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?

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

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.

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

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:

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, 201015 yr by hammered

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

Vote is 4-2. Democrats walking free. @tulsathit

Edited November 29, 201015 yr by DP25

Disolution case dropped as not field within the 15 day limit

Good - We still have the best choice for PM in charge - today was a good day.

That was quick. Had anyone noticed the little 15 day problem before today?

Disolution case dropped as not field within the 15 day limit

Within WHAT 15 day limit?

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?

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

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

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, 201015 yr by hanuman1

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".

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.

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!

There is still maybe the TPI donation case.

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

The other paper in the briefest of reports is saying the court ruled that the petition process was unlawful from the start.

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.

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.

topic continues

Constitution Court Acquits Thai Democrat

//CLOSED//