rubl Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) Why oh why didn't his mum and dad use a condom that night? K. Jatuporn was born in 1965 and k. Meechai (Mr. Condom) Viravaidya only started in famly planning after returning to Thailand mid-60's. http://en.wikipedia....chai_Viravaidya Still the saying 'to drain the baby with the bathwater' comes to mind as a possibility at that time. A wee bit too late now, of course Edited June 22, 2012 by rubl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) Following an unprecedented Friday of comedy announcements by Jatuporn, Chalerm and the Justice Minister, I give you : Edited June 22, 2012 by GentlemanJim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webfact Posted June 22, 2012 Author Share Posted June 22, 2012 CONSTITUTION COURT Jatuporn threatens police complaint The Nation Ex-MP vows to fight court's move to suspend his bail in terrorism case BANGKOK: -- Red-shirt leader Jatuporn Promphan yesterday threatened to file a police complaint against the Constitution Court for making a false statement against him. The case came to light on Thursday after the high court authorised its legal counsel to file a motion seeking revocation of Jatuporn's bail on terrorism charges at the Criminal Court. At the high court's request, the lower court will on Monday convene a bail-review hearing, he said, vowing to fight for a stay of his bail. He said the high court had neither the mandate nor the justification to intervene in his temporary release pending the completion of the judicial review of terrorism charges against him in connection with the 2010 political strife. The high court had no role in the judicial review of terrorism cases, he said, arguing the bail review, if deemed necessary, should be initiated by public prosecutors and not by the high court. He said the high court was retaliating against his criticism of its decision to intervene in charter change. Jatuporn's lawyer Winyat Chartmontri yesterday questioned the Constitution Court's powers to seek revocation of his client's bail. He said this was the duty of public prosecutors or another party directly involved in the case. The lawyer said the Criminal Court has accepted the petition and summoned Jatuporn to testify on July 23. He said Jatuporn would testify in person, along with witnesses on his behalf, whom the lawyer declined to identify. He noted that in addition to Jatuporn, other red-shirt leaders such as Natthawut Saikua and Yoswalit Chooklom had addressed the recent red-shirt gatherings during which threats against Constitution Court judges were made. "But only Jatuporn has been targeted for bail revocation," he added. In a related development, Justice Minister Pracha Promnok said yesterday that a Justice Ministry fund would post Bt26 million as bond for the temporary release of 13 red shirts convicted and imprisoned for arson attacks in Mukdahan in May 2010 pending an appellate review. The arson attacks followed crowd-dispersal operations at the red-shirt rally at Ratchaprasong in Bangkok. The provincial court sentenced the 13 to 20 years and eight months each in jail for torching the provincial hall. The case involving the 13 is undergoing appellate review. At the Justice Ministry's intervention, bail applications were filed seeking temporary release for red-shirt arsonists, comprising four in Ubon Ratchathani, five in Udon Thani, nine in Maha Sarakham and the 13 in Mukdahan. The Mukdahan court approved the bail applications on Thursday. The actual release of the 13 will hinge on the posting of Bt2 million surety each. Pracha said he had authorised his ministry to put up the bail bond. He refused to comment on accountability for the taxpayers' money if the 13 jumped bail. The red shirts will hold a rally calling for genuine democracy tomorrow - a symbolic date, as June 24, 1932 was the day the administration system in Thailand changed from absolute to constitutional monarchy. Red-shirt spokesman Vorawut Wichaidit said the objective of the rally is to recall those who sacrificed from 1932 till May 19, 2010. The spokesman said the red shirts will continue fighting against coups d'etat, whether military or judicial. Tomorrow's rally will be staged at Democracy Monument on Rajdamnoen Avenue from 12pm to midnight, under the theme "80 years of non-democracy". It will include speeches by red-shirt leaders and some red academics, as well as a resumption of the drive to impeach the seven Constitution Court judges who supported the verdict suspending charter amendment. The drive seeks 100,000 signatures, having obtained 50,000 so far. -- The Nation 2012-06-23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianf Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 This is confusing. Is he mad at the High court or the Constitution court? Always threats from this guy. sent from my Wellcom A90+ Not at all. The guy is just mad. And dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) I am still unsure what the 'false statement' is that the Constitution Court are alleged to have made. For once in my life I do see myself agreeing with Jatuporn, the lot of them should have had their bail revoked. I guess the thing is now, Jatuporn no longer has immunity via his MP status, as he no longer is one. I imagine it should only be a matter of hours or days before Jatuporn is once again blaming this on the elites and that they are threatening a coup, and the first signs of the coup will be trying to get him put in jail. His mother must be soooo proud of him! Edited June 23, 2012 by GentlemanJim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonzo the Face Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Why oh why didn't his mum and dad use a condom that night? They did, but that became his first bail out..... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtoad Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Why oh why didn't his mum and dad use a condom that night? I don't think that he was conceived naturally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 at which court do you sue the constitution court? The court of redress? DANG DUDE!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 He noted that in addition to Jatuporn, other red-shirt leaders such as Natthawut Saikua and Yoswalit Chooklom had addressed the recent red-shirt gatherings during which threats against Constitution Court judges were made. "But only Jatuporn has been targeted for bail revocation," he added. Wonderful own-goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 He's suing the court for *revoking his bail* on *terrorism charges* because *HE BREACHED HIS BAIL CONDITIONS*. HELLO THAILAND...this sets a new standard for MONKEY DUMB. Frigging unbelievable. I think it's another level or so lower; Stump Stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) Why oh why didn't his mum and dad use a condom that night? K. Jatuporn was born in 1965 and k. Meechai (Mr. Condom) Viravaidya only started in famly planning after returning to Thailand mid-60's. http://en.wikipedia....chai_Viravaidya Still the saying 'to drain the baby with the bathwater' comes to mind as a possibility at that time. A wee bit too late now, of course I guess they couldn't decide which sheep to kill that week to make the condom from. Edited June 23, 2012 by animatic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtoad Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 When will Darwin be proved right with this idiot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frodo Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 CONSTITUTION COURT Jatuporn threatens police complaint The Nation Ex-MP vows to fight court's move to suspend his bail in terrorism case BANGKOK: -- Red-shirt leader Jatuporn Promphan yesterday threatened to file a police complaint against the Constitution Court for making a false statement against him. In a related development, Justice Minister Pracha Promnok said yesterday that a Justice Ministry fund would post Bt26 million as bond for the temporary release of 13 red shirts convicted and imprisoned for arson attacks in Mukdahan in May 2010 pending an appellate review. The arson attacks followed crowd-dispersal operations at the red-shirt rally at Ratchaprasong in Bangkok. The provincial court sentenced the 13 to 20 years and eight months each in jail for torching the provincial hall. The case involving the 13 is undergoing appellate review. At the Justice Ministry's intervention, bail applications were filed seeking temporary release for red-shirt arsonists, comprising four in Ubon Ratchathani, five in Udon Thani, nine in Maha Sarakham and the 13 in Mukdahan. The Mukdahan court approved the bail applications on Thursday. The actual release of the 13 will hinge on the posting of Bt2 million surety each. Pracha said he had authorised his ministry to put up the bail bond. He refused to comment on accountability for the taxpayers' money if the 13 jumped bail. The red shirts will hold a rally calling for genuine democracy tomorrow - a symbolic date, as June 24, 1932 was the day the administration system in Thailand changed from absolute to constitutional monarchy. -- The Nation 2012-06-23 I'm still wondering why anyone who has been found GUILTY would get a temporary release for appeals. Looking at the Sandusky case in the US today, he was found GUILTY, led away to jail and bail revoked. There is no way (thankfully) will they allow him any release while he appeals his case. He's GUILTY, the redshirts are in fact GUILTY! This whole thing about granting bail to anyone found guilty and sentenced reeks. Will the justice department now allow and provide funds for each and every prisoner found guilty and sentenced while they are on appeal? There can't be double standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bendejo Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 I like this guy, he's no stupid I can't hate him. Each declaration comes off like the joke of the day. Every country has a few like this. In Malaysia it is Sami Velu, the guy is hilarious! On the other hand, if I took him seriouisly, I'd say he makes a strong case for forced sterilization. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chotthee Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 This is Thailand. No one can sue a court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdoom6996 Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 at which court do you sue the constitution court? This is the type of corruption that needs to be delt with soon. Jet Ski's, Beach Chairs, TuksTuks. This is not the solution to clean up corruption in Thailand. Starting at the bottom feeders is for a headline. What about the girl that killed 9 people with her car? Her rich parents have corrupted the court system. Now this loudmouth. Corruption will never end HERE IN THAILAND. If you really want to corruption to end, you have to start with the heads of state in Bangkok and then go to the heads of state in all the provinces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Jatuporn and almost all the rest of the Red Shirt leaders should be under lock and key. On the opposite side of the prison hall should be Sondhi and Chamlong and most of their ilk. They all suffer from cancer of the morals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) I am still unsure what the 'false statement' is that the Constitution Court are alleged to have made. For once in my life I do see myself agreeing with Jatuporn, the lot of them should have had their bail revoked. I guess the thing is now, Jatuporn no longer has immunity via his MP status, as he no longer is one. I imagine it should only be a matter of hours or days before Jatuporn is once again blaming this on the elites and that they are threatening a coup, and the first signs of the coup will be trying to get him put in jail. His mother must be soooo proud of him! I can only assume it is because the constitutional court has asked its lawyers "to file a motion seeking revocation of Jatuporn's bail on terrorism charges at the Criminal Court. In other words the CC is stepping out of its jurisdiction to get involved with the Criminal Law Courts jurisdiction. There is supposed to be a separation of Courts, Constitutional Court, Judicial Court, Adnministartive Court and Military Court. Section 219 of the constitution states There shall be in the Supreme Court of Justice a Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions the quorum of which consists of nine judges in the Supreme Court of Justice holding a position of not lower than Judge of the Supreme Court of Justice or senior judges having held a position of not lower than Judge of the Supreme Court of Justice and elected at the general assembly of the Supreme Court of Justice by secret ballot and on a case by case basis. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Justice’s Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions and the criminal procedure for such persons shall be as provided by this Constitution and the Organic Act on Criminal Procedure for Persons Holding Political Positions. So presumably the CC is treading on some toes, or not, because apparently nobody can critise the CC.............. Edited June 23, 2012 by phiphidon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 I am still unsure what the 'false statement' is that the Constitution Court are alleged to have made. For once in my life I do see myself agreeing with Jatuporn, the lot of them should have had their bail revoked. I guess the thing is now, Jatuporn no longer has immunity via his MP status, as he no longer is one. I imagine it should only be a matter of hours or days before Jatuporn is once again blaming this on the elites and that they are threatening a coup, and the first signs of the coup will be trying to get him put in jail. His mother must be soooo proud of him! I can only assume it is because the constitutional court has asked its lawyers "to file a motion seeking revocation of Jatuporn's bail on terrorism charges at the Criminal Court. In other words the CC is stepping out of its jurisdiction to get involved with the Criminal Law Courts jurisdiction. There is supposed to be a separation of Courts, Constitutional Court, Judicial Court, Adnministartive Court and Military Court. Section 219 of the constitution states There shall be in the Supreme Court of Justice a Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions the quorum of which consists of nine judges in the Supreme Court of Justice holding a position of not lower than Judge of the Supreme Court of Justice or senior judges having held a position of not lower than Judge of the Supreme Court of Justice and elected at the general assembly of the Supreme Court of Justice by secret ballot and on a case by case basis. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Justice’s Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions and the criminal procedure for such persons shall be as provided by this Constitution and the Organic Act on Criminal Procedure for Persons Holding Political Positions. So presumably the CC is treading on some toes, or not, because apparently nobody can critise the CC.............. Given it was the constitutional court that disqualified Jatuporn, they are just letting the criminal court know that he no longer has parliamentary immunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 I am still unsure what the 'false statement' is that the Constitution Court are alleged to have made. For once in my life I do see myself agreeing with Jatuporn, the lot of them should have had their bail revoked. I guess the thing is now, Jatuporn no longer has immunity via his MP status, as he no longer is one. I imagine it should only be a matter of hours or days before Jatuporn is once again blaming this on the elites and that they are threatening a coup, and the first signs of the coup will be trying to get him put in jail. His mother must be soooo proud of him! I can only assume it is because the constitutional court has asked its lawyers "to file a motion seeking revocation of Jatuporn's bail on terrorism charges at the Criminal Court. In other words the CC is stepping out of its jurisdiction to get involved with the Criminal Law Courts jurisdiction. There is supposed to be a separation of Courts, Constitutional Court, Judicial Court, Adnministartive Court and Military Court. Section 219 of the constitution states There shall be in the Supreme Court of Justice a Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions the quorum of which consists of nine judges in the Supreme Court of Justice holding a position of not lower than Judge of the Supreme Court of Justice or senior judges having held a position of not lower than Judge of the Supreme Court of Justice and elected at the general assembly of the Supreme Court of Justice by secret ballot and on a case by case basis. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Justice’s Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions and the criminal procedure for such persons shall be as provided by this Constitution and the Organic Act on Criminal Procedure for Persons Holding Political Positions. So presumably the CC is treading on some toes, or not, because apparently nobody can critise the CC.............. Given it was the constitutional court that disqualified Jatuporn, they are just letting the criminal court know that he no longer has parliamentary immunity. Like a gentle reminder you mean - Is it common to use a CC legal team to file charges in a different courts jurisdiction just to let them know something that they already know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 I can only assume it is because the constitutional court has asked its lawyers "to file a motion seeking revocation of Jatuporn's bail on terrorism charges at the Criminal Court. In other words the CC is stepping out of its jurisdiction to get involved with the Criminal Law Courts jurisdiction. There is supposed to be a separation of Courts, Constitutional Court, Judicial Court, Adnministartive Court and Military Court. Section 219 of the constitution states There shall be in the Supreme Court of Justice a Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions the quorum of which consists of nine judges in the Supreme Court of Justice holding a position of not lower than Judge of the Supreme Court of Justice or senior judges having held a position of not lower than Judge of the Supreme Court of Justice and elected at the general assembly of the Supreme Court of Justice by secret ballot and on a case by case basis. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Justice’s Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions and the criminal procedure for such persons shall be as provided by this Constitution and the Organic Act on Criminal Procedure for Persons Holding Political Positions. So presumably the CC is treading on some toes, or not, because apparently nobody can critise the CC.............. Given it was the constitutional court that disqualified Jatuporn, they are just letting the criminal court know that he no longer has parliamentary immunity. Like a gentle reminder you mean - Is it common to use a CC legal team to file charges in a different courts jurisdiction just to let them know something that they already know? Well, have the CC legal team filed charges? I would have thought that anybody could raise a concern to the courts or the police that someone was in violation of their bail conditions. Whether the CC have jurisdiction to file a complaint or not, it has certainly not made any false statements. One can only conclude that what Jatuporn has said has lost a lot in translation or this is his normal PR speak to keep the uneducated red masses on the simmer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaddeus Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 One can only conclude that what Jatuporn has said has lost a lot in translation or this is his normal PR speak to keep the uneducated red masses on the simmer. I'll go for the second option. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 In Thailand he is a public figure, divisive, but regularly questioned by the press. In any other land he would just be surreal, or a product of a sarcastic screen play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnAllan Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Here he goes again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaddeus Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 In Thailand he is a public figure, divisive, but regularly questioned by the press. In any other land he would just be surreal, or a product of a sarcastic screen play. A bit like Ken Livingstone with less charisma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellodolly Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 CONSTITUTION COURT Jatuporn threatens police complaint The Nation Ex-MP vows to fight court's move to suspend his bail in terrorism case BANGKOK: -- Red-shirt leader Jatuporn Promphan yesterday threatened to file a police complaint against the Constitution Court for making a false statement against him. The case came to light on Thursday after the high court authorised its legal counsel to file a motion seeking revocation of Jatuporn's bail on terrorism charges at the Criminal Court. At the high court's request, the lower court will on Monday convene a bail-review hearing, he said, vowing to fight for a stay of his bail. He said the high court had neither the mandate nor the justification to intervene in his temporary release pending the completion of the judicial review of terrorism charges against him in connection with the 2010 political strife. The high court had no role in the judicial review of terrorism cases, he said, arguing the bail review, if deemed necessary, should be initiated by public prosecutors and not by the high court. He said the high court was retaliating against his criticism of its decision to intervene in charter change. Jatuporn's lawyer Winyat Chartmontri yesterday questioned the Constitution Court's powers to seek revocation of his client's bail. He said this was the duty of public prosecutors or another party directly involved in the case. The lawyer said the Criminal Court has accepted the petition and summoned Jatuporn to testify on July 23. He said Jatuporn would testify in person, along with witnesses on his behalf, whom the lawyer declined to identify. He noted that in addition to Jatuporn, other red-shirt leaders such as Natthawut Saikua and Yoswalit Chooklom had addressed the recent red-shirt gatherings during which threats against Constitution Court judges were made. "But only Jatuporn has been targeted for bail revocation," he added. In a related development, Justice Minister Pracha Promnok said yesterday that a Justice Ministry fund would post Bt26 million as bond for the temporary release of 13 red shirts convicted and imprisoned for arson attacks in Mukdahan in May 2010 pending an appellate review. The arson attacks followed crowd-dispersal operations at the red-shirt rally at Ratchaprasong in Bangkok. The provincial court sentenced the 13 to 20 years and eight months each in jail for torching the provincial hall. The case involving the 13 is undergoing appellate review. At the Justice Ministry's intervention, bail applications were filed seeking temporary release for red-shirt arsonists, comprising four in Ubon Ratchathani, five in Udon Thani, nine in Maha Sarakham and the 13 in Mukdahan. The Mukdahan court approved the bail applications on Thursday. The actual release of the 13 will hinge on the posting of Bt2 million surety each. Pracha said he had authorised his ministry to put up the bail bond. He refused to comment on accountability for the taxpayers' money if the 13 jumped bail. The red shirts will hold a rally calling for genuine democracy tomorrow - a symbolic date, as June 24, 1932 was the day the administration system in Thailand changed from absolute to constitutional monarchy. Red-shirt spokesman Vorawut Wichaidit said the objective of the rally is to recall those who sacrificed from 1932 till May 19, 2010. The spokesman said the red shirts will continue fighting against coups d'etat, whether military or judicial. Tomorrow's rally will be staged at Democracy Monument on Rajdamnoen Avenue from 12pm to midnight, under the theme "80 years of non-democracy". It will include speeches by red-shirt leaders and some red academics, as well as a resumption of the drive to impeach the seven Constitution Court judges who supported the verdict suspending charter amendment. The drive seeks 100,000 signatures, having obtained 50,000 so far. -- The Nation 2012-06-23 I think he will look much better in orange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellodolly Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 CONSTITUTION COURT Jatuporn threatens police complaint The Nation Ex-MP vows to fight court's move to suspend his bail in terrorism case -- The Nation 2012-06-23 I'm still wondering why anyone who has been found GUILTY would get a temporary release for appeals. Looking at the Sandusky case in the US today, he was found GUILTY, led away to jail and bail revoked. There is no way (thankfully) will they allow him any release while he appeals his case. He's GUILTY, the redshirts are in fact GUILTY! This whole thing about granting bail to anyone found guilty and sentenced reeks. Will the justice department now allow and provide funds for each and every prisoner found guilty and sentenced while they are on appeal? There can't be double standards. Yes there can it all depends on if you have money or who you know. If you are a Thaksin supporter you can have double standards with the present government. Up to a point. I think Jutaporn has become such an embarrassment to the PT that they will use double standards against him any thing to shut him up. The only thing he does now is make Thaksin look good. Just my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaddeus Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 CONSTITUTION COURT Jatuporn threatens police complaint The Nation Ex-MP vows to fight court's move to suspend his bail in terrorism case BANGKOK: -- Red-shirt leader Jatuporn Promphan yesterday threatened to file a police complaint against the Constitution Court for making a false statement against him. The case came to light on Thursday after the high court authorised its legal counsel to file a motion seeking revocation of Jatuporn's bail on terrorism charges at the Criminal Court. At the high court's request, the lower court will on Monday convene a bail-review hearing, he said, vowing to fight for a stay of his bail. He said the high court had neither the mandate nor the justification to intervene in his temporary release pending the completion of the judicial review of terrorism charges against him in connection with the 2010 political strife. The high court had no role in the judicial review of terrorism cases, he said, arguing the bail review, if deemed necessary, should be initiated by public prosecutors and not by the high court. He said the high court was retaliating against his criticism of its decision to intervene in charter change. Jatuporn's lawyer Winyat Chartmontri yesterday questioned the Constitution Court's powers to seek revocation of his client's bail. He said this was the duty of public prosecutors or another party directly involved in the case. The lawyer said the Criminal Court has accepted the petition and summoned Jatuporn to testify on July 23. He said Jatuporn would testify in person, along with witnesses on his behalf, whom the lawyer declined to identify. He noted that in addition to Jatuporn, other red-shirt leaders such as Natthawut Saikua and Yoswalit Chooklom had addressed the recent red-shirt gatherings during which threats against Constitution Court judges were made. "But only Jatuporn has been targeted for bail revocation," he added. In a related development, Justice Minister Pracha Promnok said yesterday that a Justice Ministry fund would post Bt26 million as bond for the temporary release of 13 red shirts convicted and imprisoned for arson attacks in Mukdahan in May 2010 pending an appellate review. The arson attacks followed crowd-dispersal operations at the red-shirt rally at Ratchaprasong in Bangkok. The provincial court sentenced the 13 to 20 years and eight months each in jail for torching the provincial hall. The case involving the 13 is undergoing appellate review. At the Justice Ministry's intervention, bail applications were filed seeking temporary release for red-shirt arsonists, comprising four in Ubon Ratchathani, five in Udon Thani, nine in Maha Sarakham and the 13 in Mukdahan. The Mukdahan court approved the bail applications on Thursday. The actual release of the 13 will hinge on the posting of Bt2 million surety each. Pracha said he had authorised his ministry to put up the bail bond. He refused to comment on accountability for the taxpayers' money if the 13 jumped bail. The red shirts will hold a rally calling for genuine democracy tomorrow - a symbolic date, as June 24, 1932 was the day the administration system in Thailand changed from absolute to constitutional monarchy. Red-shirt spokesman Vorawut Wichaidit said the objective of the rally is to recall those who sacrificed from 1932 till May 19, 2010. The spokesman said the red shirts will continue fighting against coups d'etat, whether military or judicial. Tomorrow's rally will be staged at Democracy Monument on Rajdamnoen Avenue from 12pm to midnight, under the theme "80 years of non-democracy". It will include speeches by red-shirt leaders and some red academics, as well as a resumption of the drive to impeach the seven Constitution Court judges who supported the verdict suspending charter amendment. The drive seeks 100,000 signatures, having obtained 50,000 so far. -- The Nation 2012-06-23 I think he will look much better in orange. Flambé would be more ironic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 In Thailand he is a public figure, divisive, but regularly questioned by the press. In any other land he would just be surreal, or a product of a sarcastic screen play. A bit like Ken Livingstone with less charisma. Isn't he more of a George Galloway ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaddeus Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 In Thailand he is a public figure, divisive, but regularly questioned by the press. In any other land he would just be surreal, or a product of a sarcastic screen play. A bit like Ken Livingstone with less charisma. Isn't he more of a George Galloway ? We could run with that one all night and compare him to Ian Paisley. I wonder if Jatuporn wakes up like that, already revved up and ready to shout at the throng, or does he have a fruit juice, a bowl of corn flakes and then starts kicking the dog just to get in to the mood. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now