Court denies compo claim against reds

News > Local News

Court denies compo claim against reds

Published: 28 Sep 2012 at 16.03
Online news: Local News

The Civil Court on Friday dismissed petitions demanding more than 300 million baht in compensation from red-shirt key leaders and state agencies for damage to property and loss of opportunities during the 2010 political riots.

The petitions were filed by vendors and entrepreneurs in the Ratchaprarop area who suffered during the mass anti-government rally organised by the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) and the violence associated with it.

They brought lawsuits against three UDD core leaders - Jatuporn Prompan, Nattawut Saikuar and Arisman Pongruangrong - and against City Hall, the army, Defence Ministry and Finance Ministry.

This article is older than 60 days, which we reserve for our premium members only.You can subscribe to our premium member subscription, here.

Forum

Your comments

android
Post : 2,250
Send message

Discussion 16 : 01 Oct 2012 at 07.4116
Post this to my Facebook
Discussion 15 englishbob : "Explain why the vendors of Ratchaprasong don't deserve compensation"

The court had already ruled that the four petitioners were the victims of political misfortune in which the culprits could not be identified by the authorities. Case is closed and stop dragging on it stubbornly.
Like dislike 0 people liked / 0 people disliked this comment
englishbob
Post : 2,342
Send message

Discussion 15 : 30 Sep 2012 at 21.1615
Post this to my Facebook
Disc14 Robin - Your comments about the elite are irrelevant. What of the poor and middle-class traders in this story. Explain why the vendors of Ratchaprasong don't deserve compensation...

Their livelihoods were ruined because of the UDD actions. Do you know who the leaders of UDD are? (I do.)
So those leaders are responsible for the losses incurred by the actions of the UDD, right? Unless you can fault my logic (No, I thought not).
Like dislike 0 people liked / 0 people disliked this comment
robingrant
Post : 202
Send message

Discussion 14 : 29 Sep 2012 at 22.1314
Post this to my Facebook
englishbob (D10): "The judgement is simply avoiding upsetting the Red Shirts and their political puppet masters" Really? Do you have any evidence to prove that this accusation is correct? No, I thought not. The court made the judgement based on the evidence, or rather lack of evidence, put forward by the petitioners.

An Oxford educated Thai friend, far better informed on the Thai political scene than you or me, recently made the observation that entrenched elites seldom give up their power and influence without a struggle. I guess that sums up the current situation in Thailand pretty well. What you or I, and other posters say, counts for nothing.
Like dislike 5 people liked / 4 people disliked this comment
android
Post : 2,250
Send message

Discussion 13 : 29 Sep 2012 at 21.1313
Post this to my Facebook
Discussion 10 englishbob : "The judgement is simply avoiding upsetting the Red Shirts and their political puppet masters."

That carries the same inference that Thaksin's conviction in 2008 is simply to avoid upsetting the dems/yellow PADs and their political masterminds behind.
Like dislike 4 people liked / 6 people disliked this comment
jacksprat
Post : 2,450
Send message

Discussion 12 : 29 Sep 2012 at 16.1912
Post this to my Facebook
"That translates to the people illegally occupying the pavements that you guys are always complaining about." Was it illegal when they paid the police for permission to be there? Ever noticed the white lines painted on the pavement? Just what do you think they are there for?
Like dislike 2 people liked / 0 people disliked this comment
englishbob
Post : 2,342
Send message

Discussion 11 : 29 Sep 2012 at 15.2511
Post this to my Facebook
Disc9 Robin - Again, I have to take you and your Red Bretheren to task.
1) There is a difference between government house and vendors. PAD had a grievance with the government and they took their protest to government house. And stupidly they took it to the airport for four days too. UDD had a grievance with the government and ruined the livelihoods of thousands of innocent people...

2) When will you stop citing examples of idiotic behaviour as justification for more idiotic behaviour? Why not just write, "He started it!"? It's the debating equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?" If an action was illegal, immoral, unethical, reprehensible or violent, condemn it! Don't simply look for other similar incidents and quote them as though they provide a legal precedent.
Like dislike 7 people liked / 0 people disliked this comment
englishbob
Post : 2,342
Send message

Discussion 10 : 29 Sep 2012 at 15.2010
Post this to my Facebook
Disc8 - It was VERY clear who told the protesters to march on Ratchaprasong. It was clear who told them to stay. It was clear who told them to burn the place down.

Do I need to spell it out for you.
The judgement is simply avoiding upsetting the Red Shirts and their political puppet masters.
And as for you... I can't believe you have the bare-faced audacity to comment on this case. EVERY single verdict that goes against one of the criminals now serving in PT cabinet and you jump up whining about a 'judicial coup' or 'elites controlling the courts'.
Like dislike 8 people liked / 0 people disliked this comment
robingrant
Post : 202
Send message

Discussion 9 : 29 Sep 2012 at 08.189
Post this to my Facebook
No evidence was submitted to satisfy the court that the defendants were responsible for the damage, so the decision is logical and fair. Irresponsible rhetoric from red shirt leaders was obviously considered by the court to be insufficient proof of any culpability.

khunbj (D2) makes a good point regarding the trashing of Government House, and the continuing "sound and fury" from opponents of the red shirts counts for nothing against the court's ruling.
Like dislike 7 people liked / 8 people disliked this comment
android
Post : 2,250
Send message

Discussion 8 : 29 Sep 2012 at 06.108
Post this to my Facebook
Discussion 6 englishbob : "The court said the four petitioners were the victims of political misfortune in which the culprits could not be identified by the authorities."

This is the judgement made by the court of justice, which is in contrary to your own opinion. Never insist finger pointing at others before making things clear.
Like dislike 9 people liked / 14 people disliked this comment
spicy
Post : 106
Send message

Discussion 7 : 29 Sep 2012 at 04.147
Post this to my Facebook
Absolutely unbelievable.
Like dislike 10 people liked / 0 people disliked this comment

1 2 Next Last

Court denies compo claim against reds | Bangkok Post: news