Pheu Thai MP Kokaew Unfazed By Bail Review

[tlansford]

He could have said something equally insensitive, but that would not have helped, eh? Nice try to toss this back onto Thaksin. But Abhisit is responsible for his own actions and his own statements. BTW, I believe his DPM did say something equally crass - along the lines of running into bullets...

Abhisit's remarks after the unfortunate deaths of 2 protesters in 2008 were not only hard on the government, but also carried a certain noble righteousness - something that one could have though would have guided his own actions in 2009 and 2010. But actions speak louder than words.

Toss this back onto Thaksin???

Thaksin was the person who ordered and financed these red/black terrorists.

And to be honest, if someone is burning my house down I would shoot him.

Of course, how could I forget, it was Thaksin who ordered lethal force be used on the demonstrators ...

Like I said, Abhisit is responsible for his own actions. You do not need to make excuses for him.

You are right. Thaksin ordered lethal force to be used. The minute he sent his goons to occupy Bangkok and to provoke confrontation, he ordered lethal force to be used. Not by own standards of course, he did not sign any paper. But he meant to do it, he wished things to turn the way they did....

you can speculate all you want. And calling the protesters "goons" doesn't make them less human any more than calling them "redmob" does.

Additionally, it was Suthep who called them "terrorists" before the first one arrived in BKK in March. It doesn't look like either side was prepared for restraint, reason, or patience.

But it is documented that the Abhisit government authorized the use of lethal force and it is documented that they did indeed use it, and again, not always in self-defense.

[Moruya]

He could have said something equally insensitive, but that would not have helped, eh? Nice try to toss this back onto Thaksin. But Abhisit is responsible for his own actions and his own statements. BTW, I believe his DPM did say something equally crass - along the lines of running into bullets...

Abhisit's remarks after the unfortunate deaths of 2 protesters in 2008 were not only hard on the government, but also carried a certain noble righteousness - something that one could have though would have guided his own actions in 2009 and 2010. But actions speak louder than words.

Toss this back onto Thaksin???

Thaksin was the person who ordered and financed these red/black terrorists.

And to be honest, if someone is burning my house down I would shoot him.

Of course, how could I forget, it was Thaksin who ordered lethal force be used on the demonstrators ...

Like I said, Abhisit is responsible for his own actions. You do not need to make excuses for him.

Do you firmly believe that Abhisit "ordered lethal force be used on the demonstrators"?

[rubl]

I could write here that k. Abhisit has said he's willing and prepared to stand trial regarding the 2010 riots, cleanup and deaths assuming others will do so to.

I'd better not as that would open up another can of wurms and divert even more from the OP.

"I am not worrying about the bail review because I am prepared to justify my activities," k. Korkaew said.

[ballpoint]

I could write here that k. Abhisit has said he's willing and prepared to stand trial regarding the 2010 riots, cleanup and deaths assuming others will do so to.

I'd better not as that would open up another can of wurms and divert even more from the OP.

"I am not worrying about the bail review because I am prepared to justify my activities," k. Korkaew said.

Well, it seems pretty clear which side is calling for a blanket amnesty, and a whitewashing of all crimes, and which side isn't.

[ramrod711]

When two people died due to the crowd-control operations during the Somchai Wongsawat government, Abhisit said that was unacceptable, he said, arguing Abhisit could not deny responsibility in the face of almost a hundred people killed under his watch.

How can Abhisit be blamed for the poor guy that was on the MRT platform when someone chose to fire a M79 grenade at him. I believe, although I can't say for sure, that only the red shirts were manufacturing the launchers in Thailand. The reds were looking for a fight, trying to provoke violence, that is why they were there.

[Reasonableman]

http://www.hrw.org/node/98399/section/6

"Shadowy violence also began to occur, with an unclaimed grenade attack on the 1st Infantry Division headquarters (where all top army commanders have houses) on March 15; four M79-launched grenades wounded two soldiers. On March 23, two grenades were fired at the Ministry of Public Health building on the outskirts of Bangkok, shortly after a cabinet meeting there to discuss extending the Internal Security Act. On March 27, further grenade attacks using M79s took place at the army-run Channel 5 television station, the Customs Department, and the National Broadcasting Service of Thailand television station, wounding another five soldiers and a civilian guard.... At 5 a.m. on March 28, two grenades were fired with M79s into the 11th Infantry Division base, injuring three soldiers."

[Moruya]

you can speculate all you want. And calling the protesters "goons" doesn't make them less human any more than calling them "redmob" does.

Additionally, it was Suthep who called them "terrorists" before the first one arrived in BKK in March. It doesn't look like either side was prepared for restraint, reason, or patience.

But it is documented that the Abhisit government authorized the use of lethal force and it is documented that they did indeed use it, and again, not always in self-defense.

Let's be clear about one thing. The Thais themselves call the red shirts "mob" and that includes the red shirts themselves.

[Moruya]

very different indeed.

The former was actually accidental. The latter was, well, how to put this correctly? ... not accidental, and documented also that it was not in self-defense.

The former : It was a horrible mistake, but one cannot say that it was intentional. The evidence is clear that the police thought they were using their usual version of tear-gas, but of course they were not. BTW, the lady killed and the gentleman killed were unlikely to have been killed by the security forces. There is, however, no doubt about people losing limbs due to the tear-gas canisters.

BTW, the PAD protesters were not unarmed, either.

2 very different scenarios. But Abhisit was able to comment on the former and has yet to utter such noble phrases regarding the latter.

I would find it very hard to offer apologies to a mob that threw bags of shit, created mayhem and poured blood into my personal house. And I'd have a real problem apologising to a mob of people who attacked the car I was traveling in with intent to murder.

[SuneeTH]

When two people died due to the crowd-control operations during the Somchai Wongsawat government, Abhisit said that was unacceptable, he said, arguing Abhisit could not deny responsibility in the face of almost a hundred people killed under his watch.

How can Abhisit be blamed for the poor guy that was on the MRT platform when someone chose to fire a M79 grenade at him. I believe, although I can't say for sure, that only the red shirts were manufacturing the launchers in Thailand. The reds were looking for a fight, trying to provoke violence, that is why they were there.

2 die is not acceptable.

92 die is just a statistic.

[kimamey]

When two people died due to the crowd-control operations during the Somchai Wongsawat government, Abhisit said that was unacceptable, he said, arguing Abhisit could not deny responsibility in the face of almost a hundred people killed under his watch.

This is one of those points which is really hard for Abhisit to escape from.

He has the ability to say the right things even if he doesn't always do the right things. Yet he has never been able (AFAIK) to say the right thing regarding 2010 as he so clearly did about 2008.

He said Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva should apologise for the 2010 bloodshed in order to appease the red shirts.

Even if Abhisit never did the right thing after screwing up the 2010 protest control, he could have at least said the right things... Talking is his strong point.

Whilst I rarely agree with you I think you've made a very good point. When there was all that trouble in parliament with the Dems trying to remove the speakers chair I said that even if he felt they had no choice he could have at least apologised for the need to act that way. As for 2010 I thought he had made some comment about the killings but I may well be wrong. It may be that actually apologising for the deaths could be construed as an admission in legal terms. Of course we have to remember all this comes through Thai English translation which can muddy things somewhat. In 2010 there was a lot of speeches which seemed designed to promote violence and most seems to have come from the red shirts and this trend appears to be continuing now including with Kokaew.

My feeling is the red shirts in general are just people who are in the main hard working, not well paid and want something better particularly when they see the riches that come through corruption to some others. The problem is many seem to have decided that if you can't beat corruption then at least try to benefit from it, and in some ways if they see no alternative can you blame them? They appear to been persuaded perhaps naively that their best interests are served by Thaksin and the PTP and whilst I'm sure there are some honest members of that party they seem to be in the minority whereas in the red shirts I think it's the bad leadership that's the minority. If the majority in the red shirts could be persuaded that, for instance raising the minimum wage is a good idea but has to be done gradually (as it is being done now and not how it was promised) then I think they might find they would get more of what they want eventually. In my opinion Abhisit is one of the better, although not perfect, politicians in Thailand. At least of the ones I know about. His problem is similar in some ways to the majority of the red shirts. Good intentions but ruined by some of the people they to work with.

That said even if the main fault in all the aggressive talk is with the PTP and red shirt leadership it doesn't mean Abhisit has to follow and I do think Abhisit should think about making more conciliatory comments.

Sorry if this has drifted a little but Kokaew's comments were just an example of the type of rhetoric that this country doesn't need.

[waza]

When two people died due to the crowd-control operations during the Somchai Wongsawat government, Abhisit said that was unacceptable, he said, arguing Abhisit could not deny responsibility in the face of almost a hundred people killed under his watch.

This is one of those points which is really hard for Abhisit to escape from.

He has the ability to say the right things even if he doesn't always do the right things. Yet he has never been able (AFAIK) to say the right thing regarding 2010 as he so clearly did about 2008.

He said Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva should apologise for the 2010 bloodshed in order to appease the red shirts.

Even if Abhisit never did the right thing after screwing up the 2010 protest control, he could have at least said the right things... Talking is his strong point.

Your hypocricy is is self evident. How can you support statements like..........."arguing Abhisit could not deny responsibility in the face of almost a hundred people killed under his watch".

Then defend the deaths that occured during the war on drugs and the Tak Bai massacre all killed under Thaksins watch.

If this wasnt enough to invalidated your credibility you also support Thaksin sending his supporters to death at violent protests then try to trade those deaths for his amnesty.

How do you sleep at night?

Edited July 16, 2012 by waza

[tlansford]

He could have said something equally insensitive, but that would not have helped, eh? Nice try to toss this back onto Thaksin. But Abhisit is responsible for his own actions and his own statements. BTW, I believe his DPM did say something equally crass - along the lines of running into bullets...

Abhisit's remarks after the unfortunate deaths of 2 protesters in 2008 were not only hard on the government, but also carried a certain noble righteousness - something that one could have though would have guided his own actions in 2009 and 2010. But actions speak louder than words.

Toss this back onto Thaksin???

Thaksin was the person who ordered and financed these red/black terrorists.

And to be honest, if someone is burning my house down I would shoot him.

Of course, how could I forget, it was Thaksin who ordered lethal force be used on the demonstrators ...

Like I said, Abhisit is responsible for his own actions. You do not need to make excuses for him.

Do you firmly believe that Abhisit "ordered lethal force be used on the demonstrators"?

Technically, and according to the current information, it was Suthep who ordered that.

But given that the 2008 Abhisit held the PM responsible for the inadvertent deaths caused be the actions of the police, it seems reasonable that the 2010 Abhisit should be responsible for the actions of the military not to mention his deputy prime minister.

[tlansford]

When two people died due to the crowd-control operations during the Somchai Wongsawat government, Abhisit said that was unacceptable, he said, arguing Abhisit could not deny responsibility in the face of almost a hundred people killed under his watch.

This is one of those points which is really hard for Abhisit to escape from.

He has the ability to say the right things even if he doesn't always do the right things. Yet he has never been able (AFAIK) to say the right thing regarding 2010 as he so clearly did about 2008.

He said Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva should apologise for the 2010 bloodshed in order to appease the red shirts.

Even if Abhisit never did the right thing after screwing up the 2010 protest control, he could have at least said the right things... Talking is his strong point.

Your hypocricy is is self evident. How can you support statements like..........."arguing Abhisit could not deny responsibility in the face of almost a hundred people killed under his watch".

Then defend the deaths that occured during the war on drugs and the Tak Bai massacre all killed under Thaksins watch.

If this wasnt enough to invalidated your credibility you also support Thaksin sending his supporters to death at violent protests do he ban trade those deaths for his amnesty.

How do you sleep at night?

you might actually have a point if I had ever defended Thaksin on the war on drugs or Tak Bai...

but I haven't.

[SuneeTH]

snip

Technically, and according to the current information, it was Suthep who ordered that.

But given that the 2008 Abhisit held the PM responsible for the inadvertent deaths caused be the actions of the police, it seems reasonable that the 2010 Abhisit should be responsible for the actions of the military not to mention his deputy prime minister.

2008 & 2010 are different times.

Things have changed.

[tlansford]

When two people died due to the crowd-control operations during the Somchai Wongsawat government, Abhisit said that was unacceptable, he said, arguing Abhisit could not deny responsibility in the face of almost a hundred people killed under his watch.

This is one of those points which is really hard for Abhisit to escape from.

He has the ability to say the right things even if he doesn't always do the right things. Yet he has never been able (AFAIK) to say the right thing regarding 2010 as he so clearly did about 2008.

He said Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva should apologise for the 2010 bloodshed in order to appease the red shirts.

Even if Abhisit never did the right thing after screwing up the 2010 protest control, he could have at least said the right things... Talking is his strong point.

Whilst I rarely agree with you I think you've made a very good point. When there was all that trouble in parliament with the Dems trying to remove the speakers chair I said that even if he felt they had no choice he could have at least apologised for the need to act that way. As for 2010 I thought he had made some comment about the killings but I may well be wrong. It may be that actually apologising for the deaths could be construed as an admission in legal terms. Of course we have to remember all this comes through Thai English translation which can muddy things somewhat. In 2010 there was a lot of speeches which seemed designed to promote violence and most seems to have come from the red shirts and this trend appears to be continuing now including with Kokaew.

My feeling is the red shirts in general are just people who are in the main hard working, not well paid and want something better particularly when they see the riches that come through corruption to some others. The problem is many seem to have decided that if you can't beat corruption then at least try to benefit from it, and in some ways if they see no alternative can you blame them? They appear to been persuaded perhaps naively that their best interests are served by Thaksin and the PTP and whilst I'm sure there are some honest members of that party they seem to be in the minority whereas in the red shirts I think it's the bad leadership that's the minority. If the majority in the red shirts could be persuaded that, for instance raising the minimum wage is a good idea but has to be done gradually (as it is being done now and not how it was promised) then I think they might find they would get more of what they want eventually. In my opinion Abhisit is one of the better, although not perfect, politicians in Thailand. At least of the ones I know about. His problem is similar in some ways to the majority of the red shirts. Good intentions but ruined by some of the people they to work with.

That said even if the main fault in all the aggressive talk is with the PTP and red shirt leadership it doesn't mean Abhisit has to follow and I do think Abhisit should think about making more conciliatory comments.

Sorry if this has drifted a little but Kokaew's comments were just an example of the type of rhetoric that this country doesn't need.

you point is well taken.

The politics is highly charged on all sides and has been for a long time. It clearly did not begin with the coup, nor will it necessarily end when the thaksin question is settled - should it be in the (relatively) near future.

Corruption is a hard problem to tackle. A really hard problem.

For me, one of the irritating things in all this is the willful distortion on the part of the media. Though that is not unique to Thailand.

edit : btw, re: Abhisit, he was born, raised, and educated in England - it seems to me that he should understand - of all of the current Thai politicians - the values and the integrity needed to lead in a democracy. I am really hard on him because it is clear that he should be able to do this but on several occasions he has failed to rise to the situation.

Edited July 16, 2012 by tlansford

[webfact]

Court to summon Pheu Thai MP Korkaew for alleged bail violation

BANGKOK, July 16 - Thailand's Criminal Court on Wednesday said a summons will be issued for ruling Pheu Thai MP Korkaew Pikulthong, along with 19 other leading red shirts to a hearing next month on alleged violation of bail conditions following remarks deemed as instigating the public to create chaos.

Thawee Prachuablarb, director general of the Court of Justice, announced the court decision after Democrat MP Nipit Intarasombat asked it to review the bail order for Mr Korkaew and other red shirt leaders who have been charged with terrorism and released on bail, after they urged the public to mobilise to pressure the Constitution Court on the charter amendment case.

Mr Thawee said the judge committee, as considering the evidence including the video records, the television footages and media reports, found that Mr Korkaew was likely to violate the court's bail condition.

Accordingly the court will summon Mr Korkaew to a hearing on Aug 9 at 9am. The other leaders are also being summoned for hearings on the same day including Deputy Agricultural Minister Natthawut Saikua, former chair of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) Veerakarn Musikapong and Arisman Pongruangrong, Mr Thawee said.

Mr Thawee said that Mr Nipit, as plaintiff, will be first to be questioned and the accused could present their evidence.

If the court revokes their bail, according to Mr Thawee, the protest leaders could appeal to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, while those who are MPs have rights to not appear as they have parliamentary immunity when the House is in session.

He said the hearing could proceed on Aug 9 with the other protest leaders who are not members of parliament, while the hearing for the accused lawmaker will be delayed until the House session closes.

Meanwhile, a group of UDD supporters on Monday gathered outside the Constitution Court in Bangkok to protest the role of nine court judges on Friday’s ruling. They also burnt nine mock coffins as a symbolic move.

Constitution Court spokesman Somrit Chaiwong on Monday urged the public still in doubt regarding the court decision to await the detailed ruling which will be released in 15 days so that they will better understand the case.

The court last Friday ruled that amending the Constitution is lawful, and rejected a petition opposing the government's attempt to amend the charter.

It said there are insufficient grounds to support the complainants regarding the alleged attempts to overthrow Thailand’s constitutional monarchy, but ruled that the Constitution could be amended article by article, but not be entirely rewritten.

Regarding an attempt to amend Article 291 to pave the way for the entire charter to be rewritten, the court ruled that since the current 2007 Constitution won a referendum, the move to set up a charter drafting assembly to rewrite the entire referendum-sanctioned supreme law is not possible without another referendum.

The court ruling is seen by critics as a compromise which helped ease mounting political tensions. (MCOT online news)

-- TNA 2012-07-16

[tlansford]

snip

Technically, and according to the current information, it was Suthep who ordered that.

But given that the 2008 Abhisit held the PM responsible for the inadvertent deaths caused be the actions of the police, it seems reasonable that the 2010 Abhisit should be responsible for the actions of the military not to mention his deputy prime minister.

2008 & 2010 are different times.

Things have changed.

you are right, things have / had changed - like the apparent moral outrage of Abhisit.

[OzMick]

very different indeed.

The former was actually accidental. The latter was, well, how to put this correctly? ... not accidental, and documented also that it was not in self-defense.

The former : It was a horrible mistake, but one cannot say that it was intentional. The evidence is clear that the police thought they were using their usual version of tear-gas, but of course they were not. BTW, the lady killed and the gentleman killed were unlikely to have been killed by the security forces. There is, however, no doubt about people losing limbs due to the tear-gas canisters.

BTW, the PAD protesters were not unarmed, either.

2 very different scenarios. But Abhisit was able to comment on the former and has yet to utter such noble phrases regarding the latter.

Issuing of weapons/munitions to persons not trained and certified in their use is not an "accident" or a "horrible mistake", it is a clear breach of procedure for which the supervising officers and those using munitions unfamiliar to them are liable and culpable. Firing unfamiliar ordinance into a packed crowd and causing death and grievous injury was gross negligence - but hey, that's alright, some of them had a pistol or two.

[Moruya]

Technically, and according to the current information, it was Suthep who ordered that.

But given that the 2008 Abhisit held the PM responsible for the inadvertent deaths caused be the actions of the police, it seems reasonable that the 2010 Abhisit should be responsible for the actions of the military not to mention his deputy prime minister.

Suthep ordered the army to use lethal force on the protesters?

You believe that?

[SuneeTH]

Technically, and according to the current information, it was Suthep who ordered that.

But given that the 2008 Abhisit held the PM responsible for the inadvertent deaths caused be the actions of the police, it seems reasonable that the 2010 Abhisit should be responsible for the actions of the military not to mention his deputy prime minister.

Suthep ordered the army to use lethal force on the protesters?

You believe that?

No. I think Mark did, but I have no proves.

[tlansford]

Technically, and according to the current information, it was Suthep who ordered that.

But given that the 2008 Abhisit held the PM responsible for the inadvertent deaths caused be the actions of the police, it seems reasonable that the 2010 Abhisit should be responsible for the actions of the military not to mention his deputy prime minister.

Suthep ordered the army to use lethal force on the protesters?

You believe that?

it is documented.

Phiphidon has also posted the links, references, and information multiple times on TVF.

You might recall that Suthep denied issuing the other to use live rounds before the April 10th dispersal attempt and later, faced with the proof, needed to admit that he approved it 3 days before the dispersal.

But he also called them terrorists before they arrived in BKK, and the year before he organized the Blue Shirts. And if you go back, it was one of his corruption cases which helped to bring down the previous dem-led government in the 90s.

Like so many, Suthep is not a trustworthy person... not at least when you examine the public record.

[saltandpepper]

Technically, and according to the current information, it was Suthep who ordered that.

But given that the 2008 Abhisit held the PM responsible for the inadvertent deaths caused be the actions of the police, it seems reasonable that the 2010 Abhisit should be responsible for the actions of the military not to mention his deputy prime minister.

Suthep ordered the army to use lethal force on the protesters?

You believe that?

it is documented.

Phiphidon has also posted the links, references, and information multiple times on TVF.

You might recall that Suthep denied issuing the other to use live rounds before the April 10th dispersal attempt and later, faced with the proof, needed to admit that he approved it 3 days before the dispersal.

But he also called them terrorists before they arrived in BKK, and the year before he organized the Blue Shirts. And if you go back, it was one of his corruption cases which helped to bring down the previous dem-led government in the 90s.

Like so many, Suthep is not a trustworthy person... not at least when you examine the public record.

Can you please let us know who is a trustworthy person in your book?

[Moruya]

Technically, and according to the current information, it was Suthep who ordered that.

But given that the 2008 Abhisit held the PM responsible for the inadvertent deaths caused be the actions of the police, it seems reasonable that the 2010 Abhisit should be responsible for the actions of the military not to mention his deputy prime minister.

Suthep ordered the army to use lethal force on the protesters?

You believe that?

it is documented.

Phiphidon has also posted the links, references, and information multiple times on TVF.

You might recall that Suthep denied issuing the other to use live rounds before the April 10th dispersal attempt and later, faced with the proof, needed to admit that he approved it 3 days before the dispersal.

But he also called them terrorists before they arrived in BKK, and the year before he organized the Blue Shirts. And if you go back, it was one of his corruption cases which helped to bring down the previous dem-led government in the 90s.

Like so many, Suthep is not a trustworthy person... not at least when you examine the public record.

PhiPhiDon therefore holds the key to the trials and should submit his evidence forthwith.

[Dap]

What Kokaeow said last week was outrageous, even for the low standards of the red shirts. He must be feeling very foolish after the Constitution Court read its verdict.

Please put him back in prison where he belongs.

He feels neither foolish nor repentant. I fear he is a man who, after tasting the recognition of his peers and the high profile that accompanied his public oratory, has fallen to the dark side of vanity.

[Reasonableman]

Technically, and according to the current information, it was Suthep who ordered that.

But given that the 2008 Abhisit held the PM responsible for the inadvertent deaths caused be the actions of the police, it seems reasonable that the 2010 Abhisit should be responsible for the actions of the military not to mention his deputy prime minister.

Suthep ordered the army to use lethal force on the protesters?

You believe that?

it is documented.

Phiphidon has also posted the links, references, and information multiple times on TVF.

You might recall that Suthep denied issuing the other to use live rounds before the April 10th dispersal attempt and later, faced with the proof, needed to admit that he approved it 3 days before the dispersal.

But he also called them terrorists before they arrived in BKK, and the year before he organized the Blue Shirts. And if you go back, it was one of his corruption cases which helped to bring down the previous dem-led government in the 90s.

Like so many, Suthep is not a trustworthy person... not at least when you examine the public record.

PhiPhiDon therefore holds the key to the trials and should submit his evidence forthwith.

Why rely on PPD alone? Let tlansford/PPD bring it all to the table. For they are both honorable men.

[tlansford]

Technically, and according to the current information, it was Suthep who ordered that.

But given that the 2008 Abhisit held the PM responsible for the inadvertent deaths caused be the actions of the police, it seems reasonable that the 2010 Abhisit should be responsible for the actions of the military not to mention his deputy prime minister.

Suthep ordered the army to use lethal force on the protesters?

You believe that?

it is documented.

Phiphidon has also posted the links, references, and information multiple times on TVF.

You might recall that Suthep denied issuing the other to use live rounds before the April 10th dispersal attempt and later, faced with the proof, needed to admit that he approved it 3 days before the dispersal.

But he also called them terrorists before they arrived in BKK, and the year before he organized the Blue Shirts. And if you go back, it was one of his corruption cases which helped to bring down the previous dem-led government in the 90s.

Like so many, Suthep is not a trustworthy person... not at least when you examine the public record.

PhiPhiDon therefore holds the key to the trials and should submit his evidence forthwith.

well, as the forum has a very short collective memory, he has posted the reminder about this point rather often and I would have thought that you had seen it at least once already...

[Moruya]

well, as the forum has a very short collective memory, he has posted the reminder about this point rather often and I would have thought that you had seen it at least once already...

I think I would remember a smoking gun Tom.

[rubl]

Phue Thai party list MP and UDD leader k. Korkaew unfazed. The alleged rabble rousing last week was obviously a silly mistake, a slip of the tongue, with most venom lost in translation anyway. So why worry about bail review? An ideal opportunity to lambaste another court for obviously [sic] and clear for all to see, being undemocratic and against a government consisting of political parties which have a landslide majority in parliament. Disband them, or better still in the words of Dr. weng eradicate them, humanely and democratically of course, however that may work.

I'm sure these fools worthy gentlepersons would have something to say about the Netherlands Counsil of State!

[Noistar]

I must buy some new glasses, I thought this thread was about Kokaeow and a review of his bail regarding his remarks about the Constitution Court.

In my case, contact lenses, but I agree. A lot of re-hashing of old posts

[waza]

Perhaps he wants to blame security boss and former Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban? At least Suthep has admitted that leaked documents showing he ordered the use of live rounds against protesters are genuine. They seem to show that the order was given before any military or police were attacked by any “men in black.” Suthep may well become Abhisit’s scapegoat.

politicalprisonersofthailand.wordpress.com/ (At this site readers do not receive the full-feature Political Prisoners in Thailand. This blog is maintained because the main site is often blocked by state censors)

Another of PhiPhidons hearsay redshirt blog site that have unsubstantiated information, no wonder you sidestepped it Tom.