delh Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 I go back to jcw's original point that the guy killed a US citzen and they believe 'their laws touch every country'. However you want to avoid the examples provided. The US, in the examples, have shown that that their law touches UK law, ignored it and then extradited. The EG's I have supplied support his theory in that the US have used their own laws, murder or not, on non US citizens, outside of their jurisdiction. Even in a country where no law has been broken (2nd example) Therefore I am happy to support jcw's opinion. You ask me that 'if' you were to ask a follow up question, do I think jcw was thinking of the same examples, I have no idea, so ask him. I haven't avoided them at all. I've said quite straightforwardly that I feel they aren't analogous, explained why and put questions that highlight that contention -- which you prefer to ignore. Passive nationality jurisdiction is something that the US generally does not wish to acknowledge or employ (some countries do) except in cases of terrorism or espionage etc. Can you cite instances that would dispute that? (Are murders of US citizens abroad are always or even usually tried by the Federal government when the accused manages to flee local authorities and return to his native country?) Thanks for answering the follow up. I thought since you wanted to reply to my post to him you might want to continue to speak for him! Oh, and this: "The US, in the examples, have shown that that their law touches UK law, ignored it and then extradited." The US did not extradite (and can not), they asked for the UK to extradite based on their law (the US is not obligated to consider the UK law in doing so -- thus they don't ignore it). The UK can comply or not based on their law and relevant treaties. But again: these are not comparable cases. Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap Do excuse my shortsightedness, the US REQUESTED extradition on what was simply a trade deal. They HAVE used their own laws to charge a non US citizen who, in the eyes of his sovereign nation has not committed a crime. It has to be said, shame on the UK government for giving him up. The subject still supports jcw's original point that he suggests that US laws touch every country. This example confirms that even though no crime was committed in the eyes of UK law, US still wanted their man and now have him. For the record, you suggested jcw's point was based on his imagination. Whether he was thinking about these examples, I have no idea but nevertheless, it is not imagination, it is fact. However you choose to see it, regardless of the crime, the US have, given these examples, touched other countries laws. I see it differently to you. Maybe we should agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteeleJoe Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 "Do excuse my shortsightedness..." That's not called shortsightedness. It's called inaccuracy. "...the US REQUESTED extradition on what was simply a trade deal." You characterize it as "simply" that. Others don't. " They HAVE used their own laws to charge a non US citizen who, in the eyes of his sovereign nation has not committed a crime." Yes, they have. And there's not a single country -- including the UK -- that writes it's laws or applies them in such a way as to always be in line with any other country's. They charged him for breaking US law and he can only be punished there. It is indeed the UK government that you should be complaining about. "The subject still supports jcw's original point that he suggests that US laws touch every country. This example confirms that even though no crime was committed in the eyes of UK law, US still wanted their man and now have him." Uhmm...no, it doesn't. US law applies in the US. They requested the right to try him in the US and the UK agreed. It wasn't a murder and moreover your very description highlights how this instance is different: murder IS a crime in the UK. "For the record, you suggested jcw's point was based on his imagination. Whether he was thinking about these examples, I have no idea but nevertheless, it is not imagination, it is fact." I am the one looking at facts and asking for some that are actually relevant -- you don't feel inclined to produce any (your perogative of course) or can not do so. What is left is sheer conjecture based on...imagination. "However you choose to see it, regardless of the crime, the US have, given these examples, touched other countries laws." No, they haven't. They broke no UK laws nor changed any. They are US laws applied in the US (with the assent of the UK). If you can show me where the US requested the extradition of a foreign national who murdered a US citizen in a third country, then we can use that as a basis to speculate what they would do in this instance. Otherwise... We do agree on your implicit message in the last line: we aren't likely to get anywhere with this and should drop it. Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delh Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 (edited) "Do excuse my shortsightedness..." That's not called shortsightedness. It's called inaccuracy. "...the US REQUESTED extradition on what was simply a trade deal." You characterize it as "simply" that. Others don't. " They HAVE used their own laws to charge a non US citizen who, in the eyes of his sovereign nation has not committed a crime." Yes, they have. And there's not a single country -- including the UK -- that writes it's laws or applies them in such a way as to always be in line with any other country's. They charged him for breaking US law and he can only be punished there. It is indeed the UK government that you should be complaining about. "The subject still supports jcw's original point that he suggests that US laws touch every country. This example confirms that even though no crime was committed in the eyes of UK law, US still wanted their man and now have him." Uhmm...no, it doesn't. US law applies in the US. They requested the right to try him in the US and the UK agreed. It wasn't a murder and moreover your very description highlights how this instance is different: murder IS a crime in the UK. "For the record, you suggested jcw's point was based on his imagination. Whether he was thinking about these examples, I have no idea but nevertheless, it is not imagination, it is fact." I am the one looking at facts and asking for some that are actually relevant -- you don't feel inclined to produce any (your perogative of course) or can not do so. What is left is sheer conjecture based on...imagination. "However you choose to see it, regardless of the crime, the US have, given these examples, touched other countries laws." No, they haven't. They broke no UK laws nor changed any. They are US laws applied in the US (with the assent of the UK). If you can show me where the US requested the extradition of a foreign national who murdered a US citizen in a third country, then we can use that as a basis to speculate what they would do in this instance. Otherwise... We do agree on your implicit message in the last line: we aren't likely to get anywhere with this and should drop it. Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap #38 was not case/crime or specific in any way. #39, your point, suggested you wish to base your beliefs on factual info, fair enough. I have offered some facts, supporting #38, not crime specific, nevertheless factual. Your line ' They charged him for breaking US law and he can only be punished there' is astounding. HE WASN'T THERE. He was in the UK. Working under UK law. Not US law. You then confirm they are 'US laws' applied in the US' but, for me at least, the US are not happy with this man operating within UK laws whilst he was in the UK. For me, they have succeeded in applying US law in the UK. If he was in the US, operating within US law, which he was NOT, fair enough. But he was in the UK operating within UK law. For me at least, this suggests the US finding a way to operate US law outside of their jurisdiction, on foreign soil where the laws differ. Or, as jcw puts it 'US touching other countries laws' We will not agree on this, that much is clear. Have a nice day. Edited November 29, 2012 by delh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnlandy Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Scary. Your own country deports you to a third world country. 3rd world country! where are they deporting this guy to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrer Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 (edited) Scary. Your own country deports you to a third world country. 3rd world country! where are they deporting this guy to? They're not deporting him. Edited November 29, 2012 by cbrer 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angsta Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Scary. Your own country deports you to a third world country. No, they didn't deport him. They extradited him. If you don't know the differences between them, look it up -- but here's one of them: you are extradited when your government agrees there's a credible criminal charge against you/you should stand trial for something (serious) you are accused of. Your characterization is dumb and deliberately dishonest. Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap This stands only if you think that anyone particularly a farang gets a fair trial in a Thai court and I think we all know he has no chance. I don't know if he did it or not but he has no chance at a trial here. Zero. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteeleJoe Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Scary. Your own country deports you to a third world country. No, they didn't deport him. They extradited him. If you don't know the differences between them, look it up -- but here's one of them: you are extradited when your government agrees there's a credible criminal charge against you/you should stand trial for something (serious) you are accused of. Your characterization is dumb and deliberately dishonest. Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap This stands only if you think that anyone particularly a farang gets a fair trial in a Thai court and I think we all know he has no chance. I don't know if he did it or not but he has no chance at a trial here. Zero. Uhhm, no -- it stands regardless. Deportation and extradition are 2 different things. The latter is, among other things, roughly as I described. The characterization of it as 'deportation to a third world country' is dumb and dishonest. Your view of the Thai justice system here changes nothing about any of that. I myself, having some familiarity with it, have very little good to say about law enforcement here or the integrity of the courts. Having said that, I'd be interested to hear some support for your contention, especially the claim that his ethnicity/nationality will work against him. And as a matter of interest -- how familiar are you with the reported facts of the case and the evidence said to be available? Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansgruber Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 What time tomorrow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrer Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 This stands only if you think that anyone particularly a farang gets a fair trial in a Thai court and I think we all know he has no chance. I don't know if he did it or not but he has no chance at a trial here. Zero. Nonsense. He's got five million baht. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsetBkk Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 "One officer familiar with the investigation said today that a careful watch had been kept on a bank account belonging to Aldhouse. The account was topped up with five million baht before Aldhouse fled Thailand, but no withdrawals had been made."Source: Google it. Some forums are delicate in their business ties. Wonder what that will be used for.... I Googled it. All references that quote a source quote the same source - the Phuket Gazette reject, Morison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taninthai Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 I wonder how his enjoying the flight..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokie36 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 I wonder how long this high profile case will take to come to court? If he actually arrives in Thailand that is of course.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boater Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I wonder how long this high profile case will take to come to court? If he actually arrives in Thailand that is of course.... He has already arrived ! , flew into bkk this morning , and scheduled to arrive Phuket at 7pm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marinediscoking Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I would not be surprises if he is a "shriveled little runt" now since being locked up for the last 2 years and with no access to steroids. I hope they don't grant him bail after this extradition, but it would not surprise me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivinginKata Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 He has already arrived ! , flew into bkk this morning , and scheduled to arrive Phuket at 7pm Good, any evidence to verify this ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marinediscoking Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 He has already arrived ! , flew into bkk this morning , and scheduled to arrive Phuket at 7pm Good, any evidence to verify this ??? It is in the other Phuket paper that is banned on TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivinginKata Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 He has already arrived ! , flew into bkk this morning , and scheduled to arrive Phuket at 7pm Good, any evidence to verify this ??? It is in the other Phuket paper that is banned on TV. Not banned, just not allowed by the management of that other paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I would not be surprises if he is a "shriveled little runt" now since being locked up for the last 2 years and with no access to steroids. I hope they don't grant him bail after this extradition, but it would not surprise me. They won't grant him bail, he has proven to be a flight risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntMan1 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) Its on the bbc website http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-20566341 Edited December 1, 2012 by AntMan1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrer Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) I would not be surprises if he is a "shriveled little runt" now since being locked up for the last 2 years and with no access to steroids. I hope they don't grant him bail after this extradition, but it would not surprise me. They won't grant him bail, he has proven to be a flight risk. Yup. The courts of Thailand would never let a flight risk out on bail, not even because they want to visit the Olympics. To be fair, I doubt his 5 million baht will be used for that. He's here because he knows he'll be back home (and then released) in no time. Edited December 1, 2012 by cbrer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntMan1 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 5 million baht is peanuts, this case is too high profile for him to be out in a couple of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrer Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) 5 million baht is peanuts, this case is too high profile for him to be out in a couple of years. Plead guilty - sentence is halved. Sent back to England after a short time. Time in custody also to be accounted, he'll be eating steak with his feet up in no time. Though he'll probably be doing that in Thai prison anyway. Brought to him by his servants. Edited December 1, 2012 by cbrer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntMan1 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Much of the time in the UK jail was finishing a previous sentence, was it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrer Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) Much of the time in the UK jail was finishing a previous sentence, was it not? He was picked up on arrival on outstanding warrants or parole violations. I believe it was for 3-6 months. Hardly likely to have much on affect on how soon he'll be drinking his scotch with his feet up. Edited December 1, 2012 by cbrer 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntMan1 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) Cber i bet you like i thought he was never going to get extradited, that cynicism was clearly wrong thus no need to continue with that way of thinking until proven otherwise. Edited December 1, 2012 by AntMan1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrer Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Cber i bet you like i thought he was never going to get extradited, that cynicism was clearly wrong thus no need to continue with that way of thinking until proven otherwise. No idea what you're on about. But I know it isn't related to countering my point in any meaningful manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarangTalk Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) Scary. Your own country deports you to a third world country. Thailand is no longer a third world country just as Great Britain is no longer great or medieval Thailand is very much still third world in many regards as Britain still remains great in many areas. The jails in Thailand seem to have remained firmly in the third world while their shopping malls have not for example. Small minded and jealous, bitter people take pleasure in the demise of Great Britain but there can never be a comparison between Thailand and Britain; Britain sacrificed her postwar future for the sake of the World. Thailand would never and will never do anything of the sort. Anyway, I digress, and I must admit I am disappointed in the English court's decision as I do not believe, knowing the Thai justice system as I do, that any foreigner will get anything like a fair trial in Thailand regardless of the evidence or crime committed. I would advocate a system similar to the French model, where British criminals charged with a crime abroad are tried in their respective countries' justice systems. Edited December 1, 2012 by FarangTalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marinediscoking Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I don't think this case will even get to court before 2014. However if convicted it will be a long sentence in thai terms, a would say 8 years before being allowed exchanged to Britten. A very high profile case, my expat friends have been following this case closely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukrules Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I'm highly surprised he didn't appeal this all the way to the European Court of Human Rights as he would have had a reasonable chance of preventing the extradition, that's not to say that he would have been allowed to get away with it. I do wonder if any time he's served in the UK prison system will count towards his final sentence, if not then it's possible he decided to get it over with rather than drag it out for another few years only to potentially have his sentence eventually start from day 1 in Thailand if he lost the appeal. I'm pretty sure a lot of behind the scenes dealing will have gone on here between the Aldhouse lawyers, the FCO and their Thai counterparts. If anything ever happens to this Aldhouse guy while he's in prison in Thailand it will backfire spectacularly on both the Thai and UK Governments and could have profound effects on any future requests from anywhere in Europe. Any repercussions of what happens in Thailand will go right back to the British government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntMan1 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) Cber i bet you like i thought he was never going to get extradited, that cynicism was clearly wrong thus no need to continue with that way of thinking until proven otherwise. No idea what you're on about. But I know it isn't related to countering my point in any meaningful manner. Ah yes Cber i see you are one of those posters on Thaivisa, i was pointing out your cynicism was wrong, yet you seem to wish to continue it. Edited December 1, 2012 by AntMan1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts