The epitome of incompetency/idiocy  And despite all that he made the rank of general in the army - hope Thailand never has to go to war.

On 8/29/2017 at 8:52 AM, rosst said:

May I suggest that towards the end of the trial arrest her to prevent her absconding? 

Perhaps even house arrest? 

But it is quite likely they were aware and are not unhappy with the solution. 

 

The legal system in Thailand may be 'different' from many other countries, but arresting someone because there is a suspicion that the person may abscond doesn't cut it, even in Thailand.

19 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

On ‎8‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 5:52 AM, rosst said:

May I suggest that towards the end of the trial arrest her to prevent her absconding? 

Perhaps even house arrest? 

But it is quite likely they were aware and are not unhappy with the solution. 

 

The legal system in Thailand may be 'different' from many other countries, but arresting someone because there is a suspicion that the person may abscond doesn't cut it, even in Thailand.

 

It cuts it everytime. If they do not want you to abscond, they have you in custody or guarded. This is Thailand. If absconding will be the best interests of the powers that be, then you are able to abscond.

 

20 hours ago, gk10002000 said:

Yeah, but they were supposedly watching her for the last few months.  Yeah well.

My answer where to the article where they stated that they watched her house (not here) meaning there were outside...;)

 

Another thing is that her brother did exactly the same thing some years ago so they should have learned and taken some  precautions  to prevent this to happen again...

19 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

The legal system in Thailand may be 'different' from many other countries, but arresting someone because there is a suspicion that the person may abscond doesn't cut it, even in Thailand.

Does Thailand have a legal system which merits the name? I would say no, just look at the Ko Tao murders and other scandals about dead or killed tourists.

On 8/30/2017 at 9:21 AM, F4UCorsair said:

 

The legal system in Thailand may be 'different' from many other countries, but arresting someone because there is a suspicion that the person may abscond doesn't cut it, even in Thailand.

Perhaps if you were directly affected you may think differently?  The 'ill gotten' gains always go with those who abscond. 

  

2 minutes ago, lvr181 said:

Perhaps if you were directly affected you may think differently?  The 'ill gotten' gains always go with those who abscond. 

Irrelevant whether I'm Involved or not.  Authorities can't, and don't, arrest or detain people because they may do something.

 

 

I.  

47 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

  

Irrelevant whether I'm Involved or not.  Authorities can't, and don't, arrest or detain people because they may do something.

 

 

I.  

What does 'crime prevention' mean? 

 

Police regularly arrest people in western nations and it is up to the courts to decide whether the arrested person is guilty or not! And why are alleged criminals held in 'custody' pending trial? Therefore 'authorities' CAN AND DO arrest or detain.

Edited August 31, 20178 yr by lvr181
Additional comment

8 minutes ago, lvr181 said:

What does 'crime prevention' mean? 

 

Police regularly arrest people in western nations and it is up to the courts to decide whether the arrested person is guilty or not!

Arresting Is quite different from being charged, and a person must be CHARGED With an offence before the court can decide, and suspecting somebody MAY commit a crime, or that her brother has, don't qualify.

 

I can't make It any simpler.

 

This Is just plain silly!!

Edited August 31, 20178 yr by F4UCorsair

10 hours ago, lvr181 said:

 

"What does 'crime prevention' mean? 

 

Police regularly arrest people in western nations and it is up to the courts to decidewhether the arrested person is guilty or not! And why are alleged criminals held in 'custody' pending trial? Therefore 'authorities' CAN AND DO arrest or detain."

 

Correct - "Arrested on suspicion of ..................." They are then detained in custody, and it is then up to the court whether to grant bail or not.

 

If bail is granted, then the court has to be convinced that there is no danger of the suspect fleeing or "jumping bail".

 

In this instance, I am surprised that she was granted bail, and IMHO shouldn't have been as there was (obviously in retrospect!) a good chance that she would abscond. But now that she has absconded, as has already been pointed out, it saves a lot of grief all round!!!

 

8 hours ago, sambum said:

"What does 'crime prevention' mean? 

 

Police regularly arrest people in western nations and it is up to the courts to decidewhether the arrested person is guilty or not! And why are alleged criminals held in 'custody' pending trial? Therefore 'authorities' CAN AND DO arrest or detain."

 

Correct - "Arrested on suspicion of ..................." They are then detained in custody, and it is then up to the court whether to grant bail or not.

 

If bail is granted, then the court has to be convinced that there is no danger of the suspect fleeing or "jumping bail".

 

In this instance, I am surprised that she was granted bail, and IMHO shouldn't have been as there was (obviously in retrospect!) a good chance that she would abscond. But now that she has absconded, as has already been pointed out, it saves a lot of grief all round!!!

 

 

Let me try once more.   My partner is a lawyer.

 

She says you cannot be put before a court unless you are charged.  You can't be bailed unless you have been charged.  Yingluck had been charged, and was awaiting a verdict.  Unless she was charged with committing another crime, there was no need to put her before the court again, and for her to seek bail, or the court would have needed to have revoked her bail on the charges on which she was waiting judgement.

 

The court doesn't decide anything if it is suspected he/she may commit a crime.

 

'Crime prevention' doesn't include locking people away on no more than suspicion.  They may be arrested, and detained, pending charges, but police are given only a few days to lay charges or release.   Police can ask the court for more time, and in some circumstances it is granted, but it is never open ended.

 

I'm out of this ridiculous discussion by bush lawyers.

Edited August 31, 20178 yr by F4UCorsair

On 30/08/2017 at 2:42 AM, ttrd said:

My answer where to the article where they stated that they watched her house (not here) meaning there were outside...;)

 

Another thing is that her brother did exactly the same thing some years ago so they should have learned and taken some  precautions  to prevent this to happen again...

"her brother did exactly the same thing"

 

True, in that Thaksin failed to show-up for sentencing, in court.

 

Not true, in the sense that he had got the court's permission to leave for a short-trip overseas, to attend the opening-ceremony in 2008 at the Beijing Olympics, promising to return afterwards, which he then didn't.

 

Not quite the same thing as disappearing without warning, and probably leaving the country illegally, as Yingluck currently appears to have done.

2 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

Let me try once more.   My partner is a lawyer.

 

She says you cannot be put before a court unless you are charged.  You can't be bailed unless you have been charged.  Yingluck had been charged, and was awaiting a verdict.  Unless she was charged with committing another crime, there was no need to put her before the court again, and for her to seek bail, or the court would have needed to have revoked her bail on the charges on which she was waiting judgement.

 

The court doesn't decide anything if it is suspected he/she may commit a crime.

 

'Crime prevention' doesn't include locking people away on no more than suspicion.  They may be arrested, and detained, pending charges, but police are given only a few days to lay charges or release.   Police can ask the court for more time, and in some circumstances it is granted, but it is never open ended.

 

I'm out of this ridiculous discussion by bush lawyers.

Thank G*d the rest of the world does not follow/practice the two tier (one for the rich/connected and one for the poor) Thai "justice" system!

3 minutes ago, lvr181 said:

Thank G*d the rest of the world does not follow/practice the two tier (one for the rich/connected and one for the poor) Thai "justice" system!

I agree sir There is one rule fro the rich as we have all seen and one for the poor when you might as well not go to court because you are going to jail anyway

On 8/15/2017 at 10:29 AM, NCC1701A said:

yes, last month was just a drill and does not count.

 

 

Ok i know i getting off the beaten track here But something i want an answer to and i hope there are some school teachers on here who can help me. I have a step daughter she is 17 and who goes to a government school  Every Friday she dont go to school because she says its Army day Is this normal practice for kids not to go to school because its army day? I know she does not do the army stuff Do they just shut up  the school and say to the kids who dont do the army stuff Hey you dont have to go to school today NO school If it is all i can say is wow 

On 9/1/2017 at 6:59 AM, Ricardo said:

"her brother did exactly the same thing"

 

True, in that Thaksin failed to show-up for sentencing, in court.

 

Not true, in the sense that he had got the court's permission to leave for a short-trip overseas, to attend the opening-ceremony in 2008 at the Beijing Olympics, promising to return afterwards, which he then didn't.

 

Not quite the same thing as disappearing without warning, and probably leaving the country illegally, as Yingluck currently appears to have done.

You compare the methods which is irrelevant, I talk about the fact that both of them have escaped the country prior to get their sentence settled and that is all that matters...;)

Of course you couldn't stop her, because you DIDN'T want to!

 

It's called jail tube-steak: revoke the bail of flight risk and not to mention high profile criminal defendants such as in the case of the Shinawatra clan. Problem solved, but there is no claim to problem solving prowess amongst the highly gifted (challenged) morons running or rather ruining the country.