Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
Recently the Democrat Party went on a major offensive in publicising their version of what occurred during the 2010 clashes, organised a rally and a seminar with their “Thunderbolt” or “Blue Sky” – after their allied satellite TV station, street protest movement. Under the motto “truth of the Men in Black” at first they organised a street rally, stopping by several spots in which armed Red Shirt militants were sighted in 2010. The organisers kept, other than the starting point at the Democrat Party headquarters, the schedule of the rally secret, for fears that Pathum Thani Red Shirt activist Wootipong “Go-Tee” Kodchatamkoon (I have reported previously on his group) might interfere, as he did when People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) protesters and members of the Blue Sky group clashed with Go-Tee in front of the Crime Suppression Division a few weeks ago on 25 September 2012.
The small motorcade set off from the Democrat Party headquarters at 9 am on 12 October 2012, with more journalists, intelligence officers and police officers than protesters. Their first stop was Wat Pratum, where 6 Red Shirts died on 19 May 2010. A dozen Blue Sky protesters awaited the motorcade there, short speeches were held from the mobile stage, and a group of protesters dressed up as Men in Black posed for the cameras, shouting “tee nee mee chut dam!” (Here were Men in Black!). This was somehow a late answer to Sombat Boon-ngam-anong’s 2010 Red Sunday flashmob protests, in which Red Shirt protesters posed as dead, and other protesters shouted: “tee nee me khon tai!” (Here were dead people!).
Soon the motorcade set off to the next, and final, location, to Democracy Monument. There more protesters awaited them, a few dozen, holding up placards and large images of suspected Red Shirt militants. A few counter protesters who gathered at Democracy Monument were asked to leave by police. Those protesters were not Red Shirts though, but quite possibly PAD members. They held up signs asking the Democrat Party why they did not act while in power. No clash occurred, and the Blue Sky protesters continued. The leaders announced a seminar at Lumpini Park the following day, and the protesters dispersed.
On 13 October 2012, about 2500 Blue Sky protesters gathered at the conference hall in Lumpini Park. Many of the Democrat Party elite were present, including former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejajiva, former Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban, former Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij, and many other Democrat MPs. At the entrance of the hall was an exhibition space in which the organisers showed video clips and placards of suspected Red Shirt militants and images of burning buildings from 2010. Both in the exhibition and in speeches on the stage the Democrat Party rejected accusations that they or the military were responsible for the deaths of the protesters, and accused the Men in Black. They accused Thaksin and the Red Shirt leadership of having paid these militants to create chaos in order to overthrow the Abhisit government.
The Blue Sky protest group has now evolved considerably, compared to their first rallies I observed – on 2 June 2012, in front of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, and on 10 June 2012, at the King Taksin statue at Wong Wien Yai in Thonburi. Now they have guard units, some from Democrat Party strongholds, and others are former PAD guards I remembered from the 2008 Government House occupation, such as Chonburi and Rayong guards. Also access to the backstage area was now restricted, and I could not mingle anymore as I could during the first events in June.
A potentially dangerous situation came up when at sunrise a small group of followers of Sae Daeng gathered a few hundred meters away from the Democrat Party rally at the entry to the Lumpini underground station — the spot where Sae Daeng was shot on 13 May 2010. Every 13th of the month Sae Daeng’s followers perform religious rites there, honoring Sae Daeng, and they were not prepared to interrupt this for the Democrat Party rally. Sae Daeng’s daughters, Khattiyah “Dear” Sawasdipol (now a Puea Thai Party MP) and Kittiya “Kae”, attended as well, and lighted incense sticks in front of their father’s portrait. Soon after the group left and no incident occurred.
A combination of several factors has to be looked at if we hope to understand why the Democrat Party has now come out so vocally about the Red Shirt militants. The obvious factor is that after the recent launch of the Truth for Reconciliation Commission report the commission blamed the appearance of the so called Men in Black for the military’s overreaction. Then the government and the UDD strongly contested the findings of the TRCT report, especially disavowing any connection between the Red Shirts and the armed militants. Another often overlooked factor lies in the ongoing court inquests over the culpability of the deaths of the protesters in 2010. The first judgment in the case of the death of the taxi driver Phan Khamkong found the military at fault, and in several other cases verdicts against the military are expected as well. While the military’s first line of defence — stating that they have not fired at protesters seems to be failing against overwhelming evidence to the contrary — there are indications that they have a secondary strategy. Recently, Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd, then spokesman for the Center for Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) testified at court in the Channarong Ponsrila case, and when asked about the command structure, he strongly emphasised the chain of command, pointing repeatedly to Suthep Thaugsuban in his function as Director of CRES as the person with the ultimate responsibility for the orders. While Suthep does not contest this, there still seems to be a looming conflict between the military and the Democrat Party. While the Democrats are absolutely opposed to any form of reconciliation bill proposed by the government, in private high ranking military officers have told me that they strongly favor a reconciliation bill. In light of these developments the Democrat Party will have to go on the offensive trying to sway public opinion, in order not to be left out of these power games.
Meanwhile, the Red Shirts have not been inactive either. In recent months I have neglected the developments of the Red Shirts a bit. There was much infighting in different Red Shirt groups, and since the May and June protests at parliament there was no real reason for any side to come out on any strong issue.
On Sunday, 14 October 2012, the Red Shirts held commemorative events for the 14 October 1973 massacre. The UDD had a stage at Laksi, and a new more radical splinter group had a stage at the Democracy Monument. I went to Democracy Monument. This new group named itself “Sun Prasan Ngan Peua Prachatipatai” (Sor Bor Bor), but has no English name yet, and consists of over 100 free Red Shirt groups — the “Gor Tor Mor 50 Khet” (50 Bangkok districts), which split from the UDD at the beginning of the year, many upcountry community Radio Stations (including Go-Tee’s group), and many groups formerly allied with Daeng Siam (dissolved since their main leader Surachai Sae Dan was arrested and imprisoned for violations of the lese majeste law). While this new group is still strongly Red Shirt, it distances itself from the UDD and accuses the UDD of being too close to the government, and of not moving along with their supporters anymore. They position themselves as a more revolutionary group, as opposed to the UDD and the government, which they view as reformist. So far the organisers of this group have no leaders or direct leadership structures. Daranee Kritboonyalai, a wealthy former business woman, who after the 2010 protests went into exile, and recently emerged back in the spotlight as she was verbally attacked in Siam Paragon department store by a teacher, has offered herself as a coordinator.
Peua Thai Party list MP Sunai Julphongsathorn, previously a regular speaker at Daeng Siam rallies, was invited to speak at the rally, but he has no leadership position in this group. To the surprise of the organisers, UDD leaders Arisman Pongruengrong and Shinawat Haboonpad showed up as well and made brief speeches at the stage. Also singer Tom Dundee was there.
Thanks a lot Nick, for this update on current street politics.
For a while now there have been guesses, when the different groups in the red shirt movement would differentiate themselves in reaction to the pre-election deal that has apparently been struck between Phuea Thai, the military and the royalists. So, I’m wondering if this new umbrella group (Sor Bor Bor) is a manifestation of “free redshirts”, trying to shake off Thaksin?
Were there any programmatic speeches made at their 14 Oct. rally? Could you substantiate your statement that they see themselves as more revolutionary?
Thanks a lot
0
0
While the Red Shirts as a whole have always, from the start, aimed at more than just Thaksin’s return (contrary to what many Red Shirt opponents believe), no significant Red Shirt group is ready, or willing to separate from Thaksin. That stems to some part from genuine support for Thaksin based on his time as Prime Minister, and to some part from pragmatic reasons – meaning that without Thaksin they would lose mass appeal especially in the rural areas. The relationship between Thaksin and the Red Shirts is partly genuine support, and partly strategic alliance, and it definitely is not just a one way street. Both sides need each other.
The statement of being more revolutionary as opposed to reformist comes from chats with several of the organizers of this group, both during this rally, and from speaking with some of them often over the course of the past years. Revolutionary in this sense though does not mean in a violent sense, no building of people’s brigades 😉 , this is meant more in an ideological sense.
As to speeches on the stages, some of them were quite interesting, but i only occasionally listened in. There were photos to take, background chats with key people, etc…
As to their future, lets wait and see, it’s too early to make any prediction yet.
0
0
An interesting piece Nick. What’s your analysis of the apparent split or divisions between the reformist and more revolutionary elelements of the red shirts? Where would you expect this to lead if the fractures widen. Should we just expect more diversity of political thought or would you expect the nature of the political action/direct action of the different groups to change significantly?
Often the terms “red shirts” and “UDD” are used synonymously in the media. From your article it seems as if this is now becoming increasinlgy inaccurate. Shoud red shirts be used as the generic term with UDD referring to the alliance of groups that are more closely associated with PTT.
When Tithinan spoke at the FCCT a couple of months ago he said he hopes their wasn’t a major fracture between the PTT and the majority of the red shirts. He thought that Thida was proving herself as an able leader and that any major fractures would probably lead to a more radicalised and potentially violent movement (or at least elements of the movement), what is your opinion on these matters?
0
0
All good questions/comments.
Nick, *why* do you think the UDD is fracturing? Is it superficial or an issue with the leadership? Is it similar to how the PAD split, in that some groups had more extremist views on certain issues?
0
0
The Dems claimed the UDD were part of, and fully supported, the MiB. Now the Dems claim the MiB were paid by Thaksin and the UDD leaders to kill members of the UDD.
Am I the only one that sees this contradiction?
Before, the Dems claimed Seh Daeng was the leader of the MiB. And then he was shot. Are the Dems now claiming Thaksin paid the MiB to kill the leader of the MiB?
btw, after skimming through it, I saw no mention of Thaksin paying the MiB in the 2012 TRCT report.
0
0
“Greg Lowe”, “johninbkk”:
That “UDD” and “Red Shirts” have been synonymously used by the media has always been inaccurate. Already back in the coup days, when the first UDD was formed, there were groups such as the “June 24th group”, led by the now incarcerated Somjos, that were part of the anti coup movement, which later in October/November 2008 became “the Red Shirts”, but has never been part of the UDD.
The in 2011 dissolved Daeng Siam has Split from the UDD in 2009. Daeng Siam was part of the Red Shirt movement, but not part of the UDD. Sae Daeng was never part of the UDD, but a Red Shirt. Sombat Boon-ngam-anong has also never been part of the UDD, but he clearly is Red Shirt.
Basically – within the Red Shirt movement the UDD is the largest mass organization, but there are many other groups that are not part of the UDD. These groups are collectively called “Free Red groups”, some of them, such as the 24th of June group, are very early groups, others are newer, such as many groups formed around community radio stations, which decide on a case by case basis to work with the UDD, or independently.
The relationship between Puah Thai and the Red Shirts (and the UDD) has always been far more complex than many in the media have given credit to. That still is so. While the UDD in general is also more on the reformist side, there still are regular differences between them and the Puah Thai party. But also the Puah Thai party, when it comes to their relationship with the Red Shirts is not a monolithic block – there are MP’s which are more Red Shirt than Pueah Thai (some even closer to the former Daeng Siam and Free Red groups than to the UDD), and there are many Pueah Thai politicians which have never been at a Red Shirt stage, and who do not like the Red Shirts, but know that they need them.
There have been all along frictions, and arguments, after which the media prognosed always an immediate end of the Red Shirt movement. I believe that these frictions have been over-interpreted. It is my view that the first serious friction appeared not directly within the UDD, or the Red Shirts, but between Thaksin and the Red Shirts, when Thaksin proposed the reconciliation bill, including an amnesty, which almost all Red Shirt organizations reject (the only Red Shirts i have met who supported such a reconciliation bill were individuals who have serious charges against them, but they were quite open that this was not an ideological issue for them, but purely because they did not look forward to go to prison for a long time).
But lets be realistic – all such movements have factions, frictions, splits, etc. This is just the nature of a mass movement. The Red Shirts are not an army with strict structures – they are a social mass movement.
Thitinan is right in the aspect that Tida keeps the Red Shirt movement moderate. This indeed is a key point of Tida since she became acting chair in December 2010 (and already before, when she was working more behind the scene as theoretician/strategist). Her moderate position is to a large part also born out of her experiences in the jungle back in the 70’s. But Tida is under the Red Shirts a controversial figure, and not universally accepted. The Red Shirt movement and the UDD changed a lot after 2010, and is far less a top down movement than it once was (to some degree). 2010 has clearly led to a emancipation of the Red Shirts.
I think we cannot compare the splits with the Red Shirts and the PAD, as both movements were quite different from the start. Analyzing the ideologies of the opposing sides here we can quite clearly see that the Red Shirts are a lot more sound and practical in their political demands and ideologies, while the PAD always knew what they were against, but never could agree on any constructive list of demands. Most of the demands they came up with were increasingly strange.
If you go nowadays to a PAD meet, you will be quite shocked how overtly sectarian/religious the atmosphere is. While you have some very intelligent people, especially under the second generation leaders, they are quite lost, as the domination by Sondhi over the crowd is now quite universal. Sondhi’s speeches are full of strange predictions with enormous religious overtones. I don’t know if he just acts this, or if he became a bit… odd. He doesn’t really speak with independent media anymore.
Financially the PAD is not in a good position anymore, and since their 2011 protests you will see very few Puyai behind the stages, which is very different from their 2006 and 2008 protests, where is was almost fashionable for members of the elites to spend some time at the protests.
While there is a certain collaboration between the Democrats and the PAD, as we have seen in the May/June protests at parliament, and at the Crime Suppression Division incident, there is not much love between the PAD and the Democrats, and the Democrats are very forceful in building their own street protest movement, which is completely under their control. Quite a different situation than in 2006 and 2008 in which the Democrat Party covertly supported and sponsored the PAD, but did not and could not run the direction it took.
0
0
Very informative post =)
In other words, they aren’t breaking up. They are a collection of semi-independent groups with mostly overlapping goals since the beginning.
So … who is setting up the Red Shirt villages? Is it UDD?
0
0
I did not go too deeply into the Red Shirt village movement, but i spoke sometime last year with Kamolsilp Singhasuriya, one of the founders, and also Tida Thawornset. Both insisted that the Red Shirt village movement is independent of the UDD. Tida said that the UDD is more in an advisory role.
Naturally, there will be a myriad of overlaps, as the Red Shirts are a social mass movement, and not a military organization.
During the Sor Bor Bor rally i asked the organizers about their relationship with the Red Shirt village movement, and they said that they have relationships with them longer than this movement started their organizational structures.
From what i can see the Red Shirt village movement only formalized in a loose structure a condition that has existed already long before. But i would of course welcome a more informed research into this subject matter (maybe some of my anonymous critics here, instead of being just condescending, could come up with such 😉 , or at least point me to one).
Gathering from my conversations with groups affiliated with the Red Shirt movement, it appears to me that this movement has been formed primarily for three main reasons – the first that at the time, after the 2010 crackdown, upcountry Red Shirts needed, lacking main leaders who were mostly in prison or in exile, a structure, secondly, as a separate lateral organizational structure in case of a military coup to resist on local level instead of resistance centered in Bangkok where they will be automatically at a disadvantage (lessen learned from the 2010 crackdown), and thirdly to increase indoctrination and political education on local level.
Talking with military officers about this movement, they seem to be quite concerned especially about the second reason, and none of their counter strategies have had much success, such as the attempt to set up different monarchy protection volunteer organizations in the Red heartlands.
But, as i said, i have not researched this too deeply. I also have a life other than Red/Yellow. I am also not getting paid to do these articles, i have no sponsor, monthly salary or grant, and fund my work myself. My books make a bit of money, but it does not even cover my expenses. There is a limit how much i am able spend on all this. All this is a free service, and i can’t do everything.
0
0
The Dems “Men in Black” line is just a perpetuation of the lies and misinformation put out back in April 2010. There has never been any proven link between the Red Shirts and the Men in Black who carried out the attack at Kok Wua – just theories, speculation and a few dodgy accounts from the dodgiest “journalists”, none of which has ever been properly cross-examined, substantiated or investigated.
As for the rest, not much new here to be honest for those who keep an eye on these events and the UDD/Red Shirts.
Curious that Nostitz claims
“Sombat Boon-ngam-anong has also never been part of the UDD, but he clearly is Red Shirt.”
Maybe – but Sombat’s “office” was located in UDD HQ in Lad Prao on the same floor and right next to Thida’s office. To claim they’re two distinct entities is inaccurate as there is a definite overlap the same way as there is overlap between UDD/Red Shirts/Thaksin/PT. Surely Nostitz already knew this?
What would be more interesting for this reader at least rather than Nostitz’s Bangkok-centric analysis would be a look at the way the movement shapes out over the entire country – Udon, rural, Khon Kaen, Chiang Mai, Phayao etc. The regional power bases are, in many ways, the “centres” of the movement as much as UDD or whatever splinter group springs up.
Also what parts of PT are genuinely attempting some kind of progressive politics – what/who preventing those parts of PT from gaining ground?
Nostitz’s analysis deals, as ever, with the surface but tells us little else. Movements have factions. The PAD are destructive and have links to the Dems but these links have issues. The UDD and Red Shirts are not the same thing. The Red Shirts want to “revolutionize” things. Some Red Shirts are more moderate.
Bit more behind the scenes stuff would be more interesting – you could glean nearly all of Nostitz’s stuff by translating a few Thai newspaper articles.
0
0
In my view, Nick Nostitz is by far the best foreign journalist reporting from Thailand. He is also resolutely honest and non-ideological, unlike some of his detractors who insist on sniping from behind pseudonyms. Get a life, “Norm”, your pro-PT cheerleading is increasingly tedious.
0
0
Sure, its an opinion. Peer review is always interesting but it has its limits. I recall seeing George Bush snr saying what a great job George W Bush (arguably the most disastrous president the USA has seen since Ronald Reagan) was doing.
If I’m buying chocolate I buy what consumers say is good, not what manufacturers say is goo. See what I mean? Unless of course consumer opinion isn’t allowed…
Like the traditional internet pseudonyms it seems. And being a supporter of PT.
Respect all opinions Andrew, isn’t that supposed to the moral high ground?
0
0
I tend to respect people more when they post under their own names, especially when making snide attacks on others. I find it particularly distasteful when people have no problem with posting other comments under their real name, and yet slink behind a pseudonym when they want to be particularly malicious. There is no credible safety reason for “Norm” to hide his identity in this exchange, we are not in 112 territory here. People who resort to online sock-puppetry in their determination to denigrate those they disagree with should not expect any respect from me. Sorry.
0
0
“I tend to respect people more when they post under their own names, “
Sure, I understand. Whom you respect and why are your choices. Whether or not he chooses to post under his real name is his choice. Mine too. ‘Fraid you’ll just have to learn how to live with that.
“I find it particularly distasteful when people have no problem with posting other comments under their real name, and yet slink behind a pseudonym when they want to be particularly malicious.”
Fully agree here, though since you already said you don’t know who Norm is, then I guess its just conjecture. Which is really what Norm was suggesting Nick was doing if I read it right.
“There is no credible safety reason for “Norm” to hide his identity in this exchange, we are not in 112 territory here.”
Well, that’s what you think. I don’t agree with you and that’s what I think. Nor, apparently, does Norm (whom I do not know by the way), and that appears to be what he thinks.
“People who resort to online sock-puppetry in their determination to denigrate those they disagree with should not expect any respect from me. “
You cannot be unaware that assuming pseudonyms is an internet tradition and a common practice. It is evidently one that you do not engage in and you have the right to choose whether to or not, as Norm does. However, according to my perception, drawn from personal experience as all good perceptions are, you seem to be in a small minority, even here on New Mandala.
“Sorry.”
Don’t see why, you’re as entitled to your opinions as we all are. Including Norm. Personally I saw nothing wrong with Norm’s first post but I did think your response was an over-reaction and was surprised at that, having read your many contributions about the Thai monarchy and those wonderful Hi-something stories you relayed. Perhaps you and Nick are friends, which would make it understandable and less mysterious. Personally I defend people or not based on whether I think they’re right or not, and not on the basis of friendship, but that’s just me
Nobody is bound to agree with Norm, though I did. Nobody is bound to agree with you either, and I didn’t.
0
0
I usually agree with Andrew’s views, and I do like Nick’s posts. This one was very informative. That said, I do think Norm made two good points. How “not UDD” is Sombat. The point regarding developments outside Bkk is also relevant bit maybe not for this post.
0
0
We have to look at the UDD also as a formal structure and organization, with hierarchies, etc.
Sombat is clearly a Red Shirt, but he has consistently refused to be part of the organization of the UDD, since back in 2006/2007.
The argument that came up regarding offices in Imperial Lad Prao – the UDD has their offices there, but many other Red Shirt organizations, some that also have had conflicts with the UDD. So has Jakrapop Penkair’s group also an office there. The also independent 24th of June group has had at least until last year their office in the same location ( i haven’t been for a while there in Imperial Lard Prao).
Naturally, there are overlaps, occasional collaboration, but also lines that separate the different Red Shirt organizations.
Red Shirt does not equal UDD. UDD is the largest mass organization of the Red Shirt movement, but there are many other separate Red Shirt organizations. Many of them because they want to keep their political independence, and also because they do not want to countersign some of the points that the UDD sees as their directive.
As to upcountry – i have been many times upcountry in the past. Right now though i do not see such important developments that justifies the expenditure. It’s my money i spend. I don’t go on somebody else payroll, unless i get hired by a foreign media organization.
If anyone here can point me to such an important development upcountry that i may have overlooked, then please tell me, and i may have a look, if i agree. But just stating that i neglect upcountry and report “Bangkok-centric”, without stating what exactly i neglect is not a valid argument.
This story here was primarily about two issues: the Democrat Party protest stage, and a recent split from the UDD, whose first protest was in Bangkok’s democracy monument. And as i stated, several upcountry groups joined this new group.
Generally speaking – I do not see this huge difference between upcountry and Bangkok in present day Thailand. The “peasantry” is much more mobile today than it was 20 years ago, and what takes place in Bangkok is through modern communication, increased affluency and transport not anymore a secret in the villages. Much of the political ideologies that are around Bangkok and in provinces close to Bangkok, such as Pathum Thani (i linked a story on Pathum Thani Red Shirts here) are quite similar to upcountry. The Red Shirts have a multitude of their own mass communication tools in which they spread their ideology nationwide. Red Shirts from upcountry regularly come to Bangkok, and i talk with them, naturally.
0
0
Yes, I have to agree with Norm here, This piece is superficial and cobbled together. The basic skills of journalism are just not evident, rather, it seems to be a series of personal impressions gathered from what is in the Thai press and glued together with quite a lot of conjecture.
Interesting in a gossipy sort of a way, but not substantial. Disappointing.
0
0
Compared to the English language press, Nick is quite informative. BangkokPost reporters don’t even go to the events – they just re-report stuff from social media and fill in the gaps with opinion: “There was a red shirt protest. They blocked roads. They were paid by Thaksin. The end.” Just the other day one of their editors wrote a scathing anti-red shirt opinion article, and then said it was the first time she ever saw a red shirt protest (wtf?!).
Just Nick showing up at the protests, and being rather unbiased, is a huge refreshing improvement. I’ve enjoyed his articles and look forward to them.
Perhaps if he was being paid to do this, I might hold him to slightly higher standards. =P
0
0
“Compared to the English language press, Nick is quite informative.”
Sure, I agree.
But it *is* a bit like saying not to complain about getting the clap ‘cos you might have got AIDS instead.
0
0
“none of which has ever been properly cross-examined, substantiated or investigated.” >> Is “Norm” a reincarnation of Andrew Spooner, I wonder?
0
0
I’m sure it can’t be – anyone with aspirations to be taken seriously would surely avoid such behaviour. Perhaps somebody is mimicking his trademark views and language in order to frame him for blatant sock puppetry and craven anonymous sniping. I think we can all agree that such devious antics should be roundly condemned.
0
0
Thank you very much for this the work you did to research this article. It’s remarkable that the best journalistic works comes from a person doing this on their own expenses.
Have you ever considered crownfunding to finance more research into those things?
0
0
While there is abundant “crownfunding” available for political and social commentary in Thailand, I doubt Nick would be eligible.
I do think you may have coined a term though.
0
0
I didn’t come up with the term crownfunding. And it’s open to anyone, so there is no eligible or not.
0
0
I have no idea what crownfunding is. I am not really good – or better: rather hopeless – with all those money and business things.
0
0
I might sound as if I’m making a virtue of someone else’s necessity, but Nick’s freedom from funding is good for the rest of us. It is at least possible for him to serve only his readers, whose interest is to understand the political situation in Thailand. He is not a professional journalist(a paid agent, keeping his job by shaping the content of his reports to serve the bottom line of a corporation or the political interest of a state). If there is any bias in his reporting, I suspect it comes from distaste for the rhetoric of hatred, and for its partner in crime, gun-point authoritarianism.
0
0
I am interested to know if the Dems provided anything new on MiB at their “rally”? Was it just the usual 2-3 videos and photos?
0
0
Nothing really groundbreaking.
A bit more detailed information on ground that has been covered before.
Same old spin.
All sides play politics.
0
0
Thanks for your comments Nick, much appreciated.
0
0
I am not really a red shirt supporter but am an avid reader of anything about the topic if the authors name is Nick, always informative and balanced
0
0
The Economist should give you a job, Nick.
0
0
But if he writes for The Economist we would not always be able to read it,they are banned here sometimes.
0
0
Ron Torrence – yes, I know. But their authors are almost always anonymous.
0
0
I am really hoping that Nick got down to Pitak Siam’s outing last Sunday at the Turf Club. It would be really great to read a reliable account of the proceedings – Police estimate 6,000 turned up whilst the BP tell me “The club’s stadium was filled to capacity with the crowd estimated at 20,000”
0
0
Yes, of course i was there 😉
If i have the time i may make a picture based post. As to the numbers, the police estimate was too low, and the 20 000 was too high. Special Branch estimate, which is usually the best and most neutral estimates of crowds, was 10 000 people at its peak.
This number was nevertheless quite a surprise, as based on similar such rallies in the past year (Siam Samakkhi, etc) most expected 2000 to 3000 people.
0
0
Thanks Nick, much appreciated.
Although PAD was not officially involved I guess there was certainly some behind-the-scenes organisation by certain groups to suddenly produce such a large turnout
0
0