webfact Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 Redshirt leader given two years in jail for defamation chargeBANGKOK: -- Redshirt leader Jatuporn Promphan was today sentenced to two years in prison by the Appeals Court after he was found guilty of defaming former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva in 2009.The ruling by the second court today was seen to confirm earlier ruling by the first court that sentenced Jatuporn to two years in jail with no suspended jail sentence for accusing Mr Abhisit of ordering the slaughter of redshirt protesters during the anti-government protest in 2009.Jatuporn also accused Abhisit of intercepting the attempt to seek Royal pardon for the fugitive premier Thaksin Shinawatra.At the hearing today, the Appeals Court said criticising politician is the legitimate right of critics but it must be based on facts and for the sake of peace and order of the country.It then stated it agreed with the first ruling by the Criminal Court to sentence the defendant for two years in prison with no suspended jail sentence.Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/redshirt-leader-given-two-years-jail-defamation-charge/ -- Thai PBS 2016-06-10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarryP Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 As much as I despise the toad, I do believe that if this had been a person from the other side of the political divide, the sentence would have been suspended. I cannot help but feel that there is a lack of impartiality at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trogers Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 Breaking that Hub of Suspended Jail Sentences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuchulainn Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 Excellent, even though it's only 2 years. This vile, inbred mutant is finally put away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarryP Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 Excellent, even though it's only 2 years. This vile, inbred mutant is finally put away. I agree that he is a despicable individual, but not on the sentence. I can't help but feel that defamation should be subject to civil remedies alone as it is in many developed countries. Suing for defamation, when often the comments are actually true (not this case), knowing that the person will be subject to criminal penalties, is just wrong. If the law were changed in such a way such that you could not be sued for stating provable facts about someone, but could only be sued for falsehoods, then perhaps criminal action could be allowed. However, that is not the case in Thailand, telling the truth is not a defence here. As long as the comments can be seen to damage the reputation of someone, then the person who made those comments is in the wrong. The current defamation laws of Thailand are just used to gag dissent and as a political tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halloween Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 (edited) As much as I despise the toad, I do believe that if this had been a person from the other side of the political divide, the sentence would have been suspended. I cannot help but feel that there is a lack of impartiality at the moment. How many suspended sentences do you get before actually having to serve time? He has had at least one, and possibly two, 6 months incarceration suspended for 2 years, and is currently awaiting prosecution on a string of charges that may see him in for life. Those charges, of course, were delayed by his co-accused being appointed to parliament via PTP's party list, a blatant reward for crimes committed by the UDD mercenary agitators. Edited June 10, 2016 by halloween Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haroldc Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 About time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khun Han Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 If cases and sentences like this are to have any credibility, there needs to be a major purge of offendors right across the spectrum. Otherwise it's nothing more than cherry picking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 As much as I despise the toad, I do believe that if this had been a person from the other side of the political divide, the sentence would have been suspended. I cannot help but feel that there is a lack of impartiality at the moment. In the context of how Jatuporn said what he did, i think the sentence is completely appropriate. He was using his speeches to incite violence and disorder. The lies he told were intended to whip up anger and hatred on a large scale, leading to bloodshed. Regardless of what side of the divide a person is on, they should be punished properly for that, not just a slap on the wrists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winniedapu Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 Unsurprising. Double standards. Only to be expected from a corrupted and beholden judiciary with debts to pay. Sadly. W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trainman34014 Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 No problem. This scumbag will get quite 'ill' shortly and be transferred to Hospital ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halloween Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 Unsurprising. Double standards. Only to be expected from a corrupted and beholden judiciary with debts to pay. Sadly. W Equally unsurprising. Rote response. Only to be expected from a Thaksin sycophant unable to recognise criminality. Repeatedly. H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tukkytuktuk Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 It's not looking good for Yingluck. Will she be next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldroj Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 When words fail, the equivalent of 1,000 of them will do just fine: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reigntax Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 (edited) Unsurprising. Double standards. Only to be expected from a corrupted and beholden judiciary with debts to pay. Sadly. W Equally unsurprising. Rote response. Only to be expected from a Thaksin sycophant unable to recognise criminality. Repeatedly. H Defamation..Criminality. Only to the ill informed and uneducated.So killing 9 without a licence is a suspended sentence but stating the truth or calling someone a name is worth 2 years in the klink. Thailand certainly attracts some imbeciles. Edited June 10, 2016 by Reigntax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarryP Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 As much as I despise the toad, I do believe that if this had been a person from the other side of the political divide, the sentence would have been suspended. I cannot help but feel that there is a lack of impartiality at the moment. In the context of how Jatuporn said what he did, i think the sentence is completely appropriate. He was using his speeches to incite violence and disorder. The lies he told were intended to whip up anger and hatred on a large scale, leading to bloodshed. Regardless of what side of the divide a person is on, they should be punished properly for that, not just a slap on the wrists. But in that case he should have been charged with promoting insurrection or similar charges (I assume there is an equivalent law on the books), not defamation. The country was damaged by his actions, not Abhisit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtls2005 Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 I love the smell of reconciliation in the morning. It smells like "VICTORY". Appeal Court rejects Abhisit's defamation suit against Jatuporn December 27, 2014 1:00 am The Appeal Court yesterday rejected a libel suit filed by former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva against red-shirt co-leader Jatuporn Promphan, saying Jatuporn's criticism when Abhisit was prime minister was honestly made. The plaintiff said on May 10, 2009 that Jatuporn, a leader of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), defamed him in front of 10,000 people through loud speakers at Wat Phai Kiew Temple in Don Muang in Bangkok by calling him a "tyrant" whose "hands are tainted with blood" who deserved to be sentenced to death for killing people. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Appeal-Court-rejects-Abhisits-defamation-suit-agai-30250779.html During their Bangkok Shutdown protests, the whistle-blowing, clapper-clad yellow horde defamed the opposition constantly. But that was OK I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarryP Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 As much as I despise the toad, I do believe that if this had been a person from the other side of the political divide, the sentence would have been suspended. I cannot help but feel that there is a lack of impartiality at the moment. How many suspended sentences do you get before actually having to serve time? He has had at least one, and possibly two, 6 months incarceration suspended for 2 years, and is currently awaiting prosecution on a string of charges that may see him in for life. Those charges, of course, were delayed by his co-accused being appointed to parliament via PTP's party list, a blatant reward for crimes committed by the UDD mercenary agitators. There should be no suspended sentence because defamation should not be a criminal offence to begin with, regardless who is in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winniedapu Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 (edited) I love the smell of reconciliation in the morning. It smells like "VICTORY". Appeal Court rejects Abhisit's defamation suit against Jatuporn December 27, 2014 1:00 am The Appeal Court yesterday rejected a libel suit filed by former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva against red-shirt co-leader Jatuporn Promphan, saying Jatuporn's criticism when Abhisit was prime minister was honestly made. The plaintiff said on May 10, 2009 that Jatuporn, a leader of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), defamed him in front of 10,000 people through loud speakers at Wat Phai Kiew Temple in Don Muang in Bangkok by calling him a "tyrant" whose "hands are tainted with blood" who deserved to be sentenced to death for killing people. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Appeal-Court-rejects-Abhisits-defamation-suit-agai-30250779.html During their Bangkok Shutdown protests, the whistle-blowing, clapper-clad yellow horde defamed the opposition constantly. But that was OK I guess. Fear not, it's just another step forward on the road to where we all know it's going... The only variable is whose head will be the first to go on a spike. I've laid in the popcorn, it should be a good show. Taking bets on who will be the first to run. My money's on a certain rotund little guy with a speech impediment... I'll bet he can motor with the right motivation... In the meantime, keep 'em coming, the more fuel that's in the balloon, the louder the bang when it pops. No doubt, all is going according to plan. Winnie Edited June 10, 2016 by Winniedapu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 As much as I despise the toad, I do believe that if this had been a person from the other side of the political divide, the sentence would have been suspended. I cannot help but feel that there is a lack of impartiality at the moment. In the context of how Jatuporn said what he did, i think the sentence is completely appropriate. He was using his speeches to incite violence and disorder. The lies he told were intended to whip up anger and hatred on a large scale, leading to bloodshed. Regardless of what side of the divide a person is on, they should be punished properly for that, not just a slap on the wrists. But in that case he should have been charged with promoting insurrection or similar charges (I assume there is an equivalent law on the books), not defamation. The country was damaged by his actions, not Abhisit. Yes possibly... but if the charge was wrong, the outcome wasn't, so i think most, bar red shirt or Jatuporn supporters, will take that as good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chainarong Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 One casts one's mind back to Mark and the DPM at the time, being charged with this same offence by the PTP government tosser DSI Tarit , how the tables have turned , if anything Mark was far too kind and patient in the handling of the whole affair ,he let the crowd build up to an uncontrollable amount of people, who then burnt down a city block, so everyone that was their should have been at least charged with arson or an accessory to commit a crime and to be honest if PTP had curtailed Suthep's little effort, before that 2 got out of hand , Thailand may have been a different place than what it is today ............................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chainarong Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 It's not looking good for Yingluck. Will she be next? The short answer NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chainarong Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 I love the smell of reconciliation in the morning. It smells like "VICTORY". Appeal Court rejects Abhisit's defamation suit against Jatuporn December 27, 2014 1:00 am The Appeal Court yesterday rejected a libel suit filed by former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva against red-shirt co-leader Jatuporn Promphan, saying Jatuporn's criticism when Abhisit was prime minister was honestly made. The plaintiff said on May 10, 2009 that Jatuporn, a leader of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), defamed him in front of 10,000 people through loud speakers at Wat Phai Kiew Temple in Don Muang in Bangkok by calling him a "tyrant" whose "hands are tainted with blood" who deserved to be sentenced to death for killing people. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Appeal-Court-rejects-Abhisits-defamation-suit-agai-30250779.html During their Bangkok Shutdown protests, the whistle-blowing, clapper-clad yellow horde defamed the opposition constantly. But that was OK I guess. It's just another step forward on the road to where we all know it's going... Winnie Where winnie is that road leading us , pray tell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winniedapu Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 (edited) It's not looking good for Yingluck. Will she be next? The short answer NO Hmmm. That assumes the powers-that-be have at least a little common sense, which I too believed at one point, but which I no longer believe. As much as I sympathise with YL, seeing her banged up would be a useful amount of fuel on what at the moment is a modest smoulder... Winnie Edited June 10, 2016 by Winniedapu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krataiboy Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 As much as I despise the toad, I do believe that if this had been a person from the other side of the political divide, the sentence would have been suspended. I cannot help but feel that there is a lack of impartiality at the moment. In the context of how Jatuporn said what he did, i think the sentence is completely appropriate. He was using his speeches to incite violence and disorder. The lies he told were intended to whip up anger and hatred on a large scale, leading to bloodshed. Regardless of what side of the divide a person is on, they should be punished properly for that, not just a slap on the wrists. If you regard even two minutes, let alone two years, behind bars in a Thai jail as a slap on the wrist then you clearly know nothing about the Thai penal system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billd766 Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 As much as I despise the toad, I do believe that if this had been a person from the other side of the political divide, the sentence would have been suspended. I cannot help but feel that there is a lack of impartiality at the moment. I have to disagree with you. He has been out of jail on bail for many years now for various offences . He was found guilty of this offence in the criminal courts, convicted, appealed, let out on bail and the case went to the court of Appeal who upheld the original conviction. Part of his problem is that he says and acts before he thinks which is why he was always in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AloisAmrein Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 (edited) A new proof that Thailand is the contrary of a democratic country and is 555 years back in time compared to Europe. Edited June 10, 2016 by AloisAmrein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 If you regard even two minutes, let alone two years, behind bars in a Thai jail as a slap on the wrist then you clearly know nothing about the Thai penal system. Firstly, I didn't say that two years was a slap on wrists. Secondly, if you seriously think that he is going to be in with the riff raff with no extra privileges or special conditions, then it is you who knows nothing about the Thai penal system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billd766 Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 Excellent, even though it's only 2 years. This vile, inbred mutant is finally put away. I agree that he is a despicable individual, but not on the sentence. I can't help but feel that defamation should be subject to civil remedies alone as it is in many developed countries. Suing for defamation, when often the comments are actually true (not this case), knowing that the person will be subject to criminal penalties, is just wrong. If the law were changed in such a way such that you could not be sued for stating provable facts about someone, but could only be sued for falsehoods, then perhaps criminal action could be allowed. However, that is not the case in Thailand, telling the truth is not a defence here. As long as the comments can be seen to damage the reputation of someone, then the person who made those comments is in the wrong. The current defamation laws of Thailand are just used to gag dissent and as a political tool. They have been that way for many years. Thaksin was a great one for using those laws. He would sue anybody for billions of baht. The law OUGHT to be changed but which party would be willing to take the chance and actually do it. IMO none of the current mob of political parties would want to do it as it too useful for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billd766 Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 As much as I despise the toad, I do believe that if this had been a person from the other side of the political divide, the sentence would have been suspended. I cannot help but feel that there is a lack of impartiality at the moment. In the context of how Jatuporn said what he did, i think the sentence is completely appropriate. He was using his speeches to incite violence and disorder. The lies he told were intended to whip up anger and hatred on a large scale, leading to bloodshed. Regardless of what side of the divide a person is on, they should be punished properly for that, not just a slap on the wrists. If you regard even two minutes, let alone two years, behind bars in a Thai jail as a slap on the wrist then you clearly know nothing about the Thai penal system. Having lots of money, even in a Thai jail certainly works to a double standard. 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