Thai Airways Sues Pad For B575 Million

[jayboy]

Your description of mostly middleage women and kids with hand-clappers as para-military is indeed ridiculous.

I wouldn't say ridiculous but perhaps misleading because it omits mention of the large number of intimidating young thugs.

[Rinrada]

Right on !

I hope Thai Air wins and I wish them all the luck!

and maybe drop the price of their Tickets........yeah ...pink elephants.

[Sabre]

What you observed was the opposite of democracy in action. It was the demolition of democracy. A small group of a privileged few, backed by the old power clique of Bangkok, held the majority to ransom, effectively declaring that they would destroy the country before relinquishing control to the rural majority. It was economic terrorism, at the very least.

Change the words on the how you paint the Yellow take-over of the airport, it would fit for Thaksin's antics for the past several years.

A small group of privileged few (controlled and paid by Thaksin) held the majority to ransom, effectively declaring that they would destroy the country before relinquishing control to the rural majority (change to: current government).

Thaksin declared publicly, recently, that if the Thai government acquiesced to his demands (to keep him from going to jail) he would call off his Red Shirts from continuing their violent acts and threats.

Your description of the Yellows is off the mark, whereas my description of the Reds, using your words, is right on - n'est-ce pas?

The Yellows didn't partake in 'a demolition of democracy.' You believe that because perhaps it inconvenienced you or others you care about. For the most part, it was a peaceful demonstration in the tradition of civil disobedience. Even it's most violent facet was merely some punks using a van and/or luggage carts to block a road. Peaceful demonstrations are designed to cause inconvenience, as that's often what it takes to get the right people to take notice. If simply writing letters to the Editor, or submitting legislation would suffice, then they'd do it the simpler way. In demonstrations, innocents are often caught up, and it's unfortunate.

Similarly for Songkran: meant to be a public celebration, yet millions of people's jobs are jeopardized, thousands are injured, hundreds are killed. The difference between Songkran and the airport demonstration is no one was physically injured at the airport. Let's see Thai Airways sue the government for allowing Songkran to grievously disrupt Thailand's commerce.

All of us, regardless of what countries we hail from, have benefited from (or at least been affected by) demonstrations within those countries in times gone past. Ok, it's up to subjective interpretation. Perhaps some Americans would just as soon have kept paying taxes to the British royals as a Crown Colony.

All very reasonable except you seem to have forgotten one small detail - Thaksin was probably the most popular Thai Prime Minister in history and his party enjoyed a clear and convincing majority of votes in every election they have ever contested. His party was elected 5 times in a row, even AFTER Thaksin was ousted by a coup.

So, when you say that Thaksin's supporters are only a 'privileged few', you are absolutely wrong, as is the rest of your argument.

I support neither side, and I agree that Thaksin is looking after Number one - but that does not change the fact that the yellows absolutely destroyed any semblance of democracy in the Kingdom.

[termad]

If anyone knows about the Thai legal system, this kind of case could have so many twists and turns that it could still be going on when most of us are in our graves! I don't see how you could blame the whole thing on a couple of individuals since it was a mass demonstration? I mean Sondhi could not have done it on his own (or with the other 35)? So who do you blame? You can bet that you will be reading about this case for many years!

And after the final verdict is handed down it will go to appeal and so on and so on ad infinitum.

It's a pity that Thailand doesn't have some similar Laws to the West. I would love to see the criminal side of this pushed for an early conclusion and Sonti and the rest sentenced to 2 or 3 years Community Service at the airport or in town. The sight of them dressed in orange coveralls pushing brooms or cleaning toilets would be the optimum deterent to others.

[rixalex]

His party was elected 5 times in a row, even AFTER Thaksin was ousted by a coup.

5 times in a row? I know about the elections of 2001, 2005 and 2007. What were the other two?

[rixalex]

Thaksin was probably the most popular Thai Prime Minister in history and his party enjoyed a clear and convincing majority of votes in every election they have ever contested.

By the way, the 2007 election was far from being a clear and convincing majority victory.

[hansnl]

Wasn't that amount the expected loss this year?

[hansnl]

Thaksin was probably the most popular Thai Prime Minister in history and his party enjoyed a clear and convincing majority of votes in every election they have ever contested.

By the way, the 2007 election was far from being a clear and convincing majority victory.

Defenitely not a majority.

His party or proxies had the most votes, but less than 51%.

[whatchamacallit]

I think Thai shoud win, but I am not happy about this. Thousands of companies and people loose much more than this airline. Thai Air can handle the loss of 500 million, but so many people lost their business completely! Also some foreigners that cannot get home to work. I would be very sad if Thai Air gets the money and other people have to live with the loss...

Kudos to Thai Airlines!!!!!! As for the other airlines, companies and foreigners - they too can join the law-suit!!

[brahmburgers]

Similarly for Songkran: meant to be a public celebration, yet millions of people's jobs are jeopardized, thousands are injured, hundreds are killed.

And with this demonstrable lie your credibility on the subject evaporates.

For those who live in the real world there is no doubt which act caused the greatest economic damage and harm to the country's reputation.

Economic damage to Thailand? Comparing a recent Songkran and the 9 day airport event, I'd say it's debatable. What value do you give to a life lost or a person paralized for life? No one got killed or injured at the airport occupation, whereas in any of the past 12 Songrans, hundreds get killed and thousands seriously injured. Plus, more than a few people get soaked on their way to work (especially cute ladies on motorbikes), and have to return home and miss work. At least several hundred thousand mobile phones, cameras, laptop computers are also destroyed in the Songkran melee each year also. That has an economic effect.

As to which event tarnishes the country's reputation to a greater degree?, that's also debatable. Every April, there are several letters to the editor (each letter represents many others who don't bother to write) - which detail their destroyed vacation plans - such as stepping out of their hotel on their first day, and getting immediately broadsided with bucketfulls of water wielded by laughing young Thai men. What's hilarious to some, may be a destroyed vacation to others. What started out as a joyful splashing of bits of water as a show of reverence, has devolved in to water fights where the choicest targets are farang and pretty young girls.

[Credo]

You might want to figure in the people who were killed in an accident trying to get to Malaysia to get a flight out. You might want to figure in the difficulties presented to patients in need of urgent medication from overseas that didn't get it because of the airport closing.

[Old Man River]

Civile disobedience - PAD didn't "close the airport or shutdown it's operations"!

It was the AOT Management of Suvannabhum!

If the above statement were not so ridiculous it would actually be quite funny. But ... it is tedious!!

Actually, this is not a slam dunk case for Thai to win. There is no question that the PAD seized the airport, and the AOT's position of closing the airport is understandable given potential problems collecting on insurance policies if accidents occurred for any reason, but the AOT's actions will be an arguing point for the PAD attorneys. After all, if the PAD were blocking flights then how was it possible for the AOT to allow cargo flights before the PAD called off its airport demonstrations?

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/02...es_30090021.php

[Sabre]

His party was elected 5 times in a row, even AFTER Thaksin was ousted by a coup.

5 times in a row? I know about the elections of 2001, 2005 and 2007. What were the other two?

Yes, you are right, 5 is too many - my apologies to all. It would be 3 elections and the replacement of 2 prime ministers.

[Sabre]

Thaksin was probably the most popular Thai Prime Minister in history and his party enjoyed a clear and convincing majority of votes in every election they have ever contested.

By the way, the 2007 election was far from being a clear and convincing majority victory.

Defenitely not a majority.

His party or proxies had the most votes, but less than 51%.

Yes, I concede that. I spoke hastily, and apologise. His party did, however, clearly win the most votes and formed a coalition government with a clear and convincing majority in parliament.

I'm sure you understand the point I'm trying to make - if Thailand has ever had a democratically elected Prime Minister, it is Thaksin.

The suppression of his party has been the suppression of democracy in this country.

I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing, but whatever it is, it isn't democracy.

[Publicus]

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.

Open and shut it's not.

Wrongful acts, however, abound and they are aplenty. 

TiT but it does have elections and a constitution, whichever one it might be at any given moment, and an elected parliament, government and (an appointed) judiciary each and all of which must balance civil liberties with the national interest in stability and progress (difficult in normal circumstances, nearly impossible with Takki Shinegra scheming and plotting against his antagonists). 

Regardless of the legal terminology and semantics - the balance of probabilities or the preponderance of the evidence - each side can present its tapes and each side can argue the facts. One person's documented facts are another person's fantasized fiction. It's therefore the function and responsibility of a court of law to determine the facts and to place the determined facts in their moment in time, the particulars of the circumstance and to judge the roles of the players not to mention their motives, purposes and affects. Deductive declarations here have zero bearing on whatever may be deposited on the country by a judiciary (as anachronistic as it may be, especially concerning he presumption of innocence). 

So hear ye hear ye causation is clearly in dispute as one can determine if only by reading this thread which, while not a collection of legal briefs, is none the less full of contradictory interpretations of facts, reality and consequences which were commonly shared during the airport occupation experience.

This is a case in which the lawyers for both sides can split hairs and in which a judge (judges) can weigh the balances and accumulate the evidence to 'presto' produce any ruling that in its preponderance suits the political whims of the moment the court would issue its judgement and do so in the circumstances of the country at the time (which I think most of us expect to be at some distant point in the future). 

The court also would need to determine the validity of AOT's claim of damages, which I'm certain the defendants' attorneys would dispute, as the defendants' attorneys would also dispute the judgement of AOT in closing the airport, and in apportioning responsibility and roles of the various parties involved which could be many, to include AOT, the police, the government, the grandmothers and clappers we saw and have subsequently heard so much about etc.  

As flegling a democracy as LOS is, it is a democracy and it does present in its constitution the guarantee of numerous specified civil liberties. This is true whether it's the 1997 constitution or the 2007 version. (Oddly enuff, the 1997 constitution was enacted by the parliament, while the 2007 version was put directly to the voters.)

Edited December 11, 2009 by Publicus

[Sabre]

Open and shut it's not.

Wrongful acts, however, abound and they are aplenty. 

TiT but it does have elections and a constitution, whichever one it might be at any given moment, and an elected parliament, government and (an appointed) judiciary each and all of which must balance civil liberties with the national interest in stability and progress (difficult in normal circumstances, nearly impossible with Takki Shinegra scheming and plotting against his antagonists). 

Regardless of the legal terminology and semantics - the balance of probabilities or the preponderance of the evidence - each side can present its tapes and each side can argue the facts. One person's documented facts are another person's fantasized fiction. It's therefore the function and responsibility of a court of law to determine the facts and to place the determined facts in their moment in time, the particulars of the circumstance and to judge the roles of the players not to mention their motives, purposes and affects. Deductive declarations here have zero bearing on whatever may be deposited on the country by a judiciary (as anachronistic as it may be, especially concerning he presumption of innocence). 

So hear ye hear ye causation is clearly in dispute as one can determine if only by reading this thread which, while not a collection of legal briefs, is none the less full of contradictory interpretations of facts, reality and consequences which were commonly shared during the airport occupation experience.

This is a case in which the lawyers for both sides can split hairs and in which a judge (judges) can weigh the balances and accumulate the evidence to 'presto' produce any ruling that in its preponderance suits the political whims of the moment the court would issue its judgement and do so in the circumstances of the country at the time (which I think most of us expect to be at some distant point in the future). 

The court also would need to determine the validity of AOT's claim of damages, which I'm certain the defendants' attorneys would dispute, as the defendants' attorneys would also dispute the judgement of AOT in closing the airport, and in apportioning responsibility and roles of the various parties involved which could be many, to include AOT, the police, the government, the grandmothers and clappers we saw and have subsequently heard so much about etc.  

As flegling a democracy as LOS is, it is a democracy and it does present in its constitution the guarantee of numerous specified civil liberties. This is true whether it's the 1997 constitution or the 2007 version. (Oddly enuff, the 1997 constitution was enacted by the parliament, while the 2007 version was put directly to the voters.)

I don't think AOT is a party, rather it's Thai Airways.

The constitution of Thailand is regularly ignored by the Thai government, police, courts, judges, lawyers, citizens and others when it is convenient for them to do so.

I still remember the lawyer who was refused a position as a judge because he had suffered polio as a child and walked with a limp. He lost on appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court. This was under the 1997 Constitution which supposedly protected the disabled from discrimination.

And the 1997 constitution actually meant something to the Thai people - most wouldn't even be able to tell you what the 2007 document says.

There is no rule of law in Thailand. The law is an extension of politics. Jurisprudence is just a question of which law the authorities are enforcing at any particular point in time.

[brahmburgers]

If memory serves, the Yellows going to the airport in Dec '08 was to confront Somchai returning from Chiang Mai on a flight. To most peoples' surprise, the airport was shut down without putting up any resistance. The doors were not locked, and no one in uniform did anything to thwart the group. Not even a megaphone warning, or a message sent from airport staff, as far as we can tell. Even after the Yellows walked in and sat down in the lobby, the airport could have possibly kept functioning, though it would have been difficult. As mentioned a few posts earlier, the shipping flights resumed before the protest was over. Did Thai Airways even attempt to keep functioning at the sight of hundreds of people sitting in the lobby? No, they shut down with nary a whimper.

[Ricardo]

His party was elected 5 times in a row, even AFTER Thaksin was ousted by a coup.

5 times in a row? I know about the elections of 2001, 2005 and 2007. What were the other two?

Yes, you are right, 5 is too many - my apologies to all. It would be 3 elections and the replacement of 2 prime ministers.

to Sabre, I and many others would accept 3 elections, it's the regular over-statement of the truth, which causes us to react. It's so easy to lose sight of the facts, in a sea of misinformation, or exaggeration.

The PPP got about 40% of the popular vote, in the 2007 election, although a higher proportion of the seats, and while this makes them a significant and serious force, it's simply not the same thing as an overwhelming-majority, as we're also frequently told. Or they would not have needed to form a coalition to govern.

Lastly I would suggest that PM-Samak was removed, not just by a silly court-case about a cooking-show, where he lied to the court about whether he was being paid, by a company whose financial-prospects he was arguably in a position to influence. No, it was also by the total failure of the PPP to re-appoint him again when asked, an 'et tu Brutus' moment if ever there was one !

One suspects, but will probably never know for sure, that he was proving to be too-much his own man once in power, and not enough of a nominee-puppet. So the order came down to replace him with someone who might be assumed to be more malleable or loyal to the party-leader.

If memory serves, the Yellows going to the airport in Dec '08 was to confront Somchai returning from Chiang Mai on a flight. To most peoples' surprise, the airport was shut down without putting up any resistance. The doors were not locked, and no one in uniform did anything to thwart the group. Not even a megaphone warning, or a message sent from airport staff, as far as we can tell. Even after the Yellows walked in and sat down in the lobby, the airport could have possibly kept functioning, though it would have been difficult. As mentioned a few posts earlier, the shipping flights resumed before the protest was over. Did Thai Airways even attempt to keep functioning at the sight of hundreds of people sitting in the lobby? No, they shut down with nary a whimper.

Quite, had the PM returned from his trip (overseas to Peru ?) , he might have expected to be met with the usual peaceful protest, hustled through a back-door, and the PAD-supporters would then have returned to their main protest-site. But PM-Somchai's perhaps-understandable wish to avoid this meant that the whole affair spiralled out-of-control, then grenade-attacks at the main camp caused their leaders to decide to move en-masse to Suvarnabhumi, with the regrettable result now being sued-over.

Personally I doubt that Thai Airways will win the case, whatever its moral merit, simply because the decision to close the airport was technically made by the AAT, and not the PAD. Perhaps they might yet successfully sue the AAT, for failing to provide adequate or proper security, at their most-important airport ? And the AAT might sue the PAD ?

But this is merely arguing about which part of the government owes which other part of the government some money. Thai Airways is mainly a government-owned business, which currently needs massive financial support (amongst other things) , if it is to survive. This case reminds the government that, should the support not be forthcoming, the airline has suffered damage & has the potential to cause on-going political embarrassment, should it not receive its funding.

Credit to their new boss, for being willing to play this card, to achieve his business objectives. He could indeed be the right man to save the national airline.

[Samuian]

@Ricardo

thanks for the wrap up...!

Regarding the Thai -Air Dilemma: every executive retired or not

and their relatives have had the privilege for lifetime free flights,

no wonder they are in dire straights!

The recent scandal of some 30 "bags" or boxes with "donated" materials, like dried fruit's from Japan...

Which has now been tuned down to "onl" 3 years - wonder who wrought this

heavenly gift out of the system!?

[regfrancis]

Ha Ha 500 million baht! peanuts

[brahmburgers]

Ha Ha 500 million baht! peanuts

If you have some extra peanuts you think are nearly worthless, please send as many as you can to me, thanks. BB

[Publicus]

Open and shut it's not.

Wrongful acts, however, abound and they are aplenty. 

TiT but it does have elections and a constitution, whichever one it might be at any given moment, and an elected parliament, government and (an appointed) judiciary each and all of which must balance civil liberties with the national interest in stability and progress (difficult in normal circumstances, nearly impossible with Takki Shinegra scheming and plotting against his antagonists). 

Regardless of the legal terminology and semantics - the balance of probabilities or the preponderance of the evidence - each side can present its tapes and each side can argue the facts. One person's documented facts are another person's fantasized fiction. It's therefore the function and responsibility of a court of law to determine the facts and to place the determined facts in their moment in time, the particulars of the circumstance and to judge the roles of the players not to mention their motives, purposes and affects. Deductive declarations here have zero bearing on whatever may be deposited on the country by a judiciary (as anachronistic as it may be, especially concerning he presumption of innocence). 

So hear ye hear ye causation is clearly in dispute as one can determine if only by reading this thread which, while not a collection of legal briefs, is none the less full of contradictory interpretations of facts, reality and consequences which were commonly shared during the airport occupation experience.

This is a case in which the lawyers for both sides can split hairs and in which a judge (judges) can weigh the balances and accumulate the evidence to 'presto' produce any ruling that in its preponderance suits the political whims of the moment the court would issue its judgement and do so in the circumstances of the country at the time (which I think most of us expect to be at some distant point in the future). 

The court also would need to determine the validity of AOT's claim of damages, which I'm certain the defendants' attorneys would dispute, as the defendants' attorneys would also dispute the judgement of AOT in closing the airport, and in apportioning responsibility and roles of the various parties involved which could be many, to include AOT, the police, the government, the grandmothers and clappers we saw and have subsequently heard so much about etc.  

As flegling a democracy as LOS is, it is a democracy and it does present in its constitution the guarantee of numerous specified civil liberties. This is true whether it's the 1997 constitution or the 2007 version. (Oddly enuff, the 1997 constitution was enacted by the parliament, while the 2007 version was put directly to the voters.)

I don't think AOT is a party, rather it's Thai Airways.

The constitution of Thailand is regularly ignored by the Thai government, police, courts, judges, lawyers, citizens and others when it is convenient for them to do so.

I still remember the lawyer who was refused a position as a judge because he had suffered polio as a child and walked with a limp. He lost on appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court. This was under the 1997 Constitution which supposedly protected the disabled from discrimination.

And the 1997 constitution actually meant something to the Thai people - most wouldn't even be able to tell you what the 2007 document says.

There is no rule of law in Thailand. The law is an extension of politics. Jurisprudence is just a question of which law the authorities are enforcing at any particular point in time.

You and I essentially are beginning to state views that are not dissimilar. Politics will decide the outcome of the case. It's also been pointed out that any such case typically would take forever to resolve, that the filing of the case by Thai Airways may in fact be the brainchild of its new boss more as a way to gain leverage against the government to obtain more funding.

I well recall the case of the lawyer who was denied a judgeship by the Supreme Administrative Court because of his limp from having had polio in his youth. No democracy or constitution is perfect but in the modern world it's particularly onerous to see such a ruling, which says you have a limp from a disease therefore you are defective in a role important to society. Old World culture continues to die hard.

It's part of the Thai Syndrome, which is to find the most difficult and problematic way forward as humanly possible and to do it in the most complex and contradictory ways imaginable.

[Sabre]

You and I essentially are beginning to state views that are not dissimilar. Politics will decide the outcome of the case. It's also been pointed out that any such case typically would take forever to resolve, that the filing of the case by Thai Airways may in fact be the brainchild of its new boss more as a way to gain leverage against the government to obtain more funding.

I well recall the case of the lawyer who was denied a judgeship by the Supreme Administrative Court because of his limp from having had polio in his youth. No democracy or constitution is perfect but in the modern world it's particularly onerous to see such a ruling, which says you have a limp from a disease therefore you are defective in a role important to society. Old World culture continues to die hard.

It's part of the Thai Syndrome, which is to find the most difficult and problematic way forward as humanly possible and to do it in the most complex and contradictory ways imaginable.

Yes, I believe you're right.

I once heard somebody put it another way - Given enough time, Thais will normally adopt a common-sense approach - having first exhausted every other alternative.

But seriously, there are worse places in the world.

[Sabre]

If anyone knows about the Thai legal system, this kind of case could have so many twists and turns that it could still be going on when most of us are in our graves! I don't see how you could blame the whole thing on a couple of individuals since it was a mass demonstration? I mean Sondhi could not have done it on his own (or with the other 35)? So who do you blame? You can bet that you will be reading about this case for many years!

And after the final verdict is handed down it will go to appeal and so on and so on ad infinitum.

It's a pity that Thailand doesn't have some similar Laws to the West. I would love to see the criminal side of this pushed for an early conclusion and Sonti and the rest sentenced to 2 or 3 years Community Service at the airport or in town. The sight of them dressed in orange coveralls pushing brooms or cleaning toilets would be the optimum deterent to others.

Actually, Thailand has some progressive, modern laws in place - everything you need - basically - to run a healthy, dynamic economy.

The problem is enforcement. You never know which particular law is going to be enforced, or who it will be enforced against. Thais know that if you have a case to fight, it is more effective to spend 10,000 Baht on a policeman or government official than on a lawyer.

[TAWP]

His party was elected 5 times in a row, even AFTER Thaksin was ousted by a coup.

5 times in a row? I know about the elections of 2001, 2005 and 2007. What were the other two?

Yes, you are right, 5 is too many - my apologies to all. It would be 3 elections and the replacement of 2 prime ministers.

And neither 2001 nor 2007 was any majority wins.

[tw25rw]

If memory serves, the Yellows going to the airport in Dec '08 was to confront Somchai returning from Chiang Mai on a flight. To most peoples' surprise, the airport was shut down without putting up any resistance. The doors were not locked, and no one in uniform did anything to thwart the group. Not even a megaphone warning, or a message sent from airport staff, as far as we can tell. Even after the Yellows walked in and sat down in the lobby, the airport could have possibly kept functioning, though it would have been difficult. As mentioned a few posts earlier, the shipping flights resumed before the protest was over. Did Thai Airways even attempt to keep functioning at the sight of hundreds of people sitting in the lobby? No, they shut down with nary a whimper.

If I remember correctly, there were PAD people occupying the control tower and in other secure areas. There was no way the airport could continue to operate with these serious security breaches.

[lakeside]

Group Captain Chokchai Saranon, a control tower official, claimed 50 protesters demanded to enter the empty control tower, but only three were allowed up by security officials.

He said the protesters at the control tower eventually left.

Evening Herald

November 26, 2008

[animatic]

The problem is enforcement.

Sums it up rather well.

It will be a long road for Thai Airways to collect on this,

I tyhink it is a barganing chip vs the government during

negotiations for financial support.

And also works as a token show of even handed justice to hold

against the red Shirts for disruptions of the country.

If PAD gets sued, you can be too; beware.

In the arcane world of Thai politics, this could be nothing more than a legal chimera

to gain leverage in several directions.

[animatic]

His party was elected 5 times in a row, even AFTER Thaksin was ousted by a coup.

5 times in a row? I know about the elections of 2001, 2005 and 2007. What were the other two?

Yes, you are right, 5 is too many - my apologies to all. It would be 3 elections and the replacement of 2 prime ministers.

And neither 2001 nor 2007 was any majority wins.

A majority is 50% plus .0000001 or any fraction over 50%

TRT, PPP, PTP NEVER have gotten those numbers.

Just another coalition partner government and all the side deals

and backhanders and rotation of cabinet seats that goes with it.

Nothing more, for all their blather about massive public support.

Without coalition partners demanding a piece of the pie they would

NOT have been able to form a government.

And that is one reason they are not in control, their partners abandoned them.

So now they try the public unrest card, which has worked in the past,

and part of countering this is also giving the impression PAD will also get

even justice for their transgressions, and so the Reds can expect the same.

A government backed entity, 'TA.', suing PAD adds to that picture.

Edited December 13, 2009 by animatic

[animatic]

Group Captain Chokchai Saranon, a control tower official, claimed 50 protesters demanded to enter the empty control tower, but only three were allowed up by security officials.

He said the protesters at the control tower eventually left.

Evening Herald

November 26, 2008

"Empty Control Tower"

Why was this not circled by armed guards and or police and or military?

Speaks volumes about how much PAD was actually leveraging on this one.

Abandoned, with a token guard, comes to mind.

AOT, ATT, should also have much to answer for here.