Britain must have monitored Thaksin's move: Chirmsak

Why did the UK authorities make this decision?

First of all, England was exercising its sovereign rights, which do not need to be explained and nobody can sue London for anything.

One theory is that the British authorities must have monitored the situation for quite some time. When someone involved with a political crisis in a foreign country came to reside in England, all the related developments and activities must have been closely monitored by London's intelligence.

It's unlikely the British intelligence and security people had been blind and deaf when it concerned Thaksin. Great Britain, therefore, must have been dissatisfied with Thaksin's attempt to use England as a base to order or command or take part in activities that affect Thailand's internal politics.

They might have seen Thai politicians enter and leave England to get instructions, advice or "supplies" for political activities in Thailand. Or they might have heard about Thaksin's phone conversations with his media and subordinates both in Bangkok and the provinces.

In addition, Thaksin's other activities in England were no less suspicious. That he bought Manchester City and sold it just a year after at double the price raised questions if he was doing transparent business, or whether the whole thing was part of a not so noble financial plan. And how much of the Manchester City transactions involved Thaksin's controversial wealth? Whereas England was not a directly damaged party where Manchester City was concerned, the country had its own standards on transparency and good governance.

Then there was the issue of Thai protesters getting killed and maimed through mob dispersal methods not advocated in other civilised, democratic countries.

Why now?

Revoking visas while Thaksin was overseas kept the UK courts out of the process of getting rid of him and pre-empting the headache of thinking where to send him and his wife. England, obviously, didn't want to be seen as sending the couple back to be jailed in Thailand.

And the visa revocation followed the Thai Supreme Court's guilty verdict against Thaksin in the Ratchadaphisek land case as well as his phone-in speech from Hong Kong attacking the Thai judicial system and distorting the ruling.

Exercising its sovereign power when the couple was outside England was the most appropriate, convenient and effective thing to do.

While publicising it through airline notification?

It's normal and logical. Airlines need to have such information or they could face the consequence of having to bring back banned individuals to countries where they boarded the planes.

What else does the UK move mean?

Even a democratic country like England doesn't give total importance to election results. Most of all, it shames the government of Thaksin's brother-in-law which has not even suspended Thaksin's passports yet.