with the same incompetent bunch  for some time....

[Stargeezr]

Why do the rich people need asylum? I thought that was for the poor people who were fleeing

wars, and danger in their home countries.  YL can ask for an immigration card, and become a

Brit. She surely has enough money to be accepted by the British government who are looking

for money now that they have Brexit happening.

Geezer

[metisdead]

More off topic trolling posts and replies have been removed.  

[hawker9000]

21 hours ago, JAG said:

I would suggest quite to the contrary.

Asylum can these days take many forms, from the desperate economic refugee from some SubSaharan hell hole to the wealthy business tycoon who has crossed Vladimir Putin.

She is the last elected Prime Minster of a country now ruled by a junta installed by a coup, a coup staged whilst she was standing for re-election. She has left (or possibly effectively been forced to leave) because of the threat of imprisonment, in a jail system which has seen several "sudden deaths" and unexplained and incredible suicides since the junta took power. A jail sentence which moreover would have been handed out by a court which has just jailed two ministers from her administration for 42 and 36 years respectively. I'm sure that the UK government will take a less than sanguine view of that courts political impartiality. Her family have significant assets in the UK. She will not be a burden on the UK taxpayer.

They will let her live in the UK if she wishes.

 

We will know soon enough when (if ever) she is seen again.

 

 

All the usual talking points & recommended blather.  Well done.  Except for the being allowed to live in the UK bit.  'Doubt that.   Didn't Thaksin "plan to request asylum" as well?  Why would the UK make an arbitrary distinction?

 

[JAG]

All the usual talking points & recommended blather.  Well done.  Except for the being allowed to live in the UK bit.  'Doubt that.   Didn't Thaksin "plan to request asylum" as well?  Why would the UK make an arbitrary distinction?
 

Thaksin comes and goes from the UK at will. He still owns property there and spends quite a lot of time there. As far as I know he hasn't asked for asylum there, or for that matter in Dubai, Singapore or anywhere else.

Incidentally, just what is "recommended blather"?

[FitnessHealthTravel]

Asylum in the UK? That’s worked out well for Julian Assange. Maybe she could buy a Syrian Passport, she’d be in the UK like a flash.

[baboon]

2 hours ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

Why do the rich people need asylum? I thought that was for the poor people who were fleeing

wars, and danger in their home countries.  YL can ask for an immigration card, and become a

Brit. She surely has enough money to be accepted by the British government who are looking

for money now that they have Brexit happening.

Geezer

It used to be known as 'political asylum' back in the days before 'asylum' became synonymous with the mass movement of cheap labour.

[mettech]

Good for her cause being judge by the Junta is no real law biding rules and of course money is always heavier than law and order.

[hawker9000]

1 hour ago, JAG said:

Thaksin comes and goes from the UK at will. He still owns property there and spends quite a lot of time there. As far as I know he hasn't asked for asylum there, or for that matter in Dubai, Singapore or anywhere else.

Incidentally, just what is "recommended blather"?

This might help:

 

[JAG]

48 minutes ago, hawker9000 said:

This might help:

 

Ah I see - it means that you don't agree!

 

Whilst it is jolly clever to say it in that way, why not go a stage further and explain why?

[halloween]

11 hours ago, Becker said:

Unrecognisable? To you, obviously. To the world at large, not so much.

Well, yes, but I am here. Besides all the other unusual aspects, we have the situation you raised, Yingluk "allowing" protests against her government, her supporters attacking those that chose to do so to the extent that a RTN admiral sent SEALS to man checkpoints to protect them as citizens of Thailand, because the RTP, under the control of her BIL refused to do so, and a DPM (Chalerm) stating that they could not be protected.

In any other democracy, where citizens are in danger, the government would do their utmost to protect them, nepotism wouldn't appoint a political police chief (who visits fugitive criminals) who refuses to protect them, and the military wouldn't have to step in to do their duty to protect the citizens. Or for that matter, remove the corrupt government in power. 

[Becker]

55 minutes ago, halloween said:

Well, yes, but I am here. Besides all the other unusual aspects, we have the situation you raised, Yingluk "allowing" protests against her government, her supporters attacking those that chose to do so to the extent that a RTN admiral sent SEALS to man checkpoints to protect them as citizens of Thailand, because the RTP, under the control of her BIL refused to do so, and a DPM (Chalerm) stating that they could not be protected.

In any other democracy, where citizens are in danger, the government would do their utmost to protect them, nepotism wouldn't appoint a political police chief (who visits fugitive criminals) who refuses to protect them, and the military wouldn't have to step in to do their duty to protect the citizens. Or for that matter, remove the corrupt government in power. 

Nice to see you're still buying into that BS.

[halloween]

1 minute ago, Becker said:

Nice to see you're still buying into that BS.

Feel free to refute any or all the facts in my post. did you bite off more than you could chew with your little one-liner?

Edited August 29, 2017 by halloween

[Becker]

10 hours ago, halloween said:

Feel free to refute any or all the facts in my post. did you bite off more than you could chew with your little one-liner?

Why would I want to waste my time - you're impervious to facts anyway.

The military "had" to step in and take power!

[Kieran00001]

12 hours ago, baboon said:

It used to be known as 'political asylum' back in the days before 'asylum' became synonymous with the mass movement of cheap labour.

 

Asylum has not become synonymous with the mass movement of labour, that is just utter nonsense, in the UK we do not even allow asylum seekers to work for the first year and after that they have to apply for a work oermit.  The only people mixing immigrants with refugees are morons.

[sjaak327]

46 minutes ago, Becker said:

Why would I want to waste my time - you're impervious to facts anyway.

The military "had" to step in and take power!

Of course they did not have to, elections were scheduled (twice !). We are now over three years later, and they are still there. Some people never wake up from their dream apparently.

 

The two last coups both deposed of a government already in care taker status with elections scheduled. The truth is, the powers that be don't want the Thai electorate determining who they want to run their country, they want to run the country themselves, nothing more and nothing less. 

 

And by introducing a new constitution that effectively has made elections inconsequential, the evidence is overwhelming that the above statement is 100% true. 

 

You don't need to get rid of a care taker government, it will disappear after elections anyway,...

 

Edited August 29, 2017 by sjaak327

[baboon]

2 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Asylum has not become synonymous with the mass movement of labour, that is just utter nonsense, in the UK we do not even allow asylum seekers to work for the first year and after that they have to apply for a work oermit.  The only people mixing immigrants with refugees are morons.

I beg your pardon. Before the TERM 'asylum' became synonymous with the mass movement of cheap labour, rightly or wrongly. 

Is that any better?

[Kieran00001]

2 minutes ago, baboon said:

I beg your pardon. Before the TERM 'asylum' became synonymous with the mass movement of cheap labour, rightly or wrongly. 

Is that any better?

 

Who is using them synonymously?  Morons, like I said, and not really that many people are that thick, so I hardly think it is possible to say the terms have become synonymous just because of a few idiots.

[hawker9000]

18 hours ago, JAG said:

Ah I see - it means that you don't agree!

 

Whilst it is jolly clever to say it in that way, why not go a stage further and explain why?

I'm afraid I just don't speak that language.

[JAG]

4 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

I'm afraid I just don't speak that language.

Me neither - so I looked it up.

Recommend: "To advise, make acceptable, suggest for employment or use."

Blather: "Foolish talk."

 

No, still doesn't make sense!

 

[eggers]

On 28/08/2017 at 9:06 AM, LannaGuy said:

 

Pleeeeze stop the foolishness?  Britain values free speech and places little value on a conviction in a country run by a Military which is why Interpol nor any other agency will take a request for extradition seriously. Next!  

Some kind of expert or authority on such matters??? What BS!! Is that why UK & EU full of convicts & crims from North Africa now!!!