Yingluck faces indictment over compensation payouts

[candide]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

Printed lies, there was a date for dissolving Parliament already find some newspaper articles instead of a bias blog post. 

Same information in Associated Press:

"Abhisit has said he wants enough time in office to pass a budget for next year. But both sides also want to be in control of the government when a key reshuffle of top military posts occurs in September so they can influence the outcome."

http://archive.li/NWEeQ

Up to my knowledge he gave an election date, not a dissolution date. In case I am wrong, please show your sources. And in case he proposed one, I doubt it was before the nomination of the army chief.

 

[scorecard]

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Not going to get into another long debate with you which will go no where. Just put on record that you support the army who killed 80 civilians including 2 foreign journalists and 2 paramedics.

 That's not what he said, not at all.

 

Just another dishonest attempt from you to immorally twist other peoples words. 

[LannaGuy]

Dogs cannot bring down a Lioness.

[YetAnother]

looks like the current rulers just simply want her in jail; looks to be more ugly events to come

[robblok]

Just now, YetAnother said:

looks like the current rulers just simply want her in jail; looks to be more ugly events to come

I doubt she does any jail-time.. she is HiSo just a fine and banned from politics for a while. 

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

What an irony that the people responsible for ordering the killing and injuries were not even brought to justice while her compensation payout face a ridiculous charge. This mean spirited jerk has blood on his hands. 

 

Yes, those ordering killings and violence, although clearly caught on videos that were publicly screened have never been brought to justice.

 

What was it a judge ruled, something along the line that you can't be charged if you incite from outside the country?

 

And yes, that person has much blood on his hands.

[rockingrobin]

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

Its clear there was an agreement in principle.. just like stated in the article.. and the reds got back on their word. What part of agree in principle don't you understand.. nothing about dissolution only about election. They came back on their word after their nr 1 leader (guess who) decided that this was not in his interest he needed violence and martyrs. 

An agreement in principle is not really an agreement , but a stepping stone to an agreement , it is merely an expression of intent , and cannot be considered an agreement untill all details have been finalised.

[Baerboxer]

20 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

Dogs cannot bring down a Lioness.

 

Lioness, 

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

Incorrect.

 

The first shots were fired by the army who were ordered to fire blanks at red shirt protesters which turned out to be live ammunition. None of the red shirts were armed with anything other than rudimentary weapons (slingshots etc). It was on the Thai news that Abhisit had ordered blanks to be fired then the pictures clearly showed soldiers firing live ammunition at protesters as their M16's do not have the ability to cycle blank ammo without muzzle suppressors. 

 

Long before any 'black shirts' or mystery goons were on the scene (if at all).

 

Do you dispute the presence of armed men in black who were present, well armed, and supporting red shirt posters by firing at security forces?

 

If so, you must be one of the very few who believed Chalerm when he pretended they never existed and decreed no one must mention them, ever again.

[robblok]

15 minutes ago, candide said:

It is what has been answered by a Dem MP. So they did not accept this date, as their agreement was conditioned by the dissolution date.

 

So they came back on their word after a principle agreement, as i said.. big boss in dubai did not want this. Government did its best to avoid bloodshed. (offered an election date.. got a principle agreement). Thaksin needed martyrs and told his men in black to open fire.. and the rest is history. 

 

Shared blame in the killing for sure.. but not according to the reds here.. army is totally to blame.. not the red shirts for going back on their word.. not the black shirts (who proven in court were red shirts too) who shot at the army. 

 

Then we get the compensation issue.. in my time in Thailand I have NEVER seen amounts of 7 million not even in the commuter van accident with the HisSo girl and those in the Van were also not of low status. So they are right that the compensation for Thai standards was real high. Standard its much lower as anyone can attest who has lived here for a while (not saying its good though)

 

Now its clear she needed to pay off her red warriors or next time they would not heed her calls to arms. 

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed. 

[JAG]

Nice Thrump version of history, you make the redshirts proud.. soon you will say that all the casualties including high ranking officers at the side of the army were self inflicted. 

The news video footage of the troops firing clearly showed them firing repeatedly down the street towards the protesters. They were not firing blank rounds. To fire blanks all modern military rifles have to be fitted with a blank firing attachment (BFA), a large plug securely fitted to the end of the barrel. This serves the dual purposes of allowing the gasses from the blank round to be used to work the action of the weapon, and stopping any live round fired in error (albeit by destroying the weapon). These BFAs are usually painted a bright colour (yellow) to provide an obvious visual check that they are fitted.

No such BFAs were seen to be fitted to the rifles being fired, and they were being fired without being manually reloaded. They were firing live rounds, in considerable quantities, at basically unarmed protesters.

Before you accuse people of lying ('cos that's what you are doing isn't it roblock), you really ought to make sure you know what you are talking about!

 

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, JAG said:

The news video footage of the troops firing clearly showed them firing repeatedly down the street towards the protesters. They were not firing blank rounds. To fire blanks all modern military rifles have to be fitted with a blank firing attachment, a large plug securely fitted to the end of the barrel. This served the dual purposes of allowing the gasses from the blank round to be used to work the action of the weapon, and stopping any live round fired in error (albeit by destroying the weapon). These BFAs are usually painted a bright colour (yellow) to provide an obvious visual check that they are fitted.
No such BFAs were seen to be fitted to the rifles being fired, and they were being fired without being manually reloaded. They were firing live rounds, in considerable quantities, at basically unarmed protesters.
Before you accuse people of lying ('cos that's what you are doing isn't it roblock), you really ought to make sure you know what you are talking about!

Can you prove that they were aiming at the protesters or were shooting above them. Let me put it this way.. if they were aiming for the protesters they made preciously few casualties. You as a former soldier must know that if you shoot as a grouped aimed into a mass of protesters there would be far more casualties.  Also was this after they were shot at.. after their leaders were killed. You do remember that high ranking officers were killed during this confrontation and that grenades were thrown at the army. 

[LazarusRizing]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

I doubt she does any jail-time.. she is HiSo just a fine and banned from politics for a while. 

If convicted the penalty for the charges she faces is up to 10 years in jail or 20,000 baht fine.

She is already banned from politics.

Not sure 20,000 baht fine achieves anything here, she has a baht or two at her disposal.

 

One has to ask what the point of the whole exercise is if the net result is a measly 20 thousand off Yingluck.

 

[LazarusRizing]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

Can you prove that they were aiming at the protesters or were shooting above them. Let me put it this way.. if they were aiming for the protesters they made preciously few casualties. You as a former soldier must know that if you shoot as a grouped aimed into a mass of protesters there would be far more casualties.  Also was this after they were shot at.. after their leaders were killed. You do remember that high ranking officers were killed during this confrontation and that grenades were thrown at the army. 

Out of curiosity, do you know how many casualties there were.

I am aware there were just under 100 deaths (including 5 soldiers).

But how many were wounded, could you let me know

thanks

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, LazarusRizing said:

Out of curiosity, do you know how many casualties there were.

I am aware there were just under 100 deaths (including 5 soldiers).

But how many were wounded, could you let me know

thanks

That kinda depends what source of news you believe. I read 500 i read 2000.. kinda depends what you call injured too.

 

But that first clash... 5 soldiers were killed.. that does not happen if the other side is unarmed. 

[JAG]

Can you prove that they were aiming at the protesters or were shooting above them. Let me put it this way.. if they were aiming for the protesters they made preciously few casualties. You as a former soldier must know that if you shoot as a grouped aimed into a mass of protesters there would be far more casualties.  Also was this after they were shot at.. after their leaders were killed. You do remember that high ranking officers were killed during this confrontation and that grenades were thrown at the army. 

No of course I can't prove what they were aiming at, only the individual rifleman knows what was in his sight picture. The fact remains that a large number of soldiers (I would say at least a platoon or more) were indulging in repeated volley firing down the road at the protest site, incidentally well out of grenade range.
The low number of reported casualties is quite likely a result of poor marksmanship (firing from the standing unsupported position at a range of several hundred metres) than any fire discipline.
As for shooting over heads, you don't have to be a soldier to know what goes up must come down...

[robblok]

1 minute ago, JAG said:

No of course I can't prove what they were aiming at, only the individual rifleman knows what was in his sight picture. The fact remains that a large number of soldiers (I would say at least a platoon or more) were indulging in repeated volley firing down the road at the protest site, incidentally well out of grenade range.
The low number of reported casualties is quite likely a result of poor marksmanship (firing from the standing unsupported position at a range of several hundred metres) than any fire discipline.
As for shooting over heads, you don't have to be a soldier to know what goes up must come down...

That is what you say that they were aiming.. wrong.. i say they were aiming above the heads. (yes bullets do come down but you know too that these bullets were fired OVER them and depending on the trajectory would never land on these protesters. But do explain the 5 soldiers dead.. you make it out like it was a one sided deal.. those 5 soldiers must have committed suicide then ?

 

The army was shot at.. people got killed.. high ranking officers killed and the men without their officers made mistakes. We now cannot deny the black shirts anymore (thank god Charlem did try to erase them from history but the truth always comes up). So was it as one sided as you make it out to be.. or like i and others think it was that people were shooting at the army making them fire back.. Hiding on purpose between unarmed people. Isn't that what terrorists do ?, and would that not make them guilty too of the deaths ?

[candide]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

 

So they came back on their word after a principle agreement, as i said.. big boss in dubai did not want this. Government did its best to avoid bloodshed. (offered an election date.. got a principle agreement). Thaksin needed martyrs and told his men in black to open fire.. and the rest is history. 

 

Shared blame in the killing for sure.. but not according to the reds here.. army is totally to blame.. not the red shirts for going back on their word.. not the black shirts (who proven in court were red shirts too) who shot at the army. 

 

Then we get the compensation issue.. in my time in Thailand I have NEVER seen amounts of 7 million not even in the commuter van accident with the HisSo girl and those in the Van were also not of low status. So they are right that the compensation for Thai standards was real high. Standard its much lower as anyone can attest who has lived here for a while (not saying its good though)

 

Now its clear she needed to pay off her red warriors or next time they would not heed her calls to arms. 

Of course you prefer to ignore it because it undercuts one of your main arguments. You can repeat it like a Mantra, but it will not change what have been reported by news agencies (APA, Reuters) and in the press (ex BBC, Daily Nation).

 

They all report that from the start, the principle agreement was conditional of the dissolution date. They did not just suddenly change their mind from one day to the next as you pretend.

 

It could not be more clearly expressed as in this quote from a BBC article:

"We want Abhisit to come back to us with a clear parliamentary dissolution date instead of an election date and we will meet and consider it again," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8659590.stm

 

It is also clearly explained in these articles that the key issue of disagreement was that both sides wanted to be in power for the reshuffle of the police and the military. (Of course it is pure coincidence that the army chief who was nominated by the Abhisit government was the chief of the soldiers who fired at protesters and also the same who made a coup a few years later).

[Enoon]

8 hours ago, phantomfiddler said:

It would appear that the pigeons are finally coming home to roost ! This family caused a terrible rift in Thai society, all in the interests of personal greed, and hopefully they will never be allowed in a position where they can do a repeat performance. Yes, the rural poor are getting the thin end of the wedge, and hopefully at some time in the future they will see that they have been used and select a more suitable champion of their rights.

 

The present Prime Minister is doing his level best to ensure that whatever rifts exist in Thai society are maintained and widened.

 

What is taking place in the court is doing precisely that.

 

Only an idiot would believe that was not the case.

 

Only an idiot, or paid propagandist for the regime, would state otherwise.

 

 

 

Edited July 27, 2017 by Enoon

[candide]

16 minutes ago, robblok said:

What is it.. first you say no red shirt violence and now that i found it you say its not enough... 5 death soldiers is not enough to prove it.. The men in black shooting at the soldiers.. not good enough ? 

 

You know nothing but you read a lot.. now read about compensations... and then come back.. you will see that a 7 million is way over the top here and can only be explained as a bribe to her supporters. Its actually quite smart use Thai goverment money to buy support.. kinda like the rice scam with its fake G2G deals. 

 

So lets keep talking compensation as its the topic here.. do look it up or do you yield to my knowledge and accept that these amounts were far higher than normal and can only be explained as buying support of her red warriors ?

It is a policy decision. Technically it covers all deads and injuries between 2005 and 2010 so no distinction between yellow and red. It just happens that more red shirts died than yellow shirts

 

Actually, according to the NACC they did not follow the right procedure, so they may convict her for this reason. Of course, the Junta followed the same procedure.....

[robblok]

Just now, candide said:

It is a policy decision. Technically it covers all deads and injuries between 2005 and 2010 so no distinction between yellow and red. It just happens that more red shirts died than yellow shirts

 

Actually, according to the NACC they did not follow the right procedure, so they may convict her for this reason. Of course, the Junta followed the same procedure.....

Its a crazy amount of money given the normal payouts for deaths. You have been here for a while what would you say would be a normal payout.. 1.000.000 or 2.000.000 those are compensation figures I always see popping up. Now this is between  3,5 and 7 times more. Seems a lot like a big payout to her followers to make sure that if she ever needed them to turn violent they would help her. Kinda like promising a good afterlife by religious people. 

 

Be honest have you ever heard about compensations this high here in Thailand ? 

 

[robblok]

Just now, candide said:

I'll be honest, the Junta gave 400 000 for pdrc protesters who died. But again, it is a policy decision. As long as there was no unfair distinction between yellow shirts and red yellow shirts between 2005 and 2010, the fact that more red shirts died does not make a judicial case.

400.000 sounds more like what is normal.. so you see it too (i find 400.000 an insult to be honest). Normal amounts here are always between 1 and 2 million but i seen less too. The fact that she totally went way above any compensation amount shows enough and your reasoning that it was for both red and yellow shirts does not make it right. Its good the NACC looks into this as its obviously a bribe. If you go many times above the given amount and most of it goes to your own supporters there is only one conclusion. That its packaged in a way that it does not look like discrimination does not make it right. 

 

The charges against YL are piling up... poor lady maybe if she had not gone for her brothers amnesty all of this could have been avoided. Her loyalty to her family above that to Thailand is costing her a lot. Maybe she is lucky and her brother will pick up the bill he was the one that put her in the place to begin with. 

[metisdead]

Off topic deflection posts and replies have been removed. 

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, candide said:

I am not sure it is allowed to quote this source in Thailand. I would not do it and suggest you edit your post.

It does show that the guy is not as ignorant as he acted to be but had an agenda.. not that that was not clear from the start. Its funny that during times like this posters like this arise to support YL. I mean posters who only post in political threads nothing else and just start posting out of the blue. I have not much respect for those posters. You are a long standing member (whom I not agree with) but that is different.

 

There been a few of those posters recently.. almost as if they want to chance public opinion.

Edited July 27, 2017 by robblok

[candide]

10 minutes ago, robblok said:

It does show that the guy is not as ignorant as he acted to be but had an agenda.. not that that was not clear from the start. Its funny that during times like this posters like this arise to support YL. I mean posters who only post in political threads nothing else and just start posting out of the blue. I have not much respect for those posters. You are a long standing member (whom I not agree with) but that is different.

 

There been a few of those posters recently.. almost as if they want to chance public opinion.

If he was not ignorant, he would know you are not allowed to quote a source dealing with certain subjects in Thailand. People need to start one day before becoming a long standing member...

Edited July 27, 2017 by candide

[robblok]

If he was not ignorant, he would know you are not allowed to quote a source dealing with certain subjects in Thailand. People need to start one day before becoming a long standing member...

True but in general they don't feign ignorance while having an political agenda. Also most dont start of with political discussion. I rather have more fitness discussions but that part of the forum is dead.

[wakeupplease]

Guys having sat back and just watched the events in recent weeks, gave me chance to do some work, profiling, research and thinking and above all not having to deal with certain types makes the day much nicer. As soon as YL appears in stories up come the J/S and properganda starts rolling. My advice is when the certain few who obliviously are getting something for doing what thy do appear Ignore them do not give them the satisfaction of putting out more properganda.

 

From Day 1 the world knows whats going on here and for now that is all what matters YL is just being abused like millions of others at every opportunity for the sake of the few.

 

If you avoid those certain J/S and do not lower yourself to their standards, your have a much nicer day, but they will not.

 

Yl and Co are being persecuted so do not comment on what the J/S say and play the end game.

Edited July 27, 2017 by wakeupplease

[Squeegee]

On 7/26/2017 at 6:22 PM, snoop1130 said:

caused damage to the national treasury reserves

 

Alright I get it, finally.

 

Behind the times somewhat, the suits, the making it up as one amnestys along the roadmap..

 

They're The Beatles.

 

You Do What You Do, And I Do What You Do, But I Do You Anyway

 

Sounds like the perfect first single from their With The Junta long player.

 

 

[rosst]

On 2017-7-26 at 10:37 PM, robblok said:

I remember those payouts.. quite generous (was not her own money). It was for those that fought for her and got wounded or were send to jail. 

 

Not sure what to think about it.. giving nice payouts was a smart thing otherwise next time her supporters won't risk anything for her. 

 

But don't know if it is a crime to do this, that is up to the court. If she did not follow procedures and paid more then the going rate they might well be right to hold her accountable. 

This seems to be a fair assessment of the situation and I believe the extra judicial payments are probably illegal. 

Now the big question is : will they need to be paid back? If so by whom?