Jump to content

jayboy

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    7,129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5,386 Excellent

About jayboy

  • Rank
    Titanium Member

Previous Fields

  • Location
    London

Recent Profile Visitors

31,121 profile views
  1. You forget that in the early days of colonial and independent America (say 1650 - 1800) immigrants were motivated as much by the wish for religious freedom as anything else and were not escaping from extreme poverty.That came later in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries.It's misleading to stress the "semi educated" aspect of the earlier settlers.If you study the social history of America at this time it's very clear this was a well educated and intellectually vibrant society.The founding fathers of the Revolution were astonishing accomplished men with Thomas Jefferson for example - but not uniquely - a near genius.What is sometimes characterized as debased American English is in many cases the vocabulary and accent of their English ancestors.Language moved on in England as it does everywhere but with the interesting consequence that in many cases current American colloquial English is in fact close to the language of their seventeenth century English ancestors.
  2. That could be it.Or possibly since the Red Book is evidence of ID, the PInk Card is superfluous if the Red Book is available?
  3. Yes it's pretty efficient these days; I did the same last month in roughly the same time.One question.Did the officer actually need the PInk ID card? I had mine in my wallet and didn't think for a moment it would be needed (It wasn't - at least she didn't ask for it)
  4. I am puzzled by this report.My understanding was that Interpol is essentially a co-ordinating agency acting in the interests of member countries to counter cross border crime and circulate information on accused criminals who had left their home jurisdiction.It has no significant independent powers.In this case a member country, Germany , has a Thai national in custody (or under close observation) so there is no issue of Chaktip's whereabouts.How then can Interpol help the Thais in the matter of extradition? If some explanation of the rules was needed for a small underdeveloped country was needed, I can see how Interpol might play a role.But we are talking about Germany here, a highly developed sophisticated country with very clear ideas about democracy and human rights.Surely the Thais dialogue should be directly with Germany.The latter will have its own procedures and if eventually it decides to extradite the whole process will need to be completed.They will abide to their own timetable and will not be dictated to by the Thais. Am I missing something? I don't condemn the Thai authorities as on the face of it Chakthip has a case to answer.My puzzlement may be of course be because of The Nation's slovenly reporting.
  5. As to your first point, I would suggest there is another, possibly more important objective - namely to make money in business, both legitimate and illegal.As to the "legitimate" business, that raises further questions whether the military should have interests in media and banking.
  6. Sorry you don't know your own history as your fatuous comments on Dutch policy indicate.Do some research.
  7. You don't even understand your own history.I suggest you stop pontificating. http://www.utm.utoronto.ca/~dwhite/101/27.htm
  8. I guess you overlooked that Thailand is in effect a vassal state of China (and has been for a few decades) and thus does not face a threat from that direction.As to the Spratly islands under contention Thailand does not claim any of them and has remained silent on China's acquisition of them, in contrast with the rest of ASEAN. Thailand is in the fortunate position of facing no external threats.This places it in a different position to Philippines. Singapore and Indonesia. You make the common error of assuming the purpose of the Thai military to block external threats (which as pointed out earlier are non existent).Its purpose is interfere in politics, to control and if necessary kill its own people to retain the status quo and repress democracy.Even more important is its wish to make money for its generals (more generals than any army in the world) by any means possible, corruptly if necessary.Military procurement for weapons against the non existent threat offers many obvious attractions by way of kick backs and backhanders. Try doing some research.There's plenty available which might have the benefit of curbing your more ignorant musings.
  9. You don't seem to grasp the problem.Both could be banned from politics or "permanently removed" but that doesn't change the powerful sources they represent.The solution is the same - negotiation and dialogue under a truly democratic system.The underlying issues exploited by both Thaksin and Suthep need to be addressed.Otherwise the country will continue in an evermore current disastrous mode , even perhaps after Thaksin and Suthep are no more. The genie is out of the bottle and can't be squeezed back in again.
  10. Agreed.The road will not be easy nor a safe arrival certain.Among other things there will need to be unanimity on the complete subordination of the military to democratically elected civilian direction, and punishment for military officers who transgress.Even political statements by serving military officers will be potentially grounds for dismissal.For more serious treasonable offenses such as attempting coups the punishments must be very severe.There will be no question of self awarded pardons. "Dream on" would be a quite reasonable reaction to the above.But remember the subordination of the military to their proper place has been done in other countries -Japan, South Korea and Indonesia for example.
  11. Yet both men represent the views of millions of Thais (Thaksin obviously many more than Suthep but principle is same) so I don't see how they can simply be told to keep silent.At some point there has to be a change in Thai politics so it isn't just a zero sum game in which the aim is to crush the other side.In other words there needs to be negotiation and compromise.There will be a need to pay special attention to real checks and balances not the unsatisfactory situation we have now where one side is preferred.
  12. I don't agree.Thinking people would treat the article with the contempt it deserves.In addition your comment about Thai voters wanting "food in their mouths" is patronising and dishonest.Thai voters like voters in every country want a better life for their families, their communities and their country.They are perfectly able to choose leaders, if given a chance, who would meet their objectives.
  13. The expatriates who have the ability to send their children to an elite international school (say the top ten in Bangkok) are on the whole unlikely to be members of Thai Visa which - with obviously many exceptions - is primarily a middle aged/elderly forum.Most in social class terms will be C1, C2, D and E.A and B will not be heavily represented.The results will also be skewed by the huge population of resident former tourists in places like Pattaya.
  14. jayboy

    Prayuth Heads To UK, France To Talk Trade

    You are talking complete rubbish.For those not wedded to ignorance and far right political prejudice, here is an excellent summary of the position. https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/
  15. jayboy

    Prayuth Heads To UK, France To Talk Trade

    Whether the British Government is "magistrate of truth" or not is beside the point.It must have certain criteria for the admission of heads of other governments with suspect personal records.Since it admits repellent Chinese presidents and Saudi royals, one assumes the bar is not set very high or that perhaps there is no bar at all.Certainly there would seem to be no objection to the Thai PM given his relative clean record compared with for example the Saudi/Chinese precedents.He is just a small time bully.My opinion for what it's worth is that the criteria - if there are any - relate to how the UK could benefit or not benefit (the latter applying if a decision was taken to exclude).As General de Gaulle used to say (quoting from Nietzsche) "the state is the coldest of cold monsters."
×