Typical of a big mouth bully. All talk & bs!!!

He cud not hold his hands up in a robbery!!!!!

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

On a positive note, Chalerm Yoobungram has just set a new Thai national record for the marathon.

And apparently he's still running........

"The protesters have acted too much like gangsters," Mr. Chalerm said, "If they are still acting like gangster by storming Army Club and Police Club, I would like them to storm their own properties".

What ???

But really, you gotta give the guy some credit.

When he's out there in public talking about "gangsters," you gotta know, he's really an expert on the subject.

im waiting for his die-hard supporters on here to chip in there noncence..

I have yet to see a "die-hard supporter" of Chalerm on TV. Please point them out so I may laugh hysterically.

Btw, its: nonsense.

Laugh at me..I like Chalerm. Every government has them....guys who do the dirty jobs and really dont care. Lets clean them Bangkok streets boys...

A lot of posters seem to think it would be smart to stick around in light of people getting shot and beaten on a regular basis, guess hes not that dumb

The guy is a worm but some of the remarks alluding to he should have stuck around isnt very intelligent. I would expect no less from Suthep and didnt see him debating with red protesters when he was in office.

The amusing aspect of this story is that it is written with the sole intent of ridiculing Chalerm, and gullible readers have accepted it as the gospel truth. Chalerm did not "flee".

His presence provoked the protestors into a violent response. He could have remained and the security officials present were would could have successfully defended him by using live fire on the protestors as they attempted to attack him. Instead, it was recommended that he leave so that there would be no confrontation. There was no fleeing. The article expresses disappointment that he did not go out the front door and confront the protestors. What point would it have served? People would have been injured or killed. There was no "taunting". Chalerm gave another warning.

It can be criticized as another empty gesture, and not overly bright. However, considering the option of injury or death, his departure was the appropriate move and the police were wise to get him out of there.

We are getting to the point where the protestors are going to push it and blunder into a full out confrontation. They are being set up through incremental steps, being shown to be unreasonable and out of control. When Chalerm does respond, and he will at some point because of his personality, there will be dead people. I suppose then, some people will be happy.

The BangkokPost just had a newsflash saying one of the protesters outside the ArmyClub was shot at and hit in the leg. The perpetrator arrested by protest guards, 'allegedly' beaten up a bit when trying to flee the scene and sent to Rajavithi Hospital.

how's that for taunting protesters?

And if you bothered to wait for a bit before posting your sensational report you would have read that it was a policeman who was taking photographs of the protesters. A "guard" later demanded to search the policeman who refused. The guard then told his "colleagues" to beat the policeman up. He fired a shot in self defence and was then severely beaten up and ended up in hospital.

How's that for taunting protesters?

Laugh at me..I like Chalerm. Every government has them....guys who do the dirty jobs and really dont care. Lets clean them Bangkok streets boys...

You can like Chalerm, and whomever else. That's your prerogative. Chalerm is a long list of paper mache lap dogs who lick the boots of people like Bokassa, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Marcos, Suharto, and who have hired men with guns to back them up.

The amusing aspect of this story is that it is written with the sole intent of ridiculing Chalerm, and gullible readers have accepted it as the gospel truth. Chalerm did not "flee".

His presence provoked the protestors into a violent response. He could have remained and the security officials present were would could have successfully defended him by using live fire on the protestors as they attempted to attack him. Instead, it was recommended that he leave so that there would be no confrontation. There was no fleeing. The article expresses disappointment that he did not go out the front door and confront the protestors. What point would it have served? People would have been injured or killed. There was no "taunting". Chalerm gave another warning.

It can be criticized as another empty gesture, and not overly bright. However, considering the option of injury or death, his departure was the appropriate move and the police were wise to get him out of there.

We are getting to the point where the protestors are going to push it and blunder into a full out confrontation. They are being set up through incremental steps, being shown to be unreasonable and out of control. When Chalerm does respond, and he will at some point because of his personality, there will be dead people. I suppose then, some people will be happy.

Do not know if anyone told you there are already dead people, and mostly on the one side.

The amusing aspect of this story is that it is written with the sole intent of ridiculing Chalerm, and gullible readers have accepted it as the gospel truth. Chalerm did not "flee".

His presence provoked the protestors into a violent response. He could have remained and the security officials present were would could have successfully defended him by using live fire on the protestors as they attempted to attack him. Instead, it was recommended that he leave so that there would be no confrontation. There was no fleeing. The article expresses disappointment that he did not go out the front door and confront the protestors. What point would it have served? People would have been injured or killed. There was no "taunting". Chalerm gave another warning.

It can be criticized as another empty gesture, and not overly bright. However, considering the option of injury or death, his departure was the appropriate move and the police were wise to get him out of there.

We are getting to the point where the protestors are going to push it and blunder into a full out confrontation. They are being set up through incremental steps, being shown to be unreasonable and out of control. When Chalerm does respond, and he will at some point because of his personality, there will be dead people. I suppose then, some people will be happy.

He was intimidated, get over it.

The amusing aspect of this story is that it is written with the sole intent of ridiculing Chalerm, and gullible readers have accepted it as the gospel truth. Chalerm did not "flee".

His presence provoked the protestors into a violent response. He could have remained and the security officials present were would could have successfully defended him by using live fire on the protestors as they attempted to attack him. Instead, it was recommended that he leave so that there would be no confrontation. There was no fleeing. The article expresses disappointment that he did not go out the front door and confront the protestors. What point would it have served? People would have been injured or killed. There was no "taunting". Chalerm gave another warning.

It can be criticized as another empty gesture, and not overly bright. However, considering the option of injury or death, his departure was the appropriate move and the police were wise to get him out of there.

We are getting to the point where the protestors are going to push it and blunder into a full out confrontation. They are being set up through incremental steps, being shown to be unreasonable and out of control. When Chalerm does respond, and he will at some point because of his personality, there will be dead people. I suppose then, some people will be happy.

Do not know if anyone told you there are already dead people, and mostly on the one side.

Actually there are just dead Thais, if this continues sooner or later there will be a farang or foreign victim and it dosnt really make any sense to continue to polarise things by choosing a side the country loses regardless and is all the poorer for these incidents. Thailands reputation is already in tatters.

Fools one and all.

im waiting for his die-hard supporters on here to chip in there noncence..

I have yet to see a "die-hard supporter" of Chalerm on TV. Please point them out so I may laugh hysterically.

Btw, its: nonsense.

Laugh at me..I like Chalerm. Every government has them....guys who do the dirty jobs and really dont care. Lets clean them Bangkok streets boys...

Who is the one here in Thailand?

There is a big difference between a guy who does the dirty jobs and the guy who protects killers (his son) Also a?loud mouth useless abuser of ear medicine.

So I say to you who is it here in Thailand?

Farangs defending Chalerm, seen it all now. He's even hated by his fellow Thais.

The amusing aspect of this story is that it is written with the sole intent of ridiculing Chalerm, and gullible readers have accepted it as the gospel truth. Chalerm did not "flee".

His presence provoked the protestors into a violent response. He could have remained and the security officials present were would could have successfully defended him by using live fire on the protestors as they attempted to attack him. Instead, it was recommended that he leave so that there would be no confrontation. There was no fleeing. The article expresses disappointment that he did not go out the front door and confront the protestors. What point would it have served? People would have been injured or killed. There was no "taunting". Chalerm gave another warning.

It can be criticized as another empty gesture, and not overly bright. However, considering the option of injury or death, his departure was the appropriate move and the police were wise to get him out of there.

We are getting to the point where the protestors are going to push it and blunder into a full out confrontation. They are being set up through incremental steps, being shown to be unreasonable and out of control. When Chalerm does respond, and he will at some point because of his personality, there will be dead people. I suppose then, some people will be happy.

Do not know if anyone told you there are already dead people, and mostly on the one side.

Actually there are just dead Thais, if this continues sooner or later there will be a farang or foreign victim and it dosnt really make any sense to continue to polarise things by choosing a side the country will and is all the poorer for these incidents. Thailands reputation is already in tatters.

Fools one and all.

Thais are people just as much as any other person and people who think otherswise are dispicable.

The BangkokPost just had a newsflash saying one of the protesters outside the ArmyClub was shot at and hit in the leg. The perpetrator arrested by protest guards, 'allegedly' beaten up a bit when trying to flee the scene and sent to Rajavithi Hospital.

how's that for taunting protesters?

And if you bothered to wait for a bit before posting your sensational report you would have read that it was a policeman who was taking photographs of the protesters. A "guard" later demanded to search the policeman who refused. The guard then told his "colleagues" to beat the policeman up. He fired a shot in self defence and was then severely beaten up and ended up in hospital.

How's that for taunting protesters?

Still hanging out with clueless red shirts I see. Well they have taught you denial real good. I read the article in the Bangkok Post. Admittedly a news paper but at least one with some credibility. Haven't a clue what you are talking about.

The amusing aspect of this story is that it is written with the sole intent of ridiculing Chalerm, and gullible readers have accepted it as the gospel truth. Chalerm did not "flee".

His presence provoked the protestors into a violent response. He could have remained and the security officials present were would could have successfully defended him by using live fire on the protestors as they attempted to attack him. Instead, it was recommended that he leave so that there would be no confrontation. There was no fleeing. The article expresses disappointment that he did not go out the front door and confront the protestors. What point would it have served? People would have been injured or killed. There was no "taunting". Chalerm gave another warning.

It can be criticized as another empty gesture, and not overly bright. However, considering the option of injury or death, his departure was the appropriate move and the police were wise to get him out of there.

We are getting to the point where the protestors are going to push it and blunder into a full out confrontation. They are being set up through incremental steps, being shown to be unreasonable and out of control. When Chalerm does respond, and he will at some point because of his personality, there will be dead people. I suppose then, some people will be happy.

Do not know if anyone told you there are already dead people, and mostly on the one side.

Actually there are just dead Thais, if this continues sooner or later there will be a farang or foreign victim and it dosnt really make any sense to continue to polarise things by choosing a side the country will and is all the poorer for these incidents. Thailands reputation is already in tatters.

Fools one and all.

Thais are people just as much as any other person and people who think otherswise are dispicable.

I was making a point there are just victims dead people dont have a side they are simply dead.. the more it grows the more chance a guest will be hurt and then the international community will really become involved and vocal. Thailand does not need that and her children all deserve to live without the fear of being hurt..

A lot of posters seem to think it would be smart to stick around in light of people getting shot and beaten on a regular basis, guess hes not that dumb

The guy is a worm but some of the remarks alluding to he should have stuck around isnt very intelligent. I would expect no less from Suthep and didnt see him debating with red protesters when he was in office.

I suppose he could argue that his boss runs away at the first sign of trouble so why shouldn't he.

The amusing aspect of this story is that it is written with the sole intent of ridiculing Chalerm, and gullible readers have accepted it as the gospel truth. Chalerm did not "flee".

His presence provoked the protestors into a violent response. He could have remained and the security officials present were would could have successfully defended him by using live fire on the protestors as they attempted to attack him. Instead, it was recommended that he leave so that there would be no confrontation. There was no fleeing. The article expresses disappointment that he did not go out the front door and confront the protestors. What point would it have served? People would have been injured or killed. There was no "taunting". Chalerm gave another warning.

It can be criticized as another empty gesture, and not overly bright. However, considering the option of injury or death, his departure was the appropriate move and the police were wise to get him out of there.

We are getting to the point where the protestors are going to push it and blunder into a full out confrontation. They are being set up through incremental steps, being shown to be unreasonable and out of control. When Chalerm does respond, and he will at some point because of his personality, there will be dead people. I suppose then, some people will be happy.

Do not know if anyone told you there are already dead people, and mostly on the one side.

Actually there are just dead Thais, if this continues sooner or later there will be a farang or foreign victim and it dosnt really make any sense to continue to polarise things by choosing a side the country will and is all the poorer for these incidents. Thailands reputation is already in tatters.

Fools one and all.

Thais are people just as much as any other person and people who think otherswise are dispicable.

You've got completely the wrong handle on the post. Englishoak was pointing out that it didn't matter which "side" they were on there is actually just dead Thai's, people who are dead whatever their political bent. Whereas you decided to point out that most of the dead were "mostly on one side" as if this was a football score.

Save your faux indignation.

Do not know if anyone told you there are already dead people, and mostly on the one side.

eople. I suppose then, some people will be happy.

Actually there are just dead Thais, if this continues sooner or later there will be a farang or foreign victim and it dosnt really make any sense to continue to polarise things by choosing a side the country will and is all the poorer for these incidents. Thailands reputation is already in tatters.

Fools one and all.

Thais are people just as much as any other person and people who think otherswise are dispicable.

I was making a point there are just victims dead people dont have a side they are simply dead.. the more it grows the more chance a guest will be hurt and then the international community will really become involved and vocal. Thailand does not need that and her children all deserve to live without the fear of being hurt..

OK I took your comment "THere are just dead Thais" combined with your comments that soon there would be a farang as meaning the farang is more important than a thai. Yes whoever dies there is a family without somone they care about and need.

Chalerm's son Duang is the guy who shot the policeman in that disco then hightailed it out of Thailand like a coward.... I guess like father like son.... Imagine that. The guy Duang got a law degree from Ramkanhaeng University, which says how USELESS degree from there are.

Who says Thais can't do comedy ?

When Chalerm does respond, and he will at some point because of his personality, there will be dead people.

Which just about sums up that lunatic.

The amusing aspect of this story is that it is written with the sole intent of ridiculing Chalerm, and gullible readers have accepted it as the gospel truth. Chalerm did not "flee".

His presence provoked the protestors into a violent response. He could have remained and the security officials present were would could have successfully defended him by using live fire on the protestors as they attempted to attack him. Instead, it was recommended that he leave so that there would be no confrontation. There was no fleeing. The article expresses disappointment that he did not go out the front door and confront the protestors. What point would it have served? People would have been injured or killed. There was no "taunting". Chalerm gave another warning.

It can be criticized as another empty gesture, and not overly bright. However, considering the option of injury or death, his departure was the appropriate move and the police were wise to get him out of there.

We are getting to the point where the protestors are going to push it and blunder into a full out confrontation. They are being set up through incremental steps, being shown to be unreasonable and out of control. When Chalerm does respond, and he will at some point because of his personality, there will be dead people. I suppose then, some people will be happy.

Do not know if anyone told you there are already dead people, and mostly on the one side.

If you go out and protest, and one side is in numbers then you are taking that risk, your choice

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The BangkokPost just had a newsflash saying one of the protesters outside the ArmyClub was shot at and hit in the leg. The perpetrator arrested by protest guards, 'allegedly' beaten up a bit when trying to flee the scene and sent to Rajavithi Hospital.

how's that for taunting protesters?

And if you bothered to wait for a bit before posting your sensational report you would have read that it was a policeman who was taking photographs of the protesters. A "guard" later demanded to search the policeman who refused. The guard then told his "colleagues" to beat the policeman up. He fired a shot in self defence and was then severely beaten up and ended up in hospital.

How's that for taunting protesters?

Still hanging out with clueless red shirts I see. Well they have taught you denial real good. I read the article in the Bangkok Post. Admittedly a news paper but at least one with some credibility. Haven't a clue what you are talking about.

So what your saying is that anyone supporting Red shirts is clueless , taking a wide arc there nobernjohn

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No one stands around to be shot at from a mob except a fool.

Chelerm, this little twerp, is well suited to running, seeing that his legs are so close to the ground! Where were his "hero" sons, those fine examples of manhood???

Are all you anti democracy posters here the same person but with different niks?

All the same one or two line anti democracy rhetoric but without the ear ache jokes.

Chalerm; The upholder of democracy.

What a joke.

Pretty predictable, once he was on Military soil he clearly soiled himself... no doubt he realised he was playing with the big boys and they have their own rules.I suspect he will withdraw quietly and wait for the end game to play out hoping he can salvage something out of the wreck taksin has created.

Do not know if anyone told you there are already dead people, and mostly on the one side.

Actually there are just dead Thais, if this continues sooner or later there will be a farang or foreign victim and it dosnt really make any sense to continue to polarise things by choosing a side the country will and is all the poorer for these incidents. Thailands reputation is already in tatters.

Fools one and all.

Thais are people just as much as any other person and people who think otherswise are dispicable.

You've got completely the wrong handle on the post. Englishoak was pointing out that it didn't matter which "side" they were on there is actually just dead Thai's, people who are dead whatever their political bent. Whereas you decided to point out that most of the dead were "mostly on one side" as if this was a football score.

Save your faux indignation.

Open your mind and read both the original and the attempted cover up.

He was making it sound like Thai's were lesser people. Foreigners die all the time here in Thailand and their countries don't come charging in on their white horse to right the wrongs. In fact there are around 50 countries telling their citizens that if they go to Bangkok be careful of where they go.

Care to tell me what is the difference between a Thai and a farong. He went to great pains to make sure we knew he did not consider them equal. Calling people like that despicable is giving them more credit than they deserve.

The BangkokPost just had a newsflash saying one of the protesters outside the ArmyClub was shot at and hit in the leg. The perpetrator arrested by protest guards, 'allegedly' beaten up a bit when trying to flee the scene and sent to Rajavithi Hospital.

how's that for taunting protesters?

And if you bothered to wait for a bit before posting your sensational report you would have read that it was a policeman who was taking photographs of the protesters. A "guard" later demanded to search the policeman who refused. The guard then told his "colleagues" to beat the policeman up. He fired a shot in self defence and was then severely beaten up and ended up in hospital.

How's that for taunting protesters?

Still hanging out with clueless red shirts I see. Well they have taught you denial real good. I read the article in the Bangkok Post. Admittedly a news paper but at least one with some credibility. Haven't a clue what you are talking about.

So what your saying is that anyone supporting Red shirts is clueless , taking a wide arc there nobernjohn

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No I was very specific I said the clueless red shirts . Completely different than all of them. Is English your second language?