Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,707 Excellent

About bkkcanuck8

  • Rank
    Platinum Member
  • Birthday 01/01/1915

Recent Profile Visitors

4,530 profile views
  1. Prayut remains silent on calls to suspend Prawit

    The other issue is even if you believe him and he has borrowed 22 different watches from potentially multiple people and they really are not his -- there is a value to the loan in itself since it should be valued at the cost to rent something like that for an occasion (which could easily be 10% of the retail value for one occasion [including insurance etc.]).
  2. Prayut remains silent on calls to suspend Prawit

    Exactly, when investigating criminal activity (and potential corruption is criminal) you want to get that person on record as soon as possible. He should have had to come in and make a statement immediately -- and if he avoided it fired. He would then have a week or two to get together documentary evidence. You always want them on record as soon as possible to lock people in as soon as possible. The only reason for a delay would be to let him manufacture some evidence or to try and bury it. If it were a political adversary -- they would have hauled him in immediately.
  3. I don't care for PDRC, but I also don't like to quibble when the person who was sentenced deserved the sentence. Using a grenade launcher raises it to the level of terrorism - no mercy period. Whether you like the PDRC group or what your affiliation is -- this person does not deserve to be raised to the level of martyr by trying to equate different crimes. People who have qualms about the different standards should pick someone who deserves our sympathy.
  4. That is true, but there is a political reason why this is an issue (a valid issue). Remember that they have gone after the previous government that they overthrew because of malfeasance in regards to doing something "they knew" or "should have known" was illegal did they not (with regards to the amnesty bill) -- I seem to vaguely remember that. They have also found Yingluck guilty of malfeasance not for corruption, but because she should have known (malfeasance). So this move is to put it before the NLA that what they are doing is very likely against the constitution and thus they should check with the constitutional court to make sure that it is constitutional. If they go ahead with the bill regardless of what the constitution states -- then by the same standards the NLA would be guilty of malfeasance - and thus ineligible for the legislative posts they are due to move into. We of course all know that the laws are not applied evenly, so it will only become a political exercise - but it would be a demonstration -- a very obvious demonstrated of the inequity before the law. Now Article 44 could be invoked to basically make it legal - but that would only allow them to sit until the next legislature session begins after the "election" since that is when article 44 expires if the law is unconstitutional but overridden by invoking article 44. Actually, I thought if you launched a lawsuit on a law -- it would have to be after it came into force -- but -- I believe the legislature has the option to seek an opinion on whether the proposed law violates the constitution (not a ruling, a consultation of sorts).
  5. Pressure mounts for review of NACC bill

    Actually, I thought if you launched a lawsuit on a law -- it would have to be after it came into force -- but -- I believe the legislature has the option to seek an opinion on whether the proposed law violates the constitution (not a ruling, a consultation of sorts). That would be a very short-term appointment. As soon as the elected legislature has 95% of the seats confirmed it takes over from the NLA - and at that point Article 44 is moot and all of those are no longer in effect. That is why they are trying to get the NLA to pass into law a number of the article 44 enactments - so that they continue after the next legislature comes into effect. If it is unconstitutional now without article 44 -- it will be unconstitutional after the election. Nine years suddenly come a year or two. If there are serious grounds to believe the NLA does pass into law something that they know or should have known is unconstitutional -- then they get into a situation of which puts them into a bind similar to Yingluck where they said she should have known -- therefore she is guilty of malfeasance. It would not be the first case of hypocrisy. We of course not the same standard would be applied.
  6. No prostitution - easy explanation - Thailand 4.0 is all about the sex robots ... they were even dancing the poles at CES.
  7. Canadian man being held against his will in Thailand, family says

    The embassy never provides legal representation nor typically interferes in the internal legal affairs of a foreign country. The representative usually just checks up on you, potentially acts to facilitate communications back to your family -- and hopefully make sure you are treated properly according to the laws of the country. The embassy will have a list of local lawyers who can provide services in your language, but they do not vouch for the lawyers qualifications / effectiveness. Sometimes people get confused that somehow the embassy is suppose to represent your interests. So yes, he needs to find his own legal defence lawyer.
  8. Events typically pay the costs of security on private land, the public pays for stuff on public land. I doubt all the crowds are going to be invited onto private grounds - my guess is they will line the street somewhere to get a glimpse (though I am never bothered to attend since.... well ... I could not be bothered .... it does not interest me.... I am more like my father who would try to stay far away as not to have to meet figureheads of no importance in the real world). The government of course could decide that they don't want to provide security on public land, streets etc.... but then if some terrorist takes the opportunity to take out some soft-targets.... it would not look good. Donald Trump (if not invited) is free like the rest of the people that are not invited -- to line the streets to try and get a glimpse... For example if you have people attending a game in a stadium -- security is often provided by police and the event will pay for them. If they win and the crowds go up the public street to celebrate - that is public land with police paid for as normal by the public. The area that gets fuzzy in my mind is when it is public land and they get a permit - that would probably have to be paid for privately.
  9. The costs of the wedding are paid for by the Royal Family out of their investments (you can argue about how it came to be - but it is just the state of it). The costs that are paid for out of the public purse are the normal extra security costs. Security costs go up and down depending on the size of crowds -- as well as the level of the security threat. Larger crowds, larger security costs. The only right of influence that the government has is they could go out and disperse the public - but that would be extremely bad PR for it. Security goes up for sporting events by private teams, public celebrations, large conventions - but the government does not get a say on how those events are run internally. The extra security is primarily there to protect the public from things like terror events. The fact is that any major Royal wedding -- lots of the public want to attend to be able to say they were there on such and such a day. Since it is not a state wedding, the government has no say. This is not a diplomatic event, this is a private event that is being shared with the public because that is what the public wants. The government has no right to tell who you have to allow to attend your wedding, and in this case the same standard should and has to be applied to this private wedding just like any other.
  10. Canadian man being held against his will in Thailand, family says

    Actually, it is not impractical as much as you think. A search algorithm could be run when immigration receives the manifests of air or sea travel (which is in advance of when you arrive), and using machine learning models to sift the data and highlight the top 3 (at most). An immigration officer could quickly peruse the information and if any of the highlighted entries are worthy of a followup -- add a flag to the file so the immigration officer can question you on entry. The issue is not whether it can practically be done, is how reliable the data is and how error prone it is. I would not be surprised if the US does this already -- they have some rather high computing power at DHS for doing this sort of analysis.
  11. Canadian man being held against his will in Thailand, family says

    That is covered by DUI.
  12. Canadian man being held against his will in Thailand, family says

    I don't drive in Thailand. It is a local problem, and one that needs to be cracked down on -- which there has been some movement on. We still don't need foreign drunk slobs added to the road in addition to the local problem. Less not more.
  13. Canadian man being held against his will in Thailand, family says

    That would be up to Thai Immigration. The second part can get you banned entry from the US until you get a pardon (which is a US pardon -- not your home country). I would not be surprised if a DUI would as well. Personally, if someone has a DUI -- I take that more seriously than the drug issue you raised. I don't want someone with an utter disrespect for the lives of other people who are driving on the roads. At the minimum I would stamp their passport with a big red ugly octagon that read that regardless of international drivers license -- he is forbidden from driving in Thailand.
  14. Canadian man being held against his will in Thailand, family says

    I don't think it is a problem with "unstable people". A lot of people who go on vacation -- seem to bring along their youthful feeling of invulnerability -- and get into trouble by doing things they would not do at home.... Sort of inline with line "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas". In this case, the individual probably did do what he did at home. Any respectable seasoned tourist (or long stay) individual is more likely go to go great pains to understand the local legal gotchas, the local morals and how not to offend the local population. In this case it is a matter of what happens in Thailand stays in Thailand, but he did not take into consideration staying in Thailand in a prison. Unfortunately, a lot of that information is protected for citizens privacy reasons from being accessed by other immigration systems. It would be nice if there were some international agreement, clearing system that had a standard and could return criminal record search information to the immigration at port of entry. This would allow the systems to do lookups and matches while you are in the air and have it ready for immigration on arrival. Of course we don't even know if this type of search would have turned back the person in question. On the other hand random internet searches would be extremely error prone, matching to the wrong person (I am rare having a unique name that would narrow me down to one of two people), but many names bring up lots of people.
  15. Canadian man being held against his will in Thailand, family says

    Believe me, it was not an intentional twisting of words - it was/is how it read to me. There was an in-depth translation by someone else which I will take as the intent of your sentence for now. I don't generally nitpick about grammar or spelling -- unless I have problems with the comprehension of it.