Jatuporn Gets Suspended Jail Term For Defaming Abhisit

[Nisa]

No, I think the six month imprisonment is commuted to two years on probation outside prison, with certain conditions and obligations, and is subject to “recall” to prison if something goes wrong.

But he has a criminal record, right?

-mel.

I would think so. Suspended just means one is permitted to be “outside” on parole.

He now has a conviction. He is on some kind of probation for two years. If he violates the law and/or terms of his probation within the 2-years, he is subject to violation and serving the 6-months that was previously suspended.

Edit: Basically he has a 6-month jail sentence hanging over his head for the next 2-years should he mess up.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Nisa

[Buchholz]

his jail term suspended because he has not been convicted for any other crime.

Astounding, given his long and illustrious criminal history.

But alas, at least's it's done now and so we won't see it again when the "slew" get processed...

Long and illustrious criminal history?

What serious crimes has he been convicted of? Until he is convicted of multiple crimes, you are exagerating

<flame snipped>

Obviously, as stated, he's not been previously convicted.

There's no exaggeration as someone with a long "rap sheet" can be considered as having a criminal history, even if he's not been convicted of the crimes on the sheet.

This specific case was idiotic. Jatuporn might have been foolish for making the allegations, aaaand should have kept his mouth shut instead of being petty, but it hardly ranks up there with an alleged murderer sitting as an MP in the house. The court passed judgement, which the accused respects, although he will file an appeal. If you consider the case a serious criminal event

I don't consider it a serious criminal event.

There's nothing in my post that would indicate that I do.

If by "case" you mean Jatuporn himself, I agree he's idiotic. If by the defamation charge, I would disagree that it it is idiotic to hold someone accountable for spreading lies.

.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Buchholz

[Morakot]

A rather crafty judicial decision. Jatuporn has to behave or else he gets tossed in jail. It's more effective than a jail term as he would have been a martyr if put in jail and while in jail could have still been politically active. With the suspended sentence, he has to walk a very thin straight line. [...]

It's not necessarily effective; he still could make a racket with the consequences of going to prison.

[birdpooguava]

Convict others for defamation while Abhisit, Suthep and the Blue Sky boys continue their vindictive vilification of TS comprised of unsubstantiated accusations, half truths and outright lies.

[Buchholz]

A rather crafty judicial decision. Jatuporn has to behave or else he gets tossed in jail. It's more effective than a jail term as he would have been a martyr if put in jail and while in jail could have still been politically active. With the suspended sentence, he has to walk a very thin straight line. [...]

It's not necessarily effective; he still could make a racket with the consequences of going to prison.

Possibly it's as ineffective as when he violated bail conditions on other charges and landed back in prison last July.

He's already shown a propensity to not behave, even it means getting tossed in jail. He was quite quiet during that incarceration.

But then, maybe he learned from that, although I doubt it as his actions since then would seem to preclude that.

.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Buchholz

[Morakot]

Convict others for defamation while Abhisit, Suthep and the Blue Sky boys continue their vindictive vilification of TS comprised of unsubstantiated accusations, half truths and outright lies.

So the member said (in anger).

[Morakot]

A rather crafty judicial decision. Jatuporn has to behave or else he gets tossed in jail. It's more effective than a jail term as he would have been a martyr if put in jail and while in jail could have still been politically active. With the suspended sentence, he has to walk a very thin straight line. [...]

It's not necessarily effective; he still could make a racket with the consequences of going to prison.

Possibly it's as ineffective as when he violated bail conditions on other charges and landed back in prison last July.

He's already shown a propensity to not behave, even it means getting tossed in jail. He was quite quiet during that incarceration.

But then, maybe he learned from that, although I doubt it as his actions since then would seem to preclude that.

.

Hmm, you are probably right.

[Reasonableman]

Convict others for defamation while Abhisit, Suthep and the Blue Sky boys continue their vindictive vilification of TS comprised of unsubstantiated accusations, half truths and outright lies.

A veritable venal versification of vile vindictive verisimilitudinous vilifications. Aka An apoplectic off topic rant.

[whybother]

"...the defence argument for ignorance on royal protocals was unconvincing since the defendant was a Pheu Thai MP."

Strangely phrased by the Nation, or bizarre legal reasoning?

Should the dismissal not have been on the ground of his (in)competence of interpreting the protocol, or are only certain MPs convincing about certain protocols?

A standard saying in law: "Ignorance is no excuse".

[Moruya]

To me, the way it is written, it seems that his 6 mos is susupended for two years, then he has to do the 2 years. ?????

A rather crafty judicial decision. Jatuporn has to behave or else he gets tossed in jail. It's more effective than a jail term as he would have been a martyr if put in jail and while in jail could have still been politically active. With the suspended sentence, he has to walk a very thin straight line. I may not agree with the Thai law that allows the bringing of criminal charges for a civil dispute, but the judgement was quite effective if one is looking to silence the chap. A political win for the political elites as it gets Jatuporn out of the way, quietly.I don't think the PTP leadership is shedding any tears.

If a bolt of lightning burst from the heavens and toasted him to a charred black crisp, not many would complain.

They could put his soot in a matchbox and waid eternally to him at future red shirt gatherings whilst singing the old Soviet anthem for all I cared so long as I didn't have to hear his hateful rantings ever again or see his lardy moosh

Edited July 10, 2012 by Moruya

[whybother]

Convict others for defamation while Abhisit, Suthep and the Blue Sky boys continue their vindictive vilification of TS comprised of unsubstantiated accusations, half truths and outright lies.

What "unsubstantiated accusations, half truths and outright lies"?

Not that this is about Abhisit or Suthep.

[whybother]

If that's true (probably is) then it reconfirms the man has no morals whatever.

On another angle, he was today convicted, although the sentence was reduced. Unless i'm mistaken this conviction menas that he cannot be an MP right now, and also he cannot be an MP for the next 5 years.

Can somebody please clarify on these points.

Given that he has appealed, does that mean that he is currently "guilty"?

Also, given that he didn't vote in the election, I believe he can't be an MP until after the next election (ie not at the next election) anyway.

[Moruya]

Convict others for defamation while Abhisit, Suthep and the Blue Sky boys continue their vindictive vilification of TS comprised of unsubstantiated accusations, half truths and outright lies.

So why is he not man enough to face the music?

Guilty as charged

[GentlemanJim]

his jail term suspended because he has not been convicted for any other crime.

Astounding, given his long and illustrious criminal history.

But alas, at least's it's done now and so we won't see it again when the "slew" get processed...

Long and illustrious criminal history?

What serious crimes has he been convicted of? Until he is convicted of multiple crimes, you are exagerating, as is your custom.

This specific case was idiotic. Jatuporn might have been foolish for making the allegations, aaaand should have kept his mouth shut instead of being petty, but it hardly ranks up there with an alleged murderer sitting as an MP in the house. The court passed judgement, which the accused respects, although he will file an appeal. If you consider the case a serious criminal event then how do you classify the case of the accused Democrat muderer sitting in the house?

edited To add accused.

Well until the Dem MP who you allege of murder is convicted of murder you should be affording him the same quarter you afford Jatuporn in line 2 of your post above, lest you find yourself on the wrong end of a criminal defamation case as well.

[Moruya]

Convict others for defamation while Abhisit, Suthep and the Blue Sky boys continue their vindictive vilification of TS comprised of unsubstantiated accusations, half truths and outright lies.

A veritable venal versification of vile vindictive verisimilitudinous vilifications. Aka An apoplectic off topic rant.

Alitterated with aplomb

[JAG]

Obviously, as stated, he's not been previously convicted.

There's no exaggeration as someone with a long "rap sheet" can be considered as having a criminal history, even if he's not been convicted of the crimes on the sheet.

So if someone is accused of a crime he has a criminal record?

Saves all the hassle of producing evidence, trying the accused, proving the alleged crime and securing a conviction I suppose!

Like most on this forum I think Jatuporn is a buffoon. I think he was lucky to get off with a suspended sentence, I suspect he will get himself into trouble again shortly, but even in his case accusations have to be proven before they become convictions, and become a criminal record.

[Moruya]

Obviously, as stated, he's not been previously convicted.

There's no exaggeration as someone with a long "rap sheet" can be considered as having a criminal history, even if he's not been convicted of the crimes on the sheet.

So if someone is accused of a crime he has a criminal record?

Saves all the hassle of producing evidence, trying the accused, proving the alleged crime and securing a conviction I suppose!

Like most on this forum I think Jatuporn is a buffoon. I think he was lucky to get off with a suspended sentence, I suspect he will get himself into trouble again shortly, but even in his case accusations have to be proven before they become convictions, and become a criminal record.

I think we all witnessed enough of him to know he should be incarcerated sans tribunal.

[Morakot]

"...the defence argument for ignorance on royal protocals was unconvincing since the defendant was a Pheu Thai MP."

Strangely phrased by the Nation, or bizarre legal reasoning?

Should the dismissal not have been on the ground of his (in)competence of interpreting the protocol, or are only certain MPs convincing about certain protocols?

A standard saying in law: "Ignorance is no excuse".

Sure that's the saying. I was hoping for an explanation why his ignorance is related to being a Pheu Thai MP.

[whybother]

"...the defence argument for ignorance on royal protocals was unconvincing since the defendant was a Pheu Thai MP."

Strangely phrased by the Nation, or bizarre legal reasoning?

Should the dismissal not have been on the ground of his (in)competence of interpreting the protocol, or are only certain MPs convincing about certain protocols?

A standard saying in law: "Ignorance is no excuse".

Sure that's the saying. I was hoping for an explanation why his ignorance is related to being a Pheu Thai MP.

As an MP, he should have known the protocol.

Sent from my shoe phone

[Morakot]

"...the defence argument for ignorance on royal protocals was unconvincing since the defendant was a Pheu Thai MP."

Strangely phrased by the Nation, or bizarre legal reasoning?

Should the dismissal not have been on the ground of his (in)competence of interpreting the protocol, or are only certain MPs convincing about certain protocols?

A standard saying in law: "Ignorance is no excuse".

Sure that's the saying. I was hoping for an explanation why his ignorance is related to being a Pheu Thai MP.

As an MP, he should have known the protocol.

Sent from my shoe phone

Thanks. I see, the emphasis is on MP not on the party.

[metisdead]

Nonsense posts and replies have been removed.

Edit: A post criticizing the Thai courts has been removed as per forum rule 15.

Edited July 10, 2012 by metisdead

[hellodolly]

his jail term suspended because he has not been convicted for any other crime.

Astounding, given his long and illustrious criminal history.

But alas, at least's it's done now and so we won't see it again when the "slew" get processed...

Long and illustrious criminal history?

What serious crimes has he been convicted of? Until he is convicted of multiple crimes, you are exagerating, as is your custom.

This specific case was idiotic. Jatuporn might have been foolish for making the allegations, aaaand should have kept his mouth shut instead of being petty, but it hardly ranks up there with an alleged murderer sitting as an MP in the house. The court passed judgement, which the accused respects, although he will file an appeal. If you consider the case a serious criminal event then how do you classify the case of the accused Democrat muderer sitting in the house?

edited To add accused.

Are you denying that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west because a court has not convicted it of that.

I hate to break the news to you but you are in Thailand and slander is not a petty thing here. Particularly when you know it is false. Or are you just saying Jatuporn is stupid. If that is your intention I don't think many will disagree with you.

Edited July 10, 2012 by hellodolly

[hellodolly]

Convict others for defamation while Abhisit, Suthep and the Blue Sky boys continue their vindictive vilification of TS comprised of unsubstantiated accusations, half truths and outright lies.

A veritable venal versification of vile vindictive verisimilitudinous vilifications. Aka An apoplectic off topic rant.

Word on the street is that Thaksin pays good.

[waza]

A semi good result

[webfact]

COURT

Jatuporn guilty of libel

THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- The Criminal Court yesterday found red-shirt leader Jatuporn Promphan guilty of libel and handed down a six-month jail term suspended for two years due to it being his first conviction.

In its decision, the court reprimanded Jatuporn for making malicious remarks about Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva in order to incite hatred.

Reacting to the verdict, Jatuporn said he respected the decision but would appeal it.

The case came to light in 2009 after Jatuporn gave a press interview in which he accused Abhisit, then prime minister, of inappropriate conduct during an audience with the King.

But Abhisit sued, saying Jatuporn's remark tarnished his reputation.

The court ruled Jatuporn had no justification in criticising Abhisit before verifying circumstances and facts in connection with the royal audience.

In addition to the suspended jail term, the court ordered Jatuporn to pay a Bt50,000 fine and publish a summary of the verdict.

-- The Nation 2012-07-11

[Yunla]

The Criminal Court Tuesday found red-shirt leader Jatuporn Promphan guilty of libel and handed down a six-month jail term suspended for two years due to first offence.

The first of many such experiences in the future to be sure. Being criminal is risky enough as a lifestyle, but being criminal and stupid is a real losing-ticket.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Yunla

[Mosha]

As much chance of Jatuporn sticking to the ruling, as K Thaksin staying out of politics IMHO

[somtumlion]

Every time I see a picture of Jatuporn I have the urge to punch him in the face...is that normal?

[Morakot]

Every time I see a picture of Jatuporn I have the urge to punch him in the face...is that normal?

Nope, you may need help on this one.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Morakot

[Skywalker69]

"...the defence argument for ignorance on royal protocals was unconvincing since the defendant was a Pheu Thai MP."

Strangely phrased by the Nation, or bizarre legal reasoning?

Should the dismissal not have been on the ground of his (in)competence of interpreting the protocol, or are only certain MPs convincing about certain protocols?

A standard saying in law: "Ignorance is no excuse".

Sure that's the saying. I was hoping for an explanation why his ignorance is related to being a Pheu Thai MP.

As an MP, he should have known the protocol.

Sent from my shoe phone

As an MP he thinks he is abowe the law.