Shutdown is illegal, govt warns

[kimamey]

I must say I have never been a fan of Suthep, but today I will join the protests. I will walk out of my living room, march down the hall, into the toilet and take a dump for deader leader Suthep. I strongly urge everyone else to come out and join me.

Well if we all come you'll need a big toilet. Anyway what's the address and I'll see if we can get a load of us together up here and come down and join you.

[FangFerang]

Best thing for the caretaker government is too lie low. Try to ensure there are as few confrontations as possible.

Let the shutdown proceed and the wait for the people of Bangkok,who will be severely affected,to do the rest.

There you go, making sense again. This is a blog spot. Please conform to spouting one-sided views and ill-conceived notions based on either rumor or misinformation, as is proper. Stop bringing logic and compassion into this drunken argument.

PS: Is satire really dead?

[chooka]

Suthep is baring his naked rear end at the law and doesn't give a <deleted> about laws. He has warrants and struts around like an idiot thinking to himself he god almighty and untouchable

[kimamey]

...

Yet their handling of the Dec 26th ruckus with their 'men in black' on rooftops clearly exacerbating the situation

...

The men in black on the rooftops were clearly unarmed as shown in the photos.

In case you're not aware, most if not all riot police around the world wear black. What do you want them to wear? Pink tutus?

You're basically saying that everyone with black shirts is evil?

So why was it denied and claimed to be protesters?

Slightly off topic but why do the police always have 'police' in English and never in Thai? Isn't there a Thai word for 'police'? Perhaps I've just answered my own question.

[metisdead]

A post using off topic hyperbole has been removed.

[jpeg]

Shinawatras win elections! They are not stupid.

Believe those trying to sneak a bill exonerating wrongdoers of all crimes for the past 7 years at 4.35 am pretty high on the list for a Darwin Award

[Asiantravel]

How can any of these government officials be taken seriously when some of them gave moral and financial support to the protesters that shut down Bangkok in 2010?

In 2010, they were forced to resort to such means just in order to win their democratic right to vote because it was clear from all the interviews he was giving on such new channels as CNN and BBC that Abhisit was going to postpone elections for as long as he could using any excuse that he could

And the same thing would happen again if they were to overthrow the democratic process again

[jpeg]

How can any of these government officials be taken seriously when some of them gave moral and financial support to the protesters that shut down Bangkok in 2010?

As the saying goes 'i'ts water under the bridge'one must look forward not back wards.

'Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it'. Again

[Scamper]

The Thai people have the freedom to walk the streets of their own country. An expression of protest is not only a legal act, it is a right. In terms of peaceful disruption, it is called " civil disobedience ". Thaksin fears the coming massive protest more than anything, and will do everything he can to stop it. Part of that plan is to use one of his time-honoured tactics - fear, threats and intimidation. When the people take to the streets in peaceful protest, it is an act of bravery against an administration that has been defiant to the rule of law. This administration - by its many actions - knows nothing about the rule of law, so lectures to that end are unsurprisingly met with a deaf ear. This is a peaceful protest, despite all the efforts of the administration to paint it otherwise. And this peaceful protest will proceed because it is the right of the people so to do.

[kimamey]

"Shutdown is illegal, govt warns"

Why is it against the law to join the protest? Annoying, disruptive, counter-productive, yes, all of these. But illegal? Is it against the law because it is against PT's wishes?

I would assume that it's illegal because Suthep has not said it would be a simple protest. He has called on people to block traffic in the entire city, cut electricity and water supply.

What part of that seems "legal" to you?

This is the problem. Blocking traffic and trying to shut down the city may or may not be illegal, I'm not an expert on Thai law but protest isn't. How do you decide which path people are taking. If you have enough protesters it will block roads anyway as it always does and did in 2010 whatever the intention. The other problem is what do you do about it? The government has so far to their credit not really tried to confront the protesters too much but this is the same tactic Abhisit tried. Eventually something will have to be done and I suspect the caretaker government is well aware of the dangers that holds.

[GentlemanJim]

How can any of these government officials be taken seriously when some of them gave moral and financial support to the protesters that shut down Bangkok in 2010?

As the saying goes 'i'ts water under the bridge'one must look forward not back wards.

What a pity that little pearl of wisdom is not used in defence of any politician involved in crime, insurrection and killings.

[ggold]

I must say I have never been a fan of Suthep, but today I will join the protests. I will walk out of my living room, march down the hall, into the toilet and take a dump for deader leader Suthep. I strongly urge everyone else to come out and join me.

Put an X on your forehead before you go.

somebody give me a gun!

[daboyz1]

How can any of these government officials be taken seriously when some of them gave moral and financial support to the protesters that shut down Bangkok in 2010?

In 2010, they were forced to resort to such means just in order to win their democratic right to vote because it was clear from all the interviews he was giving on such new channels as CNN and BBC that Abhisit was going to postpone elections for as long as he could using any excuse that he could

And the same thing would happen again if they were to overthrow the democratic process again

How can you postpone an election that was never called? The Abhisit government in 2010 was under no obligation to call elections at the time of the hostage taking of Bangkok. He didn't need to call elections until 2012. As a matter of fact he offered to call them in November 2010, almost 2 years earlier than he needed to in order to appease the red thugs. The red shirts initially accepted this compromise, but then reneged. I suspect the man in Dubai wouldn't be happy unless he got all or nothing. In the end Abhisit called elections a year earlier than he had to. The election actually took place in July 2011. Seems all those people died for nothing in 2010.

Thaivisa should have a pinned topic that explains how elections and parliament works in Thailand. My fingers are getting tired of typing the same thing over and over and over.

[bunny11kk]

Surapong is constantly being caught with his trousers around his ankles.

He is supposed to be head of CAPO 'Centre for the Administration of Peace and Order'

Yet their handling of the Dec 26th ruckus with their 'men in black' on rooftops clearly exacerbating the situation and videos of police willfully vandalizing cars and terrorizing a health worker trapped in her pickup... all under the control of CAPO and their so called role to maintain 'Peace and order'. Not to mention releasing a statement saying the 'men on the roof' were protesters knowing full well that they were police (under THEIR) supposed control.

Then we have daily statements using terms such as 'combined force' and 'strong measures' not to mention 'death penalty'. These are not words of peace and order, these are words of 'INTIMIDATION'.

This CAPO bunch of idiots are almost guaranteed to mess these coming major protests up, this time it won't be a few thousand students, it will be a lot more grave.

The fact is that all these stupid lies from CAPO are for the northern audiences. Intimidation stuff is for the protestors.

CAPO sucks big time

[daboyz1]

How can any of these government officials be taken seriously when some of them gave moral and financial support to the protesters that shut down Bangkok in 2010?

As the saying goes 'i'ts water under the bridge'one must look forward not back wards.

What a pity that little pearl of wisdom is not used in defence of any politician involved in crime, insurrection and killings.

"Your honor, let's not dwell on the hatchet I buried in my wife's forehead. That's water under the bridge. Let's move forward and not look backwards"

Probably wouldn't work as defense.

[FangFerang]

I'm curious, how much did it cost Thailand in 2010?

Economically, not as much as you think. Central World is the only mall that had insurance foer uprisings.

No kidding. Both sides are still puzzling over that one....

[ginjag]

How can any of these government officials be taken seriously when some of them gave moral and financial support to the protesters that shut down Bangkok in 2010?

As the saying goes 'i'ts water under the bridge'one must look forward not back wards.

What a pity that little pearl of wisdom is not used in defence of any politician involved in crime, insurrection and killings.

"Your honor, let's not dwell on the hatchet I buried in my wife's forehead. That's water under the bridge. Let's move forward and not look backwards"

Probably wouldn't work as defense.

But please do not enact on your thoughts

[Emptyset]

How can any of these government officials be taken seriously when some of them gave moral and financial support to the protesters that shut down Bangkok in 2010?

In 2010, they were forced to resort to such means just in order to win their democratic right to vote because it was clear from all the interviews he was giving on such new channels as CNN and BBC that Abhisit was going to postpone elections for as long as he could using any excuse that he could

And the same thing would happen again if they were to overthrow the democratic process again

How can you postpone an election that was never called? The Abhisit government in 2010 was under no obligation to call elections at the time of the hostage taking of Bangkok. He didn't need to call elections until 2012. As a matter of fact he offered to call them in November 2010, almost 2 years earlier than he needed to in order to appease the red thugs. The red shirts initially accepted this compromise, but then reneged. I suspect the man in Dubai wouldn't be happy unless he got all or nothing. In the end Abhisit called elections a year earlier than he had to. The election actually took place in July 2011. Seems all those people died for nothing in 2010.

Thaivisa should have a pinned topic that explains how elections and parliament works in Thailand. My fingers are getting tired of typing the same thing over and over and over.

July 11 was 6 months earlier than he had to, not a year. He should've held them in 09 imo. But anyway, you're criticizing the red shirts for not taking his first offer - which in retrospect, yes, they should have - yet you're supporting Suthep's group who won't accept a house dissolution at all?

I mean, far be it from me to accuse you of double standards or anything...

[Mackie]

I'm curious, how much did it cost Thailand in 2010?

Economically, not as much as you think. Central World is the only mall that had insurance foer uprisings.

No kidding. Both sides are still puzzling over that one....

No need to play the protest in 2010 down. It was a terrible blow to Thai economy and a as a result of red mob terrorism more than 100,000 Thais lost their jobs. A fact. Easily verifiable if you are actually interested in facts.

Edited January 5, 2014 by Mackie

[BSPolice]

Shinawatras win elections! They are not stupid.

Doesn't say much for the people that vote for them. Anyone that falls for election promises like "All Thais will be rich in 6 months" probably isn't voting on the issues.

Says a lot about their opposition though.

Yes, it does actually.

Says that they don't try to rely on stupid campaigns that are not only impossible but damaging to the economy way more than the protests are.

Anyone can buy the vote with crazy promises of richness with a population who lives and dies by the mantra of 'money number one'.

Enough said really.

[daboyz1]

July 11 was 6 months earlier than he had to, not a year. He should've held them in 09 imo. But anyway, you're criticizing the red shirts for not taking his first offer - which in retrospect, yes, they should have - yet you're supporting Suthep's group who won't accept a house dissolution at all?

I mean, far be it from me to accuse you of double standards or anything...

Where did I say I support Suthep and his Politburo ideals? I don't think I did. The only thing I said is that the red shirts set the precedent for what is happening now, back in 2010. That's not supporting Suthep. I do think the murder charges they're trying to pin on him and Abhisit are laughable though.

Edited January 5, 2014 by daboyz1

[Emptyset]

July 11 was 6 months earlier than he had to, not a year. He should've held them in 09 imo. But anyway, you're criticizing the red shirts for not taking his first offer - which in retrospect, yes, they should have - yet you're supporting Suthep's group who won't accept a house dissolution at all?

I mean, far be it from me to accuse you of double standards or anything...

Where did I say I support Suthep and his Politburo ideals? I don't think I did. The only thing I said is that the red shirts set the precedent for what is happening now, back in 2010. That's not supporting Suthep. I do think the murder charges they're trying to pin on him and Abhisit are laughable though.

Not really the precedent as they would've accepted immediate house dissolution, or even three months which was their demand. But OK, sorry had misunderstood, thought you were a supporter of the 'grand council' idea.

Edited January 5, 2014 by Emptyset

[daboyz1]

July 11 was 6 months earlier than he had to, not a year. He should've held them in 09 imo. But anyway, you're criticizing the red shirts for not taking his first offer - which in retrospect, yes, they should have - yet you're supporting Suthep's group who won't accept a house dissolution at all?

I mean, far be it from me to accuse you of double standards or anything...

Where did I say I support Suthep and his Politburo ideals? I don't think I did. The only thing I said is that the red shirts set the precedent for what is happening now, back in 2010. That's not supporting Suthep. I do think the murder charges they're trying to pin on him and Abhisit are laughable though.

Not really the precedent as they would've accepted immediate house dissolution, or even three months which was their demand. But OK, sorry had misunderstood, thought you were a supporter of the 'grand council' idea.

Ideally the best thing would be for Thasksin and his family/friends/drivers/cronies/pets etc. to be out of Thai politics permanently. I don't really see how that could be accomplished though. It's been proven time and again that his ego is much more important than the Thai people. Hell I'd argue that his ego is more important to him than his own sister. It's obvious she's in way over her head in all this, yet he comes out says things like "She's my clone" and "Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai Does" I actually feel sorry for her. He's not doing her any favors.

[ginjag]

It's against the law because the leaders of the mobs in the streets have openly declared insurrection for the purpose of overthrowing the legitimately elected government and to prevent a legally called and scheduled election being conducted in accordance with the constitution.

The leaders of the insurrection have openly declared their intent to establish an arbitrarily anointed and still anonymous "People's Council" to rule absolutely over the nation after the negation of democracy and the constitutionally scheduled election.

Any government of the world has the inherent right to defend itself against insurrection of any kind - it is the government's sovereign right to preserve and protect itself in the interests of the nation, its people, the constitution.

Citizens are responsible to themselves and to society to know these facts and to accept responsibility for their decisions and actions in either respect.

Mmmm!

Any government of the world has the inherent right to defend itself against insurrection of any kind - it is the government's sovereign right to preserve and protect itself in the interests of the nation, its people, the constitution.

Couldn't agree more....BUT you clearly imply - unless you are Dems and those guilty of insurrection are Reds,( as your posting history on here would display) is that about it or are there anymore caveats to put on it?

Ask me about the ten days and nights I spent in Central with the Reds during the 2010 occupation of the area, quietly observing, chatting, eating there, sleeping there, minding my own business while sharing some of the experience with the Reds . There were a lot of very fine Thai people there who were very much apart from the criminal elements which I assuredly had no conscious or intentional contact with at any time for any reason.

And since you like my posting history, why don't you get creative and present it? You might also want to consider that posting at TVF is about the present topic and situation, not about the poster.

I don't support violent protests any more than I support civil insurrection. My view is consistent in these matters at all times.

You do know that President Obama supports the legitimate democratically elected government of Thailand, which would mean the United States Government would not be sympathetic toward or supportive of a Mussolini fashioned "People's Council" of still anonymous characters of - I'd be sure - dubious character.

And you would know then also that the Democrat party openly supports Thailand aligning with the Chinese Communist Party and its People's Republic of China. You do know that of course.

In Central "eating, chatting, observing, sleeping, sharing experiences with the reds, MINDING MY OWN BUSINESS ????" For 10 days

Edited January 5, 2014 by ginjag

[Publicus]

"Shutdown is illegal, govt warns"

Why is it against the law to join the protest? Annoying, disruptive, counter-productive, yes, all of these. But illegal? Is it against the law because it is against PT's wishes?

It's against the law because the leaders of the mobs in the streets have openly declared insurrection for the purpose of overthrowing the legitimately elected government and to prevent a legally called and scheduled election being conducted in accordance with the constitution.

The leaders of the insurrection have openly declared their intent to establish an arbitrarily anointed and still anonymous "People's Council" to rule absolutely over the nation after the negation of democracy and the constitutionally scheduled election.

Any government of the world has the inherent right to defend itself against insurrection of any kind - it is the government's sovereign right to preserve and protect itself in the interests of the nation, its people, the constitution.

Citizens are responsible to themselves and to society to know these facts and to accept responsibility for their decisions and actions in either respect.

So we have to say again red shirt job in BKK--illegal ???? Then the said government had to act and got them out--at some cost but it was then violent before the army got involved.

Oh but now the same people say it is illegal----idiots have to be, due to short memory.

The last siege the reds admin thought they could do what they wanted--it was stopped rightfully. Now listen to the same people--illegal -amazing if your gullible .

I refer you to my post today in reply to the post by GentlemanJim who posted today 05 Jan 2014 - 12:04.

I call Suthep a fascist because he's a public figure, although that law is in the United States and does not exist in Thailand. As a practical matter lot of us throw names around when we refer to public figures here. I've called Thaksin a lot of names too over the years and I continue to stand by that.

However, I don't call or imply a poster is or may be an "idiot." To mention but one thing about it, it would be a violation of the TVF Posting Rules.

[Bluespunk]

"Shutdown is illegal, govt warns"

Why is it against the law to join the protest? Annoying, disruptive, counter-productive, yes, all of these. But illegal? Is it against the law because it is against PT's wishes?

It's against the law because the leaders of the mobs in the streets have openly declared insurrection for the purpose of overthrowing the legitimately elected government and to prevent a legally called and scheduled election being conducted in accordance with the constitution.

The leaders of the insurrection have openly declared their intent to establish an arbitrarily anointed and still anonymous "People's Council" to rule absolutely over the nation after the negation of democracy and the constitutionally scheduled election.

Any government of the world has the inherent right to defend itself against insurrection of any kind - it is the government's sovereign right to preserve and protect itself in the interests of the nation, its people, the constitution.

Citizens are responsible to themselves and to society to know these facts and to accept responsibility for their decisions and actions in either respect.

None the less, it is still not illegal for people to protest. Suthep's fascist council and his goals are one thing, but people still have the right to protest. PT using the law to fit their needs as here and their inability to run the govt for the good of the country is why we are in this mess now.

Then let the people vote in a legally called democratic election as scheduled and in accordance with the constitution.

I get the feeling here I'm talking to a gargoyle

.

Hmm, lets see, where did I say not have an election, nope can't see it. Maybe you think I support suthep or even agree with this protest? Hmm, lets see, I'll check previous posts, give me a minute, nope couldn't find any.

I don't support suthep, I do think there should be contested elections, I do support the party with most seats forming a govt. however, unlike you I also support the right to protest inept, corrupt, nepotistic, self seeking, intolerant govts and their abuse of power.

I won't say what I feel like I'm talking to.

Edited January 5, 2014 by Bluespunk

[ginjag]

"Shutdown is illegal, govt warns"

Why is it against the law to join the protest? Annoying, disruptive, counter-productive, yes, all of these. But illegal? Is it against the law because it is against PT's wishes?

It's against the law because the leaders of the mobs in the streets have openly declared insurrection for the purpose of overthrowing the legitimately elected government and to prevent a legally called and scheduled election being conducted in accordance with the constitution.

The leaders of the insurrection have openly declared their intent to establish an arbitrarily anointed and still anonymous "People's Council" to rule absolutely over the nation after the negation of democracy and the constitutionally scheduled election.

Any government of the world has the inherent right to defend itself against insurrection of any kind - it is the government's sovereign right to preserve and protect itself in the interests of the nation, its people, the constitution.

Citizens are responsible to themselves and to society to know these facts and to accept responsibility for their decisions and actions in either respect.

So we have to say again red shirt job in BKK--illegal ???? Then the said government had to act and got them out--at some cost but it was then violent before the army got involved.

Oh but now the same people say it is illegal----idiots have to be, due to short memory.

The last siege the reds admin thought they could do what they wanted--it was stopped rightfully. Now listen to the same people--illegal -amazing if your gullible .

I refer you to my post today in reply to the post by GentlemanJim who posted today 05 Jan 2014 - 12:04.

I call Suthep a fascist because he's a public figure, although that law is in the United States and does not exist in Thailand. As a practical matter lot of us throw names around when we refer to public figures here. I've called Thaksin a lot of names too over the years and I continue to stand by that.

However, I don't call or imply a poster is or may be an "idiot." To mention but one thing about it, it would be a violation of the TVF Posting Rules.

Looking and checking my post,I actually referred to Idiots being government officials-who say now it's illegal but didn't think red siege BKK was.

[angsta]

Yawn.

Running out of ideas, fast. I know, lets have another march...ergghhh and then? Anyone up for another march, and another...repeat to tedium.

[Ajaan]

"Shutdown is illegal, govt warns"

Why is it against the law to join the protest? Annoying, disruptive, counter-productive, yes, all of these. But illegal? Is it against the law because it is against PT's wishes?

Why don't we try this: you get several hundred people together, go to a busy major traffic intersection in the capital city of your country, and block it. I'm guessing the authorities in your country would consider that illegal (and your "shutdown" probably wouldn't last very long either).

[billd766]

How can any of these government officials be taken seriously when some of them gave moral and financial support to the protesters that shut down Bangkok in 2010?

And how can they be taken seriously when they put 5 family members in top positions to be elected......It is not a government it is a Shinawatra enterprise

I'd rather have 5 members of the same family on the ballot, allowing people to have them "elected" than a non-elected "people's council".

Elections are always better than no elections, no matter who's on the ballot. People can vote "no" if they don't like the choices.

Actually the people have NO choice in the matter at all nor for that matter are they allowed to vote on it. They are party list seats which means that those people are NOT elected in a constituency vote by the people but personally selected by the Dear Leader who of course has the ultimate vote in these things.