Comment It |

|

Email it

Print it

Related Stories

Red Garbage Bins: The sign of the times invades tourism (story by Thai Intelligent News)
Thai Press Rescue Abirak and Democrats from that “Sinking Feelings” (story by Thai Intelligent News)
Pukky Researched into How Thai Firms are Adjusting to the Global Slowdown (story by Thai Intelligent News)
Clouds Lifted on Thai Politics: Key MP says OK to Political Reforms (story by Thai Intelligent News)
Wasting Resources : Thai Universities (story by Bangkok Pundit)
Bikini Phone Model Steppin' Out (story by Korea Beat)

Comments

by AnonymousforFun on 02/16/2010 03:31 pm

Props to Angkhana and that Chula lecturer for taking point on this. And it's worth noting they did it without rioting, occupying buildings, breaking the law or cursing their opponents.

by THUNDERMARE on 02/16/2010 04:09 pm

I want na see someone responsible for this, their asset (including sibling and relative) have to be confiscated and jail and put the double standard accusation to rest.

by Jason Smith on 02/16/2010 05:48 pm

The GT200 is probably more accurate than a coin flip (but it is not secure nor fair).

When the operator is already suspicious of a person for other reasons, he is likely to trigger a positive reading through the ideomotor effect, confirming his suspicions. A security officer, well-trained to detect suspicious clues, conducting an interview is the best way to catch a criminal. (See for example air travelers in Israel.)

However a poorly-trained officer is a recipe for disaster because the situation quickly devolves into racial or ethnic profiling.

BP: Well that depends on how you use the coin toss

by Anonymous2 on 02/16/2010 09:40 pm

On the contrary BP, I think it will be the easiest thing in the world to sweep it under the carpet. The Thai wall of silence will go up (you know the one I mean, all foreigners know the one I mean). They will just pretend the whole matter does not even exist, and of course the useless Thai media won't hold them to account for fear of being accused of being in the pay of Thaksin.

As an example, what happened to Suthep saying "they work fine so there is no need to test them"?

In any country in the world where they actually frown on corrption, as opposed to just *saying* they frown on corruption, an investigation would be held into why and how the products were bought. Not in Thailand, the turds already under the carpet are just waay too big, and Abhisit is not about to bite his master's (and mistress's)asses now is he.

As for Pornthip - say goodbye to your scientific cred Pornthip - 20 years to create, 20 minutes to destroy. I hoep the kickback was worth it.

On balance I think the guy with 4 bags of faeces had it about right.

by Anonymous2 on 02/16/2010 09:44 pm

""We won't buy any more GT200 bomb detectors as they do not work. It would be very risky to use them as, of the 20 tests conducted, results were achieved with only four, or just 25 per cent," the prime minister said."

And honestly, do you really need an education at Eton to know that 4 out of 20 is 25%?

Always used to be 20% when I was at school, but then I didn't go to Eton. Or Oxford. Didn't Abhisit do PPE? And isn't economics a part of PPE?

Oh dear - I do hope he isn't anywhere close to the budget...

by Ricefield Radio on 02/17/2010 12:47 am http://ricefieldradio.com

Doesn't the stand of the good Doctor and the fact she just can't see the scientific proof when hit on the head with it also throw into controversy all the evidence she has collected and used as evidence. If one cannot see that a plastic handle with an FM radio antenna doesn't work, even after testing, how can she be so sure of her findings on things like the Oct 7 investigation.

by David on 02/17/2010 01:29 am

After Abhisit's statement on the ineffectual nature of the GT200 devices, Thailand's Director of the Central Institute of Forensic Science, Dr. Pornthip issued the following statement:

"Dr. Pornthip said she would continue using the gadget despite its poor performance.

"I know it's not scientific equipment, but forensic scientists can use it effectively," she said. "We won't buy more, but we won't stop using them either."

And this is the person in charge of the one and only Forensic science lab in Thailand whose tests and results are used in many criminal cases as well as military situations............

Thailand is desperately in need of some "Fresh Air".

by Anonymous on 02/17/2010 01:51 am

Pornthip credibility is now ZERO. This taints every case she ever worked on, is working on, or will ever work on.

At least reason finally prevailed and everyone admits that it was a scam, the devices are phony. Etc. Too bad no one used Google a couple of years ago to investigate the devices.

Now will the real questions get asked?

1. How was this device purchased?
2. Who recommended it?
3. Did anyone recommending it also receive money from the British promoter? If so how much? Can the contracts be made public?
4. Is there any mechanism to punish the suppliers, manufacturers either civil or criminal in Thailand and/or the UK? I am thinking that a large civil suit against whatever assets the supplying company, manufacturer, distributor, etc has can be sought especially by victims of bombs that the device failed to detect. I suspect a UK court would give the widow of the policeman killed a pretty good sum in damages. It won't replace her husband, father of their children, but might send the messages to other scam artists that will attempt to use this scam in the future with other corrupt governments.
5. Can the government nullify the contracts? The idea here is that since the divine was materially misrepresented, as a "bomb detector" and it is not, then the same rules that apply to goods that I buy should in fact be what they say they are. For example if the box says "microwave oven" if it is say a toaster, I take it back to the store and get my money back. Any contracts made by the seller of the item, would not be enforceable. ETC.
6. How are military purchases vetted?
7. Can the government hire an outside auditor to keep track of military purchases?
8. The company that supplied the fake bomb dectectors also supplies other military hardware, most notably the Fighters. Is that contract also questionable, given that the fighters purchased are in fact fighters, but certainly not comparable with F-18s or the Soviet fighters that are being supplied to Viet Nam?
9. Can the government create something like the GAO (Government Accounting Office) which can review contracts and provide non-partisan information on contracts, purchases, etc?
10. Can future government ministers and spokesmen, actually use facts, logic, etc. when defending purchases?

by David on 02/17/2010 05:30 pm

from a Bangkok Post editorial titled, "Four-legged bomb detector is more reliable than GT200":

Khunying Porntip Rojanasunand, director of the Justice Ministry’s forensic science centre, also confirmed that the GT200 would continue to be used by her staff, because the device had never failed them in the field.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/168776/four-legged-bomb-detector-is-more-reliable-than-gt200

At this point, in any other country other than perhaps Zimbabwe, the director of the Justice Ministry’s forensic science centre would have no other choice than to resign.

by THUNDERMARE on 02/18/2010 10:15 am

I'm just curious, again, how did she know whether it is actually successful, you detect a substance maybe but there might be more?? or that the people who do the investigation are actually very skillful but they decided to keep it quiet just to save her face??

Name:

E-mail:
(optional)
Comment:

Allowed HTML tags: <B></B>, <I></I>, <A></A>

Are you human?