hanuman1 Posted November 29, 2010 Share Posted November 29, 2010 According to Tulsathit (in my view a rare half-decent Nation commentator): Court has ruled that old law will b applied when offences r concerned, while new law when methods r concerned. Anyone for fudge with their tea this afternoon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammered Posted November 29, 2010 Share Posted November 29, 2010 Try breaking through a police line and getting into the hotel grounds where an international conference is going on in a western country or any other one for that matter and see what would happen. The Thai reaction of helicoptering out was quite minimal and natural rather than grandstanding. That is reality of international events and protests against them. Can't remember any emergency exits taking place at any of the 'G' summits that are always targeted by protestors. Can you? Security wasnt breached at those. At ASEAN security was breached and hence the safety of foreign diognatories was uppermost. Quite simple really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweeneyAgonistes Posted November 29, 2010 Share Posted November 29, 2010 It'll be nice to see those smug pricks embarrassed a little but since Thailand is not in any meaningful sense a democracy, this is of pretty limited interest. What would be interesting is seeing the corrupt bastards who actually run things here kicked from power but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammered Posted November 29, 2010 Share Posted November 29, 2010 Anyway guess we should move away from discussion of things past now as the verdict is coming. The using both laws bit seems to make predicting it early a little difficult Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted November 29, 2010 Share Posted November 29, 2010 Or just a case of grandstanding............. It's happened before that VIPs have had to be evacuated by helicopter ... Pattaya April 2009 ... .....Which was also grandstanding. The only people trying to turn that protest ugly were Suthep and Newin's hired Blue Shirts. In the end, it all came down to a large plate glass window being broken by crowd pressure, and a load of Red Shirt protestors sat on a lawn being supervised by the Army in the gardens at the Royal. But hyperbole is a marvelous thing, isn't it? Try breaking through a police line and getting into the hotel grounds where an international conference is going on in a western country or any other one for that matter and see what would happen. The Thai reaction of helicoptering out was quite minimal and natural rather than grandstanding. That is reality of international events and protests against them. Absolutely. There would have been a lot of shooting if this had occurred elsewhere with heads of state attending: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammered Posted November 29, 2010 Share Posted November 29, 2010 (edited) Can't remember any emergency exits taking place at any of the 'G' summits that are always targeted by protestors. Can you? Siam Simon, you may as well bang your head against a brick wall, the people you are educating are not prepared to listen to anything other than the brainwashing they have accepted. their hatred of Thaksin is so great that even the most obvious of evidence in his favour, or agaisnt their precious abhisit goes ignored. Well....Hammered isn't brainwashed. He's one of the more intelligent and honest posters on here. Thanks for the kind word there. For the record my hatred is not of Thaksin but more of his governments drug war, and I kind of regard Abhisit as a survivor and politically adept but not someone I have much time for. My politics would not embrace any of the Thai parties not that that is important I would also add I enjoy exchanging ideas with you even if not everything is agreed upon. Such is the nature of people and life Edited November 29, 2010 by hammered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted November 29, 2010 Share Posted November 29, 2010 Court rules that Democrat case based on both 1998 and 2007 party acts The Constitution Court ruled that the Democrat case had to be based on both the 1998 and 2007 Political Party acts. The court ruled the 1998 law was applied regarded to the offences the Democrat had allegedly committed at that time. The 2007 act was applied on the method for processing legal actions as the case was filed after the 2007 had taken effect. The Nation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DP25 Posted November 29, 2010 Share Posted November 29, 2010 (edited) Vote is 4-2. Democrats walking free. @tulsathit Edited November 29, 2010 by DP25 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammered Posted November 29, 2010 Share Posted November 29, 2010 Disolution case dropped as not field within the 15 day limit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SomTumTiger Posted November 29, 2010 Share Posted November 29, 2010 Good - We still have the best choice for PM in charge - today was a good day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammered Posted November 29, 2010 Share Posted November 29, 2010 That was quick. Had anyone noticed the little 15 day problem before today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted November 29, 2010 Share Posted November 29, 2010 Disolution case dropped as not field within the 15 day limit Within WHAT 15 day limit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregb Posted November 29, 2010 Share Posted November 29, 2010 This is about the best we could have hoped for. The case is dropped on a technicality rather than the merits. The reds won't be pleased, but it is much more difficult to argue a very clear procedural error than it would be a complex situation. Hopefully, there will be no protests and we can get on with our lives. I would be curious to hear the two dissenting opinions though. If it was a clear technical problem, I would think that it should have been unanimous. Is it because the 15 day rule did not exist in the 1998 law? Anyone have any more details? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammered Posted November 29, 2010 Share Posted November 29, 2010 Disolution case dropped as not field within the 15 day limit Within WHAT 15 day limit? Apparently the EC missed a (15 day) deadline in their filing. Im sure the details will come out as the day progresses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted November 29, 2010 Share Posted November 29, 2010 Urgent: Constitution Court acquits Democrat The Constitution Court ruled in favour of the Democrat Party and rejected the Election Commission's request to dissolve the party. The court reasoned the suit was unlawful as the political party registrar had not observed proper legal procedures so the court did have to interpret other legal aspects. As a result, the court rejected the suit against the Democrat. The judges voted 4:2 to drop the suit. The Nation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanuman1 Posted November 29, 2010 Share Posted November 29, 2010 (edited) This is about the best we could have hoped for. The case is dropped on a technicality rather than the merits. The reds won't be pleased, but it is much more difficult to argue a very clear procedural error than it would be a complex situation. Hopefully, there will be no protests and we can get on with our lives. I would be curious to hear the two dissenting opinions though. If it was a clear technical problem, I would think that it should have been unanimous. Is it because the 15 day rule did not exist in the 1998 law? Anyone have any more details? Good points. So 4 esteemed judges thought it wasn't submitted within 15 days, and 2 thought it was. Hmmm. Have educational standards slipped this low now? Edited November 29, 2010 by hanuman1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted November 29, 2010 Share Posted November 29, 2010 This is about the best we could have hoped for. The case is dropped on a technicality rather than the merits. The reds won't be pleased, but it is much more difficult to argue a very clear procedural error than it would be a complex situation. Hopefully, there will be no protests and we can get on with our lives. I would be curious to hear the two dissenting opinions though. If it was a clear technical problem, I would think that it should have been unanimous. Is it because the 15 day rule did not exist in the 1998 law? Anyone have any more details? I would have preferred a result that said the Democrats didn't break the law, rather than one that doesn't clarify it. Now there will be the constant "The Democrats broke the law but got away with it", but it's really "We don't know if the Democrats broke the law or not". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdinasia Posted November 29, 2010 Share Posted November 29, 2010 This is about the best we could have hoped for. The case is dropped on a technicality rather than the merits. The reds won't be pleased, but it is much more difficult to argue a very clear procedural error than it would be a complex situation. Hopefully, there will be no protests and we can get on with our lives. I would be curious to hear the two dissenting opinions though. If it was a clear technical problem, I would think that it should have been unanimous. Is it because the 15 day rule did not exist in the 1998 law? Anyone have any more details? Not yet, I am still trying to work my way through what was actually said. Keep in mind that legal precedent is NOT part of Thai law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdinasia Posted November 29, 2010 Share Posted November 29, 2010 This is about the best we could have hoped for. The case is dropped on a technicality rather than the merits. The reds won't be pleased, but it is much more difficult to argue a very clear procedural error than it would be a complex situation. Hopefully, there will be no protests and we can get on with our lives. I would be curious to hear the two dissenting opinions though. If it was a clear technical problem, I would think that it should have been unanimous. Is it because the 15 day rule did not exist in the 1998 law? Anyone have any more details? Good points. So 4 esteemed judges thought it wasn't submitted within 15 days, and 2 thought was. Hmmm. Have educational standards slipped this low now? Great way to read into it something that was not said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammered Posted November 29, 2010 Share Posted November 29, 2010 There is still maybe the TPI donation case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammered Posted November 29, 2010 Share Posted November 29, 2010 This is about the best we could have hoped for. The case is dropped on a technicality rather than the merits. The reds won't be pleased, but it is much more difficult to argue a very clear procedural error than it would be a complex situation. Hopefully, there will be no protests and we can get on with our lives. I would be curious to hear the two dissenting opinions though. If it was a clear technical problem, I would think that it should have been unanimous. Is it because the 15 day rule did not exist in the 1998 law? Anyone have any more details? Good points. So 4 esteemed judges thought it wasn't submitted within 15 days, and 2 thought was. Hmmm. Have educational standards slipped this low now? I would guess 4 thought one law should be used and 2 another. There was debate over whether the old or new law should be applied. Guess we will find out later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted November 29, 2010 Share Posted November 29, 2010 The other paper in the briefest of reports is saying the court ruled that the petition process was unlawful from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdinasia Posted November 29, 2010 Share Posted November 29, 2010 This is about the best we could have hoped for. The case is dropped on a technicality rather than the merits. The reds won't be pleased, but it is much more difficult to argue a very clear procedural error than it would be a complex situation. Hopefully, there will be no protests and we can get on with our lives. I would be curious to hear the two dissenting opinions though. If it was a clear technical problem, I would think that it should have been unanimous. Is it because the 15 day rule did not exist in the 1998 law? Anyone have any more details? Good points. So 4 esteemed judges thought it wasn't submitted within 15 days, and 2 thought was. Hmmm. Have educational standards slipped this low now? I would guess 4 thought one law should be used and 2 another. There was debate over whether the old or new law should be applied. Guess we will find out later Agreed (in principle), I am awaiting more information on why the 2 dissenting votes were cast. From my understanding the TPI case doesn't have a clear money trail so I think the Dems are safe on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted November 29, 2010 Share Posted November 29, 2010 This is about the best we could have hoped for. The case is dropped on a technicality rather than the merits. The reds won't be pleased, but it is much more difficult to argue a very clear procedural error than it would be a complex situation. Hopefully, there will be no protests and we can get on with our lives. I would be curious to hear the two dissenting opinions though. If it was a clear technical problem, I would think that it should have been unanimous. Is it because the 15 day rule did not exist in the 1998 law? Anyone have any more details? Good points. So 4 esteemed judges thought it wasn't submitted within 15 days, and 2 thought was. Hmmm. Have educational standards slipped this low now? I would guess 4 thought one law should be used and 2 another. There was debate over whether the old or new law should be applied. Guess we will find out later That sounds like what the petition process being ruled unlawful from the start is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webfact Posted November 29, 2010 Author Share Posted November 29, 2010 topic continues Constitution Court Acquits Thai Democrat //CLOSED// Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts