mojaco Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I can hardly believe the extreme glee for "hang'em" justice to be done. Is it possible that those showing such glee have a guilty past themselves? Why so much emotion? I too would like to see a steady improvement in bringing accountability to EVERYONE including some of the folks from other countries that so easily break Thai laws. But with corruption so deeply engrained in Thai culture the Thai Air suit won't make a bit of difference IMO. Now you sharks out there can you constrain yourselves and just take my comments as one person's opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Yes good on thai Airways they deserve to win...... But confused is Pad a person or organisation and do they have the money? who are they actually sueing...... PAD told that Chamlong alone signed that, as he has no single Baht Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Civile disobedience - PAD didn't "close the airport or shutdown it's operations"! It was the AOT Management of Suvannabhum! Are u for real? Good God! to remember the PAD was only outside when the AOT Managment shut down operation. PAD only moved inside after they got shot outside. Even the PAD fully planed that this all will happen, the fact is that they just stand outside, they were also officially allowed to use the VIP parking places to park their cars, so it won't hold in court. another strong point is that the constitution says that Thai people must protect their country. After the courts found that the PPP was illegal in power, PAD can argue to just have protected the country against a illegal government. In my opinion it all will be delayed till all the leader are older than 120..... I think Sondhi has 500 cases in court. Mostly from Thaksin, thaksin also has a lot. All develop very very slow...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerringDo Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Not exactly the fastest way to bring about National Unity, but it's a start. As someone else has alluded to, perhaps their defence will be: "We didn't close it, they did. We're just a good excuse." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardback Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 (edited) Civile disobedience - PAD didn't "close the airport or shutdown it's operations"! It was the AOT Management of Suvannabhum! And let's not forget who had the airport security contract. Edited December 9, 2009 by Hardback Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardback Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Civile disobedience - PAD didn't "close the airport or shutdown it's operations"! It was the AOT Management of Suvannabhum! Are u for real? Good God! And let's also not forget who had the airport security contract. Let the blame game begin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazygourmet Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 We farangs who work in LOS know that the PAD seige of the airport hurt more than tourism. It screwed up trade and international business. True, why didn't the "big wigs" in charge of the airport have enough "rice balls" to sue? (conflict of interest?) We??? farangs (sic!)??? who work??? Lucky me... I don't know you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calico Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Don't make me stop this car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 (edited) Or maybe...A smart politically motivated move by supporters of the status quo to both appease the red shirts (as in: look the courts are not biased and the PAD must be accountable) and to give them due warning (as in: beware you don't overstep the law or you'll be next). It buys much needed time. The first hearing is set a long way ahead and can be extended. Eventually the case will be heard and lost on some technicality. That's how I read the OP The 'technicality' is already stated - AOT closed the airport. The PAD may have forced the closure so their charges need to be extended to civil disobedience, disobeying a Police directive (to disperse), willful damage, public nuisance, business interruption, noise pollution, etc. Anyone of those will stick if the court has any goolies... Putting aside one's attitudes toward the sides whether red, yellow, the government etc these valid points in law and jurisprudence only begin to suggest the legal arguments and reasoning that are central to the litigation and which will be presented by the lawyers, to be considered by the judge(s). This kind of civil liberties litigation peels a very large onion. Edited December 9, 2009 by Publicus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyww Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I believe (I was advised by my ASTV-loving wife) that this was the view put forward by Gen. Chamlong, the PAD leader, after the events. He argued that PAD had gone out to Suvarnabhumi to demonstrate against PM Somchai returning from abroad. The CEO of the airport at the time (an associate of Thaksin's), on seeing the numbers, decided to close the airport. PAD then dug in.The argument that if PAD weren't there, the airport wouldn't have been closed, can be reversed. It can equally well be argued that if the airport chief hadn't closed the airport, PAD would have had their demonstration and gone home, or continued the demonstration away from the terminal. I don't know if Gen. Chamlong's view is right, and don't care. When I put this view on Thaivisa, I was accused of being dishonest, pro-Nazi and the like by those whose views must not be questioned . So I don't put it any more. Let people think what they like. When this all started the BBC did indeed report that the PAD had gone to the airport to demonstrate against the PM returning. They initially turned up in fairly small numbers. It is in fact quite easy to close an airport. UK airports have been closed by environmental protesters before. It may well be the case that the airport was closed quicker than really necessary for political reasons. But, this makes no difference at all. This is not concerned with the token closure of an airport for a few hours to make a point. The lawsuit is absolutely justified no matter what happened in the first few hours. If the PAD had left quickly after having made their point, the protest would have been effective but they made the crass mistake of digging in and shipping in paid reinforcements. They deserve everything they get. I vote for the CEO of Thai for next PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathanpattaya Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 In the final analysis, who is going to pay? What a load of ridiculous nonsense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roundeye Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Ha, if it were not for PAD's protest I would not have found or joined this forum, or had such a grand week long full expense paid vacation at a nice 5-star hotel, compliments Thai Airways. I also understand this was not the case for many travelers that week. But what I noticed the most was that most tourists/business people that come from a "democratic" country, is how intolerant they are were when faced with democracy in action. I guess freedom is only for those that already have it, and for those that do, they can't be inconvenienced when others want it. Just my opinion:) Right on my man! I am laughing at all the replies crying sue sue sue, punish, punish punish. People fighting for their rights and everyone else is looking at the inconvience. Seems like the fight has gone from many people of this world. It is a shame. Now the most people will do is cry about suing some-one or only complain about their government and not try to change it for the better. These people are fighting for their beliefs. War is hel_l! deal with it and stop crying. Try to see the other side of things, not just your way. it is the only way to get change going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiriusBlack1 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Good. Hope Thai Airways wins. Whether or not you agree with the PAD cause, effectively closing an international airport wasn't the right way to go about it and the leaders should face the consequences. The game is afoot! Let's hope the Punks Against Democracy get their just desserts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bassep Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 So if we are going to sue the organizers of civil disobedience can we go back and sue the estate of Martin Luther King? I'm pretty sure that during his period of marches plenty of city bus lines were shut down for at least short amounts of time. And how about marches in washington where the streets are closed. Can the gas stations along the route sue for loss of buisness? Just wanted to throw a little gas on this one! Run with it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geriatrickid Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Question has been asked several times why other air carriers are not party to the TG litigation. Good question. Is a possible answer that these carriers must pursue AOT and AOT has lready taken steps to address the losses sustained? Mere speculation on my part based upon past airport management responses around the world. Is it possible that AOT has compensated or compensated with landing fee and service fee waivers and credits? Wouldn't the foreign airlines have to pursue AOT in the matter since it was the AOT contract with foreign carriers which was impacted? The contract being the access to the airport and associated services interruption. Perhaps the contract that exists between airlines and AOT removes the right to litigate in such disputes? The airlines would have to prove liability on the part of AOT and that would be one heck of a court struggle. Maybe those TV members with knowledge of the underlying contractual agreements can explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tingtongfarang Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Its very clear the AOT must be a fault...if the airport had,nt been there this would,nt have happened, btw...who was responsible for building this airport? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Good. Hope Thai Airways wins. Whether or not you agree with the PAD cause, effectively closing an international airport wasn't the right way to go about it and the leaders should face the consequences. I agree. Everyone involved, from the top dog, to the old ladies and their clappers should be punished. If people in this country were held accountable more often, there wouldn't be such a blatant disregard for people and their lives. Agreed, but good luck collecting, I imagine this is a lawyers holiday in more ways than one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Or maybe...A smart politically motivated move by supporters of the status quo to both appease the red shirts (as in: look the courts are not biased and the PAD must be accountable) and to give them due warning (as in: beware you don't overstep the law or you'll be next). It buys much needed time. The first hearing is set a long way ahead and can be extended. Eventually the case will be heard and lost on some technicality. That's how I read the OP The 'technicality' is already stated - AOT closed the airport. The PAD may have forced the closure so their charges need to be extended to civil disobedience, disobeying a Police directive (to disperse), willful damage, public nuisance, business interruption, noise pollution, etc. Anyone of those will stick if the court has any goolies... Putting aside one's attitudes toward the sides whether red, yellow, the government etc these valid points in law and jurisprudence only begin to suggest the legal arguments and reasoning that are central to the litigation and which will be presented by the lawyers, to be considered by the judge(s). This kind of civil liberties litigation peels a very large onion. And regardless how that onion smells, the lawyers have to WIN their arguments, and prove beyond a shadow of a technicality that PAD actual caused the closure, and not some AOT bureaucratic decision etc. Then there is the very ticklish issue of determining damages, real damages and not just hypothetical loses, and WHO gets on the list as some sort of class action against PAD or not. Thai may have started the ball rolling, but it is FAR from just Thai involved. I also imagine assets were long divested in case of this day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merangue Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Its very clear the AOT must be a fault...if the airport had,nt been there this would,nt have happened, btw...who was responsible for building this airport? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mahtin Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Maybe those TV members with knowledge of the underlying contractual agreements can explain? Deafening silence. And not just from TV members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Exactly,... is what the Red shirts do at the moment any better than what the PAD did in the past??? IMO Both parties are equally bad damaging Thai society. It"s such a shame that the National security let the situations from the past get out of controland the visctims in the end are innocent people, domestic or International... Except perhaps the Reds had a valid complaint, the Yellows are just really poor losers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 The 'technicality' is already stated - AOT closed the airport. The PAD may have forced the closure so their charges need to be extended to civil disobedience, disobeying a Police directive (to disperse), willful damage, public nuisance, business interruption, noise pollution, etc. Anyone of those will stick if the court has any goolies... Putting aside one's attitudes toward the sides whether red, yellow, the government etc these valid points in law and jurisprudence only begin to suggest the legal arguments and reasoning that are central to the litigation and which will be presented by the lawyers, to be considered by the judge(s). This kind of civil liberties litigation peels a very large onion. And regardless how that onion smells, the lawyers have to WIN their arguments, and prove beyond a shadow of a technicality that PAD actual caused the closure, and not some AOT bureaucratic decision etc. Then there is the very ticklish issue of determining damages, real damages and not just hypothetical loses, and WHO gets on the list as some sort of class action against PAD or not. Thai may have started the ball rolling, but it is FAR from just Thai involved. I also imagine assets were long divested in case of this day. Nice try, but a bit off the mark. No doubt the claim has been lodged under the provisions in the CCC on Wrongful Acts (the equivalent of common law torts). They only have to prove something on the balance of probabilities, it's a civil case. Causation would be the easiest thing to prove. Everything was well documented and televised. Thai law does not allow for a class action - it would just be a case against multiple defendants. Damages would be relatively straightforward. The losses, I understand, are significant. The hardest part of the case would be to trace it back to the individual leaders, but no doubt they have all been caught on videotape. The case seems open and shut, the only unknown factor is the politics, and that - more than anything - determines the outcome of judicial proceedings in Thailand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Question has been asked several times why other air carriers are not party to the TG litigation.Good question. Is a possible answer that these carriers must pursue AOT and AOT has lready taken steps to address the losses sustained? Mere speculation on my part based upon past airport management responses around the world. Is it possible that AOT has compensated or compensated with landing fee and service fee waivers and credits? Wouldn't the foreign airlines have to pursue AOT in the matter since it was the AOT contract with foreign carriers which was impacted? The contract being the access to the airport and associated services interruption. Perhaps the contract that exists between airlines and AOT removes the right to litigate in such disputes? The airlines would have to prove liability on the part of AOT and that would be one heck of a court struggle. Maybe those TV members with knowledge of the underlying contractual agreements can explain? The AOT would no doubt be protected by a Force Majeure clause which excuses them from liability in the case of riots and other events completely outside the control of the parties. I think there might be a few interesting insurance claims floating around, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimjim Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 The American Embassy should sue too, for those Americans that missed getting home to the U.S. for Thanksgiving, the biggest holiday in the U.S. besides Christmas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPCustom69 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Good. Hope Thai Airways wins. Whether or not you agree with the PAD cause, effectively closing an international airport wasn't the right way to go about it and the leaders should face the consequences. Basically, I agree with the PAD cause over the redshirts. However, they deserve to lose this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stricken Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Civil Court Accepts Thai Airway's 575 Mln Baht Suit against People's AllianceUPDATE : 9 December 2009 The Civil Court accepts the 500 million baht lawsuit filed against the People's Alliance for Democracy by Thai Airways for damages caused to the company after the group's protest forced the closure of Suvarnabhumi Airport late last year. Thai Airways International filed a 575 million baht lawsuit against Major General Chamlong Srimuang and 35 other defendants at the Civil Court for damages caused by the People's Alliance for Democracy or PAD when they gathered at Suvarnabhumi and Don Muang Airports from November 25 to December 4 last year. Thai Airways claimed the PAD's protest against the Somchai Wongsawat administration inevitably forced the international airport to shut down temporarily. The plaintiff claimed damages to the company's loss of earnings, including 402 million baht spent on transferring passengers to other airlines, 59 million baht to cover the accommodation and food for stranded passengers and 17 million baht for employees' allowance. The first hearing for this case is scheduled for August 3 next year at 9 a.m. at the Civil Court. -- Tan Network 2009/12/9 [newsfooter][/newsfooter] What difference does it make, even if they get a win, no one will ever collect on the case, this is Thailand remember LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTGTR Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 "stranding hundreds of passengers"?Huh? Maybe hey meant to say hundreds "per hour". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webfact Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 AIRPORTS' SEIZURES 2008 THAI seeks Bt670m in compensation from PAD leaders By The Nation Published on December 10, 2009 Two separate civil lawsuits seeking damages worth a total of Bt679 million were filed against leaders of the yellow-shirt movement last month for last year's seizure of Bangkok airports, Civil Court documents obtained yesterday revealed. On November 24, national carrier Thai Airways International filed a lawsuit against 36 individuals for disrupting its flight schedule by leading the illegal occupation of Suvarnabhumi and Don Mueang airports. THAI is seeking Bt575.22 million in damages for revenue lost from the cancellation of flights as well as for the compensation it had pay passengers affected by the disruption. Those named as defendants in the THAI case include core leaders of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), namely Chamlong Srimuang, Sondhi Limthongkul, Pipob Thongchai, Somsak Kosaisuk and Somkiat Pongpaiboon, as well as Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya. Other defendants include actor Saranyu Wongkrajang, former MP Chaiwat Sinsuwong, former senator Maleerat Kaewka, retired Army officer General Pathompong Kesornsuk, anti-graft campaigner Veera Somkwamkid, and labour union leaders Sirichai Mai-ngam and Sawit Kaewwan. Meanwhile, on November 23 the Aeronautical Radio of Thailand filed a separate case against Chamlong and 13 others seeking Bt103.48 |million in compensation for |lost business during the airport takeover. The first hearing for both cases has been scheduled for February 22. Last year, the defendants led thousands of PAD followers to the airports on November 26, seizing the airports until December 3. The protest was aimed at removing then-prime minister Somchai Wongsawat when the People Power Party held the reins of government. Niruj Maneephan, a senior THAI executive in charge of legal affairs, said yesterday the compensation sought was the actual damage suffered by the national airline during the seizure of the airports. "Our company is adhering to the principle of good governance. We try to ensure justice for all parties involved, including those being sued. As a state enterprise, the company has the legal right to take action, otherwise we could be attacked for dereliction of duty," he said. Last year, one day after the PAD seized the airports, the Airports of Thailand filed a civil case against 12 leaders of the group seeking Bt150 million in damages. In a related development, the police officer in charge of investigating criminal charges against the PAD leaders said yesterday the probe was almost complete and that the investigators were analysing recordings of protest leaders addressing the crowds. "We need to be careful to protect our investigators from lawsuits," investigation chief assistant national police chief Lt-General Somyos Pumphanmuang said. "I can't say if the investigation report will be available within this year, but we will try to complete it as soon as possible because this is a high-profile case." -- The Nation 2009/12/10 [newsfooter][/newsfooter] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
needforspeed Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Civile disobedience - PAD didn't "close the airport or shutdown it's operations"! It was the AOT Management of Suvannabhum! We can go on like that, AOT management didn't close "there staff did" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I'm all for the yellows being sued for closing the airport.I also think that the Government should sue the Reds for the cancelation of the Asean summit in Pattaya fairs fair chaps More important their boss still has money.. Takki takki (look it up in google...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now