This case hinges on whether the dismissal occurred in pursuance of government polo that had been clearly articulated in the House or whether it was done in pursuit of personal interests.

Could go either way. The government can argue that it was in line with policy to do with security and the police and that there were putting the right pegs in the right holes. Against that there may be no record of a policy that was specific enough announce in Parliament that could cover the 3 transfers, if all are deemed part of a single plan. The is also the issue of the family relationship with Priewpan. At the time it seemed like a bit of a risky move. The Abhisit govt had a similar case as a result of removal of the police chief but didn't stay in office long enough to be unseated by it.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

that's right but the issue that so many posters fail to grasp is that EVERY PM/President (inc K.Abhisit) likes to bring in their own Security Chief

and THIS ONE has been on the yellow stages encouraging the overthrow of the democratically elected government

and he is Security Chief AGAIN because re-installed by the "unbiased" courts? even the most blinkered yellow posters can see how unfair that is and it WILL NOT contribute to peace in Thailand - it will go on and on and on and on because the Thai people have had enough of corruption, unfairness and blatant pi**ing on their right to vote

This case hinges on whether the dismissal occurred in pursuance of government polo that had been clearly articulated in the House or whether it was done in pursuit of personal interests.

Could go either way. The government can argue that it was in line with policy to do with security and the police and that there were putting the right pegs in the right holes. Against that there may be no record of a policy that was specific enough announce in Parliament that could cover the 3 transfers, if all are deemed part of a single plan. The is also the issue of the family relationship with Priewpan. At the time it seemed like a bit of a risky move. The Abhisit govt had a similar case as a result of removal of the police chief but didn't stay in office long enough to be unseated by it.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

that's right but the issue that so many posters fail to grasp is that EVERY PM/President (inc K.Abhisit) likes to bring in their own Security Chief

and THIS ONE has been on the yellow stages encouraging the overthrow of the democratically elected government

and he is Security Chief AGAIN because re-installed by the "unbiased" courts? even the most blinkered yellow posters can see how unfair that is and it WILL NOT contribute to peace in Thailand - it will go on and on and on and on because the Thai people have had enough of corruption, unfairness and blatant pi**ing on their right to vote

There have been several cases like this and in most cases the court has found against the govt. including the wrongful dismissal of the police chief by Abhisit. In most cases the bureaucrat has already passed retirement age and the govt is already out of office by the time the case and its appeals are finished. Therefore no further action can be taken. I don't think the Admin Courts rushed things cos it took 2.5 years or found any differently from other inactive post cases. But this is the first one where the guy was still under 60 and the PM was still in office , albeit only as a caretaker. So it's bad luck for YL but the risks were well flagged at the time and she chose to take them.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

This case hinges on whether the dismissal occurred in pursuance of government polo that had been clearly articulated in the House or whether it was done in pursuit of personal interests.

Could go either way. The government can argue that it was in line with policy to do with security and the police and that there were putting the right pegs in the right holes. Against that there may be no record of a policy that was specific enough announce in Parliament that could cover the 3 transfers, if all are deemed part of a single plan. The is also the issue of the family relationship with Priewpan. At the time it seemed like a bit of a risky move. The Abhisit govt had a similar case as a result of removal of the police chief but didn't stay in office long enough to be unseated by it.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

that's right but the issue that so many posters fail to grasp is that EVERY PM/President (inc K.Abhisit) likes to bring in their own Security Chief

and THIS ONE has been on the yellow stages encouraging the overthrow of the democratically elected government

and he is Security Chief AGAIN because re-installed by the "unbiased" courts? even the most blinkered yellow posters can see how unfair that is and it WILL NOT contribute to peace in Thailand - it will go on and on and on and on because the Thai people have had enough of corruption, unfairness and blatant pi**ing on their right to vote

There have been several cases like this and in most cases the court has found against the govt. including the wrongful dismissal of the police chief by Abhisit. In most cases the bureaucrat has already passed retirement age and the govt is already out of office by the time the case and its appeals are finished. Therefore no further action can be taken. I don't think the Admin Courts rushed things cos it took 2.5 years or found any differently from other inactive post cases. But this is the first one where the guy was still under 60 and the PM was still in office , albeit only as a caretaker. So it's bad luck for YL but the risks were well flagged at the time and she chose to take them.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

good try.. but it's just incorrect... the other cases were left to languish because it WAS Abhisit and now they are fast-tracked because it IS Yingluck

and THAT is what Thai people have had enough of - inequality and injustice

Inflammatory post removed.

This case hinges on whether the dismissal occurred in pursuance of government polo that had been clearly articulated in the House or whether it was done in pursuit of personal interests.

Could go either way. The government can argue that it was in line with policy to do with security and the police and that there were putting the right pegs in the right holes. Against that there may be no record of a policy that was specific enough announce in Parliament that could cover the 3 transfers, if all are deemed part of a single plan. The is also the issue of the family relationship with Priewpan. At the time it seemed like a bit of a risky move. The Abhisit govt had a similar case as a result of removal of the police chief but didn't stay in office long enough to be unseated by it.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

that's right but the issue that so many posters fail to grasp is that EVERY PM/President (inc K.Abhisit) likes to bring in their own Security Chief

and THIS ONE has been on the yellow stages encouraging the overthrow of the democratically elected government

and he is Security Chief AGAIN because re-installed by the "unbiased" courts? even the most blinkered yellow posters can see how unfair that is and it WILL NOT contribute to peace in Thailand - it will go on and on and on and on because the Thai people have had enough of corruption, unfairness and blatant pi**ing on their right to vote

There have been several cases like this and in most cases the court has found against the govt. including the wrongful dismissal of the police chief by Abhisit. In most cases the bureaucrat has already passed retirement age and the govt is already out of office by the time the case and its appeals are finished. Therefore no further action can be taken. I don't think the Admin Courts rushed things cos it took 2.5 years or found any differently from other inactive post cases. But this is the first one where the guy was still under 60 and the PM was still in office , albeit only as a caretaker. So it's bad luck for YL but the risks were well flagged at the time and she chose to take them.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

good try.. but it's just incorrect... the other cases were left to languish because it WAS Abhisit and now they are fast-tracked because it IS Yingluck

and THAT is what Thai people have had enough of - inequality and injustice

It might help make your posts more readable for others, if you were to read carefully the posts you wish to respond first. In the case under discussion in this thread it took the courts two and a half years to finalize a judgement in a simple wrongful dismissal case, including the government's appeal process which prolonged it by 9 months. Is that that the 'fast track' process to which you refer? Compared to the full term of a Thai government of 4 years and the average time of much less than that, the chances of a PM still being in office to face the music are rather low. But YL decided to make the transfers the moment she took office without bothering to see how well these officials were working in their existing posts, thereby increasing the risk that she would be in office long enough to face the possible consequences of her actions.

If the Constitutional Court rules against her, it will be a useful object lesson in cause and effect that would make politicians of all stripes think carefully about how long they plan to remain in office before transferring a civil servant to an inactive position.

It might help make your posts more readable for others, if you were to read carefully the posts you wish to respond first. In the case under discussion in this thread it took the courts two and a half years to finalize a judgement in a simple wrongful dismissal case, including the government's appeal process which prolonged it by 9 months. Is that that the 'fast track' process to which you refer? Compared to the full term of a Thai government of 4 years and the average time of much less than that, the chances of a PM still being in office to face the music are rather low. But YL decided to make the transfers the moment she took office without bothering to see how well these officials were working in their existing posts, thereby increasing the risk that she would be in office long enough to face the possible consequences of her actions.

If the Constitutional Court rules against her, it will be a useful object lesson in cause and effect that would make politicians of all stripes think carefully about how long they plan to remain in office before transferring a civil servant to an inactive position.

nice try but you know fully well what I meant and you also know it is perfectly normal for every government to transfer such sensitive posts on taking office - now the debate over WHO got the job is another matter entirely but if any PM does not have confidence in the loyalty of a senior official I see nothing wrong (as Abhisit did) in moving them along - perfectly normal, perfectly natural

my wider point on how does all this litigation help bring peace? how to give confidence to Thais that their courts are un-biased? it needs a root and branch review (not of the kind Suthep rants about) but a REAL review within the framework of democracy

This case hinges on whether the dismissal occurred in pursuance of government polo that had been clearly articulated in the House or whether it was done in pursuit of personal interests.

Could go either way. The government can argue that it was in line with policy to do with security and the police and that there were putting the right pegs in the right holes. Against that there may be no record of a policy that was specific enough announce in Parliament that could cover the 3 transfers, if all are deemed part of a single plan. The is also the issue of the family relationship with Priewpan. At the time it seemed like a bit of a risky move. The Abhisit govt had a similar case as a result of removal of the police chief but didn't stay in office long enough to be unseated by it.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

that's right but the issue that so many posters fail to grasp is that EVERY PM/President (inc K.Abhisit) likes to bring in their own Security Chief

and THIS ONE has been on the yellow stages encouraging the overthrow of the democratically elected government

and he is Security Chief AGAIN because re-installed by the "unbiased" courts? even the most blinkered yellow posters can see how unfair that is and it WILL NOT contribute to peace in Thailand - it will go on and on and on and on because the Thai people have had enough of corruption, unfairness and blatant pi**ing on their right to vote

the issue that so many posters fail to grasp is that EVERY PM/President (inc K.Abhisit) likes to bring in their own Security Chief

Did the bring a brother in law?

The courts and the justice system must be seen to be independent of any political influence or threats of violence, they have a duty and an obligation to work according to the law and be prepared to justify their judgements based on that law.

The fact that the reds and the sitting PTP government have openly threatened and intimidated the courts in order to try and sway a verdict simply shows their fundamental disregard respect and understanding of their place in a democracy and how they function - it is shocking especially coming from a government, it is plain and utter contempt

You so called defenders of democracy give me one incidence of were the various courts have not acted with integrity and upheld the law with regard to any case brought before them, give me one incidence were PTP has been unjustly accused

The judges have been threatened abused physically attacked bombed and still their integrity stands firm as it should, they all deserve commendations of the highest order

It the law and the justice system collapses in this country then we truly have a major problem - just as well the army is there to make sure that doesn't happen

It might help make your posts more readable for others, if you were to read carefully the posts you wish to respond first. In the case under discussion in this thread it took the courts two and a half years to finalize a judgement in a simple wrongful dismissal case, including the government's appeal process which prolonged it by 9 months. Is that that the 'fast track' process to which you refer? Compared to the full term of a Thai government of 4 years and the average time of much less than that, the chances of a PM still being in office to face the music are rather low. But YL decided to make the transfers the moment she took office without bothering to see how well these officials were working in their existing posts, thereby increasing the risk that she would be in office long enough to face the possible consequences of her actions.

If the Constitutional Court rules against her, it will be a useful object lesson in cause and effect that would make politicians of all stripes think carefully about how long they plan to remain in office before transferring a civil servant to an inactive position.

nice try but you know fully well what I meant and you also know it is perfectly normal for every government to transfer such sensitive posts on taking office - now the debate over WHO got the job is another matter entirely but if any PM does not have confidence in the loyalty of a senior official I see nothing wrong (as Abhisit did) in moving them along - perfectly normal, perfectly natural

my wider point on how does all this litigation help bring peace? how to give confidence to Thais that their courts are un-biased? it needs a root and branch review (not of the kind Suthep rants about) but a REAL review within the framework of democracy

@ binjalin - You remind me of the guy in the movie who thinks his gun is loaded with live rounds when in fact they have been replaced with blanks.

It might help make your posts more readable for others, if you were to read carefully the posts you wish to respond first. In the case under discussion in this thread it took the courts two and a half years to finalize a judgement in a simple wrongful dismissal case, including the government's appeal process which prolonged it by 9 months. Is that that the 'fast track' process to which you refer? Compared to the full term of a Thai government of 4 years and the average time of much less than that, the chances of a PM still being in office to face the music are rather low. But YL decided to make the transfers the moment she took office without bothering to see how well these officials were working in their existing posts, thereby increasing the risk that she would be in office long enough to face the possible consequences of her actions.

If the Constitutional Court rules against her, it will be a useful object lesson in cause and effect that would make politicians of all stripes think carefully about how long they plan to remain in office before transferring a civil servant to an inactive position.

nice try but you know fully well what I meant and you also know it is perfectly normal for every government to transfer such sensitive posts on taking office - now the debate over WHO got the job is another matter entirely but if any PM does not have confidence in the loyalty of a senior official I see nothing wrong (as Abhisit did) in moving them along - perfectly normal, perfectly natural

my wider point on how does all this litigation help bring peace? how to give confidence to Thais that their courts are un-biased? it needs a root and branch review (not of the kind Suthep rants about) but a REAL review within the framework of democracy

But earlier you were claiming that the problem was the courts had unfairly accelerated the Thawil case, even though it took 2.5 years. Litigation is not supposed to bring peace. It is supposed to bring justice. The courts have so far delivered justice in the Thawil case without bias because the government broke the law and removed him without justifiable cause under the law, whether we agree with the law or not. The same will happen in the Constitutional Court. The government had a choice and they chose to break the law, knowing the possible consequences, in order to give the brother-in-law a nice job he could make a lot of money from. You seem to be saying that the courts should adjust their rulings to favour governments that break the law for personal gain because that will bring peace to the Thai people.

light the blue touch paper and wait for the almighty explosion when they engineer yinglucks eviction...