Riot police ready for Yingluck supporters

[robblok]

13 minutes ago, baboon said:

A faction of the Thai people, then, as said. Are they the ones also prosecuting her in connection with the asset seizure?

The legal Thai goverment is, private people can never prosecute anyone, actually neither politicians nor army can do so.. only the judiciary. Is that not standard in every country that only the judiciary can prosecute anyone ? If politicians or the army could do so directly it would be a breach in the separation of powers. Are you saying that when YL was in power she could prosecute people.. if so that would not be how a democratic system works.  Where I come from Netherlands politicians can order (I believe) the judiciary to look into something.. but the end decision is made by the judiciary. I don't believe its any different in Thailand. Is it different where you come from or are you just trolling a bit. 

[AGareth2]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

it would be a breach in the separation of powers.

there is no separation of powers under Art 44

[robblok]

1 minute ago, AGareth2 said:

there is no separation of powers under Art 44

Is YL charged under art 44.. I think not. She is charged with normal law of negligence. 

[baboon]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

The legal Thai goverment is, private people can never prosecute anyone, actually neither politicians nor army can do so.. only the judiciary. Is that not standard in every country that only the judiciary can prosecute anyone ? If politicians or the army could do so directly it would be a breach in the separation of powers. Are you saying that when YL was in power she could prosecute people.. if so that would not be how a democratic system works.  Where I come from Netherlands politicians can order (I believe) the judiciary to look into something.. but the end decision is made by the judiciary. I don't believe its any different in Thailand. Is it different where you come from or are you just trolling a bit. 

The Thai government who changed the law to legalise themselves after the coup they staged are not prosecuting her in connection with the assets seizure. They are simply taking her stuff. You yourself agreed with me it is disgusting and now you are trying to label ME as a troll?

[robblok]

1 minute ago, baboon said:

The Thai government who changed the law to legalise themselves after the coup they staged are not prosecuting her in connection with the assets seizure. They are simply taking her stuff. You yourself agreed with me it is disgusting and now you are trying to label ME as a troll?

I am talking here about the case that people are referring to in the OP.. not the asset seizure. Why would I deviate from the OP and make it about the asset seizure. In the asset seizure case your right.. but that is NOT what the OP is about that is about people turning up at her trial concerning negligence. 

[baboon]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

I am talking here about the case that people are referring to in the OP.. not the asset seizure. Why would I deviate from the OP and make it about the asset seizure. In the asset seizure case your right.. but that is NOT what the OP is about that is about people turning up at her trial concerning negligence. 

Topic, topic, topic. You were quite happy to answer at length when you thought it would be to your advantage, however. 

Edited August 5, 2017 by baboon

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, baboon said:

Topic, topic, topic. You were quite happy to answer at length when you thought it would be to your advantage, however. 

I don't get you we are talking about the negligence case... there is no prosecution at all in the asset seizure, its an order not a court prosecution. How should I know what your talking about when your talking about prosecution yourself. I am many things but not a mind reader (would be useful though)

[baboon]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

I don't get you we are talking about the negligence case... there is no prosecution at all in the asset seizure, its an order not a court prosecution. How should I know what your talking about when your talking about prosecution yourself. I am many things but not a mind reader (would be useful though)

I have said what I needed to say. No point in carrying on as we will just have the mods coming down on us. The reader can be the judge. However if you want the last word, please feel free to do so.

[candide]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

The legal Thai goverment is, private people can never prosecute anyone, actually neither politicians nor army can do so.. only the judiciary. Is that not standard in every country that only the judiciary can prosecute anyone ? If politicians or the army could do so directly it would be a breach in the separation of powers. Are you saying that when YL was in power she could prosecute people.. if so that would not be how a democratic system works.  Where I come from Netherlands politicians can order (I believe) the judiciary to look into something.. but the end decision is made by the judiciary. I don't believe its any different in Thailand. Is it different where you come from or are you just trolling a bit. 

The difference is that, in the Netherlands, the judiciary and semi-judiciary (ex. NAAC) are not appointed by a clique aiming at controlling the country. 

[JigaloJack]

10 hours ago, robblok said:

Is YL charged under art 44.. I think not. She is charged with normal law of negligence. 

Since it is unusual for a Prime Minister to be prosecuted for corruption that he or she did not commit, state agencies were initially hesitant to pursue the case. The junta therefore invoked Article 44 in late 2016 to grant legal immunity to officials involved in the prosecution, meaning that they cannot be held accountable if the prosecution is later proved malicious or unfair to Yingluck.

 

http://www.prachatai.org/english/node/7306

 

Despite the failures of the RPS, the prosecution of Yingluck cannot be justified in any legal sense. Weera argues that, on principle, politicians should be tried in court only when they violate the law or are guilty of corruption. But in the case of Yingluck, she is not being prosecuted for corruption but for running a failed policy — which should be punished politically through a fall in electoral popularity, rather than through prosecution. 

Edited August 5, 2017 by JigaloJack

[robblok]

8 minutes ago, JigaloJack said:

Since it is unusual for a Prime Minister to be prosecuted for corruption that he or she did not commit, state agencies were initially hesitant to pursue the case. The junta therefore invoked Article 44 in late 2016 to grant legal immunity to officials involved in the prosecution, meaning that they cannot be held accountable if the prosecution is later proved malicious or unfair to Yingluck.

 

http://www.prachatai.org/english/node/7306

 

Despite the failures of the RPS, the prosecution of Yingluck cannot be justified in any legal sense. Weera argues that, on principle, politicians should be tried in court only when they violate the law or are guilty of corruption. But in the case of Yingluck, she is not being prosecuted for corruption but for running a failed policy — which should be punished politically through a fall in electoral popularity, rather than through prosecution. 

Lots of wrong information there, as YL is not prosecuted for corruption. We all know that, so that one of the inaccuracies in the stuff your quoting. I wonder how many more there are. 

[JigaloJack]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

Lots of wrong information there, as YL is not prosecuted for corruption. We all know that, so that one of the inaccuracies in the stuff your quoting. I wonder how many more there are. 

You have misread.

 

She is charged with being responsible for massive corruption, even though she did not commit it, and the huge deficits from the RPS. 

 

http://www.prachatai.org/english/node/7306

 

To repeat - Since it is unusual for a Prime Minister to be prosecuted for corruption that he or she did not commit, state agencies were initially hesitant to pursue the case. The junta therefore invoked Article 44 in late 2016 to grant legal immunity to officials involved in the prosecution, meaning that they cannot be held accountable if the prosecution is later proved malicious or unfair to Yingluck.

 

 

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, JigaloJack said:

You have misread.

 

She is charged with being responsible for massive corruption, even though she did not commit it, and the huge deficits from the RPS. 

 

http://www.prachatai.org/english/node/7306

 

To repeat - Since it is unusual for a Prime Minister to be prosecuted for corruption that he or she did not commit, state agencies were initially hesitant to pursue the case. The junta therefore invoked Article 44 in late 2016 to grant legal immunity to officials involved in the prosecution, meaning that they cannot be held accountable if the prosecution is later proved malicious or unfair to Yingluck.

 

 

But you have to read what you post.. she is NOT charged under article 44.. its just used to protect the people against a vindictive Shin should she ever get back in power. 

[JigaloJack]

Just now, robblok said:

But you have to read what you post.. she is NOT charged under article 44.. its just used to protect the people against a vindictive Shin should she ever get back in power. 

Without protection from Section 44 the charges would not have proceeded because the civil servants could clearly see the political nature of the charges and didn't want to be held responsible for the malicious prosecution at a future date when some semblance of law and order is restored.

 

She is not charged under Section 44, but without Section 44 there would be no charges.

[robblok]

Just now, JigaloJack said:

Without protection from Section 44 the charges would not have proceeded because the civil servants could clearly see the political nature of the charges and didn't want to be held responsible for the malicious prosecution at a future date when some semblance of law and order is restored.

 

She is not charged under Section 44, but without Section 44 there would be no charges.

No they were clearly afraid of Thaksin, and needed some protection. Kinda like a witness protection scheme helps people go after the maffia. That is the parralel that i draw.. its dangerous to go against the Shins as its likely they get back in power and will then go after those that they feel went after them. This is to protect those poor guys doing a hard job. 

[JigaloJack]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

No they were clearly afraid of Thaksin, and needed some protection. Kinda like a witness protection scheme helps people go after the maffia. That is the parralel that i draw.. its dangerous to go against the Shins as its likely they get back in power and will then go after those that they feel went after them. This is to protect those poor guys doing a hard job. 

How exactly would legal protection from being prosecuted for being involved in a miscarriage of justice in any way at all be compared to witness protection programs?

Nobodies identity is being hidden or altered, they are simply being granted immunity (pre-emptive amnesty if you will) for the crimes they are committing under junta orders.

 

Any way, it is all beside the point the fact still remains, no Section 44 = no prosecution.

(It also begs the question why, out of all the protections against the red side, Section 44 was only used in this instance?)

[Becker]

YL is on trial for being a Shinawatra, for being Thaksin's sister. This is about power and access to the trough, plain and simple. Anyone who still thinks the junta cares about what's right and wrong (in the Western sense) or about good governance is delusional.

 

[sujoop]

2 hours ago, JigaloJack said:

2 hours ago, robblok said:

But you have to read what you post.. she is NOT charged under article 44.. its just used to protect the people against a vindictive Shin should she ever get back in power. 

Without protection from Section 44 the charges would not have proceeded because the civil servants could clearly see the political nature of the charges and didn't want to be held responsible for the malicious prosecution at a future date when some semblance of law and order is restored.

 

She is not charged under Section 44, but without Section 44 there would be no charges.

Goodness. Shins about to get family coffers confiscated and new nics start appearing in defence (seen this before, must be coincidence;). Anyways, here's some points that may have been conveniently overlooked in the 'defend the poor innocent Shins' PR planning:

 

There is indeed a civil liability law which is designed to protect state officials against liability 'unless they were found to have deliberately violated the laws', or, to be  found in  ^gross negligence of duty^. Unfortunately it appears Yingluck went along with 'Thaksin speaks - Puea Thai does' and  as chair of the rice scheme (which poorest farmers were not even part of) and despite repeatedly being warned by several watchdogs and even the world bank, the result was a multi-billion $$ plunder with her as chair of the rice committee, therefore constituting 'gross negligence of duty', which is not excused under the civil liability law.

[JigaloJack]

2 hours ago, sujoop said:

Goodness. Shins about to get family coffers confiscated and new nics start appearing in defence (seen this before, must be coincidence;). Anyways, here's some points that may have been conveniently overlooked in the 'defend the poor innocent Shins' PR planning:

 

There is indeed a civil liability law which is designed to protect state officials against liability 'unless they were found to have deliberately violated the laws', or, to be  found in  ^gross negligence of duty^. Unfortunately it appears Yingluck went along with 'Thaksin speaks - Puea Thai does' and  as chair of the rice scheme (which poorest farmers were not even part of) and despite repeatedly being warned by several watchdogs and even the world bank, the result was a multi-billion $$ plunder with her as chair of the rice committee, therefore constituting 'gross negligence of duty', which is not excused under the civil liability law.

Your shrill post does nothing to explain the why the junta had to use Section 44 to get state agencies to overcome their hesitancy to pursue the case.

 

Since it is unusual for a Prime Minister to be prosecuted for corruption that he or she did not commit, state agencies were initially hesitant to pursue the case. The junta therefore invoked Article 44 in late 2016 to grant legal immunity to officials involved in the prosecution, meaning that they cannot be held accountable if the prosecution is later proved malicious or unfair to Yingluck.

 

and

 

Despite the failures of the RPS, the prosecution of Yingluck cannot be justified in any legal sense. Weera argues that, on principle, politicians should be tried in court only when they violate the law or are guilty of corruption. But in the case of Yingluck, she is not being prosecuted for corruption but for running a failed policy — which should be punished politically through a fall in electoral popularity, rather than through prosecution. 

 

and lets not forget

 

Thanapan Laiprakobsup, a lecturer in political science from Chulalongkorn University, accepts that the RPS was beneficial for poor farmers since it distributed wealth and public resources.

 

and

 

However, Weera is somewhat sympathetic to the state’s attempt to interfere in the free market for the sake of the people. Before the RPS, the rice price was set by rice exporters who only focused on maximising their own profits. Wealth was concentrated among the rich and the RPS challenged this model of inequality.

 

It might pay to try reading the article to get some facts before posting next time.

 

http://www.prachatai.org/english/node/7306

Edited August 5, 2017 by JigaloJack

[candide]

7 hours ago, robblok said:

No they were clearly afraid of Thaksin, and needed some protection. Kinda like a witness protection scheme helps people go after the maffia. That is the parralel that i draw.. its dangerous to go against the Shins as its likely they get back in power and will then go after those that they feel went after them. This is to protect those poor guys doing a hard job. 

Come on! You write as if you had not read anything about the new constitution. Even if the Shins get back to power, the Junta and its allies will still control the country via various appointed bodies.

[sujoop]

9 hours ago, JigaloJack said:

11 hours ago, sujoop said:

Goodness. Shins about to get family coffers confiscated and new nics start appearing in defence (seen this before, must be coincidence;). Anyways, here's some points that may have been conveniently overlooked in the 'defend the poor innocent Shins' PR planning:

 

There is indeed a civil liability law which is designed to protect state officials against liability 'unless they were found to have deliberately violated the laws', or, to be  found in  ^gross negligence of duty^. Unfortunately it appears Yingluck went along with 'Thaksin speaks - Puea Thai does' and  as chair of the rice scheme (which poorest farmers were not even part of) and despite repeatedly being warned by several watchdogs and even the world bank, the result was a multi-billion $$ plunder with her as chair of the rice committee, therefore constituting 'gross negligence of duty', which is not excused under the civil liability law.

Your shrill post does nothing to explain the why the junta had to use Section 44 to get state agencies to overcome their hesitancy to pursue the case.

 

Since it is unusual for a Prime Minister to be prosecuted for corruption that he or she did not commit, state agencies were initially hesitant to pursue the case. The junta therefore invoked Article 44 in late 2016 to grant legal immunity to officials involved in the prosecution, meaning that they cannot be held accountable if the prosecution is later proved malicious or unfair to Yingluck.

 

and

 

Despite the failures of the RPS, the prosecution of Yingluck cannot be justified in any legal sense. Weera argues that, on principle, politicians should be tried in court only when they violate the law or are guilty of corruption. But in the case of Yingluck, she is not being prosecuted for corruption but for running a failed policy — which should be punished politically through a fall in electoral popularity, rather than through prosecution. 

 

and lets not forget

 

Thanapan Laiprakobsup, a lecturer in political science from Chulalongkorn University, accepts that the RPS was beneficial for poor farmers since it distributed wealth and public resources.

 

and

 

However, Weera is somewhat sympathetic to the state’s attempt to interfere in the free market for the sake of the people. Before the RPS, the rice price was set by rice exporters who only focused on maximising their own profits. Wealth was concentrated among the rich and the RPS challenged this model of inequality.

 

It might pay to try reading the article to get some facts before posting next time.

 

http://www.prachatai.org/english/node/7306

The 'other' paper reported that:
'Rice exporters, millers, warehousers, richer farmers and the cronies of politicians are the ones who really benefit'
 

Also:
Farmers who benefited from  the scheme were mostly rich and medium earning farmers, rather than poor  farmers:
http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/tdri-says-yinglucks-rice-pledging-scheme-causes-almost-trillion-baht-loss/
 

As for obfuscating that the program benefited the poor farmers via vacuous 'Distributing wealth and public resources', this is simply a trickle down economic theory which in reality little trickled down from the majority wealthy beneficiaries, rather poor farmers had to pay increased rent on paddy land and pesticide etc as the wealthy took double advantage . As for 'interfering in the free market for the sake of the people' the subsidy still concentrated among the wealthy and interconnected. The poorest farmers making up +40% received very little  benefit. As Pratchai is similar to Fox News/Trump PR - in this case Pratchai/Thaksin PR, would strongly advise to take PR type articles with a grain of salt (or rice.) BTW, unlike some others perhaps, no one is 'paying' me to read or repeat PR pieces.

 

As for article 44, Civil servants know well from past experience with an elected autocrat ruler not to bite the hand that may feed/starve or bite you back in the future. Regardless the fact remains despite her repeatedly being warned by several watchdogs and even the world bank, the result was a multi-billion $$ plunder with Yingluck as chair of the rice committee, therefore constituting 'gross negligence of duty', which is not excused under the civil liability law.

 

Edited August 6, 2017 by sujoop

[JigaloJack]

1 hour ago, sujoop said:

The 'other' paper reported that:
'Rice exporters, millers, warehousers, richer farmers and the cronies of politicians are the ones who really benefit'
 

Also:
Farmers who benefited from  the scheme were mostly rich and medium earning farmers, rather than poor  farmers:
http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/tdri-says-yinglucks-rice-pledging-scheme-causes-almost-trillion-baht-loss/
 

As for obfuscating that the program benefited the poor farmers via vacuous 'Distributing wealth and public resources', this is simply a trickle down economic theory which in reality little trickled down from the majority wealthy beneficiaries, rather poor farmers had to pay increased rent on paddy land and pesticide etc as the wealthy took double advantage . As for 'interfering in the free market for the sake of the people' the subsidy still concentrated among the wealthy and interconnected. The poorest farmers making up +40% received very little  benefit. As Pratchai is similar to Fox News/Trump PR - in this case Pratchai/Thaksin PR, would strongly advise to take PR type articles with a grain of salt (or rice.) BTW, unlike some others perhaps, no one is 'paying' me to read or repeat PR pieces.

 

As for article 44, Civil servants know well from past experience with an elected autocrat ruler not to bite the hand that may feed/starve or bite you back in the future. Regardless the fact remains despite her repeatedly being warned by several watchdogs and even the world bank, the result was a multi-billion $$ plunder with Yingluck as chair of the rice committee, therefore constituting 'gross negligence of duty', which is not excused under the civil liability law.

 

Oh no my dear friend, looks like you've been caught out a little here.

The article you quote in the "other paper" was an opinion piece published on 23 September 2011which means Yinglucks rice scheme hadn't started and the reference to the distribution of benefits is actually referring to Abhisit's rice scheme.

 

"Dr Ammar said studies on previous pledging schemes found that the top 40% of participating farmers received about half of the budget while the bottom 15% got only 15%. 

 

The proof in whether or not the rice scheme benefitted the poor will be seen in the results of the next election.

 

Why was article 44 not needed for any of the multitude of charges bought against all the other political players currently being persecuted by the junta?

Why the special circumstances here?

It is plainly obvious.

 

 

 

[DavisH]

I thought political assemblies were outlawed? Just arrest them then.

[sujoop]

7 hours ago, JigaloJack said:

9 hours ago, sujoop said:

The 'other' paper reported that:
'Rice exporters, millers, warehousers, richer farmers and the cronies of politicians are the ones who really benefit'
 

Also:
Farmers who benefited from  the scheme were mostly rich and medium earning farmers, rather than poor  farmers:
http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/tdri-says-yinglucks-rice-pledging-scheme-causes-almost-trillion-baht-loss/
 

As for obfuscating that the program benefited the poor farmers via vacuous 'Distributing wealth and public resources', this is simply a trickle down economic theory which in reality little trickled down from the majority wealthy beneficiaries, rather poor farmers had to pay increased rent on paddy land and pesticide etc as the wealthy took double advantage . As for 'interfering in the free market for the sake of the people' the subsidy still concentrated among the wealthy and interconnected. The poorest farmers making up +40% received very little  benefit. As Pratchai is similar to Fox News/Trump PR - in this case Pratchai/Thaksin PR, would strongly advise to take PR type articles with a grain of salt (or rice.) BTW, unlike some others perhaps, no one is 'paying' me to read or repeat PR pieces.

 

As for article 44, Civil servants know well from past experience with an elected autocrat ruler not to bite the hand that may feed/starve or bite you back in the future. Regardless the fact remains despite her repeatedly being warned by several watchdogs and even the world bank, the result was a multi-billion $$ plunder with Yingluck as chair of the rice committee, therefore constituting 'gross negligence of duty', which is not excused under the civil liability law.

 

Oh no my dear friend, looks like you've been caught out a little here.

The article you quote in the "other paper" was an opinion piece published on 23 September 2011which means Yinglucks rice scheme hadn't started and the reference to the distribution of benefits is actually referring to Abhisit's rice scheme.

 

"Dr Ammar said studies on previous pledging schemes found that the top 40% of participating farmers received about half of the budget while the bottom 15% got only 15%. 

 

The proof in whether or not the rice scheme benefitted the poor will be seen in the results of the next election.

 

Why was article 44 not needed for any of the multitude of charges bought against all the other political players currently being persecuted by the junta?

Why the special circumstances here?

It is plainly obvious.

Search: Rice policy mainly benefits rich people

'63% of the funds spent on the pledging programme went to merchants and millers, Only 5% of funds spent went to poor farmers.'

 

Also FYI: 'Dr Ammar said the price guarantee programme of the Abhisit Vejjajiva government was more efficient in ensuring funds went directly to farmers.'

BTW, spot on topic, note Rec shirt Weng stated that  'the 'handling of people'  coming to the court  'will be difficult'  and  that  'If mistakes happen',  the Govt will cause damage to themselves'..... (sounds like a veiled threat or the outline of a plan to do something and blame the Govt/Army? Also, red bombing suspect on the run Ko Tee has allegedly been abducted in Laos (according to his supporters). Thus, an alibi is in place for the red instigator should anything go awry at the courthouse on Aug 25 (seen this movie before too, usually kicks off when Shin's can't win court cases with pastry bags filled with cash, or get cash confiscated - it's always about cash with the Shins).

 

 

Edited August 6, 2017 by sujoop