OzMick Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Interesting legal precedent, that "the verbal attack between the two was just politics" , and is therefore not seen as legal grounds for defamation. Wonder how many other cases this might also be true of ? My thought also... IF it becomes a new defacto standard for ALL SIDES. I wonder if Thaksin is listening? Though I doubt he cares, he uses charges as harrasment anyway, not just with any expectation of winning. As Jatuporn is no longer a politician but merely an alleged criminal on bail, will any further defamation receive the same response? Is this open slather for any Thai citizen to spout defamatory lies about politicians, or does it only apply to certain MPs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) As I am ignorant of just how the Thai courts work, I would appreciate it if someone would educate me (with facts, not opinions no matter how strongly felt): Does the composition of the courts change with a change in the PM? During Abhisit's reign as PM, there were a number of decisions that seemed politically motivated against the opposition, including the down-right hilarious removal of a sitting PM for appearing on a TV cooking show. Are these the same judges that are now being accused of political bias in the other direction? Is there a separation between the legislative, execuitve, and judicial branches? After the coup there was a military government. After the elections came Thaksins lackey Samak who was removed from being PM after 233 days not for the cooking show but being paid for it.Thai law does not permit the PM to hold another job. The PPP could have re-elected Samak but instead chose (perhaps on orders from above) but instead chose Thaksins brother in law Somchai who was PM for 75 days before bein dismissed and the party dissolved for electoral fraud. He was followed by a caretaker PM Chaovarat for 13 days and the PPP was unable to get a coalition together. Abhisist and the Democrats could and did and they were in power for 2 years 231 days before losing the general election. Abhisit was followed by Yingluck on 23rd August 2011 to date. I found this information through Google and a list of Prime Ministers or Thailand. In theory there is a separation between the legislative, execuitve, and judicial branches but each party that comes to power wants it own family, friends and cronies in important places to make their own life easier and safer. I hope that clears a few things for you. In addition, prior to Temp. PM Chaovarat Somchai KNEW he and his party leadership would go down, yet failed to disolve parliament and call a snap election. This might well have returned PTP to power, with a coalition But, I suspect, from some of-kilter calculation of new-party birth date, and 90 day rule, not believing it actually would happen, and/or god knows what other mental brain freeze ensued, they did NOT dispolve parliament, PM Chaovarat did not really have the POWER to do so, forcing a 'within the parliament election by MPs. Edited December 28, 2012 by animatic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatorsoft Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Read the quote again. He's trying to tell us that during Abhisits reign as PM the sitting PM was removed from office. Frankly he should go back to sleep, he's not making a lot of sense. Right you are! I mispoke about the timing of that one. Actually the fact that it happened when Samak was the PM should serve to refute the claims that political pressure drives the courts decisions. Anything worthwhile to contribute beyond belittling me, or should you go back to sleep? As you based your entire argument that there were "a number of decisions that seemed politically motivated against the opposition" on that one, incorrect, incident, I'll belittle you no further. You're doing a more than adequate job of that yourself. 555! Touche! If you ever have anything real to contribute, you might just be worth reading. My question about the courts was a serious one. How are the members of the court selected? Are they beholden to the sitting government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatorsoft Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 As I am ignorant of just how the Thai courts work, I would appreciate it if someone would educate me (with facts, not opinions no matter how strongly felt): Does the composition of the courts change with a change in the PM? During Abhisit's reign as PM, there were a number of decisions that seemed politically motivated against the opposition, including the down-right hilarious removal of a sitting PM for appearing on a TV cooking show. Are these the same judges that are now being accused of political bias in the other direction? Is there a separation between the legislative, execuitve, and judicial branches? After the coup there was a military government. After the elections came Thaksins lackey Samak who was removed from being PM after 233 days not for the cooking show but being paid for it.Thai law does not permit the PM to hold another job. The PPP could have re-elected Samak but instead chose (perhaps on orders from above) but instead chose Thaksins brother in law Somchai who was PM for 75 days before bein dismissed and the party dissolved for electoral fraud. He was followed by a caretaker PM Chaovarat for 13 days and the PPP was unable to get a coalition together. Abhisist and the Democrats could and did and they were in power for 2 years 231 days before losing the general election. Abhisit was followed by Yingluck on 23rd August 2011 to date. I found this information through Google and a list of Prime Ministers or Thailand. In theory there is a separation between the legislative, execuitve, and judicial branches but each party that comes to power wants it own family, friends and cronies in important places to make their own life easier and safer. I hope that clears a few things for you. You provide some good information justifying what at least looked like politically motivated decisions, but I still wonder about how court members are selected, how long are their terms, do they have reason to fear reprisals from the sitting government, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWMcMurray Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Interesting legal precedent, that "the verbal attack between the two was just politics" , and is therefore not seen as legal grounds for defamation.Wonder how many other cases this might also be true of ? This is a great precedent, as the deflation laws are way to strong in Thailand (my opinion), so anything that weakens them in any way is ok my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muttley Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Commenting on the killing of Army officer Romklao Thuwatham during the 2010 mayhem, Tarit said the DSI was in process of applying for warrants to arrest three suspects, known as "unidentifed forces", which means they were not soldiers in charge of crowd control nor those linked to the red shirts. If they are "unidentified", how is it possible to rule out who they were and who they weren't linked to? The third hand card is such a cop out, and played so often. The 2010 protests consisted of two sides. The government side and the red shirt side. The side trying to restore order, and the side trying to create disorder. Yes there were and are different factions to the red side, but they were and are still part of the same general group. Attempts to now distinguish them as separate entities is just a tactic aimed at fencing off and restricting possible culpability for wrong-doing. Even the Human Rights organisation who have considerable knowledge and experience of this sort of thing couldn't decide whether the "third hand" were acting for and on behalf of the red shirts, offering differing viewpoints in their report, so it plainly presumptious that you think you know what the truth of the matter is. But that's bias for you. Some things might be blatantly obvious in life - in this case it was blatantly obvious what side the erroneously termed "third hand" was on and what their goals were - but that doesn't mean it is easy to prove. And that is what reports tend to be about. Putting together evidence and proving stuff. Doing this is Thailand is difficult enough at the best of times, but in times of all out anarchy and chaos, even more so. I'm not surprised if Human Rights found it hard to prove anything. Doesn't change the logical conclusions most would arrive at. As for "bias", please do leave off. Get the ridiculous bias out of your posts before you go pointing fingers at others. What you call my "ridiculous bias" I call my point of view. I do not pretend to hide it unlike a few on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatorsoft Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 During Abhisit's reign as PM, there were a number of decisions that seemed politically motivated against the opposition, including the down-right hilarious removal of a sitting PM for appearing on a TV cooking show. The fact that it was a "cooking show" is played up every time by red shirt sympathisers to try and trivialise it. The cooking show part is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the PM had a second job, never mind what the job was, and he was being paid for that job. This is not allowed. This is reasonable wouldn't you say?. What is also relevant is that the PM lied in court. This is a serious thing for a PM to do, agreed? He was made to stand down from his job only, and could have been voted back into the job the very next day. Thaksin decided otherwise. Gee, I was hoping that you actually could shed some light on why a court that made decisions you liked 2 years ago, now is politically motivated and biased. Hope all you like. You stated about a down-right hilarious removal of a sitting PM, i responded to that part of your post. If you don't want something you type to be responded to, here's a tip, don't type it. By all means, I encourage anyone to respond to my posts. And I appreciate my mistake being pointed out to me. I am surprised that someone who at least occassionally seems to put some thought into his posts chooses to respond in the manner that you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSlatersParrot Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 As I am ignorant of just how the Thai courts work, I would appreciate it if someone would educate me (with facts, not opinions no matter how strongly felt): Does the composition of the courts change with a change in the PM? During Abhisit's reign as PM, there were a number of decisions that seemed politically motivated against the opposition, including the down-right hilarious removal of a sitting PM for appearing on a TV cooking show. Are these the same judges that are now being accused of political bias in the other direction? Is there a separation between the legislative, execuitve, and judicial branches? After the coup there was a military government. After the elections came Thaksins lackey Samak who was removed from being PM after 233 days not for the cooking show but being paid for it.Thai law does not permit the PM to hold another job. The PPP could have re-elected Samak but instead chose (perhaps on orders from above) but instead chose Thaksins brother in law Somchai who was PM for 75 days before bein dismissed and the party dissolved for electoral fraud. He was followed by a caretaker PM Chaovarat for 13 days and the PPP was unable to get a coalition together. Abhisist and the Democrats could and did and they were in power for 2 years 231 days before losing the general election. Abhisit was followed by Yingluck on 23rd August 2011 to date. I found this information through Google and a list of Prime Ministers or Thailand. In theory there is a separation between the legislative, execuitve, and judicial branches but each party that comes to power wants it own family, friends and cronies in important places to make their own life easier and safer. I hope that clears a few things for you. In addition, prior to Temp. PM Chaovarat Somchai KNEW he and his party leadership would go down, yet failed to disolve parliament and call a snap election. This might well have returned PTP to power, with a coalition But, I suspect, from some of-kilter calculation of new-party birth date, and 90 day rule, not believing it actually would happen, and/or god knows what other mental brain freeze ensued, they did NOT dispolve parliament, PM Chaovarat did not really have the POWER to do so, forcing a 'within the parliament election by MPs. You may remember that at that time PM Chaovarat Somchai KNEW that the Airport was occupied by the yellow shirts. It was more important for the constitutional court to dissolve the ruling government, elected in december 2007, just shy of an overall majority, over the 20,000 baht paid to opposition parties by PPP in the south to canvas for votes for their parties than to remove the yellow shirts and to allow 300,000 tourists free passage. A political party pays opposition parties to get votes to tally against themselves. Only in Thailand. You of course supported the seizure of the airport. You've been here too long. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSlatersParrot Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 As I am ignorant of just how the Thai courts work, I would appreciate it if someone would educate me (with facts, not opinions no matter how strongly felt): Does the composition of the courts change with a change in the PM? During Abhisit's reign as PM, there were a number of decisions that seemed politically motivated against the opposition, including the down-right hilarious removal of a sitting PM for appearing on a TV cooking show. Are these the same judges that are now being accused of political bias in the other direction? Is there a separation between the legislative, execuitve, and judicial branches? After the coup there was a military government. After the elections came Thaksins lackey Samak who was removed from being PM after 233 days not for the cooking show but being paid for it.Thai law does not permit the PM to hold another job. The PPP could have re-elected Samak but instead chose (perhaps on orders from above) but instead chose Thaksins brother in law Somchai who was PM for 75 days before bein dismissed and the party dissolved for electoral fraud. He was followed by a caretaker PM Chaovarat for 13 days and the PPP was unable to get a coalition together. Abhisist and the Democrats could and did and they were in power for 2 years 231 days before losing the general election. Abhisit was followed by Yingluck on 23rd August 2011 to date. I found this information through Google and a list of Prime Ministers or Thailand. In theory there is a separation between the legislative, execuitve, and judicial branches but each party that comes to power wants it own family, friends and cronies in important places to make their own life easier and safer. I hope that clears a few things for you. You provide some good information justifying what at least looked like politically motivated decisions, but I still wonder about how court members are selected, how long are their terms, do they have reason to fear reprisals from the sitting government, etc? I think it's fair to say that any grouping in Thailand that can be considered "of the elite" by definition will be yellow/royalist. The lawyers council of Thailand is certainly thought of that way. Having said that the judiciary on the whole is weak They are clearly perceived by the majority of the population as corruptible. the constitutional court (appointed by the junta) are clearly powerful but it is clear from not least the leaked videos where their political allegiance lies. The police are the one group whose sympathies cannot be clearly divined. Good or bad they act independently and as such are much maligned by the yellow shirts because their sympathies aren't clear. Make of that what you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatsujin Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I agree with you. Unidentified means unidentified. Doesn't mean they were and doesn't mean they weren't. Yet you find your beliefs to be "blatantly obvious" which doesn't make much sense to me. I am saying that it is blatantly obvious to me who they were connected to, but i'm not saying it is a proven fact. Tarit has stated as fact that this "third hand" group is not linked to the reds. Surprised that the emphasis of your post is to disagree with what i am saying, and not what Tarit has said... or perhaps i'm not.. Well, the problem is as I see it, that these 3rd parties were all wearing black, and that's rather confused some people on here . . . because of course, you can only be a red/yellow/green/blue supporter or proponent if you are wearing the appropriately colored t-shirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I agree with you. Unidentified means unidentified. Doesn't mean they were and doesn't mean they weren't. Yet you find your beliefs to be "blatantly obvious" which doesn't make much sense to me. I am saying that it is blatantly obvious to me who they were connected to, but i'm not saying it is a proven fact. Tarit has stated as fact that this "third hand" group is not linked to the reds. Surprised that the emphasis of your post is to disagree with what i am saying, and not what Tarit has said... or perhaps i'm not.. Well, the problem is as I see it, that these 3rd parties were all wearing black, and that's rather confused some people on here . . . because of course, you can only be a red/yellow/green/blue supporter or proponent if you are wearing the appropriately colored t-shirt. Yes it is amazing how for some the simple fact that they wore a different colour shirt creates all this mystery about whose side they were on and what their obvious links were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatsujin Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 As I am ignorant of just how the Thai courts work, I would appreciate it if someone would educate me (with facts, not opinions no matter how strongly felt): Does the composition of the courts change with a change in the PM? During Abhisit's reign as PM, there were a number of decisions that seemed politically motivated against the opposition, including the down-right hilarious removal of a sitting PM for appearing on a TV cooking show. Are these the same judges that are now being accused of political bias in the other direction? Is there a separation between the legislative, execuitve, and judicial branches? Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Justice, and Supreme Administrative Court; all judges are appointed by the king; the king's appointments to the Constitutional Court are made upon the advice of the Senate; the nine Constitutional Court judges are drawn from the Supreme Court of Justice and Supreme Administrative Court as well as from among substantive experts in law and social sciences outside the judiciary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunken Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 As I am ignorant of just how the Thai courts work, I would appreciate it if someone would educate me (with facts, not opinions no matter how strongly felt): Does the composition of the courts change with a change in the PM? During Abhisit's reign as PM, there were a number of decisions that seemed politically motivated against the opposition, including the down-right hilarious removal of a sitting PM for appearing on a TV cooking show. Are these the same judges that are now being accused of political bias in the other direction? Is there a separation between the legislative, execuitve, and judicial branches? After the coup there was a military government. After the elections came Thaksins lackey Samak who was removed from being PM after 233 days not for the cooking show but being paid for it.Thai law does not permit the PM to hold another job. The PPP could have re-elected Samak but instead chose (perhaps on orders from above) but instead chose Thaksins brother in law Somchai who was PM for 75 days before bein dismissed and the party dissolved for electoral fraud. He was followed by a caretaker PM Chaovarat for 13 days and the PPP was unable to get a coalition together. Abhisist and the Democrats could and did and they were in power for 2 years 231 days before losing the general election. Abhisit was followed by Yingluck on 23rd August 2011 to date. I found this information through Google and a list of Prime Ministers or Thailand. In theory there is a separation between the legislative, execuitve, and judicial branches but each party that comes to power wants it own family, friends and cronies in important places to make their own life easier and safer. I hope that clears a few things for you. In addition, prior to Temp. PM Chaovarat Somchai KNEW he and his party leadership would go down, yet failed to disolve parliament and call a snap election. This might well have returned PTP to power, with a coalition But, I suspect, from some of-kilter calculation of new-party birth date, and 90 day rule, not believing it actually would happen, and/or god knows what other mental brain freeze ensued, they did NOT dispolve parliament, PM Chaovarat did not really have the POWER to do so, forcing a 'within the parliament election by MPs. You may remember that at that time PM Chaovarat Somchai KNEW that the Airport was occupied by the yellow shirts. It was more important for the constitutional court to dissolve the ruling government, elected in december 2007, just shy of an overall majority, over the 20,000 baht paid to opposition parties by PPP in the south to canvas for votes for their parties than to remove the yellow shirts and to allow 300,000 tourists free passage. A political party pays opposition parties to get votes to tally against themselves. Only in Thailand. You of course supported the seizure of the airport. You've been here too long. I don't know what point you are trying to make here. The occupation of the airport had nothing to do with Somchai's government bribery efforts. It's up to the police to deal with protests - or fail to do so as in this incident. (They failed again later but that's another story). The courts are there to rule on matters of law, whether it's political corruption or criminal cases. They did their job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatorsoft Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 As I am ignorant of just how the Thai courts work, I would appreciate it if someone would educate me (with facts, not opinions no matter how strongly felt): Does the composition of the courts change with a change in the PM? During Abhisit's reign as PM, there were a number of decisions that seemed politically motivated against the opposition, including the down-right hilarious removal of a sitting PM for appearing on a TV cooking show. Are these the same judges that are now being accused of political bias in the other direction? Is there a separation between the legislative, execuitve, and judicial branches? Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Justice, and Supreme Administrative Court; all judges are appointed by the king; the king's appointments to the Constitutional Court are made upon the advice of the Senate; the nine Constitutional Court judges are drawn from the Supreme Court of Justice and Supreme Administrative Court as well as from among substantive experts in law and social sciences outside the judiciary. This would seem to suggest that the courts are rather immune from political influence (as they should be), so I have a hard time understanding the accusations of political motivation and bias that some posters seem to feel exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunken Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 As I am ignorant of just how the Thai courts work, I would appreciate it if someone would educate me (with facts, not opinions no matter how strongly felt): Does the composition of the courts change with a change in the PM? During Abhisit's reign as PM, there were a number of decisions that seemed politically motivated against the opposition, including the down-right hilarious removal of a sitting PM for appearing on a TV cooking show. Are these the same judges that are now being accused of political bias in the other direction? Is there a separation between the legislative, execuitve, and judicial branches? After the coup there was a military government. After the elections came Thaksins lackey Samak who was removed from being PM after 233 days not for the cooking show but being paid for it.Thai law does not permit the PM to hold another job. The PPP could have re-elected Samak but instead chose (perhaps on orders from above) but instead chose Thaksins brother in law Somchai who was PM for 75 days before bein dismissed and the party dissolved for electoral fraud. He was followed by a caretaker PM Chaovarat for 13 days and the PPP was unable to get a coalition together. Abhisist and the Democrats could and did and they were in power for 2 years 231 days before losing the general election. Abhisit was followed by Yingluck on 23rd August 2011 to date. I found this information through Google and a list of Prime Ministers or Thailand. In theory there is a separation between the legislative, execuitve, and judicial branches but each party that comes to power wants it own family, friends and cronies in important places to make their own life easier and safer. I hope that clears a few things for you. You provide some good information justifying what at least looked like politically motivated decisions, but I still wonder about how court members are selected, how long are their terms, do they have reason to fear reprisals from the sitting government, etc? I think it's fair to say that any grouping in Thailand that can be considered "of the elite" by definition will be yellow/royalist. The lawyers council of Thailand is certainly thought of that way. Having said that the judiciary on the whole is weak They are clearly perceived by the majority of the population as corruptible. the constitutional court (appointed by the junta) are clearly powerful but it is clear from not least the leaked videos where their political allegiance lies. The police are the one group whose sympathies cannot be clearly divined. Good or bad they act independently and as such are much maligned by the yellow shirts because their sympathies aren't clear. Make of that what you will. Rubbish. Elite is a word bandied about so much, mainly by red shirts, that it has no meaning. Their (becoming more & more - former) 'god' is & was an elite leader who fell from grace because of greed. You obviously know nothing about the Lawyers Council who have defended very poor individuals for free. Only blinkered idiots would accuse the whole body of being 'elite'. The judges are mixed - some are strong & incorruptable (e.g. the ones Thaksin tried to bribe in his last attended court case) & others are not. More or less a reflection of Thai society overall. They are viewed much more favourably than the police. Your comments on the BIB reflect total ignorance of how they are viewed by Thais. They are feared because they are the most corrupt body in the country - yes even more so that PTP. Just about everyone has had a bad experience with them, very ofter extortion-related. As for their political stance - red through & through. One only has to see what they did in 2010 - walk away from upholding the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbamboo Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 As I am ignorant of just how the Thai courts work, I would appreciate it if someone would educate me (with facts, not opinions no matter how strongly felt): Does the composition of the courts change with a change in the PM? During Abhisit's reign as PM, there were a number of decisions that seemed politically motivated against the opposition, including the down-right hilarious removal of a sitting PM for appearing on a TV cooking show. Are these the same judges that are now being accused of political bias in the other direction? Is there a separation between the legislative, execuitve, and judicial branches? Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Justice, and Supreme Administrative Court; all judges are appointed by the king; the king's appointments to the Constitutional Court are made upon the advice of the Senate; the nine Constitutional Court judges are drawn from the Supreme Court of Justice and Supreme Administrative Court as well as from among substantive experts in law and social sciences outside the judiciary. This would seem to suggest that the courts are rather immune from political influence (as they should be), so I have a hard time understanding the accusations of political motivation and bias that some posters seem to feel exist. The courts immune from political influence? Now that would be amazing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waza Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 As I am ignorant of just how the Thai courts work, I would appreciate it if someone would educate me (with facts, not opinions no matter how strongly felt): Does the composition of the courts change with a change in the PM? During Abhisit's reign as PM, there were a number of decisions that seemed politically motivated against the opposition, including the down-right hilarious removal of a sitting PM for appearing on a TV cooking show. Are these the same judges that are now being accused of political bias in the other direction? Is there a separation between the legislative, execuitve, and judicial branches? Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Justice, and Supreme Administrative Court; all judges are appointed by the king; the king's appointments to the Constitutional Court are made upon the advice of the Senate; the nine Constitutional Court judges are drawn from the Supreme Court of Justice and Supreme Administrative Court as well as from among substantive experts in law and social sciences outside the judiciary. This would seem to suggest that the courts are rather immune from political influence (as they should be), so I have a hard time understanding the accusations of political motivation and bias that some posters seem to feel exist. I think it started with Thaksins claim that his conviction was politically motivated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatorsoft Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 And is now continued by your side of the argument? If you found it absurd then, why would you embrace it now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waza Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 And is now continued by your side of the argument? If you found it absurd then, why would you embrace it now? My side? Aston Villa? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I think it's fair to say that any grouping in Thailand that can be considered "of the elite" by definition will be yellow/royalist. The lawyers council of Thailand is certainly thought of that way. Having said that the judiciary on the whole is weak They are clearly perceived by the majority of the population as corruptible. the constitutional court (appointed by the junta) are clearly powerful but it is clear from not least the leaked videos where their political allegiance lies. The police are the one group whose sympathies cannot be clearly divined. Good or bad they act independently and as such are much maligned by the yellow shirts because their sympathies aren't clear. Make of that what you will. "They are clearly perceived by the majority of the population as corruptible." They are certainly perceived by Thaksin and his lawyers as corruptible, as seen by their attempts to bribe them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatorsoft Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 And is now continued by your side of the argument? If you found it absurd then, why would you embrace it now? My side? Aston Villa? 555, Was you career in politics a long one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post khunken Posted December 28, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted December 28, 2012 And is now continued by your side of the argument? If you found it absurd then, why would you embrace it now? A little more help to clear up your misunderstanding. The body called the DSI - supposedly a branch of the police to investigate serious criminal cases - is being used by the PTP on Thaksin's instructions to carry out a witch-hunt on the opposition leader because he refuses to be a good boy and accept a Thaksin amnesty for the conviction & all outstanding cases of corruption against him before the courts. Only the red-shirts & supporters are accusing (& supporting intimidating against) the courts. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatorsoft Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 And is now continued by your side of the argument? If you found it absurd then, why would you embrace it now? A little more help to clear up your misunderstanding. The body called the DSI - supposedly a branch of the police to investigate serious criminal cases - is being used by the PTP on Thaksin's instructions to carry out a witch-hunt on the opposition leader because he refuses to be a good boy and accept a Thaksin amnesty for the conviction & all outstanding cases of corruption against him before the courts. Only the red-shirts & supporters are accusing (& supporting intimidating against) the courts. So you accept the 34 year sentence against the PAD member as not being politically motivated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunken Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 And is now continued by your side of the argument? If you found it absurd then, why would you embrace it now? A little more help to clear up your misunderstanding. The body called the DSI - supposedly a branch of the police to investigate serious criminal cases - is being used by the PTP on Thaksin's instructions to carry out a witch-hunt on the opposition leader because he refuses to be a good boy and accept a Thaksin amnesty for the conviction & all outstanding cases of corruption against him before the courts. Only the red-shirts & supporters are accusing (& supporting intimidating against) the courts. So you accept the 34 year sentence against the PAD member as not being politically motivated? What sentence against what PAD member? Can't answer because I don't know what you are referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 "Jatuporn was sued for a speech he made during a rally on May 10, 2009, accusing the then-premier of ordering soldiers to use lethal force in a crackdown against protesters that April, around the time Abhisit's car was attacked by red shirts. In a democratic system, "such a verbal attack cannot be regarded as defamation in accordance with the Penal Code", the court said." One problem is that Thailand does not have a democratic system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatorsoft Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) And is now continued by your side of the argument? If you found it absurd then, why would you embrace it now? A little more help to clear up your misunderstanding. The body called the DSI - supposedly a branch of the police to investigate serious criminal cases - is being used by the PTP on Thaksin's instructions to carry out a witch-hunt on the opposition leader because he refuses to be a good boy and accept a Thaksin amnesty for the conviction & all outstanding cases of corruption against him before the courts. Only the red-shirts & supporters are accusing (& supporting intimidating against) the courts. So you accept the 34 year sentence against the PAD member as not being politically motivated? What sentence against what PAD member? Can't answer because I don't know what you are referring to. Sorry, I don't know how to direct you to the news story. A PAD member that was injured by a tear gas grenade (injuries that ultimately led to him being blinded) drove his truck into a gathering of 5 policemen and broke the leg of one in the process. He was found guilty and given a suspended sentence that was just changed on appeal to a 34 year sentence. This is admittedly off the original post topic, but I think is relevant in light of the continuing dicussion. Edited December 28, 2012 by gatorsoft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred007 Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 When is Thailand going to grow up and Deal With Real Issues facing this Country Instead of Petty rubbish served up on daily basis. I think the people of Thailand have had a Gut Full of Childish Political Accusations year in year out ...I know i have . .....How about dealing with real issues in 2013 please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirchai Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Even foreigners might know the differences between them.-- . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunken Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 To Gatorsoft, post no: 56: Have to do it this way because of 'exceeded the number of posts' error. OK - that is another current thread. I support anyone breaking the law to face charges & be found guilty by a court. 34 years is completely over the top (but I don't know how much politics were involved) when you look at comparable cases. Check out another thread where 10 years was the sentence for being responsible for a number of deaths: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/608019-four-thais-jailed-over-54-myanmar-migrant-deaths/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrFloyd Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 When is Thailand going to grow up and Deal With Real Issues facing this Country Instead of Petty rubbish served up on daily basis. I think the people of Thailand have had a Gut Full of Childish Political Accusations year in year out ...I know i have . .....How about dealing with real issues in 2013 please I think we all know the answer to this question . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now