Tatsujin

As I am ignorant of just how the Thai courts work, I would appreciate it if someone would educate me (with facts, not opinions no matter how strongly felt):

Does the composition of the courts change with a change in the PM? During Abhisit's reign as PM, there were a number of decisions that seemed politically motivated against the opposition, including the down-right hilarious removal of a sitting PM for appearing on a TV cooking show. Are these the same judges that are now being accused of political bias in the other direction? Is there a separation between the legislative, execuitve, and judicial branches?

Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Justice, and Supreme Administrative Court; all judges are appointed by the king; the king's appointments to the Constitutional Court are made upon the advice of the Senate; the nine Constitutional Court judges are drawn from the Supreme Court of Justice and Supreme Administrative Court as well as from among substantive experts in law and social sciences outside the judiciary.

I agree with you. Unidentified means unidentified. Doesn't mean they were and doesn't mean they weren't. Yet you find your beliefs to be "blatantly obvious" which doesn't make much sense to me.

I am saying that it is blatantly obvious to me who they were connected to, but i'm not saying it is a proven fact. Tarit has stated as fact that this "third hand" group is not linked to the reds. Surprised that the emphasis of your post is to disagree with what i am saying, and not what Tarit has said... or perhaps i'm not..

Well, the problem is as I see it, that these 3rd parties were all wearing black, and that's rather confused some people on here . . . because of course, you can only be a red/yellow/green/blue supporter or proponent if you are wearing the appropriately colored t-shirt.

I'm waiting for those "labelled" to start suing . . . am sure these is a law somewhere around in the bizarre laws that make up Thailand that would cover this.

A Brit, charged of killing an American on Thai soil.

Quite a unique case I think.

Did this ever happen before? Meaning, a foreigner kills another foreigner and escapes Thailand and is extradited later, back to Thailand?

I never heard of it.

Anybody?

As it states in the article, it's the first time a Brit has been extradited to Thailand in 100 years.

If the "Thai's" think along the same lines as the "foreigners", then based on the rather heated "debates" here on TV amongst the (mostly) foreigners, there is never going to be any "reconciliation" whatsoever here in Thailand. The 2 x sides are so far apart on what each thinks that there simply is no middle ground anymore. Neither will back down or compromise, neither will make any accommodations with the other, neither will accept anything less than what "they" want. So what's the answer or solution?

Because Abhisit had invoked the Internal Security Act on the 11th March, two whole days before the UDD had even arrived in Bangkok for their first rally.

The ISA didn't make the protest illegal.

So did the protest ever actually break any normal day to day laws?

You mean other than preventing access to large parts of Bangkok, barricades, grenade attacks, shootings, arson and general disruption to everyday Bangkok residents lives? You really are an idiot if you can't see that it became far more than a simple peaceful protest very quickly.

You might find this interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932010_Thai_political_crisis

It paints all sides in a very bad light if you read it all. But that's what I've said all along.

The protests had already been declared illegal through the SOE.

The court said that they didn't need to rule on stopping the red shirts from occupying Ratchaprasong.

Ah ok. Bit strange though. Would have made it better to have got a court judgment though surely.

But that's the point . . . they did ask the Courts to make a ruling, and the Court ruling was that they didn't need an additional judgement as the ISA and SoE covered it all already.

Self fulfilling judgment then. They should have got a judgment prior to putting the SOE in place. Wonder why they didn't?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Any PM can declare a SoE, they don't need a Court Order to allow them to do so, they already have that power as a matter of course.

The problem was that the Red protestors didn't "accept" that the SoE was legal (because it didn't fit in with their ideas of how the law should operate) and continued to protest. The Govt then decided to "check" whether a separate legal Court Order (which perhaps the Red protestors "might" then accept) could be given to evict the protestors on or around the 10th April, and the Court deemed it completely unnecessary as all the powers needed to evict the protestors were contained already within the ISA and SoE.

Simple enough for you now? Or does you not accept this also?

The protests had already been declared illegal through the SOE.

The court said that they didn't need to rule on stopping the red shirts from occupying Ratchaprasong.

Ah ok. Bit strange though. Would have made it better to have got a court judgment though surely.

But that's the point . . . they did ask the Courts to make a ruling, and the Court ruling was that they didn't need an additional judgement as the ISA and SoE covered it all already.

Also, for those that haven't read it, try looking at what the actual ISA states: http://asiapacific.a...7inenglish.pdf. Yes it's a translation, and yes you could claim that it might not be 100% accurate, but it does make interesting reading. #15, #16, #17 and #23 are of particular interest.

Link doesn't work.

Try this: http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/thailandinternalsecurityactdraftof16oct2007inenglish.pdf

@Thai at heart ...

For who?

Sent from my HTC phone.

Abhisit. They should surely have got someone to deem that the protest had broken some law?

Basically, the army shot people who weren't breaking the law

Mmmmm . . . once again, you are forgetting the ISA, SoE, restricted zones and curfew that was in place at that time and that people KNEW was in effect.

Was there ever a court order deeming the protest illegal?

"The government claimed that the protests were illegal and attempted to evict the protesters without a court order, as the Civil Court had ruled that the PM is already empowered to do so." (wiki)

http://www.nationmul...--30126454.html

Well that might be a fly in the ointment.

It never ceases to amaze how different people interpret the same things.

The Civil Court concluded that the PM DID NOT NEED a separate Court Order to evict the protestors, he already had the power to do so under the ISA.

The Civil Court Monday refused to consider the request of the government to issue a court order to force red-shirt protester to stop occupying the Rajprasong commercial area.

The court reasoned that the prime minister as the director of the Internal Security Operations Command, is already empowered by Article 16 and 18 of the Internal Security Act to order the protesters to leave Rajprasong without having to seek the court order again.

The court noted that the ISA empowers the ISOC director to stop and prevent activities that affected the national stability and to carry out actions to return normality to the country.

For those that are hard of reading or understanding I've highlighted the relevant aspects above.

Also, for those that haven't read it, try looking at what the actual ISA states: http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/thailandinternalsecurityactdraftof16oct2007inenglish.pdf. Yes it's a translation, and yes you could claim that it might not be 100% accurate, but it does make interesting reading. #15, #16, #17 and #23 are of particular interest.

I return your challenge and would ask you to identify 5 pro-red shirt posts on this forum. Similarly I'd ask Tatsujin, our resident troll, to stop making smarmy comments about other members and actually start contributing to these threads constructively.

You throw around the terms red apologists, red sympathisers etc with absolutely no basis. It's just a childish way at avoiding tackling the actual points raised. I actually believe that many on here sympathise with no political party in Thailand but recognise the hypocrisy on both sides and simply support the ideals of democracy.

I have made some constructive comments within this thread, but you pooh-poohed them as being wrong as they were based on my opinion and that didn't happen to match with your own. Everyone here has an opinion about everything, and that's their opinion based on their experiences. I don't agree with or accept many others opinions, but equally they don't really affect me either. I do like a good "discussion" though, interjected with light humour and put-downs.

At the moment we're all going around in circles, neither admitting to the other that they might have any opinion that "could" be correct, valid or acceptable. Quite similar in fact to what happened in 2010 between the Red protestors and the sitting Government and continues now with Politics here in general.

As I'm neither a Red nor a Yellow supporter (or any other color), I really don't give a monkeys who's in power here, it's unlikely to make my life here any different or any better in the short or the long term. The "majority" of the "people" here got the Government they asked for within the bounds of their twisted form of laws, electoral process and Democracy. Good for them. For those that don't like it, there are legal ways to change things.

Do I think the Abhisit Goverment did things 100% correct? No.

Do I think the current Government (or previous Red Governments) are doing things 100% correct? No.

They are ALL as bad as each other with the overriding desire to "look after" each other financially and to screw as much money out of the "people" as they can in any way they can.

At the point that any one of these Governments starts to make life here for me to live, work and run a business even more difficult that it already is, then I'll walk away . . . to the cheers of many I am sure. Other than that, I remain a (very) amused bystander.

If you read through a list of Ferangled's posts you will see that you are not alone in receiving snide quips. He likes to think that he adds to the conversation but just trolls about taking pot shots at anyone who criticises the government accusing those posters of the very things that he does.

Don't take it personally.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

I don't take anything personally, especially on here.

I do love to wind people up that takes things FAR too seriously though . . .

Just for people's further edification:

http://www.pricesano...in-thailand.php

And this one has some real corkers in it:

I return your challenge and would ask you to identify 5 pro-red shirt posts on this forum. Similarly I'd ask Tatsujin, our resident troll, to stop making smarmy comments about other members and actually start contributing to these threads constructively.

You throw around the terms red apologists, red sympathisers etc with absolutely no basis. It's just a childish way at avoiding tackling the actual points raised. I actually believe that many on here sympathise with no political party in Thailand but recognise the hypocrisy on both sides and simply support the ideals of democracy.

I have made some constructive comments within this thread, but you pooh-poohed them as being wrong as they were based on my opinion and that didn't happen to match with your own. Everyone here has an opinion about everything, and that's their opinion based on their experiences. I don't agree with or accept many others opinions, but equally they don't really affect me either. I do like a good "discussion" though, interjected with light humour and put-downs.

At the moment we're all going around in circles, neither admitting to the other that they might have any opinion that "could" be correct, valid or acceptable. Quite similar in fact to what happened in 2010 between the Red protestors and the sitting Government and continues now with Politics here in general.

As I'm neither a Red nor a Yellow supporter (or any other color), I really don't give a monkeys who's in power here, it's unlikely to make my life here any different or any better in the short or the long term. The "majority" of the "people" here got the Government they asked for within the bounds of their twisted form of laws, electoral process and Democracy. Good for them. For those that don't like it, there are legal ways to change things.

Do I think the Abhisit Goverment did things 100% correct? No.

Do I think the current Government (or previous Red Governments) are doing things 100% correct? No.

They are ALL as bad as each other with the overriding desire to "look after" each other financially and to screw as much money out of the "people" as they can in any way they can.

At the point that any one of these Governments starts to make life here for me to live, work and run a business even more difficult that it already is, then I'll walk away . . . to the cheers of many I am sure. Other than that, I remain a (very) amused bystander.

"In general, an opinion is a belief about matters commonly considered to be subjective, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. It can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments.[1] In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

Don't bother rubl, i posted that yesterday and the 2 posters who think anyone's "opinion" other than theirs are wrong are never going to change their minds.

Usufructs are very much set in law.

It is not just an "agreement" made between 2 persons, but is actually registered on the land title deed, with fees/taxes paid to the land department as set in the regualtions...

Sent from my GT-I9001 using Thaivisa Connect App

Which is great right up to the point where you go head-to-head with a Thai in a disagreement and that lovely piece of paper suddenly isn't worth a whole hell of a lot because of some loophole or reinterpretation of the law.

Can't wait to see the umbrella girls.

Umbrella "girls" will be those of the 3rd gender . . .

Just wild generalisations, try sticking to the facts. The vast majority of protesters actually had no assault rifles, no grenade launchers and actually comprised many women and children. They were about as aggressive as most people's grandmothers are. There was a small minority violent element who the military apparently missed completely, choosing to shoot people that were neither armed, or in some cases even involved in the protests.

You are really amazing Ferangled, you criticise my postings but now you've gone from saying it was a peaceful protest to saying that "some" had assault rifles and grenades. So it wasn't a peaceful, lawful protest after all?

You wanted to know "why" the SoE was put in place . . . precisely for that reason . . . guns, grenades, attacks on police and army, and generally putting the (majority) of the civilian population at risk.

People had a choice to leave the area peacefully at any point during these "protests", both before and after the SoE was put into effect. They chose not to do so.

I have, repeatedly. Are you actually going to attempt to answer them or indeed answer any of the replies made to you, such as the one above, made directly in reply to your own post and using your own quoted source? That would seem a reasonable place to start dialogue no?

I'm still waiting for you to list your actual questions in a simple form as smedly has done instead of mixed in amongst your diatribe. I repeat . . . list and ask your questions, I'll answer them.

You'll be waiting a long time. I'm not in the business of reposting purely to satisfy the deliberately blind or lazy. Do yourself a favour and read the thread from the start; you'll see a whole lot of unanswered points and questions, hidden amongst a whole lot more baseless speculation and childish insults made in reply. Might give you a better sense of perspective... miracles never cease.

Edit:

It appears you actually tried once...

Were the police working with the Government to control the protests? Initially yes, but very reticently, hence the later military involvement as they weren't doing their jobs.

But then changed your mind a few posts later...

Did the Thai police refuse to carry out their duties during the Red shirt protests Yes

With that in mind it seems pretty pointless asking you anything... your response seems to change with the wind.

I kept my second post simple without explanation in the hope that it didn't confuse you. It appears I failed.

The Police did NOT perform as was expected of them at the beginning of the protests but later did do so (mostly) as shown in the pics you referred to. This was only AFTER however some arse's got kicked and the Military got involved. Simple enough for you Ferangled?

I have, repeatedly. Are you actually going to attempt to answer them or indeed answer any of the replies made to you, such as the one above, made directly in reply to your own post and using your own quoted source? That would seem a reasonable place to start dialogue no?

I'm still waiting for you to list your actual questions in a simple form as smedly has done instead of mixed in amongst your diatribe. I repeat . . . list and ask your questions, I'll answer them.

I bought a condo of the plan. It should be completed by the end of March. I bought it in Thai company name. I have not set up a company as yet. it is required from me to set up company within a year of complition of the condo. Question is; will the new law effect me and how will it effect me? can you help please.

You can buy it in your own name 100% provided that it's above a certain level and providing foreign ownership within the whole complex is less than a certain amount. A Google will find the specific figures for you.

yeah but what is the certain level? and what is whole complex,and less than certain ammount, can you please simplify it

Jeez you're lazy . . . 2 mins on google will answer all your questions:

http://www.cbre.co.th/en/Bangkok-condo-apartment-ownership-law.asp

http://www.propertyguidethailand.com/thailaw.html

http://www.samuiforsale.com/knowledge/practical-legal-for-condos.html

As with everything, talk to a (reputable) lawyer to get the latest correct legal advice.

@smedly - Do not argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience

We're getting there as evidenced by the ramblings of some people here.

- Did the Thai police refuse to carry out their duties during the Red shirt protests Yes

- were there any of the red shirts armed with lethal weapons Yes

- did the protestors use lethal weapons against the police or army Yes

- were protestors paid money to be there - if yes give a brief description of where you think the money came from Yes - indirectly or directly it came from Thaksin

- were there threats of violence made by protest leaders from the stage Yes

- were the protestors violent Yes after a certain point, later in March

- was Thaksin S involved Yes

- were the protestors breaking the law Yes

- Should the army have cleared the protestors Yes

- should a government give in to violent mobs and rioting No

That's MY opinion and is not backed up by any facts simply what I saw and heard and was reported at the time.