I understand your point, and made the point that this position is not necessarily mine - so far, all of the non-trivial cases I can think of I agree with your position.

I also don't think Moruya's use of this position makes sense regarding what he otherwise said.

But I can imagine the possibility in relatively trivial cases for a person to say I don't believe this law is correct (ie: it should be changed) but as long as it is the law, it should be enforced.

what position Tom?

maybe the position where you were posting about the law as if it was something that you were in support of and then it looked like a backtrack when the recent case of the police officers was brought up.

obviously it's left open for your denial..

I disagreed with the Thai law that states that court verdicts may not be criticised. However it is the law and must be adhered to. The law is not something you can pick and chose which bits you opt in to.

I understand your point, and made the point that this position is not necessarily mine - so far, all of the non-trivial cases I can think of I agree with your position.

I also don't think Moruya's use of this position makes sense regarding what he otherwise said.

But I can imagine the possibility in relatively trivial cases for a person to say I don't believe this law is correct (ie: it should be changed) but as long as it is the law, it should be enforced.

what position Tom?

maybe the position where you were posting about the law as if it was something that you were in support of and then it looked like a backtrack when the recent case of the police officers was brought up.

obviously it's left open for your denial..

I disagreed with the Thai law that states that court verdicts may not be criticised. However it is the law and must be adhered to. The law is not something you can pick and chose which bits you opt in to.

my point is that you stated your disagreement only when challenged about it re the recent cop case.

your earlier replies looked as though it was something you seemed supportive of .

my point is that you stated your disagreement only when challenged about it re the recent cop case.

your earlier replies looked as though it was something you seemed supportive of .

Why? Because I said the law should be adhered to?