In Town

They are also useful during floods. If the water is deep enough, you will sink to about axle-level and then float, and if you pedal fast enough the centrifugal forces will keep you upright, and the tread in the tires will provide enough propulsion to get you across. Not recommended for normal water transport, but works in a pinch.

Funny thing. After reading this one of my legs got really long!

heh, heh...

They are also useful during floods. If the water is deep enough, you will sink to about axle-level and then float, and if you pedal fast enough the centrifugal forces will keep you upright, and the tread in the tires will provide enough propulsion to get you across. Not recommended for normal water transport, but works in a pinch.

Hilarious. He is the proximate cause of the coup, as his failure to run elections provided the thin excuse rendered for intervention. We will have a referendum, but no one is allowed to talk about it (except Suthep).

It seems a shame that the current government would not allow the center to operate. Their stated intention was to monitor the referendum process and encourage everyone to vote. Seems normal to me.

Britain should exit Europe, and England should give up its last colonies (Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales).

Only neo-cons think Trump is to the left of Hillary. To actual conservatives (paleo-conservatives), non-interventionism and protectionism sound pretty good. Remember Washington's Farewell address and entangling alliances. Hillary is called a liberal hawk, another phrase for neo-con, and in the socialist order is well to the right of Trump, who is actually neither left nor right on that scale, from left to right: communist-socialist-national socialist.

Were/are you a politician? All of that PC jargon you just spewed is exactly why Trump is winning and the "same-'ol-thing" is losing.

He's not a party rep, he's an "I'm-sick-and-tired-of-the-same-old-crap-and-rich-enough-to-do-something-about-it-American" party member.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm saying exactly the same thing you are saying, and I'm urging you to vote for something different than the same old "war is the answer to everything" consensus shared by Hillary and the neo-cons.

Only neo-cons think Trump is to the left of Hillary. To actual conservatives (paleo-conservatives), non-interventionism and protectionism sound pretty good. Remember Washington's Farewell address and entangling alliances. Hillary is called a liberal hawk, another phrase for neo-con, and in the socialist order is well to the right of Trump, who is actually neither left nor right on that scale, from left to right: communist-socialist-national socialist.

I have never supported the junta or Suthep but I find Jatuporn and his band of bandits repulsive to say the least. So there! You big toad! Bet your upset now, 555555

What does this have to do with the issue? Nothing, I guess. Four pages and no UDD hater has expressed an opinion on the actual issue. Weird, and sort of sad.

Craig, I get it that Suthep doesn't like foreigners, but what about you. Are you in favour or against international observers?

Hmmm....here, the deputy PM says he doesn't trust Westerners. And rejects observers.

https://asiancorrespondent.com/2011/03/thailand-rejects-foreign-election-observers/

"I don't respect farangs" is specifically what he is saying in the Asian Correspondent article.

I don't really get what Suthep's rejection of observers in 2011 has to do with the last election or the referendum. Some keep saying that the UDD didn't ask for observers in the past, whereas in the article above Suthep complains that they always ask for observers. I'm confused.

Why didn't the UDD ask for international observers during the last election? Where there was rampant vote buying by all sides, as was widely reported.

I think there's more to this than we are seeing....and no personal insults, please.

There were international observers at the last election, but what difference does it make to this question about the referendum? Please try, just once, to address the topic. Please.

Actions talk, BS walks. UDD are mercenary agitators and propagandists, loyal only to the man who selects and pays them, allowed a tad of independence to maintain popularity, and follow the party line of "We dun nuffink rong!".

Abhisit didn't ask for, want or need amnesty from the baseless charges brought against him.

Abhisit didn't need an amnesty because he knew the charges - far from baseless (a different matter from guilt) - would disappear.There was never a snowball's chance in hell that he or Suthep would ever face justice.

Back a little closer to the topic, why isn't Jatuporn and his UDD mates expressing their opinions from a prison cell? Surely their charges have been delayed long enough (by the appointment of some of the defendants as MPs) and justice is long overdue for their criminal and mercenary incitation of arson, violence and insurrection.

After your Pavlov dog slavering, let's get even closer to the topic.

Is the introduction of a credible international observer organisation a good idea to ensure a fair referendum? Naturally its terms of reference would include scrutiny of how fair the run up to the poll had been in terms of the government permitting all sides to debate and criticise.

A bit too much for you? Okay let's get back to semi educated snarling about Jatuporn which seems to be thecomfort zone for some.

Its too much for them. If you read all the comments you will see not a single one of the UDD/Thaksin haters have addressed the actual issue. Hilarious.

Difficult to comprehend people on TVF. What could have been an interesting discussion on whether or not outside observers would be a good thing during the charter referendum, has turned into a thread knocking the UDD.There's more dripping on here than a leaky tap.

I think it would be a good idea, regardless of who proposed it.

Well, I suspect its pointless, but just for fun I would like to respond to your last statement. UDD opposed the amnesty law that sparked the PDRC shutdown and led directly to the coup (the aim of the shutdown).

How brave of them to risk their stipend! A pity that bravery didn't last until the parliamentary vote (you do know that quite a few UDD "leaders" are also PTP party list MPs?)

BTW they spoke in opposition to amnesty for Abhisit and Suthep; they were apparently fine and dandy for an amnesty for the man who pays them, and for themselves.

Yes, I agree with all you say here. But that doesn't in any way undermine the argument. The contention here is that the UDD is not independent of Thaksin. But the truth is that Thaksin was fine with an amnesty for the murder charges against Suthep and Abhisit. He is an old-style politician and understands and supports impunity for elites. The UDD, on the other hand, stands for equal justice, and an end to the double standards that allow the rich (be they politicians or the sons and daughters of billionaires) to literally get away with murder. The difference between their perception of Thaksin and their perception of Suthep and Abhisit is that they think the charges against Thaksin were politically motivated and without merit and unjust, while they think those against Abhisit and Suthep (that they ordered the killing of their friends and colleagues) entirely justified.

THe UDD are the antithesis of free speech and their bully boy tactics while PT were in power created climates of fear.

Complete and utter bullcrap. The UDD and Jataporn never ever have tried to limit speech or prevent anyone from participating in elections. You have somehow inverted reality in your own mind, but just because you say it doesn't make it true in any way. We all know who controls speech and prevents fair elections, and it is not the UDD. Its not even Thaksin.

Their attempts to prevent any event allowing political views they disagreed with were frequent and always threatened violence if they didn't get their way shows their utter disregard for free speech.

Oh yes, you are right. How could I have forgotten that they muzzled Suthep, Abhisit and Issara, and closed down Blue Sky TV. Yes, neither the Democrats or PAD or PDRC were ever allow to spew their filthy hatred on the airwaves or in print. Newspapers everywhere were prevented from reporting news, and political parties were not allowed to meet. Yes, I think I remember now.

Perhaps your selective memory remembers their attacks on peaceful protesters who dares challenge PTP's clumsy attempts to whitewash Thaksin, the crook you claim has little to do with UDD.

Or does your amnesia recall the murder of little children and how it was warmly applauded and cheered by Red Shirt leaders and PTP members at a public rally with the terds on the platform leading those cheers?

And the impartial RTP simply looked on and even under the control of super sleuths Chalerm and Tarit never managed to catch and charge anyone. Even those who fell into their clutches for shooting at anti Shin protesters were somehow let go without charges.

Use of the defamation laws, computer crimes laws, shooting at people, lobbing grenades and bombs, throwing shit and HIV infected blood, burning coffins outside the homes of people they didn't like with photos of those people attached, suggesting kidnapping of the current PM's daughters, threatening the families of farmers who protested because PTP lied about paying them - and all under the command of their non democratically elected appointed by schhhh we know who leaders.

UDD - easy to see why you think they're such a democratic independent organization. Can you show one instance where they ever criticized or opposed Thaksin, Yingluck or the PTP?

Well, I suspect its pointless, but just for fun I would like to respond to your last statement. UDD opposed the amnesty law that sparked the PDRC shutdown and led directly to the coup (the aim of the shutdown).

Again you equate Thaksin with UDD. Is that really fair? UDD has always supported international monitoring in Thailand; its the xenophobic Democrat/PDRC that want to hide in the darkness, afraid their malfeasence will come to light in the illumination of international scrutiny.

With respect, the UDD was formed after Thaksin was kicked out by a coup. With the express intent of supporting him. This topic isn't about the Democrats/PDRC.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-13294268

The red-shirts began as supporters of deposed former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted by a military coup in September 2006. This support has transferred to Thailand's ruling Pheu Thai party led by his sister, Yingluck Shinawatra.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin_Shinawatra

From abroad he has continued to influence Thai politics, through the <a data-ipb="nomediaparse" data-cke-saved-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People" s_power_party_(thailand)"="">People's Power Party that ruled in 2008, and its successor organization Pheu Thai Party, as well as the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship or "red shirt" movement.

You did see Thaksin's quote about the UN? I don't see the UDD having always in support of international monitoring in Thailand.

With respect. The UDD was formed in opposition to the 2006 coup, which denied the majority their democratic choice, and they have stated over and over that they are against double standards in society and for democracy. Many, including the maoist redshirt, reject Thaksin; but many more remember him with fondness as the only national leader the country has ever had that seemed to listen to the poor, and develop programs to relieve there suffering. And its true that Thaksin has from time to time supported the movement, but it is more accurate to say they are in parallel rather than one. PT is the vehicle of Thaksin. If, as seems likely, Thaksin never returns to Thailand, the movement for democracy will continue without him. His removal may have been the spark, but the movement has moved well past simple Thaksinism.

PT depends on UDD for votes because they agree on more political issues than disagree, but they are different entities. PT are old time politicians while UDD are mostly new and modern.

Yes, in 2003 Thaksin rejected UN monitoring of the war on drugs. I agree, So?

Oh yes, you are right. How could I have forgotten that they muzzled Suthep, Abhisit and Issara, and closed down Blue Sky TV. Yes, neither the Democrats or PAD or PDRC were ever allow to spew their filthy hatred on the airwaves or in print. Newspapers everywhere were prevented from reporting news, and political parties were not allowed to meet. Yes, I think I remember now.

THe UDD are the antithesis of free speech and their bully boy tactics while PT were in power created climates of fear.

Their attempts to prevent any event allowing political views they disagreed with were frequent and always threatened violence if they didn't get their way shows their utter disregard for free speech.

you seem to be somebody who tries to derail this thread - the subject is not Suthep, Abhisit, Issara

stick to the subject please

Look, this thread is about the UDD's call for international observers of the referendum. Its not me that suggested the UDD's call is hypocritical because they have a (non-existent) history of suppressing free speech, its not me that blamed it all on Thaksin, even though that name is not mentioned in the article. I'm am just trying to correct factual mischaracterisations. You should appreciate that.

After witnessing how Jatuporn works and his ability to blame everyone for the faults of the UDD I would love to see how this plays out.

Without international observations Jatuporn will state that the referendum is rigged. (Rightly so to)

With international observation and the vote is a "no vote" then we can be assured that the majority voice was reflected in the result.

Now the Jatuporn factor ----With international observation and the vote is a "yes vote" Jatuporn will blame the international observers as being biased because he simply cannot respect the majority when that majority does not do what he wants them to do.

I for one hope there is international observation of this referendum and I hope the small violent minority backing Jatuporn will respect the majorities wishes no matter what the outcome.

I agree with you 100%. Lets have a fair referendum and respect the majority's wishes no matter what the outcome, for or against.

You folks will complain about anything. He is calling for fair elections, not elections that somehow favour redshirts. Are you against the very concept of fair elections? Oh yes, and its all Thaksin's fault.

Unbelievable la la land of smiles.

No, he's being a hypocrite in calling for things he never allowed.

Complete and utter bullcrap. The UDD and Jataporn never ever have tried to limit speech or prevent anyone from participating in elections. You have somehow inverted reality in your own mind, but just because you say it doesn't make it true in any way. We all know who controls speech and prevents fair elections, and it is not the UDD. Its not even Thaksin.

THe UDD are the antithesis of free speech and their bully boy tactics while PT were in power created climates of fear.

Their attempts to prevent any event allowing political views they disagreed with were frequent and always threatened violence if they didn't get their way shows their utter disregard for free speech.

Oh yes, you are right. How could I have forgotten that they muzzled Suthep, Abhisit and Issara, and closed down Blue Sky TV. Yes, neither the Democrats or PAD or PDRC were ever allow to spew their filthy hatred on the airwaves or in print. Newspapers everywhere were prevented from reporting news, and political parties were not allowed to meet. Yes, I think I remember now.

Nothing wrong with having overseas-observers monitor referenda or elections, although this seems less-than-popular here, possibly because "the U.N. is not my father", or has the movement gotten past that point-of-principle now, in which case 'Good' !

The norm for Thai politicians is to tell outsiders to mind their own business. They don't understand "Thainess". Incredible they are asking for it now. Wow.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Thaksin_Shinawatra

• "UN is not my father"

  • March 2003 -- His reply to a reporter when asked about the announcement of United Nation's Human Rights Office that it would to send officials observe Thai police conduct during Thaksin's anti-drugs campaign, which eventually left several thousand people dead.

Again you equate Thaksin with UDD. Is that really fair? UDD has always supported international monitoring in Thailand; its the xenophobic Democrat/PDRC that want to hide in the darkness, afraid their malfeasence will come to light in the illumination of international scrutiny.

You folks will complain about anything. He is calling for fair elections, not elections that somehow favour redshirts. Are you against the very concept of fair elections? Oh yes, and its all Thaksin's fault.

Unbelievable la la land of smiles.

No, he's being a hypocrite in calling for things he never allowed.

Complete and utter bullcrap. The UDD and Jataporn never ever have tried to limit speech or prevent anyone from participating in elections. You have somehow inverted reality in your own mind, but just because you say it doesn't make it true in any way. We all know who controls speech and prevents fair elections, and it is not the UDD. Its not even Thaksin.

Trump is the only candidate that supports working people over bankers, the only candidate not beholder (i.e. bought) by the monied classes. Bernie seems like a populist, but is actually a socialist whose ultimate object is government control of everything.

Don't pretend that Trump is good for rich people. Rich people almost universally hate Trump because he threatens to cut off the flow of ill-gotten gains. Rich people, particularly bankers, support Hillary because they have her in their pocket.

You folks will complain about anything. He is calling for fair elections, not elections that somehow favour redshirts. Are you against the very concept of fair elections? Oh yes, and its all Thaksin's fault.

Unbelievable la la land of smiles.

so if I am reading the article correctly and taking the correct meaning of what these people are saying, they are not protesting the Charter or its contents - they are making a political statement against the current government, the contents of the charter is of absolutely no interest to them even if it takes Thailand in the direction of a proper sustainable stable democracy, stamps out corruption and power abuse and an election next year

Sounds more like a protest from the Thaksin/red camp because it will limit their ability to steal from the people and will effectively prevent Thaksin from returning to Thailand without going to jail, his master plan is trashed if this charter gets approved

No, there was a previous article about the academic group rejecting the Charter, and they are doing so because they object to its content. Many of their criticisms are specific. YOu can find a detailed article from 3 days ago on BP.

Open your eyes, Smedly.

I wish people would stop trying to tell me how to think, I can assure you my eyes are well open

There are many things about this government I do not like and have posted a few on TVF, people here are far to quick to criticize other posters because they think for some reason they know better, going forward I will gladly be proven wrong with some things but for now I will wait and see

So far with this charter the only thing that I find questionable that is worth a mention is the composition of the upper house and how it is selected but equally given the antics of previous elected governments I can see why caution is needed

You certainly have a right to your opinion, as we all do. Personally, I'm doubtful the current government is an improvement on any previous government, as it seems to have all the same old problems, which is perhaps not surprising, since it is composed of the same old (in both senses of that word) people. I also lack a pollyannish sense that democracy provides good government (it is, after all, government by committee), but what it does provide is a mechanism for the people affected to "throw the rascals out" when government steers too far off course. Rather than raising tension, this acts as a safety valve in society, reducing political tension.

This charter creates a permanent military government. Its not really possible for an alternative to be worse, so there is no real reason to vote yes. I suspect many will vote no as a sign of rejection of the status quo, and in the current environment a big "no" to the charter may be the only way most people can say they disagree with the direction of the country.