Police Explain Why Journalists Detained: Pitak Siam Rally

[khunken]

The note about your total bias includes your stance in numerous other threads as well as this one, where your inference is: police-innocent & journalist-guilty. It's not rocket science to discern one's stance & you are only making a mockery of the word 'impartiality'.

My stance in this case is that the journalists (& TJA) are far more credible than the Thai police who lead the way in non-credibility in Thailand.

Rather than simply casting false assertions about people and leaping to addled conclusions, pick a post, even a part of a post, a statement, quote it and respond. It's really easy Ken, you can do it!

What is the false assertion? All you're doing is throwing sh*t at others. Why don't you give your 'unbiased' assessment of the article instead of throwing up silly ideas beyond the scope of this thread.

[khunken]

I'm off before the mod clears out a lot of the irrelevant stuff on this thread. Yes, I'm guilty too.

[whybother]

It depends on what you are actually censoring - propaganda inciting violence and hate or accurate news reporting - big difference

Very true and how would you perceive a total media black out with only officially Government endorsed news being released?

An operation to disperse protesters that have been using guns and grenades for a number of weeks is quite different to the first hour or so of a protest where the protesters had previously been peaceful. Being shot at requires that the plans and operations are kept a bit more secret so that the guys with the guns can't see the operation playing out on TV.

[Baerboxer]

I would rather have a little slap in the face from the police than a high velocity round in the head from the army, but maybe that's just me.

Those that say they are trying to suppress the news then surely ALL journalists there and photographers would need to be hushed up. They were arrested for appearing to part of the protest and not having the right credentials displayed, simple, maybe they will learn from this.

As for those with the conspiracy theories that's it's an attempt to hush people up, well that's just laughable considering by the time they were arrested the events were already plastered all over the news showing the police being attacked and a vehicle driving into them by violent protestors BEFORE the police responded with tear gas.

This is there for all to see on the footage yet people still deny it.

A scouser believing the police's version of events! That's got to be a first. And from a police force known to be a little economical with the truth on occasion.

Were you there? Did you witness all of these events first hand? If not, then you are choosing to believe one version of events from sides known for polarising propaganda. The reality is both sides will make up their own embellished version of events.

One poster on a previous related thread was there and posted a balanced account of what he saw happen.

[metisdead]

Topic has been sanitized to remove baiting and bickering posts that are not contributing to the actual topic.

[stoli]

How is the police ban on recording devices justified? Does this mean that every prospective protester with a mobile phone with camera, or heaven forbid, a camera, was refused entry?

By invoking the ISA beforehand. It gives authorities the right to ban all recordings. Needless to say, this is one of the many reasons it was invoked, don't you think?