the thrue Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 "Yingluck is that you" Is this your comment? Can you tell me....Are you on drugs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasteddie Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 "You seem to conveniently ignore the fact that more protestors have been shot dead as compared to policemen." I'm not ignoring anything, R.I.P. to all of them, poor innocents betrayed by those they trust, Suthep promised them there would be no armed protesters and uses them as cover for his nefarious shenanigans. You can say it was Suthep but I say they were killed by a government desperate to cling onto power. They don't have to cling on to power, it has been repeatedly given to them, by the electorate. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasteddie Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 The people who try to turn the head on peopleand call this protesters peaceful. -Who are they think they can sheet? The world media have been full of pictures and videos of violent armed protestors.....A militant mob who brake law after law and a juridical biased system who let them free when the police have arrest them.... Amazing Thailand! I am thinking about what this movement try to reach.....Take away an elected goverment, block fresh elections, try to make a coup (juridical or military) with the purpose to take away the majoritys popular party. -What are they earn? -CIVIL WAR? Yingluck? Is that you? Mature! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wprime Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 I can't believe there are TV members here who actually oppose this ruling??? We're talking about the banning of violence? Do you guys want more deaths? Violence shouldn't be tolerated from either side and the fact that Chalerm is opening advocating murders demonstrates the absolute necessity of this ruling. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chooka Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 So whats the purpose of the emergency decree if the government can't use violence and can't arrest protesters? Why even have a emergency decree if its no different than normally? Because protesting peacefully is legal and the emergency decree should only be enforced if there is a threat to national security. Section 4. of the interpretation as to when it can be put in place states that: "states of emergency" means a situation that affects or may affect public order or endangers the security of the state or may cause the country or any part of the country to fall into a state of acute difficulty or a situation resulting from an offence relating to terrorism under the penal code. In other words, it shouldn't have been enforced in the first place!!! means a situation that affects or may affect public order What? I don't see your argument, they're throwing hand grenades and shooting policemen in the middle of Bangkok. How is that not 'affecting public order'! Just a couple of the boys skylarking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Dr Bruce Posted February 19, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted February 19, 2014 I can't believe there are TV members here who actually oppose this ruling??? We're talking about the banning of violence? Do you guys want more deaths? Violence shouldn't be tolerated from either side and the fact that Chalerm is opening advocating murders demonstrates the absolute necessity of this ruling. I agree with you that everybody should avoid violence, but I feel that the ruling give the fascists the green light to force the closure of government building and major roads with the police being completely ham-strung in response. What other country in the world would let a very small group of undemocratic thugs close down the elected government and stop free elections. The protesters have been using force whenever they have been opposed, how is the government supposed to protect the population from the thugs without using any form of force? 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webfact Posted February 19, 2014 Author Share Posted February 19, 2014 ANTI-GOVERNMENT CAMPAIGNSCourt limits govt's emergency powersKesinee TaengkhiaoPongphon SarnsamakThe NationDecree still in effect, but can't be used to halt peaceful ralliesBANGKOK: -- THE anti-government movement scored a major victory yesterday when the Civil Court ruled in favour of protester Thaworn Senneam's petition, prohibiting the government from abusing the emergency decree to subvert people's right to peaceful and constitutional assembly.The court by a majority vote ruled that the government's Centre for Maintaining Peace and Order (CMPO) cannot use force to disperse the protest. Also, the authorities cannot confiscate chemical substances used by protesters for personal purposes, or order the removal of barriers put up by protesters to protect themselves or stop them from using traffic routes.It ruled that the government and its operation centre cannot stop more than five people from gathering for political purposes, or prohibit people from entering state premises. It also cannot block protesters from moving in or out of their rally sites.The government and the CMPO are also not allowed to block traffic lanes for their operations during the state of emergency.The protesters do not need to seek permission to trade, stock or use consumer goods during their activities, the court said.The judgement prohibits the government from exercising measures announced under the emergency decree invoked on January 21. Though the court did not specify this, lawyer Sawat Charoenpon said the authorities could not arrest protesters for allegedly violating the emergency decree.Thaworn declared the ruling as a personal victory and would coordinate with protesters' relatives to file a criminal lawsuit against the government for the losses they suffered during the clashes.CMPO director Chalerm Yoobamrung said the centre had no problem with the ruling as it would not disperse unarmed protesters. However, operations to clear areas where protesters were not peaceful would go ahead, he said.Clashes between security officials and protesters since the state of emergency was declared have killed six and wounded 130 on both sides.In the latest development, two people travelling in a vehicle adorned with an anti-government movement logo were shot and wounded yesterday evening, the Erawan Emergency Medical Service Centre said.The vehicle was travelling on the tollway near the exit leading to the Lat Phrao intersection when the shooting occurred. The two men, aged 40 and 24, sustained gunshot wounds to their legs.The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) will next week seek more details on the bloody clash between protesters and police on Tuesday.An investigation team led by Dr Nirand Pitakwatchara, a member of the NHRC, and Dr Pornthip Rojanasund, renowned forensic scientist, examined the scene where a suspected grenade was thrown at a company of police during the CMPO's operation to recover traffic space from protest sites at Phan Fah Lilat Bridge.Nirand said he will today invite forensic police to visit the areas near Phan Fah and collect more evidence.-- The Nation 2014-02-20 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webfact Posted February 19, 2014 Author Share Posted February 19, 2014 Court Strips Govt Of Various Emergency PowersBy Khaosod EnglishBANGKOK: -- The Civil Court has sided with anti-government protesters by effectively stripping the government of many powers provided by the emergency decree.The case was filed to the court by Mr. Thaworn Senniam, a core leader of the People′s Committee for Absolute Democracy With the King As Head of State (PCAD), who argued that the State of Emergency enacted by the government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra violates the rights to free assembly guaranteed by the 2007 Constitution.The filing named Ms. Yingluck and two commanders of the Centre for Maintaining Peace and Order (CMPO) - Mr. Chalerm Yoobamrung and Pol.Gen. Adul Saengsingkaew - as the defendants.Under the emergency decree, the authorities can use broad power to contain the protests, such as arresting and detaining individuals without charge, sealing off areas, seizing buildings or properties, and censoring the media.At 15.00 today the majority of the judges ruled that the government will not need to repeal the State of Emergency, but the verdict also prohibits the authorities from exercising many powers prescribed in the emergency decree.According to the verdict, the security forces cannot launch a crackdown on anti-government protesters, seize any chemicals from the protesters, dismantle any barricades erected by the protesters, prevent individuals from entering any building at their own will, close down traffic, evacuate or seal off protest areas.Most notably, the authorities are also prohibited from banning political gathering - the crucial aspect of the emergency decree.It should be noted that a minority of the judges (two-third of the panel) even went as far as recommending that the government repeal the State of Emergency altogether, on the ground that PCAD demonstrators have been "peacefully" exercising their rights under the Constitution "without any weapons".The verdict came a day after deadly clashes erupted on Ratchadamnoen Avenue, where riot police attempted to disperse anti-government protesters who have been camping there for several weeks.The clashes saw some police officers exchanging gunfire with armed militants allied to the PCAD. Several explosives were also thrown from the PCAD position toward the police, witnesses said. At least four civilians and one policeman were killed in the violence, while more than 60 people were injured.The Civil Court′s verdict will likely anger many supporters of the government, who have long accused the judicial powers of conspiring with the protesters to oust Ms. Yingluck and her elected government.Meanwhile, Mr. Chavanond Intarakomalyasut, spokesman of the Democrat Party, posted on his Facebook account that Her Royal Highness Chulabhorn had granted a royally-blessed dirt to the Islamic funeral of Mr. Suphot Boonrong, a PCAD protester who was killed in the clashes.Source: http://www.khaosod.co.th/en/view_newsonline.php?newsid=TVRNNU1qZ3dPRGt6TkE9PQ== -- Khaosod English 2014-02-20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Dr Bruce Posted February 19, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted February 19, 2014 ANTI-GOVERNMENT CAMPAIGNS Court limits govt's emergency powers Kesinee Taengkhiao Pongphon Sarnsamak The Nation The government and the CMPO are also not allowed to block traffic lanes for their operations during the state of emergency. The CMPO is not allowed to lock traffic during operations but the protesters are allowed to block major intercections for months. Seems fair to somebody. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webfact Posted February 19, 2014 Author Share Posted February 19, 2014 No use of force against protesters: Civil Court "The court also..... whose demonstrations have so far been conducted peacefully." -- (c) Copyright AFP 2014-02-19 Oh please, doesn't The Nation feel embarrassed to write such lie?How can they even begin to call this "peaceful demonstrations"?? Sent from the Appie Tappie The source is AFP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chooka Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Court Strips Govt Of Various Emergency Powers By Khaosod English BANGKOK: -- The Civil Court has sided with anti-government protesters by effectively stripping the government of many powers provided by the emergency decree. The case was filed to the court by Mr. Thaworn Senniam, a core leader of the People′s Committee for Absolute Democracy With the King As Head of State (PCAD), who argued that the State of Emergency enacted by the government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra violates the rights to free assembly guaranteed by the 2007 Constitution. The filing named Ms. Yingluck and two commanders of the Centre for Maintaining Peace and Order (CMPO) - Mr. Chalerm Yoobamrung and Pol.Gen. Adul Saengsingkaew - as the defendants. Under the emergency decree, the authorities can use broad power to contain the protests, such as arresting and detaining individuals without charge, sealing off areas, seizing buildings or properties, and censoring the media. At 15.00 today the majority of the judges ruled that the government will not need to repeal the State of Emergency, but the verdict also prohibits the authorities from exercising many powers prescribed in the emergency decree. According to the verdict, the security forces cannot launch a crackdown on anti-government protesters, seize any chemicals from the protesters, dismantle any barricades erected by the protesters, prevent individuals from entering any building at their own will, close down traffic, evacuate or seal off protest areas. Most notably, the authorities are also prohibited from banning political gathering - the crucial aspect of the emergency decree. It should be noted that a minority of the judges (two-third of the panel) even went as far as recommending that the government repeal the State of Emergency altogether, on the ground that PCAD demonstrators have been "peacefully" exercising their rights under the Constitution "without any weapons". The verdict came a day after deadly clashes erupted on Ratchadamnoen Avenue, where riot police attempted to disperse anti-government protesters who have been camping there for several weeks. The clashes saw some police officers exchanging gunfire with armed militants allied to the PCAD. Several explosives were also thrown from the PCAD position toward the police, witnesses said. At least four civilians and one policeman were killed in the violence, while more than 60 people were injured. The Civil Court′s verdict will likely anger many supporters of the government, who have long accused the judicial powers of conspiring with the protesters to oust Ms. Yingluck and her elected government. Meanwhile, Mr. Chavanond Intarakomalyasut, spokesman of the Democrat Party, posted on his Facebook account that Her Royal Highness Chulabhorn had granted a royally-blessed dirt to the Islamic funeral of Mr. Suphot Boonrong, a PCAD protester who was killed in the clashes. Source: http://www.khaosod.co.th/en/view_newsonline.php?newsid=TVRNNU1qZ3dPRGt6TkE9PQ== -- Khaosod English 2014-02-20 Nice pic. Mum I told you not to call me at work, yes, yes I am being peaceful. I have to go, have police to shoot. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wprime Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 I can't believe there are TV members here who actually oppose this ruling??? We're talking about the banning of violence? Do you guys want more deaths? Violence shouldn't be tolerated from either side and the fact that Chalerm is opening advocating murders demonstrates the absolute necessity of this ruling. I agree with you that everybody should avoid violence, but I feel that the ruling give the fascists the green light to force the closure of government building and major roads with the police being completely ham-strung in response. What other country in the world would let a very small group of undemocratic thugs close down the elected government and stop free elections. The protesters have been using force whenever they have been opposed, how is the government supposed to protect the population from the thugs without using any form of force? The ruling does not stop force being used to make arrests on an individual basis against perpetrators of violence, it stops violence being used indiscriminately against the protestors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pookiki Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Compare the situation in Thailand to: Judge sentences 84 year old Nun to 3 years for 2012 Oak Ridge Anti-Nuclear Weapons protest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mosha Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Can someone confirm Chalerm says he does not accept the courts ruling? I told the wife about the ruling, and she said the tv reported Chalerm's reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post NCFC Posted February 20, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted February 20, 2014 This ruling will do nothing to reduce the violence seen on the streets of Bangkok. In fact it will make matters worse for two reasons. Firstly protestors will act with even more impunity than they do now as they believe the court ruling protects their actions. Secondly if the police cannot maintain public order a third force will be called in to do the job the police can't do. I think it actually makes it more dangerous for Suthep as if he is taken out the protest movement will collapse. The risk/reward balance for taking him out has shifted with the court ruling. I'm not advocating it merely suggesting the tension levels will have been ratcheted up by these rulings. Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingalfred Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) So any person or group can occupy any public highway or area and cause disruption and not be removed?this "civil court" is as much of a joke as the rest of all Thai institutions.Failed state and economy moving much closer. Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app Edited February 20, 2014 by kingalfred 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
englishoak Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) According to the verdict, the security forces cannot launch a crackdown on anti-government protesters, seize any chemicals from the protesters, dismantle any barricades erected by the protesters, prevent individuals from entering any building at their own will, close down traffic, evacuate or seal off protest areas. Very interesting and very silly this will make things worse Meanwhile, Mr. Chavanond Intarakomalyasut, spokesman of the Democrat Party, posted on his Facebook account that Her Royal Highness Chulabhorn had granted a royally-blessed dirt to the Islamic funeral of Mr. Suphot Boonrong, a PCAD protester who was killed in the clashes. Very clear message. Edited February 20, 2014 by englishoak 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackie Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Meanwhile, Mr. Chavanond Intarakomalyasut, spokesman of the Democrat Party, posted on his Facebook account that Her Royal Highness Chulabhorn had granted a royally-blessed dirt to the Islamic funeral of Mr. Suphot Boonrong, a PCAD protester who was killed in the clashes. Very clear message. It's rather simple. You're a grown up man. If you don't like the institution, you are free to leave the country. No one forces you to stay here, right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 According to the verdict, the security forces cannot launch a crackdown on anti-government protesters, seize any chemicals from the protesters, dismantle any barricades erected by the protesters, prevent individuals from entering any building at their own will, close down traffic, evacuate or seal off protest areas. Very interesting and very silly this will make things worse Meanwhile, Mr. Chavanond Intarakomalyasut, spokesman of the Democrat Party, posted on his Facebook account that Her Royal Highness Chulabhorn had granted a royally-blessed dirt to the Islamic funeral of Mr. Suphot Boonrong, a PCAD protester who was killed in the clashes. Very clear message. Your comment is interesting for someone who "can't name any names". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
englishoak Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 What are you talking about ? its a direct news article quote. I was referring to the fact it is very unlikely there will be an autopsy being the man killed is a Muslim and has to be buried within a certain time frame. That would mean no autopsy no further information on the mystery of the murder its direction of, type of weapon etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newcomer71 Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 ANTI-GOVERNMENT CAMPAIGNS Court limits govt's emergency powers Kesinee Taengkhiao Pongphon Sarnsamak The Nation The government and the CMPO are also not allowed to block traffic lanes for their operations during the state of emergency. The CMPO is not allowed to lock traffic during operations but the protesters are allowed to block major intercections for months. Seems fair to somebody. Does the word judicial coup ring any bells? Time for Yingluck is ticking fast... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harrry Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 According to the verdict, the security forces cannot launch a crackdown on anti-government protesters, seize any chemicals from the protesters, dismantle any barricades erected by the protesters, prevent individuals from entering any building at their own will, close down traffic, evacuate or seal off protest areas. Very interesting and very silly this will make things worse Meanwhile, Mr. Chavanond Intarakomalyasut, spokesman of the Democrat Party, posted on his Facebook account that Her Royal Highness Chulabhorn had granted a royally-blessed dirt to the Islamic funeral of Mr. Suphot Boonrong, a PCAD protester who was killed in the clashes. Very clear message. You have posted many comments in this forum which show both you care and try to be informed. I respect your right to your beliefs even though I do not agree with some of them. It would be nice however if you amplified comments like this so that they are meaningful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 What are you talking about ? its a direct news article quote. I was referring to the fact it is very unlikely there will be an autopsy being the man killed is a Muslim and has to be buried within a certain time frame. That would mean no autopsy no further information on the mystery of the murder its direction of, type of weapon etc etc Oh ... THAT clear message. Riiiggghhhttt ... Sure ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harrry Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 What are you talking about ? its a direct news article quote. I was referring to the fact it is very unlikely there will be an autopsy being the man killed is a Muslim and has to be buried within a certain time frame. That would mean no autopsy no further information on the mystery of the murder its direction of, type of weapon etc etc Nothing in that shows no autopsy will be performed. It does indicated that one would have to be performed as quick as possible to allow the family of the deceased to complete the burial and start the frieving process for a lost family member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
telecom Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) An investigation team led by Dr Nirand Pitakwatchara, a member of the NHRC, and Dr Pornthip Rojanasund, renowned forensic scientist, examined the scene where a suspected grenade was thrown at a company of police during the CMPO's operation to recover traffic space from protest sites at Phan Fah Lilat Bridge.Nirand said he will today invite forensic police to visit the areas near Phan Fah and collect more evidence. So what he is saying is that as usual they have no interest in who killed the 5 protestors, they are only intending to investigate those who attacked police. Says it all really..... Time to petition the courts to FORCE the police to investigate attacks on protestors or face charges of dereliction of duty and start cutting heads throughout the police organisation. Edited February 20, 2014 by telecom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newcomer71 Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I can't believe there are TV members here who actually oppose this ruling??? We're talking about the banning of violence? Do you guys want more deaths? Violence shouldn't be tolerated from either side and the fact that Chalerm is opening advocating murders demonstrates the absolute necessity of this ruling. Violence should be banned on BOTH sides, not just one. That would have been welcome. Chalerm is a disgrace to himself, I would not comment anything he said since wake up in the morning, till he sleeps, because there are high chances that would be just tragic utter nonsense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jes Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Welcome to Disneyland. Thai Court ban. Let Suthep and his hooligans continue to terrorize and occupy Thailand. Apparently not illegal in Thailand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
telecom Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 So I expect all those arrested protesters and leaders to be immediately released and file charges against Chalerm and Yingluck for wrongful arrest and abuse of power. I think 1 million baht for each in compensation should suffice 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebelplatoon Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Of course an emergency decree against peaceful protests should be illegal anyway in a democratic society. Stuborn nutters that keep on posting there are no real farmers there. Just walk out and talk to them its simple. I met farmers from Pichit, Nakorn Sawan, Phitsanoloke, Chaiyapoom. They even obliged by showing id s. Hope this will put off those non believers. Some were not waiting 5 but 8 months for money and had to borrow to plant crops again. I think its time for an interim government with someone all can accept in charge. Re think Thailand and start over. Meanwhile farmers need to end dependability. Start co operatives have own silo s and sell own brands. That ll end poverty. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post binjalin Posted February 20, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted February 20, 2014 absolutely disgraceful and completely 'unbiased' of course You question the wisdom of the court's ruling? If so, what makes you describe it as 'disgraceful', what's your reasoning for that. As for the 'unbiased of course', well, only when it goes against you, but perfectly correct when it goes for you. are you telling me that the US? or any European country (don't know where you come from) would issue such a ruling??? be honest a ruling that stops the Police from doing there job? dispersing crowds who take over government buildings? an HONEST answer please 3 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