webfact Posted February 17, 2020 Share Posted February 17, 2020 Pareena confident she's not guilty in defamation case By THE NATION Phalang Pracharath Party Ratchaburi MP Pareena Kraikup reported to the Criminal Court today (February 17) to give testimony in a defamation case brought by Future Forward party-list MP and spokeswoman Pannika Wanich. Pareena had claimed in a Facebook post that Future Forward leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit and Pannika were allegedly involved in bomb incidents in several areas of Bangkok and the unrest in three southern provinces, prompting Pannika to sue her for defamation under Sections 326 and 328 of the Criminal Law. After reporting to the court today, Pareena told the press she was “100 per cent confident that she was not guilty and would neither seek reconciliation nor any settlement”. She added that she would hold a press conference at Phalang Pracharath Party headquarters tomorrow. Source: https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30382273 -- © Copyright The Nation Thailand 2020-02-17 Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post rkidlad Posted February 17, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 17, 2020 7 minutes ago, webfact said: After reporting to the court today, Pareena told the press she was “100 per cent confident that she was not guilty and would neither seek reconciliation nor any settlement”. My god this woman is completely vulgar. Proper trash. Sad to think that she's supposed to be representing and helping members of the public. 10 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post worgeordie Posted February 17, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 17, 2020 Part of the governing party,so well may be found not guilty. regards worgeordie 10 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post colinneil Posted February 17, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 17, 2020 Why bother with the farce of going to court? She is 1 of the bunch of cronies, so the judgement is a foregone conclusion, not guilty. 9 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post BobBKK Posted February 17, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 17, 2020 (edited) She is a very, very nasty piece of work and I hope she gets everything she so justly deserves. If there is karma, baby you are going to pay one day. Edited February 17, 2020 by BobBKK 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Misterwhisper Posted February 17, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 17, 2020 (edited) Isn't that the very same high-standing member of society who not so long ago claimed she was “100 per cent confident that she was not guilty" regarding her by now judicially confirmed illegal encroachment on national forest land for her chicken farm? My, my, some people are truly brimming with "100% confidence", it almost borders on a miracle. Edited February 17, 2020 by Misterwhisper 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmartyMarty Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 We don’t need a court ruling to pass judgement on her. Just look at the facts. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobodysfriend Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 17 hours ago, webfact said: Pareena told the press she was “100 per cent confident that she was not guilty She was spreading fake news . Isn't there a law and punishment against this ? I do not believe anybody saying " 100% sure " . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post rwill Posted February 18, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 18, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, nobodysfriend said: She was spreading fake news . Isn't there a law and punishment against this ? I do not believe anybody saying " 100% sure " . News is only deemed 'fake' if it affects the ruling party. Edited February 18, 2020 by rwill 5 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmitch Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 19 hours ago, rkidlad said: My god this woman is completely vulgar. Proper trash. Sad to think that she's supposed to be representing and helping members of the public. Not to forget her role on the anti-corruption body! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holy cow cm Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 If it is clear and the evidence unretractable that she did indeed post something as the sort, she will be found guilty and then put on a suspended 2 year sentence not going to jail. I find her to be cute. If I wasn't married I would like to play with her. 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammieuk1 Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 This lady appears to have quite a long neck for a lady???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacuum Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 18 hours ago, BobBKK said: She is a very, very nasty piece of work I've seen worse in some 'red light districts' in Thailand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPKANKAN Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 17 hours ago, Misterwhisper said: Isn't that the very same high-standing member of society who not so long ago claimed she was “100 per cent confident that she was not guilty" regarding her by now judicially confirmed illegal encroachment on national forest land for her chicken farm? My, my, some people are truly brimming with "100% confidence", it almost borders on a miracle. '100% confident' means;- "I have paid the requested brown envelope consultancy fee and had confirmation of my innocence". 555 ???????????????? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy John Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 (edited) 52 minutes ago, holy cow cm said: If it is clear and the evidence unretractable that she did indeed post something as the sort, she will be found guilty and then put on a suspended 2 year sentence not going to jail. I find her to be cute. If I wasn't married I would like to play with her. So you up for a game of Tik Tak Toe or Snakes & Ladders? Me, I'd be doing things to her that would shock my dear old granny......but then again......granny had 9 kids so my assumption about Dear old granny maybe based more on fantasy than fact! Edited February 18, 2020 by Grumpy John Smeling 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaZa9 Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 Another Hi So proudly claiming ownership both of land reserved for the poor , and Public Land ( 46 rai of National Park). I simply cannot stand this kind of greed... "She was also found to own a 691-rai plot in an area reserved for poor farmers under the land reform policy governed by the Agricultural Land Reform Office (Alro)." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry343 Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 3 hours ago, nobodysfriend said: She was spreading fake news . Isn't there a law and punishment against this ? I do not believe anybody saying " 100% sure " . I'm 100% sure you are correct. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holy cow cm Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 1 hour ago, Grumpy John said: So you up for a game of Tik Tak Toe or Snakes & Ladders? Snakes and ladders? Isn't that when you climb all over her and hide the serpent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now