- Popular Post
inutil
-
Posts
324 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by inutil
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Ah the fun belief that DEFINITELY FOR SURE this time! THIS TIME things are absolutely and COMPLETELY UTTERLY different. Rinse, repeat. Follow the yellow brick road. No way will there be any attempt at unification. No way will there be any attempt at reconciliation. Putsch followed by NWO followed by election, followed by PTP (in its next incarnation) rout, followed by yellow protest followed by coup, followed by the putsch. Its hilarious. Im not even going to say it 'would be hilarious if it wasnt so tragic and people weren't dying', because its just proper clown shoes hilarious and so utterly transparent. Its amazing Thailand!
Deep deep deedle deedle ded de derp derp...
-
5
-
- Popular Post
For all the times I was refused a taxi in Japan and Japanese people tried to justify that behavior, I can't help but feel a sense of justice in taxi drivers rejecting Japanese passengers.
Reallllllly? Jesus, you must look like absolute crap then, because never once in my 7 years of living in japan (tokyo, hamamatsu, nagano and saitama (as well as travelling all over the country)), have i been refused service by a japanese taxi driver. The idea would be mind boggling to be honest. It just does not happen.
Even with a whopping great snowboard bag ive had zero problems flagging down the first taxi with a light on and gaining entrance.
A quick ranking of refused service in the four Asian countries i've lived and worked in:
Thailand (a lot).
Korea (sometimes).
China (rarely)
Japan (NEVER EVER).
-
4
-
In answer to your points directly:
1. Assuming it was.... when was that?
When the democratically elected members of parliament were enacting and voting on legislation and the opposition were holding them to account either through democratic means directly in house or indirectly through the media.
2. Causes/Effects way off target.
I dont recall stating the causes of the unrest in BKK nor do i infact recall stating anything of the effects. I said that HAD the Democrats held PTP to account POLITICALLY and DEMOCRATICALLY then PTP would have faced a strong split in their vote. These were not vote winning issues. Their core support were disgusted at the time with the amnesty bill as well. And the farmers were still waiting for payment and planning action. It does not take a political genius to see that these were issues that strongly affected the Shinawatra government and could have been easily capitalised on by the opposition. Heck, it could have even led to a split in the coalition as some parties may have felt that their continued involvement in the coalition was costing them support. If youd like to point out where this is controversial and off target, id of course be willing to listen.
3. Direct democracy rather facile.
Its point is to draw out one of the biggest features of representative democracy. To wit: you vote for the representative and when they are elected they are completely free to vote on their own conscience on not on the will of their electorate. Facile or not, if i want to make the point that a representative can and will do this, i can think of no better way than comparing it to "direct democracy". Direct democracy, in case you dont know, is where the person you elect is simply the mouthpiece of your groups democratic will and thus is not free to vote against the democratic will of their group. Its an important and necessary political distinction. I didnt even go into it. This means that Yingluck can in fact push for more types of amnesty to be put on the bill for the house, and then push her party to put it through a vote even if it pisses off her voting bloc. It also means that not only her, but also the representatives who voted for this bill on her behalf (whether out of conscience, political expedience, or just because they thought it would play well in their constituency), would have been rather worried when they saw the political backlash on not only the content of this bill, but also the way it was pushed through the house. Again, political acts have political consequences. This was not a vote winning action and LIKELY (im not psychic), would have cost PTP a great many votes in the next election.
4. Not having the army involved...
Since this is precisely the point of my entire post, im curious why youre making this as your final remark (in a post that seems to be arguing against my position). Its odd, dude. Its not the first time to be honest. Still, no harm, somehow you got that numpty above to agree with us both because he also didnt realise that you and i are actually making the same point
-
ah, so youre a troll... silly me
-
Hands up if you think YL can use her position as PM to help her family finacially and whitewash their criminal convictions?
as sad attempt to dichotomies the situation garnished with a dash of non-sequitur
Truth be told i dont have a problem at all with this. Ive seen plenty of laws passed through the house of commons on the last session of parliament that wouldnt make it through in a full house due entirely to bogus scheduling when most MPs are racing back home to begin their holidays. its the nature of the game. If a law can be passed by a party, then its a law unless there is a mechanism in the state's constitution to prevent this. And given that there are very few existing direct democracies in the world (almost all i believe are representative), then its the nature of the beast that they can push for a vote on just about anything they like as individuals (without any consideration to their constituents other than "will they vote for me again?"). So long as they can find a way to schedule it through the appropriate legislative channels and it passes the checks set up through the constitution (codified or otherwise), then its a law. I have no problems with this at all. They were elected by the people to represent them. They won the ballot. If they can rustle up the votes, they get to make new legislation. Thats what theyre elected to do.
But back to the above: were the senate to have not then blocked it (the senate of course did block it), the courts certainly would have. Thus: checks and balances. And in this case it looks like the system worked, no? The funny thing is that as the protests intensified, the amnesty bill actually would have cost PTP a HUGE amount of votes. With the funding for rice payments also around the corner at the time, it would have led to an absolute political catastrophe for PTP in their heartlands which the democrats, or parties allied to the democrats would have easily capitalised on. The tragedy is that this would have actually led to a more mature and stronger democracy. When a former entrenched area begins to split up, the campaign to retain or contest this seat becomes more focused on individual and personal self interest over ideological group identity. Further, in showing their political maturity in campaigning to hold PTP to account as well as illustrating their own capacity to govern, Thailand would be the winner. With a strong shadow government in place and holding the government of the day to account, the need for political intervention by the people is significantly reduced and indeed becomes more ridiculous.
So in answer to the question above. Yes! I agree wholeheartedly in it. And i agree with it because there is an electoral price to be paid for these acts in a democracy (whether mature, or moving toward maturity). It is an essential aspect of party led representative democracy. Political actions should have political consequences and the electorate should be allowed to make their minds up about how they view the behavior of their elected representative and the party they represent. If a party promises jam tomorrow with massive populist policies or instigates legislation that may be construed as being self-interested, then the electorate should be allowed to completely buy into it and support their representative if they like. They should be allowed to completely ignore the facts and vote on personalities instead if thats what they want. They should be allowed 100% to engage to a level they feel entirely comfortable with as an individual. Above all, even if those politicians were the worst scum of the world (within the limits of the constitution) to everyone in the country except them and their group, individuals should be entirely free to keep on voting for them for as long as they like. Because there will come a reckoning. And when it comes, that party will pay heavily at the ballot box. There will always be a reckoning. Thats what makes democracy fantastic. Its a pity that yet another power grab (by the leadership of the democrats) has once again held back the chances of the democrats to govern legitimately for another generation. Until the Democrats become a true force in Thai Democracy, Thailand will still be stuck with a dysfunctional and immature democracy. Thailand needs the Democrats to hold their own constituents to account and lead through the ballot box. Only then will Thailand be back on the path to democracy.
-
1
-
-
One only has to type in "Thailand" into Google and look at the images to see how Thailand is viewed and what other people take pictures of when they travel here. It's not that hard.
She doesn't have to look to far, or even deviate much from past campaigns - beaches, sun, islands, long tails, snorkeling, nightlife, temples, shopping, markets, animals, trekking etc etc.
Thailand is visually stunning. She's trying too hard and trying to do too many things for too many people. Focus.
But one only hopes she is sitting down with the other agencies and telling them to sort out the scams, ripoffs, policing, rubbish, infrastructure and everything else that undermines a great holiday in Thailand.
...and please, no more Press Releases.
Its the oddest thing!
I did exactly that and for the most part it was beaches some elephants, a temple or ten and about 5-10% cute girls.
Thats not the odd thing... heres the odd thing.
I did the same for Japan, almost the same results. Something iconic for about 15 results then a few more deviations.
But type in any of the big European countries and the first 10 to 20 results are all maps and flags. Its bizarre.
-
Its very much a pain in the arse to run that many sock puppets on facebook. Traffic on this site and on these threads are significantly easier to disrupt. Id go with the argument that regardless of anonymity (both are equivalent), one would involve a far more significant time investment (and the work of a lot of busy hands), whilst the other would require only a few people with nothing better to do than troll a message board. Im glad we've established though, that youre not suggesting anything at all to do with those accounts being fake, just that they might be anonymous (for whatever personal reasons of the individuals who own them). Any further clains would of course have been utter nonsense, after all.
-
Jdinasia@
No he was in full view when interviewed in the US by a visiting Thai TV channel
Please do not lie about the posters, they deserve a little respect take a look again, posts to the page are real. I can take a screen shot if you find difficulty in that.
I again ran through many posts on that page, the vast majority were not real names. Perhaps you are limiting yourself to English?
Alas people will need to make up their own minds if the posters on the conspiracy theorist page are real or not as we cannot link/post from there
The interview I saw with the admin was in Thai, his identity masked, his name not given.
Back to the topic
So let me ask, is your point here that theyre not real acocunts? That theyre all just sock puppets of a few random anti-government haters?
Are you suggesting... a conspiracy?
I thought you hated conspiracies, big man? And here you are with one of the daftest ones yet.
Just so you know. I also made up my last name on facebook. And it has nothing at all to do with the situation in Thailand. Its because i just dont want random people to type my name into a google search and find my facebook profile on their hits.
-
2
-
-
Well, it's obvious you are not "gay" according to my definition... pretty sad aren't you? I guess that happens when you are so often WRONG.
Hi guys! im straight! Did you know? I sleep with people of the opposite sex. Well... more as a preference... Its been a couple of years to be honest. More than likely ill just polish out a crafty one... Often to pictures and video clips of people of the opposite sex though! So i think im straight... I might be polysexual actually what with the qualifier...
wow, sexuality is complicated!
What does this have to do with this thread, you ask? I dont particularly know. Youd have to ask the people that seem to think its important enough that they keep bringing it up. So theres mine. Please feel free to mention it in some kind of Finbar Saunders manner any time you want to attack something i say in the future.
-
CCTV still is a dead end.
Some quick facts: CSILA already had a user with the exact same program for their CCTV. It showed exactly the same color changes. If its good enough proof for CSILA then it should be fine for thaivisa.
The problem here is singular:
This guy is apparently a power tripper. The argument goes that he is a jumped up full of himself kid who loves to express his influence.
He has CCTV stills (photoshopped or otherwise) showing he was in BKK during the time of the murders. Now, of course it doesnt prove he was off the island at the times of the murder, but his lawyer through him stated that he was not even on the island during that period. So...
If we assume this to be true, then we have one simple task:
Prove he was on the island in that window, as someone said, just one photo of him on the island would confirm he was there and in fact entirely implicate him given that now its clear he has been lying about his alibi.
And in over a month of trying, not one photo has emerged. People may rationally argue that there is a cover up on the island and that people fear for their safety. This may well be true... but we dont need locals. This is a tourist area. He likes tourists. The AC bar lives on tourists. If he was on that island in this period, he was photographed by a tourist. If everything else is true about him, it stands to reason.
So where on earth is the photograph? Im not saying it doesnt exist. I am asking why social media has failed to pursue this and put pressure out to find it. Surely someone could set up a resource bank to collect photographs from koh tao on the relevant dates and comb through them? Theyve found and trawled through all kinds of past photos to create weird associations about his preferences for blondes? If you know someone that was there during the period and in and around, what appears to be a very busy AC bar, then just check their photos for the guy. It cant be that hard? Surely if social media can do something, this would be it? I cant believe they havent done this. Which of course makes me think, rationally, that they have.
And the fact they havent unearthed this picture appears to show that possibly, at least for the moment, all swans are white, and he wasnt actually there.
-
2
-
-
I not sure why people are arguing about 'authority'. They seem to be missing the point somewhat.
This isnt the UK, they arent interpol. Its Thailand and Thailand has its own police force.
How the Brits would LOVE to not be involved here. But they are. They are because the investigation is a farce and it requires observation on procedure. The police sent there cannot and will not interfere outside of their remit. But what they will do is report their findings to the relevant authorities in the UK. These findings may be mundane confirming that the RTP are acting in good faith and the evidence against the pair is considered genuine and free from influence. Or it could be absolutely explosive. Hence, observation.
They are there to observe. The problem here is that they might well do exactly that. And when they report their observations, things may happen. They do not need to solve the crime. They simply need to observe the procedures and methods of the RTP's investigation. No trial need be carried out, no alternative theories need be put forward. They simply need to look at the current evidence, look at the means of how the RTP arrived at their conclusions and then observe. Should they feel they were impeded in their observations im sure this will form a significant aspect of their reports.
One can only conclude that the general has genuine faith in the RTP having caught the right people, since allowing the UK police on Thai soil to basically oversee the procedures of this investigation (and the reasons why they followed the leads they followed and discarded the leads they chose to discard), would smack of political naivety in the extreme. One need not find the real killers to establish corruption and collusion in the RTP. This case doesnt have to be solved to cause deep embarrassment to Thailand. Thus, its a huge risk to allow these 'observers' on Thai soil. Lets hope it pays off for the right people.
-
1
-
-
Dear people who think that free dental treatment is free. It isnt. Someone is paying for this, along with all the other populist policies since the Junta took hold. Its myopic and actually hilarious.
-
haha, your hubris will get you killed
-
cough, human trafficking, cough.
Thailand has an incredibly porous border and . Im glad youre so confident since you get to live there. Hope the confidence shields you against ebola like a forcefield, because its just a matter of time and i really dont see Thailand having the sophistication or facilities to deal with it when it does. Dont worry though! they invented a cure!
-
I highly doubt it given that he lives in Chiang Rai. Wouldnt you need someone living in Phuket to know whats going on in Phuket?
-
step 1: Open up new account.
Step 2: post up on social media (twitter/facebook) new account details (CIS LA - was gonna make it, but didnt fancy tying in my gmail
)Step 3: carry on posting
Seriously. Open up 10 accounts. Facebook plus infinite email addresses makes it very easy.
Just make the CSI dude admin, bring some conversations over and spread the word
-
1
-
-
yeah. highly unlikely. Still, very simple fix: open a new facebook account. Post up there.
-
With what is currently being circulated on social media reference the double Koh Tao homicides together with the derogatory and abusive comments aimed at both the military administration, RTP and prison authorities, I would not be at all surprised if one or more were closed down. Some of the postings directed towards the heads of police and prisons are quite frankly over the top. It is one thing suspecting corruption it is quite another to prove it and still another to broadcast it. Farang should realise that their continued residence in Thailand is literally in the hands of those who are being criticised. Not a good move I would have thought.
Get on yourself
-
To be honest, i didnt think that needed to be said. So let me clarify the point:
Without the express invitation of the Thai authorities, Britain cannot and will not get involved in this situation. And it is right and proper that they should not.
Not sure why you find that particularly hysterical. Its fairly standard protocol.
-
Andrew Drummond Facebook page has new post relating to the alleged key witness. Maybe it is time for Britain to employ a new Ambassador.
To be absolutely honest, Britain CANNOT and WILL NOT get involved in a matter of Thai state affairs. This is right and proper. I want the truth to come out as well. But Britain is not the avenue. The most the foreign office will do (in public) is express concern at the handling of the case. And they did exactly this in their comments yesterday in the Daily Telegraph.
(While im on the subject of things that are right and proper. It is also right and proper that the Thai Government (or any government) should not be able to arbitrarily demand a DNA swab in some kind of trawling expedition. I would refuse them as well. And i am thankful i can do that. People should not be calling for this to be reneged upon. It undermines key civil protections.
Also, the British government does not need to intervene in this anyway, because the British government has one of the most ruthless, amoral real-politik machines in the world: the British tabloid press).
The reason this case has any momentum at all is because the THAI people are pressing it. Not because expats on a message board are. But because Thai people are questioning the official story. And that is exactly how it should be for an issue that is clearly a sovereign Thai issue. It is a Thai story about Thai internal affairs, domestic migrant relations and of course, 'corruption'. And this is why the Foreign Office CANNOT and SHOULD NOT get involved. This is not a colony. These are not our subjects. Any heavy-handed intervention in this instance would do more to harm this fragile situation than help it. It would distract attention away from where it currently needs to be.
-
I wish that this JTJ person would try for once to post one of his erratic doubter hater posts without the letters DNA in it,
Yes because considering facts doesn't go well with conspiracy theories.
Lawyer Aung Myo Thant said the pair, Zaw Lin and Win Zaw Htun, both 21, from the Arakanese town of Kyaukphyu, told a Burmese embassy legal team they had murdered English tourists
Speaking to DVB on Monday, Kyaw Thaung, a representative of the Myanmar Association in Thailand, who attended the interview with the defendants, said, “We went to the prison [on Koh Samui] and were allowed to meet with the two freely. They confessed to committing the crime under the influence of alcohol.
Actually, if anything what you are doing is taking away information
In the first case (the one you chose to quote), Kyaw Thaung relays a very brief statement about a section of what he heard from the two suspects. He adds absolutely not one bit of his own interpretation to this story. To wit:
We went to the prison [on Koh Samui] and were allowed to meet with the two freely. They confessed to committing the crime under the influence of alcohol. When asked for further details, they said they bashed the victims two or three times each with the blunt end of a hoe, but not with the sharp end. They said they did it because they were drunk but did not intend to kill the couple.
At no point anywhere does he give his interpretation that he is satisfied or dissatisfied with this story. He is RELAYING information. Thats it. The rest of the details and accusations are made MUCH MUCH earlier in the article. Im genuinely amazed you missed them because usually people read the stuff earlier in the passage before getting to the bits in the middle. Maybe youre not like everyone else? I wouldnt want to judge...
And in those parts you find:
1. The same overall themes as relayed by Kyaw Thaung: They met the defendants, they confessed, they told how they did it and why, they claimed they were drunk at the time.
2. A claim by Aung Myo Thant that these stories were 'somewhat inconsistent'
3. A claim that they had been tortured into making their confessions
4. A claim that the forensic reports and evidence provided by the state were inconsistent
5. A claim that the case was 'a set up and not based on hard facts'
Lets now add a couple of new things;
a: we now know that the defendants claim they bashed the skulls of BOTH David and Hannah with the BLUNT end of the hoe. They are now on record as having stated this. They are very clear they did not use the sharp end.
b: They claim they were very drunk.
(both of these will provide a lot more material for people working out this case independently of the RTP).
Im surprised that you would miss all that given it was in the first 10 or so lines of the articles. Pretty hard to miss if im honest. I wonder why youd leave it out? I mean it clearly undermines any attempt to suggest that the embassy and human rights group are satisfied with the case And it certainly undermines any ridiculous claim that the embassy and human rights groups have confirmation of their guilt given that the lawyer sent by the embassy to represent them, says the exact opposite, whilst the human rights person makes no personal statement at all about their satisfaction and simply relates the story told by the defendants without judgement.
I wouldnt want to pass judgement on your own selective reading myself of course, so ill just leave you to explain how this lack of an interpretation gives you the remit to suggest that the embassy and human rights groups are satisfied with events and that this adds to the confirmation of their guilt.
-
1
-
-
Have you seen the level of violence used? This is not rape, that is just a by-product. This is either psychopathic or somebody out to make a MASSIVE point.
Good point, perhaps they should be tested for psychopathy. In such a case no need for motive.
One big question remaining is with regards to the murder weapon used to murder the male victim. How is it possible that the same weapon was used on both victims when the wounds inficted are so different?
Rape as motive doesn't stand up for me.
If they were looking to rape then a single female is their target....and even if they were interrupted why not run away?
So let's assume they stay to fight....they then murder and then continue with the rape followed by another murder?
It doesn't stand up....a rapist does not want any interference....and I would think the first thought if interrupted would be to run....especially at that time of the morning in the dark.
So....let's go back again.....motive?
Why does there have to be a motive ?
A foreign man was killed by a Thai because he showed him the finger in Chiang Mai after stopping on red light . Foreigners been beaten to death before in this country and the motives has not always been clear.
Whether it's a Thai or a Burmese migrant worker who killed them , there does not have to be aclear motive. They were drunk and saw naked bodies having sex on the beach , maybe they exchanged a few words that angered the suspects , if you have that short fuse , it doesn't require much of a motive to kill .
When you say the word 'because' you are about to answer the question WHY? And the 'why' is what we call "a motive".
Why did the man beat the foreigner to death in Chiang Mai after stopping at a red light? Because the foreigner gave him the finger [resulting in a furious outburst].
Is this a normal reaction? Perhaps he meant to only punch the guy, and perhaps the victim fell back and banged his head, dying from complications due to internal injuries. Now we have a motive and this motive allows us to diminish or mitigate the crime. It can work to show why someone committed the action they did. But it can also help that person explain their intent or rationalise their behaviour within a context.
This man lashed out over a finger? Ludicrous! that cant be right!
Perhaps he really did beat him to death over something so utterly trivial. We can find out his mental history. We can go to his workplace and interview his colleagues to see if he has anger issues that would corroborate his motive. Why would the police want to corroborate the mans motive? Good question! Let me explain: If it turns out that he does have anger issues, then the police have more reason to show why they have the correct person when building a case against the accused. But it also helps the accused show that they have a mitigating illness that most normal people don't have. A motive then, is very important when we have to decide if someone committed a crime or not.
The motive allows us to ask more questions and look for more information about our alleged culprit. It allows the police to investigate new information and hopefully turn up something that will contextualise the event. It will help their case against the person. And it will help that person in their defense. Motives are very important.
What if it turns out that this man has no history of furious enragement? Maybe this motive isnt standing up to scrutiny! Not so! We might look at the events leading up to the beating! Perhaps he just had some devastating news? Perhaps he had been drinking? Perhaps it was a very hot, uncomfortable day that day? Perhaps he had been stressed from something and this tiny insult was the final humiliation? This one reaction at this one time provides us a clear starting point to investigate from, and helps the police understand why the person ACTUALLY did what they did even if they say they did what they did because the guy gave him the finger.
It allows the police to show why the person did what they did, whilst also providing the defendant with a contextual explanation to mitigate their behavior and their (over) reaction. Perhaps he had just found out his wife had been killed in an accident? Wouldnt you be sad? Maybe even angry! I sure would! How would you feel if someone said something hurtful to you at that moment? Wouldn't it make you more mad? Maybe in the same situation, we also might have done something that we later regretted? Perhaps that's what happened here too! Perhaps he got so mad that he did something he shouldnt have and now regrets it very much. Perhaps we can now understand that we might also act in the same way in the same situation. We can't say he is innocent, but we can say he has mitigating reasons for his behavior. Maybe we will be more understanding of his action now and not judge him so harshly?
Motives are very important for both the people investigating and the people under investigation. They provide context and turn a black and white abstract act into a human one. We are all human. We have emotions and they are all natural. Sometimes we have to control our strong emotions. But sometimes we aren't always in the best place to do this. Motives help us to explain why something happened and help us to understand events from the viewpoint of the people it happened to.
But okay, we've done some investigation. And we can't find anything. It seems an insane over-reaction. We accept the motive. He clearly over-reacted to something and acted in a manner that very few others would in the same situation. It was spontaneous, heat of the moment, and stupid. He will probably have to accept that this is murder without any mitigation. At best, manslaughter should he be able to convince others that he had no intention to kill the victim. Well, his motive does help show he didnt have any intention so at least his motive won't HURT his argument!
But whats this!!! Perhaps, on later investigation it turns out that the man who beat the foreigner to death actually knew the foreigner because the foreigner was sleeping with his wife. So now we have a clear picture of why the act was carried out and corroborating evidence that shows this person had cause to act in this way. And the fact he lied about his motive to pretend this was an impulsive act based on pride or anger rather than a calculated and planned attack will now count AGAINST him in a court. It will show that in providing this motive, he acted and continues to act in a calculated and premeditated manner by lying about his reasons and not disclosing his true motive. He thus shows no remorse for his action and would no doubt do it again. This 'motive' will help the police show he deserves a stronger punishment and it will therefore hurt any claim by the accused person to have acted spontaneously and in the heat of the moment. Because he is lying about why he killed that person, he will show he has no remorse for his action. And because he has no remorse and had planned his attack, It would lead to him serving a more severe term
So that's what a motive is and why it is important. I hope you've enjoyed this after-school special on MOTIVES.
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
No I think as you have done with this case you are doing with my post and that is you are seeing and hearing what suites you regardless of facts or reality. While many have backed off and are coming to terms that these two are guilty (pending the official court findings) others like yourself seem to be going off the deep end and reading one thing but registering another.
It is like the more confirmation that comes out these guys are guilty (by their own accounts) the more you fight to suggest they are liars and everyone is setting them up -- now even their own embassy and a human rights group.
Actually, if anything what you are doing is taking away information
In the first case (the one you chose to quote), Kyaw Thaung relays a very brief statement about a section of what he heard from the two suspects. He adds absolutely not one bit of his own interpretation to this story. To wit:
We went to the prison [on Koh Samui] and were allowed to meet with the two freely. They confessed to committing the crime under the influence of alcohol. When asked for further details, they said they bashed the victims two or three times each with the blunt end of a hoe, but not with the sharp end. They said they did it because they were drunk but did not intend to kill the couple.
At no point anywhere does he give his interpretation that he is satisfied or dissatisfied with this story. He is RELAYING information. Thats it. The rest of the details and accusations are made MUCH MUCH earlier in the article. Im genuinely amazed you missed them because usually people read the stuff earlier in the passage before getting to the bits in the middle. Maybe youre not like everyone else? I wouldnt want to judge...
And in those parts you find:
1. The same overall themes as relayed by Kyaw Thaung: They met the defendants, they confessed, they told how they did it and why, they claimed they were drunk at the time.
2. A claim by Aung Myo Thant that these stories were 'somewhat inconsistent'
3. A claim that they had been tortured into making their confessions
4. A claim that the forensic reports and evidence provided by the state were inconsistent
5. A claim that the case was 'a set up and not based on hard facts'
Lets now add a couple of new things;
a: we now know that the defendants claim they bashed the skulls of BOTH David and Hannah with the BLUNT end of the hoe. They are now on record as having stated this. They are very clear they did not use the sharp end.
b: They claim they were very drunk.
(both of these will provide a lot more material for people working out this case independently of the RTP).
Im surprised that you would miss all that given it was in the first 10 or so lines of the articles. Pretty hard to miss if im honest. I wonder why youd leave it out? I mean it clearly undermines any attempt to suggest that the embassy and human rights group are satisfied with the case And it certainly undermines any ridiculous claim that the embassy and human rights groups have confirmation of their guilt given that the lawyer sent by the embassy to represent them, says the exact opposite, whilst the human rights person makes no personal statement at all about their satisfaction and simply relates the story told by the defendants without judgement.
I wouldnt want to pass judgement on your own selective reading myself of course, so ill just leave you to explain how this lack of an interpretation gives you the remit to suggest that the embassy and human rights groups are satisfied with events and that this adds to the confirmation of their guilt.
-
14
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
This one you mean?
“We are aware of concerns expressed in relation to the latest developments and expect the Thai authorities to address these thoroughly and transparently.
“The investigation and judicial process remains a matter for the Thai authorities, but we expect it to be conducted in a fair and transparent way. We remain in contact with them and have asked to be kept closely informed
I believe this is what the industry refers to as 'damning with feint praise'. I speak diplomat so let me explain:
The phrase:"We are aware of concerns expressed in relation to the latest development" means 'we are worried by these latest developments, that we are even acknowledging them in a formal statement to the press instead of ignoring them as we'd rather be doing'.
The phrase: "and expect the Thai authorities to address these thoroughly and transparently" means 'and expect the Thai authorities to address the concerns WITH evidence, open to public scrutiny'
"The investigation and judicial process remains a matter for the Thai authorities" means exactly that. Its the next word that is a KILLER in the diplomacy world though:
BUT...
This is a direct criticism of either the handling of the case or the handling of the media in the case. There should be no but in this statement. It should read AND followed by lavish praise at the performance and handling of the case by the Royal Thai Police.
"but, we expect it to be conducted in a fair and transparent way" and here is the real knife twist. Two statements on a lack of transparency within a three sentence statement? An interjection on proper procedure? And then a kiss off with a reminder on fairness. Youd have to be deaf or willfully ignorant not to not hear the message here: The foreign office are currently unsatisfied with events... or at the very least the oversight of these events. The very fact they mention these 'concerns' is also incredibly important since it indicates that the foreign office is having to listen to these concerns AND take them seriously. The only statement the FO WANTS to make is, "We are very grateful to the RTP for their invaluable assistance in... baseless and senseless attacks. " Nowhere do they want to talk about being aware of concerns about transparency and fairness. Nowhere do they want to drop the word BUT after having to point out that this is a matter for Thailand to resolve.
Sorry to have to explain the blindingly obvious to you about subtext. Im sure you can in fact read it
-
4
NACC to go after 38 ex-senators and 268 former MPs
in Thailand News
Posted
I think some of you dont really understand, so let me explain this in a very quick summary.
When you deprive a collective group of people their avenue to representation, those people will feel resentment.
This isnt about Yingluck OR EVEN Thaksin. This is about those two figureheads representing access to the halls of power and influence.
This currently sits unchallenged because people are waiting to see how this 'government' will play out. If we have in effect a couple of years of cosmetic change with the balance of power restored, then people will sit on their ass, hope that the roll of the dice sometimes goes their way and that elite corruption whether red or yellow allows them to benefit. People arent stupid, they are poor. And poor people only want the playing field level so that the influence of money is diminished. If it takes Thaksin or a military dictatorship, there are no sacred cows. They will be looking at their self interest and their family's interest first and foremost.
But if the mask slips, if it becomes apparent this is simply the consolidation of power in the hands of the same people as it always have in an attempt to undermine the growing influence of a democratic red support base, then the safety valve is being dismantled, and people will feel rightly aggreived. You can pretend this is all Thaksin and his Baht propping this up, but its not. Its influence and power. So long as the North (and the new elites) feels it has access to those mechanisms (even if it requires a few years here and there of...whatever this actually is...), then things are in balance. The reds will bide their time for democracy to deliver them a government and go to work to dismantle the road blocks put in place by the previous coup/government for the people through legislation. In their turn, the yellows will then use de facto power or judicial and undemocratic means to hold the democratic will under check. Its all nicely balanced.
But if it goes too far one way and it turns out that one side is no longer willing to play the same stupid game and making an actual grab for power, then shit will happen: J curve theory of revolution dudes. Its pretty simple. So long as the reds believe power will return to them in the short term, no problem. But if it suddenly seems that they are being locked out, the pressure will naturally increase.