Court rejects Ratchaprasong lawsuit

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Civil Court yesterday rejected a lawsuit filed by Ratchaprasong business operators against the Army, the Defence Ministry and eight red-shirt leaders demanding compensation of Bt300 million for damages caused by riots on May 19, 2010.

The suit was filed by Nutchatip Banchonsilp, other Ratchaprasong vendors and four firms.

The suit named the Army, the Defence Ministry, Deputy Agricul-ture Minister Natthawut Saikua, Jatuporn Promphan, Arisman Pongruangrong and five other red-shirt leaders as defendants.

The court ruled that the blazes erupted after troops blocked the demonstrators from entering the area, so it was not known whether the blazes were caused by the protesters or government officials. Hence, the defendants could not be held responsible for the damages and the suit was rejected.

Since it was clear that the plaintiffs' assets were damaged by the operations of the state officials, the plaintiffs deserved compensation, the ruling added.

-- The Nation 2012-09-29

At least they capitulated and agreed compensation was due. But the costs should be against the party who lit it up and there is no doubt in my mind who is responsible there. Take the 300M from the frozen bank accounts of Thaksin and pay these people. It has nothing whatsoever of Reds being boxed in. What a load of <deleted>.

"the troops stopped protesters from entering the area"

Weren't they already there?

Sent from my HTC phone.

Edited September 29, 201213 yr by whybother

Since it was clear that the plaintiffs' assets were damaged by the operations of the state officials, the plaintiffs deserved compensation, the ruling added.

So the court is blaming the state.

There is no doubt that the red-shirts were not involved in contributing to the damage caused.

But the article also states:

'it was not known whether the blazes were caused by the protesters or government officials.'

Assuming The Nation has reported the findings accurately, there seems to be some ambiguity.

But isn't that the hallmark of the Thai legal system

"the troops stopped protesters from entering the area"

Weren't they already there?

Sent from my HTC phone.

If you're going to quote, quote the whole in context, the meaning changes. The implication is the complete opposite to what you opine.

The court ruled that the blazes erupted after troops blocked the demonstrators from entering the area, so it was not known whether the blazes were caused by the protesters or government officials.

The above information having been discussed before on this forum and generally dismissed by some posters .

Edited September 29, 201213 yr by TheKrayTriplet

Simple way to solve this one is once the protest is in breach of an order to disperse, any protester arrested is responsible for any damage.

Wouldn't be too many hanging around knowing they could be personally liable for 100s of millions.

Since it was clear that the plaintiffs' assets were damaged by the operations of the state officials, the plaintiffs deserved compensation, the ruling added.

So the court is blaming the state.

There is no doubt that the red-shirts were not involved in contributing to the damage caused.

But the article also states:

'it was not known whether the blazes were caused by the protesters or government officials.'

Assuming The Nation has reported the findings accurately, there seems to be some ambiguity.

But isn't that the hallmark of the Thai legal system

More a hallmark of the Nation Newspaper. The Thai legal system is the same legal system that was regarded highly by certain posters during the Abhisit years.

Since it was clear that the plaintiffs' assets were damaged by the operations of the state officials, the plaintiffs deserved compensation, the ruling added.

So the court is blaming the state.

There is no doubt that the red-shirts were not involved in contributing to the damage caused.

But the article also states:

'it was not known whether the blazes were caused by the protesters or government officials.'

Assuming The Nation has reported the findings accurately, there seems to be some ambiguity.

But isn't that the hallmark of the Thai legal system

Also of the Nation

Of course the red shirts were not involved just ask any red shirt if they were involved in any thing wrong. They will explain it to you how it was imposable for them to do any thing wrong. Thaksin had approved it and payed for it.

Since it was clear that the plaintiffs' assets were damaged by the operations of the state officials, the plaintiffs deserved compensation, the ruling added.

So the court is blaming the state.

There is no doubt that the red-shirts were not involved in contributing to the damage caused.

But the article also states:

'it was not known whether the blazes were caused by the protesters or government officials.'

Assuming The Nation has reported the findings accurately, there seems to be some ambiguity.

But isn't that the hallmark of the Thai legal system

More a hallmark of the Nation Newspaper. The Thai legal system is the same legal system that was regarded highly by certain posters during the Abhisit years.

I think you'll find that the Thai legal system has changed, but that won't fit in with sweeping dismissive statements.

This report, if accurate, is ambiguous. If it isn't accurate I'm sure a definitive translation will be forthcoming in this thread.

The people accused of 'bad behaviour' in 2010 are finding themselves exonerated or given 1st offence non-sentences.

The Thai legal system fits in nicely with the Thai culture of money 'slight-of-hand' tricks.

Perhaps that's why the court's ruling isn't black or white or even grey. It is black AND white. Everybody happy?

If you're going to quote, quote the whole in context, the meaning changes. The implication is the complete opposite to what you opine.

The court ruled that the blazes erupted after troops blocked the demonstrators from entering the area, so it was not known whether the blazes were caused by the protesters or government officials.

The above information having been discussed before on this forum and generally dismissed by some posters .

How, exactly, did the army block the protesters from being at Central World when they'd spent the last 6 weeks camping out in front of it.

Sent from my HTC phone.

If you're going to quote, quote the whole in context, the meaning changes. The implication is the complete opposite to what you opine.

The court ruled that the blazes erupted after troops blocked the demonstrators from entering the area, so it was not known whether the blazes were caused by the protesters or government officials.

The above information having been discussed before on this forum and generally dismissed by some posters .

How, exactly, did the army block the protesters from being at Central World when they'd spent the last 6 weeks camping out in front of it.

Sent from my HTC phone.

Please do not confuse the issue with common sense.