Court faults Abhisit over sacking of police chief

[fab4]

Basil B, on 03 Mar 2014 - 02:50, said:Basil B, on 03 Mar 2014 - 02:50, said:

fab4, on 02 Mar 2014 - 19:35, said:fab4, on 02 Mar 2014 - 19:35, said:

rubl, on 02 Mar 2014 - 19:21, said:rubl, on 02 Mar 2014 - 19:21, said:rubl, on 02 Mar 2014 - 19:21, said:

"The court ordered the former prime minister to have Patcharawat reinstated within 60 days after the final verdict is made."

now this is an interesting order. how would a former-PM, former-MP and currently no MP go forward to do such thing?

Sigh. Read this rubl

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/707780-court-faults-abhisit-over-sacking-of-police-chief/?p=7508664

Yes, but I think that anybody will a brain will realize Abhisit is not in a position to to reappoint this person.

This order seems totally unenforceable, apart from Abhisit not holding office that would allow him to do reinstate this person, would it not mean having to sack the incumbent holder of this position? would that also be wrong?

It would be more appropriate to instruct Abhisit to pay this guy compensation for wrongful dismissal, but I am sided to think Abhisit took advice on this from others, it is an action he got wrong.

Sigh. I told you it was badly worded.

The article refers to abhisit with his present day moniker "ex prime minister" but it is referring to the actions that abhisit should have done then (in 2008) after he received the order from the police commission to reinstate the police chief.

And yes abhisit was holding an office that enabled him to reinstate the police chief as apart from being PM art that time, he was also Chairman of the Police Commission (as I pointed out in my link).

The police commission had already ruled that abhisits dismissal of the incumbent police chief, Patcharawat, and abhisit's choice to replace him was wrong.

So, abhisit is guilty of "dereliction of duty" as found.

Edited March 3, 2014 by fab4

[rubl]

Yes, but I think that anybody will a brain will realize Abhisit is not in a position to to reappoint this person.

This order seems totally unenforceable, apart from Abhisit not holding office that would allow him to do reinstate this person, would it not mean having to sack the incumbent holder of this position? would that also be wrong?

It would be more appropriate to instruct Abhisit to pay this guy compensation for wrongful dismissal, but I am sided to think Abhisit took advice on this from others, it is an action he got wrong.

Sigh. I told you it was badly worded.

The article refers to abhisit with his present day moniker "ex prime minister" but it is referring to the actions that abhisit should have done then (in 2008) after he received the order from the police commission to reinstate the police chief.

And yes abhisit was holding an office that enabled him to reinstate the police chief as apart from being PM art that time, he was also Chairman of the Police Commission (as I pointed out in my link).

The police commission had already ruled that abhisits dismissal of the incumbent police chief, Patcharawat, and abhisit's choice to replace him was wrong.

So, abhisit is guilty of "dereliction of duty" as found.

The last sentence is your interpretation and not that of the CAC.

Still no answer on how private person Abhisit is supposed to proceed with this ruling.

[fab4]

rubl, on 03 Mar 2014 - 11:09, said:

Emptyset, on 01 Mar 2014 - 20:49, said:

kimamey, on 01 Mar 2014 - 08:12, said:

Does seem to have taken a long time.

Is this another of those courts we keep hearing about who are biased and corrupt in favour of the Democrats?

I see the NACC was involved as well. Maybe the red shirts attacking the NACC could add this to their list of biased decisions they're complaining about.

It's not clear that the NACC were supporting Patcharawat in this case. Though it's widely believed the NACC and Constitutional Court are biased, I'd prefer to look at their decisions on a case by case basis and decide for myself based on whatever evidence is available as to whether the decision makes sense on its own merits. And it's clear that some of their decisions have been strange or seemingly without legal basis, so you can see why people would assume these agencies and courts are working in concert against their side... of course, that means when they make a fair decision against PT, people can claim it's just the biased courts again, when really they should be castigating their own leadership for being so corrupt/stupid (i.e. in the NACC cases against the govt, not sure about the one against YL, but other ministers have profited from corruption).

The usual zigzagging along.

I'ts not clear (to you). Widely believed, I prefer to, It's clear.

Anyway what isn't clear is how k. Abhisit could possibly proceed with this CAC order. I don't think private persons are allowed to re-instate a National Police Chief, apart from the fact that we already have one again. Does the court recommend demotion of the current one?

Are you deliberately trying not to understand .

I have twice explained on this thread how the article is badly written.

For the third and last time, the article refers to abhisit with his present day moniker as ex-PM but refers to the action, i.e reinstatement of the police chief, he should have taken at that time, in 2008, be cause he was also chairman of the police commission, at that time, in 2008.

If you have me on ignore, well, that's up to you, if you're ignoring the message, that's also up to you, your loss, remain ignorant.

[GarryP]

Now is the time to go after Abhisit for his past crimes and poor decisions!

Justice delayed, is justice denied, but it is still justifiable for the people of Thailand to know the truth about this man!

Cheers

Or maybe they wand to be seens as no double standards

make a conviction again one side before they throw the book at Yingluck

you are so biased you can not see the ovbvious

Bloody hell, conspiracy theorists are now active on TV.

[rubl]

rubl, on 03 Mar 2014 - 11:09, said:

The usual zigzagging along.

I'ts not clear (to you). Widely believed, I prefer to, It's clear.

Anyway what isn't clear is how k. Abhisit could possibly proceed with this CAC order. I don't think private persons are allowed to re-instate a National Police Chief, apart from the fact that we already have one again. Does the court recommend demotion of the current one?

Are you deliberately trying not to understand .

I have twice explained on this thread how the article is badly written.

For the third and last time, the article refers to abhisit with his present day moniker as ex-PM but refers to the action, i.e reinstatement of the police chief, he should have taken at that time, in 2008, be cause he was also chairman of the police commission, at that time, in 2008.

If you have me on ignore, well, that's up to you, if you're ignoring the message, that's also up to you, your loss, remain ignorant.

So, it's still not clear how the currently private person Abhisit should go forward with the CAC order to re-instate a sacked National Police Chief. Whether the article refers to Abhisit as ex-Pm, ex-MP, or just k. Abhisit doesn't matter, he is ordered by the CAC to re-instate a NPC.

Now as for the 'ignore', the frequent replies I give and which you mostly ignore ... ... ...

[binjalin]

Of course they acquitted him, nothing else could be expected from the Yellow courts and their elite coup mongering puppet masters with their double standards and their...huh? what's that? the court ruled against Abhisit?

Oh, never mind then.

are you clear it was the Police Commission not a Court?

You are quite right. The Police Commission is not a court.

But is was a court that ruled against Abhisit.

"The Central Administrative Court ruled yesterday that former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's order in 2009"

you are right and I realised my error and "edited" within a minute but not quick enough for you it seems...well spotted lol

[binjalin]

rubl, on 02 Mar 2014 - 19:21, said:

"The court ordered the former prime minister to have Patcharawat reinstated within 60 days after the final verdict is made."

now this is an interesting order. how would a former-PM, former-MP and currently no MP go forward to do such thing?

Sigh. Read this rubl

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/707780-court-faults-abhisit-over-sacking-of-police-chief/?p=7508664

Deep, very deep sigh.

The "to find abhisit guilty of dereliction of duty." is your interpretation. Also it still doesn't answer my question as to how k. Abhisit is supposed to proceed in order to comply with the Central Administrative Court's order.

to be fair dear old Rubl actually has a point... if it was "the PM must reinstate" but Mark? how?

[JamesDean3]

Pachawarat W is a tool of Newin Chidchob. The PM has every right to dismiss anyone not working in tandem with their team.

[rubl]

My mistake 2009 not 2008. Somchai sacked him in 2008, but the case was taken on by abhisit, who finally sacked him in 2009.

Somchai was sacked.

abhisit was asked to reinstate the Police Chief in 2009, he didn't at that time, satisfied?

The explanation still stands. Substitute 2009 for 2008 and it makes no difference to how the article should be read.

and don't call me a liar, rubl, the posts are here;

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/707780-court-faults-abhisit-over-sacking-of-police-chief/?view=findpost&p=7514931,

here, http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/707780-court-faults-abhisit-over-sacking-of-police-chief/?view=findpost&p=7514817

and here, http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/707780-court-faults-abhisit-over-sacking-of-police-chief/?view=findpost&p=7508664

For one I didn't call you a liar, just wondering if you might be one.

You kept on insisting on 2008 and blaming Abhisit with your interpretation of "guilty of dereliction of duty". Now you merely shrug of the 2008 as a typo.

Even now you still have a problem with comprehending the subject:

PM Abhisit sacked national police chief Patcharawat Wongsuwan in October 2009. In December 2009 the Police Commission found Patcharawat did not in fact commit severe disciplinary wrongdoing in connection with the incident, as had been alleged. Patcharawat said in a petition filed with the court that he had informed Abhisit in writing seven times about the Police Commission decision not to pursue severe disciplinary action against him. But Abhisit told Patcharawat that the Council of State, the government's legal advisory agency, had to be consulted first before the dismissal order could be cancelled, the petition said. However, the then-prime minister still failed to take any action on the matter. Patcharawat's petition said it appeared Abhisit had been intentionally negligent and acted too slowly on the matter. So he took the case to court, asking for the defendant to honour the Police Commission decision that called for his dismissal order to be revoked.

The court ruled that the former NPC should be re-installed. The court didn't rule or mention 'intentional negligence'. The court failed to point out how a private person can re-instate a former NPC.

You really cannot read , can you.

My "typo" of 2008 derives from the date of the original case for sacking Patcharawat by Somchai as I stated. The case was taken over in 2009 by abhisit as I stated.

abhisit was Chairman of the Police Commission in 2009 as well as being PM at that time. The Police Commission decided that abhisit had sacked Patcharawat wrongly. They told abhisit to reinstate the police chief in a certain timeframe. He didn't.

The Court found abhisit guilty of dereliction of duty - period. I know he's your poster boy but suck it up.

And finally, this, the 4th time of explanation, the court had no reason to point out "how a private person can re-instate a former NPC" because they are referring to what abhisit should have done in 2009 - he wasn't a private person then !

You may still have time to get your money back for that comprehension course..............................

Taken from

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/708478-dsi-seeks-arrest-of-suthep-over-2010-deadly-crackdown-on-redshirts/page-3#entry7540949

A few quotes removed, there were too many.

- October 2009 - NPC sacked

- December 2009

the Police Commission found Patcharawat did not in fact commit severe disciplinary wrongdoing in connection with the incident, as had been alleged.

- December 2009 - January 2010 - February 2010 - ????

Patcharawat said in a petition filed with the court that he had informed Abhisit in writing seven times about the Police Commission decision not to pursue severe disciplinary action against him.

- somewhen in 2010

Abhisit told Patcharawat that the Council of State, the government's legal advisory agency, had to be consulted first before the dismissal order could be cancelled, the petition said.

- somewhat later in 2010

Patcharawat's petition said it appeared Abhisit had been intentionally negligent and acted too slowly on the matter. So he took the case to court.

- March 2014

Administrative Court rules 1: dismissal order to be revoked. 2. The court ordered the former prime minister to have Patcharawat reinstated within 60 days after the final verdict is made.

Again the question how can the ex-PM, now private person Abhisit re-instate a former NPC? Maybe the Adm. Court wasn't sure either with that remark on 'final verdict'. I assume all expect Abhisit will appeal the verdict.

[fab4]

rubl, on 10 Mar 2014 - 13:43, said:

Taken from

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/708478-dsi-seeks-arrest-of-suthep-over-2010-deadly-crackdown-on-redshirts/page-3#entry7540949

A few quotes removed, there were too many.

- October 2009 - NPC sacked

- December 2009

the Police Commission found Patcharawat did not in fact commit severe disciplinary wrongdoing in connection with the incident, as had been alleged.

- December 2009 - January 2010 - February 2010 - ????

Patcharawat said in a petition filed with the court that he had informed Abhisit in writing seven times about the Police Commission decision not to pursue severe disciplinary action against him.

- somewhen in 2010

Abhisit told Patcharawat that the Council of State, the government's legal advisory agency, had to be consulted first before the dismissal order could be cancelled, the petition said.

- somewhat later in 2010

Patcharawat's petition said it appeared Abhisit had been intentionally negligent and acted too slowly on the matter. So he took the case to court.

- March 2014

Administrative Court rules 1: dismissal order to be revoked. 2. The court ordered the former prime minister to have Patcharawat reinstated within 60 days after the final verdict is made.

Again the question how can the ex-PM, now private person Abhisit re-instate a former NPC? Maybe the Adm. Court wasn't sure either with that remark on 'final verdict'. I assume all expect Abhisit will appeal the verdict.

Just realised that you're quoting from the nation (because no links mentioned).

End of story. Find a better source for your understanding of issues, read the BP if you have to, at least they can string English together.

[rubl]

rubl, on 10 Mar 2014 - 13:43, said:

Taken from

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/708478-dsi-seeks-arrest-of-suthep-over-2010-deadly-crackdown-on-redshirts/page-3#entry7540949

A few quotes removed, there were too many.

- October 2009 - NPC sacked

- December 2009

the Police Commission found Patcharawat did not in fact commit severe disciplinary wrongdoing in connection with the incident, as had been alleged.

- December 2009 - January 2010 - February 2010 - ????

Patcharawat said in a petition filed with the court that he had informed Abhisit in writing seven times about the Police Commission decision not to pursue severe disciplinary action against him.

- somewhen in 2010

Abhisit told Patcharawat that the Council of State, the government's legal advisory agency, had to be consulted first before the dismissal order could be cancelled, the petition said.

- somewhat later in 2010

Patcharawat's petition said it appeared Abhisit had been intentionally negligent and acted too slowly on the matter. So he took the case to court.

- March 2014

Administrative Court rules 1: dismissal order to be revoked. 2. The court ordered the former prime minister to have Patcharawat reinstated within 60 days after the final verdict is made.

Again the question how can the ex-PM, now private person Abhisit re-instate a former NPC? Maybe the Adm. Court wasn't sure either with that remark on 'final verdict'. I assume all expect Abhisit will appeal the verdict.

Just realised that you're quoting from the nation (because no links mentioned).

End of story. Find a better source for your understanding of issues, read the BP if you have to, at least they can string English together.

To move back to the right topic I copied the last reply sequence to here, but had to remove a few quotes. One of those from you was to "antithaksin worldpress com" which seems to be blocked by my ISP, the other to "thailandnewsworth worldpress com" which seems to suffer the same fate.

Please check with your local friendly care-taking government