elgordo38 Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) I read that to mean, her complaint probably has some legs. I will see your counter counter counter complaint and raise you three more. Ad Finitum signed Rainbow Chaser Edited October 2, 2015 by elgordo38 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baerboxer Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 former Supreme Court justice Chuchart Srisaeng should tend to his roses Former disgraced PM Yingluck should tend to her mushrooms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baerboxer Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Former Supreme Court justice Chuchart posted on Facebook that Yingluck could be charged with violating Article 175 of the Criminal Code. While I in no way support Yingluck, I do feel that using Facebook against her in this way is poor politics. There is no question that Facebook’s Community Standards do accept that “People can use Facebook to challenge ideas, institutions and practices”, and that, “Such discussion can promote debate and greater understanding”. And, while both Chuchart and Yingluck have both been using Facebook to push their own “political” points of view, it could be argued that Chuchart’s use of Facebook in this instant is questionable at best. It could also be seen as a deliberate attempt (by him) to influence what’s happening in the current legal court case (in which Yingluck should have the presumption of innocence), and the Court allowed to get on with its work without unsolicited external noise at this stage in the proceedings. The Nation too, should be criticised for choosing to report a personal view (aired on social media) as a news item (with its potential to stir up opposing parties), especially when the outcome of this Court’s decision will be so critical to the future of Thailand. Chuchart’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/chuchart.srisaeng?fref=nf) Yingluck’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/Y.Shinawatra Well, if Ms. Yingluck as private person can post her musings on facebook why should private person Chuchart not be able to do so? No reason at all in my view.Yet for outsiders it's useful to know a little of the background of the individuals concerned. I think most know about Ms Yingluck, a democratically elected former PM removed by a military coup. Chuchart is less well known, but a brief internet search shows him to be a former judge and royalist extremist with ultra reactionary views. Most know Ms. Yingluck was removed from office by a court not a military coup. Doesn't stop many pretending otherwise though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seajae Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 "...for allegedly framing others..." Framing them? OMG, give me a break. All she is suing them for is what they actually did. No one has ever disputed what she says they did, which was to introduce 60,000 pages of documents the NACC did not pass on to the court and not allowing her to call witnesses she wanted to testify in her behalf. What a rats nest of corruption this who legal system is that's going after her and no doubt it is being driven by one man. you really need to read more, those pages have already been cleared by the courts as being allowed, all they are doing is trying to stall but it looks like back firing as they are ignoring the courts previous rulings. This in fact opens them up to further legal action which includes jail time, couldnt happen to a nicer idiot than yl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baerboxer Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I read that to mean, her complaint probably has some legs. I don't. I read that as another attempt by Shin lawyers to delay, divert and hopefully cloud the issues. They appear to have given up on pastry boxes and the intimidation doesn't work without police protection. They probably haven't got any defense and so have to rely on attacking the process or people involved. In the childish playground of Thai politics suing someone results in counter suits and off we jolly well go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmpy Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Why does't she just shut-up and go away; perhaps to where her bother is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LannaGuy Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Former Supreme Court justice Chuchart posted on Facebook that Yingluck could be charged with violating Article 175 of the Criminal Code. While I in no way support Yingluck, I do feel that using Facebook against her in this way is poor politics. There is no question that Facebook’s Community Standards do accept that “People can use Facebook to challenge ideas, institutions and practices”, and that, “Such discussion can promote debate and greater understanding”. And, while both Chuchart and Yingluck have both been using Facebook to push their own “political” points of view, it could be argued that Chuchart’s use of Facebook in this instant is questionable at best. It could also be seen as a deliberate attempt (by him) to influence what’s happening in the current legal court case (in which Yingluck should have the presumption of innocence), and the Court allowed to get on with its work without unsolicited external noise at this stage in the proceedings. The Nation too, should be criticised for choosing to report a personal view (aired on social media) as a news item (with its potential to stir up opposing parties), especially when the outcome of this Court’s decision will be so critical to the future of Thailand. Chuchart’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/chuchart.srisaeng?fref=nf) Yingluck’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/Y.Shinawatra Well, if Ms. Yingluck as private person can post her musings on facebook why should private person Chuchart not be able to do so? No reason at all in my view.Yet for outsiders it's useful to know a little of the background of the individuals concerned. I think most know about Ms Yingluck, a democratically elected former PM removed by a military coup. Chuchart is less well known, but a brief internet search shows him to be a former judge and royalist extremist with ultra reactionary views. Most know Ms. Yingluck was removed from office by a court not a military coup. Doesn't stop many pretending otherwise though. Naturally in a clearly unbiased way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 An off topic deflection post has been removed as well as a reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemac Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I read that to mean, her complaint probably has some legs. That's funny, I read that to mean Yingluck is leaning over a big powder-keg and is just about to light the fuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LannaGuy Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Why does't she just shut-up and go away; perhaps to where her bother is? her 'bother' is in the Court's isn't it? how can she shut up and go there when she's going there already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LannaGuy Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) Former Supreme Court justice Chuchart posted on Facebook that Yingluck could be charged with violating Article 175 of the Criminal Code. While I in no way support Yingluck, I do feel that using Facebook against her in this way is poor politics. There is no question that Facebook’s Community Standards do accept that “People can use Facebook to challenge ideas, institutions and practices”, and that, “Such discussion can promote debate and greater understanding”. And, while both Chuchart and Yingluck have both been using Facebook to push their own “political” points of view, it could be argued that Chuchart’s use of Facebook in this instant is questionable at best. It could also be seen as a deliberate attempt (by him) to influence what’s happening in the current legal court case (in which Yingluck should have the presumption of innocence), and the Court allowed to get on with its work without unsolicited external noise at this stage in the proceedings. The Nation too, should be criticised for choosing to report a personal view (aired on social media) as a news item (with its potential to stir up opposing parties), especially when the outcome of this Court’s decision will be so critical to the future of Thailand. Chuchart’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/chuchart.srisaeng?fref=nf) Yingluck’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/Y.Shinawatra Well, if Ms. Yingluck as private person can post her musings on facebook why should private person Chuchart not be able to do so? Luckily he's only got 25,000 likes and Yingluck's got 4,325,000 (of interest Abhisit is 2m behind) PS General Prayuth has 1,650 but there IS ANOTHER Prayuth page https://www.facebook.com/brown.edward.142 327 friends Edited October 2, 2015 by LannaGuy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemac Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Former Supreme Court justice Chuchart posted on Facebook that Yingluck could be charged with violating Article 175 of the Criminal Code. While I in no way support Yingluck, I do feel that using Facebook against her in this way is poor politics. There is no question that Facebook’s Community Standards do accept that “People can use Facebook to challenge ideas, institutions and practices”, and that, “Such discussion can promote debate and greater understanding”. And, while both Chuchart and Yingluck have both been using Facebook to push their own “political” points of view, it could be argued that Chuchart’s use of Facebook in this instant is questionable at best. It could also be seen as a deliberate attempt (by him) to influence what’s happening in the current legal court case (in which Yingluck should have the presumption of innocence), and the Court allowed to get on with its work without unsolicited external noise at this stage in the proceedings. The Nation too, should be criticised for choosing to report a personal view (aired on social media) as a news item (with its potential to stir up opposing parties), especially when the outcome of this Court’s decision will be so critical to the future of Thailand. Chuchart’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/chuchart.srisaeng?fref=nf) Yingluck’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/Y.Shinawatra Well, if Ms. Yingluck as private person can post her musings on facebook why should private person Chuchart not be able to do so? Luckily he's only got 25,000 likes and Yingluck's got 4,325,000 (of interest Abhisit is 2m behind) PS General Prayuth has 1,650 but there IS ANOTHER Prayuth page https://www.facebook.com/brown.edward.142 327 friends ......................"and Yingluck's got 4,325,000"...................... Yeah, but that's probably you using 4,325,000 different identities ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LannaGuy Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Former Supreme Court justice Chuchart posted on Facebook that Yingluck could be charged with violating Article 175 of the Criminal Code. While I in no way support Yingluck, I do feel that using Facebook against her in this way is poor politics. There is no question that Facebook’s Community Standards do accept that “People can use Facebook to challenge ideas, institutions and practices”, and that, “Such discussion can promote debate and greater understanding”. And, while both Chuchart and Yingluck have both been using Facebook to push their own “political” points of view, it could be argued that Chuchart’s use of Facebook in this instant is questionable at best. It could also be seen as a deliberate attempt (by him) to influence what’s happening in the current legal court case (in which Yingluck should have the presumption of innocence), and the Court allowed to get on with its work without unsolicited external noise at this stage in the proceedings. The Nation too, should be criticised for choosing to report a personal view (aired on social media) as a news item (with its potential to stir up opposing parties), especially when the outcome of this Court’s decision will be so critical to the future of Thailand. Chuchart’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/chuchart.srisaeng?fref=nf) Yingluck’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/Y.Shinawatra Well, if Ms. Yingluck as private person can post her musings on facebook why should private person Chuchart not be able to do so? Luckily he's only got 25,000 likes and Yingluck's got 4,325,000 (of interest Abhisit is 2m behind) PS General Prayuth has 1,650 but there IS ANOTHER Prayuth page https://www.facebook.com/brown.edward.142 327 friends ......................"and Yingluck's got 4,325,000"...................... Yeah, but that's probably you using 4,325,000 different identities ! fair cop guv... haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farangmick Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 If the elite Thais could grow a thicker skin, and also bring in a law that everything said in parliament was privileged, they could get on with trying to turn the country round, instead of suing anyone who said their hair looked a mess, or their shoes didn't match their suit, thus causing massive loss of face. Thousands of lawyers would lose their jobs, but that would be a bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wombat6 Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Former Supreme Court justice Chuchart posted on Facebook that Yingluck could be charged with violating Article 175 of the Criminal Code. While I in no way support Yingluck, I do feel that using Facebook against her in this way is poor politics. There is no question that Facebook’s Community Standards do accept that “People can use Facebook to challenge ideas, institutions and practices”, and that, “Such discussion can promote debate and greater understanding”. And, while both Chuchart and Yingluck have both been using Facebook to push their own “political” points of view, it could be argued that Chuchart’s use of Facebook in this instant is questionable at best. It could also be seen as a deliberate attempt (by him) to influence what’s happening in the current legal court case (in which Yingluck should have the presumption of innocence), and the Court allowed to get on with its work without unsolicited external noise at this stage in the proceedings. The Nation too, should be criticised for choosing to report a personal view (aired on social media) as a news item (with its potential to stir up opposing parties), especially when the outcome of this Court’s decision will be so critical to the future of Thailand. Chuchart’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/chuchart.srisaeng?fref=nf) Yingluck’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/Y.Shinawatra Well, if Ms. Yingluck as private person can post her musings on facebook why should private person Chuchart not be able to do so? Luckily he's only got 25,000 likes and Yingluck's got 4,325,000 (of interest Abhisit is 2m behind) PS General Prayuth has 1,650 but there IS ANOTHER Prayuth page https://www.facebook.com/brown.edward.142 327 friends ......................"and Yingluck's got 4,325,000"...................... Yeah, but that's probably you using 4,325,000 different identities ! My thoughts as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeckosDiving Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 There are no facts to dispute they did not let her present thousands of docs and call witnesses does that sound fair to anybody? apart from the deluded? no thought not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wombat6 Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 There are no facts to dispute they did not let her present thousands of docs and call witnesses does that sound fair to anybody? apart from the deluded? no thought not Of course it is fair.The courts are probably sick of the delaying tactis of Yinglucks lawyers (She is probably too dumb to know what is going on). it doesn't take many witnesses or documents to deny she didn't attend any meetings of the Commitee overseeing the Rice Scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Haggis Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 I read that saying Ms. Yingluck indeed likes to drags things into the next decades or so. After all when she asked for justice she didn't mention in which year. Yep, talking about dragging things out, when's the next election supposed to be? If you're as smart as I believe you are, the single Internet gateway is a big clue that the Junta are not going anywhere anytime soon, they're never going to relinquish their control, it's just all smoke and mirrors with them. As soon as they also change this incredible sue/counter sue laws the better, it's like listening to children argue in the playground, and all the time, reconciliation is the furthest thing on anyone's mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedtripler Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 67,000 documents? Someone in this case must have shares in paper company Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Rubl and Jayboy With respect, the musings of a private citizen are very different to a former judge making a legal comment about an active and sensitive court case! It’s really questionable ethics on Chuchart’s part. He has a large Facebook following, so using social media to make legal comment could be construed as interfering with due process – even here in Thailand. For interest only, an article from the UK’s Attorney General’s Office from 2012, sheds some light on this (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/types-of-contempt-of-court-dealt-with-by-the-attorney-generals-office), while a BBC NEWS article from 2013 adds a bit more info (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-25210867). I think the difference is in the "former" judge and maybe in how much links are severed. I agree a former judge may need to be a bit more 'precise' in his musings, but being 'former' should leave one sufficient freedom of expression. Even 'former' MPs, PMs utter political tinted musings. Should they also be told to 'shut up' ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Former Supreme Court justice Chuchart posted on Facebook that Yingluck could be charged with violating Article 175 of the Criminal Code. While I in no way support Yingluck, I do feel that using Facebook against her in this way is poor politics. There is no question that Facebook’s Community Standards do accept that “People can use Facebook to challenge ideas, institutions and practices”, and that, “Such discussion can promote debate and greater understanding”. And, while both Chuchart and Yingluck have both been using Facebook to push their own “political” points of view, it could be argued that Chuchart’s use of Facebook in this instant is questionable at best. It could also be seen as a deliberate attempt (by him) to influence what’s happening in the current legal court case (in which Yingluck should have the presumption of innocence), and the Court allowed to get on with its work without unsolicited external noise at this stage in the proceedings. The Nation too, should be criticised for choosing to report a personal view (aired on social media) as a news item (with its potential to stir up opposing parties), especially when the outcome of this Court’s decision will be so critical to the future of Thailand. Chuchart’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/chuchart.srisaeng?fref=nf) Yingluck’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/Y.Shinawatra Well, if Ms. Yingluck as private person can post her musings on facebook why should private person Chuchart not be able to do so? Luckily he's only got 25,000 likes and Yingluck's got 4,325,000 (of interest Abhisit is 2m behind) PS General Prayuth has 1,650 but there IS ANOTHER Prayuth page https://www.facebook.com/brown.edward.142 327 friends It's interesting that facebook likes are seen as something of value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I read that saying Ms. Yingluck indeed likes to drags things into the next decades or so. After all when she asked for justice she didn't mention in which year. Yep, talking about dragging things out, when's the next election supposed to be? If you're as smart as I believe you are, the single Internet gateway is a big clue that the Junta are not going anywhere anytime soon, they're never going to relinquish their control, it's just all smoke and mirrors with them. As soon as they also change this incredible sue/counter sue laws the better, it's like listening to children argue in the playground, and all the time, reconciliation is the furthest thing on anyone's mind. The single Internet Gateway is much more a clue that the Thai government doesn't have the IT expertise to be able to do the snooping when there are multiple gateways. They should use the opportunity that the US wants to bolster ties. Maybe they can get some info on how the NSA does it. BTW as far as I know there are no sue/countersue laws. It's just the ability to sue. The same you could do in the Western World, but you might risk your 'counter case' being thrown out immediately with all costs allocated to you. 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