This can't backfire.

The Democrats are so deeply unpopular in the poorest regions of the country that this is a win-win for the government.

Guilty verdict satisfies Thaksin, the red shirts and their sympathisers, not-guilty (carefully spun) exposes the corruption in the court system and re-enforces that the elite, the coup-makers and their associates never go to jail.

It's brilliant politics from the master (underhanded admittedly). It also paves way to have all these niggling little 'politically motivated' guilty verdicts annulled.

Watch, and learn.

Yeah you wish.

There's not going to be a guilty verdict. Everyone knows it. This is just typical Red Shirt lakorn for the poor masses. Brilliant politics? Yeah only the uneducated 'poor' would see it as such.

The arrogance of denigrating the electoral majority is astounding at times. The disrespect for the Thai electorate is pervasive throughout everything the Opposition musters. They have the firm belief, that if they are not in power, things are out-of-control.

Until they rectify such underlying perceptions, and acquire leaders who don't look down their noses at everyone but their "electoral minority own", they will remain in the political wilderness for the foreseeable future.

And that is as it should be!

Not that I have any naiive expectations that Abhisit will be held judicially accountable. No more so than the Airport seizure and coup leaders - the "Mother of all" double standards.

Mother of all double standards. Let's see now what that would be.

Multiple choice:

A. Chalerm's son murdering a fellow police officer, fleeing the country, daddy arranging for his return, now is is employed by daddy in the NPF.

B. Thaksin, convicted criminal on the run in total control of the Yingluck administration.

C. Charges brought against AV and no charges brought thaksin for the 2500+ murders during the war on drugs campaign.

D. Charges brought against AV but no charges brought against thaksin for the killing of Muslims at Tak Bai.

E. Charges brought against AV but no charges brought against thaksin for the Kru Se Mosque killings.

This can't backfire.

The Democrats are so deeply unpopular in the poorest regions of the country that this is a win-win for the government.

Guilty verdict satisfies Thaksin, the red shirts and their sympathisers, not-guilty (carefully spun) exposes the corruption in the court system and re-enforces that the elite, the coup-makers and their associates never go to jail.

It's brilliant politics from the master (underhanded admittedly). It also paves way to have all these niggling little 'politically motivated' guilty verdicts annulled.

Watch, and learn.

Indeed the dems are deeply unpopular in the poorest regions however that level of unpopularity is not equally deep in all parts. With some areas the dems not being massively far behind PTP. They got their 12 million votes to PTP parties 15 million in the last election. So hardly deeply unpopular in Thailand

The master as you so lovingly call him could best remember the old Thai political proverb " In politics there are no real friends and no true enemies". With DSI supremo Khun Tarit being a prime example.

If PTP get beaten in the Bangkok Mayoral election then PTP will get very nervous about throwing AV to the dogs as governments rise and fall according to Bkk as that election will be a political barometer for PTP no matter how the UDD try to spin it.

Abhisit is probably the most honest PM this country has ever had

“In the name of reconciliation the names of stories of these people has been swept under the rug. Their real lives and souls may never be recognized again, even to their children in some cases. Justice was also buried. The “reconciliation Thai style” is the sacrifice of justice and the suspension of rule of law that could incriminate the ruling elite and their networks – a group that has been in power since the mid-1970s despite changes of governments, parliaments, and generations.” - Thongchai Winichakul on the October 6th massacre of 1976 at Thammasat University:

When people are illegally blocking streets they should be arrested and taken away.

What about people blocking Government House or the country's major international airport?

We're straying off topic here but I'd like to point out that not only did the protesters, bystanders and journalists have a choice to be there, they had a RIGHT to be there. Similarly they had a RIGHT to protection from the authorities and not aggression. They had a right to be protected from any violent elements not simply branded as terrorists because a minority were acting like them.

Elections hadn't been promised prior to the protests and a late change of heart by Abhisit, only when faced with a mass occupation of the city, to grant the citizens their democratic right to vote (but only at a time of his choosing) didn't appease the situation.... perhaps too little, too late?

I'd also like to point out that I made a single post that actually addressed the topic at hand and gave my thoughts on Abhisit's interview with the BBC. Please don't disingenuously suggest that I'm repeating myself. This is the first time that I have written about Abhisit's show of mock bravado during the BBC interview being in bad taste given the deaths of so many in 2010 who didn't have the luxury of a trial or a platform to explain their motivation or actions.

How does anyone have the "right" to be at an illegal assembly?

I haven't read all the replies but I was shocked at the number of poeple who don't want anything to change for the better in Thailand, Of the leaders of the reds, few will survive the mayhem to enjoy the fruits of there labour, those of the masses who survive are likely to be disappointed also, such is the nature of revolutions.

I think that Abhisit is not alone, his view is supported by the majority of the poplulation and many members of parliament.

What AV is saying is that he will face the court, that he will accept the decision of the court, and that he expects everybody to behave like him in respecting the law.

That is a very unpalatable prospect for many of the great and the good, they may regret the decision to try him as the original Nation article implied.

I am not a moderator or anything, but i really wonder, how Thaksin, the airport- blocking, the government house occupying, the 2006 coup etc. find their way into this.

This is about Abisith and a possible conviction for something that very clearly happened 2010.

I personally don't think much of AV, but I think (without any knowledge of the law on these cases) to hold a PM personally responsible for an accidental death of a taxi- driver (you could be cynic and call it "collateral damage"), is ridiculous.

If he is responsible for other deaths, is to be discussed; i guess there are reasons for the motion and there are some against it.

I also think, his "heroic" stand and the glorification of it by certain TV- members is as ridiculous, because he very well knows, that NOTHING will come out of this politically motivated charade!

But was Thaksin or the PAD or the coup has to do wth this (except for setting the broader frame for the mess we are in right now) is absolutely beyond me!

edited by me, for some mistakes, made out of sheer excitement

Edited December 12, 201213 yr by DocN

Abhisit is probably the most honest PM this country has ever had

“In the name of reconciliation the names of stories of these people has been swept under the rug. Their real lives and souls may never be recognized again, even to their children in some cases. Justice was also buried. The “reconciliation Thai style” is the sacrifice of justice and the suspension of rule of law that could incriminate the ruling elite and their networks – a group that has been in power since the mid-1970s despite changes of governments, parliaments, and generations.” - Thongchai Winichakul on the October 6th massacre of 1976 at Thammasat University:

When people are illegally blocking streets they should be arrested and taken away.

What about people blocking Government House or the country's major international airport?

Interesting chap Thongchai W. He wrote a letter condemning the late Samak for his remarks on the 1976 massacre

( http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/02/18/headlines/headlines_30065677.php )

BTW none of this is really topic related. The topic is "Dems need Pheu Thai help again to profile themselves'

I'll fight charge, accept any outcome: Abhisit

Now, that is a change compared to what the red hero has been doing so far:

Jumping bail and living abroad to avoid to face the music ... Coward

Promising the red crowd to come back to Thailand as soon as the first gun shot is fired, but going for shopping in Paris instead....Coward bis

Yeah, I definitely do prefer the Abhisit attitude...

It is a lot easier to face a court when you know that you have done nothing wrong.

Abhisit is probably the most honest PM this country has ever had

“In the name of reconciliation the names of stories of these people has been swept under the rug. Their real lives and souls may never be recognized again, even to their children in some cases. Justice was also buried. The “reconciliation Thai style” is the sacrifice of justice and the suspension of rule of law that could incriminate the ruling elite and their networks – a group that has been in power since the mid-1970s despite changes of governments, parliaments, and generations.” - Thongchai Winichakul on the October 6th massacre of 1976 at Thammasat University:

When people are illegally blocking streets they should be arrested and taken away.

What about people blocking Government House or the country's major international airport?

but... but... but... the democrats PAD...

It is a lot easier to face a court when you know that you have done nothing wrong.

Something not many in the PTP/Thaksin camp can do...

>This is a typical ploy of Abhisit - trying to change the conversation. Whenever challenged about the 90+ deaths at R'song, he starts talking about "Men in Black". In this case, trying to re-direct the conversation about his legal status to "amnesty". Nothing to do with his predicament.

>It is true, the protesters occupied the middle of the city, and he felt compelled to restore order. But who was restoring order after the 2006 coup, an occupation of the country, which precipitated all of it. The disconnect between these two events is another 'change of conversation' by him, when seeking to link the protests with Thaksin assets seizure. The 2010 event was a coup-election thing. The so-called negotiation that wasn't, wasn't about 'assets', but about election timing.

>I think the term 'crackdown' is overused and does not describe historical reality. It implies legitimate use of State Power, when a political solution was easy, and hence rendered use of force illegitimate. There is never talk about a 'crackdown' on those who perpetrated a coup.

The occupation at Rachaprasong occured just 2 months after the court seized half of Thaksin's 84 billion baht.I suggest the two are related.

Apisit is a brave and articulate man.Compare his actions to the cowardly Thaksin,always running away, hiding in shopping malls when violence occured by his foot soldiers.

Not directly related but I do wonder when Chalerm,'there is no terrorism in Thailand' Youbamrung will resign.Did he not read about the two Buddhist teachers gunned down 2 days ago whilst their Muslim colleagues were left unharmed?

Thousands of red shirts began street protests in Bangkok in mid-March 2010, a little over a week after a court seized Bt46 billion in assets from Thaksin, found to have been obtained improperly.

posting comments on this website regarding politics is definitely like farting in public, unsavory.

We're straying off topic here but I'd like to point out that not only did the protesters, bystanders and journalists have a choice to be there, they had a RIGHT to be there. Similarly they had a RIGHT to protection from the authorities and not aggression. They had a right to be protected from any violent elements not simply branded as terrorists because a minority were acting like them.

Elections hadn't been promised prior to the protests and a late change of heart by Abhisit, only when faced with a mass occupation of the city, to grant the citizens their democratic right to vote (but only at a time of his choosing) didn't appease the situation.... perhaps too little, too late?

I'd also like to point out that I made a single post that actually addressed the topic at hand and gave my thoughts on Abhisit's interview with the BBC. Please don't disingenuously suggest that I'm repeating myself. This is the first time that I have written about Abhisit's show of mock bravado during the BBC interview being in bad taste given the deaths of so many in 2010 who didn't have the luxury of a trial or a platform to explain their motivation or actions.

How does anyone have the "right" to be at an illegal assembly?

Correct.

And where are the rights of the normal hard working citizens who wanted to continue with their lives? For some posters here the Red shirts are above the law. As you can see from Ferangled post, they have ALL the rights. Millions of people where living in fear for months, those seem to have no rights. Some posters even never mention those people. Unbelievable!

>This is a typical ploy of Abhisit - trying to change the conversation. Whenever challenged about the 90+ deaths at R'song, he starts talking about "Men in Black". In this case, trying to re-direct the conversation about his legal status to "amnesty". Nothing to do with his predicament.

>It is true, the protesters occupied the middle of the city, and he felt compelled to restore order. But who was restoring order after the 2006 coup, an occupation of the country, which precipitated all of it. The disconnect between these two events is another 'change of conversation' by him, when seeking to link the protests with Thaksin assets seizure. The 2010 event was a coup-election thing. The so-called negotiation that wasn't, wasn't about 'assets', but about election timing.

>I think the term 'crackdown' is overused and does not describe historical reality. It implies legitimate use of State Power, when a political solution was easy, and hence rendered use of force illegitimate. There is never talk about a 'crackdown' on those who perpetrated a coup.

The occupation at Rachaprasong occured just 2 months after the court seized half of Thaksin's 84 billion baht.I suggest the two are related.

Apisit is a brave and articulate man.Compare his actions to the cowardly Thaksin,always running away, hiding in shopping malls when violence occured by his foot soldiers.

Not directly related but I do wonder when Chalerm,'there is no terrorism in Thailand' Youbamrung will resign.Did he not read about the two Buddhist teachers gunned down 2 days ago whilst their Muslim colleagues were left unharmed?

Thousands of red shirts began street protests in Bangkok in mid-March 2010, a little over a week after a court seized Bt46 billion in assets from Thaksin, found to have been obtained improperly.

Sssst, don't mention that. Don't spoil the game. The red shirts were there because injustice was done to them, nothing to do with Thaksin.

posting comments on this website regarding politics is definitely like farting in public, unsavory.

Meaning that there are places where farting is savoury, I have never tasted a fart so wouldn't know.

It is a lot easier to face a court when you know that you have done nothing wrong.

Something not many in the PTP/Thaksin camp can do...

...but...but...but...the reds and Thaksin....

There is no way that ths can go the distance. The main issue surrounds the death of the taxi driver who it was claimed ,was shot by a high velocity bullet. They have no evidence what so ever as to who fired this fatal shot and as to what weapon discharged the fatal bullet. Forensics and ballistics in Thailand is at an extreemly low level of compotency. You do not need a military weapon to fire a high velocity round furthermore assault rifles are a black market comodity here. The whole scenario simply diminishes the perception of any vestige of ability in this country where the administration are falling over themselves in order to demonstrate just how utterly useless and pathetic they are.

Crap and a total waste of time and taxpayers money, yet again.

It is a lot easier to face a court when you know that you have done nothing wrong.

Something not many in the PTP/Thaksin camp can do...

...but...but...but...the reds and Thaksin....

If the shoe fits...

He can't stand like a man and accept he's wrongdoing !

He can't stand like a man and accept he's wrongdoing !

Who Thaksin or Abhisit?

From what i see, Abhisit has agreed to accept the court ruling.. whilst Thaksin has gone into self imposed exile to avoid the courts decision on his wrong doing... so based on this, who's the bigger man?

Abhisit is probably the most honest PM this country has ever had

“In the name of reconciliation the names of stories of these people has been swept under the rug. Their real lives and souls may never be recognized again, even to their children in some cases. Justice was also buried. The “reconciliation Thai style” is the sacrifice of justice and the suspension of rule of law that could incriminate the ruling elite and their networks – a group that has been in power since the mid-1970s despite changes of governments, parliaments, and generations.” - Thongchai Winichakul on the October 6th massacre of 1976 at Thammasat University:

When people are illegally blocking streets they should be arrested and taken away.

What about people blocking Government House or the country's major international airport?

Do you mean like this?

I'll fight charge, accept any outcome: Abhisit

Now, that is a change compared to what the red hero has been doing so far:

Jumping bail and living abroad to avoid to face the music ... Coward

Promising the red crowd to come back to Thailand as soon as the first gun shot is fired, but going for shopping in Paris instead....Coward bis

Yeah, I definitely do prefer the Abhisit attitude...

It is a lot easier to face a court when you know that you have done nothing wrong.

As Thaksin said he done nothing wrong he should come back and fight in court.

We're straying off topic here but I'd like to point out that not only did the protesters, bystanders and journalists have a choice to be there, they had a RIGHT to be there. Similarly they had a RIGHT to protection from the authorities and not aggression. They had a right to be protected from any violent elements not simply branded as terrorists because a minority were acting like them.

Elections hadn't been promised prior to the protests and a late change of heart by Abhisit, only when faced with a mass occupation of the city, to grant the citizens their democratic right to vote (but only at a time of his choosing) didn't appease the situation.... perhaps too little, too late?

I'd also like to point out that I made a single post that actually addressed the topic at hand and gave my thoughts on Abhisit's interview with the BBC. Please don't disingenuously suggest that I'm repeating myself. This is the first time that I have written about Abhisit's show of mock bravado during the BBC interview being in bad taste given the deaths of so many in 2010 who didn't have the luxury of a trial or a platform to explain their motivation or actions.

How does anyone have the "right" to be at an illegal assembly?

Because it was an entirely legal assembly UNTIL Abhisit well, lets see first he said foreigners attending would be arrested and then he declared a state of Emergency after some suspicious explosions went off conveniently around Bangkok.

No witnesses, no working CCTV, no injuries except at Poseidon Massage (hi-so knocking shop) where a car bomb exploded seriously injuring the bomber.

Abhisit's then Minister for Commerce only previous work experience was working for her mother as a Madame in their Poseidon Massage parlour.

We're straying off topic here but I'd like to point out that not only did the protesters, bystanders and journalists have a choice to be there, they had a RIGHT to be there. Similarly they had a RIGHT to protection from the authorities and not aggression. They had a right to be protected from any violent elements not simply branded as terrorists because a minority were acting like them.

Elections hadn't been promised prior to the protests and a late change of heart by Abhisit, only when faced with a mass occupation of the city, to grant the citizens their democratic right to vote (but only at a time of his choosing) didn't appease the situation.... perhaps too little, too late?

I'd also like to point out that I made a single post that actually addressed the topic at hand and gave my thoughts on Abhisit's interview with the BBC. Please don't disingenuously suggest that I'm repeating myself. This is the first time that I have written about Abhisit's show of mock bravado during the BBC interview being in bad taste given the deaths of so many in 2010 who didn't have the luxury of a trial or a platform to explain their motivation or actions.

How does anyone have the "right" to be at an illegal assembly?

Because it was an entirely legal assembly UNTIL Abhisit well, lets see first he said foreigners attending would be arrested and then he declared a state of Emergency after some suspicious explosions went off conveniently around Bangkok.

No witnesses, no working CCTV, no injuries except at Poseidon Massage (hi-so knocking shop) where a car bomb exploded seriously injuring the bomber.

Abhisit's then Minister for Commerce only previous work experience was working for her mother as a Madame in their Poseidon Massage parlour.

It was never an legal assembly. A six week occupation of down-town Bangkok in not legal. Have you ever heard about rights of people affected by those protests?

They were allowed to protest (for a long period of time) but at areas designated to them by the authorities

Just like what happened a few weeks ago. There were over a hundred arrests within 2 hours because they tried to go to areas they were not allowed to go to. Very simple.

Nevertheless, I am curious to hear why YOU think it was an entirely legal assembly.

Edited December 12, 201213 yr by Nickymaster

We're straying off topic here but I'd like to point out that not only did the protesters, bystanders and journalists have a choice to be there, they had a RIGHT to be there. Similarly they had a RIGHT to protection from the authorities and not aggression. They had a right to be protected from any violent elements not simply branded as terrorists because a minority were acting like them.

Elections hadn't been promised prior to the protests and a late change of heart by Abhisit, only when faced with a mass occupation of the city, to grant the citizens their democratic right to vote (but only at a time of his choosing) didn't appease the situation.... perhaps too little, too late?

I'd also like to point out that I made a single post that actually addressed the topic at hand and gave my thoughts on Abhisit's interview with the BBC. Please don't disingenuously suggest that I'm repeating myself. This is the first time that I have written about Abhisit's show of mock bravado during the BBC interview being in bad taste given the deaths of so many in 2010 who didn't have the luxury of a trial or a platform to explain their motivation or actions.

How does anyone have the "right" to be at an illegal assembly?

Because it was an entirely legal assembly UNTIL Abhisit well, lets see first he said foreigners attending would be arrested and then he declared a state of Emergency after some suspicious explosions went off conveniently around Bangkok.

No witnesses, no working CCTV, no injuries except at Poseidon Massage (hi-so knocking shop) where a car bomb exploded seriously injuring the bomber.

Abhisit's then Minister for Commerce only previous work experience was working for her mother as a Madame in their Poseidon Massage parlour.

Yeah it was so peaceful that they had people with assault rifles firing at the army.

We're straying off topic here but I'd like to point out that not only did the protesters, bystanders and journalists have a choice to be there, they had a RIGHT to be there. Similarly they had a RIGHT to protection from the authorities and not aggression. They had a right to be protected from any violent elements not simply branded as terrorists because a minority were acting like them.

Elections hadn't been promised prior to the protests and a late change of heart by Abhisit, only when faced with a mass occupation of the city, to grant the citizens their democratic right to vote (but only at a time of his choosing) didn't appease the situation.... perhaps too little, too late?

I'd also like to point out that I made a single post that actually addressed the topic at hand and gave my thoughts on Abhisit's interview with the BBC. Please don't disingenuously suggest that I'm repeating myself. This is the first time that I have written about Abhisit's show of mock bravado during the BBC interview being in bad taste given the deaths of so many in 2010 who didn't have the luxury of a trial or a platform to explain their motivation or actions.

How does anyone have the "right" to be at an illegal assembly?

Because it was an entirely legal assembly UNTIL Abhisit well, lets see first he said foreigners attending would be arrested and then he declared a state of Emergency after some suspicious explosions went off conveniently around Bangkok.

No witnesses, no working CCTV, no injuries except at Poseidon Massage (hi-so knocking shop) where a car bomb exploded seriously injuring the bomber.

Abhisit's then Minister for Commerce only previous work experience was working for her mother as a Madame in their Poseidon Massage parlour.

"lets see first he said foreigners attending would be arrested and then he declared a state of Emergency after some suspicious explosions went off conveniently around Bangkok"

You mean these?

1) the firing of an M79 into the 11th Infantry Regiment on January 28, 2010;

2) the firing of grenades during the incidents at Kok Wua intersection on April 10, 2010, which caused 5 deaths of soldiers (including that of Col Romklao);

3) the firing into the oil depot at Prathum Thani on April 21, 2010;

4) the firing of an M79 into the BTS station at Sala-Daeng on April 22, 2010, which caused 2 deaths and 78 injuries;

5) the firing of 3 RPGs into Dusit-Thani Hotel on May 17, 2010);

6) the firing attack into the police flat at Lumpini Police Station on May 19, 2010, causing deaths and injuries of police officers and their families;

7) the firing of an M16 on police officers and soldiers in front of the Krung Thai Bank, Sala-Daeng Branch, on May 7, 2010, which caused 1 death and 2 injuries of policemen;

8) the firing into the UCL building on May 14, 2010, causing 1 deaths and 4 injuries of police officers

We're straying off topic here but I'd like to point out that not only did the protesters, bystanders and journalists have a choice to be there, they had a RIGHT to be there. Similarly they had a RIGHT to protection from the authorities and not aggression. They had a right to be protected from any violent elements not simply branded as terrorists because a minority were acting like them.

Elections hadn't been promised prior to the protests and a late change of heart by Abhisit, only when faced with a mass occupation of the city, to grant the citizens their democratic right to vote (but only at a time of his choosing) didn't appease the situation.... perhaps too little, too late?

I'd also like to point out that I made a single post that actually addressed the topic at hand and gave my thoughts on Abhisit's interview with the BBC. Please don't disingenuously suggest that I'm repeating myself. This is the first time that I have written about Abhisit's show of mock bravado during the BBC interview being in bad taste given the deaths of so many in 2010 who didn't have the luxury of a trial or a platform to explain their motivation or actions.

How does anyone have the "right" to be at an illegal assembly?

Because it was an entirely legal assembly UNTIL Abhisit well, lets see first he said foreigners attending would be arrested and then he declared a state of Emergency after some suspicious explosions went off conveniently around Bangkok.

No witnesses, no working CCTV, no injuries except at Poseidon Massage (hi-so knocking shop) where a car bomb exploded seriously injuring the bomber.

Abhisit's then Minister for Commerce only previous work experience was working for her mother as a Madame in their Poseidon Massage parlour.

It was never an legal assembly. A six week occupation of down-town Bangkok in not legal. Have you ever heard about rights of people affected by those protests?

They were allowed to protest (for a long period of time) but at areas designated to them by the authorities

Just like what happened a few weeks ago. There were over a hundred arrests within 2 hours because they tried to go to areas they were not allowed to go to. Very simple.

Nevertheless, I am curious to hear why YOU think it was an entirely legal assembly.

Because I went there with friends!

A thai man came up to me and shook my hand.

There were police there. It was all very relaxed.

It was well organised but it was like cup final day at Wembley but the numbers were huge.

Before Abhisit declared it illegal for farang to attend.

Saw nick Nostitz there.

So you have 150,000 people gathered at the Democracy Monument and it was a legal demonstration and what did Abhisit do?

He ignored it.

He assumed they would all get bored and slope off.

So they didn't go and the demonstration spread.

Abhisit went and hid out in a military barracks.

So control then passed to the military and we ended up with the events of April 10th.

Then after that the redshirts went to Rachprasong and their numbers grew to 250,000.

Because I went there with friends!

A thai man came up to me and shook my hand.

There were police there. It was all very relaxed.

I went there everyday as i worked in Central World at the time.

Every time i tried to enter the protest site to get to work, i was stopped by the guards and they tried to search me - i was held at gun point by several Thai men when i tried to refuse.

My female staff were groped and grabbed by the guards and they got angry and aggressive when the girls complained or tried to resist. The whole place smelled of p*ss and sh*t after a week or two...

There were no police there and it was far from relaxed and friendly...

I wonder which protest site you went to, it wasn't the same one i had to walk through everyday...

The worst thing that could happen to PT is if AV goes to jail. His awkward, unlikeable demeanour and complete lack of ability to relate to the lower classes is one of the main reasons the Dems are perennial losers. PT should be fighting tooth & nail to keep him out of jail.

Kind of reminds us of a very recent election... uncanny parallelisms!

Because I went there with friends!

A thai man came up to me and shook my hand.

There were police there. It was all very relaxed.

I went there everyday as i worked in Central World at the time.

Every time i tried to enter the protest site to get to work, i was stopped by the guards and they tried to search me - i was held at gun point by several Thai men when i tried to refuse.

My female staff were groped and grabbed by the guards and they got angry and aggressive when the girls complained or tried to resist. The whole place smelled of p*ss and sh*t after a week or two...

There were no police there and it was far from relaxed and friendly...

I wonder which protest site you went to, it wasn't the same one i had to walk through everyday...

What absolute rubbish. why lie?