Oh, so it’s not just me who thinks he’s corrupt
Human Rights Watch (HRW), probably the largest human rights group in the world, has written to the Premier League to question League's 'fit and proper person' test somehow passed by Thaksin Shinawatra and his purchase of Manchester City.Quote from HRW:
"A human rights abuser of the worst kind" and "under any definition, I don't see how Thaksin can be fit and proper"
HRW doesn’t understand that all you need is money. In recent comments in my articles, I was accused of supporting a military coup and being all kinds of things which I found extremely laughable. And now you see why.
The Premier League has replied by defending the fit and proper person test. That means that human rights abusers are ok then.
The allegations against Thaksin are:
- Extrajudicial killings during a "war on drugs". HRW says 2,500 people were killed in three months during 2003
- Used the Thai military to suppress a south Thailand insurgency
- Suppressed the Thai media, that’s why you don’t know a lot about it
- Various conflict of interest with family members and business deals
See folks, the League are patsies, unwilling to stand up for anything proper. Just look at Ken Bates and Leeds, a joke beyond jokes. And unfortunately City fans, at least the ones in these comments, are blinded by loyalty to their club and accuse me of having a grudge. I don't, look here and here. Take the blinders off: the ‘fit and proper person’ test is not a real test.
Labels: Manchester City
by Football Commentator at 7/31/2007 12:43:00 PM
27 Comments:
Post a Comment
Ever heard of "Innocent until proven guilty"?
Oh don't worry, you're not the only 'journalist' to forget one of the basic rights that come from living in a free country.
You see, the key word here is "allegations".
You'll find as you become a more experienced writer/journalist that you'll spot little signifiers such as this.
You'll learn not to jump in with both feet and declare someone corrupt if said allegations have not been proved. You might even save yourself from being sued.
"Allegations". Remember that word.
I think you are missing the point here. Yes, you are right there are concerns about what this guy may or may not have done whilst PM of Thailand. However, the Premier League have made it clear that (1) they will only deal with these issues when convictions are made, and (2) to do otherwise would be in breach of both UK and EU legislation.
If they were to turn round to Thaksin and bar him from being a director, on what LEGAL grounds could they do so? Until you can answer this, then I see no point to your article.
Ok, someone hasn't had enough coffee:
"The allegations against Thaksin are:"
The only thing I jump in with both feet is that people under such a cloud should not be running clubs... people like Ken Bates too.
All the talk of Thaksin's alledged corruption died down rather abruptly didn't it? Could it be because the story had no actual substance to it and most newpapers just jumped on the hatchet job bandwagon in order to sell issues and generate traffic?
Probably, but them, like you, are all for cloning someone else's article and calling it news, a trend I see has now jumped from lazy journo's to attention seeking activists.
Fact is, Brad Adams didn't reveal anything new in his letter to the FA, nothing that wasn't already known, so why would he do such a thing and how did a single letter make the news across the country?
I am sure the HRW are slapping themselves on the back and having a good ole laugh right about now. Not for the prospect of shutting down a man compared by some as a composition of the worst parts of Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler, but for the sheer level of stupidity by English press who are lavishing free exposure on this human rights organisation who have absolutely zero presence on the ground in Thailand.
And as for your opinion on Thaksin, I would remind you that he has not been charged with anything, not been convicted of anything and was ousted by a military coup who are sure to be saying anything right now that justifies their own treason.
I am a City fan and have no need to level abuse at you, because what you think of him or what I think of you doesn't matter, what matters is my opinion of our owner and that will be 100% behind him until something, ANYTHING, is actually proven.
"on what LEGAL grounds could they do so"
Here is your answer:
The Premier League has the right to say "until this is cleared up, you don't pass the test". If what you are saying is true, only a convicted criminal is barred from owning a club, in which case it should not be a 'fit and proper person' test. The same as a company can choose not to hire you if you don't have good credit and deal with money.
Basically then you are saying that Victor Bout, biggest arms dealer in the world should be allowed to own a club, and Milosevic before he died, since he was not yet convicted???
Just ridicilous.
So how's he any different to Bush or Blair?
He's 'only' responsible for 2,500 deaths as opposed to 100,000.
He was democratically elected for 2 terms and is the only Thai PM in history to serve them, and was ousted by an illegal military revolt.
True what they say isn't it, the victors always write the history.
I've just re-read your original article. It would appear the main thing you've got against 'Frank' is that he appointed Sven whom you have decided is a crap manager.
Whose double standards?
You are coward & s**t - hiding behind the internet - say it in print in a UK newpaper & see what the Libel laws say.
The guy is innocent until proved guilty - you are just a mouth piece for an unelected military junta . but I suppose you thought Saddam was a good guy & North Korea is gods place on earth - you lefties make me sick - leave football alone you apparently know nowt about it & how about writing on Dafur or something worth you twaddling about. you are probably a rag who lives in the red heartland of Kent
"You see, the key word here is "allegations".
You'll find as you become a more experienced writer/journalist that you'll spot little signifiers such as this."
You're a moron. He's reporting the comments of a worldwide organisation and, like most blogs, he's giving you his opinion on the matter. How is that poor journalism? Besides, when was the last time the newspapers weren't filled with biased opinion? I'd like to know which open source newspaper you read.
FOOTBALL COMMENTATOR, did you actually read my post? I quite clearly pointed out the facts (try using them, it's quite good fun). The Premier League have set up the rules so that IF someone is convicted of CERTAIN (i.e. not just any) offences, they would be barred from holding a directorship. To clarify, if someone has a conviction for a traffic offence, they would not be barred, but a conviction for fraud would lead to being barred.
How exactly can you justify saying that a person should be barred until it is cleared up". They would have absolutely no legal right. Therefore, I am afraid your point is wrong.
(If you want to go into whther they have a moral rather than legal right, that is another matter altogether, but not the one you raised!)
I've had plenty of coffee, thanks.
Er, how about "Oh, so it’s not just me who thinks he’s corrupt."
And, it's 'ridiculous'. With luck, over time, your spelling will improve too.
And the gutless name-calling anonymous chap....doesn't matter if it's not a newspaper. The libel laws are alive and well in the cyber world.
the 2,500 killings were of drug dealers mainly by their seniors done not because Thaksin had ordered them to but because they were scared they were going to get snitched on and shut down. 2,500 drug dealers off the streets is hardly a crime isi it. He made conditions in prision tough, so what he target the scum of the earth we would be clever to recipricate it in our good country, these are people that destroy more likes than Thaksin's 2,500. Plus I don't think Thaksin would have been silly enough to give any direct orders. Well done to him I say.
Winn, oh Winn.
Now you're namecalling too.
It's poor journalism because he offers no context or anything remotely resembling it.
He just says "they say he's corrupt, too".
And that's it.
Not just poor but dull too. And being dull is probably an even bigger journalistic crime.
Used the Thai military to suppress a south Thailand insurgency
What was he supposed to have used the local playgroup?
All these people with their opinions based on nothing?... What are you people talking about?
Where are you getting your information on this man? Because when i look into it for myself (as opposed to complete and utter bs written by jealous idiots), the general feeling is that he is a well supported and respected guy in his homeland - So my question to the people with there random opinions is: what the feck do you actually know about this guy?
Hmmmm... not an awful lot i expect.
So my advice would be to save yourselves from looking like the dumb press lapping gawps that you are, and do some research for yourselves.
"Oh, so it’s not just me who thinks FC stands for something other than Football Commentator"
Now, this is tackling the issue from a rather more inventive angle. Look and learn, FC, look and learn.
http://www.purelymancity.com/index.php/07/31/revealed-the-questions-the-premier-league-will-ask-thaksin/
Football commentator, what a namby pamby cretin you are. What allegations have been proven? Do you believe in human rights for drug dealers? terrorists? what about the victims? Name me a prime Minister or President (including British) who haven't had some sort of human rights allegations thrown at them?
The BBC have only gone with this story to promote a programme on 5 live tonight, they should be more concerned with corruption within the Beeb IMHO, the phone in rip off springs to mind.
"The allegations against Thaksin are:"
Say no more. Guilty until proven. Allegations brought against him by a military dictatorship.
Really. Pathetic
REALLY PATHETIC
and by the way, the money Louis Edwards used to weasel his way into running Manyoo WAS corrupt. Not for nowt was he called The Bent Butcher.
If you are ousted by a military junta, they are hardly likely to say you were a great bloke, are they? From other things I've read, the reason he was so unpopular with the military and others who were making money in Thailand is that he was trying to redistribute the wealth, opening more hospitals etc. That's why the people love him.
If he wasn't popular with drug dealers, so what. As for the army putting down insurgents, how is that different to Iraq or even Northern Ireland?
so to sum things up here you have allready stated what was reported hours earlier,thus at the same time copying of another report and then coming up with your OWN opinon,is it not true that you report a story and we form our OWN opinion on the matter,go back to college please and come back when you have learnt to report properly.
I don't accuse you of anything apart from ignorance. If, like you always say, you are a fair minded individual, you would at least have the nounse to read up on the facts and not just go off hear say. Ignorance is easy, stupidity is your second nature.
I agree, if you listen to others, you will come to your conclusion. However, TS was in a different position than most. He was at the head of state of one of the biggest drugs and sex cultures in the entire world. He decided to clean it up and took a hard stance, much as we in the UK or USA may do. He brought the country into the 21st century and gave the Thai people stability and ensured growth within the country. However, some of the rich andsome of the royals did not like his popularity and the fact that he stood on a few toes to sort things out. That is what has lead to todays situation with TS.
One day, he will be cleared, when the country is not in the hands of a military government, and possibly hailed again as a great leader. Just ask those thai's, quite a few of them, who voted for him. Commentator, have a nice day, and when you do bother to get your head out of those clouds (and possibly some persons rear end), please quote and discuss facts, not somebody elses fiction.
As a football commentater you flatter yourself, as a political analyist you are a half wit.
Thaskin was the twice democratically elected Thai Prime Minister over thrown by a military coup.
He has no criminal record
Thaskin repeatedly said he will return To Thailand to face any charges on its return to democracy and his safety is more assured.
Guess you are not from the UK . We have a legal tradition like all democracies where you are innocent untill proven guilty.
Your football coments are banal enough , pity your inflated ego is not matched by any indication of intelligent observation of the western legal system.
This guy must have access to a computer once a week under supervision so he does not hurt himself.
Fooball Comment? Political Comment? Badly informed half understood regurgitated ego driven nonsense.
Why does he not ask a grown up to explain a democratic legal system ?
Having recently spoken to somebody who lived in Thailand during Franks terms as premier, I have come to the conclusion that your really having a hard time looking at the big picture. Firstly, if he did order the so called mass murder of 2500 DRUG DEALERS! So what? They destroy the human rights of drug addicts everyday so why aren't you condemning them? Secondly, if you knew anything about Thai culture you would know that nothing gets done out there without the Kings say so. I haven't read anywhere that the King condemned the actions against the DRUG DEALERS (capital letters to get the point across). However, the King also did not condemn the military coup either. Maybe your condemnation is aimed at the wrong person? Just a thought...
all in all stick to football mate because you really showed your self up with this.
Post a Comment
<< Home