|
|
British Activist Wins Back Passport: Australia Declines Similar Action for Phuketwan Editor
Thursday, September 11, 2014
PHUKET: British labor activist Andy Hall has won his passport back in a precedent-setting action that could generate a change in approach by other governments when citizens have passports confiscated in Thailand.
The British Government asked for the researcher's passport to be returned and the request was granted yesterday by Prakanong court.
Andy Hall is taking advantage of his new freedom by flying to Britain today, where he has an invitation to advise the country's Trades Union Congress on migration issues.
The final day of Mr Hall's trial ended yesterday on a high note with a migrant worker giving strong evidence in Mr Hall's favor.
A verdict in the case will be delivered on October 29, with a second criminal defamation case, also brought by Natural Fruit against Mr Hall, due to begin the following day.
The second case involves a claim by the pineapple processors for 300 million baht in compensation.
Australian Government officials in Canberra yesterday turned down a request by Phuketwan journalist Alan Morison to seek the return of his passport in similar manner to the successful application by the British Government in the Andy Hall case.
The rejection is a serious blow to Phuketwan, which is now likely to be forced to close in February.
Like Andy Hall, Morison and a Phuketwan reporter, Chutima Sidasathian, face criminal defamation and Computer Crimes Act prosecutions, brought by the Royal Thai Navy.
''Like many governments, Australia advises tourists that they should never hand their passport to motorcycle hirers on Phuket because the passport remains the property of the Australian Government,'' Morison said today.
''Yet when courts unfairly confiscate the passport of journalists and rights advocates, their concerns about that principle quickly evaporate.''
Andy Hall said today that he was not a flight risk from Thailand, one of the reasons why he pushed the British Government to ask for his passport back.
Morison, who has lived on Phuket for 12 years, also says Thailand is his home and he is not a flight risk.
''We have to push embassies to do their jobs,'' Andy Hall said today, ''especially on behalf of human rights activists.''
Morison and Khun Chutima received a second setback in their case yesterday when authorities at Phuket Provincial Court postponed the continuation of their trial from March 18-19-20 to July 14-15-16.
The three-month delay was forced because of a backlog of cases, officials told Morison's lawyer.
''The delay is a blow and it's disappointing that the Australian Government does not feel the responsibility to ask for the return of its passport property, as the British Government has done in Andy Hall's case,'' Morison said.
''The lack of action on a matter of principle by the Australian Government and the postponement mean I remain a prisoner in Thailand.''
The seizure of Morison's passport also means that Phuketwan, which has an international reputation for coverage of the Rohingya exodus from Burma (Myanmar) and takes a strong anti-corruption stance, will be forced to close in February.
Because his passport has been seized, Morison will be unable to renew his work permit for Thailand.
''We've won international acclaim and support from almost everyone,'' Morison said. ''The Australian Government, however, throws up its hands and says 'Well, what can we do?'
''The answer is now plain: be proactive and follow the example of the British Government.''
Back in December, Australian Ambassador to Thailand, James Wise, wrote in an email response: ''Normally, we take up issues like yours with our host government only after the person affected asks us to do so (especially when the case already has a high profile and we can be confident that the host government is aware of it).
''We would not want to cut across your own plans for managing the way you want to respond to the allegations against you - because, ultimately, how you manage your affairs is your business, not ours.''
Many rights groups have called on the military government of Thailand to end the prosecutions against Andy Hall and the journalists.
Both cases were mentioned in the US State Department's Trafficking in Persons report that downgraded Thailand to Tier 3, the lowest level, earlier this year.
First Natural Fruit v. Andy Hall case draws to a close
http://www.freshfruitportal.com/2014/09/10/thailand-first-natural-fruit-v-andy-hall-case-draws-to-a-close/?country=others
|
Comments
Comments have been disabled for this article.
'We would not want to cut across your own plans for managing the way you want to respond to the allegations against you - because, ultimately, how you manage your affairs is your business, not ours.'
Odd sort of thing for an ambassador to say, especially when part of his job as ambassador he is expected to protect and act on behalf of citizens of his home country in the host country. It was the British ambassador who started the ball rolling in an effort to get Andy Hall's passport returned, and to that end he worked hard and got the right people to listen so hence the outcome.
Down under things appear to be somewhat different in how the ambassador manages his affairs.
Posted by
Pete
on
September 11, 2014 10:45
Editor Comment:
I'm glad you raised that point. I thought at the time it was a wimpish response. What the ambassador was saying was: ''If you can make your case seem important enough, maybe we will be forced to do something.'' Getting a reaction on matters of principle in Canberra these days appears to be impossible. Australian politicians and bureaucrats only respond to surveys, or public outcries.
Well Alan, perhaps some government works/ministers have read a few of your rather anti-Australian comments as well as comments that you have, in the past, made about the immigration department. Maybe, just maybe, Australia doesn't want you back. My thoughts only.
Posted by
Laurie Howells
on
September 11, 2014 11:08
Editor Comment:
Nothing I write or say is anti-Australian, Laurie, just as nothing Phuketwan reports is anti-Thai. Even constructive criticisms are aimed at improving the situation. In democracies, all opinions deserve to be heard - unless they're outrageous unwarranted insults, of the kind you so often imagine to be intelligent.
To all regular readers of Phuket Wan:
Can Mr Morison be incredibly smug, annoying, rude and sometimes clearly incorrect, when commenting our comments?
Yes, we all know he can.
But has it ever happened that our comments have been smug, annoying, rude and incorrect?
We also know that there is nothing, I repeat nothing, that comes even close to the quality of this digital newspaper when it comes to covering news of Phuket.
I will, and I know many other readers will too, miss Phuket Wan immensely if it has to close down.
Mr Morison and Khun Chutima, please keep on fighting.
Posted by
Hans Forssell
on
September 11, 2014 11:23
Laurie Howells I am astounded by your ignorant comment. In case you missed it, Australia is a country where freedom of responsible speech is held dear by Australians of all political leanings. Your statement is ignorant because it is tantamount to describing the Australian government as petty, and the equivalent of countries where innocuous observations and the reporting of factual events is quashed. The refusal to actively intervene in this case should concern all Australians living in Thailand or even visiting, because it means that the Australian government will not protect its nationals. Had this case involved an American, or an EU national, or even a Russian, the response would have been significantly different. For the life of me, I do not understand why he Australian government refuses to intervene. It sends out an exceptionally dangerous signal that says it is ok to trample the fundamental liberties that the Australian government claims it upholds and promotes. The manner in which this witch hunt has been conducted is such that only a person in denial would miss the message the Thai government is sending: No reporting of factual information that may offend some vested interests is allowed. As a result, no Australian's investment will be safe if it is subject to extraordinary retaliatory measures witnessed in this case. Who in their right mind would invest now, if the investment could be lost on the capricious whim of a local authority? The confiscation of the passport, despite the absence of a flight risk, was intentional and the consequences were known. More distressing is that the passport is the property of the Australian government who have not demanded its return. In plain language, this means that no Australian's passport is safe. You may not care if PW disappears, but many foreigners do rely on PW as their reliable portal of Phuket information. You should be ashamed of yourself for allowing your spite to blind you to the bigger issues at stake here.
Posted by
Ryan
on
September 11, 2014 12:08
You have been very very outspoken and critical against the current Australian Government's policies towards "refugees" seeking to land in that country. Just sayin........
Posted by
phonus
on
September 11, 2014 12:23
Editor Comment:
Sure. So have many thinking Australians who have yet to be persuaded that the ''fortress Australia'' policy is appropriate for a prosperous nation built by pioneers from foreign countries who all arrived by sea. Materialism and selfishness appear to be the present government's only priorities. So a journalist who speaks out about stateless people pushed back by heartless politicians relies on the Australia tradition of a ''fair go,'' no matter what. Is that tradition still alive? We shall see.
No Ryan..it just means that morisen is not regarded as anywhere near the social status he really thinks he deserves.He's made his bed, now he has to sleep in it.He failed in his own country and now has failed in a developing one..end of the line!
Posted by
James
on
September 11, 2014 12:37
Editor Comment:
Social status? Couldn't care less. Yet without wishing to appear immodest, two Walkley Awards in Australia and a share in regional awards for Human Rights Reporting and Investigative Reporting shows a reasonable degree of professional acclaim, James. Better than being an online troll.
"Materialism and selfishness appear to be the present government's only priorities."
Hear that? That was the sound of your case file being quietly closed and filed away.....
Posted by
phonus
on
September 11, 2014 12:55
Editor Comment:
In your wishful thinking file.
Internationally if you break the law the government or courts have the right to seize your passport pending a fair court trial on evidence submitted.
Flight risk is common in every country regarding trials especially regarding foregners.
Simply put if you cant do the time then dont do the crime - so please ED stop crying about it , stop the pleading for the sympathy vote, you knew you cannot report AGAINST any part of the givernment agencies without getting into trouble in ANY country !
Posted by
Paul Smith
on
September 11, 2014 13:02
Editor Comment:
I'm not crying about anything, Paul. Your capacity for writing without any knowledge of what you're writing about could trigger a torrent of tears one of these days.
The point is, Australia and other countries claim to own citizens' passports only when it suits them. The British Government, however, can tell right from wrong.
Chutima and other Thai staff are perfectly capable of continuing the site. As Mr Morison acting as editor has in the past promised to not make editor comments, no reason the site cannot continue without his retorts.
Posted by
The Mare who reads well
on
September 11, 2014 13:09
Editor Comment:
Your understanding is wildly inaccurate as usual, Mare. Every word on PW is uploaded by just one person. Other staff are talented but written English is not among their skills.
... i guess when you are prepared to admit you made a mistake, then perhaps the govt of australia will intervene..man up and move on, your embarrsing the s*** out of other aussies... whining away like a 747 thats just landed or better still go back to mother england !!!
Posted by
chris
on
September 11, 2014 13:33
Editor Comment:
No need for a response to that, chris. Thanks.
Australian government obviously made such decision before the outcome of motion filed by British government was known. They well may, not believe , among other reasons, that such motion will be satisfied by a court. Giving the precedence, it could reconsider and file a motion.
In turn Britush Government surprised me, as in general it mostly generated impression about lack of care, inefficient and at times negligent way they provided consular support to UK citizens abroad in the past.
Posted by
Sue
on
September 11, 2014 13:51
In regards to Australian Immigration I agree with their policies which are basically they want immigrants to contribute to the economy. They do take some refugees like the Lebanese some of whose children grew up to cause the Sydney riots. Look at the UK were immigration is out of control with people taking financial benefits from the country. Having lived in both countries I think Australia's policy is far better. People in the UK are so fed up with immigrants getting housing etc before people born there. Life is a financial reality not a utopia.
Posted by
Feisty Farang
on
September 11, 2014 13:55
Editor Comment:
I've lived in both countries, too, and I don't believe the Sydney riots were caused by the children of immigrants, but triggered by bigotry. The issue of a policy on refugees is quite different to immigration. In any case, this article is about passports and citizens' rights.
Ryan-any chance you could learn how to use paragraphs?
Would make that big block of indigestible type a lot easier to read!
Posted by
grammarnazi
on
September 11, 2014 14:02
A quick perusal of Australian Embassy/Consulate services to Australians overseas shows that they cannot interfere in other countries' judicial processes.
You haven't gone to trial yet and as far as I'm aware you are not in jail yet.
Posted by
Evilbaz
on
September 11, 2014 14:30
Editor Comment:
Precedents change the status quo, Evilbaz. So what's listed now should be improved tomorrow to take account of the Andy Hall case and its impact. Rules are set to save people from thinking inventively.
It is good of the Thai government to trust Andy Hall to come back to Thailand, as if he did not I do not think the UK would extradite him for this alleged type of crime as most extraditions from countries appear to be murder, rape etc and other physical based crimes.
Posted by
Feisty Farang
on
September 11, 2014 14:47
@Sue: The British Government and the British consuls overseas are not one and the same. Please name one consul who provided 'inefficient and at times negligent ???.... consular support to UK citizens abroad in the past'.
Earlier today your semi-literate self called a grammatically correct person illiterate, which is the height of hypocrisy, and now you are going on hearsay, a track different from your usual self important rants boosting your inflated ego. This is different though, so go on with a challenge and name one consul who was/is inefficient, let alone negligent, and see where you end up.
Posted by
Pete
on
September 11, 2014 15:14
"Rules are set to save people from thinking inventively."
Indeed not. A typical example of your very subjective view. In fact, Rules are set to maintain an accepted system of order, offer to a degree of certainty based on reasonable expectations and past experience.
Posted by
phonus
on
September 11, 2014 16:26
Editor Comment:
No point in me trying to beat mindset. Don't waste my time, please.
Sue, are you saying that the British Embassies/Consuls are worse than any other country. People need to differentiate between services, Passports etc and a nanny state to help people when they disobey other countries laws.
Posted by
Feisty Farang
on
September 11, 2014 16:27
Sue, you will need to be more specific about what motion you intend to file otherwise it will be no more useful than just a passing motion.
Hint, file motion to/of...........?
What motion did the British Govt file.? The article as far as I understand, suggests they asked the court to return his passport and they did.
Should he eventually be found guilty, he may then require a reciprocal type filing motion to achieve freedom.
Posted by
Manowar
on
September 11, 2014 16:45
It's quite sad when a Government decides not to act in the best interest of its citizens.
I agree with Alan about refugees. Why would you not help someone who is in dire need and maybe killed for leaving their own persecution? I guarantee if any one of you who oppose this had their problems, you would be begging for someone to help you.
I am just so gob smacked that people don't want to help human beings.
Note - As for your passport Alan, you can always get a boat to Lankawi, then apply for a new passport in Malaysia.
Posted by
Tbs
on
September 11, 2014 17:45
Ryan,
I think the majority of readers consider the action against PW as being unnecessary and unjust but external governments, whether they agree or not with actions being taken, have to let the justice of a country take its course.
I'm not sure where you obtain information from or how you can justify the Australian government intervene in another countries judicial system as this is not an option.
Australia does not have freedom of "responsible' speech, it has freedom of speech, full stop. Along with that freedom, goes the responsibility to use it properly and without abuse causing damage to another. Irresponsible, inaccurate or intentional defamatory use of this freedom can leave the person open to a claim for damages. This falls within the operational boundary of civil, not criminal courts as it does in Thailand.
" the refusal to actively intervene in this case.." What do you suggest occur. Thailand is currently under military rule, martial law and a transition to a primarily, military appointed government.
" it sends out an exceptionally dangerous signal that's says it's ok to trample the fundamental liberties of the Aust Govt...."
The Aust Govt has control over the laws in Australia, not outside it's territory or in other countries. Are you suggesting they should trample the fundamental laws and liberties of the Thai Government?
It is quiet simple, the laws and freedom you have as an Australian, in Australia, do not travel with you to any country.
Whether the laws of another country are fair, justified or logical is irrelevant. You enter the country, you obey the law, it's easy to understand.
The PW situation is more complicated, not only by the Thai system of justice but also by the coup. First, defamation is a criminal charge and in this case the plantif is an organisation. An organisation can be damaged but it cannot be defamed. A person within an organisation can be defamed and damaged.
You cannot defame an object, a car, a building or a company but you can cause damage to the owner if what you state is false and causes loss.
The second issue is th Computer Crimes Act which is set up to provent unauthorised use of data for the purpose of crime. The intention was not to stop publications although the broad interpretation of this act has allowed abuse.
The problems are the laws themselves and the abuse of these laws being used for other means. Thai law allows for broad interpretation by the courts, the result being that two similar cases can have opposite results. Australian law is different in that the results have to be similar as interpretation of law is decided by precedence and must be followed unless overturned by a higher court.
" no Australian passport is safe.."a slight overreaction to the situation that exists. Whether it be right or wrong, it has been decided to confiscate Alan's passport. This is not an unfamiliar situation where any foreigner is charged in another country. Whether it is a justifiable action based on his ties to Thailand and determination to stand up for his belief is another question.
Posted by
Manowar
on
September 11, 2014 19:09
Editor Comment:
The only issues here are whether the Australian Government owns the passport (it does) and whether I am a flight risk (I'm not.) Oh, and perhaps whether the Australian Government is prepared to stand up and say something publicly about the military suing the media. Or even simply write a letter asking for its property back.
I can attest to the fact that Mr Morison can be smug, annoying, rude, etc but I support his convictions and right of opinion.
I am an American and freedom of speech is something that ''used'' to be cherished in the US.
Perhaps Mr Morison could guide readers who wish to support him with a draft letter, petition, etc to our respective consulates, Thai government, etc.
Alternatively, Mr Morison might recommend any other efforts or actions that readers could support him.
Posted by
A Yank
on
September 11, 2014 21:00
Editor Comment:
Thanks for the thought.
hasn't Alan been home once since all this blew up and was addressing his peers in Melbourne Australia in the media fraternity its clear hes no flight risk
Posted by
slickmelb
on
September 11, 2014 21:24
Editor Comment:
Khun Chutima travelled to Australia earlier this year. Unlike me, she is not considered a flight risk. She spoke out publicly at events in Sydney and Melbourne about the Thai military's pursuit of Phuketwan. As awareness intensifies, she aims to take speaking trips to Europe and Japan.
Unfortunately, I only discovered PWan recently and now read daily - keep up the good work ( for as long as possible)
Wouldn't it be more constructive and useful to petition the Australian government as a collective readership for the passport return, rather than bickering about off topic stuff?
Starting to look like a pointless THai visa forum on this subject ?
Posted by
Buriram traveller
on
September 11, 2014 23:15
"The final day of Mr Hall's trial ended yesterday on a high note with a MIGRANT WORKER giving strong evidence in Mr Hall's favor."
So "little" folks like migrant workers - and the editor of Phuketwan and his able assistant CAN affect positive change.
As for those who choose to throw salt on the "wounds" of Alan in the public venue here- Your pack mentality is only exceeded by your pathetic lives -is it Ed's fault you picked the wrong wives -and live by lies ?
You guys would cut off your nose twice to spite your face.
signed, the scapegoat
Posted by
farang888
on
September 12, 2014 02:23
The naysayers on this site relish the trials and tribulations of the editor - perceiving they are the pillars of expat society - 3 beers helps - but meanwhile the walls come tumbling down - and they will have their own Karmatic 9-11 soon enough..
signed,
the little glass house and the stones
Posted by
farang888
on
September 12, 2014 02:46
Alan, I agree and the effort and time required to provide a letter of support or even asking for details or an understanding of the action being taken is so small, why hasn't this been done.
I doubt you are a flight risk on the basis or your roots and having spent 12 years living there so I could only assume it to be preemptive punishment, a "school yard bully" tactic or just let's make life difficult for him.
While this may be a common intention towards an opposed party, the decision to confiscate should have been made independently and giving consideration to evidence and your history. Here we appear to enter the same twilight zone that allowed the case to be accepted in the first place.
Legal systems promoted as being fair and equal to all people should often also detail that some are more equal than others.
Posted by
Manowar
on
September 12, 2014 04:15
@Manowar
A short answer is the same one as UK did in A.Hall case - for which I have no idea what is in the court file.
Such motion - in a wider sense - that could be either refer to passport being property of the government ( the fact that logistics of A.Hall passport took a place via the UK embassy give us a hint about this direction) or provide a kind of guarantees or affirmation toward lower estimation of a flight risk ( that was communicated by A.Hall on Twitter)., or it can be both. Which form it took, a sI said, I don't know - as for the 1st point, since government has a direct interest, it could file indeed a motion, as for the 2nd point, it could be a kind of opinion targeting re-evaluation of flight risk (that is a motion in a wider sense).
Surely, it it can be done by a call or similar steps not in accordance with a procedure law.
@Pete
There were repeated reports that some British citizens being in poor health or state of mind, were left to rot in Pattaya cells for weeks or months, far below any acceptable standard of treatment of detained persons - and in all case British consular staff have been notified and did nothing.
I referred above to "consular services" that encompasses issue related to legal assistance to citizens in situation as just cited. FYI Consular services are performed by a staff of embassy or consulate, not necessarily by "a consul".
Embassies and consulates are agencies of MFA(FCO in UK), i.e. of central government., and they have no own interest, as any government agency, in their official capacity, and same applicable to agencies' representative - through which agencies do act - like ambassadors, councils and other staff.
"Government" can mean as well federal/central government with its agencies, unless it is apparent that a reference is made to a central government apparatus itself.
If you don't like word "illiterate" as a designation of a person who both don't know a meaning of the word "Europe" within the UK English corpus, and repeatedly unable to read an article from Oxford Dictionary to which reference has been provided, you, please, sugest, more suitable word to describe these certain characteristics of the person. from behavioral point of view my offer is "palinism" as Sarah Palin seems to be a spiritual sister of some other persons.
Posted by
Sue
on
September 12, 2014 05:01
The British Govt was not a party represented in this case therefore they cannot be a movant.
Posted by
Manowar
on
September 12, 2014 06:28
Editor Comment:
Ants, movants, pissants . . . it's difficult to keep track.
Wouldn't be the first time Sarah Palin and pissants have been mentioned in the same article.
Posted by
Manowar
on
September 12, 2014 09:51
Sue, you really talk a lot of unbalanced rubbish. If you feel so strongly about the UK's lack of service try writing to them. In addition try and not ramble on with long words you do not understand.
Posted by
Feisty Farang
on
September 12, 2014 14:17
Man Oh Man !
Some times reading the comments and rebuttal is more entertaining than the article itself. This is quite the comment board.
I wish Mr. Morison well and hope he can pull a rabbit out of his hat. There is no place like PW to read and be updated on such a place as phuket. I have read the other paper years ago and don't even know if they are still in business. If I want Phuket info this is my place.
I wish you luck in the fight. Think outside of that box and figure a way to get your embassy involved. You are support and awareness for many of your countries citizens. And No I'm not from Australia if wondering, just a fan of PW.
Posted by
John
on
September 12, 2014 14:22
Editor Comment:
Thanks, John.
To receive support from any Australian Government while overseas you need to meet certain unofficial criteria:
1. Be female with over emphasis on your bra size,
2. Wear revealing, low cut clothing,
3. Be a bogan who steals from local businesses,
4. Claim Thai police are racist after you racial attack the Thai Police,
5. Go on National Television and claim that all your lies were actually the truth and that all the consular support you received did not actually happen.
Ed I really do feel for you and hope that you and your associate can beat these charges but getting support from our government, sorry not going to happen.
Posted by
Arthur
on
September 12, 2014 15:24
@Feisty Farang: You are somewhat slow on the uptake if you've just realised that Sue blurts out some indecipherable scrawls. Take anything he says with a pinch of salt, or best of all don't comment at all after him.
Posted by
Pete
on
September 12, 2014 15:36
Actually it is against the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights Article 26 to which Thailand is a signatory which states that all persons are equal before the law without discrimination. Being accused of a crime is a common tactic used against foreigners suing Thai's who they feel have broken the law. It is done because they know it is intimidatory and that the passport will be seized effectively stopping you from working and cutting off your source of income (which you need to press your case). Thai citizens are not denied keeping their passport or ID's. In any case you have to post bail - what is the point of bail except as an insurance you will turn up.
Posted by
tempus
on
September 12, 2014 17:02
(moderated)
Posted by
paul smith
on
September 12, 2014 17:17
Editor Comment:
You won't get posted here again, paul, because you fail to add value. Your ego has no value. Goodbye.
Ed: Phuketwan readers are a microcosm of society- and you presently have much support coming from all directions - with more to follow. Your supporters are coming out of the woodwork, and FAR outnumber the shrill cry of the hapless - hopeless. Most people on this board want to help you - just as most people out there in the larger context would do the same - the issue is to get the word out - so please use your resources at hand. Someone suggested you write a draft.I would second that, and will get involved with my own Canadian government in this matter - to support the cause of Phuketwan and the good it serves.
My 2 cents says use the sense of the ones who are there for you - many readers here have better ideas than me - the majority of us are unsure how to proceed. As you started Phuketwan Ed.- you may need to start the ball rolling here - and most people will follow and support you - so don't be shy to ask, because we will try to help!!
Time is of the essence though..
Posted by
farang888
on
September 12, 2014 21:22
Editor Comment:
Thanks for your thoughts, farang888. Your support and the support of other readers is appreciated.
"There is no sense in the struggle, but there is no choice but to struggle." Ernie Pyle ( American War Journalist, 1900-1945 ) sound familiar ED?
Posted by
farang888
on
September 12, 2014 21:46
Editor Comment:
Yes, and we've been seeing quite a lot lately on the Australia Network of this one:
''Journalism can never be silent: That is its greatest virtue and its greatest fault.'' - H A Grunwald
So if you have to struggle - which you do and will - understand you don't need to do it alone - with the inherent support on your cause building and building - it's now time for concrete action.
Posted by
farang888
on
September 12, 2014 21:51
Ed and K Chutima, now is the time to stand together with your readers of PW. It is time for you both to be the lighthouse and not the navy ship.(I'll send you the voice tape if you have not heard it?). Let the navy steer clear of you. Stand fast and keep the news flowing.
Posted by
Robin
on
September 13, 2014 05:39
Ed. I just wonder if your case has been brought to the attention of Reporters without Borders, as reading up their file on Thailand I could not find mention of it. I hope you don't mind, but I have emailed them asking for some publicity for your case and giving them relevant details. The only case listed is for two Thai journalists Thanapol Eawsakul and Pravit Rojanaphruk detained by the military. A little help is better than no help!
Posted by
Pete
on
September 13, 2014 09:24
Editor Comment:
Thanks, Pete. Reporters Without Borders have been supportive and we're certain that support will continue. Virtually every body with an interest in media freedom has backed us, with the exception of the Reuters news agency.
Dear Alan and Chitima, could you not get some internet person to create an online vote / donation for Phuket Wan, it may help ?, Jake
Posted by
Jake
on
September 13, 2014 09:26
Editor Comment:
Thanks for the idea, Jake, we'll consider it. All offers from anyone with 10 million baht to spare will also be considered.
@Manowar
You again did not read carefully - and then start blame external forces for your lack of attention:
if someone's property mistakenly is seized at some stage of criminal proceedings then the injured has an interest in a case and can file a motion/petition to free its property - currently, a matter goes with a court.
if there is no direct interest, then it comes most probably in a kind of opinion, that can be filed by the defendant together with his own motion/petition/appeals etc. e.g. by on review of bail conditions, or on few occasions can be filed on its own.It depends of peculiarities of a case.
A.Hall lawyers together with UK government did it - so similar steps can be instituted in PW case too.
Currently A.Hall retains his passport, but every entry/exit to/from the Kingdom should be authorized by the court.
Posted by
Sue
on
September 13, 2014 15:24
@Feisty Farang
Why I should complain to UK government about its consular services if I am not UK citizen?
But my observations are based on repeated cases reported from Pattaya in media - and consequently was genuinely positively surprised by quite an opposite in A.Hall case . You can well check for these cases in media if you have interest and haven't heard before it.
Giving a strong evaluation without even attempting to get to know facts doesn't change the facts itself.
@Pete
As usually you instead of providing factual argument descend to ad hominem labels. Obviously you simply have nothing to say on the subject except that - in particular on UK consular assistance for UK citizens on a few widely reported occasion when it was apparently mishandled. Since you was observed to be studying a local media very thoroughly and carefully, I am sure you know well what cases I referred to, but by giving preference to argumentum ad hominem you have decided in favor of keeping an acknowledgment of your knowledge of Pattaya case to yourself only.
Posted by
Sue
on
September 13, 2014 15:28
@Sue: I have no knowledge of Pattaya whatever, having never been there. As always your arguments are irrelevant (argumentum ad hominem) and imbecilic.
Posted by
Pete
on
September 13, 2014 15:51
Sue, you are correct for once. I do not read what you post but I am not alone. I also do not understand what you post and again I am not alone.
If you were able to read and understand what you post, for once, you would be in the same situation as most of us.
Posted by
Manowar
on
September 13, 2014 17:19
A lot of people have had success with starting an online petition on change.org
I've signed a few and spread them on facebook and they have resulted in action being taken.
They are about things ranging from medicinal cannabis to insurance companies refusing claims.
You could get one going about your passport. I'm sure a lot of people would be annoyed at the usual jelly back approach of our spineless officials.
Instead of flying around the world brown-nosing everywhere, Abbott should get things at home sorted first.
Australia is big on talking about human rights until it actually involves an Aussie in trouble overseas, then all the do-gooders vanish.
You'd get more sympathy and help if you were a beached whale.
Posted by
Arun Muruga
on
September 13, 2014 20:01
Editor Comment:
Thanks, AM. We'll see what develops. I am sure news organisations will quickly become interested if the Australian Government finds excuses for not following the British Government's example.
@Pete
Hm, let me ask if that is not imbecilic to claim that you never went to Pattaya when I referred to news from Pattaya published in media? Or you acknowledge as news only that what you have personally witnessed? I am curious what visit to Pattaya have to do with reading news about it.
Myself last time I was in Pattaya 6 years ago or so.
But it doesn't prevent me to read media where on repeated occasions it was reported of UK citizens rotten in miserable conditions in local cells for weeks, having health problems, and with UK consular affairs being informed before, but doing simply nothing for their citizens.
I based my opinion also on what media repeatedly reported about various cases of UK citizens in UAE, where similar circumstances more than warranted UK government involvement, but even when it came it was really late or apparently inadequate, or it simply never came.
Yes, good deeds now in Hall case, but many misdeeds in past too.
You enflamed so much on my mention of UK inferior consular assistance, but when I pointed to details, you enflamed even more - I wonder if too strong Som Tam is guilty, as you don't keep within a logic for a facts you simply don't like..
Instead you have provided - using your vocabulary - the imbecilic argument - that you don't know what happens in Pattaya as you never went there.
And you have crashed any residues of logic by mentioning within a single simple sentence a denial of the use by you of "argumentum ad hominem " and by applying a word "imbecilic" in a personal sense, instead of presenting an argument on the matter ..
So funny indeed!
Posted by
Sue
on
September 13, 2014 23:16
Sue: I still think of you intrinsically as a woman - because I only read your admission a few days ago that you are in fact a male. It doesn't matter your gender of course, but it is like when you get someone's name wrong at the start, and keep calling someone the wrong name.
I'm getting used to it now - before this there was only Johnnie Cash and his song from the late 60's about 'a boy named sue.' I hope you have a pleasant day now.
Posted by
farang888
on
September 14, 2014 07:51
Keep on fighting, never let the authorities shut you off. We speak what we have to speak, whenever it is nescessary. No government can stop that.
Posted by
Peter
on
September 14, 2014 10:21
(moderated)
Posted by
FS
on
September 27, 2014 10:53
Editor Comment:
Back to TV please FS. Your fatuous opinions have no value and are not welcome. Or have the moderators woken up to you at TV too?
Talking about free speech. When you get caught with your pants down you won't publish it.
Posted by
fs
on
September 27, 2014 15:52
Editor Comment:
What nonsense, fs (I see shame has driven you to lower case). Free speech is what happens when people who use their real names communicate with each other in real life. Free speech is not to be confused with the ignorant ramblings of some - but not all -anonymous online ranters.
Not being able to distinguish between real life and online is why the opinion of ps has no value.
|
Sunday December 22, 2024
FOLLOW PHUKETWAN
|
'We would not want to cut across your own plans for managing the way you want to respond to the allegations against you - because, ultimately, how you manage your affairs is your business, not ours.'
Odd sort of thing for an ambassador to say, especially when part of his job as ambassador he is expected to protect and act on behalf of citizens of his home country in the host country. It was the British ambassador who started the ball rolling in an effort to get Andy Hall's passport returned, and to that end he worked hard and got the right people to listen so hence the outcome.
Down under things appear to be somewhat different in how the ambassador manages his affairs.
Posted by Pete on September 11, 2014 10:45
Editor Comment:
I'm glad you raised that point. I thought at the time it was a wimpish response. What the ambassador was saying was: ''If you can make your case seem important enough, maybe we will be forced to do something.'' Getting a reaction on matters of principle in Canberra these days appears to be impossible. Australian politicians and bureaucrats only respond to surveys, or public outcries.