webfact Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Ex-PM Somchai petitions court to close 2008 crackdown case By The Nation Former prime minister Somchai Wongsawat BANGKOK: -- Former prime minister Somchai Wongsawat, of the now defunct People’s Power Party, has petitioned the court to close the case following the crackdown by his government on People’s Alliance for Democracy protesters in 2008. The hearing is scheduled for June 30. He would give oral testimony to the court throughout the hearing, Somchai said. The National Anti-Corruption Commission had charged Somchai, in his capacity as the prime minister at the time, as well as his deputy prime minister and some police heads for violating Article 157 over the crackdown. The court began hearing the case in April 2015. Full story: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/national/30318823 -- © Copyright The Nation 2017-06-23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob12345 Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Smart move: when begin charged with a crime just petition the court to close the case. Wonder if this is a move many criminals make right before going to court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Loh Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Looks like political persecution. The NACC filed the case and was dismissed twice and now re-surfaced again when the junta holds power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halloween Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 7 minutes ago, Eric Loh said: Looks like political persecution. The NACC filed the case and was dismissed twice and now re-surfaced again when the junta holds power. Don't you mean it was rejected while his sister-in-law was in office? By the people that changed the definition of perjury to protect the guilty? No corruption there, they were ELECTED. Instead of claiming political persecution, why don't you say he was innocent, or is that too big a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Loh Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 17 minutes ago, halloween said: Don't you mean it was rejected while his sister-in-law was in office? By the people that changed the definition of perjury to protect the guilty? No corruption there, they were ELECTED. Instead of claiming political persecution, why don't you say he was innocent, or is that too big a lie. Always behind the curve. The first motion filed by the NACC and dismissed was in 2010. I am sure you are smart enough to compute the years and which government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halloween Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, Eric Loh said: Always behind the curve. The first motion filed by the NACC and dismissed was in 2010. I am sure you are smart enough to compute the years and which government. And the 2nd time was when Eric? Would that be around the time the NACC had its funding slashed? Still no claim of innocence, sticking with political persecution, same as whenever another guilty Thaksin stooge gets his desserts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smutcakes Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 He is probably lucky that Prawit's brother was National Police Commander in Chief at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halloween Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, smutcakes said: He is probably lucky that Prawit's brother was National Police Commander in Chief at the time. What is the relevance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smutcakes Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 38 minutes ago, halloween said: What is the relevance? You know exactly what the relevance is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halloween Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, smutcakes said: You know exactly what the relevance is. No, I don't. It seems to be entirely in your bias. NACC is independent of RTP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Loh Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 50 minutes ago, halloween said: And the 2nd time was when Eric? Would that be around the time the NACC had its funding slashed? Still no claim of innocence, sticking with political persecution, same as whenever another guilty Thaksin stooge gets his desserts. What is the relevance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halloween Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Just now, Eric Loh said: What is the relevance? 5555. good one Eric. let's see, NACC wants to prosecute BIL and several other cases involving PM's family and political allies, and is making noises about her rice scam. PM slashes funding of independent oversight agency, the presence of which is fundamental to a working democracy. No corruption there, they were elected, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candide Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 10 minutes ago, halloween said: No, I don't. It seems to be entirely in your bias. NACC is independent of RTP. I think he was not thinking to the FTP when he wrote Prawt's brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Loh Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 1 minute ago, halloween said: 5555. good one Eric. let's see, NACC wants to prosecute BIL and several other cases involving PM's family and political allies, and is making noises about her rice scam. PM slashes funding of independent oversight agency, the presence of which is fundamental to a working democracy. No corruption there, they were elected, right? Wrong again. NACC can only investigate and can't prosecute as in Somchai's case. They filed the case with the AG and was dismissed twice. Second wrong, the slashing of the agency funds were due to their poor and under-performance in relation to their high 1.8B Baht budget. Like a poor return on investment. There are very little to show for the thousand of cases they accepted and only slightly over a hundred lead to conviction. This is because of its overpaid officers, high expenditures, bureaucracy and bogged down by bias judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halloween Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Eric Loh said: Wrong again. NACC can only investigate and can't prosecute as in Somchai's case. They filed the case with the AG and was dismissed twice. Second wrong, the slashing of the agency funds were due to their poor and under-performance in relation to their high 1.8B Baht budget. Like a poor return on investment. There are very little to show for the thousand of cases they accepted and only slightly over a hundred lead to conviction. This is because of its overpaid officers, high expenditures, bureaucracy and bogged down by bias judgement. And who appointed that AG? Do you really believe the BS you type, that reducing a budget will increase efficiency, rather than reduce the chances of prosecution? Ease up on the red Kool-Aid! Too late, already addicted. Still no claim of innocence, or would that get us back on topic. Edited June 23, 2017 by halloween Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Loh Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 6 minutes ago, halloween said: And who appointed that AG? Do you really believe the BS you type, that reducing a budget will increase efficiency, rather than reduce the chances of prosecution? Ease up on the red Kool-Aid! Too late, already addicted. Still no claim of innocence, or would that get us back on topic. Who u think appoint the AG in the case dismissal in 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baerboxer Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 3 hours ago, Eric Loh said: Looks like political persecution. The NACC filed the case and was dismissed twice and now re-surfaced again when the junta holds power. I think you explain why yourself. Shin faction in control = case dismissed. Anti Shin faction in control = case re-opened. Just like the police could never catch red shirt shin supporting assassins, gunmen, bombers etc when PTP were in power; but suddenly can under Army direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seajae Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 strangely enough without the shins in power to subvert the course of justice these idiots want to be let off for what they did, he is guilty and without the ptp to protect him he is hoping to get off scott free through another bogus claim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smutcakes Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 9 minutes ago, seajae said: strangely enough without the shins in power to subvert the course of justice these idiots want to be let off for what they did, he is guilty and without the ptp to protect him he is hoping to get off scott free through another bogus claim What a ridiculous comment. Why don't you give us less informed a breakdown of the meaning of article 157 and how he was in breach of it? I presume you are versed in Thai law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.jpg.bc523c85a8d558dbc282dca7a2e602c9.jpg)
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