No moral motive on Britain's part

Simple pragmatism is the more likely explanation. Just as in September 2006, when Thaksin's absence from Thailand provided a convenient opportunity for a coup, London merely took advantage of the trip to Hong Kong to pull the rug from under his feet, and avoid a lot of headaches for itself. In that sense, the phone-in might just as well have been a shop-in. Anyway, full marks to Whitehall for being quick off the mark.

CHRIS JEFFERY

BANGKOK

Witholding evidence of crimes is also a crime

With his visa cancelled, Thaksin says he "will make a longer speech (to his supporters at rallies) and start naming names" - presumably of those who have committed crimes. But Thaksin, a PhD in Criminal Justice, surely knows that it's the duty of any good citizen to immediately give all evidence he has of wrong-doing to the authorities, without condition, so that criminals may be brought to justice - not to withhold information in order to get something in return.

The British Ambassador to Thailand, Quinton Quayle assures us that "(British) consideration of immigration matters … are treated strictly in accordance with UK law." Thaksin is presumably protesting against the UK's revocation of his visa and that of his wife. So, is he seeking to blackmail the British government? Also, what country wants a guest who (a) abuses its hospitality to attack and destabilise his home country and (b) if denied a visa in strict accordance with the host's laws, blackmails the host?

Thaksin should go to anybody who'll accept him, hibernate, or play Rip Van Winkle until the statutes of limitations expire, then return home.

BURIN KANTABUTRA

BANGKOK

A candidate for the world's most expensive phone-call

Regarding former prime minister and now convicted fugitive Thaksin's November 1 phone-in to what the Wall Street Journal describes as an "orchestrated demonstration", it surely deserves mention in the Guinness Book of World Records as the world's most expensive phone call ever.

TAYLOR JENNINGS

BANGKOK

Women must have the right to choose abortion

Re: "Does Obama's 'change' call hide a dangerous agenda?" Letters.

Your correspondent and the Republican candidate Sarah Palin both appear to refuse the freedom of women to opt for an abortion in any circumstance. The notion of a woman suffering a rape is shocking enough. But not, apparently, for Mr Kokoski. He would use the machinery of the state to ensure the act of a criminal is compounded by his victim being compelled to carry his child. Which comes first - the 'right' of a criminal to impose parenthood on an innocent, perhaps very young, victim - or the right of a woman to opt for termination and decide to become a parent in a loving relationship of her choosing later in life?

Furthermore, anyone with even the remotest understanding of the real world knows that those with the financial means can always choose an abortion. Any pro-life legislation simply denies choice to those in society who cannot pay or travel to circumvent the law. It is by definition the denial of one group in society an equal right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.

Defend the actions of a criminal if you wish. But let's be clear what your belief implies. An utterly 'dangerous agenda'. Perhaps you know of women who would happily be governed by these fundamentalist views. I do not.

Proud to be a 'Liberal' and an atheist. Not least because I have no desire to impose an agenda on anyone.

JOHN DAKERS

SATHORN