7 hours ago, webfact said:

The court ruled that military regulations allow former officers to remain in their Army residence after retirement.

 

If he acted within the regulations then the court made the right decision. Now, how about changing the regulations.

7 hours ago, webfact said:

is PM and deserves the honour and security it provides.

he deserves the Honour LMFO ! Yeh right such an horrible oops. honorable man, your honor 

5 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

 

If he acted within the regulations then the court made the right decision. Now, how about changing the regulations.

I think they already did, I thought the last chief said it was against regulations, but he was a special case 

14 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

 

If he acted within the regulations then the court made the right decision. Now, how about changing the regulations.

I think they already did, I thought the last chief said it was against regulations, but he was a special case 

So he went for a nice yellow silk blouse then, not a uniform or suit and tie. I lost my bet on this one dammit.

 

Edited December 3, 20205 yr by metisdead
Trolling image removed.

Some posts using trolling content have been edited or removed. 

34 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

 

If he acted within the regulations then the court made the right decision. Now, how about changing the regulations.

The problem isn't what's written within the army regulations - it's what's written within the constitution.

 

It would be similar to me being provided housing from my workplace but deciding to live in a house provided by the company I used to work for. My old company couldn't just say, "It's okay. We don't mind. He was a good egg when he worked for us". My current employers would well be in their right to fire me for conflict of interest. 

 

If the problem was his official residence was being renovated, he should have been officially signed off to live somewhere else for a fixed period of time (not 6 years).

 

If the problem was his residence was too big (yes, this was one of the excuses) he should have been reminded of how the average Thai person lives and been scolded for being so crass, ignorant and flippant. 

 

He stayed in his army home and no one thought to do anything about making it legally permanent. They thought they could do as they please. Very sadly for Thailand they were right. 

 

1 minute ago, rkidlad said:

56 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

 

If he acted within the regulations then the court made the right decision. Now, how about changing the regulations.

The problem isn't what's written within the army regulations - it's what's written within the constitution.

 

It would be similar to me being provided housing from my workplace but deciding to live in a house provided by the company I used to work for. My old company couldn't just say, "It's okay. We don't mind. He was a good egg when he worked for us". My current employers would well be in their right to fire me for conflict of interest. 

 

If the problem was his official residence was being renovated, he should have been officially signed off to live somewhere else for a fixed period of time (not 6 years).

 

If the problem was his residence was too big (yes, this was one of the excuses) he should have been reminded of how the average Thai person lives and been scolded for being so crass, ignorant and flippant. 

 

He stayed in his army home and no one thought to do anything about making it legally permanent. They thought they could do as they please. Very sadly for Thailand they were right. 

 

The court said he acted within the regulations. End of. Of course the regulations are wrong, but that doesn't make him guilty, Does the constitution bother itself with where ex-army personnel live? I don't think so.

1 hour ago, 2530Ubon said:

As a side note (I still think he should have been removed from office), Thai people believe that the PM's mansion is haunted and all Prime Ministers have refused to live there.

 

There was one prime minister who used the mansion, I think his name was Chuan. He was known to never use the bedroom and slept on a sofa in his office!

So sell it. Build another 

10 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

 

The court said he acted within the regulations. End of. Of course the regulations are wrong, but that doesn't make him guilty, Does the constitution bother itself with where ex-army personnel live? I don't think so.

Gifts or privileges can't be bestowed upon politicians. They have a salary and all other perks are officially signed off for.

 

Letting someone live in a house for free is a very special privilege. Which is why if it was really necessary, it should have been made official from the beginning. Especially just after you take over a country with a gun on the pretext of ending corruption. 

Are we surprised??

So Military Regulations says he can stay in the house but the Constitution definitely says he can't so does Military Regulation (not law) supersede the Constitution?

Seems it does.

What's the problem, I was under the impression the persons in the Privileged sector were expected to gather in perks by right.  Has anyone come up with an anthem to commemorate the demise of Thai Airways, such a shame they ran out of money, ho-hum, have to find another source...

1 hour ago, Bangkok Barry said:

 

The court said he acted within the regulations. End of. Of course the regulations are wrong, but that doesn't make him guilty, Does the constitution bother itself with where ex-army personnel live? I don't think so.

It's not the point where retired Generals live the point is he is currently PM and the constitution says he cannot receive any state benefits.
Anyway is Military regulation the LAW does it supersede the Constitution?

 

 

Edited December 3, 20205 yr by DirtyHarry55

6 hours ago, Venom said:

BTW - In the photo I see he's wearing a mask with a one way valve, these only offer protection to the wearer and zero protection against spreading Covid to others. ????

He's been refurbishing his official residence and assisting in the painting, hence the mask he is wearing. ????

33 minutes ago, PETERTHEEATER said:

He's been refurbishing his official residence and assisting in the painting, hence the mask he is wearing. ????

No, the mask is to cover the snide smirk on his face that he has screwed the system again, but that is part and parcel for people of his ilk! Let the peasants eat cake! Khub  phoom! 

No fan of the man.

After reading the story, prosecution line and the defense, would be the way I would have judged the case.

There were precedents as well as other mitigating circumstances, which made sense.

Besides, we're talking about paid housing, so let's keep it in perspective!

Edited December 3, 20205 yr by Donga

A foregone conclusion in the systemic corrupt society that exists here.

 

2 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

So sell it. Build another 

why sell it, use it as a tourist attraction.  Decorate it at Halloween.  Put a ride through the middle of it after contracting with Disney.  They could make some money.

6 hours ago, TKDfella said:

Well, the only thing that surprises me is that the courts didn't suggest dissolving the opposition party. I mean, they are only there as token for the international stage. They are inert. The PM now has a clear run to openly do whatever he wants.

He has actually said those very words a couple of years back now, he can do anything he wants!

Did you seriously expect anything different? How could a man who led a coup against the former duly elected government and engineered himself into office be guilty of anything.....this is just silliness.   

This ruling opens a whole new can of worms. Army regulations outweigh the Constitution, number 1.

Number 2, all those Generals and others who retire from the army and continue to 'serve the country well' will be in entitled to stay in their army accommodation, but have it graded as a guests house rather than serving army officer housing. Someone is going to run out of serving officer accommodation soon if this goes the way it should. All ex-army senators and others who 'serve the country well' should have their army accommodation reinstated, if not already done. Perhaps the Air Force and Navy should introduce the same regulation. Perhaps his prime ministership should consider sleeping on board a submarine, if he's that worried about his security.

 

On 12/2/2020 at 3:55 PM, colinneil said:

Well theres a surprise, what a bloody disgraceful farce.

Colin are you surprised??  I am NOT  555 ... all was/is within their normal ""lawfull""  behavioral decisions ????

Edited December 3, 20205 yr by Mavideol

On 12/2/2020 at 3:41 PM, webfact said:

Prayut is accused of violating Sections 184 and 186 of the Constitution that forbid a government minister from “receiving any special money or benefit from a government agency,

since when did he respected the constitution, isn't he the one who changed/amended the constitution to fit his needs ????????

Those in power and with money will always be able to outmaneuver and out-vote those without it; especially so, in a society that doesn't have the institutions that place a high value on accountability and transparency over money and power.

 

I think we all knew this would be the outcome, and they would find a way to say that the law allows him to do it.

 

I still hope and believe that one day the country I love so much can become something greater. But the worst part about this is that normal Thai people lose and the army/those in power/those with money win a luxurious life

Edited December 3, 20205 yr by curlylekan

I am sure many said it already but will say again, this is not a surprise, not at all, Surprise would have been if he had been found guilty, that would have created unrest, demonstrations, maybe some street violence as the Yellow shirts (including Steven100 ) would be mad as hell 555 

 

Note:    some of the words above may have sarcasm intent/purpose

On 12/2/2020 at 9:41 AM, webfact said:

The Constitutional Court has ruled that Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha should remain in office as he did not violate the charter.

What a surprise !

1 hour ago, Scott Tracy said:

This ruling opens a whole new can of worms. Army regulations outweigh the Constitution, number 1.

Number 2, all those Generals and others who retire from the army and continue to 'serve the country well' will be in entitled to stay in their army accommodation, but have it graded as a guests house rather than serving army officer housing. Someone is going to run out of serving officer accommodation soon if this goes the way it should. All ex-army senators and others who 'serve the country well' should have their army accommodation reinstated, if not already done. Perhaps the Air Force and Navy should introduce the same regulation. Perhaps his prime ministership should consider sleeping on board a submarine, if he's that worried about his security.

 

Interesting perspective.

I believe the Navy chief is having a new place built though so he is able to welcome any important visitors.

41 minutes ago, greeneking said:

Interesting perspective.

I believe the Navy chief is having a new place built though so he is able to welcome any important visitors.

Does he get to keep it on retirement?

16 hours ago, webfact said:

Charter Court acquits PM Prayut Chan-o-cha

Did anyone expect anything different?