Abhisit Urges Thaksin To Return Home

[Journalist]

For God's sake, why don't you self-styled legal eagles simple google

'contempt of court' + 'definition'

And you'll see why in a free society people are allowed to criticise a court's ruling outside the precincts of the courthouse without being banged up themselves.

You can discuss rulings all you like but to insult the court is not legal in Thailand. You, being a "Journalist" should know this

But he's not in Thailand, JD... so we'll help him...

Chaiya guilty of contempt of court

The Administrative Court yesterday found Public Health Minister Chaiya Sasomsap guilty of contempt of court and fined him Bt25,000. Chaiya had criticised the court's injunction against his order to appoint a new board of directors at the Government Pharmaceutical Organisation.

Former lawyer of ousted PM jailed for contempt of court

Criminal Court sentenced a former lawyer of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra to six months in jail and a fine of Bt70,000 for contempt of court.

However the court put Thana Benjathikul on probation for two years.

The court found Thana guilty of contempt of court for criticising the court on jailing three former Election Commission members.

Sure seems like Thaksin's people have an affinity for the charge...

Thanks --- it is obvious that "Journalist" was just responding to me (trying to flame) without either reading what has been said or thinking about this being Thailand. You CANNOT insult the courts in Thailand. It is illegal.

Given that you can read Thai and say you have knowledge of Thai law, can you help us and show us the statute - especially in so far as precedents apply to online forums. Because frankly, if everyone in Thaivisa is going to be hamstrung by contempt, lese majeste and slander laws, then the whole thing is precarious isn't it.

"Please feel free to read up on the law as much as you please, I am sure you will find some references in the posts from English language newspapers in Thailand"

The press is the last place i'd start looking if I researched any legal question. Thats the problem with the News Cuttings sub forum. The media are your Gods, (especially Jonathan Head), but they are gods with whom you have a love/hate relationship.

Thanks for the continued "inverted commas" around my name. I'm afraid that just makes you look bitchy, camp and viperish. If you want to read my articles, send me a pm and i'll send you links to my bylined pieces and put you on the mailing list when I get back from holiday in Bangkok.

Peace....

[animatic]

Who said the quote

" I read the paper everyday and believe every word I read."?

So we argue on truths?

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule,

where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry

and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned -

this is the sum of good government."

"Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper."

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail,

that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law

must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

Thomas Jefferson

And this from a great hero of democracy.

Albert Einstein:

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

Abraham Lincoln:

"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

"It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence to be ever in view,

and which should be true and appropriate in all times and situations.

They presented him the words: "And this, too, shall pass away." "

Daniel Patrick Moynihan:

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

Alfred North Whitehead:

"There are no whole truths: all truths are half-truths.

It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil."

Anais Nin:

"When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma,

we become automatons. We cease to grow."

Benjamin Disraeli:

"Never apologize for showing feeling. When you do so, you apologize for the truth. "

Demosthenes:

"Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true."

Friedrich Nietzsche:

"And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh."

Galileo:

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."

George Bernard Shaw:

"New opinions often appear first as jokes and fancies, then as blasphemies and treason,

then as questions open to discussion, and finally as established truths."

George Eliot:

"Falsehood is easy, truth so difficult."

Thomas Jefferson

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone.

The people themselves are its only safe depositories."

"Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind,

for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor."

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government

those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations,

perverted it into tyranny. "

Jean-Paul Sartre:

"Like all dreamers I confuse disenchantment with truth."

Joan of Arc:

"Children say that people are hung sometimes for speaking the truth."

John F. Kennedy:

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest --

but the myth -- persistent, persuasive and unrealistic"

John Locke:

"It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth."

Edited December 20, 2008 by animatic

[sriracha john]

For God's sake, why don't you self-styled legal eagles simple google

'contempt of court' + 'definition'

And you'll see why in a free society people are allowed to criticise a court's ruling outside the precincts of the courthouse without being banged up themselves.

You can discuss rulings all you like but to insult the court is not legal in Thailand. You, being a "Journalist" should know this

But he's not in Thailand, JD... so we'll help him...

Case #1

Chaiya guilty of contempt of court

The Administrative Court yesterday found Public Health Minister Chaiya Sasomsap guilty of contempt of court and fined him Bt25,000. Chaiya had criticised the court's injunction against his order to appoint a new board of directors at the Government Pharmaceutical Organisation.

Case #2

Former lawyer of ousted PM jailed for contempt of court

Criminal Court sentenced a former lawyer of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra to six months in jail and a fine of Bt70,000 for contempt of court.

However the court put Thana Benjathikul on probation for two years.

The court found Thana guilty of contempt of court for criticising the court on jailing three former Election Commission members.

Sure seems like Thaksin's people have an affinity for the charge...

Thanks --- it is obvious that "Journalist" was just responding to me (trying to flame) without either reading what has been said or thinking about this being Thailand. You CANNOT insult the courts in Thailand. It is illegal.

Given that you can read Thai and say you have knowledge of Thai law, can you help us and show us the statute - especially in so far as precedents apply to online forums.

more help for the "Journalist"...

Case #1

Articles 64/65 of the Administrative Court Establishment Act

Case #2

Article 198 of the Thai Criminal Code

As for applying to forum usage, although a different criminal code violation, ever hear of:

On April 28 2008, the owners of two Thai websites, Fah Diew Kan and Prachatai were charged under Article 116(2) of the Thai Criminal Code in Khon Kaen province for publishing discussions on their website forums.

Edited December 20, 2008 by sriracha john

[Thai at Heart]

And as for internet slander, well the law is so broad, any of us calling a known person names could probably get someone into trouble.

Where reputation is akin to "face" people can have very fragile egos.

[animatic]

Fragile egos, willing lawyers and the truth be damned.

Edited December 20, 2008 by animatic

[Thai at Heart]

Fragile egos, willing lawyers and the truth be damned.

And it is a criminal not a civil matter.

[animatic]

Actually BOTH I believe

[Thai at Heart]

Actually BOTH I believe

Actually yes, but it is a rare situation in the world today when slander/defamation of an individual can be classed as a criminal matter. Having been caught up in it, it gets your attention pretty sharpish.

[Plus]

There have been comparisons made in recent weeks between the rallies in Bangkok and the mobilizing of fascist, anti-democratic groups on the streets of Europe many decades ago. But it is in this targeting and redirecting of the work done by the courts that current events most closely resemble those of 1930s Germany.

In the Weimar period, the judiciary was increasingly manipulated and used to serve a particular set of interests, those of the emerging Nazis and their allies, against their political opponents. The courts throughout this time stuck to the letter of the law while defying its spirit, hollowing it out so that virtually anything could be made to fit inside but still be defended in legal terms.

Among the types of political cases brought to the courts, there was a category of artificially-created offenses, in which a crime may technically have been committed within the narrow terms of a statute but could only be made sensible if divorced from its historical and social setting, and reduced to minute details....

[/i]

http://www.upiasia.com/Human_Rights/2008/0...o_problem/4355/

How about some other quotes from that article?

That's what the author says about the court.

"The thinking that went into that verdict was not entertained by the superior judges in 2006. They lacked the brains, the heart, the stomach and the backbone"

That's what he says about Chamlong, I assume:

"the rent-a-protest leaders, who as in 1992 have shown a keenness to risk other people’s lives for their own selfish goals..."

These couple of quotes tell a lot about his credibility, but the real discovery for me was at the end:

"Awzar Thi is the pen name of a member of the Asian Human Rights Commission"

Now I know who writes that crap under AHRC name, I was always wondering about that.

Thanks, PD.

[sabaijai]

Just keep on dreaming. To face a kangaroo court it will never happen

1) You really shouldn't insult the courts here.

Why? Whenever we want to discuss something near the root, we come to the reminder "you cannot discuss".

Because it is illegal.

It's not illegal to respectfully discuss. The problem is that the discussion often *isn't* respectful, and so poses a (real) risk to Thaivisa itself. But I agree it is annoying and the moderation gets totally out of hand sometimes.

There is a jail term in Thailand for disagreeing with the court. You could be jail calling Judges Kangaroos. This is not Australia.

You won't go to jail for respectfully discussing a court decision - but if you call a judge a kangaroo in court you probably would be done for contempt or its equivalent. Even in Australia.

So why is Jonathon D. Head still at large spouting his Thaksinist propaganda on the BBC and not behind bars for contempt of court? The other day he clearly said, in reference to Thaksin that he was the victim of "a number of dubious judicial decisions". Sounds like an open and shut case of contempt to me.

It is not illegal in Thailand to critique a court's decision. Defaming or libeling judges by name is, same as with any other individual. However a person who was plaintiff or defendant in case can be charged with contempt of court for publicly condemning a court's decision.

[ballpoint]

Just keep on dreaming. To face a kangaroo court it will never happen

1) You really shouldn't insult the courts here.

Why? Whenever we want to discuss something near the root, we come to the reminder "you cannot discuss".

Because it is illegal.

It's not illegal to respectfully discuss. The problem is that the discussion often *isn't* respectful, and so poses a (real) risk to Thaivisa itself. But I agree it is annoying and the moderation gets totally out of hand sometimes.

There is a jail term in Thailand for disagreeing with the court. You could be jail calling Judges Kangaroos. This is not Australia.

You won't go to jail for respectfully discussing a court decision - but if you call a judge a kangaroo in court you probably would be done for contempt or its equivalent. Even in Australia.

So why is Jonathon D. Head still at large spouting his Thaksinist propaganda on the BBC and not behind bars for contempt of court? The other day he clearly said, in reference to Thaksin that he was the victim of "a number of dubious judicial decisions". Sounds like an open and shut case of contempt to me.

It is not illegal in Thailand to critique a court's decision. Defaming or libeling judges by name is, same as with any other individual. However a person who was plaintiff or defendant in case can be charged with contempt of court for publicly condemning a court's decision.

Calling a number of judgements dubious on international television is not critiqueing a courts decision, it is implying that the judges were pressured into a false decision, and are therefore corrupt. This is definitely defaming and libelling the judges responsible and they would be well with their rights to haul Mr Head in front of them to clarify his statement. It further shows the correspondant is definitely not reporting impartially, since anyone with an in depth knowledge of the case Thaksin was prosecuted for will know that the decision was a correct one. For some reason, he is continually trying to garner support for Thaksin by overseas viewers. Maybe he could explain that to the judges too.

[plachon]

That article is the most bone-headed excuse for journalism yet. Even the Nation should be ashamed.

I was going to ask why you felt that way... but having seen you're gone for good now, I won't bother. Adios.

Yes indeed. Adios. Hopefully the last we've seen of the toxic bleater.

There have been comparisons made in recent weeks between the rallies in Bangkok and the mobilizing of fascist, anti-democratic groups on the streets of Europe many decades ago. But it is in this targeting and redirecting of the work done by the courts that current events most closely resemble those of 1930s Germany.

In the Weimar period, the judiciary was increasingly manipulated and used to serve a particular set of interests, those of the emerging Nazis and their allies, against their political opponents. The courts throughout this time stuck to the letter of the law while defying its spirit, hollowing it out so that virtually anything could be made to fit inside but still be defended in legal terms.

Among the types of political cases brought to the courts, there was a category of artificially-created offenses, in which a crime may technically have been committed within the narrow terms of a statute but could only be made sensible if divorced from its historical and social setting, and reduced to minute details....

http://www.upiasia.com/Human_Rights/2008/0...o_problem/4355/

strange choice of photo there - Toxin in one of his least democratic, most autocratic periods of bizarre behaviour towards the end of his regime (some might call it fascist, but I wouldn't go that far). In fact, I'm at a loss why you sometimes choose pics that actually destroy the weak case you are trying to build, and here is a classic case - Thakky avoiding questions from the media by holding up a little black cross meaning "that one is too tough for me and so I refuse to answer it. Next question please". Pathetic.

Or maybe you are suggesting that TV is becoming like the Weimar Republic in which case you are really clutching at the last desperate straws?

[permanent_disorder]

That article is the most bone-headed excuse for journalism yet. Even the Nation should be ashamed.

I was going to ask why you felt that way... but having seen you're gone for good now, I won't bother. Adios.

Yes indeed. Adios. Hopefully the last we've seen of the toxic bleater.

strange choice of photo there - Toxin in one of his least democratic, most autocratic periods of bizarre behaviour towards the end of his regime (some might call it fascist, but I wouldn't go that far). In fact, I'm at a loss why you sometimes choose pics that actually destroy the weak case you are trying to build, and here is a classic case - Thakky avoiding questions from the media by holding up a little black cross meaning "that one is too tough for me and so I refuse to answer it. Next question please". Pathetic.

no, just the happiness of some user when they see their 'opponent' got banned reminds me on the situation of the freedom of expression under thaksin.

thaksin was not a friend of pluralistic opinions. he brought his critics to the court and try to silence them.

now we have the odd situation that the dumb PAD apologists mob here on TVforum do exactly the same things like thaksin. pathetic. hypocrites.

[Maxi101]

Thaksin's options get fewer and fewer

Published on December 19, 2008

WHERE is Thaksin Shinawatra now? Somebody said he is in Panama, the southernmost country of Central America. Fewer and fewer countries are willing to welcome the fugitive ex-prime minister, with the political liability, criminal sentence and dubious financial transactions he carries around with him.

Thaksin would like to create the impression that he is staying in Dubai. But Dubai might not want to welcome him anymore. China and Hong Kong do not want to court trouble either by allowing him to enter their territories. Most other countries that have relations with Thailand are reluctant to play host to him because of his political activity.

He would like to return home as a hero and a victor, but that prospect is now almost zero. He cannot turn Thailand upside down. He has much less money than before. And money cannot buy everything. His friends and supporters are deserting him.

Thaksin now has to plan his movements carefully because he cannot stay in countries that have an extradition treaty with Thailand. So he will be hopping around to unfamiliar places like Panama or Papua New Guinea.

With the UK revoking his visa, Thaksin can no longer enter any Commonwealth countries. Singapore is caught in the same dilemma of not wanting to welcome Thaksin again. What would be the US response if Thaksin were to apply for a visa to enter the US?

His diplomatic passport has also been revoked. This passport, given only to present and past prime ministers and foreign ministers for life, allowed Thaksin to travel to any country without a visa. But that privilege has now been denied.

The Foreign Ministry was quick to act earlier this week when it was clear that the Democrats were settling into power. Thaksin's support base in the bureaucracy, police and Parliament is crumbling fast. The Thai authorities are now determining whether they will revoke his normal passport altogether.

Asked about the revocation of his father's red passport, Panthongtae Shinawatra said earlier this week that his father was carrying several passports with him and that he was not sure which country he was in now because he had no plan to visit him yet.

Thaksin has lost money in the global financial meltdown. Rumours have been swirling for some time that he has lost in oil-futures trading. Oil futures rose from US$80 (Bt 2,760) to $90 before hitting $160 per barrel. Now the future contracts are trading at $45 a barrel. That could have wiped out more than half of his staggering assets.

All investors in the capital and financial markets have been burnt badly or gone bankrupt in the adverse market conditions. Thaksin is probably no exception. He thought that his investments would be safe with portfolio diversification. But Long-Term Capital Management, the super hedge fund, went bankrupt in 1998 in adverse market conditions even though it thought it had balanced all of its positions.

Thaksin is known to be a big gambler. He does not know how to lose or how to concede. He maintains a winner-takes-all attitude, which he brought with him into the business world and politics. He is now suffering from the boomerang effect. He thought that his wealth and political fortunes would rise forever. Now the financial markets and politics have gone against him.

He might also run into trouble with the UK authorities due to his dubious financial transactions, probably one of the reasons that his visa was denied. Thaksin bought Manchester City Football Club for more than ฃ80 million (Bt4.3 billion) and sold the club to Sheikh Mansour of Abu Dhabi for ฃ210 million. That deal raised the eyebrows of the British authorities. What was "Sinatra" trying to do? That prompted them to take a careful look at his financial dealings.

Arabianbusiness.com has recently revealed that the UK froze Thaksin's assets amounting to $4 billion. "The UK froze his reputed $4 billion of assets, forcing him to sell Manchester City to Abu Dhabi's Sheikh Mansour. To add to his troubles, his UK visa was revoked - oh, and his wife divorced him last week," the Arabianbusiness report said.

Strangely enough, nobody followed up on this story to either confirm or deny whether Thaksin's $4 billion has been frozen by the British authorities. That is no small amount. It is almost Bt140 billion, more than the stimulus package that new prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva plans to pump into rural areas during this time of economic hardship.

Writing his opinion piece, "Bhumibol, Thailand's Remarkable King", in the Los Angeles Times of December 11, W Scott Thompson also confirmed that Thaksin's assets had been frozen by the UK authorities. He wrote: "Meantime, the British have frozen Thaksin's assets in Britain and revoked his visa. So Thaksin's other asset - his rural popularity - can only decline."

Thaksin's dubious financial transactions and his two-year jail sentence in Thailand were the two main reasons, in that order, that led the UK authorities to revoke his visa.

With his dwindling assets overseas, Thaksin's wealth now largely lies in Thailand. But his Bt76 billion, about $2 billion, is frozen by the Thai authorities pending corruption charges against him. Thaksin is fighting fiercely to get this money back, which was earned from the sale of Shin Corp to Temasek Holdings of Singapore. But again the prospect of getting this money back is slim, with his "unusually rich" case going to court.

His wife, Pojaman, has divorced him. She knows all the financial details. They agreed to separate, at least tactically, so she can keep a portion of the wealth for herself and their children. Thaksin will use the rest of the money mainly to finance his political comeback.

Without any family obligations, Thaksin now has nothing to worry about. He can do things his own way. He has repeatedly sent out the signal, "Don't push me into a corner."

--The Nation

There are so many things just not true in this article...

Mr. Thaksin has more friends in Thailand then any one can think of...

Well I do have compassion with him and like him.

That time when he was at Kentuckies to eat chicken in order to fight the histerical behaior of the press.

Like a real daddy, he he he

I like him.

[permanent_disorder]

In the Weimar period, the judiciary was increasingly manipulated and used to serve a particular set of interests, those of the emerging Nazis and their allies, against their political opponents. The courts throughout this time stuck to the letter of the law while defying its spirit, hollowing it out so that virtually anything could be made to fit inside but still be defended in legal terms.

Among the types of political cases brought to the courts, there was a category of artificially-created offenses, in which a crime may technically have been committed within the narrow terms of a statute but could only be made sensible if divorced from its historical and social setting, and reduced to minute details....

http://www.upiasia.com/Human_Rights/2008/0...o_problem/4355/

...

Now I know who writes that crap under AHRC name, I was always wondering about that.

Thanks, PD.

what you want, plus? AHRC is wrong, because they don't fall in love with the hypocrite Chamlong? so please than go to this thread and explain it to the people there that they got it wrong with the AHRC.

i try it to explain it to you many times, behind the AHRC are long time active thaksin critics. they got it right from the beginning, during a time the whole nation was in love with thaksin, Sondhi his best buddy and hypocrites like Chamlong defended some of the worst Thaksin policies.

but did you get the point why i post this quote, together with thaskins X-signs after some other Forum members got so excited about a ban of an other user?

let me remind you on yourself:

Plus account number 1 http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Plus-m17897.html

Plus account number 2 http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Plus-m17898.html

and the forum rules:

14) Multiple accounts on the Thaivisa Forum are not permitted. Any member found to have more than one account will be suspended. Suspended or Banned members found creating additional accounts will be banned.

both accounts you used active and even flamed some other TV members with both accounts in one thread.

rules are rules and NO excuse, right? specially for you, you used the Rules "argument" more than often to put blame on somebody who had an other opinion than yours.

[Ulysses G.]

Calling a number of judgements dubious on international television is not critiqueing a courts decision, it is implying that the judges were pressured into a false decision, and are therefore corrupt.

How about being forced into making a certain decision at all.

[animatic]

That article is the most bone-headed excuse for journalism yet. Even the Nation should be ashamed.

I was going to ask why you felt that way... but having seen you're gone for good now, I won't bother. Adios.

Yes indeed. Adios. Hopefully the last we've seen of the toxic bleater.

strange choice of photo there - Toxin in one of his least democratic, most autocratic periods of bizarre behaviour towards the end of his regime (some might call it fascist, but I wouldn't go that far). In fact, I'm at a loss why you sometimes choose pics that actually destroy the weak case you are trying to build, and here is a classic case - Thakky avoiding questions from the media by holding up a little black cross meaning "that one is too tough for me and so I refuse to answer it. Next question please". Pathetic.

no, just the happiness of some user when they see their 'opponent' got banned reminds me on the situation of the freedom of expression under thaksin.

thaksin was not a friend of pluralistic opinions. he brought his critics to the court and try to silence them.

now we have the odd situation that the dumb PAD apologists mob here on TVforum do exactly the same things like thaksin. pathetic. hypocrites.

While some, no doubt, wish that you might go away,

yet no one tries to run you off, even as you regularly

insult them JUST under the flame bar.

[sunholidaysun1]

If Thailand wanted Thaksin back , then I would assume interpol would be contacted and a warrent put out for his arrest.

So being on the 'worlds' most wanted , there would be no haven for him and he would be sent back to Thailand very quickly.

Obviously that isnt happening . Countries like the Uk , revoking his visa and deporting him is just a way of washing their hands of him without getting involved . Other countries not in the commonwealth are starting to give him the elbow as well.

Why bother, let him in , let him stay until he is arrested and ship him back here to serve his sentence(s). The only problem in returning to Thailand is the paid supporters he has here. On arrival back , under arrest , can you imagine the support he would get . The Thai government really dont want that to happen and all the protests , fighting , bombing etc that would come if he was here and locked up. A convicted criminal regardless of his previous position should still be held to account .

Pleading political asylum shouldnt come into the subject , its not political that he commited an offence and was convicted .

His weath is keeping him free at the moment , when that has all been seized and assets around the world frozen, and he can no longer borrow from anyone , then he will return and serve his time, hopefully.

[sriracha john]

no, just the happiness of some user when they see their 'opponent' got banned reminds me on the situation of the freedom of expression under thaksin.

thaksin was not a friend of pluralistic opinions.

If it saddens you to see a troll banned, than that's rather sad.

To attempt to acquaint the banning of some troll with some some sort of Thaksin stifling of media is even more sad.

But hold on, Permanent Disorder.... I'm sure there will be another troll come along within hours to replace the non-contributory, flaming, multi-ID'er troll. Then everything will be right again in your Permanent Disorder life.

[animatic]

no, just the happiness of some user when they see their 'opponent' got banned reminds me on the situation of the freedom of expression under thaksin.

thaksin was not a friend of pluralistic opinions.

If it saddens you to see a troll banned, than that's rather sad.

To attempt to acquaint the banning of some troll with some some sort of Thaksin stifling of media is even more sad.

But hold on, Permanent Disorder.... I'm sure there will be another troll come along within hours to replace the non-contributory, flaming, multi-ID'er troll. Then everything will be right again in your Permanent Disorder life.

Plop, plop, fizz, fizz

Oh what a relief it is.

plop, pl....

[ozinthailand]

New PM Abhisit urges Thaksin to return home

New Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva urged on Thursday convicted ex-PM Thaksin Shinawtra to return home to face corruption trials.

Abhisit guaranteed that Thaksin will be treated honourably as a former premier. But every legal process will proceed according to law.

"First of all, however, Khun Thaksin has to accept the country's legal procdures," Abhisit said.

Speaking in an interview with a news talk programme of Channel 7, he said Thai people have mercies and are ready to forgive if one accepted his guilt.

Commenting on reports that red shirt protesters prepared to rally against him, Abhisit said it was their rights to express their dissatisfaction, they can come out to protest.

"However it will not be acceptable if they plan or intend to harm other peoples. They must not do that because those moves would not help anything and most people do not want to see," he said.

He said he has no problems with demonstrations because Thailand is a democratic country, he said, adding he will try to understand those who had disagreement.

He accepted that Thais may not be able to be united within three to six months, but people will feel relieve that Thai political conflicts were not escalated to more violence.

Source: The Nation - 18 December 2008

Doesnt look like the PM has big enough gonads to deal with Thaksin.... I say bring back Thaksin... he will unite the country !!!

[mrtoad]

That article is the most bone-headed excuse for journalism yet. Even the Nation should be ashamed.

I was going to ask why you felt that way... but having seen you're gone for good now, I won't bother. Adios.

Yes indeed. Adios. Hopefully the last we've seen of the toxic bleater.

strange choice of photo there - Toxin in one of his least democratic, most autocratic periods of bizarre behaviour towards the end of his regime (some might call it fascist, but I wouldn't go that far). In fact, I'm at a loss why you sometimes choose pics that actually destroy the weak case you are trying to build, and here is a classic case - Thakky avoiding questions from the media by holding up a little black cross meaning "that one is too tough for me and so I refuse to answer it. Next question please". Pathetic.

no, just the happiness of some user when they see their 'opponent' got banned reminds me on the situation of the freedom of expression under thaksin.

thaksin was not a friend of pluralistic opinions. he brought his critics to the court and try to silence them.

now we have the odd situation that the dumb PAD apologists mob here on TVforum do exactly the same things like thaksin. pathetic. hypocrites.

While some, no doubt, wish that you might go away,

yet no one tries to run you off, even as you regularly

insult them JUST under the flame bar.

That's quite tame by PD's normal standards. He is regularly flaming people, but continues to have the audacity to accuse other people of it. As far as he is concerned, anyone who disagree's with him is a PAD sympathiser.

[mrtoad]

]

Doesnt look like the PM has big enough gonads to deal with Thaksin.... I say bring back Thaksin... he will unite the country !!!

I think it suggests a more sensible approach, rather than the confrontational policies and posturing of the Thaksin ruled parties. Thaksin is hardly going to unite the country, considering he has "divide and rule" as his political ideology.

[animatic]

no, just the happiness of some user when they see their 'opponent' got banned reminds me on the situation of the freedom of expression under thaksin.

thaksin was not a friend of pluralistic opinions. he brought his critics to the court and try to silence them.

now we have the odd situation that the dumb PAD apologists mob here on TVforum do exactly the same things like thaksin. pathetic. hypocrites.

While some, no doubt, wish that you might go away,

yet no one tries to run you off, even as you regularly

insult them JUST under the flame bar.

That's quite tame by PD's normal standards. He is regularly flaming people, but continues to have the audacity to accuse other people of it. As far as he is concerned, anyone who disagree's with him is a PAD sympathiser.

In a nutshell.

Tending to undermine the points being made with invective.

Edited December 21, 2008 by animatic

[animatic]

]

Doesnt look like the PM has big enough gonads to deal with Thaksin.... I say bring back Thaksin... he will unite the country !!!

I think it suggests a more sensible approach, rather than the confrontational policies and posturing of the Thaksin ruled parties.

Thaksin is hardly going to unite the country, considering he has "divide and rule" as his political ideology.

Ditto.

Thaksin's only route to power was divide and villify one side against the other.

Now it's turned on it's head.

The word “villain” originally (c. 1303) meant: “base or low-born rustic.”

And it came by way of the Latin word “villa” meaning “country house, farm.”

Also, in Middle English, a villein or vilein was:

“One of a class of feudal serfs who held the legal status of freemen

in their dealings with all people except their lord.”

Interesting that one of the bigger villains in recent Thai history

is so closely tied with the ancient base of this word,

and yet is curiously, totally in the elite and fashions himself a ruler of all.

He is also so closely tied to the word fugere.

fugitive

1. a person who is fleeing, from prosecution, intolerable circumstances, etc.;

a runaway: a fugitive from justice; a fugitive from a dictatorial regime.

3. fleeting; transitory; elusive: fugitive thoughts that could not be formulated.

4. Fine Arts. changing color as a result of exposure to light

and chemical substances present in the atmosphere, in other pigments, or in the medium.

5. dealing with subjects of passing interest, as writings; ephemeral: fugitive essays.

6. wandering, roving, or vagabond: a fugitive carnival.

fugacious "likely to flee."

subterfuge

1573, from M.Fr. subterfuge, from L.L. subterfugium "an evasion,"

from L. subterfugere "to evade, escape, flee by stealth,"

from subter "beneath, secretly" + fugere "flee" (see fugitive).

refuge

c.1386, from O.Fr. refuge, from L. refugium "a taking refuge, place to flee back to,

" from re- "back" + fugere "to flee" (see fugitive) + -ium "place for."

Yes, Tempus fugit.

We have entered a new time period.

Likely to be one that 'marks' Thai history at a turning point.

Edited December 21, 2008 by animatic

[Ricardo]

no, just the happiness of some user when they see their 'opponent' got banned reminds me on the situation of the freedom of expression under thaksin.

thaksin was not a friend of pluralistic opinions.

If it saddens you to see a troll banned, than that's rather sad.

To attempt to acquaint the banning of some troll with some some sort of Thaksin stifling of media is even more sad.

But hold on, Permanent Disorder.... I'm sure there will be another troll come along within hours to replace the non-contributory, flaming, multi-ID'er troll. Then everything will be right again in your Permanent Disorder life.

I'm struck by the similarity, of 'events' here on TV, to the real world. In particular how, every time the former-PM's party gets broken-up for undemocratic behaviour, another nominee-party promptly comes along.

In both cases there remains the option, to learn from the experience, and not repeat the offending behaviour !

Might even Dr Thaksin learn from this example ?

[animatic]

no, just the happiness of some user when they see their 'opponent' got banned reminds me on the situation of the freedom of expression under thaksin.

thaksin was not a friend of pluralistic opinions.

If it saddens you to see a troll banned, than that's rather sad.

To attempt to acquaint the banning of some troll with some some sort of Thaksin stifling of media is even more sad.

But hold on, Permanent Disorder.... I'm sure there will be another troll come along within hours to replace the non-contributory, flaming, multi-ID'er troll. Then everything will be right again in your Permanent Disorder life.

I'm struck by the similarity, of 'events' here on TV, to the real world. In particular how, every time the former-PM's party gets broken-up for undemocratic behaviour, another nominee-party promptly comes along.

In both cases there remains the option, to learn from the experience, and not repeat the offending behaviour !

Might even Dr Thaksin learn from this example ?

Sadly the 'trolls' SJ is refering to just keep coming back in another guize,

yet hardly deviate from style and substance. Only the moniker changes

with the regulatory winds. And THAT seems to also mirror Thaksin's M.O.

Edited December 21, 2008 by animatic

[jdinasia]

no, just the happiness of some user when they see their 'opponent' got banned reminds me on the situation of the freedom of expression under thaksin.

thaksin was not a friend of pluralistic opinions. he brought his critics to the court and try to silence them.

now we have the odd situation that the dumb PAD apologists mob here on TVforum do exactly the same things like thaksin. pathetic. hypocrites.

While some, no doubt, wish that you might go away,

yet no one tries to run you off, even as you regularly

insult them JUST under the flame bar.

That's quite tame by PD's normal standards. He is regularly flaming people, but continues to have the audacity to accuse other people of it. As far as he is concerned, anyone who disagree's with him is a PAD sympathiser.

In a nutshell.

Tending to undermine the points being made with invective.

Thaksin won't be heeding the PM's request to return unless Abhisit finds a way to turn up the heat. (revoke Thaksin't regular passport, have Thaksin arrested on sight if he shows up at any Thai Embassy overseas etc ....)

Remember folks ... you can always use ignore. The one that keeps ranting over and over about the quality of other people's posts just joined that group along with the ones that claim to be Thai and are not or the ones that just don't contribute.

[animatic]

no, just the happiness of some user when they see their 'opponent' got banned reminds me on the situation of the freedom of expression under thaksin.

thaksin was not a friend of pluralistic opinions. he brought his critics to the court and try to silence them.

now we have the odd situation that the dumb PAD apologists mob here on TVforum do exactly the same things like thaksin. pathetic. hypocrites.

While some, no doubt, wish that you might go away,

yet no one tries to run you off, even as you regularly

insult them JUST under the flame bar.

That's quite tame by PD's normal standards. He is regularly flaming people, but continues to have the audacity to accuse other people of it. As far as he is concerned, anyone who disagree's with him is a PAD sympathiser.

In a nutshell.

Tending to undermine the points being made with invective.

Thaksin won't be heeding the PM's request to return unless Abhisit finds a way to turn up the heat. (revoke Thaksin't regular passport, have Thaksin arrested on sight if he shows up at any Thai Embassy overseas etc ....)

Remember folks ... you can always use ignore. The one that keeps ranting over and over about the quality of other people's posts just joined that group along with the ones that claim to be Thai and are not or the ones that just don't contribute.

Let's not forget the ones who start out looking like and sounding like one person,

but gradually the facade fades away and the truth will out....

'Gee wiz you sure don't sound like you used too.... hmmmm.'

Not to be confused with changing parts of a position based on new information,

rather than staying locked to an absolutist dogmatic obstinancy.

Edited December 21, 2008 by animatic

[NCFC]

The question remains "what will happen to Abhisit after his "government" is history?". He has been hand-groomed by the elites for almost two decades now, never really having a real job. Would it have been better for him to wait until the Democrats could have won an election, admittedly that may have been a long, long time. But he is young. Perhaps he is regretting being railroaded in?

I doubt he had much choice. The alternative to a Dem led parliamentary chosen government would have been a coup or a constitutional crisis rsulting in an appointed government. No doubt the powerful people and business in the country prefer the Abhisit option. Another Thaksin proxie government only hel_l bent on changing the constitution and not doing anything about government was never goign to be allowed and it wont in the future. If Abhisit falls it is liekly to be back to coups or constitutional crisis. That is also why so many ordinary people including Thaksin voters are willing to give Abhisit a chance. The alternative is ........

........... a general election??? Why nor let the people decide what government they want through the ballot box? Or would that be too risky?