Jump to content

Chalerm asks Civil Court judges to clarify ruling


Recommended Posts

Posted

Chalerm asks Civil Court judges to clarify ruling

chalerm-4-wpcf_728x413.jpg

BANGKOK: -- The director of the Center for the Maintaining of Peace and Order (CMPO) Chalerm Yoobamrung today asked the 5-member panel of the Civil Court to clarify the banning of the enforcement of the center’s nine orders.

Speaking on television in the afternoon in stern face, Chalerm said the Civil Court’s ruling not to lift the emergency decree looked as if it still allows the center to enforce the law.

But it wasn’t and upset authorities, he said.

He said that all the nine orders are key tool to the working of the center to keep peace and order, adding from now it could do nothing, and as a consequence would lead to more damages to the country.

He then recalled the days when he was justice minister and had done many things beneficial to the judges.

He said he was not asking for a debt of gratitude from the court but he just wanted to have clarification.

He also said that this country does not belong only to the court but all the people and that the people should know equally.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/chalerm-asks-civil-court-judges-clarify-ruling/

thaipbs_logo.jpg
-- Thai PBS 2014-02-20

  • Like 2
  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Posted

Dismayed Chalerm to seek court’s clarifications on ruling
By Digital Content

13928826935848.jpg

BANGKOK, Feb 20 – The Centre for Maintaining Peace and Order (CMPO) will submit a seven-point question to the Civil Court to seek clarifications on the authorities’ power in dealing with anti-government protesters, CMPO director Chalerm Yubamrung said today.

His statement came on the heels of yesterday's Civil Court ruling endorsing the government-invoked emergency decree but prohibiting the use of force and weapons in cracking down on protesters who have organised peaceful demonstrations.

Mr Chalerm said he did not object to the court’s warnings against dispersing demonstrators and would order police to refrain from that.

He said CMPO would ask the court on whether police could arrest people, some of whom are on arrest warrants, who gathered weapons and built bunkers in Government House, and people who possessed M-16 rifles and stole valuables during their seizure of the Interior Ministry.

Could people who had obstructed traffic with illegal barricades be defined as mobsters, Mr Chalerm asked, and would police be asked to disperse the demonstration if some 300 self-proclaimed mobsters reoccupied the Energy Ministry.

He said he wanted to know what action police could be permitted to take when Phra Buddha Issara sealed off Government Complex and barred civil servants from entering the buildings to work, and whether Suthep Thaugsuban’s behaviour in leading protesters to close government buildings, intimidate civil servants and the prime minister could be determined as a peaceful, unarmed activity.

Mr Chalerm said the CMPO also wanted the court to explain if it was right or wrong when Mr Suthep announced that he would intrude into government offices such as CMPO and private companies.

He stated in a sarcastic tone of voice, “If the court says this is right, we won’t have to work anymore as we have to abide by the court’s order.

“If the court says it is not wrong for mobsters to seize CMPO office, I will hand over CMPO to Mr Suthep. Police are too scare to take any action, or they could violate the court’s order. I’m not sarcastic but I’m afraid my subordinates could be jailed.

“Regarding possible petitions to the court to release those on arrest warrants in accord with the state of emergency, we will not arrest them if the court decides to revoke the warrants. We will instead enforce the Criminal Law in dealing with them.”

Mr Chalerm said the CMPO legal team was working on details to appeal the Civil Court’s verdict.

He said CMPO would not assign police to duty at the Shinawatra 3 Building on Vibhavadi Rangsit Road which was sealed off by protesters this morning, or “we could be charged with violating the court’s order.”

Asked if police could be charged with negligence of duty, Mr Chalerm said, “No, they did nothing wrong because they followed the court’s order.”

National Police chief Adul Saengsingkaew said police would adjust their measures in dealing with protesters to be in line with the court’s order.

He said the violence on Phan Fah Bridge, Ratchdamnoen Avenue,on Monday was not from police firing but it was instigated by a third party. (MCOT online news)

tnalogo.jpg
-- TNA 2014-02-20

Posted

"He then recalled the days when he was justice minister and had done many things beneficial to the judges.

He said he was not asking for a debt of gratitude from the court but he just wanted to have clarification."

Is he for real? Drunk again? bah.gif

Yeah... I think he was...

Posted

"He then recalled the days when he was justice minister and had done many things beneficial to the judges.

He said he was not asking for a debt of gratitude from the court but he just wanted to have clarification."

Is he for real? Drunk again? bah.gif

Yeah... I think he was...

http://youtu.be/HkuBvL0rCSA

  • Like 1
Posted

setting Charlerms attitude to one side for a moment, I am actually surprised at the courts ruling, you either have an SOE or you don't, it would have made much more sense for the court to either support the SOE or rule to have it discontinued, as it is it has created unnecessary confusion.

Charlerms tactics have led to 5 deaths and many injuries on the streets of Bangkok after almost 4 months of generally peaceful protests, the only violence has been nightly attacks on peaceful protest sites which still remain uninvestigated - the events of this week have changed all that, we now have the police attacking protest sites under the orders of Charlerm and Tarit resulting in complete mayhem and deaths

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)

Who appoints these so called judges?

They are democratically elected. clap2.gif

Edit: Not to your liking when hit-the-fan.gif.pagespeed.ce.6UelFDbFNJ. ?

Edited by Why ask
  • Like 2
Posted

Dismayed? You're kidding! He has just yesterday said that the court's rulings would have no effect on the SOE... If you saw him stagger up the the press conference today and listened to his rant; you'd understand his confusion.

Care to give us a précis of what he said in this "rant"?
Posted

Judicial coup in progress. Those judges keep turning up the heat with their decisions tying the hands of the govt.

Military coup on the street. Soldiers with automatic weapons claiming to be peace-loving protest security guards.

Civil Service coup almost complete. Public sector workers want their unofficial perks.

The rent-seekers have joined forces to ensure they keep their disproportionate share of the national wealth and unofficial immunity from any prosecution. The other rent-seekers, the provincially-based ones, have their backs against the wall with this lot all collaborating.

I want some of what you are smoking it must be strong stuff .

Posted

This shows how sincere yingluck is and how much her ministers listen to her. This highlights yingluck is a puppet that is packaged and unpackaged when required. She is then hidden in a room until such time as she is required to say a scripted speech again on TV.

yingluck said all along never to use force on protestors. Never will we use force on the protestors and she reiterated it ever few days starting on the 25th of November. Not once did chalerm say to her sarcastically “If yingluck says this is right, we won’t have to work anymore as we have to abide by the yinglucks order". He never said that. He knew it was words for the media. Words to make her unaccountable when violence did break out. It wasn't directed at him. They won't be able to put yingluck up on murder charges if she told charlerm not to use force.

So you listen to yingluck when told not to use force, but you don't listen to the courts when told not to use force? Seems like this is a natural PTP trait to just ignore, query or be sarcastic with the courts. So the courts are biased when they state not to use force. yingluck must be biased too then? Can't have it both ways…PTP can though.

  • Like 1
Posted

He is so right, the court seem to forget about the little people who just want to move on with their lives, but are blocked to enter many government officers, face road blocks and some could no even vote because they were blocked by the peaceful protesters.

Oh my, oh my, oh my. Begins with T and ends in L.

Posted

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"Please, your Honors, is it ok to for us to shoot people or not?"

that's after they shot at the police.

They shot back at police after weeks of being shot at and blown up by grenades thrown by police.

Posted

I think the problem the minister for ear medicine has with the judgment is that he doesnt understand the details, someone needs to translate it into drunkenese for him

Whoa! What a neoligism. "Drunkenese".......... that's a wonderful word. Brilliant! cheesy.gif

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...