202 replies to this topic
Posted 2008-10-06 15:21:36
 bangkokrick, on 2008-10-06 18:14:47, said:
auserb, on 2008-10-06 14:58:03, said: goonerthegooner, on 2008-10-06 15:07:21, said: They let everybody else live in the UK,Terrorists,etc,so why not two on the run as well.
I am sure our stupid government will give them a British Passport,and of course 24 hour Police protection,not forgetting they will be able too claim every State Benefit going,all at our taxpayers expense. 
Send them both back to Thailand too face the music. 
What is wrong with Mr. Taksin??? I ask you he is well off, has family well respected in Thailand but not with PAD. geeee I love him.
But for England . huh, they sure love him coz he has money (am I wrong or am I wrong  ) England will take anybody , sure as long as they can benefit from them. Ask yourself would Mr. Taksin be welcome if he was broke???? haaaaaaaaaaaa. nopeee 
Get your facts right auserb. Britain do not only take people that they can benefit from.
Funny you never mentioned Pinochet.... 
Asylum applications to the UK
Under UK immigration rules, asylum is granted only in cases where refugees can prove that if they return to their country of origin they will be persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular group, or political opinion. This is in accordance with the 1951 United Nations (UN) convention relating to the status of refugees (and its 1967 protocol), and article three of the European convention on human rights. The rules exclude the vast majority of refugees currently allowed to stay in the UK under exceptional leave.
During 1999 there were 71,000 applications for political asylum in the UK, involving chiefly Kosovar refugees from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and, in fewer numbers, Somalis, Sri Lankan Tamils, Afghans, Turkish and Iraqi Kurds, Albanians, and Chinese. By January 2000, there were 105,000 asylum seekers (not counting dependants) who were awaiting a decision on their status or who were appealing expulsion orders. Home Office statistics suggested that 36% of asylum applicants processed in 1999 were genuine refugees, but a further 11% were allowed to remain in the UK on compassionate grounds. Other figures suggested that fewer than 10% of those refused permission to stay had actually been deported (left the country), the remainder having disappeared into the population. New legislation came into effect in the UK on 1 April 2000, which, among other changes, provided for the 'fast track' processing of non‐complex cases, replaced welfare benefits with a food voucher system, worth £35 a week for an adult, and allowed asylum seekers to be forcibly dispersed into accommodation around the UK. The new measures enabled the numbers awaiting a decision to fall to around 90,000 by May 2000. However, the indirect and direct cost to the UK of supporting asylum seekers soared to £900 million in the 1999–2000 financial year.
Not too many rich people here. Also Taksin has the right to apply on the grounds that he stated that he has had threats on his life in Thailand, be it true or not.
By the way i think that he should be sent back to Thailand for trial.
Cheers, Rick
Posted 2008-10-06 15:22:29
bangkokrick, on 2008-10-06 14:37:04, said: ezside, on 2008-10-06 13:13:12, said: ghillie44, on 2008-10-06 13:04:35, said: Oh dear here we go again. England = Britain = UK. England = England.
Sad that English people are the only nationality in the world who do not know their own country's name or borders.
Off-topic, but what is the name of the island? Britain? Great Britain? If the latter, is there a non-great Britain, too?
This can be very complicated to explain to people that are not from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But here goes.
The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom are the only two sovereign states. Ireland and Great Britain are both islands. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are constituent countries of the United Kingdom.
You have the basic idea. There are many other islands in the British Isles. Most of these are politically part of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland, with the exceptions of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which are British crown dependencies and not part of the UK (or ROI) at all.
Complications
The UK's full name is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Citizens of the UK are called "British". One British person is called a Briton.
The ROI's full name is "The Republic of Ireland" (if you are speaking English) or "Éire" (if you are speaking Irish). Citizens of the ROI are called "Irish".
Irish citizens are not British citizens. British citizens are not Irish citizens. God help you if you forget this when you encounter an Irishman.
Ethnically:
People from England are called English.
People from Scotland are called Scottish.
People from Wales are called Welsh.
People from Northern Ireland are called Northern Irish.
People from Ireland are called Irish.
There is no such thing as English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish citizenship. English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people almost always hold British citizenships. Of course, anybody, living anywhere in the British Isles, can have any ethnicity, and hold any citizenship.
Many people living in Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK) are Irish citizens. Some British citizens living in Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK) classify themselves as Irish-ethnic. Some people living in Northern Ireland would even like Northern Ireland itself classified as Irish i.e. made part of the ROI instead of the UK. This is a contentious point.
The ROI is not British. However, the "British Isles" include both the UK and ROI. Irish citizens and Irish-ethnic people hate this, but there is no consensus on what to call it instead.
So where is Taksin appyling for Asylum. LOL
Cheers, Rick
 .
United Kingdom came about in 1603 when King James IV of Scotland ascended the English throne. Uniting two kingdoms under one crown as King James I.
Wales was at that time and still is legally, under English law a Principality.
The above was attempted by the Plantagenet King, Edward I but he failed. His son Edward III rescinded the claim in 1328 (Treaty of Northampton)
That was the United Kingdom of Great Britain. (Great Britain is the largest island in the British isles)
The political union came about in 1707 when the Scottish and English parliments joined. You then had the flag of the Union.
Comprising
St Andrews = Scotland. (White saltire on a blue background)
St George = England. (Red cross on a white background)
In 1801 it changed to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The Union flag, then had added, the Irish flag of:
St Patrick = Red saltire on a white background
The British Monarch ruled over Ireland, until 1922
In 1922, 26 of Ireland's 32 counties attained independence to form a separate Irish Free State.
The remaining truncated (political) kingdom has therefore, since then been known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The Irish flag (St Patrick) was kept in the Union flag.
Northern Ireland took up the cross of St George (England) with a red hand in the middle.
Not believe??? Check Wilepedia 
Edited by tmd5855, 2008-10-06 15:25:07.
Posted 2008-10-06 15:26:21
I read the first two dozen posts and assume the whole lot continue in the same way: Britain is a terrible place for giving Thaksin asylum, and even for allowing him in.
1) Anybody of his wealth who has not been convicted of a crime is usually allowed into the UK, and can continue to live there as long as they like. That is the law, applied across the board.
2) He has simply applied for asylum; he has not been granted it. In my opinion, he won't get it. In fact, I would be amazed if he got it. That is how I perceive UK asylum law and the way it is administered.
All you ranters slagging off Britain understand very little.
Posted 2008-10-06 15:27:58
hammered, on 2008-10-06 15:20:16, said: loiner100, on 2008-10-06 14:23:08, said: This appears to be the best SIMPLIFIED definition I could find from UNHCR for a reason to consider political asylum.
"Unjustly exiled from their home country, refugees are persons forced to migrate to a new country for security and protection. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (the UN refugee agency) legally defines refugees as “people who are outside their countries because of a well-founded fear of persecution based on their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or social group.”"
UK Immigration also say:
"While many come to UK in the hope of finding sanctuary, others realise only after arrival that circumstances in their country have changed and that it would not be safe for them or their families to return."
I will be interested in seeing the arguement about how asylum is needed when your own brother-in-law hand picked by yuo is PM and the whole government are your own puppets. Usually asylum is to escape government persecution. Surely Chamlong would have a better case. The charges against Thaksin are mostly criminal too.
No doubt in the end money will win out and Thaksin and family will be able to mix with the Russian oligarchs. However, this wont be an asylum case the British government will enjoy. The precedent of asylum being granted when you have your own people in power could have ramifications the government wont like too.
I think the argument would be based on the politicisation of the judicial system in Thailand, not too difficult for a few razor sharp QCs to demonstrate.The almost comical contrast between the sacking of the PM for a trivial TV cooking show and the blatant defiance of the law by the PAD leadership has already sunk into the international consciousness.However my guess is that it won't come to the British courts, not least because apart from a few crazies no elite Thai in a position of authority wants Thaksin back in Thailand.
Posted 2008-10-06 15:29:11
auserb, on 2008-10-06 18:21:36, said: bangkokrick, on 2008-10-06 18:14:47, said: auserb, on 2008-10-06 14:58:03, said: goonerthegooner, on 2008-10-06 15:07:21, said: They let everybody else live in the UK,Terrorists,etc,so why not two on the run as well.
I am sure our stupid government will give them a British Passport,and of course 24 hour Police protection,not forgetting they will be able too claim every State Benefit going,all at our taxpayers expense.
Send them both back to Thailand too face the music.
What is wrong with Mr. Taksin??? I ask you he is well off, has family well respected in Thailand but not with PAD. geeee I love him.
But for England . huh, they sure love him coz he has money (am I wrong or am I wrong ) England will take anybody , sure as long as they can benefit from them. Ask yourself would Mr. Taksin be welcome if he was broke???? haaaaaaaaaaaa. nopeee
Get your facts right auserb. Britain do not only take people that they can benefit from.
Funny you never mentioned Pinochet....
Asylum applications to the UK
Under UK immigration rules, asylum is granted only in cases where refugees can prove that if they return to their country of origin they will be persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular group, or political opinion. This is in accordance with the 1951 United Nations (UN) convention relating to the status of refugees (and its 1967 protocol), and article three of the European convention on human rights. The rules exclude the vast majority of refugees currently allowed to stay in the UK under exceptional leave.
During 1999 there were 71,000 applications for political asylum in the UK, involving chiefly Kosovar refugees from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and, in fewer numbers, Somalis, Sri Lankan Tamils, Afghans, Turkish and Iraqi Kurds, Albanians, and Chinese. By January 2000, there were 105,000 asylum seekers (not counting dependants) who were awaiting a decision on their status or who were appealing expulsion orders. Home Office statistics suggested that 36% of asylum applicants processed in 1999 were genuine refugees, but a further 11% were allowed to remain in the UK on compassionate grounds. Other figures suggested that fewer than 10% of those refused permission to stay had actually been deported (left the country), the remainder having disappeared into the population. New legislation came into effect in the UK on 1 April 2000, which, among other changes, provided for the 'fast track' processing of non‐complex cases, replaced welfare benefits with a food voucher system, worth £35 a week for an adult, and allowed asylum seekers to be forcibly dispersed into accommodation around the UK. The new measures enabled the numbers awaiting a decision to fall to around 90,000 by May 2000. However, the indirect and direct cost to the UK of supporting asylum seekers soared to £900 million in the 1999–2000 financial year.
Not too many rich people here. Also Taksin has the right to apply on the grounds that he stated that he has had threats on his life in Thailand, be it true or not.
By the way i think that he should be sent back to Thailand for trial.
Cheers, Rick
Yes Ricky, as I sai ....Funny you never mentioned Pinochet and in this dialog we are talking about individuals not the whole of the nation my dear friend.. I love Taksin and his govrnment.. I am most probably only individual who supports people from remote Thailand and Isan
Posted 2008-10-06 15:31:54
spr&q, on 2008-10-06 09:26:21, said: I read the first two dozen posts and assume the whole lot continue in the same way: Britain is a terrible place for giving Thaksin asylum, and even for allowing him in.
1) Anybody of his wealth who has not been convicted of a crime is usually allowed into the UK, and can continue to live there as long as they like. That is the law, applied across the board.
2) He has simply applied for asylum; he has not been granted it. In my opinion, he won't get it. In fact, I would be amazed if he got it. That is how I perceive UK asylum law and the way it is administered.
All you ranters slagging off Britain understand very little.
There have been enough stories thrown about in the press about whispered threats to his life that I think he has an excellent chance of getting asylum.
Posted 2008-10-06 15:34:02
I am British, but sometimes(most of the time) I get pi*sed off with how our government operates, this is just another example of things that make me angry. Why doesn't the British government look at the things he/she has done over here, how about their racist attitude towards westerners.
How about making laws reciprocal with other countries, i.e visas, property ownership, business ownership etc etc. It seems if you have enough money you are welcomed with open arms otherwise, screw you.
Sorry, rant over.
Posted 2008-10-06 15:36:24
auserb, on 2008-10-06 15:21:36, said: bangkokrick, on 2008-10-06 18:14:47, said: auserb, on 2008-10-06 14:58:03, said: goonerthegooner, on 2008-10-06 15:07:21, said: They let everybody else live in the UK,Terrorists,etc,so why not two on the run as well.
I am sure our stupid government will give them a British Passport,and of course 24 hour Police protection,not forgetting they will be able too claim every State Benefit going,all at our taxpayers expense.
Send them both back to Thailand too face the music.
What is wrong with Mr. Taksin??? I ask you he is well off, has family well respected in Thailand but not with PAD. geeee I love him.
But for England . huh, they sure love him coz he has money (am I wrong or am I wrong ) England will take anybody , sure as long as they can benefit from them. Ask yourself would Mr. Taksin be welcome if he was broke???? haaaaaaaaaaaa. nopeee
Get your facts right auserb. Britain do not only take people that they can benefit from.
Funny you never mentioned Pinochet....
We are all aware of Pinochet so why mention him. I simply stated the laws on political asylum and the rights of those who wish to apply. Maybe the British Government will deport the Taksins to Australia as they have done with so many in the past.
Cheers, Rick
Posted 2008-10-06 15:37:26
younghusband, on 2008-10-06 15:27:58, said: hammered, on 2008-10-06 15:20:16, said: loiner100, on 2008-10-06 14:23:08, said: This appears to be the best SIMPLIFIED definition I could find from UNHCR for a reason to consider political asylum.
"Unjustly exiled from their home country, refugees are persons forced to migrate to a new country for security and protection. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (the UN refugee agency) legally defines refugees as “people who are outside their countries because of a well-founded fear of persecution based on their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or social group.”"
UK Immigration also say:
"While many come to UK in the hope of finding sanctuary, others realise only after arrival that circumstances in their country have changed and that it would not be safe for them or their families to return."
I will be interested in seeing the arguement about how asylum is needed when your own brother-in-law hand picked by yuo is PM and the whole government are your own puppets. Usually asylum is to escape government persecution. Surely Chamlong would have a better case. The charges against Thaksin are mostly criminal too.
No doubt in the end money will win out and Thaksin and family will be able to mix with the Russian oligarchs. However, this wont be an asylum case the British government will enjoy. The precedent of asylum being granted when you have your own people in power could have ramifications the government wont like too.
I think the argument would be based on the politicisation of the judicial system in Thailand, not too difficult for a few razor sharp QCs to demonstrate.The almost comical contrast between the sacking of the PM for a trivial TV cooking show and the blatant defiance of the law by the PAD leadership has already sunk into the international consciousness.However my guess is that it won't come to the British courts, not least because apart from a few crazies no elite Thai in a position of authority wants Thaksin back in Thailand.
I dont think it will come to court too. Dont the Home Office decide on asylum cases anyway? However, I dont think it is a slam dunk that he will get asylum. Not only is the puppet government arguement difficult and precedent setting, but also the arrest of his enemies doesnt exactly mark the courts as bias. On the other hand I think he will be able to stay in the UK forever and I agree there are many elite who dont ever want to see him back again. There are even quite a lot of non-elite who dont want him back anymore.
Posted 2008-10-06 15:39:48
Thai at Heart, on 2008-10-06 15:31:54, said: There have been enough stories thrown about in the press about whispered threats to his life that I think he has an excellent chance of getting asylum.
Personally I would hope that, since he believes himself to be a target for assassins and too afraid to go to matches at his former football-club, he might be seen to be a potential source of trouble if he stays in the UK, so the government might see it as too dangerous to let him stay in the UK.
Keep the streets of London & Manchester safe for home-grown muggers & beggars !
Posted 2008-10-06 15:48:04
I don't care what you say, Scotland will NEVER be part of England. I don't care how much they cry and wail to be English, how hard they hammer on Hadrian's wall or chuck haggis and porridge over at us begging to be let in, or how long or loud Sean Connery and Billy Connolly bemoan the misfortune of their birth. No people who sport beards and frocks simultaneously can be granted Rhodes' first prize in life's lottery.
Posted 2008-10-06 15:52:27
[quote name='bangkokrick' post='2258056' date='2008-10-06 18:36:24'][quote name='auserb' post='2258023' date='2008-10-06 15:21:36'][quote name='bangkokrick' post='2258009' date='2008-10-06 18:14:47'][quote name='auserb' post='2257976' date='2008-10-06 14:58:03'][quote name='goonerthegooner' post='2257566' date='2008-10-06 15:07:21']They let everybody else live in the UK,Terrorists,etc,so why not two on the run as well.
I am sure our stupid government will give them a British Passport,and of course 24 hour Police protection,not forgetting they will be able too claim every State Benefit going,all at our taxpayers expense.
Send them both back to Thailand too face the music. [/quote]
What is wrong with Mr. Taksin??? I ask you he is well off, has family well respected in Thailand but not with PAD. geeee I love him.
But for England . huh, they sure love him coz he has money (am I wrong or am I wrong ) England will take anybody , sure as long as they can benefit from them. Ask yourself would Mr. Taksin be welcome if he was broke???? haaaaaaaaaaaa. nopeee
[/quote]
Get your facts right auserb. Britain do not only take people that they can benefit from.
Funny you never mentioned Pinochet....
[/quote]
We are all aware of Pinochet so why mention him. I simply stated the laws on political asylum and the rights of those who wish to apply. Maybe the British Government will deport the Taksins to Australia as they have done with so many in the past.
Cheers, Rick
[/quote]
[/quote]
My dear friend..... if we are talking about depportation ???? England, to my recolection never depported rich people......Firstly they will grant Mr. Taksin visa.....I guaranty you milion to one..........later, they are going to deport him back to Thailan when they know there is no more use of him.....no pain no gaim.... About Australia, my friend Mr. Taksin was welcome to Australia and Australian people was sorry to see him go..
Chears,
auserb
Posted 2008-10-06 15:52:59
a great scenario would be - asylum on the condition that his diplomatic passport is surrended - then see how far he can travel - most countries in the western world require Thai's to have a visa to enter - and they won't grant visa's if you are on the run from the law or are a convicted crim who has skipped bail (pokeman) so they may be stuck in dreary old UK for the rest of their days or come back to Thailand and face the music - oh how the wheel turns.
Posted 2008-10-06 15:58:21
[quote name='auserb' post='2258083' date='2008-10-06 15:52:27'][quote name='bangkokrick' post='2258056' date='2008-10-06 18:36:24'][quote name='auserb' post='2258023' date='2008-10-06 15:21:36'][quote name='bangkokrick' post='2258009' date='2008-10-06 18:14:47'][quote name='auserb' post='2257976' date='2008-10-06 14:58:03'][quote name='goonerthegooner' post='2257566' date='2008-10-06 15:07:21']They let everybody else live in the UK,Terrorists,etc,so why not two on the run as well.
I am sure our stupid government will give them a British Passport,and of course 24 hour Police protection,not forgetting they will be able too claim every State Benefit going,all at our taxpayers expense.
Send them both back to Thailand too face the music. [/quote]
What is wrong with Mr. Taksin??? I ask you he is well off, has family well respected in Thailand but not with PAD. geeee I love him.
But for England . huh, they sure love him coz he has money (am I wrong or am I wrong ) England will take anybody , sure as long as they can benefit from them. Ask yourself would Mr. Taksin be welcome if he was broke???? haaaaaaaaaaaa. nopeee
[/quote]
Get your facts right auserb. Britain do not only take people that they can benefit from.
Funny you never mentioned Pinochet....
[/quote]
We are all aware of Pinochet so why mention him. I simply stated the laws on political asylum and the rights of those who wish to apply. Maybe the British Government will deport the Taksins to Australia as they have done with so many in the past.
Cheers, Rick
[/quote]
[/quote]
My dear friend..... if we are talking about depportation ???? England, to my recolection never depported rich people......Firstly they will grant Mr. Taksin visa.....I guaranty you milion to one..........later, they are going to deport him back to Thailan when they know there is no more use of him.....no pain no gaim.... About Australia, my friend Mr. Taksin was welcome to Australia and Australian people was sorry to see him go..
Chears,
auserb
[/quote]
Silly old me thinking that Australian people respected the idea of rule of law and all that goes with it, and believed in fair play and all that kind of nonsense. I stand corrected, auserb, that the Australian people actually support extra-judicial execution on a mass scale as practiced by that hero of Australia ex-Thai PM Thaksin.
I think not.
Posted 2008-10-06 16:00:05
george, on 2008-10-06 12:03:34, said: Thaksin Shinawatra seeking political asylum in Britain
Former Manchester City owner Thaksin Shinawatra is seeking political asylum in Britain.
The Home Office has confirmed the ex-Thailand Prime Minister, 59, and his wife Pojaman have both applied to stay.
They returned here in August after skipping a Bangkok court hearing, prompting Thai officials to issue arrest warrants.
Dr Shinawatra, who last month sold the Premier League to an Abu Dhabi group for £210million, was ousted from power in a military coup in 2006.
He faces probes over alleged corruption and abuse of power. In July his wife was sentenced to three years for evading taxes. Dr Shinawatra, who denies any wrongdoing, has said he feels he cannot get a fair trial in Thailand and fears for his life.
--Sunday Mirror UK, 2008-10-05
Thaksin who has done nothing for the UK (except buy and sell a football team) is allowed to stay in total luxury, with ALL the benefits (including health!) whilst the Ghurkhas who died for the UK get treated like crap - I dont trust potiticians.
Posted 2008-10-06 16:02:58
loiner100, on 2008-10-06 14:23:08, said: This appears to be the best SIMPLIFIED definition I could find from UNHCR for a reason to consider political asylum.
"Unjustly exiled from their home country, refugees are persons forced to migrate to a new country for security and protection. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (the UN refugee agency) legally defines refugees as “people who are outside their countries because of a well-founded fear of persecution based on their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or social group.”"
UK Immigration also say:
"While many come to UK in the hope of finding sanctuary, others realise only after arrival that circumstances in their country have changed and that it would not be safe for them or their families to return."
from a different thread of Pokemon's....
sriracha john, on 2008-08-07 15:36:57, said: redman, on 2008-08-07 14:57:31, said: sriracha john, on 2008-08-06 20:43:57, said: Pojaman flies out amid asylum reports   
Pojaman Shinawatra, the wife of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, flew to China with her adopted brother and secretary amid rumours that they would seek political asylum abroad.
Pojaman, Bhannapot Damapong, and Kanchanapa Honghern left Thailand at 10.40 AM from Suvarnabhumi Airport in Bangkok to Beijing. They were seen to carry several luggages with them. Some of her three children broke down into tears as they saw her off.
The report has been rife that they would seek political asylum after the Criminal Court sentenced the three to three years in jail after finding them guilty of tax evasion worth 546 Million Baht for the transactions of Shinawatra Computer and Communications shares.
The Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders summoned both Thaksin and Pojaman, the defendants in the Rachadapisek land purchase case to give their last testimony on August 22.
Thaksin has been expected to return from China to Thailand on August 10. He left Thailand to Japan on August 1 to give a special lecture.
- The Nation
Might I ask on what grounds they would seek Political Asylum? Or is it something one can buy nowadays? Convicted criminals are allowed to flee the country while rumours fly that they are going for good? Mind boggles although we should all be used to it by now.
Here's the choices...
The United Nations 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees guides national legislation concerning political asylum. Under these agreements, a refugee is a person who is outside their own country's territory owing to fear of persecution on protected grounds.
Protected grounds include:
1. race
2. nationality
3. religion
4. political opinions
5. membership and/or participation in any particular social group or social activities.
==============================================
Perhaps she'll go with #5 and claim she needs protection based upon her membership in the Hi-So social group and her participation in various social activities connected to that group.
Edited by sriracha john, 2008-10-06 16:07:36.
Posted 2008-10-06 16:03:55
[quote name='hammered' post='2258091' date='2008-10-06 18:58:21'][quote name='auserb' post='2258083' date='2008-10-06 15:52:27'][quote name='bangkokrick' post='2258056' date='2008-10-06 18:36:24'][quote name='auserb' post='2258023' date='2008-10-06 15:21:36'][quote name='bangkokrick' post='2258009' date='2008-10-06 18:14:47'][quote name='auserb' post='2257976' date='2008-10-06 14:58:03'][quote name='goonerthegooner' post='2257566' date='2008-10-06 15:07:21']They let everybody else live in the UK,Terrorists,etc,so why not two on the run as well.
I am sure our stupid government will give them a British Passport,and of course 24 hour Police protection,not forgetting they will be able too claim every State Benefit going,all at our taxpayers expense.
Send them both back to Thailand too face the music. [/quote]
What is wrong with Mr. Taksin??? I ask you he is well off, has family well respected in Thailand but not with PAD. geeee I love him.
But for England . huh, they sure love him coz he has money (am I wrong or am I wrong ) England will take anybody , sure as long as they can benefit from them. Ask yourself would Mr. Taksin be welcome if he was broke???? haaaaaaaaaaaa. nopeee
[/quote]
Get your facts right auserb. Britain do not only take people that they can benefit from.
Funny you never mentioned Pinochet....
[/quote]
We are all aware of Pinochet so why mention him. I simply stated the laws on political asylum and the rights of those who wish to apply. Maybe the British Government will deport the Taksins to Australia as they have done with so many in the past.
Cheers, Rick
[/quote]
[/quote]
My dear friend..... if we are talking about depportation ???? England, to my recolection never depported rich people......Firstly they will grant Mr. Taksin visa.....I guaranty you milion to one..........later, they are going to deport him back to Thailan when they know there is no more use of him.....no pain no gaim.... About Australia, my friend Mr. Taksin was welcome to Australia and Australian people was sorry to see him go..
Chears,
auserb
[/quote]
Silly old me thinking that Australian people respected the idea of rule of law and all that goes with it, and believed in fair play and all that kind of nonsense. I stand corrected, auserb, that the Australian people actually support extra-judicial execution on a mass scale as practiced by that hero of Australia ex-Thai PM Thaksin.
I think not.
[/quote]
yeah, you might be right too, but please read Mr, Einstains last repport
chears,
auserb
Posted 2008-10-06 16:13:44
unclekleef, on 2008-10-06 17:00:05, said: the Ghurkhas who died for the UK get treated like crap - I dont trust potiticians.
(Partially off topic)
It is true that the UK government hasn't treated the Ghurkhas well in the past and that there was a setback last year re pensions. But did you miss the story last week that a group of pre-1997 retirees won their test case for the right to stay in the UK? A piece of good news in a difficult week!
http://news.bbc.co.u.../uk/7644441.stm
Edited by citizen33, 2008-10-06 16:17:32.
Posted 2008-10-06 16:20:54
bangkokrick, on 2008-10-06 07:37:04, said: ezside, on 2008-10-06 13:13:12, said: ghillie44, on 2008-10-06 13:04:35, said: Oh dear here we go again. England = Britain = UK. England = England.
Sad that English people are the only nationality in the world who do not know their own country's name or borders.
Off-topic, but what is the name of the island? Britain? Great Britain? If the latter, is there a non-great Britain, too?
This can be very complicated to explain to people that are not from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But here goes.
The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom are the only two sovereign states. Ireland and Great Britain are both islands. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are constituent countries of the United Kingdom.
You have the basic idea. There are many other islands in the British Isles. Most of these are politically part of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland, with the exceptions of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which are British crown dependencies and not part of the UK (or ROI) at all.
Complications
The UK's full name is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Citizens of the UK are called "British". One British person is called a Briton.
The ROI's full name is "The Republic of Ireland" (if you are speaking English) or "Éire" (if you are speaking Irish). Citizens of the ROI are called "Irish".
Irish citizens are not British citizens. British citizens are not Irish citizens. God help you if you forget this when you encounter an Irishman.
Ethnically:
People from England are called English.
People from Scotland are called Scottish.
People from Wales are called Welsh.
People from Northern Ireland are called Northern Irish.
People from Ireland are called Irish.
There is no such thing as English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish citizenship. English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people almost always hold British citizenships. Of course, anybody, living anywhere in the British Isles, can have any ethnicity, and hold any citizenship.
Many people living in Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK) are Irish citizens. Some British citizens living in Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK) classify themselves as Irish-ethnic. Some people living in Northern Ireland would even like Northern Ireland itself classified as Irish i.e. made part of the ROI instead of the UK. This is a contentious point.
The ROI is not British. However, the "British Isles" include both the UK and ROI. Irish citizens and Irish-ethnic people hate this, but there is no consensus on what to call it instead.
So where is Taksin appyling for Asylum. LOL
Cheers, Rick
Posted 2008-10-06 16:26:48
wrecker, on 2008-10-06 15:15:21, said: scratt, on 2008-10-06 12:22:50, said: I'll publicly burn my UK passport outside the Bangkok Embassy if they are granted asylum.
Good, I personally give them my thumbs up when they give him exile. He has done a lot good for the people of Thailand, unlike Chuan, Chavalit, Banharn and lots of others who only filled their pockets. Best joke of it all is that the son of Thailand most corrupt prime minister ever Choonhavan, is lecturing people like you about being an honest politician. I suppose only you believe in them. But never w=mind have a good dream and go for the people of the PAD who are the biggest undemocratic criminals of all.
Dead man talking?
Chuan "the ditherer" never had the guts to pocket one Satang! 
Posted 2008-10-06 16:27:11
Artisi, on 2008-10-06 09:52:59, said: a great scenario would be - asylum on the condition that his diplomatic passport is surrended - then see how far he can travel - most countries in the western world require Thai's to have a visa to enter - and they won't grant visa's if you are on the run from the law or are a convicted crim who has skipped bail (pokeman) so they may be stuck in dreary old UK for the rest of their days or come back to Thailand and face the music - oh how the wheel turns.
You are assuming he doesn't have a British passport already.
Posted 2008-10-06 16:31:13
This will officially make him a POME (Prison of mother england). That place is full of them trying to escape....I can't imagine theres many people kicking the entry door down.
Posted 2008-10-06 16:41:51
Thai at Heart, on 2008-10-06 16:27:11, said: Artisi, on 2008-10-06 09:52:59, said: a great scenario would be - asylum on the condition that his diplomatic passport is surrended - then see how far he can travel - most countries in the western world require Thai's to have a visa to enter - and they won't grant visa's if you are on the run from the law or are a convicted crim who has skipped bail (pokeman) so they may be stuck in dreary old UK for the rest of their days or come back to Thailand and face the music - oh how the wheel turns.
You are assuming he doesn't have a British passport already.
That's a horrible thought.
Posted 2008-10-06 16:56:35
Last month, I was visited by friends who attend church with my daughter. He works in Texas  where the Taksin was awarded or sold a Ph.D, probably in criminal justice, of all things. My friend is a political asylum lawyer, and many of his clients are refugees from the State of Chin, in westernmost Myanmar. Now, what would Jesus do? What would the Buddha do, or the governor of Texas, or a judge in a hearing for political asylum of a citizen of Myanmar, who could not live in Thailand? We could put the Thaksins in a nice internment camp in Texas (much nicer than the camp at Guantanamo Bay) while they await the decision. Always glad to help you, we're from the government; the check is not in the mail.
Posted 2008-10-06 17:14:14
Boater, on 2008-10-06 12:25:11, said: we all saw this one coming 
I agree;
They are criminals and should be treated as such. What kind of goverment would grant them this EXCEPT for the fact he is buying his way in.
Now with his Brother in law in power all charges will be thrown out anyway
Shame on the UK
and please stop with the uk/british/ireland thing
we all know where he is and where he is applying
Edited by phuketrichard, 2008-10-06 17:16:10.
|
|
