Water cannons, rubber bullets are considered non-lethal force as opposed to live ammunition which is considered lethal force. Non-lethal force does not mean there will not be deaths, just that the force used is meant to be non-lethal (even in well trained hands). Any use of force can always be lethal - even protesters storming a building can be lethal if in the rush they knock over someone and they land the wrong way (same with water cannons).

BTW, The use of irritant in water is standard and is also considered non-lethal force in the same manner that tear gas is.

Deputy Prime Minister Pracha Promnok on Saturday reiterated that the govenrment would not use force to disperse the anti-government demonstrations, calling on protest leaders to negotiate an end to the political turmoil.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/685573-government-reiterates-will-not-apply-force-to-disperse-protesters/

Lol !!

They have used force to protect government offices that were under siege. They stepped over the line from being protesters to violence just by trying to "storm" government offices, just as non-lethal force is force - storming offices is force. If the protesters were just protesting outside the buildings I would agree with your statement....

Yingluck and her CAPO (di tutti CAPI) keep on repeating that they will abide by international standards of riot control. They have plenty of latitude to choose Chinese standards that permit the use of explosive tear gas grenades fired from shotguns and wooden staves used on farmers, Kyrgyzstani or Burmese standards that permit the massacre of minorities, Ukrainian or Russian standards that permit just about anything. Looking towards the Western world she could apply US standards as exemplified by the Ohio National Guard that successfully suppressed a peaceful protest at Kent State University in 1970 leaving 4 dead, or closer to home,take a leaf from the Korean book which permitted the massacre of 165 students at Gwangju University in order to restore order in 1980.

Which is to be Yingluck? Please don’t say you don't know anything about this but you have assigned officials to study the issue.

By quoting all these so-called 'standards', which are really just straw-man quotes, you only reveal your complete bias. The Kent State shooting in the US occurred during a student demonstration and everyone now agrees that it should not have happened. Moreover, at the time immediately after that shootings, hundreds of college campuses in the US were shut-down by students protesting the shoots and there was also a big march on Washington DC. The entire affair brought a complete change in how police handle protesting crowds. PM Yingluck seems to have learned (as Abhisit did not) that non-violent, ie., non-shooting, methods of crowd control are infinity better.

I don't really agree about Abhisit. In 2009, if you remember, he thwarted Thaksin's intentions by clearing the red shirt protestors without lethal force. Thaksin clearly hoped for a violent suppression and went on TV shrieking about piles of bodies, only to find out later that the body count had failed to materialise according to plan and that he had made a fool of himself. The next year they needed to be absolutely sure the same thing would not happen again, so the men in black were inserted into the equation to guarantee live fire from the troops. The red shirt leaders, knowing what was planned, disingenuously told their cannon fodder supporters that, as in 2009, troops would not be issued live ammunition, so that this time there was no need to flee when they heard rifle fire as the red leaders could guarantee it would only be blank ammunition. Then the red leaders used the well known IRA tactic of having their gunmen fire on the troops from within the crowd. A very effective strategy for someone who is totally ruthless and self-obsessed and can't spell the word "defeat".

Just saw some nasty shots on Channel 7 of protestors choking on tear gas and wounded with rubber bullets that piece the skin.  The reporter was quoting medics saying the authorities have mixed a chemical in the water fired by the water cannons that causes extremely itching and bleeding from the nose. 

 

 

No , that's just normal tap water

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

Time to move the mechanics of government to Chiang Mai?

No thanks. It's high season, don't you know.... There's no room at the inn.

You may well be right. I'll be there in 3 weeks time. Don't want it too crowded with appalling-driving Bangkokians.

"PM" (I use the term very loosely) Yingluck and her cronies are not under fire. Abhisit and his forces were...!!

The major difference being that Abhisit was not the democratically elected leader of the country but a johnny come lately after his friends in the judiciary banned PPP (Peua Thai's name at the time)

Water cannons, rubber bullets are considered non-lethal force as opposed to live ammunition which is considered lethal force. Non-lethal force does not mean there will not be deaths, just that the force used is meant to be non-lethal (even in well trained hands). Any use of force can always be lethal - even protesters storming a building can be lethal if in the rush they knock over someone and they land the wrong way (same with water cannons).

BTW, The use of irritant in water is standard and is also considered non-lethal force in the same manner that tear gas is.

It is Capsicum in the water. You are correct in your assertion that it is not lethal force.

One sober Democrat, Khun Voranai, has branded Suthep as a "false prophet".

The masses in Thailand, as a whole, are intellectually lazy. The "educated" do not even have a good knowledge of their country's history. Specially students cannot be trusted to be reasonable. It takes the brain (the frontal lobe) a minimum of 2 decades to attain full development. So those are the ones that can be easily manipulated by an old wily politico such as Suthep.

The rabid anti-Thaksinistas will say: but is a matter of principles! What principles are those?

Thaksin, a man that few are fond of, was elected to power in an election. It is claimed that votes were purchased.

Has any election in Thailand been any different? Corruption has been endemic and systemic for centuries.

Yingluck was elected in a democratic fashion and that is something the Democrats cannot stand. They hardly ever won an election if any. So, what is their way of attaining power? A coup de etat by the military and a coup of the mob.

But also there is the element that Thailand has always been under autocratic rulers for hundreds of years. Suthep knows that.

Playing the Devil's advocate I ask the enlightened members in this forum: in the event that Suthep and his hordes succeed in toppling the elected government and force YL to step down: who will be the next leader maximus in Thailand? Who will decide how the government will be composed?

After experiencing the trajectory of Suthep an Abhisit, can anyone in the right state of mind expect anything that resembles Democracy and rule of law?

In Thailand you can win an election by 80+ percent but the other 20 percent will try to rule by force. This is not a democratic country. I believe the country is divided between the people living from Tak to Pitsanulok to Ubon and south. The others, the majority who voted for Yingluck and her party, are living from this line north and northeast. Living in Chiang Mai for more than 26 years this is not the first time the north and south were pinned against each other. Talking with locals most feel Lanna should be it's own Kingdom again, It seems evry time the majority wins an election the yellow shirts and people like Suthep and his cronies have a fit and try to shutdown and overthrow the government.

Teargas and rubber bullets...I do not believe, I am saying this, but...it happens everywhere, not only in Thailand!

[Applies to all sides] The accusations that the other side does not abide by the constitution are essentially correct - they it is only to be abided to if it backs up your position. Attempting to overthrow the government using unconstitutional means shows that Suthep is as hypocritical as the worst of them.

Sure would be nice to see an English translation of Suthep's speech.

After the government sneakily rammed the drastically changed amnesty bill through Parliament they deserve all they get.

Brazenly serving a criminal on the run in the desert rather than the country.

If they had any decency they would have resigned, but their skins are made of leather.

http://news.sky.com/story/1176026/thai-pm-flees-building-during-violent-protests

Fleeling to where? She is on the run now..

For those not able to view the UK sky news link; its reporting the Thai PM has fled the police sports club in which she was (hiding) based after protesters breached the security.

I like to see her climbing over the wall behind government house when her brother in law, Somchai Wongsawat was the PM. Unfortunately I didn't save a copy of that photo shot in the local papers.....deja vu...

Teargas and rubber bullets...I do not believe, I am saying this, but...it happens everywhere, not only in Thailand!

Yes, the use of non-lethal force is commonly used when protesters try to storm whatever their target of the protest is. As long as protests are peaceful, the police tend to react as such..... Of course sometimes here they have had a bad habit of using lethal force (live ammunition), which I blame successive governments for since they have not enough properly trained police in crowd / riot control. Calling army in, which is trained in the use of DEADLY force, should not be done for normal policing activities - only in cases of disaster relief (Super-Typhoons, floods etc).

Just saw some nasty shots on Channel 7 of protestors choking on tear gas and wounded with rubber bullets that piece the skin. The reporter was quoting medics saying the authorities have mixed a chemical in the water fired by the water cannons that causes extremely itching and bleeding from the nose.

No , that's just normal tap water

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

from the klong, I presume....mixed up...

Just seen yellow demonstrators with knives on channel 3 news, whose reporter also states that human bones were found in the burnt-out bus on Ramkamhaeng Rd.

The major difference being that Abhisit was not the democratically elected leader of the country but a johnny come lately after his friends in the judiciary banned PPP (Peua Thai's name at the time)

I see you don't have that election process thing quite down yet. The PM is not elected but appointed.

Channel 3 broadcasting long-running comedy show at the moment.

The end game of the coup must surely be just round the corner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Bz_XZP2aI8

just goes to show what the power of people could achieve against governments, you know, the ones that are chipping away at your god given freedoms

Just seen yellow demonstrators with knives on channel 3 news, whose reporter also states that human bones were found in the burnt-out bus on Ramkamhaeng Rd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HcFedj5pgg#t=0

This is the clip about the bus..in Thai

The major difference being that Abhisit was not the democratically elected leader of the country but a johnny come lately after his friends in the judiciary banned PPP (Peua Thai's name at the time)

I see you don't have that election process thing quite down yet. The PM is not elected but appointed.

Appointed is a word that is used for leaders that are selected by a higher authority. The leader of the party is elected from within their own party by it's members based on a party's constitution and the laws of the land. In a parliamentary system (typically) the voters elect the party and the leader at the same -- they cannot be from different parties. Some people will vote just for party, some will vote based on the leader. That is quite different than being appointed or engineered into a position after your party loses the election.

The end game of the coup must surely be just round the corner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Bz_XZP2aI8

What can be seen in this clip is what reporters the world over refer to as a scuffle. It is not a valid reason for a coup, except in the over-optimistic minds of anti-government supporters.

***REPORT JUST IN***

The protesters finally get through the gate at Government House only to find a note on the door that reads:

"GONE SHOPPING.......please come back later"

The major difference being that Abhisit was not the democratically elected leader of the country but a johnny come lately after his friends in the judiciary banned PPP (Peua Thai's name at the time)

I see you don't have that election process thing quite down yet. The PM is not elected but appointed.

Yingluck is a party list MP so not elected to parliament.

Having said that, many of my Thai friends voted PTP as they do not trust the Democrats to make any changes or do anything for anyone but themselves. They believed YL was new and would bring energy for genuine change. All are now bitterly disappointed at how openly she is totally controlled by her brother, the corruption and ineptness within her government and most of all the lies and contempt the people are treated with.

Abhisit may or may not be different. But, for sure he is totally controlled too.

The Thai election process is not the same as the UK's. What does seem sure is that this system will continue to produce the same results with the same group of players.

I don't know what the answer is - but hope it's not more of the same!

The major difference being that Abhisit was not the democratically elected leader of the country but a johnny come lately after his friends in the judiciary banned PPP (Peua Thai's name at the time)

I see you don't have that election process thing quite down yet. The PM is not elected but appointed.

Appointed is a word that is used for leaders that are selected by a higher authority. The leader of the party is elected from within their own party by it's members based on a party's constitution and the laws of the land. In a parliamentary system (typically) the voters elect the party and the leader at the same -- they cannot be from different parties. Some people will vote just for party, some will vote based on the leader. That is quite different than being appointed or engineered into a position after your party loses the election.

The MP's elect the PM and Abhisit was elected by the MP's. Democracy at work according to the rules. Too difficult to understand for millwall_fan?

I just wish there was a Good Guy in all of this. Neither side has shown they should or can run this country

"The protesters also besieged at least three television stations demanding they broadcast the protesters views. The stations executives organised a meeting with representatives of the protesters and they agree to meet their demands."

Red, not red, govt, anti-govt, there appears to be no tolerance for any views of the other side. The stupidity and bigotry of all sides never fails to amaze me.

Doesn't amaze me.

It's all about money and who can get their hands on it.

The major difference being that Abhisit was not the democratically elected leader of the country but a johnny come lately after his friends in the judiciary banned PPP (Peua Thai's name at the time)

I see you don't have that election process thing quite down yet. The PM is not elected but appointed.

Yingluck is a party list MP so not elected to parliament.

Having said that, many of my Thai friends voted PTP as they do not trust the Democrats to make any changes or do anything for anyone but themselves. They believed YL was new and would bring energy for genuine change. All are now bitterly disappointed at how openly she is totally controlled by her brother, the corruption and ineptness within her government and most of all the lies and contempt the people are treated with.

Abhisit may or may not be different. But, for sure he is totally controlled too.

The Thai election process is not the same as the UK's. What does seem sure is that this system will continue to produce the same results with the same group of players.

I don't know what the answer is - but hope it's not more of the same!

Exactly this and hope the same.

I just wish there was a Good Guy in all of this. Neither side has shown they should or can run this country

Enter Kh. Chuwit. Reckon he would get the country working.

And yes, I know his history.

"The protesters also besieged at least three television stations demanding they broadcast the protesters views. The stations executives organised a meeting with representatives of the protesters and they agree to meet their demands."

Red, not red, govt, anti-govt, there appears to be no tolerance for any views of the other side. The stupidity and bigotry of all sides never fails to amaze me.

Doesn't amaze me.

It's all about money and who can get their hands on it.

On reflection, should have said

"appal and disgust me"

rather than amaze.

The major difference being that Abhisit was not the democratically elected leader of the country but a johnny come lately after his friends in the judiciary banned PPP (Peua Thai's name at the time)

I see you don't have that election process thing quite down yet. The PM is not elected but appointed.

Yingluck is a party list MP so not elected to parliament.

Having said that, many of my Thai friends voted PTP as they do not trust the Democrats to make any changes or do anything for anyone but themselves. They believed YL was new and would bring energy for genuine change. All are now bitterly disappointed at how openly she is totally controlled by her brother, the corruption and ineptness within her government and most of all the lies and contempt the people are treated with.

Abhisit may or may not be different. But, for sure he is totally controlled too.

The Thai election process is not the same as the UK's. What does seem sure is that this system will continue to produce the same results with the same group of players.

I don't know what the answer is - but hope it's not more of the same!

Party list MPs are elected to parliament - it is part of a proportional representation system which is preferenced by the "yellow" representatives. In a standard non-proportional system like the UK, Canada etc, Yingluck would have been elected from a riding and have an absolute majority in parliament. The proportional representation is filled out by people on the party-list based on proportion of the overall votes and the first n people on the list go to parliament. In fact it makes no sense in a proportional system for the leader to run in a specific riding since it may end up with the leader losing his/her riding but still being the leader. The leader/party are voted for at the same time. Some people vote party, some people vote leader but that is how the system is designed.