I would like to ask why Jongrat Phankin-naree was shocked by the depiction of Thaksin as the devil. Quite justifiable, in my opinion.

According to Reporters Without Borders: "Before he was overthrown... Thaksin Shinawatra had continued to weaken the independence of the media and to harass dissidents... Despite his promises, the prime minister continued to bring 'defamation' suits against media who criticised him, demanding grossly inflated damages. In 2006, at least five journalists were sacked as a result of government pressure."

Now, in a so-called "electronic war" against the junta, he cries wolf by quite pathetically portraying himself as a victim of circumstance? Apparently, this manipulator of truth and ethics is now "a victim of political persecution aimed at destroying his power base". Well, that's good news. And further, he has "not received fair treatment in the investigation of the corruption charges against him that led to the freeze on his family's bank accounts".

Thaksin is the one that set up the British Virgin Islands deals and distribution of his ill-gotten gains amongst his family to evade taxation; he is the one who is accused of extrajudicial killings; he is the one accused of unprecedented corruption; he is the one that stymied the press. It's a joke that with Bt20 billion in his war chest, allegedly stolen by policy corruption and other methods, he's now asking people to believe he's been hard done by.

Furthermore, I deeply object to the British Home Office granting this man a visa for more than three months - the same treatment should apply there as it does here. And Manchester City's board should be ashamed of themselves.

To conclude, Thaksin wouldn't in his wildest dreams dare mess with English tabloids in the same way as he harassed The Nation - they are not known for their compassion; they do, however, love to take a pop at the fallen with devilish, demonic irony.

James Groveway

Bangkok

---------------------------------------

Women need to cast off symbols of repression

 Re: "Anti-Western bias, male supremacy instilled by Thai education system", Letters, June 10.

Rebecca, I wasn't aware that women aren't allowed to dress as they please in Thailand. You choose to dress conservatively even though you would rather dress comfortably. I have to say that when you do this so as not to appear "promiscuous", you are adding to the problem of sexism and not helping women to achieve equality.

I've never been arrested or issued a citation for cutting the sleeves off my thin cotton T-shirts. My shorts fall to the middle of my thighs and might just ride up a bit while I'm riding my scooter. I like the feel of air on my skin, sweat evaporates off it and it feels good!

I absolutely refuse to use bras; it is too hot to wear elastic straps and ridiculous under-wired teacup shells on my chest. Yes, I have breasts and nipples, I believe for nourishing infants! Too bad if some man might become aroused by this; his state of mind is not any concern of mine. It is a myth that men feel any more discomfort than women from unsatisfied sexual urges.

May I suggest that children in school be taught that masturbation is a natural action and there is no shame in it. Any religion that forbids it obviously has only one objective, and that is to suppress women and subject them to violence induced by repression of natural sexual urges. The heads of religions - Christianity, Islam, Judaism, whatever - are absolutely petrified at the power women really have over men: sexual power.

So, Rebecca, just stop acquiescing to these old goats' demands. Your fear is all they have.

I am an attractive woman, I am often told, yet no one has ever attacked me. Why, I think a lot of men are actually quite afraid of me. Besides, sexual violence is about power, not sex.

Please, all women, we are beautiful and we should flaunt it. It is time to take back the world from testosterone-driven men and stop enabling patriarchal religious myths!

Throw away the veils, the bras and other devices of submission. In this climate, if the law allowed it, I'd walk around basically nude except for a G-string for hygienic reasons. I don't give a damn what anybody thinks.

Christy K Sweet

Phuket

-------------------------------------

Non-smokers can't stand the smell of smoke

 Re: "Smoking bans clear path for further govt meddling", Letters, June 14.

John Arnone's convoluted thinking regarding his rights to smoke entirely miss the mark as far as many non-smokers are concerned.

I absolutely defend his right to do whatever he pleases to his own body and certainly whatever he pleases within the confines of his house. A man's house is his castle and no government should have any right to dictate what can or cannot be done therein, provided it is legal.

He can deny the claims of the US Surgeon General if he chooses, but the arguments about how much second-hand smoke may be fatal or even just dangerous are fatuous and irrelevant when it comes to our rights. The fact is that most non-smokers find the stench of second-hand smoke repulsive. Just being close to a heavy smoker is to subject oneself to the foul smell that has permeated their clothes, hair and body.

Mr Arnone, please carry on puffing to your heart's content but do not let your second-hand smoke get near people who object to its foul smell or believe it will affect their health.

Chris Kaye

Chon Buri

----------------------------------

Restrictions on what one does at home are unlikely

 Re: "Smoking bans clear a path for further govt meddling", Letters, June 14.

I did not miss John Arnone's earlier letter on outlawing smoking in one's own home. My letter of June 12 was more of a challenge to him to name a country that has forbidden one to smoke in one's own home. Even wife-beating in the United States can only be intervened in if there is a call for help from the victim or from the neighbours for disturbing their peace. So, I opine that his fear on that possibility was rather unfounded.

Songdej Praditsmanont

Bangkok

-----------------------------------

Apologies all round from a committed smoker

 Re: "Bans on smoking keep public out of harm's way", Letters, June 16.

As it appears that no one save myself has seen fit to defend my right to smoke, it must be true that no one is "buying into my views".

I do thank David Barkdull though for at least conceding that: "As long as it is legal, smokers should be allowed to practice their vile habit".

I also want to apologise for insulting "Metallica" and its fans. It was very unfair of me to assume that any hard drugs were being consumed in "heavy metal" or "hard rock" clubs and I didn't realise that some of these groups are "icons" to many people.

If Thailand wishes to outlaw smoking in bars and my home, I guess I will just have to live with it, because it has become evident to me that there are a lot of people out there that disagree with me. Besides, how can you argue with adjectives such as "vile", "disgusting", "repulsive" and "repugnant"?

All I can hope is that once my vile, disgusting, repulsive, repugnant habit is wiped off the face of the earth, no one else's vile, disgusting, repulsive, repugnant habits will also be attacked by the majority. But I am certain that won't happen.

John Arnone

Yasothon

--------------------------------------------

Tobacco addicts do help the population problem

 Thank you for publishing the continued exchange of letters with smokers and their "victims". My feeling is that smokers are just "people who don't care" - they don't care about their own health, they don't care about the health of those around them and they don't care about the environment which they foul with their cigarette butts littered everywhere.

Smoking, as every thinking person knows, is a strong drug addiction, and addicts basically are concerned with one thing - getting their fix. If they could do this with a shred of personal ethics there would be no problem, for the act of smoking is in itself a terrific population control measure and we can do without people "who don't care".

But smokers show little or nothing of personal ethics; they fight every law to curb their smoke damage to others, and they still sneak a puff in airport toilets, buses, trains and other forbidden places. Smoke addicts have no regret for burning holes in hotel sheets, bedspreads, carpets, counter tops and tables. Countless fires are started by these addicts in forests, bedrooms, factories and other workplaces. Finally, these addicts have no regret for turning virtually the entire world into their own personal ashtray.

It all is quite disgusting from every viewpoint. Cigarette addicts are people who don't care and have no personal ethics and must be curtailed. We need more laws and more Bt2,000 fines, not fewer.

Richard Artrichard

Bangkok