Public gathering by Yingluck supporters 'could violate law'

[snoop1130]

Public gathering by Yingluck supporters 'could violate law'

By The Nation

 

 

Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan said categorically on Wednesday that he would be in charge of security when the final verdict is delivered in the case against former premier Yingluck Shinawatra over her government’s rice pledging scheme.
 

Prawit said the government has peacekeeping units to take care of security but the court could request additional measures if needed.

 

Prawit said it was possible that supporters of Yingluck could turn up in large numbers to give her moral support. He, however, added that it would be better for them to do that from home as arranging people to come to support her publicly could be considered politically motivated. This is prohibited and could risk violating the law, he added.

 

The government yesterday continued to try to dissuade supporters of Yingluck from gathering. Key government figures, including the prime minister himself, warned that gatherings could be deemed a contempt of court and lead to unrest or violence. 

 

Security authorities also threatened to enforce a junta ban on political gatherings if Yingluck’s supporters are judged to be mobilising politically. 

 

Large numbers of Yingluck’s supporters are expected to gather in Bangkok on August 25, when the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division on Political Office Holders is scheduled to deliver its verdict in the case against Yingluck.

 

She has been accused of criminal negligence for failing to end the project despite irregularities.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30321884

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-7-26

[rkidlad]

I'm not understanding the many reports from government officials about crowds gathering for Yingluck verdict. Is it okay to gather or not? I don't think they've been very clear. 

[ratcatcher]

18 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

I'm not understanding the many reports from government officials about crowds gathering for Yingluck verdict. Is it okay to gather or not? I don't think they've been very clear. 

"..........ban on political gatherings if Yingluck’s supporters are judged to be mobilising politically. "

Why else would they be mobilising? Because she's an attractive 50 year old woman?  Because she's super rich (at least for now)?

[rkidlad]

1 minute ago, ratcatcher said:

"..........ban on political gatherings if Yingluck’s supporters are judged to be mobilising politically. "

Why else would they be mobilising? Because she's an attractive 50 year old woman?  Because she's super rich (at least for now)?

Maybe in the interests of being fair and balanced they could hand the verdict down at the US embassy in Bangkok. Seems it's fine for people to gather outside there for political reasons. 

[metisdead]

An off topic troll post has been removed. 

[andersonat]

53 minutes ago, snoop1130 said:

" ... as arranging people to come to support her publicly could be considered politically motivated. This is prohibited and could risk violating the law, he added."

 

 

1. ***Many*** different kinds of activities might be considered by *some* people ( = The Powers That Be) as being "politically motivated" [eg any published criticism of the Government].

 

2. " ... could risk violating the law"    --   Doesn't he *know* if it would violate the law or not ?

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by andersonat

[AGareth2]

the army can't shoot all of them

[Cadbury]

Anything and everything is against the law in Thailand these days. The military are in full control. The future looks bleak.

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, Cadbury said:

Anything and everything is against the law in Thailand these days. The military are in full control. The future looks bleak.

Thing is if they do let the mobilize it could get messy and violence could erupt and we could have an other 2011 with loads of dead red shirts. I find this a far better option preventing problems before they arise. 
 

I can understand some people wanting to show support but once you start busing in groups of people chances are there will be violence. Given the track record of the groups that want to come its highly likely that something then will happen.

 

Who would you blame then..  the army of course because they took back control. I think the army prefers to take control now without casualties. Better some bad PR then when violence erupts and they are forced to act.. that would be far worse. 

[Baerboxer]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

Thing is if they do let the mobilize it could get messy and violence could erupt and we could have an other 2011 with loads of dead red shirts. I find this a far better option preventing problems before they arise. 
 

I can understand some people wanting to show support but once you start busing in groups of people chances are there will be violence. Given the track record of the groups that want to come its highly likely that something then will happen.

 

Who would you blame then..  the army of course because they took back control. I think the army prefers to take control now without casualties. Better some bad PR then when violence erupts and they are forced to act.. that would be far worse. 

 

Fair comment Rob. And of course, if there was a real police force then they would be in charge of enforcing the law. But previously they seem to simply vanish at such events.

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, andersonat said:

 

 

1. ***Many*** different kinds of activities might be considered by *some* people ( = The Powers That Be) as being "politically motivated" [eg any published criticism of the Government].

 

2. " ... could risk violating the law"    --   Doesn't he *know* if it would violate the law or not ?

 

 

Re: your point 2. That seems to be the prevailing style here. No one says black or white, just shades of grey, warnings and implied consequences. Was the same before the coup.

[Chris Lawrence]

6 minutes ago, robblok said:

Thing is if they do let the mobilize it could get messy and violence could erupt and we could have an other 2011 with loads of dead red shirts. I find this a far better option preventing problems before they arise. 
 

I can understand some people wanting to show support but once you start busing in groups of people chances are there will be violence. Given the track record of the groups that want to come its highly likely that something then will happen.

 

Who would you blame then..  the army of course because they took back control. I think the army prefers to take control now without casualties. Better some bad PR then when violence erupts and they are forced to act.. that would be far worse. 

They did that at the airport gig, but the military got flowers.

 

What you are saying Rob is that you are supporting violence as to the colour of their shirt. 

[JAG]

35 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

the army can't shoot all of them

They don't have to shoot all of them, just enough to re-enforce the messages sent in 2010, and at various times previously.

 

I should imagine that they will be more than ready to do so if they feel it necessary....

Edited July 26, 2017 by JAG

[Chris Lawrence]

4 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Re: your point 2. That seems to be the prevailing style here. No one says black or white, just shades of grey, warnings and implied consequences. Was the same before the coup.

What was the same before the coup? 

[yellowboat]

1 hour ago, ratcatcher said:

"..........ban on political gatherings if Yingluck’s supporters are judged to be mobilising politically. "

Why else would they be mobilising? Because she's an attractive 50 year old woman?  Because she's super rich (at least for now)?

Yeah, she looks great.  Would love to spend time looking at her. 

 

Also, is it not for all Thais to see due process in action, seeing their government function ?  Can they not see or talk about their justice system.  That is not political.  It is concerned citizens wanting to see their government in action.  Oops, forgot, it is not anyone's government. 

[YetAnother]

2 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

could risk violating the law,

it is whatever they say it is; is this place burma 20 years ago ?

[robblok]

55 minutes ago, Chris Lawrence said:

They did that at the airport gig, but the military got flowers.

 

What you are saying Rob is that you are supporting violence as to the colour of their shirt. 

I think your reading stuff into my post that is not there. I wrote there that i think the army is trying to prevent violence. Better to warn them and make sure it does not happen then having to react to violence and make casualties. 

 

You know the track record of the reds.. you know how their leaders are.. bring benzine.. driver over people.. (remember last time).  Now the army is just preventing this from happening because otherwise if it did and the army cracks down on it and people get killed everyone is then blaming the army again. 

[robblok]

55 minutes ago, JAG said:

They don't have to shoot all of them, just enough to re-enforce the messages sent in 2010, and at various times previously.

 

I should imagine that they will be more than ready to do so if they feel it necessary....

By the looks of it they want to prevent this, otherwise.. let them mobilize, then get violent.. and then shoot them. Now they just prevent it from happening, sounds far more humane. If the reds had a better track record this would not be needed. (if the yellows want to protest i prefer the army to stop them too too because it would start the cycle over again)

 

But you are right they don't have to shoot them all.. just a few and the others will run. (if they are smart). Its not wise to go up against soldiers.. but it would be a great thing for YL and hers if this would happen.. to show the world how bad the army is. I am sure they would not hesitate to sacrifice a few people to put the army in bad light.

[kannot]

How about you shove that law where the sun dont shine

[Chris Lawrence]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

I think your reading stuff into my post that is not there. I wrote there that i think the army is trying to prevent violence. Better to warn them and make sure it does not happen then having to react to violence and make casualties. 

 

You know the track record of the reds.. you know how their leaders are.. bring benzine.. driver over people.. (remember last time).  Now the army is just preventing this from happening because otherwise if it did and the army cracks down on it and people get killed everyone is then blaming the army again. 

I am here to keep u on your toes Robbo.

[Chris Lawrence]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

By the looks of it they want to prevent this, otherwise.. let them mobilize, then get violent.. and then shoot them. Now they just prevent it from happening, sounds far more humane. If the reds had a better track record this would not be needed. (if the yellows want to protest i prefer the army to stop them too too because it would start the cycle over again)

 

But you are right they don't have to shoot them all.. just a few and the others will run. (if they are smart). Its not wise to go up against soldiers.. but it would be a great thing for YL and hers if this would happen.. to show the world how bad the army is. I am sure they would not hesitate to sacrifice a few people to put the army in bad light.

but u can't say shoot a few.........

 

You are promoting a form of state led Anarchy. 2 wrongs don't make it right. Why can't they accept the flowers like they did at the airport gig.

 

Jokes aside Robbo, the Government is sending out clear message, we have you in our sights. 

 

Did you know that the Russian revolution had its origins starting back in 1805. Takes a long time to make gravy.

[robblok]

6 hours ago, Chris Lawrence said:

but u can't say shoot a few.........

 

You are promoting a form of state led Anarchy. 2 wrongs don't make it right. Why can't they accept the flowers like they did at the airport gig.

 

Jokes aside Robbo, the Government is sending out clear message, we have you in our sights. 

 

Did you know that the Russian revolution had its origins starting back in 1805. Takes a long time to make gravy.

I don't want the army to shoot a few... maybe you do as it would further your cause.. not sure you seem awfully determined on this. I prefer no violence on both sides. The army can't accept flowers because of the violence the reds usually bring, I know you don't like to admit it but the track record of the reds is quite bad. 

[Maggusoil]

15 hours ago, ratcatcher said:

"..........ban on political gatherings if Yingluck’s supporters are judged to be mobilising politically. "

Why else would they be mobilising? Because she's an attractive 50 year old woman?  Because she's super rich (at least for now)?

". . mobilising politically. . , politically motivated. . . " 555, either way there is not much room for freedom of assembly, which is about right according to the world wide trend in the demise of democracy, even the 1st class democracies. 

[Beats56]

Good thing they dont burn people at the stake anymore. She is being rail roaded by the the present so called government because of her brother. Nothing more than that.

 

[Eric Loh]

I am sure her supporters who will descend to the court will be aunties and grandma. Her supporters are too smart to play to the junta game plan. So what will the junta do when an army of elderly aunties confront them. Perhaps call upon his paid yellow scums to attack the ladies and create a situation to delay the election. They have done that with the desired 2 coups results. They have the experience and motivation.