So Tarit says there is no law without a SOE, what a load of <deleted>.

I see the reds are attacking the court again, great stuff.

Red democracy.

I thought it was the role of the police to enforce law and order. OK they might not be that good but there's not exactly a shortage of them and as their boss is in Thaksin's pocket what's the problem?

no profit in it

The court ruling has left Bangkok in a state of lawlessness. The court must define it ruling on how far the protesters can go. When you think about them blocking people rights to vote at some polling stations and blocking roads and bridges and saying this is there peaceful right. Well what about the right of those who live and work in the city. The civil court has taken away their civil rights.

Lawlessness? Existing laws still apply. Some of the additional 'emergency' powers the government tried to appropriate have been put in perspective by the court.

The government can't arbitrarily declare a "state of emergency" and use it as a shield for cracking heads, however disappointing you may find it. This is not an emergency, it's a protest.

The court ruling has left Bangkok in a state of lawlessness. The court must define it ruling on how far the protesters can go. When you think about them blocking people rights to vote at some polling stations and blocking roads and bridges and saying this is there peaceful right. Well what about the right of those who live and work in the city. The civil court has taken away their civil rights.

No, the state of lawlessness is the result of the police not doing their job. That's what the court was telling them. Go enforce the current laws which make these things illegal. You don't need the powers of a dictatorship to do that.

The court ruling has left Bangkok in a state of lawlessness. The court must define it ruling on how far the protesters can go. When you think about them blocking people rights to vote at some polling stations and blocking roads and bridges and saying this is there peaceful right. Well what about the right of those who live and work in the city. The civil court has taken away their civil rights.

No, the state of lawlessness is the result of the police not doing their job. That's what the court was telling them. Go enforce the current laws which make these things illegal. You don't need the powers of a dictatorship to do that.

Case in point - how many protesters have the police arrested

The court ruling has left Bangkok in a state of lawlessness. The court must define it ruling on how far the protesters can go. When you think about them blocking people rights to vote at some polling stations and blocking roads and bridges and saying this is there peaceful right. Well what about the right of those who live and work in the city. The civil court has taken away their civil rights.

No, the state of lawlessness is the result of the police not doing their job. That's what the court was telling them. Go enforce the current laws which make these things illegal. You don't need the powers of a dictatorship to do that.

Case in point - how many protesters have the police arrested

114?

They let women go out of compassion.

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The court ruling has left Bangkok in a state of lawlessness. The court must define it ruling on how far the protesters can go. When you think about them blocking people rights to vote at some polling stations and blocking roads and bridges and saying this is there peaceful right. Well what about the right of those who live and work in the city. The civil court has taken away their civil rights.

No, the state of lawlessness is the result of the police not doing their job. That's what the court was telling them. Go enforce the current laws which make these things illegal. You don't need the powers of a dictatorship to do that.

I'm not taking sides here, but your concept that police are meant to "enforce the current laws" is only allowed in dictatorships. Police can only arrest and charge the alleged offender, and then the courts "enforce the current laws". Police are not given the rights of judge, jury and executioner ( in its broadest semse).

We all well know that any arrests in Thailand result in release on bail within hours . Besides which the courts have just accepted application to have all the arrest warrants against the protestors withdrawn.

How about their inability to harness any form of intelligence from Chalerm?

Cmon that must really be a challenge!

The court ruling has left Bangkok in a state of lawlessness. The court must define it ruling on how far the protesters can go. When you think about them blocking people rights to vote at some polling stations and blocking roads and bridges and saying this is there peaceful right. Well what about the right of those who live and work in the city. The civil court has taken away their civil rights.

No, the state of lawlessness is the result of the police not doing their job. That's what the court was telling them. Go enforce the current laws which make these things illegal. You don't need the powers of a dictatorship to do that.

You conveniently neglect to mention that the court specifically called for the police to be unarmed when dealing with these protestors rather like in 2008 at the airport. Then they and the press were scared away by gun toting yellow shirts.

Normally the thai police have side arms but not the riot police.

No wonder Chalerm suggested that the police should not bother to confront the protestors if they want to live.