A few posts have been removed. One advocating violence and a few referring to "Uncle SMS". It is against forum policy to discuss "Uncle SMS". As it is on most other forums here in Thailand.

Why?

Why?

Because if the wrong thing gets said, and the post isn't deleted fast enough, it could lead to someone spending 15 years in jail.

self deleted

Edited May 15, 201214 yr by mca

A few posts have been removed. One advocating violence and a few referring to "Uncle SMS". It is against forum policy to discuss "Uncle SMS". As it is on most other forums here in Thailand.

Why?

Google is your friend, after some very brief research there you are clever enough to answer your own question.

PAD did not seize the airport.

AOT made the decision without consulting PAD, and close it down themselves.

Then perhaps each PAD leader should be charged with intimidation of public officials (AOT) leading to the shutting down of public infrastructure. In developed countries that's a fairly serious charge. If the case fails in court, then there should be a movement by deep pocketed individuals to mount a mass of civil lawsuits against the PAD leaders. That should keep them away from parliament and other government buildings, public facilities and country borders, and otherwise working to pay solicitors fees for a few years.

And don't forget to bring along a locksmith. In most countries the police would have just busted out his window and drug him out by his hair.

Allow for the possibility that there were passengers arriving and departing, and friends farewelling/meeting those passengers.

As i said before, if the PAD leaders had the foresight to buy a cheap flight ticket for that day, it would make it very difficult to prove that they were there illegally.

I actually thought you were showing a rare bit of half-decent humour when you posted that the first time. Silly me! Applying your warped logic to the 2010 troubles, Red Shirt protesers were just on extended shopping trips .

I did indeed intend it as semi-humourous / semi-serious. I assume most gathered that, but for silly you I will explain what I meant. The airport is a public place, but it is normal to have a valid reason to be there. When a mass of people disrupted its operation, those made more visible by appearing on stage beforehand make up the majority of those charged as they incited the others. As the disruption is proven, the prosecution only has to prove their presence at the airport, easily done by CCTV.

If however, they held a flight ticket for that day, they have a valid reason for being in the building. Then the prosecution would have to prove intent or have witness accounts of their specific actions - nowhere near as easy.

Buffaloes don't go on shopping trips, they get lead by the nose.

PAD did not seize the airport.

AOT made the decision without consulting PAD, and close it down themselves.

Then perhaps each PAD leader should be charged with intimidation of public officials (AOT) leading to the shutting down of public infrastructure. In developed countries that's a fairly serious charge. If the case fails in court, then there should be a movement by deep pocketed individuals to mount a mass of civil lawsuits against the PAD leaders. That should keep them away from parliament and other government buildings, public facilities and country borders, and otherwise working to pay solicitors fees for a few years.

There already has been a civil lawsuit aginst the PAD.13 PAD Leaders must pay the Airport Authority 522 Million Baht for the disruption and occupation of the airports. Whether the money has been paid or not I don't know but have a gut feeling that not one satang has been paid since the ruling in March last year.

A court in Thailand has imposed a $17 million fine against nationalist protest leaders who occupied Bangkok’s airports in 2008. It is the first significant ruling against the leaders of the Yellow Shirts movement and comes as they are quarrelling with the current government.

Thailand’s Civil Court Friday ruled that 13 leaders of the People’s Alliance for Democracy must pay the airport authority over $17 million (522 million baht) for lost revenues from landing fees and other income.

http://www.voanews.c...729/167249.html

The Court ruled that while the airport was a public place, the first group of PAD protesters had masks, were wielding wooden and iron sticks, and swords, and closed public roads, and searched all cars entering, causing fear.

In addition, the plaintiff showed images and had witnesses testify that Samdin Lertbutr [an aide to Maj-Gen Chamlong Srimuang] seized the control room which was located in a restricted zone and this showed the intention was to close down airport services which was illegal interference.

http://asiancorrespo...irport-seizure/

Edited May 15, 201214 yr by phiphidon

What is Uncle SMS? or Who is Uncle SMS? This Acronym stands for what? Is that English Thai or Thai English

Edited May 15, 201214 yr by jerrysteve

What is Uncle SMS? or Who is Uncle SMS? This Acronym stands for what? Is that English Thai or Thai English

For reasons which will become obvious, this topic is not wanted by moderators. Google "Uncle SMS" and get 10,500,000 hits, the first being the Washington Post.

There seem to be enough criminal charges in Thailand and enough Denials to circle the earth a few 1000 times. Kinda makes one dizzy, but maybe thats the strategy. One can only laugh . Time for a pee break, a beer, and some popcorn. yipi ky ya

These jokers first closed down two airports causing billions in damages for the country and for travelers, next they enter the traffic tower and than they claim that the authorities shut down the airports and no them. It is pure and simple conic terrorism. It is utterly madness that it took so long to get the proceedings going while simple protestors were accused of terrorism for sitting in a square in Bangkok. The fact that courts are proceeding now is more proof of the incompetence and the lack of independence of anyone working in the Thai justice system. Judges, prosecutors and investigators dance to the tune of the political leaders of the moment.

"simple protestors were accused of terrorism for sitting in a square in Bangkok."

Wasn't that simple they slept there urinated there blocked off traffic caused business to close down and if they were unarmed built barricades and cooked for the ones who were armed and the ones who invaded a hospital.

Allow for the possibility that there were passengers arriving and departing, and friends farewelling/meeting those passengers.

As i said before, if the PAD leaders had the foresight to buy a cheap flight ticket for that day, it would make it very difficult to prove that they were there illegally.

I actually thought you were showing a rare bit of half-decent humour when you posted that the first time. Silly me! Applying your warped logic to the 2010 troubles, Red Shirt protesers were just on extended shopping trips .

I did indeed intend it as semi-humourous / semi-serious. I assume most gathered that, but for silly you I will explain what I meant. The airport is a public place, but it is normal to have a valid reason to be there. When a mass of people disrupted its operation, those made more visible by appearing on stage beforehand make up the majority of those charged as they incited the others. As the disruption is proven, the prosecution only has to prove their presence at the airport, easily done by CCTV.

If however, they held a flight ticket for that day, they have a valid reason for being in the building. Then the prosecution would have to prove intent or have witness accounts of their specific actions - nowhere near as easy.

Buffaloes don't go on shopping trips, they get lead by the nose.

The joke was so funny you felt the need to tell it twice.

wrt having a valid ticket being a decent excuse for illegal behaviour: Pure bs, it would be an irrelevence, a lame attempt to divert. Someone robbing a bank whilst holding a paying in chit and cheque.......I could go on and on and on with examples to highlight your "semi-serious" silliness. But there wouldn't be any point because the airport takeover leaders were caught red-handed, live on an assortment of local and international tv and other media.

As to your last point: It says an awful lot about you, and nothing else .,