Pheu Thai Party’s spokesman says armed PDRC guards violate section 63 of constitution

[whybother]

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.

Quote

The 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.

There were two different videos released. One of the Democrat MP "discussing the case" with the judge, and one of the judges talking about exams. The defamation case was about the second video.

As soon as it was mentioned that Pasit had organised the meeting, the attack dogs moved from the Democrat party onto the judges. Pasit has never denied that he organised the meeting, even though he has been in the PTP government since returning from Hong Kong.

[Jonmarleesco]

All of which seems eerily familiar.

[Emster23]

Seems to me that the only ones who aren't armed (or at least say they aren't) at protest sites are the police. And they are the only ones who should be armed. The world turned upside down here.

[casualbiker]

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

The protests in Trat didn't have armed guards!!

They were protesting peacefully! No?

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app