Use Of Thai Security Laws Comes Under Attack

[phiphidon]

Do you have a problem with the source being pratachai?

Is that a serious question? Yes, I have a problem with any source who fabricates lies and presents them as 'news'. In my experience, those sources tend to be somewhat unreliable.

If it wasn't for the "little propaganda website" I wouldn't be able to relate the story of the homeless man falsely imprisoned.

Ah, but you missed my point. Which was, what is the point of your 'news' story? Justice was served in the end, it took an unacceptably long time. But that another issue and one that involves money. As I pointed out, with Jiranut's example.

Perhaps sites like that just ought to be banned?

They absolutely should not be banned. They should be viewed correctly, however. Something very similar to...

http://www.weeklyworldinquisitor.com

Those who quote 'evidence' from the two sites should be treated equally.

Well despite over 250,000 websites now being banned pratachai still exists out there somewhere - here's another story you won't believe. Seemingly another "mistake" with the date of arrest to suit the prosecutor.

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2129

Similarities with the weekly world inquisitor are purely accidental, and why do they call you scooter?

[whybother]

Well despite over 250,000 websites now being banned pratachai still exists out there somewhere - here's another story you won't believe. Seemingly another "mistake" with the date of arrest to suit the prosecutor.

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2129

Similarities with the weekly world inquisitor are purely accidental, and why do they call you scooter?

It's hardly a "mistake". What's not to believe? A guy was "directing traffic". He got arrested. He got sentenced.

Obviously the courts didn't believe his side of the story. Not really hard to understand is it? What was he doing out there "directing traffic"?

I did like this statement in the piece though!

The Phuea Thai Party’s legal assistance was insufficient, and reached only a small number.

The PTP legal assistance still has plenty of money to spend on it's "small number" of leaders, even offering millions of baht for bail. Maybe this would be better spent on legal assistance for the poor protesters.

[Buchholz]

Also according to the uncollaborated article (of which I notate the misleading headline that implies he's alread served a year in prison), the Red Shirt supporter confessed to his crime of burning tires, blocking soldiers, and hurling objects at them.

Like whybother, I also note that PTP lawyers has opted not to support this case and focus their efforts on the Red Shirt Leaders (furthering the other thread on that topic of Red Shirt Leaders abandoning their less-well-off minions in pursuit of their own self-interest).

[phiphidon]

Also according to the uncollaborated article (of which I notate the misleading headline that implies he's alread served a year in prison), the Red Shirt supporter confessed to his crime of burning tires, blocking soldiers, and hurling objects at them.

Like whybother, I also note that PTP lawyers has opted not to support this case and focus their efforts on the Red Shirt Leaders (furthering the other thread on that topic of Red Shirt Leaders abandoning their less-well-off minions in pursuit of their own self-interest).

This and the previous reply are part of the problem. Once you have your viewpoints set in stone, you start to immediately assume you're right, to the extent of not even trying to examine other viewpoints, or as in this case, not even reading the article properly.

We'll start with the headline

"Young man serves one-year jail term under Emergency Decree". Firstly the article has been translated from the original Thai. In the English language "serves" can be read in two ways , ie he is now serving or he has served, such are the intricacies and beauty of the English language. But wait, by the time you get as far as the second sentence in the article this "misleading headline" is clarified thus "He is now serving a one-year jail term."

Now let's look at your statement "the Red Shirt supporter confessed to his crime of burning tires, blocking soldiers, and hurling objects at them"

What the article actually says:

"On her first visit to the prison, she asked him what charges he had been arrested on, and was told that soldiers forced him to confess to the charge of blocking traffic, threatening to shoot him dead if he did not comply. He told his mother that the soldiers slapped his face with guns".

The blocking of the traffic charge refers to the night of the 14th, around 10pm, when he was arrested for said offence under the SOE. No mention of burning tyres, blocking soldiers and hurling objects, until.........

"According to the public prosecutor's indictment, he was arrested on 16 May during the day, not on the night of 14 May, as his mother noted on her calendar. He was alleged to have joined others to instigate unrest by bringing tyres to burn in front of the Office of the Narcotics Control Board in Din Daeng, blocking soldiers from entering the area, and hurlingobjects at the troops."

Nothing like the original charge then..............But,

"On 17 May, Dusit Municipal Court ruled that he was guilty as charged."

They said he had confessed to the crime (which he had, to the charge of blocking traffic) and despite the fact that he had confessed, decided to make an example of him and sentenced him to 1 year in prison.

Regarding your comment

"Like whybother, I also note that PTP lawyers has opted not to support this case and focus their efforts on the Red Shirt Leaders (furthering the other thread on that topic of Red Shirt Leaders abandoning their less-well-off minions in pursuit of their own self-interest)."

I refer back to the article;

"The Phuea Thai Party's legal assistance was insufficient, and reached only a small number. The National Human Rights Commission made visits and heard their demands for legal assistance, but nothing happened. Many were forced to confess or pleaded guilty, and were quickly sentenced by the courts."

Insufficient in what way, I don't know, but you have already made your mind up about that. Interestingly, the NHRC efforts didn't affect the outcome either. The PTP could at least inform his mother where he was being held, whereas the Police and the Courts were of no help at all, which is strange because you would have thought that they of all people would know where the people they had incarcerated were.

Don't let your prejudices get in the way of a good read.

[whybother]

This and the previous reply are part of the problem. Once you have your viewpoints set in stone, you start to immediately assume you're right, to the extent of not even trying to examine other viewpoints, or as in this case, not even reading the article properly.

<snip>

I read the article. And it leads to a lot more questions.

Firstly, what was he doing "directing traffic" in an area that at that stage was very volatile?

Was he actually arrested for that? Why would a motorcycle taxi driver get him in a headlock and take him to the military? Do you actually believe that?

[Buchholz]

"On her first visit to the prison, she asked him what charges he had been arrested on, and was told that soldiers forced him to confess to the charge of blocking traffic, threatening to shoot him dead if he did not comply. He told his mother that the soldiers slapped his face with guns".

The blocking of the traffic charge refers to the night of the 14th, around 10pm, when he was arrested for said offence under the SOE. No mention of burning tyres, blocking soldiers and hurling objects, until.........

No mention of it until the prosecutors were quoted in the article. The only one saying he was charged with blocking traffic is the self-confessed Red Shirt supporter. Self-confessed to the the charges as I ascribed.

"According to the public prosecutor's indictment,

alleged to have joined others to instigate unrest by bringing tyres to burn in front of the Office of the Narcotics Control Board in Din Daeng, blocking soldiers from entering the area, and hurlingobjects at the troops."

Nothing like the original charge then..............But,

They said he had confessed to the crime (which he had, to the charge of blocking traffic) and despite the fact that he had confessed, decided to make an example of him and sentenced him to 1 year in prison.

Who is the "they" that said his charge was blocking traffic? The jailed convict is the one that said his charge was blocking traffic, not the prosecutors. They (meaning prosecutors) said he pled guilty to the charges as I ascribed.

You're confusing what officials are saying with what the Red Shirt convict and his Red Shirt mother are saying.

Don't let your prejudices get in the way of a good read.

Yes, you shouldn't. It helps if you read it carefully, especially when you are the one that submitted it.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Buchholz

[phiphidon]

"On her first visit to the prison, she asked him what charges he had been arrested on, and was told that soldiers forced him to confess to the charge of blocking traffic, threatening to shoot him dead if he did not comply. He told his mother that the soldiers slapped his face with guns".

The blocking of the traffic charge refers to the night of the 14th, around 10pm, when he was arrested for said offence under the SOE. No mention of burning tyres, blocking soldiers and hurling objects, until.........

No mention of it until the prosecutors were quoted in the article. The only one saying he was charged with blocking traffic is the self-confessed Red Shirt supporter. Self-confessed to the the charges as I ascribed.

"According to the public prosecutor's indictment,

alleged to have joined others to instigate unrest by bringing tyres to burn in front of the Office of the Narcotics Control Board in Din Daeng, blocking soldiers from entering the area, and hurlingobjects at the troops."

Nothing like the original charge then..............But,

They said he had confessed to the crime (which he had, to the charge of blocking traffic) and despite the fact that he had confessed, decided to make an example of him and sentenced him to 1 year in prison.

Who is the "they" that said his charge was blocking traffic? The jailed convict is the one that said his charge was blocking traffic, not the prosecutors. They (meaning prosecutors) said he pled guilty to the charges as I ascribed.

You're confusing what officials are saying with what the Red Shirt convict and his Red Shirt mother are saying.

Don't let your prejudices get in the way of a good read.

Yes, you shouldn't. It helps if you read it carefully, especially when you are the one that submitted it.

Are you saying that he confessed to being a red shirt? See I can obfuscate nearly as well as you can. But taking your meaning that he confessed to burning tyres etc, He, aka the "redshirt convict",said he confessed to blocking the road on the 14th. It was The Prosecutors said he was "involved with others burning tyres etc during the day of the 16th",

i.e another incident on another day. Can you not accept that despite your prejudices there is a discrepancy here? This is not the first time the date of arrest has been changed to suit the prosecutors case.

So it comes down to this; either

a) The young man in jail was arrested for blocking traffic under the SOE on the night of the 14th

Or

b)The young man was arrested to allegedly "have joined others to instigate unrest by bringing tyres to burn in front of the Office of the Narcotics Control Board in Din Daeng, blockingsoldiers from entering the area, and hurling objects at the troops" during the day of the 16th.

You seemed to have missed (or maybe dismissed) the discrepancy in your careful reading.

I have had to edit this post 3 times purely because of spurious text codes

Edited November 7, 2010 by phiphidon

[phiphidon]

This and the previous reply are part of the problem. Once you have your viewpoints set in stone, you start to immediately assume you're right, to the extent of not even trying to examine other viewpoints, or as in this case, not even reading the article properly.

<snip>

I read the article. And it leads to a lot more questions.

Firstly, what was he doing "directing traffic" in an area that at that stage was very volatile?

Was he actually arrested for that? Why would a motorcycle taxi driver get him in a headlock and take him to the military? Do you actually believe that?

He was arrested for "blocking the traffic". Directing traffic is probably a red shirt euphemism for saying "you can't go up there, you have to go this way". So,yes I can believe that a motorcycle taxi driver would get him in a headlock and take him to the military if he objected strongly to being told where he could drive, and had, how shall I put this, opposing views to the Red Shirt movement. Especially if there was a military presence nearby. I can't imagine him dragging the young guy across Bangkok to be arrested though, if that's your point?

Still, that's only my viewpoint and I think I'm still allowed to express it.

[whybother]

This and the previous reply are part of the problem. Once you have your viewpoints set in stone, you start to immediately assume you're right, to the extent of not even trying to examine other viewpoints, or as in this case, not even reading the article properly.

<snip>

I read the article. And it leads to a lot more questions.

Firstly, what was he doing "directing traffic" in an area that at that stage was very volatile?

Was he actually arrested for that? Why would a motorcycle taxi driver get him in a headlock and take him to the military? Do you actually believe that?

He was arrested for "blocking the traffic". Directing traffic is probably a red shirt euphemism for saying "you can't go up there, you have to go this way". So,yes I can believe that a motorcycle taxi driver would get him in a headlock and take him to the military if he objected strongly to being told where he could drive, and had, how shall I put this, opposing views to the Red Shirt movement. Especially if there was a military presence nearby. I can't imagine him dragging the young guy across Bangkok to be arrested though, if that's your point?

Still, that's only my viewpoint and I think I'm still allowed to express it.

If he was stopping people from going into the red shirt area, it sounds more like he might have actually been a red shirt guard, or at least more than passing by, which is what the article suggested.

Did he just get in a fight with a motorcycle taxi rider, or did the mc rider drag him to the military. Given most of the mc taxis seemed to support the red shirts, I'd find that hard to believe.

But you can whatever opinion you want. just don't expect everyone to agree with it.

[rubl]

Found this picture, seems usable in many situations

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Well despite over 250,000 websites now being banned pratachai still exists out there somewhere - here's another story you won't believe. Seemingly another "mistake" with the date of arrest to suit the prosecutor.

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2129

Similarities with the weekly world inquisitor are purely accidental, and why do they call you scooter?

I couldn't believe someone would post an article so worthy of the Weekly World Inquisitor, when responding to the inherently obvious fact the two are comparable sources for 'news'. In retrospect, comparing Prachatai to the Weekly World Inquisitor is really maybe an undeserved insult to the latter.

I read the rambling gibberish which confronted my (poor) eyes the second I clicked on your link above. I was about to point out how idiotic the entire thing was, but I see others have effectively dismissed the idiocy. Thank heavens. I lose 5 IQ points every time I'm forced to 'dissect' another Prachatai 'news' report.

I used to ride a little Vespa moped when I was a kid. They...lack imagination when coming up with nicknames, I guess.

Like whybother, I also note that PTP lawyers has opted not to support this case and focus their efforts on the Red Shirt Leaders (furthering the other thread on that topic of Red Shirt Leaders abandoning their less-well-off minions in pursuit of their own self-interest).

Like Buchholz and whybother, I have sustained 3rd degree burns to my irises after staring at that glaring admission burning brightly on the idiotic page.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

He was arrested for "blocking the traffic". Directing traffic is probably a red shirt euphemism for saying "you can't go up there, you have to go this way".

Akekasit did not finish primary school or Grade 6, because he was too dull.

Perhaps not the 'ideal' choice for the Red Shirts when they selected someone to obstruct traffic at a busy intersection whilst they hijacked the CBD, don't you agree?

If I concede the fact that he might well have been the brightest person there, and am sympathetic to the challenges their 'movement' faces when finding candidates which are 'ideal' for any form of responsibility...will you concede the fact that perhaps the dullard was 'directing' traffic in such a way as to be quite dangerous, and will you be sympathetic to the emotions of those who's lives he was likely placing in danger with his 'directing' of traffic?

According to the public prosecutor’s indictment, he was arrested on 16 May during the day, not on the night of 14 May, as his mother noted on her calendar. He was alleged to have joined others to instigate unrest by bringing tyres to burn in front of the Office of the Narcotics Control Board in Din Daeng, blocking soldiers from entering the area, and hurling objects at the troops.

Whilst I'm aware overworked staff are liable to make the occasional clerical / admin / paperwork error, I'm going to go out on a limb and place my money on the date recorded by the public prosector being the correct date of arrest (if the only 'evidence' disputing the date is the entry in the calendar of the dullard's mother).

Perhaps she should have used her trusty calendar to remind herself to send her child to school or to someone who would teach him to read and write? I'm assuming she is either illiterate herself (which casts some doubt over the 'accuracy' of her trusty calendar's data)....or she was somehow disinterested in passing along such fancy book-reading and hand-writing skills to her young child (which casts some doubt over the 'nerve' she has to call herself a 'mother'...or a 'human').

Still, that's only my viewpoint and I think I'm still allowed to express it.

Yes Sir, you are.

I will even defend your right to express those opinions, no matter how ridiculous they are.

As I will defend my right to ridicule them, when they are ridiculous.

'

[Buchholz]

Are you saying that he confessed to being a red shirt?

Surely you've read in the article where both the convict and the mother talk of being Red Shirts.

See I can obfuscate nearly as well as you can.

I didn't obfuscate, I just wrote what your article said. The more you write, the more I wonder if you've read it.

But taking your meaning that he confessed to burning tyres etc,

I didn't say he confessed to burning tires. He confessed to the charges the prosecutors had laid against him, hence his prison sentence.

With your

"So it comes down to this; either" I don't know why you're struggling so much with this. He confessed to those charges with which the prosecutors filed.

btw, all the text codes entered were yours.

I almost always use the forum default and don't change the fonts, colors, sizes like you have. If they get garbled because a quote of your post doesn't involve you entire post and some of your text gets messed up, that's not uncommon. If you had avoided the use of such non-forum-standard text, nothing would have been altered. and you wouldn't have spent your time needlessly trying to clean it up.

[Buchholz]

It really weakens the assessment put forth by the OP writer and academics when the last 80 posts basically boils down to a flip-flop seller being detained for a few hours.

If that's the most egregious mistake of the government in this nation of 68 million regarding the security laws, it would seem they're doing pretty good.

Where are all these other examples of "The exceptions are now the rule." ???

It would have appeared from the tone of the OP that there were dozens, if not hundreds.

I'm beginning to understand now why phiphidon is seemingly so desperate to promulgate his latest as an example, although it fails when even given a cursory look. Nearly a month now after the OP and we've amassed a grand total of 1 demonstrable incident. (The flip-flop seller and this latest object hurler doesn't qualify).

SO no dozens, and certainly no where near the hundreds one might expect given the tone of the OP.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Buchholz

[TheyCallmeScooter]

SO no dozens, and certainly no where near the hundreds one might expect given the tone of the OP.

Clearly they have all been...*cough*...silenced. The silence speaks louder than hundreds of false arrests ever could.

A memorial of some kind is clearly in order. Hopefully the ICC can sort out this Abhisit fellow. He seems determined to kill all his opponents...with kindness. The crafty scoundrel.

At the risk of being nitty, I'm not willing to even mark the flip-flop seller down on the scoreboard just yet. I believe my concerns regarding the arrest of this lady by senior police officers who spent serious time considering the offence before proceeding with the arrest, citing an Emergency Decree we are supposed to accept is so oppressive that even the highest ranks of the Police force were unaware of it's non-existence in their province...remain unaddressed.

I'm not quite sure how to put a fine point on it, but....seriously? We're supposed to believe that's how it went down. I'm sorry, but that's simply not plausible.

That is incompetence at levels which simply isn't believable, and that incompetence was - unfathomably - displayed by the most senior police officers in the district - who pondered and assessed and ruminated on the offence quite extensively before arresting the lady citing an 'oppressive' law not in effect in their province (a lady who was oh-so-conveniently equipped with cute soundbites to quote, upon her remarkably rapid posting of bail by the oh-so-conveniently located Peau Thai MP).

Or there are missing 'pieces' to the jigsaw.

On a related note, I'm having trouble accepting the widely held belief that child pornography DVDs being sold openly on Sukhumvit (which I saw myself almost a week after the Bangkok Post front page) was the result of a filthy money-spinning operation, which was so incredibly lucrative, even senior police officials looked the other way and were powerless to 'crack' down on such a license to print money.

Quite clearly they were looking the other way. Quite clearly it had nothing to do with money. At least not money which could possibly be generated by child pornography being - temporarily - available for purchase in broad daylight on Sukhumvit. I had lunch and read a book with my eye on one of the stalls selling the B60 child porn DVDs openly. You'll be unsurprised to discover that zero (0) were purchased in the 50 min I spent surveilling this 'lucrative' operation in broad daylight.

Wake up and smell Denmark, people.

[Siam Simon]

SO no dozens, and certainly no where near the hundreds one might expect given the tone of the OP.

Clearly they have all been...*cough*...silenced. The silence speaks louder than hundreds of false arrests ever could.

A memorial of some kind is clearly in order. Hopefully the ICC can sort out this Abhisit fellow. He seems determined to kill all his opponents...with kindness. The crafty scoundrel.

At the risk of being nitty, I'm not willing to even mark the flip-flop seller down on the scoreboard just yet. I believe my concerns regarding the arrest of this lady by senior police officers who spent serious time considering the offence before proceeding with the arrest, citing an Emergency Decree we are supposed to accept is so oppressive that even the highest ranks of the Police force were unaware of it's non-existence in their province...remain unaddressed.

I'm not quite sure how to put a fine point on it, but....seriously? We're supposed to believe that's how it went down. I'm sorry, but that's simply not plausible.

That is incompetence at levels which simply isn't believable, and that incompetence was - unfathomably - displayed by the most senior police officers in the district - who pondered and assessed and ruminated on the offence quite extensively before arresting the lady citing an 'oppressive' law not in effect in their province (a lady who was oh-so-conveniently equipped with cute soundbites to quote, upon her remarkably rapid posting of bail by the oh-so-conveniently located Peau Thai MP).

Or there are missing 'pieces' to the jigsaw.

On a related note, I'm having trouble accepting the widely held belief that child pornography DVDs being sold openly on Sukhumvit (which I saw myself almost a week after the Bangkok Post front page) was the result of a filthy money-spinning operation, which was so incredibly lucrative, even senior police officials looked the other way and were powerless to 'crack' down on such a license to print money.

Quite clearly they were looking the other way. Quite clearly it had nothing to do with money. At least not money which could possibly be generated by child pornography being - temporarily - available for purchase in broad daylight on Sukhumvit. I had lunch and read a book with my eye on one of the stalls selling the B60 child porn DVDs openly. You'll be unsurprised to discover that zero (0) were purchased in the 50 min I spent surveilling this 'lucrative' operation in broad daylight.

Wake up and smell Denmark, people.

Your parodies of the 'right wing nutter' element of political debate are hilarious, Scoots. Keep 'em comin'.

[phiphidon]

Yes Sir, you are.

I will even defend your right to express those opinions, no matter how ridiculous they are.

As I will defend my right to ridicule them, when they are ridiculous.

'

When you prove they are ridiculous rather than dismissing out of hand the source, then you can ridicule them. In the meantime keep an open mind and your insults about the people concerned to your self.

[whybother]

Yes Sir, you are.

I will even defend your right to express those opinions, no matter how ridiculous they are.

As I will defend my right to ridicule them, when they are ridiculous.

'

When you prove they are ridiculous rather than dismissing out of hand the source, then you can ridicule them. In the meantime keep an open mind and your insults about the people concerned to your self.

I think both of the reports (flip flops and directing traffic) have been shown to be ridiculous and have been taken apart piece by piece.

[phiphidon]

Are you saying that he confessed to being a red shirt?

Surely you've read in the article where both the convict and the mother talk of being Red Shirts.

See I can obfuscate nearly as well as you can.

I didn't obfuscate, I just wrote what your article said. The more you write, the more I wonder if you've read it.

But taking your meaning that he confessed to burning tyres etc,

I didn't say he confessed to burning tires. He confessed to the charges the prosecutors had laid against him, hence his prison sentence.

With your

"So it comes down to this; either" I don't know why you're struggling so much with this. He confessed to those charges with which the prosecutors filed.

btw, all the text codes entered were yours.

I almost always use the forum default and don't change the fonts, colors, sizes like you have. If they get garbled because a quote of your post doesn't involve you entire post and some of your text gets messed up, that's not uncommon. If you had avoided the use of such non-forum-standard text, nothing would have been altered. and you wouldn't have spent your time needlessly trying to clean it up.

Sorry, I obviously haven't had you experience of posting. You still don't get it do you. The prosecutors prosecuted him on an indictment that he "have joined others to instigate unrest by bringing tyres to burn in front of the Office of the Narcotics Control Board in Din Daeng, blockingsoldiers from entering the area, and hurling objects at the troops" NOT blocking traffic under the SOE as he said he had been arrested under. The dates WERE different as well as the alleged offences! Now you tell me I didn't read the article. Try once more. I will not always be on hand to help you.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Just quickly, to be fair to phiphidon, I think there must have been some adjustments made to the forum software or something. Quite clearly I am very technically-minded. I just don't want to lose yall with acronyms and mumbo-jumbo. But yeah, it was unusable for me on Chrome, borderline unusable on IE9, we're onto the 3rd stringer Firefox now.

You still don't get it do you. The prosecutors prosecuted him on an indictment that he "have joined others to instigate unrest by bringing tyres to burn in front of the Office of the Narcotics Control Board in Din Daeng, blockingsoldiers from entering the area, and hurling objects at the troops" NOT blocking traffic under the SOE as he said he had been arrested under. The dates WERE different as well as the alleged offences! Now you tell me I didn't read the article. Try once more. I will not always be on hand to help you.

My friend, you will have to take our word for it...it's not that we don't 'get' the fact that a guy who can't read or write and his mother with her trusty calendar (in lieu of motherly traits) dispute the date of arrest. It's not that we don't 'get' the fact that a criminal arrested and tried and convicted of violent crimes claims that he was arrested for 'directing' traffic when it's quite apparent he was arrested for burning tyres, obstructing soldiers and hurling objects at them to provoke a response.

We 'get' it. However...

1. We don't trust criminals. That's a very unique trait of those who sympathise with the UDD / PTP / Red Shirts. ahem.

2. I don't - quite frankly - care that the arrest date is disputed (with no evidence presented). Because, and you'll forgive me for saying so, but how can we possibly be expected to? How is it relevant. Or 'news'-worthy.

3. We are aware of the unique phenomena that presents when criminals who commit crimes - on RARE occasion - claim they didn't actually do what they did. I know it's very hard to believe that anyone could possibly lie (let alone such an upstanding fellow like this gentleman) - but it's just a sad fact of life, I'm afraid. I don't mean to pop your Carebears Bubble, but realities are bleak like this. Violent protestors who attack soldiers and burn tyres and cause chaos will, on VERY RARE occasion, mispresent the nature of their activities. This is a verifiable fact. Ask any 3 year old.

4. We don't read Prachatai except perhaps for amusement or to punish ourselves like Catholics. At least, that about summarises my exposure to that 'news' portal. It's about 95/5 breakdown in favour of punishment. And I'm rounding up to nearest 5%. We DEFINITELY do not read Prachatai and automatically assume anything they say is true - regardless of how illogical their claims are, regardless of how little (or even how non-existent) evidence is provided to support those claims, and regardless of how irrelevantly ridiculous their Shock! Gasp! OMG! 'scandals' actually are - in the overall scheme of things.

Oh, but I do hope that flip-flop seller is still alive. And not being tortured in some deep, dark dungeon. If the police emerge with a signed confession from her stating she was planning on selling singlets AS WELL AS FLIP-FLOPS...we will know it was coerced! Police be warned.

[Buchholz]

Are you saying that he confessed to being a red shirt?

Surely you've read in the article where both the convict and the mother talk of being Red Shirts.

But taking your meaning that he confessed to burning tyres etc,

I didn't say he confessed to burning tires. He confessed to the charges the prosecutors had laid against him, hence his prison sentence.

With your

"So it comes down to this; either" I don't know why you're struggling so much with this. He confessed to those charges with which the prosecutors filed.

btw, all the text codes entered were yours.

I almost always use the forum default and don't change the fonts, colors, sizes like you have. If they get garbled because a quote of your post doesn't involve you entire post and some of your text gets messed up, that's not uncommon. If you had avoided the use of such non-forum-standard text, nothing would have been altered. and you wouldn't have spent your time needlessly trying to clean it up.

Sorry, I obviously haven't had you experience of posting. You still don't get it do you. The prosecutors prosecuted him on an indictment that he "have joined others to instigate unrest by bringing tyres to burn in front of the Office of the Narcotics Control Board in Din Daeng, blockingsoldiers from entering the area, and hurling objects at the troops" NOT blocking traffic under the SOE as he said he had been arrested under. The dates WERE different as well as the alleged offences! Now you tell me I didn't read the article. Try once more. I will not always be on hand to help you.

I misspoke when I mentioned burning tires. I should have said directing traffic, but certainly the more grievous of his self-confessed crimes was hurling objects at the soldiers, and I inadvertently misidentified his several convictions.

Probably if I hadn't needed to laboriously make 3 posts to point out your multiple misrepresentations with the crux of the article, I wouldn't have made my solitary error.

I recognize and apologize to the forum for my single error. Will you for your many infringements on accuracy?

[Piengrudee]

SOE??? emergency decree? . . . . . Another video clip relating to alleged abuse of power at the Constitution Court has been released on YouTube leading to an unsuccessful bid by the ICT Ministry to block it from being seen here, on claims the content breached the emergency decree. - The nation

[TheyCallmeScooter]

SOE??? emergency decree? . . . . . Another video clip relating to alleged abuse of power at the Constitution Court has been released on YouTube leading to an unsuccessful bid by the ICT Ministry to block it from being seen here, on claims the content breached the emergency decree. - The nation

Such a well-funded smear campaign can surely afford to hire an oDesk.com editing team at $6/hr to edit their footage before release.

Unless there is another reason the footage is being released piecemeal over such a long period of time?