taiping Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Again the rights of ordinary citizens to go about their lawful business has been usurped by this nonsense Civil Court decision. I am told by a Thai businessman that he decided to close his restaurant in Siam Square because of the protests affecting business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post binjalin Posted February 20, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted February 20, 2014 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 is it any wonder most Thais have no faith in the system? it's a farce compounded upon an absurdity what amazes me is the amount of TV posters who would be appalled at these biased rulings in their countries but love it here! love the fact that businesses are disrupted, buildings taken over etc but would be furious if it happened in New York, London or Berlin Hypocrites 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crushdepth Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 There is no way the court can direct the police not to react with deadly force when deadly force is used against them, the Court solely banned force against peaceful protesters. If the protesters are not peaceful that is another thing completely. Charlerm is still required to enforce the law of the land which also requires him to remove protesters from unlawfully occupying state property. All he needs to do is to invite more media along on their operations, and make sure he has videos of any and all clashes, embedding reporter in to his operation like the US Army has done in Iraq and Afghanistan! All it means is the police must document when protesters act un-peacefully! Cheers The problem the police have (as in 2010) is that when a bomb is thrown from the crowd, it is one bad guy hiding amongst thousands of peaceful protesters. If the police respond with weapons against what are 99% unarmed demonstrators the distribution of casualties is going to make them look thugs. Armed provocateurs amongst the red shirts used the same tactic to provoke an armed response and destabilise the Abhsit government in 2010. The current government is painfully aware that the same could happen to them (hmmm I wonder who organised it last time?). From your previous posts it appears that your idea of 'enforcing the law of the land' is to go in and crack heads. That would be political suicide not to mention illegal and possibly the trigger for a reluctant and rather annoyed army. If they get desperate enough to try that they won't be inviting reporters to come and record it all. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crushdepth 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. I think he's already buried, there was a photo of his daughter by the grave yesterday. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docno Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I love the fact that in today's email alert this headline/thread (referring to peaceful protesters) is just a couple of lines away from one about a police officer who had his legs almost blown off by a grenade thrown at him and his colleagues. I just realised I need to learn the Thai word for "irony"... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Red Snake Posted February 20, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted February 20, 2014 So the civil court has ruled and taken the rights away from the normal Bangkok Citizen there civil rights. He has no right to use public roads or complain about them being blocked. He has no right to do business with the government because the office he wants to enter is blocked by protesters, he has no right to vote because the protesters block the poll. He has no right to enter the post office because the protesters has block the gate. Now how about if the Red Shirts/White shirts blocked the Constitutional court, the Appeal Court, the Civil Court and told everyone to leave locked the gates and blocked the roads in front of these building. Of course this is a legal peaceful protest with no weapons just a peaceful act of defiance according to the civil court. Now supporters of Suthep your opinion on this action. How do you twist this one around? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nip Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Conspiracy nutters take note: The court did not support the democrat-led petition to lift the state of emergency. This is obviously further evidence of a judicial coup. Roswell has a more logical explanation than this court judgement... I do finally agree with you on something - must be the full moon Aliens here too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curt1591 Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) Why didn't the Reds think of this tactic back in 2010, when Suthep was handling a much smaller protest? Edited February 20, 2014 by Curt1591 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamahele Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 So, is it considered a peaceful protest of the protesters shoot at police and throw grenades? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geriatrickid Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 The court has basically taken the ability to maintain law and order, to enforce the law, away from the civilian government. It sets a precedent and effectively undermines the authority of the government. I believe that upon appeal the judgement would have to be reversed. The fundamental right of protest would remain, but a legally elected government must have the ability to ensure that laws are enforced. The alternative is anarchy, which is perhaps what these judges want. they are not the "legally elected govt", they stepped down from that position last year and as yet the elections have not been finalized so they are infact simply a stand in mob while we wait for the verdict. Basically this means what you wrote does not compute and is simply not acceptable as any kind of truth, just another load of red garbage. It is still the legal government. Are you now claiming that the government is an illegal entity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaiready Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 There are some very dense minded people out there if they think their being Peaceful..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harrry Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 The court has basically taken the ability to maintain law and order, to enforce the law, away from the civilian government. It sets a precedent and effectively undermines the authority of the government. I believe that upon appeal the judgement would have to be reversed. The fundamental right of protest would remain, but a legally elected government must have the ability to ensure that laws are enforced. The alternative is anarchy, which is perhaps what these judges want. they are not the "legally elected govt", they stepped down from that position last year and as yet the elections have not been finalized so they are infact simply a stand in mob while we wait for the verdict. Basically this means what you wrote does not compute and is simply not acceptable as any kind of truth, just another load of red garbage. It is still the legal government. Are you now claiming that the government is an illegal entity? As a government yes. As a Caretaker Government no. Most of its members lost their seats with the disolution. The Cabinet retains them but in a strictly limited capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Yim Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Time for the red shirts to start preparing for peaceful demonstrations against the judiciary in Bangkok. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 The court has basically taken the ability to maintain law and order, to enforce the law, away from the civilian government. It sets a precedent and effectively undermines the authority of the government. I believe that upon appeal the judgement would have to be reversed. The fundamental right of protest would remain, but a legally elected government must have the ability to ensure that laws are enforced. The alternative is anarchy, which is perhaps what these judges want. When we agree with a court's ruling it's good, when we don't agree it's bad and wrong and a judicial coup. Can't you guys make up your mind about this ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wprime Posted February 20, 2014 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 Unfortunately you're probably right. There are some very dense minded people out there if they think their being Peaceful..... They are as peaceful and unarmed as Chalerm's unarmed "Peace for Bangkok" police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77Dan Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 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 No, the source for that part was The Nation. Please don't wrongly attribute information without checking first. Especially as you're admin. Thanks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angeledge777 Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Which means that Yingluck Shinawatra is now officially a criminal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crushdepth Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 So the civil court has ruled and taken the rights away from the normal Bangkok Citizen there civil rights. He has no right to use public roads or complain about them being blocked. He has no right to do business with the government because the office he wants to enter is blocked by protesters, he has no right to vote because the protesters block the poll. He has no right to enter the post office because the protesters has block the gate. Now how about if the Red Shirts/White shirts blocked the Constitutional court, the Appeal Court, the Civil Court and told everyone to leave locked the gates and blocked the roads in front of these building. Of course this is a legal peaceful protest with no weapons just a peaceful act of defiance according to the civil court. Now supporters of Suthep your opinion on this action. How do you twist this one around? You don't like it? Go and protest. Sent from somewhere in the Pacific Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank James Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 When has anybody ever paid attention to anything the courts rule in Thailand? All sides do their thing with no consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) 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 I'm telling you nothing. I'm asking you questions which it would seem you don't want to answers apart from avoiding them. BTW the court didn't say anything about stopping the police, just 'no use of force'. In Europe you might see similar rulings had the police been seen to be so biased against anti-government protesters. Especially if the government would setup a CMPO with it's head stating the protesters did it to themselves. ADD: even k. Chalerm didn't complain about the ruling: "Offering his thanks to the court for not lifting the Emergency Decree, Chalerm said that the restrictions imposed by the court were just an expression of concern of the court." http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/705689-chalerm-insists-cmpos-powers-are-not-clipped-by-courts-ruling/ Edited February 20, 2014 by rubl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigt3365 Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 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 No, the source for that part was The Nation. Please don't wrongly attribute information without checking first. Especially as you're admin. Thanks Read the OP. Two sources are quoted. One is the AFP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Alwyn Posted February 20, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted February 20, 2014 I would bet that if the protesters attacked the courts with bombs, grenades and machine guns they would be saying something a bit different. "Sorry your honours, you told us not to do anything, good luck"... Does this mean the police are not allowed to protect themselves or others when being attacked? Does this message not condone the use of grenades to blow policemen's legs off? Does this not tell the protesters it's now fine to do whatever you want because the court has told the police they cannot respond, they're not allowed to defend themselves or members of the public? The courts have just approved a civil war because the red shirts will now return the favour with impunity. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patpending Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I would bet that if the protesters attacked the courts with bombs, grenades and machine guns they would be saying something a bit different. "Sorry your honours, you told us not to do anything, good luck"... Does this mean the police are not allowed to protect themselves or others when being attacked? Does this message not condone the use of grenades to blow policemen's legs off? Does this not tell the protesters it's now fine to do whatever you want because the court has told the police they cannot respond, they're not allowed to defend themselves or members of the public? The courts have just approved a civil war because the red shirts will now return the favour with impunity. you are spot on here. The reds are only quiet now as they have the electoral mandate... almost. which is much more than the other side have. meanwhile in the real world, Journos tweeting each other. and not Nation or BKK ones either. they went quiet the other night as they got pinned down by Akannart and suthep contradicting each other. @thomasfullerNYT The court's decision is flabbergasting. It's time to conclude that #Thailand is not a politically mature country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I would bet that if the protesters attacked the courts with bombs, grenades and machine guns they would be saying something a bit different. "Sorry your honours, you told us not to do anything, good luck"... Does this mean the police are not allowed to protect themselves or others when being attacked? Does this message not condone the use of grenades to blow policemen's legs off? Does this not tell the protesters it's now fine to do whatever you want because the court has told the police they cannot respond, they're not allowed to defend themselves or members of the public? The courts have just approved a civil war because the red shirts will now return the favour with impunity. you are spot on here. The reds are only quiet now as they have the electoral mandate... almost. which is much more than the other side have. meanwhile in the real world, Journos tweeting each other. and not Nation or BKK ones either. they went quiet the other night as they got pinned down by Akannart and suthep contradicting each other. @thomasfullerNYT The court's decision is flabbergasting. It's time to conclude that #Thailand is not a politically mature country. Thomas Fuller must have only been following Thai politics for 5 minutes if he's only just come to that conclusion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueNoseCodger Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) Dear world, remember the popcorn shooter? You saw him on your TV on every news channel shooting voters? Well our police are not allowed to arrest him, and not allowed to arrest the warlord who sent him. Amazing Afghanistan Edited February 20, 2014 by BlueNoseCodger 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alwyn Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I would bet that if the protesters attacked the courts with bombs, grenades and machine guns they would be saying something a bit different. "Sorry your honours, you told us not to do anything, good luck"... Does this mean the police are not allowed to protect themselves or others when being attacked? Does this message not condone the use of grenades to blow policemen's legs off? Does this not tell the protesters it's now fine to do whatever you want because the court has told the police they cannot respond, they're not allowed to defend themselves or members of the public? The courts have just approved a civil war because the red shirts will now return the favour with impunity. you are spot on here. The reds are only quiet now as they have the electoral mandate... almost. which is much more than the other side have. meanwhile in the real world, Journos tweeting each other. and not Nation or BKK ones either. they went quiet the other night as they got pinned down by Akannart and suthep contradicting each other. @thomasfullerNYT The court's decision is flabbergasting. It's time to conclude that #Thailand is not a politically mature country. I'm beginning to think the only thing Thailand is mature in is the art of corruption 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newcomer71 Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) Chalerm is just a pathetic person with zero credibility... But is funny to see how someone like to quote him when somehow supports his views. Oh in this case he is not (add at your will "ear medicine", "wine addicted", "father of a policeman assassin"). Edit: cut out quote, after I read my post seemed personal toward the poster I quoted and it was not my intention to be. Edited February 20, 2014 by newcomer71 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Dear world, remember the popcorn shooter? You saw him on your TV on every news channel shooting voters? Well our police are not allowed to arrest him, and not allowed to arrest the warlord who sent him. Amazing Afghanistan He wasn't shooting voters. He was shooting at pro-government protesters that were shooting at anti-government protesters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trigger571 Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Amazing. Despite all the evidence that the protests are NOT 100% peaceful and have within them criminal elements the court comes up with this utter rubbish. Never heard it tell the protesters that they cannot stop people from practicing their fundamental human right of voting - but oh I forgot - it's ok as long as it is peaceful, and that you are peacefully throwing stones, attacking and intimidating anyone who tries to vote peacefully. Now don't get me wrong. I believe the Shins should step down. Not only the Shins but everyone within their clan. They are a highly corrupt bunch and Yin proved to be utterly incompetent at running this country. I also find it disgusting that there are 4 in line to replace her at the help of the country if she falls - all from the Shin clan - but come on... This will certainly go down as the most behind the scenes coup with strings pulled from all angles in human history. What also amazes me is that the Shin's cannot see that they have lost and I honestly cannot understand why they are still trying to cling to power when the game is so obviously over - at least in my eyes. Sorry for the rant - off to get another coffee. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77Dan Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 "Read the OP. Two sources are quoted. One is the AFP." Yes I know and the part being discussed here is the sentence "The court also..... whose demonstrations have so far been conducted peacefully" which is from the Nation not AFP so I'm afraid you are wrongly attributing information. Just replying 'Read the OP' doesn't help when you obviously haven't taken the time to check carefully either. Thanks 1 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