Citizenship Issue Emerges To Haunt Abhisit

[Steely Dan]

In the UK the police are never armed in riot situations and they certainly don't deploy the army to clean up a crowd of what was peaceful demonstrators having a sit in. 9 journalists were shot and 2 killed for which the responsibility was put on the Thai military but that was later over turned due to military pressure. You say 15 army/police were killed but all baring firearms but the vast majority of civilians killed at that time were found to be unarmed as were the 1800 injured. What the Thai government ordered on that day was no better than recent happenings in the middle east as you don't pit the might of your military force with AK-47s and M-16s to shoot indiscriminately at civilians hurling rocks and fireworks. The military claimed to have found an arms cash within the Redshirt compound but who's to say it wasn't planted? Even if it was the Redshirt arsenal the quantity of firearms and ammunition claimed to be found was not enough to be a major threat to the Thai armed forces, their firepower, their body armor nor their armored vehicles so the response was completely disproportionate. If that had happened in London government and military heads would role and a few of them would be serving lengthy prison sentences.

In the UK demonstrators are not normally seeded with black clad paramillitary guards carrying sniper rifles. The UK police are also well trained in crowd control which is certainly not the case in Thailand where a demotivated mafia police would have dragged their feet or refused to carry out orders seeing as a large number of them still have allegience to Thaksin.

You can try to spin the same lies and distortions till you are blue in the face but the consensus of oppinion is that the loss of life amongst the demonstrators was precisely what their malignent puppeteer had hoped for, and lest we forget 90 deaths was a mere drop in the ocean compared to Khun Thaksin's war on drugs.

[rubl]

In the UK the police are never armed in riot situations and they certainly don't deploy the army to clean up a crowd of what was peaceful demonstrators having a sit in. 9 journalists were shot and 2 killed for which the responsibility was put on the Thai military but that was later over turned due to military pressure. You say 15 army/police were killed but all baring firearms but the vast majority of civilians killed at that time were found to be unarmed as were the 1800 injured. What the Thai government ordered on that day was no better than recent happenings in the middle east as you don't pit the might of your military force with AK-47s and M-16s to shoot indiscriminately at civilians hurling rocks and fireworks. The military claimed to have found an arms cash within the Redshirt compound but who's to say it wasn't planted? Even if it was the Redshirt arsenal the quantity of firearms and ammunition claimed to be found was not enough to be a major threat to the Thai armed forces, their firepower, their body armor nor their armored vehicles so the response was completely disproportionate. If that had happened in London government and military heads would role and a few of them would be serving lengthy prison sentences.

I think you're mixing a few things here. Let's forget about the UK for a moment, even though the OP is about 'Thailand ruled by British oppressor'.

As the police wasn't effective the government called in the army. The army (i.e. those poor sods of conscripts) were not trained for crowd control as the police is. The April 10th 2010 cleanp-up started peacefully as far as clean-ups can go. It's when shooting started, grenades were lobbed that the real mayhem started. Things didn't improve and the death toll on the 20th of May stood at 90, including armed police and army personel and totally innocent (non-red-shirt) bystanders.

Now back to what you write. A peaceful sit-in would not be allowed to continue for weeks in a major city in the UK. A 'peaceful lot of protesters' with clubs, fireworks, arms would not be allowed in the UK. In the UK the police force with special trained units is functioning. To say 15 army/police killed 'but they were armed' is hilarious. They at least had the legal right to bear arms. Yes most protesters were unarmed (except for bamboo sticks, fireworks, burning tyres), but those armed elements hiding in the masses were the main cause of all mayhem. As for the army using it's equipment, minimal use under circumstances. APC's mainly to tear down the bamboo wall and as cover in fire exchange with unarmed protesters.

What the Thai army did on the 10th of April was fight back after starting a normal clean-up. Don't compare this with the Middle-East, totally different. As for planted arms caches, read Robert A. report, the army planned years in advance, already when k. Thaksin was still in office. He also writes about 'fired thousands of rounds into the protesters' which left 12 dead on April 10th (and 5 army personel who got grenades lobbed on them by those peaceful protesters). In London this could not have happened, at least no longer. Read up on history a bit, should be enlightening for you.

Edited March 2, 2011 by rubl

[globalmenace]

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Edited March 2, 2011 by Lite Beer
Reference to HM The King removed.

[globalmenace]

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Edited March 2, 2011 by metisdead
Reference to HM the King removed.

[termad]

Bit of a no brainer really, Abhisit should have renounced his UK connection long before becoming pm.

It's a great campaign leader for PT and the reds, they certainly will not let go.

absolutely - the leader of a country being a citizen of another? what is/was he thinking?

It's interesting that no commentator or newspaper has mentioned Abhisits parent's nationality. They were medical professors working in U.K. for a long time - they even gave their children English/British names - I've no doubt that a British passport, which could easily have been obtained by them, would have seemed a good option for them e.g. travel/holidays, free medical treatment,tax allowances for their children etc. If they did have British passports and Abhisit was born in the U.K. there would be no doubt about Abhisit's British nationality.

I think that Abhisit must have travelled outside the U.K. before he went to Oxford so what passport did he travel on? If it was a Thai passport why doesn't he produce it and wave it around because that would be case closed as far as questions about his nationality are concerned.

These might be points that that the Opposition parties are holding up their sleeves to be produced in the censure debate.

[bangkockney]

Bit of a no brainer really, Abhisit should have renounced his UK connection long before becoming pm.

It's a great campaign leader for PT and the reds, they certainly will not let go.

absolutely - the leader of a country being a citizen of another? what is/was he thinking?

It's interesting that no commentator or newspaper has mentioned Abhisits parent's nationality. They were medical professors working in U.K. for a long time - they even gave their children English/British names - I've no doubt that a British passport, which could easily have been obtained by them, would have seemed a good option for them e.g. travel/holidays, free medical treatment,tax allowances for their children etc. If they did have British passports and Abhisit was born in the U.K. there would be no doubt about Abhisit's British nationality.

I think that Abhisit must have travelled outside the U.K. before he went to Oxford so what passport did he travel on? If it was a Thai passport why doesn't he produce it and wave it around because that would be case closed as far as questions about his nationality are concerned.

These might be points that that the Opposition parties are holding up their sleeves to be produced in the censure debate.

There is no doubt!

The parents' nationalities are of zero consequence.

He doesn't need a British passport to be a British citizen.

Case is closed about his nationality, I really can't fathom all the confusion and "what ifs"!

PS You don't need to have a British passport or indeed British Citizenship to have access to all the things you listed!

Edited March 2, 2011 by bangkockney

[laocowboy2]

As far as I am aware there is no provision under the applicable UK Acts to "renounce" your rights under the Act. You could of course write to the UK government doing so but it would carry no weight in terms of either law or adminsitrative application.

However this whole thing opens intriguing opportunities for imaginative (and very low cost) foreign policy. Blair could for instance have got rid of Thaksin by simply giving him a seat in the House of Lords and British nationality - much cheaper than the coup. And the Red Shirts would have had to try to get visas to block Oxford Street insted of central Bangkok.

Bit of a no brainer really, Abhisit should have renounced his UK connection long before becoming pm.

It's a great campaign leader for PT and the reds, they certainly will not let go.

[a99az]

So Thailand has in effect a prime minster who is by birth an Englishman. As he has not renounced his citizenship he remains in power running Thailand as a Brit, interesting. Let's hope that the UK and Thailand remain friends

[dominique355]

What's the problem with dual citizenship anyway!!

Why can't that be commonly accepted by people in Thailand?

We're in 2011, people move abroad more than before and children are born everyday with 2 parents from 2 different nationality.

These children will be raise with 2 different cultures and will learn to love them both.

Why then ask to choose between your father and your mother??

Open up your mind people!

Thank you MrGreg. Finally a word of reason.

This notion of nations and national boundaries and nationality is an invention of the 19th century and some people thinks is holy like religion. So many wars have been fought and so much blood has been spilled over this Franco/Prussian "hurra patriotism". Time to move on and open your mind. Nationalities are just administrative papers to give government agencies something to do. Millions of people would loose their job otherwise.

This nationality issue is about as intelligent as the Prae Vihar dispute. Aren't there more pressing problems in this country?

[termad]

As far as I am aware there is no provision under the applicable UK Acts to "renounce" your rights under the Act. You could of course write to the UK government doing so but it would carry no weight in terms of either law or adminsitrative application.

However this whole thing opens intriguing opportunities for imaginative (and very low cost) foreign policy. Blair could for instance have got rid of Thaksin by simply giving him a seat in the House of Lords and British nationality - much cheaper than the coup. And the Red Shirts would have had to try to get visas to block Oxford Street insted of central Bangkok.

Bit of a no brainer really, Abhisit should have renounced his UK connection long before becoming pm.

It's a great campaign leader for PT and the reds, they certainly will not let go.

A U.K. government spokesman said recently that U.K. citizenship can be renounced but the process takes several months.

[Lite Beer]

A number of posts containing speculation on His Majesty The King have been deleted.

Our patience is wearing a bit thin and any more will incur a posting suspension.

Thanks.

2) Not to express disrespect of the King of Thailand or anyone else in the Thai royal family, whether living or deceased, nor to criticize the monarchy as an institution. Speculation, comments and discussion of either a political or personal nature are not allowed when discussing HM The King or the Royal family. Discussion of the lese majeste law or lese majeste cases is permitted on the forum, providing no comment or speculation is made referencing the royal family. To breach this rule will result in immediate ban.

[tw25rw]

Complete non issue.. In Britain he's considered a UK citizen by birthright. Everywhere else he is Thai because his only documented nationality is Thai. I don't know his current family situation, but his offspring are also British citizens within the UK even if they have never held a British passport.

[laocowboy2]

Not quite my point.

If the PM had actually taken UK citizenship, he could indeed renounce it. However my understanding is that he maintains that he has not actually got citizenship, there is therefore nothing to renounce as of yet - you cannot renounce a puative right, only an actual status.

For an equivalent bit of political posturing of the lunatic variety, Google Sonia Ghandi (India lady effectively in charge) and the calls for stripping her of her Indian nationality because the Norwegians (or similar) gave her some gong or other. DC could therefore probably dispell most of the Indian political class using a few British gongs without having to strew any passports about at all.

And perhaps we coulod give all the Chinese leadership Nobel Peace prizes if that would mean they all get locked up?

As far as I am aware there is no provision under the applicable UK Acts to "renounce" your rights under the Act. You could of course write to the UK government doing so but it would carry no weight in terms of either law or adminsitrative application.

However this whole thing opens intriguing opportunities for imaginative (and very low cost) foreign policy. Blair could for instance have got rid of Thaksin by simply giving him a seat in the House of Lords and British nationality - much cheaper than the coup. And the Red Shirts would have had to try to get visas to block Oxford Street insted of central Bangkok.

Bit of a no brainer really, Abhisit should have renounced his UK connection long before becoming pm.

It's a great campaign leader for PT and the reds, they certainly will not let go.

A U.K. government spokesman said recently that U.K. citizenship can be renounced but the process takes several months.

[dominique355]

He is not *actually* a UK citizen. He has since birth been *eligible to claim* UK citizenship.

From a legal POV he's done nothing wrong. From a practical/political POV he should have officially renounced his claim before entering politics.

Demands that he should step down for this mistake are simply based on perceived stupidity. Fair enough, but not compelling, plenty of successful idiots in that game.

If he does it (renounces) now, under pressure he appears a wimp - he's dug himself a no-win hole.

Politics here is certainly entertaining! 8-)

I like Abhisit, but he IS a UK national.

If you are born in the UK before 1983 you ARE a UK national. You don't go through some sort of process to 'claim' it, as you imply.

I mean, who here was born in the UK before 1983? And which of you had to 'claim' it? The answer is none of you, cause you WERE ALREADY British nationals the second you were born. No need to apply to claim it.

And he exercised the right to UK nationality the second he was born there to stay in the UK as long as he pleased

I think we should distinguish between those who have British parents and are born in the UK and those who have foreign parents and are born in the UK. The latter has already another nationality, i.e. his parents' nationality. He may not even know that being born in the UK (before 1983) makes him a UK citizen, because he has his parents' nationality already. So why bother? We might need the learned opinion of a specialist in this field to exactly know whether or not there is a difference between "having" and "having a right to".

But to me to have a right or a claim is not the same as having it. If someone ever owed you some money, you know what I mean.

[tmd5855]

It depends really.

He was born in the UK before 1983, which gives him the right to claim UK citizenship, even though both his parents were Thai.

If he's never claimed UK citizenship - i.e. never applied for a passport etc. there's not really much he can give up. He can't go back in time and change where and when he was born.

He doesn't have to 'claim UK citizenship' he was a UK citizen the moment he was born. Therein is the answer, he is a UK citizen

Bit of nitpicking, but, it raises another angle on the argument.

You can be a citizen where the country is a republic, you are a citizen of the republic.

But, when your head of state is Royalty, you are a subject of the crown. Born in the UK you are a subject of Her Britannic Majesty.

People talk of British citizenship are in a slight error it is Britisn national.

So is the Thai PM being born in the UK a subject of QEII. Quite a conundrum????????????

Pom song satang.

[Preman]

If he's British he should be indited as under current UK law ordering troops to shoot into crowds of unarmed civilians, killing 90 and wounding hundreds, is illegal. Can't have one law for the elite and another for the rest of us despite the fact it happens all the time.

In most countries ordering to shoot into crowds of unarmed civilians is illegal (apart from a few in the Middle East). Here in Thailand no-one ordered to shoot into crowds of unarmed civilians and no-one group killed 90.

Army was ordered to clean-up by legal government, got surprised on April 10th and started shooting back. Amongst the 90 death, 15 army/police mostly 'grenaded' to death. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for civilians to have and use grenades also tends to be illegal in the UK?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What is wrong with you? Are you completely crazy? This guy refrained from any reaction for months. Then.... what. These people were using firing arms and burning buildings.

Any responsible leader... would have done much more.... much earlier. He used the utmost restraint. If this was the USA, Europe or Australia.... you think that they would wait for months before crushing the civil unrest?

People have the right to protest... peacefully. This was not peaceful and the big boss... did use restraint ... and warn them to disburse. They did not.

Any foreign government would have taken these idiots down much earlier. He did very good. Probably harmed the Thai economy by not acting faster, - but did not act against his fellow Thais until he absolutely had to.

Personally, - I think that this PM is the best bet that Thailand has had for decades.

What... you farangs out there that write this stuff want some other idiot with numerous nationalities - who pays rice farmers from Isan 500 baht each to go and demonstrate in the streets and incite violence?

You want someone intelligent. Politics are politics. Give this guy a chance.

[bangkockney]

You can renounce citizenship quite easily. Fill out a form, send proof of British nationality along with proof of another nationality you hold or could be entitled to, pay £208 and you're done.

As far as I am aware there is no provision under the applicable UK Acts to "renounce" your rights under the Act. You could of course write to the UK government doing so but it would carry no weight in terms of either law or adminsitrative application.

However this whole thing opens intriguing opportunities for imaginative (and very low cost) foreign policy. Blair could for instance have got rid of Thaksin by simply giving him a seat in the House of Lords and British nationality - much cheaper than the coup. And the Red Shirts would have had to try to get visas to block Oxford Street insted of central Bangkok.

Bit of a no brainer really, Abhisit should have renounced his UK connection long before becoming pm.

It's a great campaign leader for PT and the reds, they certainly will not let go.

[bangkockney]

He has it by way of birth. He does not have to claim it.

His birth certificate is de facto proof.

Not quite my point.

If the PM had actually taken UK citizenship, he could indeed renounce it. However my understanding is that he maintains that he has not actually got citizenship, there is therefore nothing to renounce as of yet - you cannot renounce a puative right, only an actual status.

For an equivalent bit of political posturing of the lunatic variety, Google Sonia Ghandi (India lady effectively in charge) and the calls for stripping her of her Indian nationality because the Norwegians (or similar) gave her some gong or other. DC could therefore probably dispell most of the Indian political class using a few British gongs without having to strew any passports about at all.

And perhaps we coulod give all the Chinese leadership Nobel Peace prizes if that would mean they all get locked up?

As far as I am aware there is no provision under the applicable UK Acts to "renounce" your rights under the Act. You could of course write to the UK government doing so but it would carry no weight in terms of either law or adminsitrative application.

However this whole thing opens intriguing opportunities for imaginative (and very low cost) foreign policy. Blair could for instance have got rid of Thaksin by simply giving him a seat in the House of Lords and British nationality - much cheaper than the coup. And the Red Shirts would have had to try to get visas to block Oxford Street insted of central Bangkok.

Bit of a no brainer really, Abhisit should have renounced his UK connection long before becoming pm.

It's a great campaign leader for PT and the reds, they certainly will not let go.

A U.K. government spokesman said recently that U.K. citizenship can be renounced but the process takes several months.

[laocowboy2]

No doubt true - but as far as I am aware the PM has no "proof of British nationality" as he never applied for it. You cannot renounce what you do not yet have. I suppose he could apply, get it and then renounce it but that sounds a particularly convoluted exeise in futility even by Thai political standards.

You can renounce citizenship quite easily. Fill out a form, send proof of British nationality along with proof of another nationality you hold or could be entitled to, pay £208 and you're done.

As far as I am aware there is no provision under the applicable UK Acts to "renounce" your rights under the Act. You could of course write to the UK government doing so but it would carry no weight in terms of either law or adminsitrative application.

However this whole thing opens intriguing opportunities for imaginative (and very low cost) foreign policy. Blair could for instance have got rid of Thaksin by simply giving him a seat in the House of Lords and British nationality - much cheaper than the coup. And the Red Shirts would have had to try to get visas to block Oxford Street insted of central Bangkok.

Bit of a no brainer really, Abhisit should have renounced his UK connection long before becoming pm.

It's a great campaign leader for PT and the reds, they certainly will not let go.

[bangkockney]

British Citizenship and UK Citizenship are equivalent.

However British Citizen is the preferred form.

It depends really.

He was born in the UK before 1983, which gives him the right to claim UK citizenship, even though both his parents were Thai.

If he's never claimed UK citizenship - i.e. never applied for a passport etc. there's not really much he can give up. He can't go back in time and change where and when he was born.

He doesn't have to 'claim UK citizenship' he was a UK citizen the moment he was born. Therein is the answer, he is a UK citizen

Bit of nitpicking, but, it raises another angle on the argument.

You can be a citizen where the country is a republic, you are a citizen of the republic.

But, when your head of state is Royalty, you are a subject of the crown. Born in the UK you are a subject of Her Britannic Majesty.

People talk of British citizenship are in a slight error it is Britisn national.

So is the Thai PM being born in the UK a subject of QEII. Quite a conundrum????????????

Pom song satang.

[bangkockney]

He has a UK birth certificate and was born before 1983, granting him citizenship by birth.

What more proof do you want?

No doubt true - but as far as I am aware the PM has no "proof of British nationality" as he never applied for it. You cannot renounce what you do not yet have. I suppose he could apply, get it and then renounce it but that sounds a particularly convoluted exeise in futility even by Thai political standards.

You can renounce citizenship quite easily. Fill out a form, send proof of British nationality along with proof of another nationality you hold or could be entitled to, pay £208 and you're done.

As far as I am aware there is no provision under the applicable UK Acts to "renounce" your rights under the Act. You could of course write to the UK government doing so but it would carry no weight in terms of either law or adminsitrative application.

However this whole thing opens intriguing opportunities for imaginative (and very low cost) foreign policy. Blair could for instance have got rid of Thaksin by simply giving him a seat in the House of Lords and British nationality - much cheaper than the coup. And the Red Shirts would have had to try to get visas to block Oxford Street insted of central Bangkok.

Bit of a no brainer really, Abhisit should have renounced his UK connection long before becoming pm.

It's a great campaign leader for PT and the reds, they certainly will not let go.

[thaigold]

No court will touch this one for sure. The opposition should drop this "hot-potato" soon, because everyone knows where this leads - not a pretty picture.

[MAJIC]

It depends really.

He was born in the UK before 1983, which gives him the right to claim UK citizenship, even though both his parents were Thai.

If he's never claimed UK citizenship - i.e. never applied for a passport etc. there's not really much he can give up. He can't go back in time and change where and when he was born.

100% Correct,

Seems the Opposition,and some on Thai Visa are having a reality problem. i.e .....

How can you give up,what you never claimed in the first place?

An Unwanted/Unsolicited Gift!

Edited March 2, 2011 by MAJIC

[bangkockney]

He does not need to claim it, it is an automatic right.

Why is this so hard to understand?

It depends really.

He was born in the UK before 1983, which gives him the right to claim UK citizenship, even though both his parents were Thai.

If he's never claimed UK citizenship - i.e. never applied for a passport etc. there's not really much he can give up. He can't go back in time and change where and when he was born.

100% Correct,

Seems the opposition,and some on Thai Visa are having a reality problem. i.e .....

You can't give up,what you never claimed in the first place.

[rubl]

He does not need to claim it, it is an automatic right.

Why is this so hard to understand?

I feel sorry for k. Abhisit. As his parents were in the UK at the time of his birth, they had to register him by law which deed automatically gave him UK citizenship. Then they probably needed (a translation of) the birth certificate to claim his Thai nationality. Life surely started difficult for him

[samran]

No doubt true - but as far as I am aware the PM has no "proof of British nationality" as he never applied for it. You cannot renounce what you do not yet have. I suppose he could apply, get it and then renounce it but that sounds a particularly convoluted exeise in futility even by Thai political standards.

What bit don't you understand? He was a British national the second of his birth and exercised his right to British Nationality the first second of his life in the UK - by having the choice to stay there without immigration controls - which he did!

Since when do 'natural born' citizens have the 'apply' for citizenship? I mean it is stupid and absurd to think that millions of UK born Brits who never had a passport and never left the country are somehow 'non-citizens' simply cause they've never had a passport.

That is essentially what you are implying.

Edited March 2, 2011 by samran

[Jirapa]

In the UK the police are never armed in riot situations and they certainly don't deploy the army to clean up a crowd of what was peaceful demonstrators having a sit in. 9 journalists were shot and 2 killed for which the responsibility was put on the Thai military but that was later over turned due to military pressure. You say 15 army/police were killed but all baring firearms but the vast majority of civilians killed at that time were found to be unarmed as were the 1800 injured. What the Thai government ordered on that day was no better than recent happenings in the middle east as you don't pit the might of your military force with AK-47s and M-16s to shoot indiscriminately at civilians hurling rocks and fireworks. The military claimed to have found an arms cash within the Redshirt compound but who's to say it wasn't planted? Even if it was the Redshirt arsenal the quantity of firearms and ammunition claimed to be found was not enough to be a major threat to the Thai armed forces, their firepower, their body armor nor their armored vehicles so the response was completely disproportionate. If that had happened in London government and military heads would role and a few of them would be serving lengthy prison sentences.

In the UK demonstrators are not normally seeded with black clad paramillitary guards carrying sniper rifles. The UK police are also well trained in crowd control which is certainly not the case in Thailand where a demotivated mafia police would have dragged their feet or refused to carry out orders seeing as a large number of them still have allegience to Thaksin.

You can try to spin the same lies and distortions till you are blue in the face but the consensus of oppinion is that the loss of life amongst the demonstrators was precisely what their malignent puppeteer had hoped for, and lest we forget 90 deaths was a mere drop in the ocean compared to Khun Thaksin's war on drugs.

What consensus was that? I'm not pro Taksin nor pro Abhisit and I'm not trying to spin anything. It was a gross miscarriage of justice in any sane westerners eyes plain and simple and no one in authority has been called to account. I take it Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch must all be wrong. As for the war on drugs what do you think big drug dealers do when their heads are about to be put in the noose? They assassinate the underdogs who could potentially rat them out. The majority of murder victims were small time addicts and dealers who were murdered by the cartels and corrupt police to stop the flames rising too high up the ladder as at the top of that ladder are chiefs of police and the military. It's funny you should mention his war on drugs as that was one of the policies the Thai public on all sides praised him for. It's strange he was ousted after that but he'd probably stepped on the wrong Jack boots.

[Dap]

Do Thai people want to see a dark-skinned 100% Thai person as their leader? The purer the better? Yet on television we see so many light-skinned mixed-race actors.

and most Thais' consider them "Superstars", emulating them every way possible ... go figure

[Jirapa]

Jirapa - again only my opinion - but if he really did have the power to control the military I doubt that the embarrassing fiasco which occurred down in Pattaya during his premier ASEAN summit would have occurred. The authority to do something and the power to do something are two different things. I certainly do not know how that would play out in the world court.

Come on that happens at every G8 or G20 summit but the rest of the world has a more efficient police force. He managed to call the army off from all out war with Cambodia but that was probably quite easy as the Thai army don't want to fight a real war against a real army with trained soldiers, guns and tanks

[Jirapa]

In the UK the police are never armed in riot situations and they certainly don't deploy the army to clean up a crowd of what was peaceful demonstrators having a sit in. 9 journalists were shot and 2 killed for which the responsibility was put on the Thai military but that was later over turned due to military pressure. You say 15 army/police were killed but all baring firearms but the vast majority of civilians killed at that time were found to be unarmed as were the 1800 injured. What the Thai government ordered on that day was no better than recent happenings in the middle east as you don't pit the might of your military force with AK-47s and M-16s to shoot indiscriminately at civilians hurling rocks and fireworks. The military claimed to have found an arms cash within the Redshirt compound but who's to say it wasn't planted? Even if it was the Redshirt arsenal the quantity of firearms and ammunition claimed to be found was not enough to be a major threat to the Thai armed forces, their firepower, their body armor nor their armored vehicles so the response was completely disproportionate. If that had happened in London government and military heads would role and a few of them would be serving lengthy prison sentences.

I think you're mixing a few things here. Let's forget about the UK for a moment, even though the OP is about 'Thailand ruled by British oppressor'.

As the police wasn't effective the government called in the army. The army (i.e. those poor sods of conscripts) were not trained for crowd control as the police is. The April 10th 2010 cleanp-up started peacefully as far as clean-ups can go. It's when shooting started, grenades were lobbed that the real mayhem started. Things didn't improve and the death toll on the 20th of May stood at 90, including armed police and army personel and totally innocent (non-red-shirt) bystanders.

Now back to what you write. A peaceful sit-in would not be allowed to continue for weeks in a major city in the UK. A 'peaceful lot of protesters' with clubs, fireworks, arms would not be allowed in the UK. In the UK the police force with special trained units is functioning. To say 15 army/police killed 'but they were armed' is hilarious. They at least had the legal right to bear arms. Yes most protesters were unarmed (except for bamboo sticks, fireworks, burning tyres), but those armed elements hiding in the masses were the main cause of all mayhem. As for the army using it's equipment, minimal use under circumstances. APC's mainly to tear down the bamboo wall and as cover in fire exchange with unarmed protesters.

What the Thai army did on the 10th of April was fight back after starting a normal clean-up. Don't compare this with the Middle-East, totally different. As for planted arms caches, read Robert A. report, the army planned years in advance, already when k. Thaksin was still in office. He also writes about 'fired thousands of rounds into the protesters' which left 12 dead on April 10th (and 5 army personel who got grenades lobbed on them by those peaceful protesters). In London this could not have happened, at least no longer. Read up on history a bit, should be enlightening for you.

Look if you don't want people to get shot you don't send armed police and soldiers into that situation. Northern Ireland was a completely different situation and yes there were armed IRA paramilitaries at demonstrations but never were so many unarmed civilians laid to waste using lethal force regardless of the fact troops were being shot at. How you can even try to justify so many civilian deaths and casualties is beyond me? It was a crime against humanity plain and simple. I remind you that in the suburbs of Paris recently they had riots that lasted months with huge damage to property and many attacks on police and police stations but at no point was a single live round fired by the security forces. Water cannons mounted on tanks and tear gas can be used with great success to disperse a crowd and at the very worse rubber bullets and buckshot. M-16s and AK-47s are not an option in a civilized world.