Abhisit faces court over people killed during 2010 crackdown

[rubl]

BS, my dear fabs.

At the time we had PM and DPM. If they were deemed to have overstepped their authority than that would be as government officials, not as private persons.

Well if your legal expertise is correct, abhisit and suthep get off on a legal technicality and all is right with the world. Come on, it's not important , it's not as if anybody died..............

Well, it's not as if some thought it important to follow proper procedures. Come on, that's not important as if the law matters to some ...

[rubl]

My take on reading this thread was that Abhisit and Suthep could be charged with abuse of power........

Maybe I'm reading between the lines and missing something........

You are missing something. The court is saying that he issued orders without reasonable grounds for doing so i.e his actions were not proportionate to the threat faced. This means that any "protection" afforded abhist, suthep and any the security forces by the State of Emergency is nullified.

You really need to work on understanding the English language, my dear fabs. Mind you, you may mis-interpret on purpose for some reason.

The court didn't say "issued orders without reasonable grounds for doing", therefor your i.e. is also incorrect.

The court seems to have said

"Abhisit could have committed an abuse of authority in accordance with the Criminal Code or offences under the Emergency Decree law if he issued wrongful or unreasonable orders after having imposed the state of emergency.""

Notice the "could have" ? The "if he issued wrongful or unreasonable orders" ? That's totally different from your conclusion. Mind you I understand that for Native English speakers with a program apprehension has a different meaning all together.

Edited March 25, 2014 by rubl

[ggold]

In an earlier comment above you wrote "There is written proof that suthep as Head of CRES signed the authorisation for the use of snipers.". Then now that you are after Abhisit, you again refer to that order, except this time you left "Suthep" out, leaving everyone to believe it was now Abhisit who signed the order. You seem to have great knowledge of that signed order, so who was it? Abhisit, Suthep, both, none of them? Do you even have proof that the signed order exists?

Anyway, even if the order does indeed exist, there is big difference between authorising deployment of snipers, which is done all the time as a security measure in most countries I know of (I believe 24/7 by Obama's secret service), and then ordering those snipers to kill someone.

Further, snipers may not be part of "normal crowd control" practises, but some believe the red shirts were violent armed terrorists and therefore not a "normal crowd" to control - let's leave that decision to the court.

You've been reading too much cartalucci, there's not a conspiracy behind everything. I referred to abhisit as he is the ultimately in charge of CRES and he is the subject of the OP. He set it up and participated in the decisions on military tactics to be used in the crackdown. He was ultimately responsible for reigning the army in, which he didn't do.

Remember your exact argument when the courts will decide who is ultimately in charge of the rice scam (not that it is relevant in this thread, just wan't to remind you in advance)

And no, I have not read any "cartalucci". I do not even know who it is

Yingluck was titular head. As far as I am aware she had no input into its planning or implementation. abhisit was directly involved. The first is a reference to a failed rice subsidy programme the second is a reference to the CRES planned crackdown and subsequent killing of civilians by security forces. I know which one I put more ethical and moral weight on.

That really is pathetic! She is still head of her government, SO she has to take full responsibility for her governments miss deeds, You can't have it both ways regardless of what type of incident.

[fab4]

My take on reading this thread was that Abhisit and Suthep could be charged with abuse of power........

Maybe I'm reading between the lines and missing something........

You are missing something. The court is saying that he issued orders without reasonable grounds for doing so i.e his actions were not proportionate to the threat faced. This means that any "protection" afforded abhist, suthep and any the security forces by the State of Emergency is nullified.

You really need to work on understanding the English language, my dear fabs. Mind you, you may mis-interpret on purpose for some reason.

The court didn't say "issued orders without reasonable grounds for doing", therefor your i.e. is also incorrect.

The court seems to have said

"Abhisit could have committed an abuse of authority in accordance with the Criminal Code or offences under the Emergency Decree law if he issued wrongful or unreasonable orders after having imposed the state of emergency.""

Notice the "could have" ? The "if he issued wrongful or unreasonable orders" ? That's totally different from your conclusion. Mind you I understand that for Native English speakers with a program apprehension has a different meaning all together.

Comprehension, Bit of a joke coming from you.

I was getting ahead of myself. When the court rules that he issued orders for a disproportionate response.........the rest will follow. Of course that depends whether he gets off on a technicality or not, or how the un-reformed judiciary react.

[rubl]

My take on reading this thread was that Abhisit and Suthep could be charged with abuse of power........

Maybe I'm reading between the lines and missing something........

You are missing something. The court is saying that he issued orders without reasonable grounds for doing so i.e his actions were not proportionate to the threat faced. This means that any "protection" afforded abhist, suthep and any the security forces by the State of Emergency is nullified.

You really need to work on understanding the English language, my dear fabs. Mind you, you may mis-interpret on purpose for some reason.

The court didn't say "issued orders without reasonable grounds for doing", therefor your i.e. is also incorrect.

The court seems to have said

"Abhisit could have committed an abuse of authority in accordance with the Criminal Code or offences under the Emergency Decree law if he issued wrongful or unreasonable orders after having imposed the state of emergency.""

Notice the "could have" ? The "if he issued wrongful or unreasonable orders" ? That's totally different from your conclusion. Mind you I understand that for Native English speakers with a program apprehension has a different meaning all together.

Comprehension, Bit of a joke coming from you.

I was getting ahead of myself. When the court rules that he issued orders for a disproportionate response.........the rest will follow. Of course that depends whether he gets off on a technicality or not, or how the un-reformed judiciary react.

The joke seems to be on you, my dear chap. Indeed you were getting ahead of yourself. That's the wishful thinking effect.

The following 'of course that depends' seems like taking an option to complain in case the case doesn't go to your liking, wishfully that is.

See, I comprehend and understand what you are trying to do.

[fab4]

Remember your exact argument when the courts will decide who is ultimately in charge of the rice scam (not that it is relevant in this thread, just wan't to remind you in advance)

And no, I have not read any "cartalucci". I do not even know who it is

Yingluck was titular head. As far as I am aware she had no input into its planning or implementation. abhisit was directly involved. The first is a reference to a failed rice subsidy programme the second is a reference to the CRES planned crackdown and subsequent killing of civilians by security forces. I know which one I put more ethical and moral weight on.

That really is pathetic! She is still head of her government, SO she has to take full responsibility for her governments miss deeds, You can't have it both ways regardless of what type of incident.

This could get boring quickly. On your logic abhisit should have taken the fall for the Rohingya scandal, the use of cluster bombs on Cambodia, the Dust free roads scandal, the Fire Trucks scandal, the purchasing scandals for the Ministry of Health etc, etc.

You really shouldn't take having your posts proved wrong, so badly.

[rubl]

Remember your exact argument when the courts will decide who is ultimately in charge of the rice scam (not that it is relevant in this thread, just wan't to remind you in advance)

And no, I have not read any "cartalucci". I do not even know who it is

Yingluck was titular head. As far as I am aware she had no input into its planning or implementation. abhisit was directly involved. The first is a reference to a failed rice subsidy programme the second is a reference to the CRES planned crackdown and subsequent killing of civilians by security forces. I know which one I put more ethical and moral weight on.

That really is pathetic! She is still head of her government, SO she has to take full responsibility for her governments miss deeds, You can't have it both ways regardless of what type of incident.

This could get boring quickly. On your logic abhisit should have taken the fall for the Rohingya scandal, the use of cluster bombs on Cambodia, the Dust free roads scandal, the Fire Trucks scandal, the purchasing scandals for the Ministry of Health etc, etc.

You really shouldn't take having your posts proved wrong, so badly.

Just a minor correction there. The 'firetruck fun' had the late PM Samak involved, not Abhisit.

[Cricketnut]

The coup-mongers talk about "Reform before elections".

What about de-politicizing the judiciary before considering this case, and the one against Suthep.

Mods - can you please create a "coup mongers and elitists" thread and lock these idiots into it?

We really don't need to be seeing all this in every possible thread

Freedom of speech is your answer as well as being on topic is OK. Get with the program people...

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[ggold]

Remember your exact argument when the courts will decide who is ultimately in charge of the rice scam (not that it is relevant in this thread, just wan't to remind you in advance)

And no, I have not read any "cartalucci". I do not even know who it is

Yingluck was titular head. As far as I am aware she had no input into its planning or implementation. abhisit was directly involved. The first is a reference to a failed rice subsidy programme the second is a reference to the CRES planned crackdown and subsequent killing of civilians by security forces. I know which one I put more ethical and moral weight on.

That really is pathetic! She is still head of her government, SO she has to take full responsibility for her governments miss deeds, You can't have it both ways regardless of what type of incident.

This could get boring quickly. On your logic abhisit should have taken the fall for the Rohingya scandal, the use of cluster bombs on Cambodia, the Dust free roads scandal, the Fire Trucks scandal, the purchasing scandals for the Ministry of Health etc, etc.

You really shouldn't take having your posts proved wrong, so badly.

IT seems you don't have an inability to stick to the subject, You have to bring other incidents into the equation to justify your stance. I congratulate you for being a typical rouge shirt sympathiser, maybe you should get on stage with Jutaporn, you make a better argument! the reds need you

[Cricketnut]

My take on reading this thread was that Abhisit and Suthep could be charged with abuse of power........

Maybe I'm reading between the lines and missing something........

You are missing something. The court is saying that he issued orders without reasonable grounds for doing so i.e his actions were not proportionate to the threat faced. This means that any "protection" afforded abhist, suthep and any the security forces by the State of Emergency is nullified.

You really need to work on understanding the English language, my dear fabs. Mind you, you may mis-interpret on purpose for some reason.

The court didn't say "issued orders without reasonable grounds for doing", therefor your i.e. is also incorrect.

The court seems to have said

"Abhisit could have committed an abuse of authority in accordance with the Criminal Code or offences under the Emergency Decree law if he issued wrongful or unreasonable orders after having imposed the state of emergency.""

Notice the "could have" ? The "if he issued wrongful or unreasonable orders" ? That's totally different from your conclusion. Mind you I understand that for Native English speakers with a program apprehension has a different meaning all together.

But remember Uncle, could have and if are admissible in a court of law if there is reason to believe, both motive and possibility, this applies to Thailand as well until the facts are substantiated. I.e why did Abhisit attend court today? He clearly understands the meaning of if and could have, being an Oxford graduate from England.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Cricketnut]

I'm not aware of any country where the use of live fire zones and snipers are regarded as legitimate crowd control practices. There is written proof that suthep as Head of CRES signed the authorisation for the use of snipers.

That could be a difficult action to defend in a court, one would imagine.

Where is that written proof, or is this another spurious claim?

Again, another spurious claim? I provide links to back up my points unlike some others on here, I can't help it if you don't read or believe them.

I have provided this link before, but here it is again

According to Point 2.5 in the document,

‘In the case when [the authorities] find flagrant offences in which the perpetrators are using firearms against officials, or use weapons or explosives against military positions and important premises as specified by the CRES, the authorities are authorized to use firearms against the perpetrators to stop their actions. But, if the perpetrators are mingling among the protesters to the extent that such use of firearms might endanger innocent people, the use of firearms is prohibited, except in cases where military units have already deployed marksmen sufficiently able to shoot to stop the activities. In addition, if military units find targets but cannot themselves carry out the shooting, for example, because the targets are shielded, etc., the units can ask for support from snipers from the CRES.’

The document was approved by the CRES on 18 April 2010, signed by then Deputy Prime Minister and CRES Director Suthep Thaugsuban, among other high-ranking military officers.

Army spokesperson Col Sansern Kaewkamnerd admitted that the classified document was authentic, but expressed doubts about the real motivation of those who had leaked it.

http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/3330

I fail to see that pasting a section of what obviously are the rules of engagement doesn't in itself constitute Suthep signing orders for Soldiers to kill people as you keep trying to claim. So again where is the proof that Suthep signed orders for those soldiers to kill civilians.

Yes you're right, but "could have and if" are enough to bring charges in most Democratic countries, under the auspice of motive and possibility. Next.....

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[rubl]

My take on reading this thread was that Abhisit and Suthep could be charged with abuse of power........

Maybe I'm reading between the lines and missing something........

You are missing something. The court is saying that he issued orders without reasonable grounds for doing so i.e his actions were not proportionate to the threat faced. This means that any "protection" afforded abhist, suthep and any the security forces by the State of Emergency is nullified.

You really need to work on understanding the English language, my dear fabs. Mind you, you may mis-interpret on purpose for some reason.

The court didn't say "issued orders without reasonable grounds for doing", therefor your i.e. is also incorrect.

The court seems to have said

"Abhisit could have committed an abuse of authority in accordance with the Criminal Code or offences under the Emergency Decree law if he issued wrongful or unreasonable orders after having imposed the state of emergency.""

Notice the "could have" ? The "if he issued wrongful or unreasonable orders" ? That's totally different from your conclusion. Mind you I understand that for Native English speakers with a program apprehension has a different meaning all together.

But remember Uncle, could have and if are admissible in a court of law if there is reason to believe, both motive and possibility, this applies to Thailand as well until the facts are substantiated. I.e why did Abhisit attend court today? He clearly understands the meaning of if and could have, being an Oxford graduate from England.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I would say that that is irrelevant in the 'discussion' I had with fabs. He had had the court say "had issued" following with his own interpretation of what that meant. I only corrected that the court mentioned "if" and "could".

You're right though that 'if' and 'could' are admissible in a court of law. I don't think though that that is the motive Abhisit faces court, neither did he ever say that. He has said frequently to be innocent of the charges and willing to undergo a trial to prove his innocence.

Mind you as I wrote before here, a charge of premeditated murder as private person while having on 'if' and 'could' regarding him issuing orders as PM to the CRES seems somewhat strange. If he did issue those orders as PM surely the NACC should have been involved first instead of the DSI charging Abhisit and having the OAG recharging. The correct procedure doesn't seem to have been followed. It would seem like injustice if that would lead to dismissing the case. Still blame those who like to use shortcuts rather than following correct procedures.

Edited March 25, 2014 by rubl

[Cricketnut]

My take on reading this thread was that Abhisit and Suthep could be charged with abuse of power........

Maybe I'm reading between the lines and missing something........

You are missing something. The court is saying that he issued orders without reasonable grounds for doing so i.e his actions were not proportionate to the threat faced. This means that any "protection" afforded abhist, suthep and any the security forces by the State of Emergency is nullified.

You really need to work on understanding the English language, my dear fabs. Mind you, you may mis-interpret on purpose for some reason.

The court didn't say "issued orders without reasonable grounds for doing", therefor your i.e. is also incorrect.

The court seems to have said

"Abhisit could have committed an abuse of authority in accordance with the Criminal Code or offences under the Emergency Decree law if he issued wrongful or unreasonable orders after having imposed the state of emergency.""

Notice the "could have" ? The "if he issued wrongful or unreasonable orders" ? That's totally different from your conclusion. Mind you I understand that for Native English speakers with a program apprehension has a different meaning all together.

But remember Uncle, could have and if are admissible in a court of law if there is reason to believe, both motive and possibility, this applies to Thailand as well until the facts are substantiated. I.e why did Abhisit attend court today? He clearly understands the meaning of if and could have, being an Oxford graduate from England.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I would say that that is irrelevant in the 'discussion' I had with fabs. He had had the court say "had issued" following with his own interpretation of what that meant. I only corrected that the court mentioned "if" and "could".

You're right though that 'if' and 'could' are admissible in a court of law. I don't think though that that is the motive Abhisit faces court, neither did he ever say that. He has said frequently to be innocent of the charges and willing to undergo a trial to prove his innocence.

Mind you as I wrote before here, a charge of premeditated murder as private person while having on 'if' and 'could' regarding him issuing orders as PM to the CRES seems somewhat strange. If he did issue those orders as PM surely the NACC should have been involved first instead of the DSI charging Abhisit and having the OAG recharging. The correct procedure doesn't seem to have been followed. It would seem like injustice if that would lead to dismissing the case. Still blame those who like to use shortcuts rather than following correct procedures.

Uncle I realise the misuse of the English language, though rather go back to the source then a goose who posts to his own ends or means. Clarifying of the English vernacular for all

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[fab4]

I fail to see that pasting a section of what obviously are the rules of engagement doesn't in itself constitute Suthep signing orders for Soldiers to kill people as you keep trying to claim. So again where is the proof that Suthep signed orders for those soldiers to kill civilians.

Read my posts again, or don't, I really don't care.

You didn't ask for proof that suthep ordered soldiers to kill people, I didn't state that suthep ordered troops to kill people. I stated that suthep authorised the use of snipers, you asked for proof, I provided that proof.

If you want to spin arguments go and play with someone else who'll indulge you.

[fab4]

That really is pathetic! She is still head of her government, SO she has to take full responsibility for her governments miss deeds, You can't have it both ways regardless of what type of incident.

This could get boring quickly. On your logic abhisit should have taken the fall for the Rohingya scandal, the use of cluster bombs on Cambodia, the Dust free roads scandal, the Fire Trucks scandal, the purchasing scandals for the Ministry of Health etc, etc.

You really shouldn't take having your posts proved wrong, so badly.

IT seems you don't have an inability to stick to the subject, You have to bring other incidents into the equation to justify your stance. I congratulate you for being a typical rouge shirt sympathiser, maybe you should get on stage with Jutaporn, you make a better argument! the reds need you

It's called debating - when one person comes up with an argument, the other person comes up with a counter argument and sometimes references other subjects to illustrate a point. If you have a problem with that, stick to personal attacks and laughing emoticons.

[Fryslan boppe]

The coup-mongers talk about "Reform before elections".

What about de-politicizing the judiciary before considering this case, and the one against Suthep.

Mods - can you please create a "coup mongers and elitists" thread and lock these idiots into it?

We really don't need to be seeing all this <deleted> in every possible thread

LOL

Sincerely, sorta funny.

[Mackie]

That really is pathetic! She is still head of her government, SO she has to take full responsibility for her governments miss deeds, You can't have it both ways regardless of what type of incident.

This could get boring quickly. On your logic abhisit should have taken the fall for the Rohingya scandal, the use of cluster bombs on Cambodia, the Dust free roads scandal, the Fire Trucks scandal, the purchasing scandals for the Ministry of Health etc, etc.

You really shouldn't take having your posts proved wrong, so badly.

IT seems you don't have an inability to stick to the subject, You have to bring other incidents into the equation to justify your stance. I congratulate you for being a typical rouge shirt sympathiser, maybe you should get on stage with Jutaporn, you make a better argument! the reds need you

It's called debating - when one person comes up with an argument, the other person comes up with a counter argument and sometimes references other subjects to illustrate a point. If you have a problem with that, stick to personal attacks and laughing emoticons.

Oh no, what you do on this forum is not debating. It's called spreading drivel and propaganda. Over 70% of your posts are almost the same. Repeating and repeating tedious lines without any substance all over again. You add zero value to the real debate.

[Basil B]

Seems to be many issues here:

1. did he make an order which instructed the army to carry out an action that would be beyond a reasonable request for maintaining law and order?
2. and was he advised not by:

• His ministers
• government advisers
• the Army

3. and what was his response?

Seems the Reds have just invented the stick that will be turned on them.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Basil B

[fab4]

That really is pathetic! She is still head of her government, SO she has to take full responsibility for her governments miss deeds, You can't have it both ways regardless of what type of incident.

This could get boring quickly. On your logic abhisit should have taken the fall for the Rohingya scandal, the use of cluster bombs on Cambodia, the Dust free roads scandal, the Fire Trucks scandal, the purchasing scandals for the Ministry of Health etc, etc.

You really shouldn't take having your posts proved wrong, so badly.

Just a minor correction there. The 'firetruck fun' had the late PM Samak involved, not Abhisit.

OK,

the Rohingya scandal, the use of cluster bombs on Cambodia, the Dust free roads scandal, the Fire Trucks scandal, the purchasing scandals for the Ministry of Health, the TPI Tolene Fund scandal (let off on a technicality), armed forces budget doubling, subway mass transit line kickbacks, palm oil scandal etc etc.

Better?

[fab4]

IT seems you don't have an inability to stick to the subject, You have to bring other incidents into the equation to justify your stance. I congratulate you for being a typical rouge shirt sympathiser, maybe you should get on stage with Jutaporn, you make a better argument! the reds need you

It's called debating - when one person comes up with an argument, the other person comes up with a counter argument and sometimes references other subjects to illustrate a point. If you have a problem with that, stick to personal attacks and laughing emoticons.

Oh no, what you do on this forum is not debating. It's called spreading drivel and propaganda. Over 70% of your posts are almost the same. Repeating and repeating tedious lines without any substance all over again. You add zero value to the real debate.

If you say so. One mans' "drivel and propaganda" is another persons well thought out, backed up with facts, point of view.

The without substance claim is a bit perplexing though - do you have a problem accessing the links I provide or is it just the understanding thereof, that causes you trouble?

[ggold]

That really is pathetic! She is still head of her government, SO she has to take full responsibility for her governments miss deeds, You can't have it both ways regardless of what type of incident.

This could get boring quickly. On your logic abhisit should have taken the fall for the Rohingya scandal, the use of cluster bombs on Cambodia, the Dust free roads scandal, the Fire Trucks scandal, the purchasing scandals for the Ministry of Health etc, etc.

You really shouldn't take having your posts proved wrong, so badly.

IT seems you don't have an inability to stick to the subject, You have to bring other incidents into the equation to justify your stance. I congratulate you for being a typical rouge shirt sympathiser, maybe you should get on stage with Jutaporn, you make a better argument! the reds need you

It's called debating - when one person comes up with an argument, the other person comes up with a counter argument and sometimes references other subjects to illustrate a point. If you have a problem with that, stick to personal attacks and laughing emoticons.

I apologise, I did not realise this was a debate! I thought it was more a one sided rant against everything anti red. You do all right with the personal attacks yourself. black pot kettle etc!

[The Deerhunter]

The coup-mongers talk about "Reform before elections".

What about de-politicizing the judiciary before considering this case, and the one against Suthep.

Line One: What is it with you and "coup mongering." Are you not able to do a post without getting it in somehow? Look, You reds do not want a coup. Sutheps lot do not want a coup. There is no coup going on; administratively, judicially or militarily. People are simply being asked to account for breaking the law. That should not be a problem to the lowest intelligence present. The army desperately does not want another coup. If they did, it would have happened already. Stop raving about "coup-mongering for heavens sake.

Line 2 No problem Any fair minded court will do See Chainarong's post above. Covers it all.

[pmugghc]

A bought degree does not a leader of men make.

Where is your evidence Abhisit bought his degree? I guess this is just another of your lies (like the one you tried to pull on the Thai GDP by region)!

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[The Deerhunter]

"BANGKOK: -- The Criminal Court yesterday warned that Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva could have committed an abuse of authority if he had failed to follow crowd control practices or issue orders without reasonable grounds in connection with the deadly military crackdown on red-shirt protesters in April-May 2010."

"Could" and "if", which remain to be proven.

I'm not aware of any country where the use of live fire zones and snipers are regarded as legitimate crowd control practices. There is written proof that suthep as Head of CRES signed the authorisation for the use of snipers.

That could be a difficult action to defend in a court, one would imagine.

Try looting part of Fifth venue in New York over a period of weeks, set it on fire and all bets are off. That is way different from Watts which was a slum in L.A. in case you feel a need to mention that episode. Make yourself a visible & voluble extreme spokesman & give a TV interview with a spotlight on you. You would be pushing your luck. The USA has some real tough anti-terrorist laws now. Nothing is off the table. Take out the head man & the rest is easy. Dead Meat. S.O.P.

Sorry mate, you are a dreamer. (But we all knew that anyway.)

[The Deerhunter]

The coup-mongers talk about "Reform before elections".

What about de-politicizing the judiciary before considering this case, and the one against Suthep.

What about dropping them all together as they were clearly just trumped upo charges to make the red shirt failed attempted coup look legal.

Even you can see that.

No he can't (or won't). He is a lost cause. Beyond logic.

[The Deerhunter]

A bought degree does not a leader of men make.

At Oxford actually, Honest Bob, Bachelors AND Masters, after attending Eton. He was born in England.

Check Google or Wikipedia before making outrageous statements like that.

Don't start rumours or you will get kicked off TVF (again???????)

Edited March 25, 2014 by The Deerhunter

[3NUMBAS]

is that what they teach them at Eton ?

he was weaned on Newcastle brown ale

[whybother]

A bought degree does not a leader of men make.

Which explains Thaksin and Yingluck.

[rubl]

 

That really is pathetic! She is still head of her government, SO she has to take full responsibility for her governments miss deeds, You can't have it both ways regardless of what type of incident.

This could get boring quickly. On your logic abhisit should have taken the fall for the Rohingya scandal, the use of cluster bombs on Cambodia, the Dust free roads scandal, the Fire Trucks scandal, the purchasing scandals for the Ministry of Health etc, etc.

You really shouldn't take having your posts proved wrong, so badly.

Just a minor correction there. The 'firetruck fun' had the late PM Samak involved, not Abhisit.

OK,

the Rohingya scandal, the use of cluster bombs on Cambodia, the Dust free roads scandal, the Fire Trucks scandal, the purchasing scandals for the Ministry of Health, the TPI Tolene Fund scandal (let off on a technicality), armed forces budget doubling, subway mass transit line kickbacks, palm oil scandal etc etc.

Better?

 

Armed forces budget doubling needs some more proof I'd say.

Of course none of this has anything to do with the topic of Abhisit facing court over people killed during the 2010 crackdown.

[airconsult]

A conundrum for the court

...

1. Both Abhisit and Suthep are innocent as the reds were armed...

Result - using Mr popcorn as evidence - the "life" fire zones are declared around lumpini park and snipers are stationed.

2. Abhisit is innocent, Suthep is guilty.

Result - Abhisit is convicted of negligence and Suthep is convicted of murder.

3. Abhisit is convicted of murder and Suthep manages a successful "Nuremberg" defense.

Result - Chalerm opens fire on the park.

4. Both Abhisit and Suthep are convicted.

Result - no protests are ever controlled or limited again by anyone for fear of injuries or deaths

Glad I'm not a judge.

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