Fat Haggis Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 I'm sorry but are terrorist attacks against the protestors against the law? Are shooting at people and throwing grenades at them against the law? How about planning to secede and form a 600,000 army? I'm sure there's a law against that, isn't there? If you idiots are going to quote the 'law' then I suggest you enforce it. And not selectively. Oh and aren't you supposed to be in jail for breaking the law also? That is the classic vapid concept of 2 wrongs can make an idiotic right. Whoever carries a firearm without the permit to do so, is in violation of the laws. Be it one of the Students (I shudder at the thought that those are the future doctors and engineers) or red or yellow shirts, the ones in violation of the existing laws should be held accountable and also those enlisting and aiding their services. 2 wrongs don't make a right. True. However, protestors wouldn't need to be armed to protect themselves if they weren't being shot at and had grenades thrown at them on a daily basis. Protestors wouldn't need to be armed if the police actually did something to catch the culprits attacking them. Violation of law? How about the government enforces the law on EVERYONE regardless of political color spectrum, not be hypocrites and only enforce it on their political rivals. How come the Army have never come under criticism for not protecting these protestors either Gerry ? Were they not deployed early on, around the time of the victory "grenade" attack? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVGerry Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 2 wrongs don't make a right. True. However, protestors wouldn't need to be armed to protect themselves if they weren't being shot at and had grenades thrown at them on a daily basis. Protestors wouldn't need to be armed if the police actually did something to catch the culprits attacking them. Violation of law? How about the government enforces the law on EVERYONE regardless of political color spectrum, not be hypocrites and only enforce it on their political rivals. How come the Army have never come under criticism for not protecting these protestors either Gerry ? Were they not deployed early on, around the time of the victory "grenade" attack? How many soldiers were deployed in comparison to policemen? But more importantly, the police did nothing to try to catch these guys. They're excellent when catching armed guards of the PRDC. They do fast work in getting the soldiers who shot the red shirt leader. But they don't seem to be able to get the people firing at the protestors do they? Why would they? One of them went on stage gleefully cheering the deaths of the Trat victims with no policeman coming out to condemn him. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krystian Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 (edited) Ohh they forgot to mention red shirts violating sec 1 of the constitution ( sorry typo error earlier) Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app Edited March 2, 2014 by krystian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Haggis Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 I kind of agree with you on this, but trying to catch the M79 culprits is like chasing Ghosts, unless they've been tipped of with names etc, on the other hand these PDRC/SEALs guards were mostly caught at routine checkpoints if I'm not mistaken, I hear you 10 x 10 on they seem to be doing nothing, I'm not defending them either, LEO's from most countries are tossers !! there's few exceptions. There was never any love between the Police and the PDRC, they were damned from the off, too much friction and rivalry there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fstarbkk Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 "It was said that... This shows that... Mr. Promphong believed that..." Is there a story here somewhere, other than what a member of a totally discredited government believes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mosha Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 It sets a precedent,and not a very good one, as it means that anyone who feels the need to employ 1350 armed guards can now do so, without any fear of the Law stopping or impeding them.. I do believe that's what the PTP spokesman is aluding to Yawn, The precedent has been set many times previously including the 2010 riots. I'm not doubting that but obviously lessons were not learnt then you can't change the past, but you can change the future !! What folks are saying is the guy's an hypocrite of the highest order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtoad Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Treason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jennywren Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 (edited) 2 wrongs don't make a right. True. However, protestors wouldn't need to be armed to protect themselves if they weren't being shot at and had grenades thrown at them on a daily basis. Protestors wouldn't need to be armed if the police actually did something to catch the culprits attacking them. Violation of law? How about the government enforces the law on EVERYONE regardless of political color spectrum, not be hypocrites and only enforce it on their political rivals. How come the Army have never come under criticism for not protecting these protestors either Gerry ? Were they not deployed early on, around the time of the victory "grenade" attack? How many soldiers were deployed in comparison to policemen? But more importantly, the police did nothing to try to catch these guys. They're excellent when catching armed guards of the PRDC. They do fast work in getting the soldiers who shot the red shirt leader. But they don't seem to be able to get the people firing at the protestors do they? Why would they? One of them went on stage gleefully cheering the deaths of the Trat victims with no policeman coming out to condemn him. they have to double or treble their efforts to arrest armed thugs on the PDRC side as the courts keep releasing them. This guy, arrested twice now in two week period full armed, once imperonating a police officer. Still on the streets! Will they want to arrest him a third time? or will he be resisting arrest to the extent they have to shoot him? The PDRC want anarchy when it suits them. the army said most of last weeks battles were PDRC shooting at shadows and passing drunks. letting of their own bangers to create mayhem hoping for army to help them. Edited March 2, 2014 by jennywren 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crushdepth Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Dear Khun Prompong are you writing this from your cell? Pheu Thai spokesman gets one-year jailterm without suspension December 12, 2013 The Appeals Court on Thursday sentenced Pheu Thai party spokesman Prompong Nopparit and another Pheu Thai member to one-year imprisonment without suspension after finding them guilty of defaming the former president of the Constitution Court. Criminal government spokesman, love it. Only in Thailand. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robby nz Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Sure the guards should not be carrying weapons. Nor for anyone to have firearms. In fact there should be no need for guards at all. The only reason that the protesters have guards is that they were being attacked. When those attacks escalated into armed attacks, shootings and bombings then the guards saw the need to arm themselves in order to do their job as guards, that is protect those who are protesting. The shame, as I have written before, is that the police refuse to do their job which in this case is to protect the Thai people from violent offenders. Had the police been doing their job "To serve and protect" there would be no need for guards let alone armed ones. I don't really think you can blame the guards, who have been putting their lives on the line, (how many have been wounded or killed ?) for arming themselves for personal protection as well as for the job they are doing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seajae Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 What is the law when it comes to carrying weapons ? I'm not talking about owning one, I'm talking about carrying one in public? I'm not trying to pick sides, I'd like to know that if the shoe/gun was on the other foot/hip, what does the actual Law state about the carraige of a weapon in public?? That would be interesting to know as I see the local police openly wearing guns strapped to their hips when they are off duty in civvies, I think they think it means they have a big d*ck . If people are properly licensed to carry a weapon thats fine as long as they abide by the law in doing so. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVGerry Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 How many soldiers were deployed in comparison to policemen? But more importantly, the police did nothing to try to catch these guys. They're excellent when catching armed guards of the PRDC. They do fast work in getting the soldiers who shot the red shirt leader. But they don't seem to be able to get the people firing at the protestors do they? Why would they? One of them went on stage gleefully cheering the deaths of the Trat victims with no policeman coming out to condemn him. they have to double or treble their efforts to arrest armed thugs on the PDRC side as the courts keep releasing them. This guy, arrested twice now in two week period full armed, once imperonating a police officer. Still on the streets! Will they want to arrest him a third time? or will he be resisting arrest to the extent they have to shoot him? The PDRC want anarchy when it suits them. the army said most of last weeks battles were PDRC shooting at shadows and passing drunks. letting of their own bangers to create mayhem hoping for army to help them. Oh yes, how convenient. Protestors are getting shot at and grenades thrown at them daily since the protest began and when they finally start to defend themselves, we have people like you saying they're firing at 'shadows and drunks'. If the police actually did their jobs and caught the people shooting at the protestors then they would have no excuse being armed. But no, police are doing nothing and have even gone on stage cheering the deaths at Trat. If the people have lost faith in the police to defend them for deadly attacks, why shouldn't they arm themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheryl Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 A 2 party flamefest ---> posts have been deleted. Cease and desist at once or both parties will find themselves unable to post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemonjelly Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 PT MPs condoning the burning of down half of Bangkok doesn't violate the constitution though........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
than Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Mr. Promphong Nopparit forget to condemn red people how violated section 1 and section 68 of the constitution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamMunich Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Hasn't that guy, Mr. Promphong Nopparit, been found guilty of something criminal? How come he is still representing the government? I would suspect that is on purpose... one among many? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbamboo Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Hasn't that guy, Mr. Promphong Nopparit, been found guilty of something criminal? How come he is still representing the government? I would suspect that is on purpose... one among many? That's a bit unfair. Why pick on him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prbkk Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 2 wrongs don't make a right. True. However, protestors wouldn't need to be armed to protect themselves if they weren't being shot at and had grenades thrown at them on a daily basis. Protestors wouldn't need to be armed if the police actually did something to catch the culprits attacking them. Violation of law? How about the government enforces the law on EVERYONE regardless of political color spectrum, not be hypocrites and only enforce it on their political rivals. How come the Army have never come under criticism for not protecting these protestors either Gerry ? Were they not deployed early on, around the time of the victory "grenade" attack? How many soldiers were deployed in comparison to policemen? But more importantly, the police did nothing to try to catch these guys. They're excellent when catching armed guards of the PRDC. They do fast work in getting the soldiers who shot the red shirt leader. But they don't seem to be able to get the people firing at the protestors do they? Why would they? One of them went on stage gleefully cheering the deaths of the Trat victims with no policeman coming out to condemn him. they have to double or treble their efforts to arrest armed thugs on the PDRC side as the courts keep releasing them.This guy, arrested twice now in two week period full armed, once imperonating a police officer. Still on the streets! Will they want to arrest him a third time? or will he be resisting arrest to the extent they have to shoot him? The PDRC want anarchy when it suits them. the army said most of last weeks battles were PDRC shooting at shadows and passing drunks. letting of their own bangers to create mayhem hoping for army to help them. Agree. And a very limp attempt at a comb-over disguise in photo 2 arrest. They should throw away the key for this one 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorecard Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> 2 wrongs don't make a right. True. However, protestors wouldn't need to be armed to protect themselves if they weren't being shot at and had grenades thrown at them on a daily basis. Protestors wouldn't need to be armed if the police actually did something to catch the culprits attacking them. Violation of law? How about the government enforces the law on EVERYONE regardless of political color spectrum, not be hypocrites and only enforce it on their political rivals. How come the Army have never come under criticism for not protecting these protestors either Gerry ? Were they not deployed early on, around the time of the victory "grenade" attack? How many soldiers were deployed in comparison to policemen? But more importantly, the police did nothing to try to catch these guys. They're excellent when catching armed guards of the PRDC. They do fast work in getting the soldiers who shot the red shirt leader. But they don't seem to be able to get the people firing at the protestors do they? Why would they? One of them went on stage gleefully cheering the deaths of the Trat victims with no policeman coming out to condemn him. All the more reason for serious reforms before the next election. Just one reform being promotion by displayed capability and proven performance record and no hint at all of corruption or collusion. In fact the same policies should apply to all public servants / employees of all govt agencies. And all audited properly and regularly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangmod Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Can someone please bring in the chop block??? He will be next in line, after Chalerm to behead himself…….. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogmatix Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 So, if he thinks the constitution has been violated, it is his duty to file a complaint with the constitutional court. But it seems like his own armed thugs are violating Section 63 of the constitution by preventing them from having the right of peaceful assembly by firing grenades and firing assault rifles at them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kikoman Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 (edited) Peaceful Protest have no need to be armed, if they are armed common sense would indicate, that they violated the "protest carried out peacefully by unarmed protesters" decision by the court! Only in Bangkok! Cheers Edited March 2, 2014 by kikoman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smedly Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 where is the news article of the court being buried in cement or has that been largely buried too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVGerry Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Peaceful Protest have no need to be armed, if they are armed common sense would indicate, that they violated the "protest carried out peacefully by unarmed protesters" decision by the court! Only in Bangkok! Cheers Peaceful protests whose protestors don't get shot at and have grenades thrown at them on a daily basis have no need to be armed. Only in Thailand where victims of terror attacks are persecuted by the government for wanting to defend themselves while the perpetrators of said attacks roam free! Cheers 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedtripler Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 What is the law when it comes to carrying weapons ? I'm not talking about owning one, I'm talking about carrying one in public? I'm not trying to pick sides, I'd like to know that if the shoe/gun was on the other foot/hip, what does the actual Law state about the carraige of a weapon in public?? Like many countries you can carry unloaded weapons on a standard gun license to and from a shooting range etc.. to carry otherwise you would need a carry permit.Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app Thank you, so basically the TV members who are shooting this guy down then (figure of speech) have no issues or concerns about large groups of armed males doing their own thing ? Sounds more like a Militia if that's the case, and if they don't have any issue, then they'd obviously have no objections to 600,000 armed reds being allowed to do the same as and when they pleased (not that it hasn't happened before) I mean when there's a Red rally, they all place a ring of armed protectors then? FH. Large groups of armed Thai males are doing there own thing EVERYDAY. There are over 6 million licensed weapons in Thailand .. I would warrant at least 1 in 5 car owners probably have one in the car. Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app when you say " licenced " there are 6 million then the actual figures must be a lot bigger since thais dont tend to follow the rules if they dont like them ........ my x gf had a gun in her room and trophys for shooting contests she had won .......not sure if it was licenced or unlicenced but her dad got it for her ( he was a cop ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamMunich Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 SamMunich Hasn't that guy, Mr. Promphong Nopparit, been found guilty of something criminal? How come he is still representing the government? I would suspect that is on purpose... one among many? _________________________________________ bigbamboo: That's a bit unfair. Why pick on him? _________________________________________ SamMunich: Unfair? Depends on the actual issue he was sentenced for. A traffic ticket would be unfair to hold against him, but e.g. a corruption or a lying in court is a much bigger issue. In other countries even ministers would have to step down for such things as corruption etc. _________________________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamMunich Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 smedley's tagline: Do not argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience _________________________________________ I like that tagline. Reminds me of the Red Shirt taxi drivers, that want to convince me that Taksin is a good man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cricketnut Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Dear Khun Prompong are you writing this from your cell? Pheu Thai spokesman gets one-year jailterm without suspension December 12, 2013 The Appeals Court on Thursday sentenced Pheu Thai party spokesman Prompong Nopparit and another Pheu Thai member to one-year imprisonment without suspension after finding them guilty of defaming the former president of the Constitution Court. No rule of law exists in the country. Plus who cares if he defamed a member of the judiciary. Western politicians are at it all day and what about the despicable comments made from Suthep regarding Yingluck and her son. Who gives a rats ass... Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Cuchulainn, on 02 Mar 2014 - 17:10, said: ............The Appeals Court on Thursday sentenced Pheu Thai party spokesman Prompong Nopparit and another Pheu Thai member to one-year imprisonment without suspension after finding them guilty of defaming the former president of the Constitution Court.................... Laughable. This low life vermin citing the law. I suggest you read up on why the "low life vermin", as you call him, was found guilty of "defaming" the former president of the constitution court. Something to do with a dissolution case against the Democrat Party for illegal donations to the party. Of course we couldn't have that sort of thing going on, dissolution cases I mean, not illegal donations, nothing wrong with that as long it is the right party............... Quote Satit Pitutecha, a Rayong MP and Democrat executive, said efforts to discredit the courts would continue even if the Democrat Party is dissolved but Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva does not face a political ban. The party has been charged with abusing its political development fund. The Constitution Court is expected to make a ruling in the case next month. The Pheu Thai Party alleged that a Democrat MP had met the then secretary of the Constitution Court president to lobby the case. The Democrat said the release of the video clips depicting the meeting between the MP and the then secretary, who later resigned, was an attempt to discredit the court and step up pressure in the case against the ruling party. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/10/25/politics/Courts-being-deliberately-discredited-Democrat-MPs-30140752.html More discerning people (obviously no-one in the democrat party, of course) would call the video clips showing the meeting, during which the dem MP discussed the dissolution case with the Constitution Courts Presidents secretary (who later resigned and went to ground in Singapore for a while), EVIDENCE , not an attempt to discredit the court (they had already done that by having the meeting), but hey, that's the amart for you. Low life vermin., my ass. Except that that meeting was requested and organised by the guy that took the video in a poor attempt to discredit the courts and the Democrats. Sent from my phone ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fab4 Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 whybother, on 03 Mar 2014 - 06:09, said: fab4, on 02 Mar 2014 - 18:20, said:Cuchulainn, on 02 Mar 2014 - 17:10, said:Cuchulainn, on 02 Mar 2014 - 17:10, said: ............The Appeals Court on Thursday sentenced Pheu Thai party spokesman Prompong Nopparit and another Pheu Thai member to one-year imprisonment without suspension after finding them guilty of defaming the former president of the Constitution Court.................... Laughable. This low life vermin citing the law. I suggest you read up on why the "low life vermin", as you call him, was found guilty of "defaming" the former president of the constitution court. Something to do with a dissolution case against the Democrat Party for illegal donations to the party. Of course we couldn't have that sort of thing going on, dissolution cases I mean, not illegal donations, nothing wrong with that as long it is the right party............... More discerning people (obviously no-one in the democrat party, of course) would call the video clips showing the meeting, during which the dem MP discussed the dissolution case with the Constitution Courts Presidents secretary (who later resigned and went to ground in Singapore for a while), EVIDENCE , not an attempt to discredit the court (they had already done that by having the meeting), but hey, that's the amart for you. Low life vermin., my ass. Except that that meeting was requested and organised by the guy that took the video in a poor attempt to discredit the courts and the Democrats. Sent from my phone ... And the person who said that Pasit had asked for the meeting was the very same democrat MP who was caught on video lobbying for the dems with the CC Presidents secretary - well, he'll be telling the truth then. You suck it all up, don't you. QuoteThe party denies wrongdoing. Yet in the court of public opinion, it is the judges themselves who are in the dock. A series of leaked videos posted on YouTube by “ohmygod3009” has dealt a blow to the court's standing. In one, a member of parliament for the Democrat Party appears to be lobbying the secretary to the court president, Chat Cholaworn, to go easy on the party. In other videos, senior judges appear to discuss how to cover up the leaking of exam papers to relatives applying for jobs at the court. A new batch of YouTube videos released on November 8th, and swiftly blocked in Thailand by court order, also relate to alleged nepotism in hiring. More videos are promised. “Hold on tight,” exhorts a mysterious poster. The court's haughty response has been to claim a conspiracy by “ill-intentioned people” out to discredit it. The Democrats accuse their opponents of leaking the videos in the hope of forcing the court to dissolve the party, since to do otherwise would be to imply that it had bowed to political pressure. The MP caught on tape discussing the party's case said that it was a set-up by Mr Chat's secretary, who has since fled overseas and may be the source of the videos. Government critics say the court has shown its true, biddable colours. http://www.economist.com/node/17472738 You are using the same obfuscation method that was employed then by the CC, attack the messenger not the message. Despite finding the defendants, Pasit Sakdanarong and Surapong guilty of distributing the clips, the content still remains. Whether the meeting was set up by Pasit as the dem MP claims or not, that dem MP (who was part of the dem defence team) should know better than to discuss an ongoing case that could (arguably should) have led to the dissolution of the dem party and the banning of abhisit from politics for 5 years (think how different things would be today if that had happened). In 2012 three of the judges withdrew the defamation lawsuit against Pasit they had filed. In December 2013 Prompong Nopparit had his previous sentence of 1 year in prison suspended for 2 years overturned and was given 1 year in prison without suspension because he allegedly was still making "malicious accusations about the Court President. We can't have the courts integrity questioned even if it is shown on video. Still, if you, like others, want to regard Prompong as a criminal or "low life vermin", that's your prerogative, even though it's contrary to video evidence, suppressed or not. By the way I was mistaken with the Singapore claim, it was Hong Kong. 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