Jump to content
Thailand Visa Forum by Thai Visa | The Nation
rooster59

Acquittal likely, says ex-judge

Recommended Posts

Monomial    123
On 8/13/2017 at 9:51 PM, halloween said:

No “special intention” to commit negligence, it 'just happened'. Does that sound like a defence?

 

Indeed.

 

There is even a principle of law called "The Golden Rule" which says that when a literal interpretation of a statute leads to a manifest absurdity or repugnant result, the literal interpretation should be disregarded.

 

In this case, it is almost impossible to have "special intention" to commit negligence, because negligence is due to absence of action, and therefore the absence of intent, special or otherwise. It is something you did not do, rather than something you did do. By the literal interpretation, no amount of negligence could ever be considered wrong.

 

The ex-judge does point out however that the case will ultimately come down to whether or not the judges believe she had a responsibility to act on the information that was made available to her. If she did have a responsibility and did not do it,  then she should be found guilty, because "special intent" would be impossible to prove in this situation.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mommysboy    1,323
8 hours ago, Monomial said:

 

Indeed.

 

There is even a principle of law called "The Golden Rule" which says that when a literal interpretation of a statute leads to a manifest absurdity or repugnant result, the literal interpretation should be disregarded.

 

In this case, it is almost impossible to have "special intention" to commit negligence, because negligence is due to absence of action, and therefore the absence of intent, special or otherwise. It is something you did not do, rather than something you did do. By the literal interpretation, no amount of negligence could ever be considered wrong.

 

The ex-judge does point out however that the case will ultimately come down to whether or not the judges believe she had a responsibility to act on the information that was made available to her. If she did have a responsibility and did not do it,  then she should be found guilty, because "special intent" would be impossible to prove in this situation.

 

 

"There is even a principle of law called "The Golden Rule" which says that when a literal interpretation of a statute leads to a manifest absurdity or repugnant result, the literal interpretation should be disregarded. "

 

In Thailand?

 

Repugnant to whom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baerboxer    19,627
On 8/13/2017 at 6:19 AM, ukrules said:

If a Prime Minister is held personally accountable for official actions whilst in office then the country is doomed.

 

 

Agreed. But not when those actions are blatantly negligent.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
halloween    9,623
2 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Agreed. But not when those actions are blatantly negligent.

Or corrupt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mommysboy    1,323

If she is convicted then she becomes a martyr.  Like it or lump it she has 2 things in her favour: she is very popular and is the PM elect.

 

I'm afraid another uprising-even auntie's army- plays straight in to the Junta's hands as they would inevitably see this as good reason why elections should be even further delayed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
greenchair    4,119
1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Agreed. But not when those actions are blatantly negligent.

Well let's look at whose responsibility lies where. 

There are several organisations going up the ladder that are responsible for bringing corruption , fraud and theft of government funds to justice. As far as I'm aware it's not the pm job. 

Why didn't the police file a case of fraud? 

Why didn't the dsi file charges? 

Why didn't the office of the attorney general file charges? 

Why didn't the office of anti corruption file charges? 

Then there's the office permanent secretary and district head, and they all have legal departments.

And the department of agricultural, that must have known. 

Am I missing something? 

Do all of these watchdogs need a wink from the pm before doing their jobs? Isn't it her job to run the country, disperse budgets, appoint competant people to do all the above. They all knew about it looong before she was even in power. By the time she knew about it, the damage had been well done. And all those watchdogs sat back and let it happen. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
halloween    9,623
43 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Well let's look at whose responsibility lies where. 

There are several organisations going up the ladder that are responsible for bringing corruption , fraud and theft of government funds to justice. As far as I'm aware it's not the pm job. 

Why didn't the police file a case of fraud? 

Why didn't the dsi file charges? 

Why didn't the office of the attorney general file charges? 

Why didn't the office of anti corruption file charges? 

Then there's the office permanent secretary and district head, and they all have legal departments.

And the department of agricultural, that must have known. 

Am I missing something? 

Do all of these watchdogs need a wink from the pm before doing their jobs? Isn't it her job to run the country, disperse budgets, appoint competant people to do all the above. They all knew about it looong before she was even in power. By the time she knew about it, the damage had been well done. And all those watchdogs sat back and let it happen. 

Despite the fact that Yingluk had reduced their funding, the NACC (whom you forgot to mention, funny that), did warn her that the losses from her scam had exceeded B200 billion. That she ignored that warning is the basis of the case against her.

The head of the DSI is currently on bail pending a 2 year sentence, and was clearly well in the Shin pocket (Perjury, I can't see no perjury!). There are also a few dept. heads going down with Boonsong.

Actually, what your list does is indicate how widespread corruption was in that government.

Why do you ignore that she was given clear warning by independent agencies that the losses were huge and mounting? If she knew nothing, why did she announce a reduction in the pledging price, and then withdraw it under pressure from her supporters? Isn't the interest of the nation supposed to exceed the need of her political standing?

There is no need to look where responsibility lies. When you take the title and the big baht paycheck, you take the responsibility too, even if you are the gormless puppet of a criminal.

Edited by halloween
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mommysboy    1,323
2 hours ago, halloween said:

Despite the fact that Yingluk had reduced their funding, the NACC (whom you forgot to mention, funny that), did warn her that the losses from her scam had exceeded B200 billion. That she ignored that warning is the basis of the case against her.

The head of the DSI is currently on bail pending a 2 year sentence, and was clearly well in the Shin pocket (Perjury, I can't see no perjury!). There are also a few dept. heads going down with Boonsong.

Actually, what your list does is indicate how widespread corruption was in that government.

Why do you ignore that she was given clear warning by independent agencies that the losses were huge and mounting? If she knew nothing, why did she announce a reduction in the pledging price, and then withdraw it under pressure from her supporters? Isn't the interest of the nation supposed to exceed the need of her political standing?

There is no need to look where responsibility lies. When you take the title and the big baht paycheck, you take the responsibility too, even if you are the gormless puppet of a criminal.

 

Opinion.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scorecard    8,382
21 hours ago, Chris Lawrence said:

What other Government has imposed such a sentence and conviction on a ex-PM in this modern world.

 

What about Kevin Rudd?

 

The other side is that the handing out of monies stopped Thailand moving into recession?

 

And you and others (note el), as usual, try to take the discussion away from the item of criminal dereliction of duty and the gross corruption and fraud which took place (remember what appeared to be stacks of rice which were in fact just scaffolding surrounded by a few bags of rice, remember the lies about government to government rice sales - just blatant fraud with no conscience).

 

But you claim people benefitted. Yes there are way too many poor people in this country and along with that way too many are uneducated and unaware and easily tricked by the thieves you support.

 

And all of it has nothing whatever to do with what's happened or not happened in other countries. You seem to ignore a number of previous posts which give examples of previous leaders of other countries who have been tried and found guilty and punished. 

 

Let's see what diversion you try next.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

BANGKOK 20 August 2017 16:31
Sponsors
×